Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

[TV] JUNE 2016 TV DISCUSSION


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

I read somewhere today that the first season of VINYL cost $100 million to produce.  That is a crazy amount of money for a show that doesn't have fucking dragons or zombies or superheroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2016 at 10:02 PM, Vader does my taxes! said:

I think Person of Interest was supposed to end on a hopeful note, but I mostly found the last few episodes bleak and depressing.

The last two or so seasons have been sort of bleak so it was a hopeful end as far as I'm concerned.

16 hours ago, J.T. said:

The series finale left open the hugest of windows for a spin-off, so it wasn't that depressing.   The work will continue when someone sorts out the new pilot.

  Reveal hidden contents

I was sad yet thankful that Reese got to go out in a manner fitting his badassery.

 

I don't see a spin-off happening. That felt like more of the good work will continue type of deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22.6.2016 at 5:00 PM, Vader does my taxes! said:
  Hide contents

Given the way Harold just disappeared from the shot when his wife looked at him, I assumed that part wasn't real.  Though if it wasn't real, I dunno what it was supposed to be.  Harold having a waking dream about reuniting with his wife?  His ghost saying good bye?  The Machine dredging up a pleasant memory?

 

Spoiler

I think you were imagining things, Harold did not disappear in that shot. I just re-rechecked: the last thing in the shot you can see is her (not his wife, by the way, just his former girlfriend) smiling at him while you can see his back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take back most of what I've said about Motive.  Season 3 was very entertaining.  I might get ahold of season 1 and give it a rewatch.  Didn't particularly enjoy the show when it was airing on ABC here in the US.

Pleased USA is going straight to season 4.  I assume we might get the last eight eps pretty quickly after they run in Canada (first eight eps of season 4 premiered back in the spring, final eight eps are airing this summer on Canadian tv).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got some Columbo DVDs and was binge-watching them and, yes, Dear God, this is one of the best crime shows ever.

It's not whodunnit. (We are usually told that right away.) It's not how they did it (We are usually told that right away) It's not why (We are usually told that right away, too.)

The real mystery of this show is how,  the detective, who has figured it all out from the the beginning, is going to get the bad guy to either confess or incriminate himself. Then everything is a psychological mind game  

And Peter Falk heavily implying on the DVD  documentary that Columbo was basically a genius who was manipulating everyone from the get go, still sticks with me.   

Still a revolutionary concept for a series. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

COLUMBO!!!

I've been thinking about this show lately too.  It's never far from my leisure time and is a huge fallback thing for me to do late at night.

The real key to me is less the mystery, which is sometimes a bit flimsy although always head and shoulders above other crime shows, but the relationships between Columbo and the killer.  They are different from episode to episode but always intimate and intense and Columbo's attitude changes based on the nature of the crime.

Not to be too schematic, because not everyone fits this, but there are a few basic types of killer in COLUMBO:

In basic terms you can divide them into sympathetic and unsympathetic.  For instance, clearly Ruth Gordon is sympathetic and Jack Cassidy is always unsympathetic.  Shatner in his first time was sympathetic and in his second unsympathetic, etc.  

But that breaks down further.  For each of those two broad categories there are two further parallel sets:

Sympathetic breaks down into:

1) the "maintainers": These are people trying to hold onto something delicate, elegant, beautiful or just comfortable against a force (the victim) who is crass, unthinking, and threatening to destroy it. A few examples.
    - Patrick McGoohan trying to save his old-world military school from being sold off by the callow selfish son of its original owner
    - Joyce van Patten trying to preserve the old museum
    - Donald Pleasance trying to save his elegant, perfect winery from an owner who doesn't care about the perfection achieved there.
    

Columbo does not like putting them behind bars.  He sees what they are trying to protect.  He sees the value in it.  But he has no choice  He is the force of nature come to deliver justice. I find that it is very subjective how sympathetic the viewer will be to each of these based on their own values.  I, for instance, do not sympathize with McGoohan because what he is trying to protect (old conservative military values) is not something I identify with myself.  But I do sympathize with Donald Pleasance because what he is trying to protect (craftsmanship, delicacy, artistry that is expensive and demanding) I do identify with. I don't sympathize with Fisher Stevens or Anne Baxter because they are "protecting" something, the ability to live in a hollywood cocoon and make movies, that I particularly believe us of such great merit, etc.
    
    2) the "stifled flowers": these are people who are on the verge of something great, who maybe have already achieved greatness, but who are so close to something wonderful, the perfect life, a great discovery, some amazing career that will change the world...they have an amazing future ahead of them...but who are being blocked by an obstacle that won't let it happen...and instead of working around it or starting over, they take the easy way out.
       -  Trish van Devere as the young network executive being held down by gross corrupt old boys
        - Johnny Cash being stifled by his blackmailing wife and her weird religious obsession.
        - The architect whose amazing masterpiece is being scuttled by a cheap oil millionaire
        
Basically if Richard Hendricks murdered Gavin Belsin on SILICON VALLEY.  For these, Columbo also doesn't enjoy the process.  They have made a horrible choice and he is the force of fate come to enforce payment and take that future away from them.  He just has to do the work of cosmic justice as cruel as it might be.  The only joy he gets out of it is in getting to know this amazing person and that allows him to keep the process going as much as the pleasure of the puzzle.  And he seems a little suddenly disappointed when its over and they have to be carted away.
    
    The unsympathetic killers also break down into a few types.
    
    1) the "charlatan" the negative parallell to the "Stifled flower" is the charlatan, the killer who seems on the surface to be blocked from some greatness but who is actually a fraud anyway and was never going to be great:
        - Leonard Nimoy who is protecting a "great discovery" that is actually a sham and is killing someone to hide that fact
        - Robert Conrad who has never really achieved anything but a low-level con and who is not really "bringing health" to his customers but scamming them
        - Nicol Williamson who is selling this sham science of mental health and becoming very wealthy and famous doing it
        - Lawrence Harvey's chess master who is killing over his own simple fear of not being the best
        
        2) the "scoundrel" And then just the scum who are killing for money, not money to protect something precious or achieve something new, but just straight up wanting it and wanting it now...or to keep their own grossness from being exposed.
            - Lee Grant in Ransom for a Dead Man
            - Robert Culp most of the time
            - Jack Cassidy most of the time
            - Theo Bikel...what is he?  Just a fat-cat accountant whose greatest accomplishment was scoring a hot young wife
            
This little scheme I find allows me to find nuances in each episode, particularly where someone doesn't quite match or our perceptions and theirs don't match up:

- Ruth Gordon's episode, which for a lot of people is the greatest, because she doesn't fit any of these.  She is definatley sympathetic but she is not defending anything and certainly not being held back.  She is killing for simple vengeance (justice in her mind)

- Susan Clark in "Lady in Waiting" easily the least impressive villain...in part because at first she seems to be a "stifled flower" who is being held back from her potential by her oppressive brother and cruel mother, but who, once she actually gets rid of teh obstacle turns out to be genuinely bad at everything anyway and goes from sympathetic to unsympathetic for for having killed to to free herself to be terrible at a new job.

- Ross Martin who combines them all: seems to be killing to salvage a great art collection (maintainer) but also to have it nwo be in the hands of a great art critic to do great things with (stifled flower) but who in reality is a terribel art critic anyway (charlatan) and just wants the money (scoundrel).

- Jose Ferrer who is himself a genuinely great and diligent researcher but is killing to cover for another charlatan, his son...but then also to protect his own reputation in the process.

- Cassavetes conductor, sympathetic in that he is a genuinely great conductor and in no way a "charlatan" and the world loses for not having him do his thing, but who is not a sympathetic "maintainer" or "stifled flower" because his obstacle is a genuinely innocent pianist who has done nothing worse than fall for John Cassavetes and who is killed to hide the sexual avarice of a man enabled by his own wife's undying faith in his talent.  That's a rough one...He's a genuinely admirable talent and is also scum.

I could do this forever, not even getting into the mysteries and clues, but just drowning in the greatness of all these characters and how Columbo understands, sympathizes, despises, and relates to them.

And then there are the individual touches in individual characters.  The things Jack Cassidy brings to his smarmy charming assholes who can't imagine anyone could doubt them when they flash that million dollar smile.  Shatner's lovable arrogance and inability to control his appetites.  Harvey's genuine internal torture over his failures.  Robert Conrad's brutishness as a low level con artist who is in way over his head and is pretty much doomed already.  Bikel's "genius" who falls apart at the slightest hint of his plans going awry, breaking down into a sweaty shuddering quivering idiot whenever Columbo presses him even a a little. Culp's total confidence being his downfall as he seems oblivious to how exposed he is or how close Columbo is to catching him. Janet Leigh whose biggest strength as an opponent is that she genuinely can't remember what she has to hide because of her dementia and is, in her own mind (and Columbo's) in a way "innocent." 

There is just so many great nuances and takes on the basic Raskolnikov vs. Porfiry (privileged "intellectual" vs. under-estimated public servant) archetype.

I'll stop for now. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Falk was such a marvel in just about everything he appeared in and he was never really appreciated. He had such a natural presence that he flew under the radar, which is actually a tremendous accomplishment.  He was still knocking it out of the park in later stuff like Made ("Because you lost my fucking carpet cleaning van, and I don't like you, cocksucker!") 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, (BP) said:

Peter Falk was such a marvel in just about everything he appeared in and he was never really appreciated. He had such a natural presence that he flew under the radar, which is actually a tremendous accomplishment.  He was still knocking it out of the park in later stuff like Made ("Because you lost my fucking carpet clean van, and I don't like you, cocksucker!") 

His performance (and Casavates direction) in WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is still the last greatest portrayal of true, real, and non-negative masulinity in all its best and worst aspects on film.  I know that sounds weird, but if you've seen it you'll know what I mean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Columbo does not like putting them behind bars.  He sees what they are trying to protect.  He sees the value in it.  But he has no choice  He is the force of nature come to deliver justice.

Basically. 

You always feel bad for the villain as the paranoia and claustrophobia creeps in and, eventually, they realise, that, yes, Columbo is a frigging genius who has been acting like a fool and luring them in just to incriminate themselves.  

And you detest Columbo for putting them through this psychological horror game.  

But Columbo is essentially a good, nice person, too. Highly manipulative? Phony? Scheming? Sure.  But he's also just a working class man (blessed with a genius IQ) simply doing his job. 

That rare crime show when you feel truly bad for everyone involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, (BP) said:

Peter Falk was such a marvel in just about everything he appeared in and he was never really appreciated. He had such a natural presence that he flew under the radar, which is actually a tremendous accomplishment.  He was still knocking it out of the park in later stuff like Made ("Because you lost my fucking carpet cleaning van, and I don't like you, cocksucker!") 

 

The key to Peter Falk as an actor:

Everything he did outwardly said: "I'm just a lazy eyed, unattractive, average Joe! Nothing more or less! Look at how bedraggled and silly I am in my old raincoat! Can't you simply dismiss me? Couldn't anyone?"

But then, the more you see him, the more you examine him, you grasp his shocking wit and intelligence and charisma going on inside of him.  

That's why Columbo works as a TV show.  What is ultimately lurking underneath the facade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Reed said:

 

The key to Peter Falk as an actor:

Everything he did outwardly said: "I'm just a lazy eyed, unattractive, average Joe! Nothing more or less! Look at how bedraggled and silly I am in my old raincoat! Can't you simply dismiss me? Couldn't anyone?"

But then, the more you see him, the more you examine him, you grasp his shocking wit and intelligence and charisma going on inside of him.  

That's why Columbo works as a TV show.  What is ultimately lurking underneath the facade. 

That's true, and to Piranesi's point, his performance in Woman Under the Influence is great because he has that Everyman schlub manner that he uses to slowly reveal that he's just as dysfunctional as Gena Rowlands character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell even if you take Falk's small part in Princess Bride, he's tricking the grandson into listening to the story, stringing him along just enough to keep him wanting more and all to make a point about WHY he come over t oread the story in the first place.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reed said:

Basically. 

You always feel bad for the villain as the paranoia and claustrophobia creeps in and, eventually, they realise, that, yes, Columbo is a frigging genius who has been acting like a fool and luring them in just to incriminate themselves.  

And you detest Columbo for putting them through this psychological horror game.  

But Columbo is essentially a good, nice person, too. Highly manipulative? Phony? Scheming? Sure.  But he's also just a working class man (blessed with a genius IQ) simply doing his job. 

That rare crime show when you feel truly bad for everyone involved. 

Not always though, at least for me.  Some of the killers in the unsympathetic group are the worst.  I genuinely hate Robert Conrad in that episode.  Jack Cassidy generally to and Robert Culp.  And Leonard Nimoy in his.  They are just so superior and smarmy.

And you can sometimes tell when Columbo disdains someone.  He actually loses his temper and goes at Conrad and Nimoy.  He throws in little snide digs at Cassidy.

But he does say in the Ruth Gordon episode that he usually finds something in them to like: "Even with some of the murderers that I meet, I even like them too. Sometimes like them and even respect them. Not for what they did, certainly not for that. But for that part of them which is intelligent or funny or just nice."

But in terms of the mystery side of it, he has a steel pragmatism too.  The best quote to come out of the entire series was in the original t.v. movie, PRESCRIPTION MURDER about how it's all really about practice and work:

"What I mean is, you know, cops, we're not the brightest guys in the world. Of course, we got one thing going for us: we're professionals. I mean, you take our friend here, the murderer. He's very smart, but he's an amateur. I mean, he's got just one time to learn. Just one. And with us, well, with us, it's - it's a business. You see, we do this a hundred times a year. I'll tell ya, Doc. That's a lot of practice. "

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More Falk trivia: two weeks before overthrow of the Cuban government, Falk was filming in WIND ACROSS THE EVERGLADES in Florida and he decided to fly to Cuba to play golf while he still had his shaggy hair and beard on and was arrested as a revolutionary.

5:00 into this interview:

http://www.tvtimemachine.com/sys/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/columbopart2web.mp3

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...