Days of Being LJ

A young Agassi found out that his father decided to name him after two of his co-workers from a Vegas casino. No reason was given, it just turned out that way, neither Andre nor Kirk were particularly close friends of Mike Agassi, but their first names were good enough to embroider the birth certificate of his youngest child.

Thus for his existence, Andre’s search for his answers in life, herein laid out in “Open” his autobiography, results in similar lack of reasons given. Sometimes life just is…it’s a journey which we find ourselves on but forget to find out why we started in the first place.

I was too young to really remember the petulant wild Agassi, and too disinterested to really take note of his late career resurgence but if it were a choice between Sampras and Agassi; I was more drawn to the big A.

After reading “Open” I now have a greater understanding of why.

Agassi is the classic anti-hero in the construct of the myth archetype. “Open” catalogues his odyssey. He cuts the figure of the dedicated child, misunderstood teen, wayward young man, tragic burnout and then the resurgent saviour and ultimately the hero, but always shunning his heroic gifts and in his case the ability to play tennis.

I’m attracted to anti-heroes, I love my protagonists flawed and conflicted but ultimately they need to be good and honest people. And as much as I know about Agassi himself, I get the vibe that in light of the mistakes he has made, he is ultimately an honest and good man.

“Open”, though littered with tennis, isn’t actually about tennis. It’s about humanity, love and compassion over a bed of explanation and analysis of the choices and relationships we make in late. Although there is probably enough of the analysis to fill most biographies it’s really the deep emotional resonance which makes the book interminably readable.

I finished the solid 400 pages in a day. I can’t remember the last time I managed to read a book in a day; I gather it was probably the first Harry Potter book when I was 15 or something.

Upon finishing the first chapter on the train heading to work on the morning I received the book, tears welling in my eyes, I knew for a book to elicit such an emotional response from me in the first 20 pages, it must be pretty damn special.

The book is very well ghost-written by J.R Moehringer (a Pulitzer prize winner no less) and I gather a good amount of the structure comes from his end but I wouldn’t discount some of the origins of the literary poetics from Agassi himself, together they form some rare quality for a sports (auto)biography.

I hold a great literary weakness for (auto)biographies, but usually they’re filled with latent facts for the casual reader with some revelationary stories for the hardcore fan but there is something about “Open” which makes it utterly engaging just on a humanistic level. Just look at the cover (above), it’s not pretty, some would say ugly even, but it’s raw and intriguingly human. Also the book, purely on a narrative level, is just a good yarn, a pure form of “Myth” storytelling.

I’m usually not one to re-read books but I can’t help but feel that I’d be thumbing through my paperback copy of “Open” constantly for years to come.

Even if you hate tennis (or any type of sport), or biographies, or Agassi for that matter, I’d still urge you to give “Open” a go, or at least read the couple of chapters telling of his courtship of Steffi Graf, I think even the most coldest and stoniest of hearts will fall fluttering and submit to the coy sweetness and endearment of that relationship.

LJK books andre agassi, book review, humanity, opinion, tennis, writing

I used to worship Roland Emmerich; I still do to a certain extent. Of course I’ve been laughed at every time I’ve mentioned this fact in cultural studies classes and that Independence Day is one of my favourite films and is the one that really made me consider filmmaking as a viable career path (no matter how deluded that notion is now).

Emmerich has made some cult masterpieces of genre filmmaking, Universal Soldier, Stargate, the fore mentioned ID4, but ID4 was his magnum opus, it started the entire genre of end of the world blockbuster epics and it will be the film that has and will define his entire career.

It was also the last good film he ever made…unless you count The Patriot as a good film. I haven’t seen it in it’s entirety so I can’t judge but that film was an anomaly amongst The Day After Tomorrow, 10,000 BC and not to mention Godzilla (which I personally thought was the death of his career)

Did 2012 fail like all his other films since 1996? Yup, even though David and Margaret were highly generous and gave it 3.5 stars, 2012 was just another film which drowned narcissistically in its love for VFX.

I can forgive bad writing and a ridiculous plot, elements which form the basis of a disaster blockbuster. But the problem here was the lack of charismatic actors or characters even to carry the bad writing and plot. The 3rd rate cast with the likes of Danny Glover just leave me cold, cold like the frickin’ Antarctic tundra.

Add to the mix, horrible camerawork and cinematography (shit what cinematography anyway, everything was green screened to death) and a forgettable score (David Arnold where were you?) you end up with a general mess of a film. And with a running time of 158min, a much too long mess of a film which became a highly uncomfortable experience for my bladder.

So what was I expecting? I haven’t seen The Day After Tomorrow or 10,000BC so I had no idea how badly Emmerich had lost his mojo. I wanted some sort of tie in to Mayan mythology rather than the blunt objective driven mantra of: “oh man, how much of the earth can be destroy and how many people we can kill?”

In the end the main reason 2012 failed was that as a result of the culmination of all its points of failure, we as an audience just couldn’t connect, not to the characters, not to the situations, nothing, nada. It’s like watching paint dry with a really awesome subwoofer mix.

—

I was lucky enough to get in on the Sydney premiere which meant I enjoyed the screening surrounded by a lot of movie critics (including Margaret & David), and an occasional C-list TV celeb. It reminded me of the time when I actually really wanted to be a film reviewer. I still think it’s a pretty awesome job, and you don’t have to pay to see trash like 2012.

LJK film blockbuster, disaster, film review, opinion, roland emmerich

Then there were 3...

I’ve actually written a lot on torchwood over the years from analysis pieces, fandom wanks to short sharp OMG moments. But lately I haven’t had the necessary urge to wax lyrical about John Barrowman’s innate lack of fashion sense however I’ve been trying to formulate a reaction piece on “Children of Earth” for ages. For a TV show which I’ve followed since its inception (not just from its infancy, a clear distinction I make) my feelings towards Torchwood are obviously clouded by the Meta of being a fan.

COE has the peculiar function of being “event television” according to the BBC. Whether it was to cut costs or to explore new ground in TV formats, the decision to make season 3 of TW into a 5 nighter mini-series was odd considering the excess of success it found on BBC3 and then BBC2 in its first 2 seasons. But then the BBC has always done things its way and not all of its programming decisions could be defined and explained in a logical fashion.

So the first hurdle of approaching TW as a 5 part mini series is the acceptance of its format. How would I fit it into my schedule? How do I cope with only having one of my favourite shows for 1 week rather than 13 weeks? And furthermore how do I connect with other fans in the short 24 hour period between the episodes considering the time difference between the UK and Australia? That’s nearly not enough time to create icons, fan wank or love poetry dedicated to Ianto. Oh the woes of being a fan.

The Drama

Rounding up the sacrificial lambs

There’s no question that COE was a top rate drama. The script was brilliant; the dialogue cut deep, the actions deeper but most noteworthy were the themes which where unabashedly covered without fear. Murder-suicide in a family, children as sacrificial lambs (always a crowd pleaser) and the machinations of a self-preserving government being just a few which struck a chord with viewers. It’s not that science fiction doesn’t deal with such themes normally but it’s the reality of which COE dealt with them was the most interesting and harrowing.

Capaldi as Frobisher

Of course much kudos has to go to director Euros Lynn and in particular Peter Capaldi, for his characterisation of John Frobisher, in bringing the pathos of the situation to the viewer. Most importantly I think it’s right to recognise the gall of the BBC producers to green light such storylines and have trust in the cast and crew to give justice to the script and to also accept the harsh editorial decisions made by Russell T Davies (RTD) and  writer James Moran. Because I gather under certain more commercial broadcasters COE may have ended up a wishy washy and predictable affair rather than a drama with some serious bite and issues to contemplate.

Sure there are clunky areas like in any show and parts which work better than others. COE is not perfect and has many flaws but overall from the perspective of good drama it’s excellent even though at times hard to watch because it deals simply with the reality of how dark and depraved humanity can be and when it comes down to the hard decisions we are overwhelmed by the animal instinct for self-preservation.

The Characters

Janto, not made to last

Obviously the most contentious decision made in COE was the killing off of Ianto. Sci fi has had a history of killing off popular and enamoured characters and I guess that’s why fanfic was invented. However generally character deaths are kept for those on the periphery or those with cult following but which don’t factor in a high percentage of participation in the show. Most networks, producers, broadcasters and commissioners would generally agree on not killing a popular character for fear of driving away a considerable share of the audience. Which is I guess another ball busting decision by the BBC to give RTD the freedom to kill off a character which for fandom at least become a much favoured and important part of the show.

But if one looks at RTD’s past history he is not one to adhere to the formula of commercial TV. He is mostly true to his stories and character arcs. When he deems something has come to a natural end he will end it. I gather than RTD does not prolong characters or storylines beyond what he deems to be the natural end. Obviously not everyone agrees, sure as a fan I thought Ianto and Jack could have possibly more ground to cover but this is a reflection on my interests as a fan of the individual characters. Although what RTD deems to be a natural end might not be the correct decision in certain situations, god knows the Daleks and Cybermen have come to their natural ends many times in Who.

Other then the senseless and brutal murder of Ianto (queue the tears of millions of fangirls) the other great decision of great debate was the characterisation of Captain Jack. I for one am a bit perplexed why TPTB have continually made Jack the harbinger of death, gloom and destruction as well as putting him at the centre and making him personally responsible for all of the shite that happens.

lamb numero uno

So this is a guy that loses his brother to aliens as a kid, and then gets imprisoned by the same brother underground for 2000 years as an act of retribution, watches all his closest mates and partners die because of his decisions and then has to sacrifice his own grandson so the children of earth could be saved. But when does absolution factor in for him? How much pain can Jack go through until he finally gets cut some slack and has some happiness in life?

When we first meet Jack, he’s this happy go lucky guy. Sure there’s pain, anger and confusion just below the surface but he was this bright star for those around him. In season 9 of Who, he brought out much of the joy in both Rose and the Doctor. And I wish for some of that spark to come back. Frankly I’m a bit tired of emo Jack. He deserves to be happier and this doesn’t mean total annihilation of angst or conflict but it means that we can perhaps explore the missing 2 years referenced in Who rather than build more “Jack the Mass Murderer” storylines.

—

Of course COE is not devoid of the slightly juvenile humour TW has been known for, nor the awkwardness of its relationships either. However if this personifies event TV then I’d like to see more event TV thanks. And due to the overwhelming success of COE (won it’s timeslot, most viewed program in the UK after soaps like Corrie/Eastenders) this format and TW is possibly here to stay.

P.S It also looks AWESOME in HD (in particular Barrowman’s butt)

LJK television analysis, discussion, john barrowman, opinion, russell t davies, torchwood, tv

My Rome marathon this week ended late last night after witnessing the spectacular downfall of Mark Antony. So after 22 wonderful episodes what have I learnt about Rome, but more importantly about television?

-

ROME

Rome was indeed motherfuckingly awesome. Sure you didn’t live long, but as long as you lived life was pretty darn interesting. Food, sex, wine, mindless violence and the rampant pillaging and burning of other kingdoms. Oh and don’t forge the tolerance (and acceptance) of homosexuality, divorce and adultery. Sure life was awesome as long as you were not a woman bearing children or a slave, but hey someone has to lose out.

I’m thinking perhaps the introduction of Christianity into Europe really was the killer of all fun. When you think about it, the middle ages probably set back western civilisation at least 700 years. Technically we all should be living in a world where enlightened humans engage in telepathic relations or something, yet we still live in a society where our government tries to censor adults’ access to certain websites because they’re afraid that society will fall into the dark pit of depravity. (I’m looking at you Stephen Conroy/ACMA Blacklist) Because obviously men haven’t been committing coitus with animals since the dawn of time or something.

My knowledge of Roman history is sketchy at best so I was amazed at the level of machinations and monuevaring taking place; The military strategy, the depth of political alliances and triumeverats etc. Now I’m tempted to actually read more historical texts rather than relying on Shakespeare and my less than stellar stage debut as Mark Antony in Rinse the Blood off My Toga in year 7.

-

TV

How much do I love HBO? A Lot is the answer. I only wish that other

networks around the world have as much gall as HBO does in commissioning new TV Series. Although I came to Rome almost 4 years since it was first broadcast I think it’s one of the most sumptuous and lush pieces of TV I’ve ever witnessed. The attention to cinematic detail is extraordinary, coupled with high quality actors and incredible scripts, it’s just an absolute joy to watch. 100 million was used for the 1st season alone, and it’s not surprising that it wasn’t renewed for a 3rd season (I mean other than the fact that the fun pretty much ends with Octavian becoming Emperor) but that kind of money could also make around 3-4 13-episode seasons of a normal TV Show.

Also I’m very in love with the notion of “Binge TV”. This is the way most Chinese I guess other diaspora consume television. Procure entire seasons/series and watch without many breaks. Of course you don’t get the weekly fandom connection but you also don’t have to go through the pain of waiting a year in between seasons and the mental anguish of waiting for the news of whether your show got renewed or god forbid axed. The brilliant thing about coming into something after it’s finished is that the events on the periphery  of the program don’t pollute your view.

It is also heartening to see that the producers/creators were given enough editorial freedom to explore Rome through showing the necessary gore or covering controversial topics. Although HBO was never the network to shy away from squeamish images, what it did with Rome is still to be applauded.

I only wished that in Australia our networks would have the funds and dare to commission similar projects but alas it would be highly unlikely so we will forever be subjected to 10 more seasons of Underbelly and All Saints instead. Our history is just too damn uninteresting I’m afraid.

-

On a few shallow notes:

James Purefoy, where have you been all my life and how come it took me THIS long to discover you? Please don’t fall by the wayside like Jeremy Northam.

Kevin McKidd = the next Clive Owen/Daniel Craig? Could it be that this ex-scrawny chap from Trainspotting, who didn’t even make it on the poster of that film, be the next hottest British thing in Hollywood? He has a chance but he needs to find more range. And if he doesn’t get out of the Grey’s Anatomy circle of death and find some good solid films he’s going to be stuck doing mid-range TV Shows which keep getting canceled like Journeyman.

-

Rumor has it that there may be a feature film in the making. I can’t wait for the further adventures of Lucius Vorenus & Titus Pullo. I’m thinking of naming my first born son Marcus Lucius Cicero…Latin names are awesome.

LJK television opinion, rome, tv