VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Sad Clown Dress

VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Sad Clown Dress

Part of the Mad Men Moments Video Essay Series

Click here to watch this on your mobile device.

In selecting an iconic moment for Season Two of Mad Men, we wanted to shift the focus away from the storied office shenanigans of Sterling Cooper and spend time unpacking the domestic storyline that, while less sexy, imbues the world of Mad Men with added dimension and depth. By focusing on the idyllic domestic world of Betty Draper and how it all falls apart within a 24-hour span, this video serves as a complement to the Season One video portrait of Don Draper in "The Carousel." 

The script for this video essay is written by Deborah Lipp, narrated by Roberta Lipp, and edited by Kevin B. Lee.

TRANSCRIPT

Mad Men's Betty Draper is a master of surfaces.

A former model who is happiest when praised for her beauty.

She lives the life expected of her, but the suburbs bore her and she has no real interest in motherhood.

Her husband is a mystery…and a philanderer.

In episode 2.08, A Night to Remember, it all comes apart.

Betty intends to prove herself the perfect hostess and wife, throwing the perfect party.

She then discovers she's a pawn.

She spirals into a rage. Don has broken the pact to maintain a perfect surface. Now there is nothing for Betty to hide, and so much to expose. 

Betty spends the night with her daughter instead of Don, as if to seek solace in a childlike state.

Over the course of the next day , her flawless party look–which costume designer Janie Bryant calls her “Sad Clown Dress”– falls to ruin.

She no longer bothers putting on a show of perfection. It no longer exists.

And she won’t move beyond this moment, until she finds the proof she seeks: that this man, and the idyllic life they’ve created are built on a lie.

But she’s unable to expose Don. She can only hurt herself.

And yet, she knows what she knows. She can no longer trust appearances, since that’s all her husband has to offer. Don stays in the shadows, denying everything.

Betty’s hair is held back in a band so that we see the full effect of emotion on her face.

The surface of perfection is gone. She’s exposed and looks broken. But underneath is a new found conviction about herself.

Finally, she faces Don without makeup, without a hairdo, without even a color. The white robe accentuates the starkness of this moment.

Now it is Don who’s afraid of losing everything. And it’s his expression of fear that brings her back.

The next day, the house is filled with warm, renewing light. Betty is back to being an immaculate housewife, as if nothing happened.

But a TV commercial brings it all back.

It has all crumbled. Her perfect home, her handsome husband, they are empty surfaces that have all been sold to her.

Betty is no longer buying.

Deborah Lipp is the co-owner of Basket of Kisses, whose motto is "smart discussion about smart television." She is the author of six books, including "The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book."

Roberta Lipp is the co-owner of Basket of Kisses and is or has been a voiceover artist, improvisor, actor, singer/songwriter, blogger and Mad Men aficionado. She plans to produce a one-woman show.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog and contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Lawnmower

VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Lawnmower

Part of the Mad Men Moments Video Essay Series

Click here to watch this on your mobile device.

Our iconic moment of Mad Men season three easily ranks as one of the most shocking of the entire series to date. To explore it in depth, we adapted one of the best pieces we could find about the episode, written by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon. This video is narrated by Roberta Lipp of Basket of Kisses and edited by Kevin B. Lee.
 

Amanda Marcotte is a Brooklyn writer who likes indie rock, quality television, and political blogging. She blogs at Pandagon. Follow her to Twitter

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog and contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Fight

VIDEO ESSAY – MAD MEN Moments: The Fight

Part of the Mad Men Moments Video Essay Series

Click here to watch this video on your mobile device.

There is near unanimous consensus that 4.07: "The Suitcase" is the standout episode of Season Four of Mad Men, so we knew that our video essay on a singular moment from that season had to come from that episode. But there are so many great moments in "The Suitcase:" Peggy's telephone breakup with her boyfriend (and her family), the scenes between Don and Peggy in the diner and the bar (where they express their mutual attraction as far as they allow themselves to); the confrontation with Duck Phillips back in the office; the early morning phone call; and of course the hand-holding. But for this video, we decided on the fight that erupts between Don and Peggy after she decides to devote her evening in the office with him on the Samsonite ad campaign. There is just so much to unpack in this swift, three minute scene, four seasons' worth of narrative and character subtext that has built up and finally explodes between them. What's also remarkable is how much of this is conveyed through subtle but effective choices in staging and direction, as we hope this video illustrates.

The script for this video essay is written by Serena Bramble, Deborah Lipp and Kevin B. Lee, based on "a kernel" of an idea by Serena Bramble. The video is edited by Kevin B. Lee and narrated by Roberta Lipp and Kevin B. Lee.

TRANSCRIPT

Don has received an ominous phone message about his dying friend Anna.

Telephone at his side, he is trying to bring himself to call.

Don is staged front and center, conveying a sense of isolation and confrontation with himself.

The framing of this wide shot emphasizes the distance between Don and Peggy.

The rest of scene goes back and forth between these two shots of Don seated on the couch and Peggy standing as if above him.

The staging highlights Peggy's newfound aggressiveness towards Don in this scene. She is emboldened by her breakup. He is weakened by Anna's imminent death.

The following dialogue plays like an exchange of blows that resonates with the episode's boxing subplot. It even lasts about the 3 minute length of a boxing round.

Don's response doesn't invite further conversation or empathy. It is action-based, in line with his past advice to Peggy.

Don’s smile betrays relief that he won’t be alone. He can put aside the call. But he conceals this by acting as if Peggy could easily have left.

The framing of Don on the couch has shifted left. A space has opened.

Peggy wants to finish the fight she started with Mark by taking on the man at the opposite end of what’s expected of her. Her insult of Don's personal life is as much towards herself as to him. The remark doesn't faze Don in the least.

Peggy's body now occupies the space to Don's left, further establishing her imposing presence.

Now it is Don who insults Peggy's personal life, patronizing her for being girlish. But Peggy, too, is unfazed. She jabs directly at what really bothers her.

Unlike with Peggy's insult of his personal life, Don takes this insult of his professional life as "personal" Don is ready to fight, if only to drown out the more painful feelings of grief. He can do it best where he feels most at home: the office.

The scene moves into tighter closeups of Don and Peggy as they exchange jabs with increased intensity

Like Cassius Clay in the prize fight going on that night, Peggy fights with sharp, rapid flurries. Like Clay’s opponent, Sonny Liston, Don is slower, methodical, and forceful.

Don's face is intensely red. He needs the emotional release of this fight as much as Peggy.

Peggy again seeks recognition, but now it’s not professional. It’s emotional. But showing emotions is unprofessional. She’s been caught with her gloves down. Don finally unleashes.

The knockout blow: one last insult encapsulating the conflicts running through the scene.

Serena Bramble is a film editor currently pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Teledramatic Arts and Technology from Cal State Monterey Bay. In addition to editing, she also writes on her blog Brief Encounters of the Cinematic Kind.

Deborah Lipp is the co-owner of Basket of Kisses, whose motto is "smart discussion about smart television." She is the author of six books, including "The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book."

Roberta Lipp is the co-owner of Basket of Kisses and is or has been a voiceover artist, improvisor, actor, singer/songwriter, blogger and Mad Men aficionado. She plans to produce a one-woman show.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog and contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

VIDEO ESSAY: A close analysis of the Season 1 title sequence from THE WIRE

VIDEO ESSAY: A close analysis of the Season 1 title sequence from THE WIRE

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the very first video essay collaboration between Press Play founder Matt Zoller Seitz and editor-in-chief Kevin B. Lee: an analysis of the opening credits for Season 1 of The Wire, exploring how the images highlight themes of the season and offer predictive snippets of future plot twists. It was originally published at Moving Image Source in 2008. The piece is narrated by critic Andrew Dignan, from a written essay originally published at The House Next Door. To read the original article in full, click here.]

http://www.movingimagesource.us/flash/mediaplayer.swf?id=39/667

GREY MATTERS: The lunatics are in the hall! It’s the top 10 films about mental illness

GREY MATTERS: The lunatics are in the hall! It’s the top 10 films about mental illness

nullIt’s been a good few years for crazy.

Homeland’s made bipolar disorder a household ailment yet again. Sean Durkin’s Martha Marcy May Marlene located the goal posts between delusion and reality in its brainwashed hero’s mind and promptly moved them repeatedly (just like in real life!). And while William Friedkin’s incredibly distressing tale of mutually assured destruction, Bug, may not have hewed to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, its claustrophobic form of poetic, post-Repulsion address captured essential truths about madness a supposedly reality-based film like A Beautiful Mind could never touch.

A Beautiful Mind is saccharine Oscar bait, both inane and despicable, a flick where Russell Crowe’s mumblecore mathematician’s schizophrenia leads directly to the secrets of physics, fame and the love of Jennifer Connelly. It’s exactly not the kind of film celebrated here with this list of 10 films that do mental illness right – and by “right” I don’t mean clinically correct. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Girl, Interrupted, meanwhile, offers Angelina Jolie as a mentally ill person who’s actually one of those “free spirits” Hollywood so loves along with Winona Ryder hosed down in a sheer top while the only people who really are sick are fat or keep dead chickens under the bed. One could argue that the film trivialized serious mental illness. It, too, is not what I’m into here.

Returning to Homeland: it’s a terrific show in which Claire Danes’ mental illness functions mainly as a means of ratcheting up stakes and tension, which is fine; it’s a spy TV show, whadaya want? But as a film/TV writer and a person who’s dealt with bipolar disorder for 20 years, my goal here is to assemble 10 films that represent and go deeper – sometimes because they’re accurate, but more often because they cut to derangement’s core using symbol and metaphor. No matter how bizarre things look through madness’ distorting lens, whatever you see is never inexplicable, not really, and sometimes the sheer rawness of it all reveals things otherwise occluded. Which, I believe, is why these films are made in the first place and why we watch them.

nullSpider (Directed by David Cronenberg): Spider, a perfect film, opens with an image of abject isolation as a train dislodges a tremulous stick figure of a man, Dennis "Spider" Cleg (Ralph Fiennes), to an empty platform.

Spider, a barely functional schizophrenic, is out of the hospital prematurely (due to health care cost cutting) and staying in a boarding house with others that are mentally ill. He mutters, is terrified of changes in light or sound, wears four layers of clothing to protect him from God knows what, and smokes continually.

As he falls apart he inserts himself into a replaying hallucination of the messy Oedipal mystery of his childhood. It involves a too-beloved mom (Miranda Richardson), a terrifying dad (Gabriel Byrne), a slattern (also Richardson) and an unbearable crime.

Cronenberg suggests Freud as context but not as explanation. Like you’d expect from the past bio-horror master, his approach is more medical but also poetic, and Fiennes’ performance is a microtonal wonder of observation and barely doing anything to maximum effect. Peter Suschitzky’s in-amber cinematography suggests a world of molding things that need throwing away.

When I interviewed Mr. Cronenberg, he told me of an older woman who said her son was just like Spider and expressed her deep gratitude for someone, finally, getting schizophrenia right. It’s that kind of film.

nullTiticut Follies (Directed by Frederick Wiseman): When not force-feeding, beating or washing down the mad with fire hoses, jaunty guards in smart uniforms pass time by mocking naked, terrified elderly men in filth-slicked rooms while Catholic priests perform mini-exorcisms on the comatose insane. Elsewhere, a lucid man begs a panel of contemptuous psychiatrists to stop giving him drugs; they respond by having him dragged away in leg chains and having his “medications” increased.

Welcome to the part of Hell located at Bridgewater, Massachusetts’ hospital for the criminally insane, and the setting for one of the most notorious films ever.

Shot in 1966 by director Frederick Wiseman with a skeleton crew and minimal B&W gear, and intended for release in ’67, Titicut Follies was effectively censored by our government until a 1991 broadcast on PBS when most of the guilty parties were safely dead. To watch it is to witness a near-unbearable secret history of all-American monstrosity. When The Snake Pit barely touched on the “let ‘em rot” mental health care system of the US in 1948, folks were outraged, and the madhouse industry, enjoying a post-war/PTSD boom economy, made cosmetic changes. And so folks assumed things had gotten better.

Titicut Follies teaches us that a generation’s complacency led to absolute horror for thousands. It makes one wonder what we’re getting wrong today. To watch this film, click here

nullShutter Island (Directed by Martin Scorsese): Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a US Marshal who goes to Shutter Island’s remote prison for the criminally insane to solve a disappearance, and already we’re knee-deep in symbolism in what’s easily one of Scorsese’s top five films.

In a film shot through with schizophrenia, substance abuse, delusional psychosis, bipolar disorder and other unnameable mind terrors, “madness” in the film is actual but addressed in poetic terms. The worst parts of Shutter Island’s madhouse look ported straight from Titicut Follies’ palace of nightmare filth; the general vibe suggests Hammer horror film remixed by Samuel Fuller and Francis Bacon with couture by Mad Men. Like Kubrick with 2001, Scorsese realizes no single source can accompany his scope, and so he weaves Ligeti, Eno, Mahler, Dinah Washington, Nam June Paik and more to create 300 years of cello-range wailing.

Real world, untreated schizophrenia finds art-film analogue as our Teddy’s traumatic memories of liberating Dachau and seeing thousands of the frozen Jewish dead grows an increasingly febrile delusion that he’s onto a full blown HUAC plot. Teddy went through hell, but was he ever really okay? The film is mute on the topic, instead leaving us with an unanswerable question about personal agency.

Make that Scorsese’s top three films.

nullMysterious Skin (Directed by Gregg Araki): Gregg Araki’s finest is like the story of two privates who process the same war in different ways. There’s 18-ish Brian (Brady Corbet), plagued by blackouts since a summer day of Little League when he was 8, and now suffering a life of fear, isolation and a need to be around marginal people who believe in UFOs. And there’s Neil (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who remembers that same Little League summer where a pedophile coach (Bill Sage) molested him daily, leading to a need in Neil to please older men, until he reaches Brady’s age and becomes a whore.

What did the monster coach really do to Neil? A friend played by Michelle Trachtenberg sums it up: "Where normal people have a heart, Neil McCormick has a bottomless black hole."

With a careful pace somewhere between a dream and a funeral floated on a gossamer score by Harold Budd and Cocteau Twins’ Robin Guthrie, Araki’s film owns a sense of increasingly aching inevitability. We realize how deeply both boys’ inner worlds have been permanently mangled by abuse. But Araki suggests, in the very last image, a balm for their hells. Recommended viewing for every idiot at Penn State who still doesn’t get it.

Pulse (Directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa): Some young people in Tokyo loiter on a grey day. “I just feel like something’s wrong…terribly wrong,” says one. Another talks about suicide. Another kills himself. Everyone feels this intolerable heaviness where you’d slit your throat if you could only bother to lift a knife.

With a plot concerning depressed spirits escaping an afterlife of eternal, solitary unhappiness through a haunted Internet, Pulse is a monolithically slate-souled film that looks and sounds like clinical depression feels. Colored like a bruise in dirty violets, grays and blacks, and with a constant unnerving electronic noise soundtrack, Pulse follows random people through a pattern of “infection,” depression and suicide. Sometimes people try to figure out what’s up; mostly they just succumb.

There is no “safe” moment in Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s film. At one unbearably intimate juncture, Kurosawa shock-cuts ambient sound as someone curls into a fetal position, rolling on the ground weeping, “Help me, help me, help me,” as nobody does. Apropos of nothing, a girl falls to her death from a water tower in a scene devoted to something else. Later, a flaming airliner falls from the sky. Viewing it again I’m amazed at its absolute unity of vision, and as much as I love it, I’m glad there’s only one Pulse.

nullRequiem for a Dream (Directed by Darren Aronofsky): Requiem for a Dream’s conceit was simple but boy-howdy did it irk critics tetchy about new ways of playing the standards. Showy and arty! Too much razzle-dazzle! Style over substance!

Whatever. In Darren Aronofsky’s adaptation of Hubert Selby’s Brooklyn-set substance abuse apocalypse, the idea was to create a film analogue to Selby’s visceral language and the rush and crash of dope. To render something visually delicious and ultimately so grotesque it was hard to view without flinching.

Throw in Clint Mansell’s stabbing post-Hermann score and Jay Rabinowitz’s surgically assaultive cutting and everything else on the topic just feels anemic. And when twinned with Ellen Burstyn’s turn as an abandoned mom addicted to food, amphetamines and the memory of a youthful prettiness long gone, the result was the peak of a great actress’ 50-odd years of work.

But mostly, Aronofsky’s film asks us to see Burstyn’s character and the beautiful addicts played by Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans and Jared Leto and realize that particulars don’t matter when it’s the same monster eating you alive.

nullKeane (Directed by Lodge Kerrigan): Lodge Kerrigan’s Keane is a film so focused on the breathless run of it’s title character (Damian Lewis) from agony to acting-out that there’s little room to do much more than hope he won’t do irrevocable damage. While Kerrigan never diagnoses Keane, it’s hard to imagine a more fleshed out schematic of bipolar disorder’s very particular anguishes.

It all starts in New York City’s Port Authority, where Keane’s daughter was abducted a few months prior and where he speed-babbles paranoid delusions before using his disability check to pay for a hotel room. Sometimes the mania stops and he crashes into intolerable depression. (The scene where Lewis primally screams into a fetal position of pain is nearly unwatchable.)

During a surcease in his mania, Keane meets the woman down the hall (Amy Ryan), who entrusts him with the care of her daughter (Abigail Breslin) for a day. With the clock ticking before the next manic phase, Keane tries to show this new girl a single nice day as the audience anguishes over what may happen should his better angels fail. Lewis nails the way bipolar turns you into a cruel broken brain’s meat puppet and the tragedy of the good guy trapped inside.

nullReturn (Directed by Liza Johnson): When Liza Johnson's Return opens, Kelli (Linda Cardellini) has just returned from war. She can’t wait to reintegrate into her small-town life with her husband (Michael Shannon) and two kids. People keep asking her what it was like over there but she says other people had it much worse, although she did experience some “weird shit.”

Return reforms the Bush-war-vet crack-up-film cliché by focusing on PTSD at the early, psychologically metastatic stage via the accrual of tiny details of behavioral wrongness. Kelli starts preferring the floor of her kids’ bedroom to the conjugal bed. A girl’s night out ends with her sneaking through a bathroom window to get some suddenly needed air. A job that was once just fine is suddenly meaningless.

Until now best known for Freaks and Geeks and ER, Cardellini underplays in perfectly realized gradations of grinding soul tension a woman of extreme self-sufficiency betrayed by that quality.

The film’s crushingly fatalistic final image makes it clear that Return is, as the title suggests, an endless loop of damage; Kelli returns, alright, and God knows what kind of weird shit and horror we’re talking now. Perhaps the correct Netflix genre is “horror prequels.”

nullChris & Don: A Love Story (Directed by Guido Santi and Tina Mascara): Chris & Don: A Love Story tells the glamorous and sweet tale of author Christopher Isherwood, who, at age 48, met and fell for Don Bachardy, age 18, who would become one of our finest portrait artists. The two would be madly in love until Isherwood’s death in 1986. It’s filled with fabulous Hollywood stories from friends like John Boorman, Leslie Caron and Liza Minnelli, but the living heart of the film is Bachardy, at 77, still a spray hoot. You might ask, WTF is this film doing here? Well, deal is, Chris & Don is a mite misleading, because there’s one more love story here – that between Don and his mentally ill brother Ken.

It shows us that as much as it blows to be sick, it’s as hard in it’s own way to be a satellite of madness. But there can be a kind of bonding that almost feels like grace. I’m thinking of a scene where we see Ken, after years of electroshock "treatment," a lost, distracted soul but still deeply in love with the movies. If you can watch how brothers enjoy each other’s hard-won company as they go about catching a matinee without choking up, then dude, you’re made of sterner stuff than I.

nullSerenity (Directed by Joss Whedon): Her intelligence is so far off the charts they need to make new charts, but thanks to an empire’s relentless black op torture program, she’s deep into schizophrenia territory. And yet, when it’s time to send out the message that will save the galaxy along with the ragtag crew of idealistic outliers who populate Joss Whedon’s titular spacecraft/great cancelled TV show Firefly, who you gonna call?

The crazy girl, River Tam, as played by Summer Glau, who also appeared this year as a traumatized brainiac in the Whedonesque, extra-awesome Alphas. She gave us an icon that was newly minted and, I think, needed: a hero who represented, who was as out of it as any of us on our worst days, but when really needed, eclipsed the entire Firefly crew in derring-do.

Meanwhile, Whedon was asked by a writer why, in all his TV shows – in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and later Dollhouse – he repeatedly worried at the well of madness. It seemed he hadn’t ever really thought about it. Then he suggested that maybe it was because what could be worse then to lose your connection to the real world? To not be able to even trust your sense of yourself?

And then I just said something like, “Yeah.”

Ian Grey has written, co-written or been a contributor to books on cinema, fine art, fashion, identity politics, music and tragedy. His column "Grey Matters" runs every week at Press Play.

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: What makes MAD MEN great?

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: What makes MAD MEN great?

nullWe head into Mad Men’s" fifth season knowing nothing about it. The on-air promos recycle moments from past seasons, and the teaser art has been cryptic even by this show’s standards: an opening-credits-styled image of a falling man that could be hawking any season, and a photo of hero Don Draper staring at two mannequins — a clothed male and a naked female* — through a dress-shop window. Matthew Weiner, who banned advance screeners after a New York Times review revealed innocuous details from the season-four premiere, has dropped a cone of silence over the production. We have no idea if Don went through with plans to wed his young secretary, Megan; if Joan had Roger’s baby; or if the new agency is still in business. We don’t even know the year in which this season takes place, which at least would prepare us for the wingspan of Roger’s lapels.

On first glance, the black-ops secrecy seems insane. This isn’t a plot-twisty series like Breaking Bad or Homeland; it’s a low-key drama consisting largely of men and women in vintage clothes bantering on the same eight or nine sets. And yet the cloak-and-dagger shtick is of a piece with what’s onscreen. It’s a rare show that can vanish for seventeen months, make a tight-lipped and rather self-satisfied return, and presume we’ll give it a prodigal son’s welcome and be right. Mad Men has earned that level of blind trust because it’s serenely sure of what it’s doing.

You can read the rest of Matt's piece here at New York Magazine.

Matt Zoller Seitz is founder and publisher of Press Play and TV critic for New York Magazine

GREY MATTERS: DOCTOR WHO’s sublime study of grief, death and transfiguration continues to captivate its viewers

GREY MATTERS: DOCTOR WHO’s sublime study of grief, death and transfiguration continues to captivate its viewers

nullOn a recent episode of The Graham Norton Show, the genial goofball host was plainly delighted to have Karen Gillan—known worldwide as Amy Pond, the spirited, ginger-haired companion of The Doctor on Doctor Who—on his guest couch.
 
Of course, Norton couldn’t pass up commenting on a rumor that Amy Pond would meet her maker on a coming Who episode, chiding her, “Everyone knows nobody on Doctor Who dies!” The joke was that everyone on Doctor Who dies all the time and yet comes back to die yet again and again. Because dying is what you do on Who.
 
That said, if the show was just a series of expirations and miracle resurrections, it would quickly become hard to care.
 
But Who is so much more. In the way it ‘does’ mortality, it seems keenly aware of David Cronenberg’s career-long assertion that the SF and horror genres are uniquely able to allow us to rehearse finality, to play act Kübler-Ross, explore entropy, and consider matters of faith and/or the lack of it. This is, after all, a show that not only has an orchestral death theme, but an eerie, reverse-instrumental leading-to-death theme as well. It’s kind of blatant.
 
Here’s the thing: I do not believe that anyone likes anything deeply for innocent reasons, and by innocent I simply mean nobody is gaga over Star Trek, Lisbeth Salender or The Wire just because. There’s always a subconscious shadow text that makes things resonate.
 
It would be absurd not to assume linkage between my deepening attraction to Doctor Who, a time travel show that insists on memory’s primacy, just as I began a new labor in my own memory retrieval process, the result of a bus accident and brain trauma a long time ago.
 
I am even more sensitive to Who’s mortality themes as I write this column. Last week I found out that my mother, who is very old and very frail from several illnesses, will be operated on for cancer.
 
Before I got that news, the show had me thinking about Barbara — Barbara whose death was the first that shredded my world, Barbara of the too-wild black-brown hair, too-white skin, too-loud laugh, the absurd 50s ball gowns, too-everything, dead at 35 of a hidden cancer.
 
When you’re vulnerable the strangest things sneak through the cracks. And so when the Doctor tells one person after another after another that nobody is ever really gone, not really, and when The Doctor himself dies and Amy Pond literally remembers him back to life…well, I could barely swallow.
 
And so as my mother floats between worlds, and Barbara lives in memory, as I slip into a demographic where mortality—if not my own, necessarily, then those around me–the melodies sounded in Doctor Who touch me like no other film or TV. Sometimes the small tears feel almost like healing. Doctor who?
 
“Bowties are cool!”
 
nullThe Doctor himself isn’t actually called ‘Doctor Who’. He’s the last of his race, the Timelords, obliterated after some galactic war.
 
The genius of the Doctor Who conceit—the show runs back to 1963–is that that a Timelord cannot die. Instead, every few years he ‘regenerates’ and is reborn to be played by another actor.
 
Since ’63 ten actors have played him, meaning that, theoretically, Doctor Who could run forever. (I know that the Doctor says that he can only regenerate 13 times. Rule One: The Doctor always lies.) Despite being about 900, he’s a hyperactive, fashionable loon with great hair. Imagine an upbeat Jarvis Crocker and you’re 75% there.
 
The Doctor travels through space and time in what looks like a ‘60’s police phone booth but is actually a time/space travelling machine called a TARDIS.  He’s also pathetically lonely and always finds a companion, usually female, always platonic. (Come on, that thing with Rose was with a human Doctor double, sheesh.)
 
Since Steven Moffat took over the franchise from Who re-animator Russell T. Davis two years ago, the time we’ll be looking at here, the Doctor has shared his adventures with the feckless, insanely brave Rory  and his wife Amy Pond, who is the key to the continued existence of the universes. (Why aim low? the Moffat rule of thumb.)
 
Also in the mix is River Song, vivaciously played by Alex Kingston as a sort of uber-MILF in Prada complete with her own sardonically endgame-based tagline (“Spoilers!”) who may be the Doctor’s wife, mother, or murderer.
 
The Doctor, Amy, Rory, River—the closer they become, the better Moffat can hurt you when he kills them.
 
DYING
 
“If we're going to die, let's die looking like a Peruvian folk band.” – Amy Pond
 
nullHow you die on Doctor Who is romantic in the classical sense because it’s seen as very important. In television/film fan terms, it has additional appeal, as dying is usually a thing done in montage, a montage in waltz time.
 
It can also be, well, funny. There’s death by aquatic-vampire bite, pterodactyl bite, Dalek ray-blast, feral Ood, sentient tumors, infant liquefaction, being turned to dust by alien-possessed senior citizens and to stone by the Weeping Angels.
 
And sometimes death is just meaningless, abrupt and mean. In  “A Good Man Goes to War”, we meet Lorna, a 18-ish girl whose entire life has been defined by a few seconds spent running with the Doctor during an old adventure, a literal extra in his life.
 
She joins a holy war all on the chance that she’ll meet him. After a stupid battle, she’s shot—but she does meet the Doctor.
 
He caresses her forehead and assures her that he does remember her. She smiles, shudders, dies. It’s almost ghoulish it’s so true to life.
 
The same episode offers a waltz-time triptych of montage death so exquisitely morbid I imagine two tremulous thumbs up from the shadow of Alexander McQueen. Against Murray Gold’s typically gorgeous score—rather like Christopher Young’s Hellraiser rhapsody, but with the sinister extracted—we see The Doctor and his beloved cross-cut and succumbing in slo-mo, character-defining ways. I perversely wish it could have gone on a while longer.
 
But Who can also be downright cruel. In a moment that almost shocks with its naked spiritual need, its digital nihilism, “The God Complex” presents us with a Muslim girl trapped in a hallway with a murderous, belief-stealing monster.  The Doctor, trapped in another room watches helplessly on ugly, ‘80s-stle close-circuit TV as she begs him, “Please let me be robbed of my faith in private.” The Doctor, pained into silence, flicks off the video feed. It’s devastating stuff. (Moffat trashes organized religion, but he respects belief. Interestingly, when the Doctor is asked if he is an atheist, he does not answer.)
 
ENTROPY
 
“The Doctor’s death doesn’t frighten me, nor does my own. There’s a far worse day coming for me.” – River
 
nullIf she wasn’t such a fun/hot knock-about, River Song would be unbearably tragic.
 
As at ease leading militarized clerics (“The Time of Angels”) as she is raiding the Third Reich for haute couture (“Let’s Kill Hitler”), River exists in decaying romantic agony, as her ‘time stream’ is running in the opposite direction from that of The Doctor, whom she loves.
 
Every time she sees The Doctor, he remembers her a little less. Eventually, he will forget her entirely.
 
I was on the same page as The Onion’s Keith Phipps when he pointed out that River’s situation “echoes the plight of anyone who’s watched a loved one fade into the shadowlands of dementia. This is not a story that ends well for River and she knows it.”
 
In a show about time and travelling through it, addressing decay is only honest and Who worries on the topic. Every cast member has grown old and fallen apart in multiple episodes to various degrees.
 
The great literary fantasist Neil Gaiman co-wrote an episode called “The Doctor’s Wife” in which the TARDIS itself manifested in human female form just long enough to become frail and die painfully. We’re sad at the Doctor’s loss—and chilled at the reminder that ours isn’t so much longer.
 
DENIAL
 
“Does it ever bother you, Amy, that your life doesn’t make any sense?” – The Doctor
 
nullOne of the ways Who works is by blindsiding you from oblique angles. Witness: “Vincent and the Doctor” is really about Amy and grief and…well, here’s what it seems to be about. The Doctor takes Amy to a museum to see Vincent Van Gogh’s paintings, then to the past to meet Vincent himself, who is miserable and being attacked my an invisible monster. With The Doctor’s help, the monster is slain, Vincent’s taken to 2010 to see that he’s a cherished artist in the hope he won’t kill himself. He still does.
 
But this sad fable is just an armature on which to rest the episode’s real concerns, which have to do with Rory having just died in the episode prior. She cannot recall this due to a crazed religious order’s actions.  Amy’s amnesia is a way for Moffat to metaphorically address Kübler-Ross’s first stage of grief, denial.
 
Amy’s denial is the anxiety engine powering the episode. We know and The Doctor knows Rory’s dead and Amy not remembering is driving us kind of crazy.
 
When she transfers her considerable energies to poor Vincent—the same height and built as Rory—convinced she can stop his depression and suicide, metaphorically like the relative at a wake who’s cooking, pouring drinks and doing everything but admitting somebody is gone now.
 
Anyway, Vincent worries for her.
 
“Amy Pond, I hear the song of your sadness,” he says.
 
She denies it: “I’m fine!”
 
“Then why are you crying?” He asks as tears pour down her cheeks. From nowhere a funeral procession appears, covered in sunflowers. Rory is finally grieved over by proxy—and we’re bowled over and choked up because we were unprepared for this, because it only makes dream sense.
 
Amy is like a child dealing with her first loss. While Vincent’s return to 2010 and discovery of his value is a Spielberg-style spirit lifter, it’s eclipsed by Amy’s rage when she learns of Vincent’s persistent suicide and eclipsed yet again as Amy moves a small step past denial.
 
She sees that her efforts did matter: a dolly-in on a masterpiece reveals Vincent’s signature, “for Amy.” And so grief, a la Who.
 
 
DEALING
 
The Dream Lord: If you die in the dream, you wake up in reality…Ask me what happens if you die in reality.
Rory: What happens?
The Dream Lord: You die, stupid. That's why it's called "reality".
 
nullBut not necessarily. Because this is a time-travel show, it’s possible to be conversant with people earlier in their timelines.
 
But beware of SF show paradoxes. In other words–dead really is dead. Repeatedly, often in interlocking episodes, across time, space, multiverse, people, robots, aliens and elementals covering half a century of TV, films and novelizations,  we see the Kübler-Ross model—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance—play out in narratives that are so deeply geek that I’d need a some charts, maps, a PowerPoint presentation, and two laser pointers to convey the situations.
 
And anyway, the whole death thing—ultimately, it’s not literally about death. Or rather, it is and it isn’t. Doctor Who will be useless when my mother finally leaves us. And it only offers different ways to think about Barbara. Then again, the later is who lot of something. Doctor Who, I find, doesn’t have fans—it has followers. Some since 1963.
 
Just as The X-Files assured us that The Truth is Out There, Doctor Who assures us, as it obsesses over death, that nobody is forgotten, “not really”.  As The Doctor refuses to deny his faith he becomes an avatar for people with a hungry sort of closeted agnosticism.
 
But sometimes, Moffat lets his cool slip and lets us know what he’s feeling. It’s very qualified, but it’s very sweet: it’s very Doctor Who.
 
It’s Rory, surviving yet another conflagration intact to ask The Doctor, “Why am I here?”
 
“Because you are. The universe is big, it’s vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things happen and we call them miracles.”

Ian Grey has written, co-written or been a contributor to books on cinema, fine art, fashion, identity politics, music and tragedy.

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: The Failures, Successes, Possibilities, and Danger Signs of HELL ON WHEELS

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: The Failures, Successes, Possibilities, and Danger Signs of HELL ON WHEELS

nullLike a lot of people, I watched the first few episodes of AMC's Hell on Wheels,Joe and Tony Gayton’s drama about the building of the transcontinental railroad, and then checked out. It wasn't awful, but a lot of it was weak, and even in its better moments it seemed not to have found its tone yet. The pilot and the next couple of episodes seemed stranded between grubby naturalism and slick, empty mythmaking. In one scene, the show would feel like a wannabe McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Deadwood, muddy and lyrical and depressive. In another it would echo Sergio Leone or early Clint Eastwood (High Plains Drifter and The Outlaw Josey Wales especially). Yet another scene would feel anachronistic, glossy, and weightless. When I finally did catch up after the New Year, what I saw made me wish I'd been watching the show in real time. Hell on Wheelsdidn't turn into a great drama, but it settled into a distinctive groove, growing more relaxed and confident by the week, dealing with painful historical subjects and unique personal crises that most TV, even Western-themed TV, often ignores, and indulging in some of the most deliriously cinematic montages this side of Breaking Bad. Some scenes and moments were flat-out amazing — so unlike anything else on TV that they made me want to forgive or forget the just-okay dialogue and production design and hit-and-miss performances.

Last night's season finale — which cut between vengeance-obsessed lone wolf hero Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount) chasing one of the men he believed raped and killed his wife and a dance party celebrating the completion of 40 miles of track — encapsulated the show's flaws as well as its promise. The gathering-of-a-misfit-community scenario is such a durable Western trope that it's tough to mess up, but here the editing was choppy and the staging of important action was undistinguished (few of the dancers looked comfortable dancing). And the dialogue — never the show's strong suit — was so full of clunkers that I'm having a hard time singling out the worst line; it's probably a toss-up between the former John Brown follower turned man of God, Reverend Cole (Tom Noonan), telling Bohannon, "Choose hate, it's so much easier," and the ex-Pawnee concubine turned prostitute Eva (Robin McLeavy) telling her ex-slave boyfriend, "I love you, Elam, and I'm tired of being a tramp."

You can read the rest of Matt's review here at New York Magazine.

A critic, journalist and filmmaker, Matt Zoller Seitz is the staff TV columnist for New York Magazine and the founder of Press Play.

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: ALCATRAZ should never have been freed

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: ALCATRAZ should never have been freed

nullWhat if the prisoners of Alcatraz all mysteriously disappeared when the prison closed in 1963 and then started reappearing in the year 2012? And what if they hadn't aged a day and were set on finishing unfinished business, settling old grudges and the like? If that sounds fascinating to you, then you’ll probably give the new J.J. Abrams–produced series Alcatraz (Fox, Mondays 8 p.m.) more of the benefit of the doubt than I did. I found tonight’s two-hour premiere so listless that I’m having a hard time mustering the energy to pan it. And the second episode is only a slight improvement. My fascination with the real prison probably has at least something to do with my resistance. The place has such a rich history — one that has already been alluded to in such films asBirdman of Alcatraz and Escape From Alcatraz — that I’m not yet convinced that it should be reduced to a mere backdrop for sci-fi mythologizing by remnants of the Lost writers room and cast. But we’ll see.

Sarah Jones stars as San Francisco police Detective Rebecca Madsen (Sarah Jones), who finds a fingerprint at a murder scene that belongs to Jack Sylvane (Jeffrey Pierce), an Alcatraz prisoner who died a long time ago. Lost co-star Jorge Garcia plays the buddy she’s teamed up with: Dr. Diego "Doc" Soto, an Alcatraz expert and comic-book aficionado. As she tries to get to the bottom of the mystery, she’s aided by scientist Lucy Banerjee (Parminder Nagra) and by her surrogate uncle Ray (Robert Forster, charming but underused). She's also hindered by a sinister government agent named Emerson Hauser (Sam Neill, doing his Wasp Satan thing), who promises revelations but delivers mostly red herrings and warnings. Sarah’s family has deep roots in Alcatraz — both Ray and her grandfather were guards there. There are hints that the show might meld science fiction and mystery with ghost-story elements; the time-tripping prisoners are trying to avenge past sins or otherwise rebalance the cosmic scales. I’m sure it will take four or five years for us to find out, but only ifAlcatraz can get through this season without driving even its most dogged partisans into a funk, as Fox’s promising but infuriatingly mediocre Terra Novadid last fall.

You can read the rest of Matt's review here at NYMAG.

A critic, journalist and filmmaker, Matt Zoller Seitz is the staff TV columnist for New York Magazine and the founder of Press Play.

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY Offers Only a Fleeting Sense of Relief for the West Memphis Three

MATT ZOLLER SEITZ: PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY Offers Only a Fleeting Sense of Relief for the West Memphis Three

nullBy Matt Zoller Seitz

Press Play contributor

By all rights, Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky's Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (HBO, 9 p.m. Eastern) should feel more triumphant than it does. It is, after all, about the release of the West Memphis Three, men who were imprisoned — wrongly, it now seems — for murdering and mutilating three young boys in West Memphis, Arkansas, nearly two decades ago. When convicted killers Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelly, Jr. were sentenced back in 1993, they were mere boys themselves, high school kids with pimply skin and uncertain voices.

Thanks in large part to the efforts of Free the West Memphis Three, a legal defense fund, the once seemingly impregnable case against them fell apart, exposed as circumstantial and shoddy and tainted by ineptitude and bureaucratic self-protection. When Berlinger and Sinofsky visited West Memphis in 1996's Paradise Lost, it was the story of a court case, pure and simple, and the filmmakers viewed it with an ominous and slightly clinical detachment. By the time they made their follow-up, 2000's Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, the trio were already starting to seem like victims of a witch hunt. When they're finally let go at the end of Paradise Lost 3 — the result of a bizarre plea-bargain arrangement that I'll get into shortly — there is a sense of relief and a surge of sentiment, but it's fleeting, and in the end it's eclipsed by a sense of emotional, physical, and spiritual exhaustion. Berlinger and Sinofsky titled this movie before the trio found out they were finally going free, but the word "Purgatory" still fits, because it encapsulates their predicament over the last eighteen years. The trio was condemned not just to rot in prison, but to wait for a resolution, an exoneration, that most people figured would never come.

To read the rest of the review at New York Magazine's Vulture web site, click here.

A critic, journalist and filmmaker, Matt Zoller Seitz is the staff TV columnist for New York Magazine and the founder of Press Play.