NAM’s Place

For many years now, I’ve proclaimed author Dan Simmons one of the best writers alive, mainly on the strength of his Hyperion science-fiction series. Hyperion is both small and impossibly grand in scope; poetic, blunt, and always challenging. It also has what may be one of the greatest villain/monsters ever (the Shrike). So it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have enjoyed his new historical fiction, “The Terror”. Basically, it takes the doomed arctic voyages of the HMS Terror and Erebus, already filled with real terror and horror enough for any book, and adds layers of imaginative nightmarish speculation to that. In other words, a monster. Whereas the Shrike is purest black, the “Thing on the Ice” is all white, but there the practical differences end. Simmon’s monsters are not so much plot vehicles as they are cattle prods for the reader, cruelly tricky ways to make a reader guess and squirm. Don’t expect a traditional monster book here or a traditional disaster book, just to be taunted with their near presences. Like the end of another of my favorite modern fiction novels, Thomas Harris’ “Hannibal,” even your carefully crafted conceptualization of “heroism” may well get somewhat battered by the end of the story. Also like Hannibal, the story virtually revels in its ghoulishness; gore doesn’t begin to describe it. That intensity is greater because this is what the lost arctic explorers would have literally gone through…Simmons stays within the historical facts on this trip, giving a literal weight (positively and negatively) to his story. My take is that the story is about how much it can take for us to truly change our perceptions and attitudes. If you don’t mind the horror-ride, there’s something at the end worth the multiple amputations and the long, cold journey though the ice.

And if you haven’t read it, drop everything and read the Hyperion Series, which is simply as good as science fiction has yet become.

Alex (red shirt) Pulls His Weight

Kid Nation (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Nation) started out in a flurry of controversy which really has not abated. For those not familiar, Kid Nation was a CBS reality show where the children are left “without adults” in a ghost town. The goal was to create their own “nation” made up entirely of kids. There were injuries. One of the kids was splattered with grease while cooking. I remember reading an article about kids drinking bleach mislabeled as water. But none of the injuries were serious, and though complaints were filed, none were acted on. Certainly, comparable to an ordinary 40 days at camp, the injuries seem relatively typical and minor. The exit interviews of the kids seem to indicate that the most difficult experience they faced was being filmed constantly. In the end, the only danger to the show was a season of rather low ratings.

But was it a good show? Well, the answer is that it was a mixture of extremely good and extremely odd.

The extremely good: The kids were uniformly fantastic. You simply can’t get better improvised comedic dialogue anywhere. Unlike the amoral and deceptive (though equally fascinating) competitive model of Survivor, the kids have a credulity and sincerity that is very compelling to watch. In particular, some of the very youngest kids, Mallory and Alex, were real heroes and obviously great kids. Taylor was always fun and I often found myself cheering her on as she stood up to the natural authoritarians in town. As a leader, her “Deal With It” motto was one of the worst political slogans in history, but also totally hilarious. She wasn’t perfect, but she was very real and I know many “adults” who behave exactly like her (in their supposed full maturity). On a deeper level, the show functioned extremely well as an examination of leadership and motivation. It was definitely the most thought-provoking reality show I’ve ever seen.

The Extremely Odd: Simple: The adult manipulation! The best moments in the show were unscripted, unmanipulated (relatively), and brought forth from the imagination of the kids. First problem: Somehow, the producers thought it would be a good idea to force a representative democracy on these stranded kids. Was this to supposedly prepare them for our supremely dysfunctional adult version of this same system? From the beginning, four kids were on council. Occasionally, they were given an opportunity to be voted out and replaced, but that was it. No opportunity to vote out or reorganize the structure of the council was ever given. Kids were also divided into four camps (did the producers have a fetish for the number four?). It seemed this was intended mimic the Survivor camps and avoid individual competition among the kids. Unlike Survivor, there were no directly democratic votes at all, except for the “representative democracy” of the town council. No one was voted out, obviously (that would be traumatic for the kids and the viewers, too!), but instead of leaving out the mercenary game show aspect of Survivor altogether, the producers shoehorned in the forced drama of “gold star” awards in every show. These $20000 gold star awards shifted the whole tenor of the show away from the societal, functioning community (ala “Lord of the Flies”) aspect to the How Can I Behave in Such a Way as To Earn The Gold Star aspect. This manipulative structure served the kids poorly and the viewers worse. Instead of setting up a type of badge system, where all the kids would have chances to shine and achieve victories, 50% of each show was devoted to an ersatz tearjerker popularity contest. When my favorite town member, 9 year old Alex, won his award, I think he put it the best…”I don’t really need $20000.” Later, he said, “But I’ll definitely keep it, gold prices are on the rise.” The kids were just as motivated to win the challenges for various practical rewards around town. Competing for the $20000 stars made the kids think not about making a community, but just the opposite: How to make themselves look good at the expense of others. This was a terrible decision by the producers that reduced 50% of each episode to a tedious forced drama. This half of the show made viewers long for first half. Even worse was the super-manipulative “Religion” episode, which was truly painful to behold. I won’t say much about it expect that it was a sickening directive to make the kids try to form a religion-based town meeting. This placed the kids in the disturbing position of having to defend what is, essentially, the faith (or lack thereof) they are being brought up in by their parents. Kids are below the age of accountability for a reason. The wince factor on this particular episode was very high. Even worse, it was an early episode. If any episode explains why the ratings tanked, this was it. Alex, of course, was the voice of sanity in this episode, too. If only Alex could run him in our presidential election!

Basically, the idea is a great one. By reducing the game show aspects of this program and increasing a looser format with more chances for the kids to achieve on their individual strengths (and have their well-deserved moment in the sun), Kid Nation could be a strong reality program. Overproduction works on a show like Survivor, but the finest moments for the children involve their sense of invention and intuitive common sense. Smothering that smothers the show. Of course, changing the overproduced aspects of the show would, in typical network thinking, destroy the show, so that won’t be happening. But there were still many superb episodes of Kid Nation and congratulations to all the brave kids who stepped up and participated.

Score:

Entertainment: 92%

Crafting: 95%

Intellect: 80% (first half 95%)

Acting: 98%

Notable: Direction, Script, Universal Acting, and Cinematography

My draws to this movie were threefold (in order): The description of the film as “postmodern”, the music of the original and authentically poststructuralist, Kimya Dawson, and the extraordinary Jennifer Garner (no analysis required). The film is about a 16 year old girl, named Juno, who impulsively (or, as the film suggests at several points, with a vague intention) gets pregnant. The actress, the irrepressible Ellen Page (notably Kitty Pride from X3), is luminous and easily dominates the film. Her voice is richly intelligent and seems to belong to an older person, but her petite elfin body and pale, unmarred skin (played well in some very clever cinematography) suggest an even *younger* girl, leading to a fascinating juxtaposition of “reads” on her character. Not to dwell to much on my first hope for the film, but this was largely crushed. Of course, this was completely expected and did not ruin my enjoyment of the film. The second half of the film in particular devolves into a quest for cultural normalcy, while the first half revels in individual choice and the open seeking for identity and, at several points, achieves what the reviewers were keying on as “postmodern”. At one point in this first half, Juno goes into a small and typically charming fit about the point of the term “sexually active,” saying “what does that even mean?” Making a postmodern point that one cannot subjectively turn off one’s sexual identity and nature, and pointing out that “active” is an unreasonably fluid term in that phrase’s context. This is where the film is at its most interesting. The music by Kimya Dawson is, I expect, for most viewers, the film’s primary revelation. Her childish voice and ragged, sharply-pointed melodies mirror the exact juxtaposition of the Juno character. In fact, I’ve rarely seen a score so carefully melded to a film’s intent. In a way, the film functions best as a primer for Kimya’s music (this being high praise). As to the last point of interest in the film, Jennifer Garner is well-served by this film. If anyone forgets, or doesn’t realize, how inordinately elegant an actress is, her utterly brittle, dialogue-stark, and exposed performance in this film tell it all. As an actress, she gets remarkably poorly-served by her films. Her role on “Alias” highlighted her range and charm very well, but only the film “13 Going on 30″ has even touched on her greater ability. However, that film is so delightful, so perfectly a part of its time and place, that it stands alone quite nobly to showcase this unique actress. Films like “Juno” remind us that she is still out there, still able to surprise and devastate. Her character is interesting because she is deeply flawed, something gorgeous leading ladies probably find hard vehicles to find. She is a distant, cold, and uninvolved wife, neither supportive or connected to her husband. This is made very clear in the kinesthetics of her body language and her obsession with the possession of a child. It hints at some greater trauma in the couple’s past. Justin Bateman (suddenly looking like a slightly younger, American version of Branagh in this film) is superb as her disconnected husband, himself flawed and foolish, not at home in his own cold white and sterile house. Yet, if Garner is a terrible wife, her single desire of denied parenthood, is slowly revealed as her perilous and joyous singular agenda. Few actresses can convey obsessive conviction and capacity for joy like Garner, and she blazes that charm here when she gets her moment. Her ability to do brittle angst is new here, I haven’t seen that before.

This film would have been perfect if it had stayed true to it’s individualistic beginning. When Juno falls into the trap that all Hollywood films inevitably plop own into, of asking “I just need to know that two people can stay together forever…”, the film slips from its pure plateau of an original character study and falls into traditional agendized romance. We’re intended to see Juno growing up here, but what we really see is her independence as a person waning. This is a minor and personal disappointment however, and I am happy to say that this film is a lovely tribute to the value of adoption and a very sharply-scored tribute to Kimya Dawson. The character-study of Juno has many moving points and gives us an Actress-Who-Must-Be-Watched for many years to come.

I’ve just listened to the unabridged recording of “Dragonsong” again, for the first time in many years. It is a wonderful touchstone story, and easily as good as when I first read it. I have changed so much as a person in the intervening time, and it is fascinating how a truly great story can mean amazingly different things at different times in life. If you’ve never read this, it’s Anne McCaffrey’s masterpiece, and never to be underrated. It helps to read the “Dragonflight” stories first, but as good as they are, they only foreshadow this startling, taut, and very moving little novel of survival. Truly a classic.