(no subject)
Oct. 24th, 2011 09:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lenora_roseOne more agent down (argh). Time to mail out the two snail-mail efforts, I guess.
________
Lately, Colin and I have been watching The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and he's been watching Castle (With me joining in intermittently). I've been trying to figure out why the first appeals to me and the second does less so.
Both are fairly formulaic shows. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has several obvious and problematic aspects based on the time period in which it was made -- issues of gender and race. Of the former, there are of course the questions of what women can do and should do -- to be fair, fewer of these than I was afraid of, though women are still disproportionately secretaries and housewives. And far easier to notice, virtually every female who appears is young, attractive, and either a potential or actual romantic match for Napoleon, or, much more rarely, Illya. Married women tend to be flirted with then let go back to their men, and villainesses tend to be femme fatale types, and even if Napoleon and Illya don't succumb, they're usually hanging on some man's arm.
The race issues are much less subtle. Almost all of them are depicted mostly by stereotype, but worse, people of any/every race are played by Caucasians in bad makeup -- except those meant to be attractive women, who are played by Caucasian women in black wigs and maybe a bit of extra eyeshadow. or the most part, it's only minor characters who get to be depicted by their own actual race.
Even granting the time period, it can be genuinely hard to grit one's teeth through some of these moments.
And yet... the plots are fast, the dialogue witty and bantering, and so far, most of the writers have some grasp of actual cleverness. Not being under the control of a consistent creative team, there are blips -- episodes with secret spy plots that a child could see through, episodes where Napoleon or Illya aren't as bright as they should be, or as efficient, or even just quite as much themselves. (The most obvious so far was one episode in which Illya, who is the more taciturn, had almost no line of dialogue whatsoever, including at points where he'd normally have something pointed to say.) The lead actors are compelling; Napoleon is a fairly typical hero-type of the era, not too different from Jim West or Jim Kirk, though a bit smarter and more suave, or James Bond with a bit more conscience. Illya, usually the secondary character thus far, is a less common type; emotionally cooler, more brusque and efficient, less romantically inclined, and much more in the actual spy mold. he seems to frequently be the one more people remember as liking.
Colin remarked that he was surprised how many people are shot and actually killed by the heroes -- comparing it to chis childhood staples like the A-Team, where shoot-outs with machine-guns seem to result in no injuries, while I compared it to the more recent spate of good guys who have a hard time killing, period. Though I think Get Smart, which is in the same time period AND a comedic spoof, has a similar casualty rate; the deaths are just sillier.
Castle is a modern show, with a smart efficient and professional female lead, and pretty good secondary female characters in Castle's mother and daughter, allowing for a range of ages and roles for women. In the ones I've seen, the weekly suspects and victims and witnesses have *not* made me wince and take that back. I can't swear how it is on race relations, though Beckett's boss is black, and again, I haven't seen every episode. But I suspect it tends to fall over based on infrequency of other races appearing, not on depicting them too badly when they do (I'm willing to be corrected by a steadier watcher.)
It's a fairly brisk show, as a mystery plot should be, and there's a lot of clever dialogue. Castle's family gives him a chance to both get more development, and in a number of cases, to be much less of a douchebag (Though as the show goes on and he gets more experienced, he seems to lose some of the worst of the behaviours that made me hate him in the first episode.)
The episodes follow a pretty rigid pattern for mystery of the week (Someone said you can tell who did it by roughly what moment in the show that particular witness shows up -- I haven't found it quite that bad, but I have seen a lot of rigidity of structure.) But there's a bit of an ongoing arc to break that up.
Some people have complained about yet another show with Unresolved Sexual Tension -- Colin has said he's enjoying that aspect so far, and I don't think it's what turned me off, because I haven't been burned out as badly as many on shows with UST.
So. Two shows with clever dialogue, quick pace, and guns. Both quite formulaic and relatively static, such that watching from the start occasionally adds something to an episode, but one can watch any individual week without needing to know more than one sees in the moment. One is mystery, one is spy -- in film I seem to prefer spy movies to whodunits, but in books I tend to be the opposite - I look at the modern thriller genre as dubious at best, but will read several mystery authors. One features intelligent women in multiple roles, one shows often-intelligent women in two basic roles, that of the romantic partner and/or the subordinate assistant. One features UST, one features serial and usually successful flirtation. One is very much a product of an earlier time - mostly to its detriment racially, sexually, politically, psychologically, and scientifically (one terrifying explosive gas in one episode is named "hydro", which is bad enough. Worse is that this is a substitute for the original planned name which turned out to be a real gas - "Freon"). One is pretty current -- how much it will feel dated later is of course a hard thing to tell, immersed in the present, but since *I'm* immersed in the present too, it feels closer to the people and home I recognize.
So what's the difference?
Well, first, I like Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin better than Castle or Beckett. Nathan Fillion is an admittedly charismatic actor, such that he's even somewhat compelling when he's playing a douchebag (See also Dr. Horrible), and as I said, his family life makes up for his initially off-putting side. Stana Katic at least has acting chops; I don't feel Beckett's as developed and dimensional a character as he is, and I think that's a pity, because she's introduced as smarter, more likeable, and better at her job -- but she still gets in her fair share of good dialogue and put-downs. But after an episode or two of looking a bit stilted, Robert Vaughn and David McCallum just seem to be Napoleon and Illya. They're not given the kind of backstory that makes Castle bearable, not just because this isn't the kind of show that shows family life, but also because they don't need it to make them interesting. They're fascinating in the moment, doing smart things well, giving each other backchat.
Second, there are things in Castle where I know enough to know "it doesn't work like that" which can't be excused by the show having grown dated, the way scientific flubs or slightly wonky politics in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. tend to be. Start with Castle's writing career. (Admittedly, it does better than NCIS, another show where I've enjoyed episodes but felt no urge to sit down and watch the whole thing. Also with another obvious connection to the discussion.) Most of the time, it being closer to the world I live in works for it, because I don't have to facepalm as much. Other times, it does the opposite; when I DO facepalm, I do it harder. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I can see as a pure fantasy world -- even in its contemporary time period, the "secret spy society" would have given it a fantasy aspect. Castle is meant to be all police and real world.
(In fact, Fringe, with a similar "secret agency doing secret things" aspect, tends to be less facepalmy because I know it's a fantasy, even though it also makes the occasional painful current-day mistakes. Part of why I did watch that through, at least to the season 3 ender. We're now behind on that one.)
____________
Speaking of dated but still weirdly compelling, I just rewatched the Lost Boys. Now I really feel like I need a copy of "Cry Little Sister". (A friend of mine swore that song was too current to be associated with the movie, though I was sure that was its era.) Also, is it just me or is there a massive amount of not-so-subtext homoeroticism there? (I thought so YEARS ago, but even more so now, when I can compare it to things with actual out-of-the-closet characters and think, "Yanno, I think this has MORE than some episodes of Torchwood...")
________
Lately, Colin and I have been watching The Man from U.N.C.L.E., and he's been watching Castle (With me joining in intermittently). I've been trying to figure out why the first appeals to me and the second does less so.
Both are fairly formulaic shows. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has several obvious and problematic aspects based on the time period in which it was made -- issues of gender and race. Of the former, there are of course the questions of what women can do and should do -- to be fair, fewer of these than I was afraid of, though women are still disproportionately secretaries and housewives. And far easier to notice, virtually every female who appears is young, attractive, and either a potential or actual romantic match for Napoleon, or, much more rarely, Illya. Married women tend to be flirted with then let go back to their men, and villainesses tend to be femme fatale types, and even if Napoleon and Illya don't succumb, they're usually hanging on some man's arm.
The race issues are much less subtle. Almost all of them are depicted mostly by stereotype, but worse, people of any/every race are played by Caucasians in bad makeup -- except those meant to be attractive women, who are played by Caucasian women in black wigs and maybe a bit of extra eyeshadow. or the most part, it's only minor characters who get to be depicted by their own actual race.
Even granting the time period, it can be genuinely hard to grit one's teeth through some of these moments.
And yet... the plots are fast, the dialogue witty and bantering, and so far, most of the writers have some grasp of actual cleverness. Not being under the control of a consistent creative team, there are blips -- episodes with secret spy plots that a child could see through, episodes where Napoleon or Illya aren't as bright as they should be, or as efficient, or even just quite as much themselves. (The most obvious so far was one episode in which Illya, who is the more taciturn, had almost no line of dialogue whatsoever, including at points where he'd normally have something pointed to say.) The lead actors are compelling; Napoleon is a fairly typical hero-type of the era, not too different from Jim West or Jim Kirk, though a bit smarter and more suave, or James Bond with a bit more conscience. Illya, usually the secondary character thus far, is a less common type; emotionally cooler, more brusque and efficient, less romantically inclined, and much more in the actual spy mold. he seems to frequently be the one more people remember as liking.
Colin remarked that he was surprised how many people are shot and actually killed by the heroes -- comparing it to chis childhood staples like the A-Team, where shoot-outs with machine-guns seem to result in no injuries, while I compared it to the more recent spate of good guys who have a hard time killing, period. Though I think Get Smart, which is in the same time period AND a comedic spoof, has a similar casualty rate; the deaths are just sillier.
Castle is a modern show, with a smart efficient and professional female lead, and pretty good secondary female characters in Castle's mother and daughter, allowing for a range of ages and roles for women. In the ones I've seen, the weekly suspects and victims and witnesses have *not* made me wince and take that back. I can't swear how it is on race relations, though Beckett's boss is black, and again, I haven't seen every episode. But I suspect it tends to fall over based on infrequency of other races appearing, not on depicting them too badly when they do (I'm willing to be corrected by a steadier watcher.)
It's a fairly brisk show, as a mystery plot should be, and there's a lot of clever dialogue. Castle's family gives him a chance to both get more development, and in a number of cases, to be much less of a douchebag (Though as the show goes on and he gets more experienced, he seems to lose some of the worst of the behaviours that made me hate him in the first episode.)
The episodes follow a pretty rigid pattern for mystery of the week (Someone said you can tell who did it by roughly what moment in the show that particular witness shows up -- I haven't found it quite that bad, but I have seen a lot of rigidity of structure.) But there's a bit of an ongoing arc to break that up.
Some people have complained about yet another show with Unresolved Sexual Tension -- Colin has said he's enjoying that aspect so far, and I don't think it's what turned me off, because I haven't been burned out as badly as many on shows with UST.
So. Two shows with clever dialogue, quick pace, and guns. Both quite formulaic and relatively static, such that watching from the start occasionally adds something to an episode, but one can watch any individual week without needing to know more than one sees in the moment. One is mystery, one is spy -- in film I seem to prefer spy movies to whodunits, but in books I tend to be the opposite - I look at the modern thriller genre as dubious at best, but will read several mystery authors. One features intelligent women in multiple roles, one shows often-intelligent women in two basic roles, that of the romantic partner and/or the subordinate assistant. One features UST, one features serial and usually successful flirtation. One is very much a product of an earlier time - mostly to its detriment racially, sexually, politically, psychologically, and scientifically (one terrifying explosive gas in one episode is named "hydro", which is bad enough. Worse is that this is a substitute for the original planned name which turned out to be a real gas - "Freon"). One is pretty current -- how much it will feel dated later is of course a hard thing to tell, immersed in the present, but since *I'm* immersed in the present too, it feels closer to the people and home I recognize.
So what's the difference?
Well, first, I like Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin better than Castle or Beckett. Nathan Fillion is an admittedly charismatic actor, such that he's even somewhat compelling when he's playing a douchebag (See also Dr. Horrible), and as I said, his family life makes up for his initially off-putting side. Stana Katic at least has acting chops; I don't feel Beckett's as developed and dimensional a character as he is, and I think that's a pity, because she's introduced as smarter, more likeable, and better at her job -- but she still gets in her fair share of good dialogue and put-downs. But after an episode or two of looking a bit stilted, Robert Vaughn and David McCallum just seem to be Napoleon and Illya. They're not given the kind of backstory that makes Castle bearable, not just because this isn't the kind of show that shows family life, but also because they don't need it to make them interesting. They're fascinating in the moment, doing smart things well, giving each other backchat.
Second, there are things in Castle where I know enough to know "it doesn't work like that" which can't be excused by the show having grown dated, the way scientific flubs or slightly wonky politics in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. tend to be. Start with Castle's writing career. (Admittedly, it does better than NCIS, another show where I've enjoyed episodes but felt no urge to sit down and watch the whole thing. Also with another obvious connection to the discussion.) Most of the time, it being closer to the world I live in works for it, because I don't have to facepalm as much. Other times, it does the opposite; when I DO facepalm, I do it harder. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. I can see as a pure fantasy world -- even in its contemporary time period, the "secret spy society" would have given it a fantasy aspect. Castle is meant to be all police and real world.
(In fact, Fringe, with a similar "secret agency doing secret things" aspect, tends to be less facepalmy because I know it's a fantasy, even though it also makes the occasional painful current-day mistakes. Part of why I did watch that through, at least to the season 3 ender. We're now behind on that one.)
____________
Speaking of dated but still weirdly compelling, I just rewatched the Lost Boys. Now I really feel like I need a copy of "Cry Little Sister". (A friend of mine swore that song was too current to be associated with the movie, though I was sure that was its era.) Also, is it just me or is there a massive amount of not-so-subtext homoeroticism there? (I thought so YEARS ago, but even more so now, when I can compare it to things with actual out-of-the-closet characters and think, "Yanno, I think this has MORE than some episodes of Torchwood...")
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 07:31 pm (UTC)The store where I buy legal MP3s ONLY had it available if you buy the whole soundtrack, not as an individual track. Which lost them custom, this time. I'd have been willing to pay for it, but not under those conditions.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 07:58 pm (UTC)Really though, it was something i knew i had and could find fast. I have about 3000 songs on my computer i think...
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 01:09 pm (UTC)Interesting thoughts about how we never learn anything about Napoleon or Ilya . . . that had not become conscious.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 05:35 pm (UTC)That being said...
THANK YOU!
I've been wanting to make myself a coffee mug that says "Best at being Second Best", but I couldn't think of whose photo should go with it. Your post reminded me of the obvious answer: Illya.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 07:39 pm (UTC)While I will grant you that not romancing everything female under the sun helps, I think Illya's also interesting for the reasons Spock can be more interesting than Kirk - they're not nearly as much a standard "type".
no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-25 09:39 pm (UTC)To me Law and Order nearly ruined itself the one or two years they tried bringing in the leading characters personal lives. There are shows I can watch if I want family/sentimental stuff and there are others I watch for the action and I don't usually like them mixed together. Castle is the exception.
And yes, I preferred Illya! Napoleon was too "ordinary" - he was too much like too many heroes right down to the skirt chasing.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-27 04:08 am (UTC)Compare to Fringe, which is all about mad science and parallel worlds. Or, say, to switch out of TV shows entirely, the webcomic Questionable Content, which, in spite of being mainly about relationships and regular people, has anthropomorphic robots and characters who grew up in space... Or as above, Man from U.N.C.L.E.'s whole premise of worldwide secret organizations, secret advanced science, etc.