Doctor Who: Series 10, Episode 6 – “Extremis” (2017)

I wouldn’t go so far as to call this episode a dud or a misfire, but it’s my least favorite of the season to date.  While it’s nowhere near what I consider the low points of the Twelfth Doctor era – “The Caretaker” and “Sleep No More,” for those who are keeping score – it throws several intriguing ideas in a blender, and they don’t quite work coherently together (a few spoilers for this episode, as well as the end of “Oxygen.”)

The Doctor is still dealing with the effects of what happened last week (read:  his not-so-temporary-after-all blindness) and, because people on TV always have to make matters harder for themselves, has decided to try and hide it from Bill.  With the help of Nardole and the apparently-resurrected sonic sunglasses, he’s attempting to make like he can see, easier said than done when he’s called upon by the Vatican to read an ancient, secret text that has driven all its translators to suicide.  The Doctor, Bill, Nardole set off to get their hands on the dangerous Veritas text, but between all the creepy robed monsters and mysterious portals of light, they quickly realize that not everything is as it appears.

This is probably the biggest “arc” episode so far this season, which is a few points against it right there, because each new Who showrunner’s collection of season arcs has had diminishing returns for me.  As far as Twelve’s arcs go, the stuff going on here strikes me as more interesting than “who is Missy?” in series 8 or “what is the Hybrid?” (ugh) in series 9, but at this point, I don’t have a lot of confidence that it will resolve in a satisfactory way when all is said and done.  That said, I am impressed that this episode reveals a great deal about the whole thing with the vault and adds a new angle to the season arc rather than teasing the same mystery episode after episode.

When it comes to the story itself, it’s a mixed bag.  I love the concept of deadly texts that ruin the lives of everyone who read them, and the secrets revealed by the Veritas are fairly cool.  But it gets kind of muddied in the middle, there’s a bit too much going on in general, and although it’s clearly setting up for a bigger showdown later on, the episode on its own trails off to a fairly uninspired ending that smells faintly of Deus ex machina.

And while I am intrigued by the idea of the Doctor dealing with more long-term fallout of his reckless decisions, I don’t really like him being blind.  He has enough high-tech cheats that he can pass himself off semi-decently as a sighted person, so it only slows him down moderately – though you wouldn’t know it from his dramatic shows of even greater recklessness thrown around for shockingly little benefit.  I dunno.  I think there’s a way you could do the Doctor being blind for a handful of episodes, finding inventive ways to “see” and bluffing to his enemies so they don’t think he’s vulnerable.  However, by hiding it from Bill, it’s become more of an interpersonal drama.  For now, the Doctor is tragically “putting on a brave face,” only letting a very select someone in on his worry and misery, and Bill is obviously going to be upset when it inevitably comes out and she realizes how long he kept it from her.  And the Twelve-Bill dynamic has been so fun and refreshing this season, and Twelve has seemed just about the happiest he’s been since we met him (despite having cabin fever from being stuck on Earth.)  I don’t appreciate anything that gets in the way of that.

A Little TLC(w): The Lunatics (1986)

I’ve been interested in this Tony Leung Chiu-wai movie for a while, but in my anticipation for it, I wasn’t really thinking about the time in which it was made.  Given the era, some of the nuance with which the story presents its subject matter is impressive, but on the whole, there are some glaring issues that are hard to get around, which is disappointing.

Dr. Tsui works as a psychiatrist in Hong Kong, and in among his more nine-to-five patients, he takes to the streets to provide support and care for people with mental illness in the city’s homeless population.  His work attracts the attention of Tina Lau, an ambitious reporter, and against the doctor’s protests, she’s given permission to shadow him on his rounds.  There, Tina begins to understand the full weight of Hong Kong’s broken mental health system and realizes there are no simple solutions to dealing with the homeless “eyesores” of the city.

As I said, this is 1986, so it’s not really a surprise that a good chunk of the plot hinges on harmful stereotypes about “violent lunatics” posing a danger to others.  After all, it’s 2017, and films still trade on that idea (hello, Split.)  And to the movie’s credit, it does make an effort to show the provocations against Dr. Tsui’s patients that lead to this violence – whether it stems from ignorance (Tina getting up close and personal to interview a homeless woman despite Dr. Tsui repeatedly urging her to back off) or fear and hatred (a butcher shouting at a homeless man in the fish market, waving a meat cleaver in the hopes of scaring him away,) it’s frequently members of the general populace who make these people afraid or antagonize them to the point that they lash out.  Still, even if there’s some complexity in how these situations occur, the end result of the “dangerous psycho” brandishing deadly objects at people is a lot more clear-cut and problematic.  I understand why the film goes that route, especially in light of the times and how much further we still have to go in understanding people with mental illness 30 years later, but it doesn’t make these scenes any less problematic to watch.

Which is a shame, because there’s actually a refreshing amount of nuance in other aspects of the story.  The film addresses a number of complex issues – the overworked system that can’t keep up with the demand and thus does everything possible to keep patients out of hospitals, the discrimination and struggles patients face trying to reintegrate into society after rehabilitation, the seemingly-hopeless battle being fought by those who are genuinely trying to help – with a fair amount of care.  It even shows that having a mental illness, even a severe one, doesn’t preclude people from pursuing relationships or having children.  That said, the reinforcement of violent stereotypes isn’t the film’s only problem.  Additionally, despite being relatively sympathetic towards Dr. Tsui’s patients, the movie keeps the narrative focal point squarely on Dr. Tsui and Tina rather than any of them, and the tragedy porn gets cranked up pretty high in many scenes.

I was little surprised at how little Leung is in this movie.  The DVD I got my hands on is clearly a newer release, retroactively capitalizing on actors’ fame by prominently featuring Leung’s name and picture on the cover (along with Chow Yun-fat’s) – in truth, Leung is only in two memorable scenes, and Chow features in just one extended sequence.

But I digress.  Leung plays Doggie, one of Dr. Tsui’s patients.  He’s very childlike, approaching strangers to “play” with them and then becoming frightened and bewildered when they recoil from him.  He’s also relatively low verbal, communicating mostly in noises with a few words or sentences thrown in.  For the most part, I’d say Leung does well with the role.  With limited screentime, the character hits a few important notes, and the more over-the-top moments are grounded by the genuine pathos of his situation.  I feel like we just get hints, though.  I’d have liked to see more of Doggie, and not just because Leung plays him – his character feels designed to introduce us to the world of the homeless and mentally ill people, and it would’ve been nice to get a little more sense of who he is when he’s not causing scenes at the fish market.

Recommend?

In General – I hesitate to recommend it outright, because it does play on these damaging stereotypes about mental illness.  That said, it also features some more thoughtful storytelling and fine acting.  If you go into it prepared for these unfortunate plot devices, I think there’s something to get out of it.

Tony Leung Chiu-wai – Maybe.  Leung pulls off a neat trick here.  Doggie seems at first ridiculous, a “whacky” crazy guy, but in just a few minutes, Leung is able to flip it and make you feel for the guy without a dramatic change in tone or characterization.

Warnings

Violence, strong thematic elements, disturbing images, language, and smoking.

News Satire Roundup: May 14-May 18

Late night last night - didn't get around to posting.  Here's yesterday's News Satire Roundup, and I'll get to today's regularly scheduled post soon.

Sunday, May 14 – The show began with Comey, looking especially at Trump’s threatening tweets and the Lester Holt interview – I liked John’s observation about Trump’s need to display dominance, saying he’d gladly confess to murder if you claim the killer was someone stronger and smarter than him.  More on New Zealand, a minor feud with the prime minister over his comments on last week’s story.  John’s disgust at his Instagram shot of homemade pizza topped with canned spaghetti was great.  The main story was on dialysis.  John covered the good – it’s the one bit of health care the government has to pay for, prompting John to declare the kidneys the one “Canadian” organ in our bodies – and, unsurprisingly, the bad – much care for renal disease is in the hands of for-profit facilities that compromise patient care to maximize profits.  Thanks to John for introducing us to one such company’s bizarre, Musketeer-obsessed CEO.

Monday, May 15 – Oy.  First up, naturally, was Trump sharingclassified intelligence with the Russian ambassador.  I liked Trevor’s comment about Trump trying to impress them by proving he was the president, along with imagining the Russians realizing they didn’t have to plant bugs after all.  Good story on white supremacist protests against the removal of Confederate statues, with Michelle chiming in that, racism aside, we shouldn’t keep celebrating the Confederacy because America is all about the winning side.  I loved the short piece on recent cyber attacks on hospitals; comparing the levels of panic in British and American news coverage was great, and I laughed harder than I should’ve at Trevor pointing out the negligible attacks in Africa and calling the graphic a “reverse-Ebola map.”  Professor Timothy Snyder was the guest, discussing his new book on tyranny and the importance of learning from the mistakes of the past.

Tuesday, May 16 – As with the Comey firing, the latest Trump news was too recent to get into, but Trevor briefly assured us he’d get to it the next night before circling back to yesterday’s big news of Trump sharing classified intelligence to impress the Russians.  Trevor did a nice job pointing out how heavily Trump’s campaign emphasized national security and how this move could put the U.S. out of the loop on information that could keep us safe.  Ronny had a new tech bit checking in on the progress of flying cars.  I especially liked his rant about how you can’t just call any form of conveyance a “car” (a la “horses are not cars that shit in the sheet,” ha!)  The interview with Gabourey Sidibe was really fun.  She and Trevor puzzled over why her name is so much more African than his, she relived a few of her name mispronunciation horror stories, and she shared about her experiences with racism in the phone sex industry.

Wednesday, May 17 – Trevor bemoaned the rate of shocking Trump news, dropping a new bombshell before there’s time to wrap your head around the last one.  He looked at the special prosecutor appointed for the Russia investigation and then jumped to Comey’s memo about Trump trying to dissuade him from investigating Michael Flynn.  Awesome takedown of Fox News’s apologist coverage (my bit favorite was the guy splitting hairs over the meaning of “hope” and Trevor’s comment that he’s lucky he’s never encountered the mafia’s preferred brand of implied threat.)  There was also a short story on Putin’s trolling response re:  Trump sharing classified intelligence, accompanied by a great skit about two embedded Russian agents with wildly differing levels of difficulty in obtaining level.  The guest was Susan Burton, who shared about her work trying to help women turn their lives around after prison.

Thursday, May 18 – We opened with the ongoing corruption scandal on Brazil’s president, kicking off an Ain’t Nobody Got Time for That about other international stories (the king of the Netherlands secretly working as a commercial airline pilot, protestors at the Turkish embassy in D.C. during Erdoğan’s visit getting beaten by his own security.)  But of course, these stories had to make way for the situation in the administration.  The piece on Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel was great, especially Trevor’s imagined barber-shop conversation about past and present FBI directors.  I wasn’t a fan of Desi’s field report, a one-joke piece on an Arizona governor candidate who’s so dedicated to transparency that he has a tab on his website devoted to his sexual practices.  I did, however, enjoy Kerry Washington at the guest, particularly her comments about how Scandal’s writers struggle to stay ahead of real-world political insanity.

Favorite Characters: The Master (Into the Badlands)

Even though each individual storyline has been really on-point, I’m still a bit mixed on how separated all the characters on Into the Badlands have been for much of this season.  As much as I enjoy the various offshoots, a part of me has just been antsy to get everyone back into the same sphere.  But like I said, all of the separate storylines have worked for me, including M.K.’s, which was a bit of a surprise – he can grate at times, and I’ve been known to say, “Shut up, M.K.” to my TV.  For me, though, I’d say the real strength of his storyline early in the season is down to the presence of a new character who joins him there:  the Master (M.K. and Master-related spoilers.)

At the end of season 1, M.K. does get out of the main society of the Badlands, although not in the way he’d been planning.  Rather, he’s incapacitated and stuffed into a trunk by a trio of hardcore warrior monks who secret him away to a secluded monastery for people like him, “dark ones” who unlock great power but lose control of themselves whenever their skin is cut.  Knowing that his “curse” has made him unwittingly responsible for people’s deaths (basically, he turns into a dark-eyed killing machine,) M.K. agrees to training in the hopes of the curse being purged from him, but he grows increasingly impatient with the proceedings.

Enter the Master.  Where M.K. is agitated, she is still.  Where M.K. accuses and argues, she replies in measured tones.  Every ounce of her gives off the aura that she’s been around, she knows shit, and M.K. would be wise to take a seat and listen to her.  While he’s hit-or-miss in that department (M.K. will be M.K.,) the Master is there anyway, patiently waiting for him to wake up and realize this isn’t something he gets to undertake on his own terms.  This is a process – she’s seen it, she knows how it goes, and if he can get out of his own way, she can help him.

I just love how she carries herself and goes about M.K.’s training.  She’s firm and doesn’t put up with M.K.’s nonsense, but at the same time, she’s very warm and empathetic.  It’s blatantly obvious that M.K. wants a quick fix, but the Master is starting him down a journey, and while she can lay out the road for him, she knows he’s the one who has to walk it.  It’s a lot of what frustrates him about her, because he feels she’s withholding the answers from him when that’s not the point – the point is, he has to find them, or it won’t matter.  It’s training his body, training his mind, venturing inside himself, finding his demons and not just fighting them but finding a way to reconcile them.  You can tell she cares deeply for him, and I imagine that, in the many kids she’s shepherded through this process, not all of them have made it and that weighs heavily on her.  But she keeps on and does the work, because that’s what she’s about.  When M.K. needs a reality check, she’ll knock him on his ass, and when he needs someone to hold him like a frightened child, she’ll do that, too.  All to turn his powers from a curse that controls him to a gift he can wield.

Unfortunately, despite my eagerness to get the main characters back together, one downside of reuniting M.K. with Sunny has meant far less Master than I’d have liked lately.  However, we’ve been shown that a few other characters have ties to the monastery and the Master, and so even if we don’t have time to circle back around to her before the season ends on Sunday, I hope we can at least rest assured that her presence on the show isn’t over.

And yeah, because it’s worth saying – this is gorgeous, shining proof of how you can use a “wise Asian master” archetype without it being an offensive stereotype (areyou listening, Marvel?)  The Master, for all her sagacity, greatness, and mysteriousness, is absolutely still a person.  She gives a lot of cryptic, important-sounding advice, but she also has moments of levity, of concern, of compassion, and of irritation.  Chipo Chung (who I’ll always remember as Chantho from Doctor Who’s “Utopia”) is just stellar in the role.  She imbues the Master with such humanity in her line readings, always feeling like a living person rather than just a type.  It’s not the archetype itself that’s offensive – it’s the often lazy and ignorant way it’s executed, and there’s no rule that says you have to do that.  Given shade and complexity, a well-worn character type can feel vibrant, original, and respectful, and that’s exactly what’s been done here.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017, PG-13)

I was only one weekend off from seeing this when it opened, but that was still too long.  I haven’t quite made up my mind yet as to whether this movie is a tiny bit better or falls just a hair short of the first installment.  What I do know is that it’s a great film that makes for a terrific time at the movies (premise spoilers.)

After their big “saving the galaxy” adventure from the first film, the now self-styled Guardians having been working together, using their reputation to get odd protection/muscle jobs here and there.  When Rocket gets on the wrong side of a client (because of course he does,) the crew lands in hot water, and soon, more than just the issues of their immediate past are after them.  Chased by Sovereigns (the wronged clients) and Ravagers alike, the Guardians’ lives are additionally complicated by the arrival of Gamora’s murderous adopted sister Nebula and, to Peter’s utter shock, his non-human birth father Ego.

When it comes to the plot, I don’t think this film hangs together quite as well as the first one.  It excels at the group dynamic and the emotional beats, and it brings some awesome jokes and a few really kickass action scenes, but the nuts and bolts of the story itself are a little shakier.  While most of the threads ultimately come together, it feels kind of disjointed in the middle and drags a bit.  The whole thing with Ego is a great concept that’s mostly executed really well (Kurt Russell does a fantastic job,) but there are places where he gets too comic-book corny for me.  Also, side note – I loved Drax in the first movie, but he doesn’t work as well for me here.  I’m afraid he’s suffering from Strax Syndrome (courtesy of Doctor Who):  a highly-entertaining, very particular source of humor in his first appearance, a generic violent buffoon when he next appears.  Of the writing for the central cast, his was the only one that disappointed me.

While the big picture isn’t quite all it should be, there are oodles and oodles to love throughout the film in individual scenes.  All the main characters (even Drax, briefly) get some good emotional material to work through in addition to some excellent one-liners and badass moments.  I really enjoy the added screentime for Yondu and Nebula – the film opened up Yondu much more for me as a character, and I was drawn in deeply by Nebula’s story (Michael Rooker and Karen Gillan are both great in this movie.)  But oh my gosh, seriously:  Baby Groot.  Until further notice, he is my new favorite thing.  So unbelievably adorable, so funny, still formidable, and I love how his presence can soften the other Guardians and cement the family vibe between them more firmly, with all of them acting as informal parents at different points.  The trailer had assured me that Baby Groot would be just as lovable as full-sized Groot in the first movie, but I had no idea just how amazing he was going to be.  Oh my gosh.

In addition to our heroes, all of whom do great work, the film also features Elizabeth Debicki (who I remember from Baz Luhrman’s Great Gatsby) in a very regal performance as the High Priestess of the Sovereigns, and Pom Klementieff’s Mantis makes a fine addition to the team.  And just for fun, the film is dotted with cool cameos, the best ones naturally being Ben Browder (Crichton!) and Michelle Yeoh (she has to be coming up in the next one, right?  She’s way too awesome to throw away on ten seconds of screentime.)

Warnings

Language, comic-book violence, sexual references, drinking, and thematic elements.

Riverdale (2017-Present)

With the exception of a brief foray into a certain development on the show, I’ve refrained from talking about Riverdale until its first season wrapped last week.  Now, with its fledgling season under its belt, it’s time to dive into the insanity that is this show.  Despite a somewhat skeptical start, this series quickly became surprisingly must-see TV for me, and by the time the finale aired, I was parked eagerly on my couch in rapt anticipation (premise spoilers.)

An audacious reimagining of the Archie comics, the show opens on sleepy, everyone-knows-everone small town Riverdale being rocked by the revelation that the town’s golden boy, thought to have died an accidental death, was actually murdered.  Secrets wrap themselves around more secrets as members of the familiar comic-book gang investigate who killed Jason Blossom and why, discovering along the way that everybody in their quiet little town is basically up to their eyeballs in shocking revelations.

What with all the teen sleuthing and dropped bombshells, I realize that description makes the show sound like a weird cross between Nancy Drew and Days of Our Lives, but it’s so much gloriously weirder than that.  This series is somehow equal parts teen drama, murder mystery, and Gothic horror, 100% earnestly and yet also kind of deconstructing all three.  It’s absolutely out-there, made even wilder every time you remember that these are the Archie characters we’re talking about.  I’m not about to say that it’s without flaws (there are some dumb writing fumbles, Archie himself spends most of the season searching for a way to be relevant to the main story, and the show drops the ball in a major way when it comes to utilizing its diverse cast,) but this is a show that seems to weirdly work despite itself.  There are honest-to-god maple syrup blood feuds, you guys – how can that not at least pique your interest?

By season’s end, I was mostly satisfied with how the show presents its familiar characters.  This is a true reimagining of the series, and while most characters have clear signposts pointing out long-standing traits and habits from the comics, they also do their own thing, depiction-wise, and are ultimately combinations of something both old and new.  Veronica (excellently played by Camila Mendes,) to my surprise, emerged as an early favorite, although I think her story gets a little muddy in the middle of the season.  Lili Reinhart’s Betty is a revelation, a really fascinating character, and Cole Sprouse (formerly of The Suite Life, which kind of blew my mind to realize) couldn’t be more perfect as Jughead.  I’m not enough of an Archie connoisseur to have known Cheryl Blossom, but I love Madelaine Petsch’s icy-yet-off-kilter portrayal of the complex mean girl.  And even though Archie (KJ Apa) is easily my least favorite early on – in part because his more typical teen-drama storylines often feel so disconnected from all the more interesting stuff going on – the writing starts to find its way with him, and he comes around pretty well in the later episodes of the season.

Warnings

Sexual content (including statutory rape,) violence, swearing, drinking/drug references, and strong thematic elements.

Burke’s Law: Season 1, Episode 32 – “Who Killed ½ of Glory Lee?” (1964)

Here’s the last of Buster’s TV work that I’ve been able to get my hands on.  As far as police procedurals go, it’s a decent-ish way to pass an hour, although Buster’s one scene is the most entertaining for obvious reasons.

From what I can gather from this episode, Burke’s Law follows the travails of a playboy millionaire (the titular Burke) who moonlights as a police detective (maybe?  I think?)  In this particular story, one of the two founders of a fashion empire is killed – seemingly by accident at first, but the police quickly realize it was murder.  Burke investigates to find the killer in a mystery dealing with big money, corporate espionage, licentious intrigue, divorce, and buried secrets of the past.

Not a bad description, eh?  That actually makes the story sound more exciting than it really is, though it’s generally pleasant enough.  It’s a basic whodunit not terribly divorced from the type of procedural you might see today:  suspects, alibis, misdirects, climactic “here’s how I know it was you” infodumps, and the like.  I have to say, though, in a story that involves models, mistresses, and a clueless wife, they don’t miss any opportunities for casual sexism.  The female characters in the episode are mostly sources of frivolity or condescending drollery, and there’s a scene of major slut-shuming going on at the end.

In amongst the mystery and detective work, there are some odd comedic beats thrown in – the “hilarious” sexism, of course, but also slightly hokey amusing nods here and there.  In light of that, I suppose it makes sense as a show in which Buster might have guest-starred.  After all, “police procedural” wouldn’t normally scream “guest-starring Buster Keaton” unless it was being touted as featuring Buster in a rare dramatic role, but Buster’s role and the comic nature of his scene fits in pretty well with the mildly goofy goings-on elsewhere in the episode.

Buster plays Mortimer Lovely, a rival fashion mogul that Burke suspects was stealing design secrets from the dead man’s company; in questioning Mr. Lovely, Burke hopes to find a professional motive behind the murder.  The gimmick here is that Mr. Lovely has laryngitis and can’t speak, meaning all of Burke’s questions are answered via gestures.

I wonder how much Buster was involved in developing how this scene plays out, because it does have a certain Bustery feel to it.  The way it starts with fairly simple gestures and soon escalates into elaborately-mimed scenarios incorporating full charades rules seems like a Buster thing to do, gradually building on the gags and taking them from “just plausible” to “patently ridiculous” before you even quite know what’s going on.  Needless to say, Buster’s charades game is totally on-point, and the humor of the scene is only slightly intruded on by Burke’s increasingly-silly guesses.  Even though Buster is only in one scene, it’s a scene that uses him well, putting this relatively high in my estimation of Buster’s later-career work.