Rating the Underrated: Musicals Based on Movies

I have long been a champion of Broadway. As off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway, and regional theater continue to grow in acclaim, many people have claimed that Broadway is becoming irrelevant. The problem with this thinking is that Broadway is not meant to be in competition with regional theater-- the ideal is for both to be impressive and thriving-- not for one to be better than the other. And while Broadway is certainly struggling, it's never going anywhere. As long as people are making theater, Broadway will be around and will be at the forefront of the American theater scene.

That's not to say that there are not flaws with Broadway. There are so many flaws. Works by female playwrights are still largely unproduced even as the number of prominent female playwright grows nationwide, there is still an emphasis on commercialization, there is a lack of accessibility as student discounts seem to disappear and ticket prices rise to all-time highs, and many more problems which would be more than worthy of a discussion. But I want to address one of the most common complaints that I hear about Broadway-- one which I've heard mentioned far more often than the far more valid ones I listed above. And, frankly, I've never understood why it's so problematic for so many people: the complaint that all Broadway shows are based on movies.

Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers: which won the most Tony awards in Broadway history and also happens to be based on a movie.

The idea behind the complaint is that it seems like every show coming to Broadway is based on a movie-- which generally leads to the follow-up question of "aren't there any original ideas out there?" I can definitely understand, in theory, where people are coming from. The theater community prides itself on its creativity, and so the idea that there are previously told stories taking up space on Broadway marquis can be troubling. Especially when those stories are taken from a medium like film, which has not been around for as long as theater. I think that this complaint comes from a certain sense of superiority-- the idea that theater is supposed to be more sophisticated than film. And that's a problem. Theater and film are two different art forms-- neither is better or worse. I think it would be fair to say that film borrows from theater just as much as theater borrows from film. Since 2000, six of the winners of the Tony Award for Best Play have been made into films. Film, in fact, celebrates the act of adaptation. Since 2000, nine of the winners for Best Picture have had screenplays adapted from other works as opposed to being original stories. Yet no one is complaining that film as an art form is lacking in originality. Just because a story is pre-existing doesn't mean that there can't be creativity. In his entire career as a playwright, William Shakespeare only wrote one original story (The Tempest) and the rest were all adaptations. The truth is that there are plenty of beloved musicals out there which are drawn from films. While people may complain about this trend when discussing, say, Mary Poppins, few people are bringing it up when discussing better-accepted best musical winners such as The Lion King, The Producers, or Once. In fact, the four nominees for Best Musical last year were all inspired by films: Bring It On, A Christmas Story, Matilda, and the winner, Kinky Boots.

A scene from the dark and delightful Matilda the Musical

Of those nominees, I think that Bring It On is the most interesting case, and the one which best exemplifies the thesis of this post. I will admit that when I went to see Bring It On, I didn't expect it to be that good. I thought it would be fun, and I was sure it would have some great choreography, but I didn't expect it to be great theater. The reason? Well, because it was inspired on the film Bring It On. But, in reality, there was a lot to suggest that it would be good. It was written in part by Tom Kitt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Jeff Whitty, who helped write Next to Normal, In the Heights, and Avenue Q respectively-- three of the most innovative shows to run on Broadway in recent years. With a pedigree like that, why shouldn't this be a really solid show? And, it was. I enjoyed Kinky Boots, and absolutely loved Matilda, but when it came down to it, Bring It On was my favorite new musical of that year. It featured a great script and score (although I do like Matilda's score more) and was simply an outstanding production. Rousing, inspiring, and with some really great messages hidden in there for good measure (the supporting character of La Cienega might have been one of the best and most respectful representations of a transgender character I've seen written for the stage). On Tony night, Bring It On was not a real contender to win the award for Best Musical. And many people were scoffing at the fact that it was nominated at all. But I can bet that these people never saw the show at all-- they dismissed it simply because it was a film adaptation (as a sidenote, the musical had very little to do with the film Bring It On-- while both had to do with cheerleaders, they had different plots and a completely different set of characters).

The diverse and incredibly hardworking cast of Bring it On performs on of the show's many showstopping numbers.

The first show which I think fell "victim" to this trend is Shrek the Musical in 2008. That's the first  time I specifically recall people being angry at a show that was adapted from a film. People were livid-- "Really, they're making a musical based on Shrek now?" I maintain that if Shrek the Musical had been released just a couple of years earlier, it would have been a huge hit-- but at that point, people were simply tired of this trend and wouldn't see it out of principle. But, like Bring it On, Shrek had a lot going for it. The music was by prolific composer Jeanine Tesori, with book and lyrics by beloved playwright David Lindsay-Abaire. Plus, it starred Broadway stars Brian d'Arcy James, Sutton Foster, and Christopher Sieber. Unfortunately, nobody saw it, and it closed all too soon. While it wasn't a perfect show, it had some absolutely clever moments, and some great songs (the act one finale "Who I'd Be" was a standout, for me). Perhaps most notably, the show featured some absolutely brilliant and clever staging in regards to the villain: Lord Farquad. In the film, a recurring joke was Farquad's diminutive height and the stage production took full advantage of this. Sieber performed the role almost entirely on his knees, in a special costume that made him look much shorter than he is. It was a gimmick, but an absolutely brilliant one-- and one of the best performances I've ever seen on Broadway. That he lost the Tony to Gregory Jbara in Billy Elliot was, frankly, criminal (Jbara is a great actor, but his role in that show simply didn't compare to what Sieber did). Check out this performance from the Tonys and tell me that this show doesn't look like it was fantastic. Yet, again, this musical suffered because of some stigma against adaptations from movies. And-- as beloved as the film is-- the fact that it's a kids movie didn't help its chances.

As Tony host Neil Patrick Harris sang, "Chris Sieber, please, performing on your knees? That only gets you Golden Globes."

I think the same stigma is being applied towards the Broadway musical Rocky. When it was announced that Rocky was coming to Broadway, there was a similar uproar of disbelief. It was thought that Broadway was really scraping the bottom of the barrel to be making a musical out of Rocky. But...why? What makes Rocky so unsuitable for being a stage musical? It's certainly a rousing story, and offers the chance for really creative choreography. But, more than anything, Rocky is a film which already incorporates music into it really well. It has one of the best scores in the history of film-- why shouldn't it be a musical? I have not yet seen the show-- although I already have tickets to see it soon-- so I can't speak firsthand, but everyone who I've spoken to has said they were surprised at how great it was. And coming from director Alex Timbers-- behind some of the most original Broadway shows of recent years, like Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson and Peter and the Starcatcher-- I have no doubts it will be an underrated gem. While it didn't get a nomination for Best Musical at the Tonys, it has been recognized by most other awards shows. Yet, it's struggling financially, and I have no doubts that this is due in part to those who have written it off without seeing it. If any such person is reading this, give the show a chance.

Andy Karl as the titular character in Rocky the Musical

My point is that just because a lot of Broadway musicals are based on films doesn't mean that Broadway, and certainly not the theater scene at large, is lacking in creativity or originality. There are still original stories being shown on stage every day, and the stories that have already been told are still creative in their own right. There are many criticisms one could throw at Broadway-- this particular one is incredibly misguided.

But despite everything I've just said, I'm really dreading the upcoming stage musical of School of Rock. This is a film which I have said for YEARS would translate really well to the stage. And I stand by that. But, who's decided to take it upon themselves to bring this vision to life? Andrew Lloyd Webber. Andrew. Lloyd. Webber. This is the worst news I've ever heard. He must be stopped.

Math is a wonderful thing. Yes, math is a really cool thing.

Putting the Actor Back in Child Actor

When I was five, I decided I wanted to be an actor. Although my parents had both worked in show business in the past-- and my mother still does-- this was not their idea. In fact, after I told them this was what I wanted to do, they made sure that I knew what I was getting into. They didn't try to talk me out of it, but they made sure I had a realistic expectation for what being an actor would entail. As my career went off, it became clear that I had some level of talent. While I wasn't a breakout star (although I have many tales of big projects that I was almost cast in-- there is a tragic tale of how I was very nearly the voice of Ash in Pokemon), I had my fair share of success and accumulated an impressive resume of strong acting credits from my childhood. I was lucky enough to have the chance to work with some incredible artists and companies, and would not trade in my acting experience for anything. As I now have made the transition into being an adult actor, I feel that my work as a child actor was the very best education I could have received.

Me in the film Dogville-- the largest role of my young career by far.

Child actors face an unfortunate stigma in the media. When someone like Lindsay Lohan or Amanda Bynes goes to rehab, or Mary-Kate Olsen is diagnosed with anorexia, the media is quick to jump on their history as child actors as the reason for their troubles. Prolific child actress Mara Wilson of Matilda and Mrs. Doubtfire fame, wrote an article for cracked.com entitled "7 Reasons Child Stars Go Crazy," where she goes through the reasons that a child star might, as she puts it, "go crazy."

She also establishes that she's no longer an actress herself (although she lends her talent superbly to the  incredible podcast "Welcome to Night Vale," where she voices the character of The Faceless Old Woman Who Secretly Lives in Your House.") It's a well-written article, and Wilson makes some great points. And, to be fair, her acting as a kid was in much more of a spotlight than mine. But I still had some problems with the article. Wilson is no longer an actress-- and that's the right choice for her-- but I feel she errs in implying that it is the right choice for everybody. And while I have some problems with the article, I take more issue with the comments themselves-- which further this notion that all child stars are disasters waiting to happen.

But, this is a problem with the media more than child actors themselves. Every time a child actor gets into trouble, it's reported on because it's great news. The news doesn't do reports on the child actors who are doing really well. And I'm not talking about actors like Mara Wilson who left the business already. There are tons of actors who are in the business still who have successful careers even though they acted as children. Here's a few I can name off the top of my head: Christian Bale, Jason Bateman, Jeff Bridges, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jodie Foster, Ryan Gosling, Seth Green, Neil Patrick Harris, Ethan Hawke, Jonah Hill, Ron Howard, Scarlett Johansson, Anna Kendrick, Jennifer Lawrence, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anna Paquin, Natalie Portman, Elizabeth Taylor, Kenan Thompson, Kate Winslet, and Elijah Wood. Not to mention the kids from the Harry Potter films-- Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson in particular have taken on some really interesting projects and have been doing consistently great work to establish themselves as strong actors outside of their Potteresque identities. If these names are any indication, it should show how the life of a child actor is not a definite path towards doom and gloom.

But the false notion that child actors will all inevitably become drug addicts is not the only misconception that child actors face--I wasn't even aware of this misconception until later in my career. Instead, the biggest problem that child actors face is the fact that they're often not taken seriously. While actors might not always get along, the rehearsal process is generally a place where everyone is treated with respect. Now, I was lucky in that most of the people that I worked with were incredibly kind and generous, and many treated me with the same level of respect that they would treat any actor. But there were also many times that I found myself treated as less-than. Rather than give me benefit of the doubt, it was automatically assumed that I would not be as talented as the others in the room. Even though I auditioned for a part like everyone else, even though I was a card-bearing member of the acting union, the word "child" was more important than the word "actor." Once, I was in a play where I played a character with Asperger's Syndrome whose mother passes on early in the play. It was a difficult role, and the main character, and it is to date one of the most difficult roles I've ever had to play. At the end of the run, one of the actors confided in me that he had almost not accepted the role because he didn't think a child actor could have pulled the role off, but I stopped him from dropping out of the play after the first read-through, after it became clear that I wasn't just a random kid they had grabbed off the street. But while this actor's attitude towards me changed, not everyone's does. While most have treated me as a colleague, some of my thespian peers could never seem to get over my youth and could not take me seriously. They felt the need to hold my hand despite me consistently proving that I was up to the task as much as everyone else involved (especially impressive considering that I also had to do math homework on breaks).

This is not something that I am imagining-- it is apparent when we consider how younger actors are treated on a larger scale. The best example, for me, is the actor Suraj Sharma from Ang Lee's film Life of Pi. This was Sharma's first film role, and he does a remarkable job with it, delivering an emotional and nuanced performance. This is especially remarkable considering that he basically has to carry the film himself-- most scenes are just him and a CGI tiger. Since the tiger was added in digitally, Sharma essentially has to give a one-person performance, as his scene partner was not present and he had nothing to react to. It's a remarkable feat. And while his performance was critically acclaimed, Sharma received little to no awards consideration. The film was certainly well-received by multiple awards ceremonies-- it won four Oscars out of eleven nominations, but its star was not discussed at all. To clarify, I'm not confused as to why he wasn't nominated-- no one said it was easy to get an Oscar nomination-- I'm just surprised that he was not part of the discussion at all. There was no buzz surrounding this young performer. At no point did anyone consider him a contender for a nomination. Robert Redford's one-man performance in All is Lost the next year might not have earned him a nomination either, but at least he was buzzed about. Sharma was not given that same level of respect, despite an equally challenging performance in an acclaimed film. Certainly there are other factors at play here-- the fact that Sharma is Indian certainly could be a factor as to why he was so ignored-- but I think it would be naive to think that his age did not also come into play.

The same year that Sharma would have been eligible, another young actor did receive attention from the academy, when Quvenzhané Wallis became the youngest nominee in the category of Leading Actress in a film. Her performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild was absolutely remarkable, and I for one cheered when her name was announced as a nominee. But, predictably, this was not the reaction from everyone. The reaction to her nomination can perhaps be best summed up by this article, entitled "Sorry, Quvenzhane Wallis, but Best Actress Oscar Nods Are for Big Kids." This article does not deny that Wallis gives a strong performance-- the author says of Wallis that "she's hugely magnetic, and she commands the screen to an extent most adult performers could only dream of." But this author nonetheless claims that Wallis should not have been nominated because "she's too young." She goes so far as to say that Wallis is not giving a performance...even though she's clearly  playing a role who is not herself, is reciting lines already written in a script, and clearly making conscious choices the way any actor would. The author does address this, but claims that her successful performance was due entirely to her director, Benh Zeitlin. This might be true-- we will never know. But no one said the same thing about Barkhad Abdi, an Oscar nominee the following year for his work in Captain Phillips. Abdi also gives a fantastic performance, and was my choice for who should have won the award. Like Wallis, his nomination came from his very first acting performance (before the film, he worked as a cab driver). Who's to say that his director did not use editing to make Abdi's look performance better than it was? Again, we don't know, but we give him the benefit of the doubt the assume that Abdi's performance was a result of his own work. This benefit of the doubt is not applied to a young actor like Wallis simply because of her age. There can be no other reason.

This stigma can even extend to the actor after they've already grown up. I already mentioned Jennifer Lawrence as a former child actor, and I truly think people don't realize how young she is. Lawrence is, at the time of this writing, only 23, but the roles which have brought her to national attention have all been considerably older. In Silver Linings Playbook, a movie that was released when she had just turned 22, her character was already a divorcee. In American Hustle, she's married to Christian Bale (another child actor) who in real life is almost twice her age. Even in her work in the X-Men franchise, her character is supposed to be the same age as James McAvoy, who is 13 years older than her. Lawrence has managed to avoid the stigma against younger actors because she tackles adult roles, and it has served her very well (it doesn't hurt that she's incredibly talented). Meanwhile, an actor like Daniel Radcliffe might never be able to shake this stigma. Radcliffe's work in the early Harry Potter movies is kind of iffy, and initially I wasn't much of a fan of his performance. But over the years, he has grown into an incredibly talented actor-- not surprising given that he grew up acting with some of the very best thespians Britain has to offer. As already mentioned, Radcliffe has tackled some challenging roles, both in the world of theater and film. So has his co-star Emma Watson. Both have been praised for their choices of tackling more adult projects-- but you know they had to do this out of necessity. Even while proving his merit time and time again, Radcliffe seems to have trouble being taken seriously. While his work is well-received by critics and audiences alike, Radcliffe is still not able to shake his Harry Potter image. This morning, the Tony nominations were announced and, despite giving a solid performance in Martin McDonagh's The Cripple of Inishmaan, he was not nominated, even thought the show itself received multiple nominations. This is his second snub-- he was expected to be nominated a few years ago for his well-received performance in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. His snub is especially egregious when one considers how much the Tonys really like to nominate movie stars. If he were just any movie star, Radcliffe would have been a shoo-in for a nomination at least one of these times. But since he's a former child star, he seems to be ignored by the Tonys. (Seriously, forget the complaints about Leonardo DiCaprio not getting an Oscar-- there should be a meme for Daniel Radcliffe trying to win a Tony).

Daniel Radcliffe in a most certainly adult role.

I do understand why this stigma exists. There are some really terrible performances by child actors out there. Typically these kids are not even actors-- they're some producer's kid who is hired because those involved don't think they'll find a kid who's any better. And when people see these performances, it enhances the idea that children cannot act. It also doesn't help that the child actors on shows on Nickelodeon and Disney are generally directed to give over-the-top performances which rely more on enthusiasm than actual acting. But, just like with adults, there are bad child actors, and good child actors. And it's unfortunate how the instances of the bad inform opinions of the good. While this is certainly not the most important form of discrimination that is faced in this business, it certainly exists. And it's something to be mindful of. The next time you watch Beasts of the Southern Wild, appreciate how much faith is put in the, at the time, six-year old actress. And, more importantly, appreciate how admirably she rises to the challenge.

Rating the Underrated: How the Critics Killed "The Killing"

(Note: This is a discussion of AMC’s series The Killing, which is a murder mystery show. I try to avoid spoilers, and my discussion is going to be mostly about the reception the show received rather than the show itself, which I think could potentially be just as interesting for those who have not seen the series as for those who have. However, if you care heavily about spoilers for a television show that aired two and a half years ago, please do not read this—I do have to bring up some details which are fairly surprising and crucial to the plot. Otherwise, enjoy!)

In 2011, AMC was easily the most exciting network in terms of original programming. Mad Men and Breaking Bad had both distinguished themselves as two of the best shows on television and continued to bring in numerous accolades for the fledgling network. But they were looking to get another hit show—at the moment, they were known as a two-show network and needed to prove that these series were not a fluke. The only other original show they had produced was Rubicon, a critically acclaimed series which was canceled after struggling to find an audience. Needing a show on the scale of Mad Men and Breaking Bad, the network picked up two new dramas with massive potential. One of these dramas was The Walking Dead, which has since become AMC’s most popular show, although its audience tends to hate-watch it at times. The other drama AMC picked up was a show called The Killing. And the way that critical reception towards the show shifted is both fascinating and baffling.

For those who are unfamiliar, The Killing is a cop drama following detectives Sarah Linden (Mireille Enos) and Stephen Holder (Joel Kinnaman). Based on the acclaimed Danish series Forbrydelsen, the idea was that, rather than solving a new crime each episode like on most cop dramas, the investigations would take longer. In the Danish season, each season was a new crime. This meant that the murders could be more complex and examined more thoroughly. For obvious reasons, The Killing gained a lot of comparisons to Twin Peaks—with the murder victim Rosie Larsen filling in for Twin Peaks’ famous Laura Palmer— and was similar in how it went about examining the crime. Ads for The Killing even featured the slogan "Who Killed Rosie Larsen," a clear Twin Peaks allusion. Although The Killing was obviously a significantly less weird show. While the investigation for the murderer was the main plot, the show wasn’t about solving a crime, it was about the death itself, and how Rosie’s death affected those around her. For example, we see how her family reacts. The parents of a murdered teen are a part of any such story in any drama—but by giving an entire season to let their emotions play out, the Larsens (played by Michelle Forbes and Brent Sexton) become more than just grieving parents. Yes, they feel sadness, but over time, that sadness evolves into desperation, fear, withdrawal, and anger, and we get a chance to see this complicated progression. But Rosie’s death has other consequences—for example, we see how the tragedy factors into and alters a local mayoral election. Perhaps most interestingly, we see how the murder takes a toll on the detectives. Obviously it is their job to solve the crime, but we see the emotional devastation that comes with being a homicide detective. Since it takes longer than an hour to solve the crime, Linden and Holder make mistakes, and have to deal with the consequences, and the performances of Enos and Kinnaman are reason alone to watch this series (for fans of Breaking Bad, Kinnaman’s character of Detective Holder is basically if Jesse Pinkman got out of the drug business, grew up, and became a cop).

A cop who would then grow up to become a Robocop.

But, I digress. As you can probably tell, however, I am a huge fan of the show and what it set out to accomplish. And at the start of the series, the critics agreed with me. The two-part pilot episode was some of the best two-hours of television in recent years—and received several accolades, including a Director’s Guild of America award for best direction of a drama series (director Patty Jenkins was only the third woman to ever win the award). Critics praised the performances in the show and the gritty, bleak tone it set. As the first season rolled along, The Killing was on its way to becoming AMC’s next big drama, garnered considerable Emmy buzz (and earned deserved acting nominations for Enos and Forbes), and was renewed for a second season. In the season 1 finale, Orpheus Descending, it looked as if everything in the Rosie Larsen case was going to be wrapped up. Linden and Holder made an arrest and seemed to have irrefutable evidence as to who the murderer was. The case was closed and ready to be reset for the next season.

And then, in the last four minutes of the episode, something happened. We found out that the evidence incriminating our supposed murderer has been tampered with and he’s not the killer after all.

The season ended on a cliffhanger—the case still unsolved and the big question of “Who Killed Rosie Larsen?” was still unanswered. Now, the show had already been picked up for a second season at this point. It wasn’t as if the murderer would never be revealed—it just meant they weren’t going to be revealed yet. And, yes, cliffhangers are rough, but they’re not particularly unheard of. There are numerous acclaimed series which end a season on a cliffhanger—it’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. And it didn’t exactly come out of left field—like many AMC dramas and murder mysteries, The Killing was no stranger to cliffhangers, and would almost always end an episode just as the detectives make a new discovery that completely changes the course of the investigation. When I watched the season 1 finale, I thought it was absolutely brilliant. Yes, I was screaming at my television screen, but that was the point. Showrunner Veena Sud knew exactly what she was doing. After a season, I was completely invested in the show and couldn’t bear the thought of having to wait a year to see how the rest of the story would unfold. But this is the mark of any great drama. You become so invested that you want to watch more to see where the show leads.

Fans and critics were staunchly divided in their opinions on Orpheus Descending. Many felt like I did—that it was a surprising end of the season, and were excited to see how the new developments would fuel the investigation in the second season. But, many fans were outraged, and in this age where everyone can make their opinion so readily known, the internet exploded. People took to twitter and facebook and tumblr and more to say how they hated the season 1 finale. But some took it farther. Some claimed that they felt betrayed by the show. Some called for Veena Sud to be fired. Some even went so far as to claim that they would never watch an AMC show again because the network had let this ending go through. By not answering the core question on all of the show’s advertising—“Who killed Rosie Larsen?”—many felt that the show had actively lied to its fans, and had not followed through on what it had promised.

The response was akin to other controversial TV finales—such as The Sopranos and Lost. Except, for those other series, they were series finales—and the frustration of fans came from the fact that their unanswered questions would forever be ambiguous. But, and I can’t stress this enough, this was a season finale, not a series finale. It’s true, the show had not answered the question of “Who killed Rosie Larsen,” but it still had more episodes to go. And no one involved in the show or at AMC had ever actually promised or even implied that the case would be solved in one season—it was just assumed by the audience. Now, to be fair, many pointed out that in the Danish series the season was based on, the case was solved in one season. But that season was 20 episodes long instead of 13, and the first and second halves had been aired a year apart (the way AMC aired the 5^th season of Breaking Bad, for example). So, actually, this should have been a clue that the show might do just what it did. Showrunner Veena Sud said, “I am aware there’s been both excitement and frustration around the twist at the end of the season. Our goal was not to mislead but rather to do something different, to take the time the story needs to fully unfold.”

Detectives Linden and Holder investigate

Despite the negative response of some fans, there were still many viewers, like myself, who stood by the show and, in fact, liked the season 1 finale. But, then, the reviews came in. Now, I want to talk about the nature of critics in the world of art—I think they’re important. Critics facilitate a discussion of media. The best critics do not simply pass judgment, they provide commentary on the subject framed by their own opinions. The best critics are not always going to be the ones that you most agree with. For example, I disagreed with a lot of Roger Ebert’s reviews, but even if he loved a movie I hated, or vice versa, his reviews provided intelligent commentary and he was able to articulate his opinions well.  And reviews are important. Bad reviews can sting, but by the same token, a positive review is extremely validating, and can encourage people to see something they ordinarily would not have. So, my comments below are not attempting to speak out against critics. After all, this is an entertainment blog where I am going to be reviewing entertainment. Like a critic. It would be hypocritical for me to denounce the role of the critic. Especially if I discuss something that is really, really, really awful.

But there are some critics who thrive on writing negative reviews. And, with the mixed reaction from viewers for the season finale of The Killing, critics smelled blood in the water. Several reviewers published irresponsibly scathing reviews. Maureen Ryan of The Huffington Post was notoriously. As a critic, I hold Maureen Ryan in very low regard and find myself disagreeing with her more than I agree with her, and had felt this way before her review of The Killing’s finale. In her review, she came across as actually offended by the show—as if the show had done her some personal harm in some way. But it didn’t—it just ended its season on a cliffhanger.

Mitch and Stan Larsen-- the parents of the fictional victim of The Killing

The second season did what everyone wanted it to do: it solved the murder of Rosie Larsen. But at this point, nobody was watching it. The Killing became known for its critical backlash as opposed to its distinct mood and out-of-this-world performances. Critics went into the second season ready to pounce, ready to criticize. One of the number one online communities for discussion of media—The A.V. Club—was particularly harsh. While I typically love the reviews on the website, reviewer Brandon Nowalk, who was assigned to season 2 of The Killing, appeared to go into the season with an absolute disgust for the show—a place from which a reviewer should never approach the media that they are reviewing (the site, by the way, also featured a harsh condemnation for Orpheus Descending, which it rated a D+). For me, the actual case of who killed Rosie Larsen was solved the best way that it could be. The identity of the murderer tied in the multiple storylines of the series, and was unexpected without coming out of left field. But, like the rest of the season, it was panned by most reviewers for reasons I truly cannot understand, and which never seemed to me to be fully articulated. Due to the low ratings of the show, AMC had to cancel it, a decision which received cheers mostly from viewers who had long since stopped watching the show.

But, after the news of the cancellation, another surprising announcement was made—Netflix was in talks to pick up the series for another season. See, while the show did poorly in the United States, it was beloved abroad, by viewers who had not been privy to the backlash of the first season finale. Eventually, AMC ended up picking up the show for a third season, making a deal with Netflix that they could release the season online in Europe as it aired in the U.S. The third season was an exciting chance for the show to start anew—as they were solving a completely new case, only the two main characters (the detectives) were carried over to this new season. This was a new case, and a new chance for the show. As always, the gritty atmosphere of the show was spot on, and the performances were incredible. Specifically, a young actress named Bex Taylor-Klaus knocked it out of the park as a gritty tomboy named Bullet. And the series landed a big name in Peter Sarsgaard—a fan of the show who reportedly approached the producers himself asking if he could be cast—who portrayed an inmate on death row. Sure enough, critics began giving it high praise—many adopting a tone of surprise while doing so.

The fantastic Bex Taylor-Klaus as Bullet in Season 3

But audiences who had long written off the show were not willing to watch it, and articles praising the season were treated to a slew of comments from disgruntled former fans who, rather than give the show a try in light of its renewed critical acclaim, responded that the critic must be wrong and there was no way the show could possibly be good. The show once again had dismal ratings.

While, for me, the third season takes a while to get going, the end of the season was one of the most exciting I’ve seen in a while. Two of the episodes from this season—“Reckoning” (directed by Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme) and “Six Minutes”—were some of the best hours of television that I’ve ever seen, and could have competed with the episodes of AMC’s magnum opus Breaking Bad. Even if you’re not sold on my defense of the show as a whole and don’t intend to watch it, I really encourage you to watch “Six Minutes.” While it obviously will carry more of a punch if you’ve seen the season and have gotten to know the characters, the episode is mostly standalone, and I think that it would be impressive enough on its own (even the AV Club, which to be fair had generally nice things to say about the third season, assigned the episode a rare A rating). The episode follows Sarsgaard’s character—the inmate Ray Seward (who is in jail at the start of the season and is not a suspect in the case that the third season focuses on), in the 24 hours before his pending execution. By his request, he will be hanged—a decision he now regrets as he learned that if the noose does not immediately kill him, he could stay alive for up to six minutes before suffocating (hence the title). The head detective in charge of putting him in prison—Enos’ detective Linden—now has some doubts as to his guilt and is trying to obtain a stay of execution for him. It’s a tense, heartfelt, and gripping episode which reads like a fantastic short film. Watch it—I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. And I’m seriously hoping the episode somehow garners some awards for writing and directing at the upcoming Emmy awards. Although this is unlikely, they would be very much deserved.

Peter Sarsgaard in the episode "Six Minutes"

But, back to the series as a whole, I have one major question: if the show had really been as bad as people say it was, then why would it have experienced the backlash that it did? If people hated the show, then why would they have been so shocked and devastated when the case was not immediately solved? If they were not invested in these wonderful, well-rounded characters then how could the finale have garnered such a strong reaction? It makes me think of the hatred of the films of M. Night Shyamalan. If Shyamalan were just a hack director with no talent (and I’m not necessarily saying he’s not) then his films would just be ignored and acknowledged as bad, but innocuous. The reason that Shyamalan’s films are so wonderfully celebrated as being awful is because of his initial success. If not for The Sixth Sense, no one would care about how bad The Happening was. The finale let people down, and that’s fine. I disagree and thought it was brilliant, but I’m not going to discount the fact that people didn’t enjoy the finale and do not intend to put down any other viewer's opinion. But just as we shouldn’t let Shyamalan’s many, many, many, many, many, many failures blemish the fact that The Sixth Sense is a pretty brilliant film, the first season finale should not define The Killing in the way that it truly has. While it has generally been acknowledged that there are times when a show “jumps the shark,” I cannot think of any other show where a single episode so completely reversed any goodwill that critics had towards the series. It’s a true anomaly.

Brandon Jay McLaren as one of the initial suspects in Season 1

This whole incident speaks to the power of a critic. I think that critics are important, as discussion of the arts is always important, and reviews encourage that. But critics hold immense power—a poor review can kill a show. Just as a positive review can make a show. This becomes dangerous when a critic’s response so clearly dictate’s a supposedly autonomous audience’s response. Which is why I encourage you to not just take my word for it—watch The Killing. And if you hate it that’s fine. But watch it with an open mind.

The show is, actually, not dead yet. Someone at Netflix clearly loves this show, as Netflix has picked the show up for a fourth and final season, marking it the second time the show has been canceled and then renewed. Indeed, The Killing seems to be a show that can’t be killed. And the two main actors from the series-- Enos and Kinnaman-- have been seeing a tremendous amount of success in the show's wake, which is well-deserved considering their incredible performances. I for one am excited for what the fourth season will bring, and am looking forward to more episodes to spend with Linden and Holder (seriously, their friendship and partnership is really important to me).  My hope is that, with the show existing on Netflix, it will allow for newer audiences to experience the show without the swarm of hatred surrounding it. Perhaps history will be kind to The Killing. I certainly hope so.

Linden and Holder interview a suspect in undoubtedly the brightest-lit shot in the series. Yeah, that's Kacey Rohl from Hannibal. Seriously, the cast is great and you should watch this show.

Leonardo DiCaprio Didn't Win An Oscar...And That's Okay

Last night something happened that has happened every other single day in history: Leonardo DiCaprio did not win an Oscar.

This has become a bit of a joke amongst movie fans. Despite being one of the most recognizable stars of the screen, DiCaprio has never won an Oscar, and some people (including me) find this particularly hilarious. The thing is that he clearly wants it so badly. He continuously takes on what people refer to as “Oscary” roles, and every year, it feels like there are several projects that have Oscar buzz for Leo, only for him to be left out in the cold come Oscar night. Many jokes have been made. They are all funny.

 

But with the jokes, there is also a genuine consensus that DiCaprio is overdue. He is generally considered the #1 actor to have been snubbed by the Oscars. In reading predictions for this year’s awards—which is a thing I do in my spare time why do you ask doesn’t everybody?—I  saw one reason for why DiCaprio wouldn’t win listed over and over again: that “The Oscars just don’t like him.” And some argued that DiCaprio might “finally” win the award this year. Basically, DiCaprio is seen as an actor who is consistently overlooked time and time again by The Oscars—never getting recognized despite giving superior performances. Sure enough, after McConaughey won the Oscar, there was a wave of people saying that, once again, Leonardo DiCaprio was denied “his award.”

But why? Why have we singled out DiCaprio as forever being the Oscars anti-darling. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great actor, but I have always been confused as to why he’s treated as if this award is more elusive for him than for anyone else. So, I’d like to analyze why I think DiCaprio is really not all that hated by the Academy—at least not to deserve the reputation he has. And I shall pepper this post with multiple pictures of Leonardo DiCaprio looking sad because there are sooooooooo many.

So, so many.

First, let’s start with the Oscar race this year. Now, it’s no secret that I wasn’t a fan of The Wolf ofWall Street, and although DiCaprio gives a strong and committed performance, I think there were better choices to be nominated this year. But even if I loved his performance, there simply wasn’t a precedent for him to win this year. Matthew McConaughey won pretty much every other major award leading up to the Oscars (the exception being the BAFTA, where he wasn’t nominated—and that didn’t go to DiCaprio either, it went to Chiwetel Ejiofor). DiCaprio’s loss this year is not a slight—it was basically expected by everyone.

The fact that he was nominated at all should be a sign that the Oscars don’t hate Leonardo DiCaprio. He has been nominated five times. That’s not too shabby at all. And in such a competitive year, he beat out numerous other buzzed-about performances, including those of Tom Hanks, Forest Whitaker, and Robert Redford. Speaking of Robert Redford, he has been nominated for acting a total of one time in his entire career. And he’s considered a screen legend whose career has spanned considerably more years than DiCaprio. Yeah, DiCaprio hasn’t won yet, but he’s certainly been more recognized than most actors. Some may say, though, that DiCaprio has given consistently strong enough performances throughout the years and that sets him apart—but there are many consistent actors who have fared far worse. Gary Oldman, who it feels like has appeared in every film ever made, has been nominated exactly one time for his efforts. John Malkovich has been nominated twice. Neither has won. To be fair, these actors are not exactly playing the same roles as DiCaprio, but what about some of DiCaprio’s contemporaries? Matt Damon and Ethan Hawke are two tremendous actors who have given many fantastic performances, yet Damon has been nominated for his acting twice, and Hawke has been nominated once. And none of the actors I just mentioned have ever won either. DiCaprio has at least twice as many nominations than any of these actors. And it’s not cliché to say that it’s just an honor to be nominated—it really is. Those nominations are accolades in their own right. the point that I'm making is that DiCaprio might not be as decorated by the Academy as some think he should be, but there are other acclaimed actors who have, in fact, been given less recognition by the Academy.

By the way, Cary Grant—voted by the American Film Institute as the second greatest male movie star of all time, was only nominated for an Oscar twice in his entire career. If he had not been given an honorary Oscar at the end of his life, he would never have won at all.

Some might say, however, that the very fact that he has been nominated so many times and still hasn’t won is indication that the Oscars hate him—that he simply cannot win. But, take a look at DiCaprio’s Catch Me If You Can co-star Amy Adams. She has been nominated five times and never won. Not just that, but those five nominations have been awarded over the span of only eight years. That’s pretty incredible. Yet there is not the same feeling surrounding her that the Oscar keeps falling out of her grasp, as there is with DiCaprio. DiCaprio's Titanic co-star Kate Winslet-- who is perfect in pretty much everything-- didn't win the award until her fifth nomination. And then there’s Meryl Streep. Now, I’m not going to pretend that Streep is not an Oscar darling. After all, she has won an impressive three Oscars (one of only six actors in history to do so). But…she has been nominated eighteen times.  EIGHTEEN! That means she has not won five times more than she has won. And there was a gap of 29 years and twelve nominations between her second and third wins. If DiCaprio wins the Oscar on his next nomination (and considering how much the Academy likes to reward people because it’s “their time,” that’s pretty likely), he will have a better win to nomination ratio than Streep.

And, look at the actors who I have compared to DiCaprio. Notice one thing about them? They're all white. Only four black actors have won Best Actor in a Leading Role in the 86 years the Oscars have been around. That's fewer than the number of nominations DiCaprio has received. And Halle Berry remains the only black actress to have won Best Actress in a Leading Role. I don't want to go into this point too much right now, because it's part of a larger problem that many others have addressed in a much more eloquent way than I ever could, but I felt I had to bring it up.

But then there’s the argument that…it just really really really seems like Leo wants an Oscar. And that’s what makes it seem so elusive for him. But, I’ll let you in on a secret. EVERY ACTOR WANTS AN OSCAR! I mean, take the reigning “Best Actor,” Matthew McConaughey. A few years ago it would have been ridiculous for him to have ever hoped to be an Oscar nominee, let alone a winner, considering the films he was in. But then he started taking on more and more challenging and dramatic roles. Yeah, some of it might have been to further his reputation as an actual artist and prove his acting ability, but I’m sure the thought of an Oscar was in the back of his mind. This is the award that every actor dreams of—not just Leonardo DiCaprio. Of course, with DiCaprio, the sheer quantity of Oscar-baity movies he has been in is ridiculously huge. But, many of those films eventually kind of fizzled out, and any buzz they had faded. The Great Gatsby was at one point considered a Best Picture contender (until it was released). The same goes for DiCaprio-helmed films like J. Edgar and Shutter Island. Perhaps the best example of this, though, is Revolutionary Road, which gained just three nominations despite being heralded the Best Picture frontrunner a year before its release (again, buzz kind of faded as soon it was released. I wonder if this is coincidental or if there is some sort of link).

  

But, then there’s the list of performances that many people think DiCaprio should have been nominated for. In reading about how DiCaprio is constantly snubbed, people mention that it’s “outrageous” that he was not nominated for his work in films like Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, The Departed, J. Edgar, Shutter Island, Inception, and Django Unchained. An impressive lineup, but our memories are definitely distorted here. Let’s look at them one by one. Films like J. Edgar, and Shutter Island were incredibly disappointing and there was never any Oscar buzz surrounding DiCaprio. Titanic and Inception were critically acclaimed films, but certainly not for DiCaprio’s performances. I’m not saying that he’s bad in these, but they’re just not Oscar-worthy roles.  As for  Catch Me If You Can, which strikes me as DiCaprio’s most underrated performance (it’s such an incredible movie and he’s spot-on in it). But, again, it was not expected for him to get nominated here. For this film, he was only nominated for one major award—the Golden Globe, which is hardly the most esteemed of awards. That's hardly a precedent.

The only two non-nominations for Leo which I think can actually be described as “snubs,” are Django Unchained and The Departed. But, again, these were not major upsets. The fact that he wasn’t nominated for Django Unchained is probably considered the biggest snub against him. People bring this up all the time—“How could he not have been nominated for that movie?!” But…again, our memories have been distorted. I think many would be surprised to learn that DiCaprio was, again, only nominated for one major award for his performance in Django Unchained. And, again, that was the Golden Globe. DiCaprio was not snubbed for Django Unchained, he was actively not expected to get a nomination. Sure, there was some minor buzz, but it was as a dark horse, never as a serious contender.

Then there’s The Departed. This time, there was reason to believe that he might have been nominated, having been previously nominated for a BAFTA, a Critic’s Choice Award, and a SAG Award for this role. And also a Golden Globe. But while it was definitely possible for him to have been nominated, look at who was nominated that year. It was a tough year with five great performances being nominated—including DiCaprio’s The Departed co-star Mark Wahlberg. The only surprising nominee of the five was Jackie Earle Haley for Little Children, and even he had some precedent, having been nominated for a SAG Award and giving a truly incredible performance. And this same year, DiCaprio got a nomination in the Best Actor category for Blood Diamond, which might have influenced his lack of a nomination here. While it was a snub, it wasn’t really a major one. As you can see, the preconceived notion that DiCaprio is consistently passed over for a nomination is kind of unfounded.

But, to be fair, the argument isn’t that he can’t get nominated for an Oscar, it’s that he can’t win an Oscar. But, there’s a really good reason he hasn’t won yet. Are you ready for it? The reason he hasn’t won yet is because…he never gave the best performance in any given year. It’s as simple as that. Of course, judging performances is completely subjective business, and some people may think that he did in fact give the best performance in one or more of the years he was nominated. But, given the times he has been nominated for Best Actor, he lost, in turn, to Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland, Jamie Foxx for Ray, and now Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club. Not only are all three strong performances, but all three were HEAVILY FAVORED TO WIN THE AWARD. So, when faced against juggernaut performances like that, how can DiCaprio's not winning possible be seen as a slight against him personally?

The award he had the best chance of winning was for his very first nomination—for Best Supporting Actor in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (which remains, for my money, his best performance).   

I criticized Wolf of Wall Street, and have now spent a whole article not feeling sorry for him, so I felt he needed some deserved praise. As you can see, though, he's still sad.

He lost to Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive, which was indeed a bit of a surprise. But, even though Tommy Lee Jones was not the favorite, neither was DiCaprio. The favorite going into the award was Ralph Fiennes for Schindler's List. Once again, DiCaprio was not snubbed—he was actively expected not to win each of these years. Like I said, you may think he deserved to win one, or more than one, of these years. His girlfriend at the time, Gisele Bundchen, famously said that DiCaprio in The Aviator should have won the Oscar of Foxx for Ray. But there is nothing to quantify this. And there is nothing in DiCaprio’s performance that is objectively better than Foxx’s. Foxx was the favorite going in, not DiCaprio, so how can it be a snub when DiCaprio doesn’t win an award he wasn’t expected to win anyway?

 I’m sure that DiCaprio will win an Oscar one day. It’s basically guaranteed. As I already mentioned, the Academy likes to reward people because it’s “their time.” They’re like the GOP that way (also because they’re all old white men). The Departed happened to be a great movie, but Scorsese would have won Best Director that year even if he had released a movie of Jack Nicholson flossing. At this point, the perceived slights against Leonardo DiCaprio have become so pervasive that the consensus is that he’s “due.” And that will win him an award. It’s generally accepted, for example, that Dame Judi Dench’s Oscar for Shakespeare in Love had little to do with her performance in that film (which is basically just a cameo) and everything to do with her not winning for Mrs. Brown. And Leonardo DiCaprio will similarly win an award, and everyone will say that “it’s about time,” and congratulate the Oscars on correcting the error of their ways.

But I think this cheapens the meaning of the Oscars. As flawed as they are—and they really are quite flawed—the idea is that the award should be given to the best performance of the year. Like I’ve said, DiCaprio is an incredible actor, and he has given consistently amazing performances all throughout his career. He has rightfully earned his place as one of the best actors of his generation. But the Oscars are not given to a body of work—they are given to individual performances. DiCaprio gives some great ones, but he simply has not held the distinction of giving the best performance in any given year. That’s why he hasn’t gotten the Oscar. Not because The Oscars hate him, and not because of some grand conspiracy against him. By all means, let’s keep making jokes about how much he wants to win an Oscar, but let’s not take them too seriously. And let’s not pretend that The Oscars are like a Little League game where the winner is whoever “wants it more.” If that were the case, then Lee Daniels’ The Butler would have won Best Picture this year.

He can play happy too! That, my friends, is called "range."

2014 Oscars: Final Thoughts

So, the 86th annual Academy Awards are over. My obsession and overly-thorough analysis of the race is now officially useless information, although, I'm pretty proud of predicting 19/24 categories correctly. And now, all that's left for me is to provide my final thoughts on the ceremony.

And, I have to say, this ceremony was really fantastic. And they were fantastic for one major reason: Ellen DeGeneres. Everyone expected her to be a great host, but she exceeded my already high expectations. There was just a general tone of joviality to the whole evening. And, especially when compared to last year's atrocity of a host, her jokes were never mean-spirited. She was having fun, so were the people in the audience, and so were those of us watching at home. And that's what an awards show should be.

The selfie on twitter idea was genius (and I loved when she pointed out that the fact that it broke a record truly made everyone a winner), and the fact that they ordered pizza was one of the greatest awards moments in history. Seriously, how amazing was that? I will see few things in my life greater than Meryl Streep looking really, really excited about getting a slice of pizza. This summed up, for me, why Ellen is such a great host: she does things just because they're funny.

Nothing will top the pizza for me, but here are some of my thoughts-- both good and bad-- on the night.

Although there were no real upsets in the major awards, there were some upsets in the categories of Best Animated Short Film and Best Live Action Short Film. The frontrunners in these categories did not win, but the best films of the nominees did. Which is a rather beautiful and reaffirming thing. I cheered when Mr. Hublot was announced instead of Get a Horse!. They're great films and see them for yourself-- I think you'll agree that the right films won.

Despite my thoughts on "Let It Go," it's exciting that Bobby Lopez won because he is now an official member of the coveted EGOT club, for those who have won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony. And the speech he and his wife gave accepting the award was pure delight.

The fact that The Great Beauty won Best Foreign Language film means that Italy is now tied with France for the most number of wins in that category.

It's very rare for the director of the Best Picture winner to not win Best Director, which happened again this year. Not only that, but this is the second year in a row that this happened. The last time that these awards were split in two consecutive years was in 1952.

American Hustle, which I really loved but which seems to be getting a lot of criticism lately which I think is rather undeserved, failed to win a single award despite 11 nominations. It is now tied with The Turning Point and The Color Purple for the most nominations a without a win.

The speeches were, for the most part, rather spot on. But I found the speeches by the men of Dallas Buyers Club to be some of the lower points of the night. Jared Leto tried to bring up some important issues-- which I'd always wished he'd done when accepting awards-- but was mentioning issues that had nothing to do with Dallas Buyers Club. At the very end of his rambling speech, he finally mentioned "those out there who have ever felt injustice for who you are," yet still refused to say the word "transgender" when discussing his transgender character. Unbelievable. And then there's Matthew McConaughey who gave a completely meandering and rather incoherent speech. I get that his point was that people should strive to keep being the best version of themselves, but I find it a little odd that he spent the speech not thanking anyone-- and that he views himself as his own hero (even if it is a future version of himself).

Speaking of low points of the evening...John Travolta messing up Idina Menzel's name. What even was that? Did he say "Adela Manzeem?" It was one of the strangest things I've ever seen. It was even worse than the guy on the pre-show red carpet coverage who referred to Julia Roberts as "Jessica."

Interesting note about Best Documentary Feature Film. In my predictions for that category, I dismissed the ultimate winner 20 Feet From Stardom due to its more upbeat nature. But, I found out tonight, there has actually been a change in how this category is voted upon. It used to simply be documentarians voting, but now it's open to more people in the academy, which means it's likely that this category will feature more and more crowd-pleasers as the year goes on. Although, I can't help but feel that The Act of Killing got robbed because of this change.

Back to positives-- I loved the choice to cut the live audio feed while the In Memoriam section was running. I always love that section-- and the opportunity it gives to reflect on the work of so many great artists. But I've always found the applause during that kiiiiiiiiiiinda baffling. I know it's to honor the late, great talent...but it still always feels like "YAY! I'M GLAD THEY'RE DEAD!" So I appreciated that we didn't have to listen to the audience applause over it.

Can we talk about Lupita Nyong'o? She has won multiple awards already for her performance in 12 Years a Slave and has impressed me by giving such incredible speeches every time. Seriously, look them up. In every acceptance speech, she is not only very eloquent and gracious, but she brings up important issues and takes the time she has been given to really make a statement (take note, Leto). And it's always something different. Tonight, however, was the first time we really got to see her get emotional. She was still as poised as always, but she really gave herself time to take in the fact that she won an Oscar, and it was a beautiful and touching thing to see. Similarly, when Steve McQueen spoke after 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture, I love that he gave a really composed and important speech...and then once the serious stuff was out of the way began jumping up and down.

I really want to hear the full speech that Geoffrey Rush gave to honor Angela Lansbury at the Governor's Ball. If the little snippet we heard is any indication, it was incredible.

And, of course, one of my favorite parts of the evening was that The Wolf of Wall Street walked away with nothing. When they were announcing the award for Best Film Editing, they said something like "Without a good editor, a film would be four hours long and not as good as it could have been." That statement reeeeeeeeeeeally made me think of The Wolf of Wall Street. Although, to be fair, it's not the worst film I've seen recently.

So, there we are. A great Oscar ceremony to cap off a really incredible year for film. Sure, the ceremony ran long, but I don't care. It's the Oscars-- it's supposed to run long! And while not all of the video montages (which most likely padded the ceremony and were responsible for its long duration) were all that necessary, they were all quite well done. I don't have much to say because I really enjoyed it-- and it's easier to say things about something that you are ripping to shreds. So, my comments might not be as expansive as they have been in past years, but that's a good thing. Congratulations to all the nominees and winners, and here's to another great year for film in 2014!