Reading List Round-Up 2012: Books 56-63

In case you couldn't surmise as much for yourself from the titles gathered here, I've been on something of a Young Adult novels binge lately.  This is mostly for inspiration as I've been struggling through my own YA piece, though it's also at least partly because of how much fun it is to kick back and read a few books that don't take themselves nearly as seriously as contemporary adult literature.  There are a few classics thrown into the mix for good measure, but on the whole I spent August living in the heads of teenage protagonists, trying to reconcile them with the wisdom their creators sought to convey.  The results were, as you might expect, very mixed.

Looking for Alaska by John Green
Tragic, intriguing, and a painfully accurate capturing of teenagers and grief.  Looking for Alaska starts off promising no more than any other coming-of-age novel, but it takes a few twists and turns as well as some unexpected character development and ultimately proves that this is a text for a new generation.  Green illustrates beautifully the raw pain and aching confusion of dealing with one's first brush with tragedy, and manages to do so while still peppering the story with genuinely funny moments and characters who seem just like the kids you used to know.

An Abundance of Katherines by John Green
This for me is by far Green's weakest novel.  The protagonist is whiny and unlikeable (this is in contrast to his other protagonists, who are still pretty whiny but manage to redeem themselves through their relationships with other characters or by making some discovery which renders them less self-pitying).  I guess after the much higher stakes of Looking for Alaska and The Fault in Our Stars, it was hard to get behind a character who spends the entire book moping about his failed relationships with girls (and he's only in high school) in the same way.  It's still got Green's trademark wit and nuggets of wisdom, as well as a supporting cast about any of whom I'd rather read than the lead character he's chosen, and overall was still better than a lot of YA fiction out there.  However, it's difficult to read this somewhat sloppy entry in Green's catalog when you know he's capable of so much better.

A Room with a View by EM Forster
I'll be honest and admit that this is one of those books I read out of a sense of obligation, feeling like I "needed" to have read it to be taken seriously--there are a number of books on my 2012 reading list that fall into this category, and unfortunately A Room with a View proved to be one of the most tedious.  Unlike The Age of Innocence (full thoughts on that one below), A Room with a View, for me anyway, failed to break out of its framework as a period piece and intrigue me.  I was bored with all of the major characters before the first half of the book was over, and nothing done in the second act really redeemed them in my eyes.  The best thing I can say about this novel is that it was relatively short and easy to get through, and the writing itself is superb, but if you're in it for sheer plot or excitement, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.

The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
Another more obligatory read, The Age of Innocence is well-executed, which is no surprise to anyone who's read Wharton's work before, and intriguing enough to keep the reader engaged through the densely painted portraits of early twentieth-century American society.  It reads almost like a soap opera, with romance, scandal, and intrigue; but ultimately falls short by proving a bit too bland and predictable in the end.  Overall, I'd recommend it as an excellent period piece, but a book that needs to be viewed primarily in the context of its time to be fully appreciated.

Alanna:  The First Adventure by Tamora Pierce, and In the Hand of the Goddess (sequel) by Tamora Pierce
These books, though they admittedly suffer from some (and by some I mean many) rudimentary flaws in prose, are a wonderful little YA discovery that I unfortunately did not make on my own.  Alanna tells the tale of a young girl who poses as a boy to train in the hopes of becoming a knight--it might sound like it's been done before, but consider that this book came out in 1983, at least a decade before Mulan or Game of Thrones.  Its sequel, In the Hand of the Goddess, is a bit more tedious as it deals with a lot more teenage-female-angst than its predecessor, but the adventures remain both intriguing and thrilling.  These are definitely the younger audience-skewing novels I'd be most likely to recommend to readers in the YA demographic.

 
Blue is for Nightmares by Laurie Faria Stolarz
Unfortunately, this seems to be another YA novel more in the vain of the Twilight books, heavy on the teen angst and "high stakes" drama, but skimping frequently on the fundamentals of prose writing.  Blue is for Nightmares has some intriguing features and some characters who could be compelling given a little more attention and skill on the part of their creator, but on the whole is underwhelming and difficult to stay engaged with.

The Two Princesses of Bamarre by Gail Carson Levine
This is an adorable-yet-sage story that wedges itself somewhere between Children's and YA Literature, and might just be all the better for that blurriness.  Carson Levine proved with Ella Enchanted that she could weave a story that would appeal on equal levels to children and adults, and Two Princesses achieves a similar feat, if not quite as skillfully.  It has all the requisite fantasy elements--sorcerers, dragons, fairies, and knights galore--but it also has a very human story at its heart.  This is definitely a book I'd recommend enthusiastically for young readers, and writers aiming at that demographic.



Best Book:  Looking for Alaska
Worst Book:  Blue is for Nightmares
Longest Read:  The Age of Innocence
Quickest Read:  The Two Princesses of Bamarre

Fall TV 2012: What to Watch and When to Watch It

I may have been absent from the Interwebs for a lot of this summer (it's strange how real life will keep you busy sometimes), but don't worry, I haven't been watching and studying any less television than usual.  In fact, I've been saving up some of my excitement and analysis for exactly this moment:  the proverbial eve of the fall TV season kick-off.  These are a few of the shows I'll be watching and reviewing subject, as always, to change (except for Parks and Rec, which I will watch/love till the end of time).  And in case you've been sitting on your sofa staring blankly at your television set and awaiting my instructions as to what you should watch, here they are for your perusal:


Mondays:

How I Met Your Mother (CBS, premieres September 24th)
*Where we left off:  Barney's future bride was revealed (it's Robin!); Lily and Marshall had a baby (and promptly brought it with them to the bar); Ted and Victoria rode off into the sunset together (sort of).
*What's next:  With the writers, at least according to recent interviews with Bays and Thomas, working as though this will be the show's last season, it seems the tying up of some loose ends is on the horizon.  We have to figure out how the heck Barney and Robin make it to the alter (remember he's newly engaged to stripper Quinn in the present), as well as how Ted ruins things with Victoria (again) and arrives at the show's titular moment at long last.  It should prove to be an interesting season, and hopefully there will be significantly less time wasted with so many plots to unravel in so short a time.
*Wish list:  I'd love to see an announcement (sooner rather than later) that HIMYM will in fact wrap up after this season.  I think 24 episodes is more than enough time to wrap up the loose ends still dangling if the writers are deliberate about it, and if Thomas and Bays are permitted to stretch this journey out any further the cracks are really going to start to show.


(NEW SHOWS!) Tuesdays:

Go On (NBC, premiered September 9th)
The primary reason this show works well is that the execs at NBC have stopped fucking around and finally returned Matthew Perry to the role he belongs:  Chandler Bing.  Yes, Chandler's aged a decade or so and he's got a different name and job and blah, blah, blah; but essentially this character is nearly identical personality-wise.  It's as though we're seeing future Chandler following the death of Monica, whom we all knew kept him grounded, and though he's surely bereaved, he's also hilarious.

Better than that, though, this show actually seems to have heart, and not in a jammed-down-your-throat kind of way.  It's ballsy for a primetime sitcom to deal with something like grief, but the level of accuracy Go On supplies in the pilot episode alone is definitely encouraging, and a good sign of things to come.  Hopefully NBC doesn't err on the side of their usual instinct, which is to water down the honesty of some of their best programs (Community and its new team of writers springs to mind, not to mention the soon-to-wrap train wreck that The Office has become), because that would sacrifice a lot of what thus far makes this show appealing.

The Mindy Project (FOX, premieres September 25th)
This is a show that seems designed to stand up well beside its lineup-mate, FOX's New Girl, which was of course one of last year's runaway hits (not to mention the source of way too much Deschanel Hype in my life).  The Mindy Project follows Mindy Kaling, who you'll recognize as Kelly Kapoor from The Office, in the early stages of her career as an OB/GYN, as well as the battle-worn (and hilarious) stage of her romantic life.  It's lighthearted, it's laugh-out-loud funny, and it's identifiable, which is really all you can hope for in a pilot episode.  I can foresee problems similar to those found in the early run of New Girl, when it became clear that the amount of "isn't-she-quirky" based humor needed to be toned down-- in The Mindy Project, it's easy to lose sight of Mindy's role as (in theory, at least) an everywoman character in the more grating aspects of the character's personality.

This one also has an excellent supporting cast going for it, and I'm hopeful that the writers will gradually shift some of the focus so expended on Mindy in the pilot to some of these already very interesting personalities.


Wednesdays:

Happy Endings (ABC, premieres October 23rd)
*Where we left off:  Season 2's finale brought us another wedding, this time between friends of the gang Derrick and Eric.  We saw Penny struggle with possible feelings for Dave, who ended the night instead with erstwhile fiance Alex, while Brad and Jane tried to come to a compromise on how to better communicate with each other.
*What's next:  It doesn't seem that this Alex/Dave/Penny triangle is going to be too much of an overwrought thing (especially with rumors of Penny getting a new semi-longterm love interest), which is excellent news for a show that's already brilliant without the addition of needless melodrama.  
*Wish list:  More of Adam Pally's Max and less of Elisha Cuthbert's Alex (mainly just less of the emphasis on her being the dumb blonde of the group); more viewers for what I guarantee is the funniest show you're not watching.


Thursdays:

Parks and Recreation (NBC, premieres September 20th)
*Where we left off:  One Leslie Knope is about to take Pawnee City Council by storm after triumphing in the season finale's election.  She'll be working on a long-term relationship with Ben, who has taken a job in Washington D.C. and who has somewhat inexplicably recruited April to work as his intern.
*What's next:  A Ben/Leslie shake-up, but according to executive producer Mike Schur it's not the kind you'd expect.  Also, some long overdue maturity for Tom, who last season appeared to backtrack a bit following his Entertainment 720 venture.  But the best news is that by the end of the season premiere, the Tom/Ann debacle will really and truly be a thing of the past.



Fridays:

Community (NBC, premieres October 19th)
*Where we left off:  In a season finale that really would've made a great conclusion to the series, we saw everyone going their almost separate ways in relative happiness (yes, even Jeff, who decided to finally seek out his long-estranged father).  It was almost enough to make you not want a fourth season.  Almost.
*What's next:  The show's last-minute salvation last spring means that some tweaks are going to have to take place (this is even without the team of new writers and the firing of Dan Harmon, the show's creator).  We'll apparently be meeting Jeff's father, there will be an Inspector Spacetime convention, and the gang will pay homage (sort of?) to The Hunger Games in the season premiere.
*Wish list:  I don't have too many particular demands, I just hope that the show will still be recognizable as the delightful, wonderfully weird thing it is after the new writers have gotten their hands on it.


Honorable Mentions:

30 Rock, The Office (Thursdays, NBC):  Both are entering their final seasons, hopefully some laughs will be resurrected before the end.

Grey's Anatomy (Thursdays, ABC):  Yup, they're still kicking over at Seattle Grace.  And this season promises to be every bit as miserable and death-filled as you could possibly hope.


Here's to a wonderful 2012/2013 television season.

Reading List Round-Up 2012: Books 46-55

Note:  These are actually the books I read throughout the month of July; I've just been slacking off on updating my log and reactions.

The Tiger's Wife by Tea Obreht

This one started off impressively, looking almost like a Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel in its scope and sprawl, but for me it got boring very quickly.  The thing most reviews raved about with this book is the author's age (she's 25), and for that she certainly gets kudos from me, but she failed to keep me enthralled in the story.

Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire

This is a short, quick read-- I finished it in one 45-minute sitting.  It's a play, so brevity is to be expected, especially given the more minimalist style of this one, but the story is no less moving for it.  I watched the film adaptation (featuring Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart) last year, and so was familiar with the material, but reading Lindsay-Abaire's articulation of it there on the page helped me vividly re-visit a truly touching story and a frank exploration of grief in the bubble of modern life.

A Dance With Dragons by George RR Martin

 I tried so, so hard to stop myself from reading this one, knowing it would be torturous for me to endure the next who-knows-how-many years until its successor goes to the presses.  A Dance with Dragons absolutely outshines its predecessor, A Feast for Crows (admittedly not a difficult feat), and leaves so many characters' fates in the balance that it's hard to resist storming over to GRRM's house and demanding to know what happens next.

Game of Thrones and Philosophy edited by William Irwin

Definitely an intriguing read and one that adds even more depth to the book series I've fallen in love with over the past few months, but in comparison with some of the other Philosophy and... books (of which I've read several) this one seems to play it a little safe, not delving into the text quite as deeply as I was expecting and sticking largely to analysis of the first novel, which I guess is fair given that they are trying to appeal to the television audience responsible for its recent surge in popularity.


Othello by William Shakespeare

For me the bar in Shakespearean tragedy is set with Hamlet, most likely because it's the one I've read to death (the bar for comedies is set with Much Ado, if you were wondering), and so I didn't really expect Othello to bowl me over, particularly when I'd already seen it performed and knew what was going to happen.  Othello is definitely an interesting read in terms of tying Shakespeare's works to our contemporary concerns, with its interracial relationship and exploration of jealousy especially, but it's hard to feel moved when the character lamenting his fate at the end has brought so much of that fate upon himself (er, like pretty much every other Shakespearean tragedy protagonist, I guess).  In any event, this one was underwhelming for me.


Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

Another one of the greats that I somehow missed out on during high school, though ultimately I don't think I'd be terribly upset if I never got around to it.  I know, I know, it's compelling, and it addresses the American dream and whatnot, but for me it was just hard to get behind the characters.  I have a suspicion that this play gains a lot of ground in its performance, and thus I will try to hold off complete judgment until I've had an opportunity to watch it and see its words come to life.

The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

Started off seeming just a bit too typical YA for my tastes, but the second half spirals into some just heartbreaking beauty.  This novel is honest and poignant without being too self-involved.  It takes a bit of suspension of disbelief as far as the idea that teenagers like the ones in this book actually exist, but once you've made peace with that it's a journey you won't want to see end.  As a bonus, this book also contains possibly my favorite (definitely in the top five, at least) passages illuminating where its title came from.
 

The Seagull by Anton Chekhov, translation by Tom Stoppard

Semi-intriguing and so very, very Russian.  The characters are so self-pitying it sometimes becomes difficult to stay engaged, but there are some beautiful moments of writing amid the melancholy.


On Chesil Beach by Ian McEwan

 This is by far the most boring book ever written about two people having sex.  I love Ian McEwan, and I suppose there were parts of this book that were interesting, at least in terms of his distinctive style and talent with characterization, but on the whole On Chesil Beach is 100% underwhelming.


The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie

This is a painfully accurate portrait of what it is to be a young adult, and that's not even taking into account the eye-opening element of the racial persecution still faced by those in our country of Native-American heritage.  It's at times funny but mostly tragic in a way that even the narrator doesn't seem to understand.  Definitely a must-read. 


Best Book:  The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
Worst Book:  The Tiger's Wife by Tea Obreht
Fastest Read:  Rabbit Hole by David Lindsay-Abaire
Slowest Read:  The Tiger's Wife by Tea Obreht

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Christopher Nolan does not yet have an Academy Award for directing a film.  Think about that when you're walking out of the theater after seeing this film tomorrow (or this weekend, or next week), and realize, as I have, what an outrage it will be if he doesn't at least earn a nomination for his work on this Batman trilogy, particularly for creating a third and final installment that closes the series just about perfectly.

A few tidbits right off the bat about what made this film such a wonderful experience for a fan who, like many, has been anticipating its arrival since 2008:

1.  Tom Hardy acts just about as well as anyone can with use of about 20% of his face, so definite kudos there.  Anne Hathaway is also surprisingly compelling as Cat Woman/Selina Kyle.

2.  Other performances that are downright spectacular include those from Joseph Gordon Levitt, Michael Caine, and Matthew Modine (and a note on him:  is it pure coincidence that not only is his character as annoyingly stubborn as a certain former president, but Modine even resembles him a bit?).

3.  Hans Zimmer's musical score, as in the previous two films, is impeccable.  It ties the film together thematically while incorporating critical parts of the previous installments' motifs, which left me with an additional underlying feeling of unity between the stories, something you certainly don't get with most films and their sequels.

4.  Maybe it's simply because this film is the most current, but the destruction and fear presented on the screen feels more real--and more frighteningly plausible-- than ever before.  It's impossible not to feel on the edge of your seat.

5.  There is a, shall we say, patriotic moment just shy of the climax of Bane's reign of terror that is downright eerie.  It will literally give you chills (and you will know exactly which part I mean when you've seen the film).

The Dark Knight showed us the horrors that could emerge as a result of one man's thirst for chaos; its sequel takes things a step further by showing us chaos on a truly grand scale, and the unexpected ways in which such chaos can test us.  This installment brings us Bane, a super-strong, super-scary (he wears a mask all the time!  his voice sounds like a child's nightmare!) mercenary who wants to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's mission to raze Gotham to the ground.  The brilliance of this detail in particular is that it brings the trilogy full circle, taking us all the way back to Batman Begins and the original intention behind the League of Shadows, who trained Batman in his fightin' ways.  Bane operates in a manner similar to The Joker, at least in philosophy:  preying on the already existent fears and tensions between people, which in this film find themselves heavily rooted in politics and the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.  Not referencing the explosion of animosity between the 99 and 1 percent would make the film feel less relevant to the modern viewer, something Nolan realizes and makes certain to incorporate seamlessly. 

It is also here in the final film of the trilogy that Christian Bale seems to find his footing as Bruce Wayne/Batman at last, balancing between his old arrogance and the anguish that has manifested as a result of the events of The Dark Knight.  Wayne is broken, largely due to his lingering guilt over Rachel's death, and doesn't want to play his role as Batman anymore.  His eventual return to action is a slow burn to which many factors contribute, making it all the more satisfying to see him finally put the suit back on and take to the streets of Gotham once again.  Bale found himself somewhat overshadowed in The Dark Knight by his peers' performances (as well as the superior material they were given to work with), but here he makes Bruce/Batman almost likeable again, and definitely more relatable.

One of the more striking elements of the story (and one of the few I can really discuss without any significant spoilers), is the character study of the men I'll refer to as "the three orphans of Gotham."  We have Bruce Wayne, whose story we've heard (and seen) innumerable times; we also have rookie character and police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who empathizes with Bruce yet retains the idealism Wayne never quite had; and finally, we have Bane, abandoned by just about everyone he loved and resigned to using his physical strength as a means of expressing his pain.  Nolan is doing something compelling by having these three juxtaposed so closely together; their individual actions and insights show how different and strangely similar their circumstances have made them, and the heroic (or anti-heroic, in Bane's case) attributes of each seem to highlight those of the other two.  It seems yet another fantastic illustration (this trilogy is so very good at these) of how just one nuance in our choices can make us a completely different person than we might otherwise have been.  And after all, Batman has always been about choices, hasn't it?  I can't think of a better way to really drive this home in the last leg of the story.

Are there are a couple of flaws in this film?  Sure.  The romance that crops up in this installment feel less than sizzling, and finds itself both ill-timed and poorly executed.  Then again, I have yet to find a superhero movie that also deals really well with a realistic romantic relationship--it's often the first thing sacrificed in the name of creating more explosions or introducing additional plot twists.  The only other complaint that springs to mind about this film, though, is that some of the fights and action sequences feel a bit drawn out (keep in mind this is from someone who is admittedly not the biggest fan of such things), and again, this is probably due to the need to appeal to the summer blockbuster crowd, not all of whom would be willing to sit through nearly three hours of complex plotting and nuanced references to the previous two films as well as their comic book origins without an explosion or two.

Of course, everyone and their brother is going to inevitably compare this film to its predecessor, which is (arguably) one of the better films ever made.  The Dark Knight (2008) was special because it had The Joker, who supplied the film with two critical things:  the first was an absolutely unbeatable performance from the late Heath Ledger, the second was a staggering degree of unpredictability.  The Dark Knight Rises' plot twists don't hold quite the same shock value as those we saw in the previous film, particularly because so many of the big 'twist' moments have their origins in the comics, which have been around and available for decades (so actually they're not really 'spoilers' at all); even Bane in all his terrifying glory has features you can anticipate once you've seen a scene or two and grasped his M.O.  His plan is to introduce anarchy, similar to The Joker, but said plan has a very clear and distinct structure, complete with deadlines; whereas with Ledger's Joker you felt he honestly could do just about anything at any time.  So yes, The Dark Knight Rises falls ever so slightly short of our collectively elevated expectations in this sense.

That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it any less of a cinematic achievement.  The Dark Knight Rises does everything a good 'last leg of the trilogy' film should do, and does all of those things very, very well.  The Dark Knight's intention was to take you from the foundation laid in Batman Begins and plunge you into a state of uncertainty and emotional investment, raising the stakes significantly by the end of its tale.  The task of The Dark Knight Rises, then, is to bring that excitement up to a fever pitch, then bring you back down in time for a cathartic conclusion.  Those expecting this film to look exactly like The Dark Knight are expecting the wrong film entirely, and will inevitably be disappointed.  For an interesting interpretation of how Christopher Nolan may have structured the trilogy (and how we can see The Dark Knight Rises succeeding in its particular role) I refer you to this article , in which the author explores the mission of each film as part of a kind of triptych of storytelling.  He also speculates at length about what will happen in The Dark Knight Rises (the article was written in 2011), getting some things (I won't say which here, don't worry) almost exactly right, which only adds weight to his theory about what Nolan is attempting beneath the already dense surface of these films.

I wouldn't dream of giving away the ending, but suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises ends on a truly satisfying note, one that befits the two preceding films as well as it does the two preceding hours.  Several loose ends are tied up (or in some cases, just a bit less loose) in a way that shows the care and craftsmanship that went into this story.  The conclusion is beautiful as well as cathartic, and though it feels like a firm rounding out of the tail end of Batman's saga, the door is left open just a crack for some intriguing possibilities down the road.

In other words, exactly as it should be.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

This film is already taking the box office by storm (remember that despite the odd decision to open it on a Tuesday, its opening weekend is technically not even over yet), which would seem to earn it some credibility in the face of no small amount of skepticism.  Fans, critics, and the general public alike (myself among them) wondered why another installment of Spider Man's saga was necessary, particularly so soon after the most recent trilogy's conclusion, and especially given that the new film as pitched seemed like it would retell parts of the legendary tale that we'd already seen on screen.  And maybe it was curiosity that drove millions to theaters this week to check out the Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) directed re-boot-- that was definitely part of the motivation for me (that, and a possibly unhealthy love of all things Andrew Garfield).  Already people have asked me if the new film is better or worse than the 2002 version, and I have to say, I think that is not the question we should be asking.  The real question is, do we need both of these Spider Man films?  And the answer, surprisingly, is yes.

Let's recall first the release of the first Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi Spider-Man.  It was the spring of 2002, and at least here in the US, the atmosphere was still tense and fearful in the aftermath of September 11th.  The film industry seemed almost as lost as we were-- I can't for the life of me recall any truly inspiring or exciting films that came out and took us by storm during the beginning of 2002.  But then Spider-Man came along and we were surprised to realize that we were ready to go to the movies again, ready to be inspired and feel that sense of hope some of us had thought we'd lost.  And the Spider-Man of 2002 was the perfect film to provide that for us.  If we had gone out to the theaters that spring to find a British actor starring in a film that had a lot of confusing nuances about good and evil, its appeal would have been lost on us.  I know that for me, as a then-thirteen year old, the reboot's intentions and probably parts of its plot would have sailed right over my head.  But Raimi and co. knew what they were doing, and they knew the audience they were doing it for.  Spider-Man had a tidy plot with a clear good vs. evil framework; a hero who quickly developed the kind of confidence and swagger (well, at least as much swagger as a nerdy white teenager can have) that we thought we ourselves had lost; not to mention it was set in New York City, which at the time was considered by many the heart of our nation.  American flags, a certain degree of solidarity among the city dwellers, and a strong message of perseverance colored and enhanced what might have been an otherwise mediocre film, and its release could not have been more timely.

Here in 2012, only ten years later, we have a different set of expectations for our superhero films.  We turned a significant corner with 2008's The Dark Knight, which managed to integrate the age-old ideas behind comic book heroes into a complicated, chaotic, and thoroughly modern world.  The success of the film (and the popularity of its villain) illustrated that we were a country and an audience grown darker, and that we wanted our movies to reflect that.  I would wager that 2002's Spider-Man released now, with our thick veil of cynicism in place, would not fare as well.  There was a degree of almost magic about that film, the idea of accidents and coincidences turning out for the best a core part of its mythology, and back then we needed to see that kind of movie.  Now, though, we want a hero who is deeply flawed, who might stumble and fall along the way, who just wants to be normal, whatever that means.  The Amazing Spider-Man achieves this, with Andrew Garfield's spot-on combination of awkwardness and brooding, as well as a staunch unwillingness to mask his emotions (or, indeed, his face--he just kept taking off that darn mask!).  Garfield's Spider-Man represents this generation so accurately that he feels relateable, almost painfully so.  I think the key to understanding why we need both of these films lies in the portrayal:  today's teenager would struggle to realistically identify with Maguire's optimistic, almost bright and shiny Peter Parker; nor could the kids of 2002 get on board with Garfield's more contemplative, conflicted incarnation.  Just goes to show, I suppose, that a decade can make a world of difference.

The minds behind The Amazing Spider-Man knew, obviously, that they were headed into potentially hostile territory in making this film, and the balance they manage to strike between paying respect to what we've already seen of the story and re-examining or altering the details is highly satisfying.  It feels reverent without being over the top, showing that this isn't an attempt to erase what has already been written, but to supplement it with a deeper understanding of how this all came about.

And in the end that's what I loved most about The Amazing Spider-Man:  it wasn't your average action-filled, simple plot movie.  In fact, I was kind of amazed at how long it took for us to actually arrive at the first significant action sequence.  Once you've seen the whole film, however, you find yourself realizing that the depth with which it paints the characters makes you feel that much more connected to them.  Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man spends more time simply sitting and thinking than any superhero I think I've ever seen in a film, but for his character it makes so much sense.  You'd be disappointed, I think, to see him simply throw himself into being Spider-Man without much consideration for the consequences, after the way his character is introduced and fleshed out.  Gwen Stacy is a similarly interesting character, in that we get so much more valuable information about who she is than we ever did with Mary Jane Watson.  Gwen cottons on to the danger of dating a superhero right away--she's even the one who points the problem out to Peter!  She's also much more autonomous:  every time she winds up in danger it's because she's put herself there intentionally with the goal of helping the people she loves.  Sure, she does need to be rescued occasionally (I think technically that only happens once in the film) because this is a superhero movie after all, but you definitely aren't left wondering whether she can hold her own.  This, I think, is another mark of how far we've come (all political women's rights issues aside)-- the 2012 audience demands a female lead who isn't simply there to look pretty (even though she does, because gosh darn it Emma Stone is adorable). 

The film also strives to emphasize that, even given these amazing powers, Peter Parker is never going to be some larger-than-life iconic figure.  This is illustrated beautifully in a climactic scene in which Spider-Man is trying to rescue a young boy from a burning vehicle.  His words and his expression show real terror, like he knows he has no business being there trying to act the hero.  There are also some great scenes with his aunt and uncle that illustrate those relationships in a much more satisfying way than the original film (the fact that in this version Uncle Ben and Aunt May are portrayed by Martin Sheen and Sally Field also helps).  Peter's motivations for nearly all of his actions as Spider-Man are also inextricably linked to his deep need to understand and feel connected to his family, first in his search for an old friend of his father's and later in his quest to avenge Uncle Ben's death.  This seems to me significantly better motivation than wanting to buy a car to impress a pretty girl.

Overall, this film has an emotional core that I wasn't quite expecting--the cast is small but determined to provide genuine insight into each and every character, and to make sure that when those characters are placed in peril, it's gonna frickin' hurt.  It also leaves the door wide open for a sequel that could go in almost any direction and which is sure to be capable of equally heart-wrenching moments--let's not forget that in the comic books Gwen Stacy dies horrifically when Spider-Man fails to save her from the Green Goblin.  Given the acting abilities of Stone and Garfield as well as how well this film has invested us in their relationship, I'm already dreading this moment in the inevitable sequel.

Emmys 2012: Who Should (and Who Will) Get a Nod

It's nearly that time again, that time when I will inevitably be disappointed by the disparity between who I fervently believe ought to be recognized for their work on television, and who will actually be nominated come July 19th.  Thus I've compiled a list of predictions here, to be taken with a heavy grain of salt (most of them are just who I'm personally pulling for after a season spent studying television avidly), of some of the individuals who likely will receive a nomination, and those who are already (and will sadly only ever be) winners in my mind.

Best Supporting Actress, Drama:

Maisie Williams, Game of Thrones
Now I know people aren't going to take me seriously on this one (despite the fact that the execs at HBO themselves submitted Williams for consideration), but I am absolutely convinced that this girl deserves some recognition.  Her scenes with Charles Dance in particular were extremely impressive, and for me definitely improved a couple of episodes that were otherwise just a little lackluster.  I don't think she's ready/has enough of a presence on the show just yet to merit a win (I'm pretty sure Christina Hendricks is the actress to beat in this category this year), but a nomination would be huge for the show and for Williams.  And no, I'm definitely not biased because she portrays my favorite character in the entire series.

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men
I'm not nearly caught on up Mad Men yet, but the buzz surrounding Hendricks and her performances during the series' long-awaited fifth season are almost impossible to avoid.  I love the character of Joan, and from what I can tell she's come a long way since we met her five years ago.  Hendricks certainly deserves a win, even if she's not my personal favorite of the bunch.

Jessica Capshaw, Grey's Anatomy 
Another one I feel some people might scoff at, given the somewhat depleted reputation Grey's has had in the past couple of years.  However, as someone who loyally watched every week this season and tracked the many, many goings-on at Seattle Grace with renewed enthusiasm, I would like to honestly endorse Ms. Jessica Capshaw, who plays Dr. Arizona Robbins on the show.  I know a lot of people would like to see Sandra Oh recognized for her work this season (and I acknowledge she did have quite the dramatic arc), I think what Capshaw did with her character's admittedly diminished screen time was much more subtle and at least equally, if not more, impressive.

Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey 
I think Smith is a shoe-in for a nomination again this year, because her character has emerged as the representative icon for this show as it has exploded in popularity.  Sure, some of the Dowager Countess' zingers lacked a little of their season one sting, but we got to see a different side of her during some of the more dramatic scenes during this past season.  That, and Maggie Smith is a gosh-darn living legend, people.  



Best Supporting Actor, Drama:

Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Can you tell yet that Game of Thrones is pretty much the only drama I watch regularly?  Well, that and Downton Abbey, but I think the second season of the former did a better job avoiding the sophomore slump than the latter.  Peter Dinklage will definitely be nominated-- his character and the actor himself are fan favorites-- but whether he'll win is still up for debate.



Best Supporting Actress, Comedy:
I think it speaks to how wonderful some of the comedic ensembles on TV are right now that I can think of many more candidates for the Supporting categories than the Lead ones.  The six women here (and the six men in the next section) are the result of narrowing down an even lengthier list of deserving candidates.

Aubrey Plaza, Parks and Recreation
Plaza continued to do something amazing during Parks' fourth season:  slowly growing a heart in the once-empty chest of one April Ludgate while continuing to be snarky and hilarious to boot.   Her arc this season had her growing up alongside her husband Andy, from tackling an ambitious bucket list to auditing college courses to making steps (baby steps, sure, but steps nonetheless) toward actual careers and adulthood.  She also surprised just about everyone by turning out to be the most logical stand-in for Leslie at the Parks Department during the latter's campaign.  She did set up Tom and Ann, who quickly became one of the more tedious couples on television, but I think we can forgive her that one.

Eliza Coupe, Happy Endings
She plays the neurotic, sometimes too-serious Jane to absolute perfection every week.  Coupe is an example of someone who knows her character so well you get the sense she could play the part in her sleep.  She also adds a different nuance to the show's humor, with most of her co-stars relying on more goofy humor in contrast to her snark. This is a show that is gaining more and more momentum with each episode, and it's about time it (and its performers) started gaining the recognition they deserve.  I'd love to see that start with Eliza Coupe.

Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live
This season on SNL was basically The Kristen Wiig Show, featuring Some Other People.  And hey, she's earned it.  Wiig has been honing her craft and only getting funnier since she started on the show, inventing dozens of hilarious and memorable characters and helping to bring the show back from a bit of a slump.  I would honestly love to see Wiig honored for her last year on the show, and I think a lot of other people would, too.

Julie Bowen, Modern Family
 I'm including her in here not because Modern Family's third season was really awards-worthy, but because Bowen and her on-screen counterpart, Ty Burrell, continue to be consistently funny even in the face of lackluster writing and beaten-to-death jokes.  That, and she'll almost definitely be nominated, and I don't want people thinking I guessed wrong.

Maya Rudolph, Up All Night
Her crazy talk show host Ava provided some often much-needed wackiness to the plight of the Brinkleys during the show's freshman season.  I'm not expecting a win (I'm not even realistically expecting a nomination), but Rudolph would be my pick to round out this category, and I'd like to see the show get a nod to recognize the things it has done well so far.

Cobie Smulders, How I Met Your Mother 
Normally things get complicated when the Emmys try to honor someone for their more dramatic work in the comedy category; however, it is not unprecedented.  And Smulders did some fantastic work with Robin's personal arc this season, carrying the action during several episodes that were a bit less than the show's gold standard.


Best Supporting Actor, Comedy:

Nick Offerman, Parks and Recreation
 Not giving this man the win in this category would be an outrage.  Not giving him a nomination would be a crime, for which I would expect the Emmy voters to be arrested immediately.  Offerman keeps Ron Swanson dimensional, intriguing, and hilarious episode after episode, and after four seasons has not disappointed yet.  Also, Offerman is one half of the team presenting the nominations on July 19th, so it'd be kind of an additional bummer for him to have to stand there while he goes unrecognized in his category yet again.

Danny Pudi, Community
Let's be honest here.  Abed was the true star of Community's third season.  He carried many of the major plots, and played a character who was equal parts multi-faceted and dramatic as well as hilarious in his own, hyper observant way.  Pudi deserves a nomination at the very least; it would be a damn shame to let an episode like "Virtual Systems Analysis" go to waste.

Chris Pratt, Parks and Recreation
Pratt's Andy is consistently funny, every single episode, and he owes that less to his cemented status as the resident lovable dummy than to Chris Pratt's impeccable timing and instincts.  He is that rare performer who I absolutely believe is capable of taking material that lies flat on the page and taking to a whole new and unexpected level.  I'd love to see all the men (and ladies) of Parks up for nominations, but I'll settle for at least this guy.

Aziz Ansari, Parks and Recreation
Again, consistently funny, and Ansari was given a bit more to work with this season with Tom's Entertainment 720 story line (we can just ignore the Tom/Ann arc, right?).  I think Aziz is repeatedly underestimated and undervalued, and that he deserves a shot at this prize at least as much as any of the increasingly boring dudes over on Modern Family.

Rainn Wilson, The Office
Wilson deserves a medal for carrying The Office this season.  It seemed the show could not go on without Michael Scott (and in many ways, it has failed to do so), and even fan favorites Jim, Pam, and Andy seemed to fall flat in season 8.  But it was Dwight--crazier than ever, always power-hungry Dwight--who continued to strive for hilarity every damn time.  Give him the recognition he deserves for accomplishing a seemingly impossible feat.

Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Burrell will be nominated, and he's the only Modern Family cast member I feel has actually earned it again.  He continues to combine his awkward humor with some genuine emotional moments in a way that is just downright pleasing to watch.


Best Actress, Comedy:

Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation
If Amy Poehler doesn't walk away with this award this year there is just no justice in the world.  This was the year she took a character (Leslie Knope) whom most people found annoying at best when the series premiered, and brought her to an unexpected and absolutely delightful moment of triumph and likeability.  That's on top of her never-wavering ability to be both the most sincere character on television as well as one of the most hilarious.

Lena Dunham, Girls
Dunham will get a nomination, as the Emmy voters are perennially in love with quirky new shows as well as pretty much anything to air on HBO.  Throw in the fact that Judd Apatow has a producer credit, and they'll be queuing up to hand awards to the girls of Girls (see what I did there?).  I'm perfectly okay with Dunham being nominated, but there is no universe (and I think she'd agree) in which she deserves this award over Amy Poehler.

Zooey Deschanel, New Girl
 Ugh.  Much as I'd like to hope people are over Deschanel and Jess Day, I'm sure they aren't.  I'm sure she'll be nominated, but again, Poehler is the one to top here.

Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Another likely lock for a nomination, but 30 Rock's sixth season just didn't measure up to its predecessors.  I think Fey is also the co-nominee most likely to be outraged alongside me if Amy Poehler doesn't win.

...Is it clear yet who I'm rooting for here?  I basically watch the Emmys to see if they finally validate Poehler and Parks.  I hope this is the year I'm finally not disappointed.

Best Actor, Comedy:

Joel McHale, Community
I think this nomination would please me just because McHale probably takes himself the least seriously as an actor out of everyone in the field.  He really has grown as a performer and as a character on Community, though, and it shows throughout season three.  I would also love to hear his acceptance speech.

Adam Scott, Parks and Recreation
Oh Ben Wyatt, do you even understand how many women out there adore you?  That alone would be reason enough for Scott to deserve a nomination.  But romance aside, Ben had a lot of wonderfully witty, genuine moments of his own this season on Parks, which is why the powers that be likely saw fit to submit him for consideration as a Lead Actor.  I will definitely be rooting for him come Emmy night.




Best Drama:

Game of Thrones
I just love this show so much, and I would love for it to unseat a favorite like Homeland or Mad Men.  Let's show the world (or at least, the fraction of the world who pay attention to the Emmy awards) that a little show about dragons and magic and kings and kick-ass ladies can beat a navel-gazing drama or a lackluster procedural fair and square.

Downton Abbey
Downton took a big risk moving themselves to this category (they could have dominated in the Mini-Series department), and I'm not entirely sure it will pay off, given the competition.  I'd love to see it creep into the list of nominees, though, and I think it has a decent chance at doing so.

Mad Men
Will be nominated, will probably win.  Will probably surprise no one.


Breaking Bad
Again unsurprising, though a potential contender to unseat Mad Men. 


Best Comedy:

Parks and Recreation
Please, TV gods, please just once give the award to my all-time favorite comedy series.  Please.


Modern Family
The third season was extremely sub-par compared to the previous two, and I think everyone knows it, but doesn't want to admit it because of the show's popularity.  This will win if the Emmy voters continue their unfortunate habit of simply checking the same names year after year.
 
Happy Endings
More people need to be watching (and appreciating) this show.  End of story.  But seriously, this is one of the best ensemble casts on TV, with some of the sharpest writing. Hopefully Emmy voters take notice.


Community
Maybe all the controversy over its near-cancellation, move to Friday nights, and loss of producer Dan Harmon will finally have earned this show the notice it so sorely deserves.