He's the Devil. But I can change him - Lucifer

From ploughing through just over five seasons of Lucifer, the series inspired by Gaiman's Lucifer series, that seems to have more Easter eggs than actual relations to the original comic series, (Lucifer being adjacent to the Endless of the Sandman series), it's only now occurred to me which particular romance novel bullshit cliche this show's managed to turn on its head: He's a monster, but if I love him enough, he will change. I can change him.

This show sadly suffered from a string of other cliches: the classic Unresolved Sexual Tension that becomes irritatingly drawn out with Chloe and Lucifer, the "We can't reveal we're dating without pissing off the ex who's also a friend" cliche with Mazikeen, Amenadiel and Linda. Fake Lucifer shows up after thousands of years in Hell and tries to trick everyone he's legit. Thankfully that one was resolved in an episode because I cannot abide those storylines, especially if they take an entire season to resolve and you're infuriated with all those characters who keep missing all the giveaways, sometimes by a gnat's wing. Soap operas lean on this way too much.

I won't go into this much. Gaiman's interpretation of  biblical stories did inspire something I wrote, to the point I thought maybe I borrowed a touch to much from his retelling thinking it was in line with the original texts. But Lucifer himself is, for all his irritating moments, more lovable than certain other bad boy personas in other stories that women seem to find attractive, the way someone who buys "fixer-uppers" to resell on refurbish, only she won't let another woman buy him even if he wants to leave. For all the tropes the show suffers from it's certainly addictive. A bunch of celestials and demons navigating the rigors of being human while trying to reconcile their own flaws makes for more interesting watching. You get a lot of Buffy/Angel vibes from the storylines and characters, however I've not fostered as much resentment for their actions than I did with those in Buffy. The writing and comic timing's slightly sharper than your average Buffy episode too. You could see a show like this really falling on its ass from poor execution and casting, if they've done anything right it's choosing their leads, especially in terms of chemistry.

Where it falls down the most is the crime drama aspects, then again, you can see a lot of stretching and poetic license in those shows as well, the Jerry Bruckheimer aspect really obvious. I don't know whether it's the every crime is a murder aspect that gets so dry you have to keep coming up with convincing plots and who-dun-its every episode and have every crime tie into something to do with Lucifer's motivations or character development. There's still a healthy amount of self-awareness and sass, and the drama doesn't feel too forced. I'm considering reading the comic series but my fascination with comics tends to wane after my initial interest, I have other books I've not even touched after wanting them for their art styles and possibly interesting premises. I don't remotely consider myself a Gaiman fan. I don't think he's a total rockstar but he has had his moments of arrogance. I get the question "where do your ideas come from?" gets tiring or irritating to a creator you feel the need to be passive aggressive and glib in your responses, but from the perspective of the not-so creative, you're better off indulging their question since they're dying to know how to be as imaginative as you.

Don't envy creatives, by the way. They're constantly comparing their ideas to others, which is what I'm also doing watching Lucifer. Just appreciate what they do because you're the lucky party in this. You get to enjoy the fruits of their agonising labour.

Portrait of a Minimalist Love Story

If you've ever found the score of a movie intrusive or overwrought, or even overused in its means of conveying tension or romance, sit a moment with a movie like Portrait of a Lady on Fire and appreciate the silence, the absolute lack of a score. While you're there, you might want to consider its elegance, how a single frame might very well indeed be that painting. Pause the movie and notice the composition of light and shadow, how a character's skin appears as soft as a carefully made oil painting. Marvel in the simple tableau of three women preparing food, how you could frame this and hang it on a wall to study and admire. How it would've captured another painter and compelled them recreate it. Then listen to the voices, (read the fucking subtitles you philistine, fucking suffer through it if you must), appreciate the simplicity of this story, the depth of these impressively drawn characters, the tension of their longing stares, the electricity between them, of what is wanted but cannot be touched, just as you shouldn't lay a finger on a canvas in a museum. Wait for the fumbled strains from a harpsichord, the dulcet but powerful mingling of choir voices, paced by rhythmic clapping, that gives the exact emotions one should feel from a well-placed score. Let the other sounds take precedence and add richness to your viewing. While you're at it, throw all your tawdry notions of sapphic love in the fucking bin and take a moment to see this as a perfectly written, gorgeously presented love story. Disregard the genders, don't belittle it. It's a love story, don't make it stand apart from other love stories. Don't you dare call it shocking, or liberal propaganda. You cannot politicize love.

It's a beautiful movie. Accept it for what it is.

The Crown is Fiction, people.

I've come to realise that movie adaptations and depictions of actual events that include blatant fabrications annoy the shit out of me. I recently watched the Dennis Nilson biopic with David Tennant, which was performed really well and interesting to watch, but when I looked into the particulars I didn't really appreciate it wasn't entirely committed to reality.

Then I watched the Crown. Two episodes in I gave up. Olivia Coleman is wonderful but I don't really want to sit through the seasons she's not in. And I don't like it when they insert fake characters. I do understand these are dramatisations, which take certain liberties with the story, which may involve swapping out certain historical persons to play the same role, or changing the chronology to suit the story. But when you're inserting entirely made up people to dramatise an aspect or work to the new narrative, at what point do you trust your audience to find out that person never existed? Because you're marketing the Crown to ignorant Americans. So what makes you think they're not going to spout this as factual. When we're living in an environment of "alternative facts" the people who think that's okay are going to believe this as fact. They're already doing it. And now the Brits have to clear their throats and ask you all very politely to take The Crown as fictional. Not historically accurate. This is while the fucking Gutter Press likes to sell magazines and papers based on fake royal arguments and conspiracies about Diana's death and Harry's real lineage.

Des, the show about Nilson, changed some names and took liberties with character development and I understand the point of it, that certain people don't want to be named in these stories and if they have that right they should be granted it. And yes, the royals have some right to their narratives as well. But they've created this bubble in which people can imagine certain things, mixed with the personal accounts the palace prefers you not to know. History isn't perfectly retold. Historians play more than one role depending on who's in charge. I don't believe now they make people up, not if they want to keep their jobs. Writers for TV shows have to make you pay attention. Making up shit in the Crown doesn't make it that entertaining. Interesting factoids about Elizabeth become dot points. As a character in this show, she's not particularly interesting, she's torn between her man and her country and her duty and blah blah boring. Philip and Edward are whiny prats, the latter burdening poor John "Churchill" Lithgow with demands get his bird a proper title. Meanwhile this poor woman is claimed to have three ex husbands in the show and only two on Wikipedia. Why add another? But Edward pines for her and claims it's all in the name of Love. (Cue Beatles classic). The other problem with the show is the writing isn't good. It doesn't have the same brilliance you expect from these shows. Again, it's not for the Brits. But looking at requests to have more disclaimers and clarity on the show, I have to agree now, it's not a docudrama, it should much clearer in its intent. I don't remember seeing any disclaimers which is standard for this kind of thing. Even if it's making Charles look bad, when he did a lot of that on his own, if it's not true to history it shouldn't make claims to be. They managed to soil their own reputations to an extent. It's bizarre they should be looking to their own children, who've become pillars of decency by comparison now the princes have settled with families. I've always felt bad for them, William's my age, weirdly I've pitied him for his position and what the tabloids do to someone as upstanding as him. It's almost the perfect situation you have one son willing to carry on regardless as it were, while the other departs and does his own thing. I don't think it has to have as damaging an effect as it's claimed.

But this is coming from someone who likes Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette despite it being incredibly liberal and modern in its execution. I'll watch the Other Boleyn Girl as mindless period pap despite it having two Americans with bad British accents and one Australian in the three leads. Whatever version of Robin Hood you watch is wrong. You can get a lot of fictional stories from periods in history. If it's recent history, where you have a better chance for evidence, where it's not founded in folk law, maybe take a few pains to be clear before you present something purporting to be based on "historical" events.

The X-Files - I thought I loved it more than this...

I remember being all about this show as a kid. It was pretty cool and different. And it was approved by the household parental advisory committee: My mother. She loved it way more than me, to be honest. And I guess I had thing for Mulder that my pre-adolecent brain kinda dug, so something about his voice (I think) made me record an episode of this to a cassette tape. Reason being, while we had the means to record these episodes to VCR, sometimes I'd commit them to cassette tape too, so I could at least listen to the episode later. I also did it for movies I couldn't get copies of at the time. So I have a lot of this shit in my brain by sound alone. It's stupid, but a lot of people will tell you they can recite movies purely by the script alone. I'm one of those people.

The episode I happened to record was Eve. I did start to watch the show on SBS for free a while back. Until I saw an ad. And not just any old ad but an ad for my fucking job. And that was all it took. I cancelled my account, which actually involved sending a stroppy email to SBS to get it cancelled since there was no manual cancellation option.

Then I got Amazon Prime for reasons, and I might cancel later I don't know. But they happen to have it, and I only suffer through a preliminary ad for another Amazon show I can at least skip. I got a bit impatient trying to do a proper binge to get to this particular episode, I did record it off TV about ten or more years ago. But I haven't forgotten anything of the dialogue at all. Fun fact: I made myself look like the most obnoxious smart ass during a science lesson, where I paid no attention to the hot teacher asking the class how many chromosomes we have. So, people were guessing random numbers, and a not so particularly bright friend of mine said when asked, "I dunno, 1000?" I was reading a book or some shit so I didn't hear the question, but that was when I confirmed what we were guessing and said "46". Not only did the teacher look bummed out I had guessed her supposedly unguessable question, I actually went back to reading a book and not paying attention. One of the thousands of reasons I was hated at school, for just knowing random ass trivia that got me by as an average student. It probably pissed my teachers way more, especially considering I wasn't a top science student despite my dad being an actual science teacher, and I sucked at maths despite mother being a maths teacher.

Anyway, I thought X-Files was better than what I remembered, so watching the first eps I was like, wait wasn't this show far more brilliant? But watching this episode, I think this was when show found its stride. I'll go back and watch the other two I didn't finish after this, and I think I could keep going for a while. I really lost the thread by the end of high school, I can't remember specifically what happened other than I just wasn't into it. This episode is particularly good. The twin child actresses managed to pull off the diabolical looks and ingenue tricks without being to irritating. I have a lot of nostalgia for the music too, I would listen to this a lot on trips to Perth or driving around the city since I knew it'd kill time. But I see a nitpick of sorts. The agents agree to getting soda after Scully mentions the sweet flavor of the poison the girls use. Minor gripe. Plus Mulder could've shot the tires out when Cindy's kidnapped but whatever. The leads had that chemistry that really made the show popular and made them an iconic onscreen couple. I never fully agreed with them being romantically involved, even when the show creator was saying they loved one another I just wasn't buying it. And while I may have bought the movie soundtrack for that one Foo Fighters song (again, CDs were my only option if I wanted a song at the time), I didn't love the movie at all. I did later watch the episode where Mulder technically finds his sister, and another episode way after Robert Patrick was on and nobody (I can't verify that) was watching. The show did a good blend scientifically believable outcomes and "what if" open-ended plots. Since it all pivots around government conspiracies that turn out to be true it wouldn't gel for it not to have that element.

This show's definitely another victim of fan adoration overkill. The movies and subsequent six episode "return" weren't worth it, to me anyway. At least Kumail Nanjiani got a chance to be in an episode, which was fun but stuck out more in the new episodes since the previous two were heavy in the content around Mulder and Scully reuniting. We got shorter seasons out of it but I don't think they rated well enough. I think I had a copy of the comic first edition around somewhere, it was okay. I think being a hardcore fan would've sucked but any time there was a mention of a reboot I had to roll my eyes like I do with most shows, even the ones I either never liked or loved too much. (I'll save my Red Dwarf rant for another post).

I want to keep going with the thought it'll shake off its early 90s hokey feel. I got some momentary Goosebumps vibes. The tension's there but the special effects and some goofball acting. I do not remember any of these episodes, so now I'm thinking I wasn't that into it or I genuinely only saw them once. I'm sure this was scary in the way Twilight Zone was super scary back in the day, as that element isn't holding up. I think once the production improves and the scripts get more interesting it'll get better. I don't know if the first season didn't maintain a deliberate serial format until there was a clear run for the show. I'll stick it out since I wasn't committed to anything.

I forgot I never posted this. I couldn't make it past the gender bending episode. I haven't been back since, even when I considered skipping to later seasons. Nope. Done with this nonsense.