Star Wars: Original Trilogy Part II

Following the overwhelming success of A New Hope, Lucas began working on The Empire Strikes Back. This film is my personal favorite, likely due to its focus being more on character development and less on space battles. I find the strongest parts of the trilogy as a whole to be the parts when the characters are on screen. The spaceship effects just help to make everything believable, and help to serve as a transition from segment to segment.

The film takes place three years after the destruction of the death star at the end of the first film. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamil) is with the rest of the rebels on the ice planet Hoth when he begins to hear a call from Obi-Wan (beyond the grave) to travel to a remote location in order to learn to use the force from a mysterious man known as Yoda. The Empire has been searching for the rebels and finally finds there secret base on Hoth, and that is where the film begins. Leia (Carrie Fisher), Han (Harrison Ford), and Luke turn the tide in the battle so that the base can be evacuated.

Han and Leia confess their feelings for each other (a little bit) finally. Luke tells them he has to go find Yoda, and the group splits up.This part marks a distinct change in the previous flow of events up to this point in the series. From this point on the film jumps back and forth between Luke’s storyline and Han/Leia’s storyline.

Luke accidentally crash lands on the planet he was looking for but ends up finding a weird little green man, which he eventually learns is Yoda. Yoda (Frank Oz) is another iconic figure from Star Wars. A Jedi master, he begins to teach Luke to use the force. When Luke’s friends are ambushed in the cloud city by Vader, Luke has a choice to make. He decides that he has to abandon his training and go confront Vader to save his friends.The back and forth cutting between Luke and Han/Leia makes the pace of the film quicker than others, even though Luke is training in a swamp for a large portion of the movie.

I believe that this device, coupled with more of a focus on the characters growth both lead to more of a complete movie than the first. In addition to that, The Empire Strikes Back makes you feel truly worried about the characters safety. Han is eventually frozen in Carbonite, while Luke loses his hand and barely survives a fight with Vader. This added worry makes you more invested in the characters and the film as a whole.

           

            Filming of Return of the Jedi followed three years after episode V, much like its predecessor. This film takes a noticeable step down in overall quality when compared to the first two. Most critics gave the first two films a score in the mid-90s while the third received mostly a low-80s. Return of the Jedi borrows aspects of the first two movies that made them good, but doesn’t really do very much different for itself.

The film starts with the droids delivering a message to Jabba the Hut. After an extended “jailbreak” type scene where the Luke and the gang free Han from Jabba and Boba Fett, they return to the rebel fleet.

The fleet learns that the death star is being rebuilt, but is not yet fully operational, and therefore will be vulnerable to attack, if they attacked now. The rebels see a tremendous opportunity to beat the empire when they learn that the emperor, Darth Vader’s master, will be on board the station when they attack. Seizing the opportunity, the gang volunteers to take a task force down to Endor to destroy the shield battery protecting the station. Luke feels that he must go and turn himself in an effort to sway his father (Vader) back from the dark side. Vader shows little compassion, saying that it’s too late for him, and that he is going to bring him to the emperor.

Emperor Palpatine (Clive Revill) reveals to Luke that he has lured them into a trap. The space station is fully operational and the empire’s fleet is waiting for the rebels.

Additionally, the shield battery is not as vulnerable as they thought. He did all this because he wanted Luke to become angry and turn to the dark side and join him as his apprentice as his father did.

Most of the rest of the film consists of Luke fighting Vader on the death star. Meanwhile, Han and Leia (with some help from a ridiculous amount of Ewoks) fight the empire on the ground, in an effort to destroy the shield. The rebels, while it looks grim for a while, win out in the end. Vader, showing compassion for the first time, saves his son, and kills Palpatine, but receives mortal wounds in the process. With everything wrapped up, there is a dancing scene with the Ewoks and everyone lives happily ever after.

The best part of this film is the struggle between Luke, Vader, and Palpatine. The battles between the Ewoks and the Storm Troopers just seem a little too ridiculous by comparison.

The spaceship battles are decent, and looked ground-breaking at the time, but they don’t involve any of the main characters, and so you care very little about them. The film is still good overall, but it is in a different category than the first two. Despite all of this, it still was a commercial success and helped fuel the cultural phenomenon that is Star Wars. The success of the trilogy spawned three more films, episode I, II, and III. And it now it seems we’ll have even more, as Disney has announced that Episode VII will be coming in 2015.

Star Wars: Original Trilogy (part I)

I hesitated to do a piece on Star Wars, since it’s more than just a film, it’s a cultural phenomenon. In the end though, I decided that the original trilogy demands a closer look. This is the first part of a two part series on the original trilogy. This first part will look at just episode IV since its success spawned the phenomenon. Between the two posts I’ll try to answer the question of what exactly made this series so popular.

The answer lies in a galaxy far, far away. Or at least in George Lucas’ creation of one. It lies in a galaxy of Jedi, lightsabers, aliens, spaceship battles, the Sith Lords, droids and “The Force” that he created. This setting is the reason for the first movie’s success and the reason that so many sequels and spinoffs have been so popular.

But is a setting enough for a movie to become a cultural phenomenon? No, of course not. It is, however, enough for you to want to see more. But I’ll get to that more in part II, where I’ll cover episode V and VI. No, for this film to become a national wonder it needed iconic characters, a timeless musical score, and it had to do things nobody had done before.

One of the best parts of Star Wars is that while it is a space Sci-Fi film, it differs from other films in that the characters and their rules and limitations all seem very real. Our main protagonists are all very real characters. That is to say, they all have their own personalities and flaws and often they don’t agree with each other.

Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamil) acts very much like a typical young man who wants to leave his parents for adventure.

Han Solo (Harrison Ford) on the other hand acts like an overconfident self-absorbed asshole you may know.

Leia (Carrie Fisher) plays a very believable snooty princess.

Rather than establishing a Sci-Fi realm that is completely unbelievable, Lucas created one where you can imagine yourself caught up in the same situations. There’s an empire that “keeps the peace” in the galaxy much as the Nazis did in Europe, by ruthless military occupation. Much of the empire was modeled after Nazi Germany, all the way down to naming the typical infantry for the empire “Storm Troopers”.

As far as content goes, I feel that the idea of “The Force” is one of the most important aspects of Star Wars. The idea that a force exists between everything in the universe and that it is beyond our understanding is not too far-fetched. Obi-wan “Ben” Kenobi (Alec Guinness) tells Luke that an order known as the Jedi exists devoted studying, serving and utilizing the Force to promote peace. The feats that Jedi are able to produce are similar to magic, and arguably are more believable.

               Even though the protagonists are memorable, it is the primary antagonist that is the most widely recognized character. That antagonist is, of course, Darth Vader.

Darth Vader establishes himself as a tremendous force of evil early on in the film. Numerous times throughout episode IV he strangles his own commanders who fail him by using “The Force”. Each time you sense that even the bad guys fear his power. In this scene, when the commanders of the star destroyers still question his power, and that of the force, he demonstrates it while delivering a memorable line.

In that scene they also mention that they will now rule by using fear, further strengthening the Nazi regime similarities.

Another major factor that propelled Star Wars into the spotlight was the use of robots and graphics in ways that nobody had done before. R2D2 and C3PO are two robotic droids who act as supporting characters throughout the series. R2D2 is widely considered the unsung hero of the series, while C3PO plays a role similar to the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz. While C3PO (Anthony Daniels) is simply a suit that is worn, R2D2 had multiple forms, including that of a remote controlled prop.

Lucas founded the graphics company Industrial Light and Magic just to do the special effects he envisioned for the film. Their tireless work produced what was at the time the most ground-breaking special effects ever produced. Without these effects, Star Wars suffers greatly and becomes unbelievable, something that I feel is vital to its success.

(Look for part II soon!)

Princess Mononoke

In the interest of diversity I figured I would depart from my pieces on traditional films and TV shows and instead reflect on an animated film for a change. Miyazaki’s Princess Mononoke (1997) is a mold-breaking animated film that, in my opinion, hasn’t been matched in quality by another film of its type since its release. I’ve been asked by many of my friends who were fans of Japanese Animation why I liked it more than some of Miyazaki’s other films such as Spirited Away (2001), etc. While it’s hard to pinpoint one thing that makes it better, I appreciate a number of aspects of the film that I feel makes it stand apart from its peers. I will refer to the English dubbed version throughout this piece since it is the only one I have seen, though I have heard that the Japanese version is even better.

One thing I found that Princess Mononoke does better than most is that it has some very diverse characters that grow as the film progresses. Ashitaka (Billy Crudup) is a young boy who is simply trying to protect his village when he is attacked by a boar god that has become a demon.  In the process of defeating the monster, Ashitaka becomes cursed, and is told by his village witch woman that he is going to die as a result of it.

Ashitaka leaves his village in an attempt to find a cure. His journey finds him caught in the middle of a conflict between the gods of the forest spirit and the people of “Iron Town”, a mining town that is attempting to cut down the forest to get to the iron under the mountain.

Ashitaka just wants to do what is right, but in a war between nature and humans, which side is correct? This becomes a central question that the film poses. Along the way, he encounters, and falls in love with the “Wolf Girl” San.

San (Claire Danes) is the titular character of the film, “Princess Mononoke” whose literal translation is more akin to “Spirit Princess”. San and Ashitaka come from different backgrounds, San being raised by wolves, while Ashitaka was raised by humans. While San hates humans, she falls in love with Ashitaka because he believes that humans and nature can coexist in peace. It is through this unlikely pairing that the forest is saved.

In the end both San and Ashitaka grow up a little bit and realize that there is no simple answer for what is “right” and “wrong”, you can only do what you think is best, and hope that is enough. This theme comes up a lot in most of the films I think are well made, as I feel it is a central question that resonates with everyone, and therefore helps make each respective film more impactful.

Another main theme of Mononoke is that nature will always win in the end, and the best humans can hope to do is to try to coexist with it, rather than beat it. I also feel that this is a powerful message, and one that people maybe should pay more heed to.

Many times throughout the film I felt as if I was watching a live action movie, rather than an animated film. It wasn’t the graphics or the attention to detail, but rather the director’s choices to mimic the movements and placements of a camera as if the events were really being filmed with one. The first 30 seconds or so of this clip demonstrates this element in various ways including the use of a 1^st person camera effect, all of which I find to be very refreshing when blended with a fantasy cartoon.

The “camera” choices, beautiful landscapes, diverse characters and brilliant action sequences more than make this film worth your while. But what makes this film a truly moving experience is the soundtrack. Take a listen.

While I thoroughly enjoy all of the music present in the film, the song starting at 14 minutes into the clip is particularly moving, as it makes you feel as if you are on a journey yourself. It is this beauty amidst the conflict and hatred along with the fundamental questions Miyazaki poses that make this film so great.

Kingdom of Heaven

Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven (2005) is certainly a film worth a Lens Reflection. The film revolves around the story of Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom), a French blacksmith who comes to the aid of Jerusalem during the crusades of the 12^th century. If you have seen this movie you probably wouldn’t think of it as one of your favorite movies of all time. That’s likely due to the unfortunate nature of the editing process, where a fine line exists between cutting extraneous footage and cutting vital footage from a film in an effort to make it better. The director’s final cut of the film runs 3 hours and 14 minutes. This was seen as too long, so the producers felt the need to cut the theatrical release down to 2 hours and 24 minutes.  The end result was a watered-down version of the real thing, and consequently it suffered, both critically, and financially.

The film’s theatrical release was a huge flop in the American box office, earning just $47 million compared to a budget of about $130 million. The films international appeal helped it tremendously. Thanks to the European and Arabic historical elements, the film made over $200 million worldwide. Who knows how much money could have been made if Ridley Scott’s version had hit theaters instead.

The director’s cut and the theatrical cut are two different films entirely. The film received mixed reviews originally, with a fairly average score on from most critics. The director’s cut, released a year later, received overwhelmingly favorable reviews, and is considered more on par with the rest of Ridley Scott’s epics. It is this extended version that I appreciate so much, and so it is the one in which I will refer to from here on out.

This extended version of Kingdom of Heaven is an artfully crafted movie filled with brilliant cinematography, amazing performances and an emotional resounding theme. I appreciate this film so much from a filmmaking perspective, especially the script.

 When dealing with such a touchy theme such as the nature of “God” and “His Will”, it is hard not to write lines that sound too lofty. This film manages to deliver a lofty message without seeming out of place while doing so. Much of it sounds like poetry being recited by the all-star cast of Liam Neeson, Orlando Bloom, Edward Norton, Jeremy Irons and David Thewlis. Each line that is delivered seems to be another statement about what it means, and what it takes to be a good person.

“What man is a man who does not make the world better?” –Balian (Orlando Bloom)

“You are not what you were born, but what you have it in yourself to be.” –Godfrey (Liam Neeson)

Some scenes are set around the message entirely. Such is the case in this scene, when Balian first meets the Leper King of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV (Edward Norton).

Hospitaller (David Thewlis) may echo the theme of the film best when he says,

“I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here (pointing to his chest) and here (pointing to his head). What you decide to do every day, you will be a good man – or not.”

A major problem that hindered the film’s success was that it was marketed as an action/romance story set in an ancient period. It instead is more of an epic historical fictionalization and examination of a religious conflict, and should have been edited and marketed as such. This difference is evident in the comparison of the film and its trailer, and even more so between the theatrical and director cut versions.

Overall the film is one of my favorites because I strongly agree with the message inherent in the film. The blend of action, history, and what it means to be good all appeal strongly to me. The history educates and the dialogue makes me think while the action keeps me interested. Any film that can balance these elements so fluidly will earn my praise every time.

White Collar

Jeff Eastin’s White Collar is a show that is just really fun to watch. Its tone is light and playful for the most part, something I haven’t really touched upon on any of my other posts. In fact, at first glance it’s a show that doesn’t really align with my typical taste. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike most of the cop dramas that plague the current TV landscape just as much as the next guy.

 (You know what I’m talking about. Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, Southland, In Plain Sight, Chicago Code, Hawaii 5-0, or any of their dozens of spinoffs and look-alikes. There are too many of them.)

But what makes White Collar stand apart from the pack is that it takes the format, which is unarguably a successful one, picks the best parts from it, and combines it with aspects of a bank-robbery type of format. It’s not your typical cop/detective/”who-done-it” show largely because the main characters are on opposite sides of the law, and therefore not always working towards the same goal. This obviously differs from the normal format.

          The show stars Neil Caffery (Matt Bomer) as a young, charismatic con-man, forger, and thief. He is caught by agent Peter Burke (Tim Dekay) the head of the FBI’s “White Collar” unit, a unit devoted to apprehending high-stakes criminals such as bank robbers, con-men, and art thieves, etc.

They begin their work together when Neil is going to be put back in jail after escaping, and is facing 20+ years there. He is given an offer to commute his sentence if he works as a special consultant (albeit with a tracking anklet) under Burke to help him catch other criminals, which he has little choice but to accept.

There have been other cases of this happening, both in real life and in successful media adaptations.

(Notorious young forger Frank Abagnale was given a similar deal to work for the FBI in the 1960s. His story was portrayed in Spielberg’s Catch Me if You Can (2002).)

This aspect of White Collar helps it to stay fresh because unlike the typical cop drama, the main protagonist is neutral, and therefore his true motives are always a little bit of an unknown. This adds a level of mystique to an already mystery-riddled show, where the FBIs unit is trying to capture criminals while keeping track of Neil at the same time.

As with any good show, the characters mesh well. Burke is a perfect complement to Neil. Burke, a middle-aged family man has always worked on the right side of the law, but it demands all of his time and he gets little reward for his efforts. Neil has trouble seeing the point of working for the good guys, and constantly questions why Burke does what he does. Burke working to slowly transform Neil’s mindset to that of a “good-guy” is a long-running story and character arc of the show. Where Neil is reckless and compulsive, Burke is calculated and careful. Together, they always get the job done.

What else does it do well? It has romance, “bromance”, action, drama and it’s actually pretty funny. Neil constantly gets on Burke’s nerves, usually much to the mirth of the viewer. Despite the light and airy feel of the show, the dialogue is not a bunch of cheesy one-liners that one would expect. The dialogue is witty and moves the show along without needing any cliffhanger sentences that set up their commercial breaks.

(See: CSI: Miami)

All-in-all the series offers a fresh take on an otherwise stale format. I’m looking forward to watching the next seasons to see what changes they’ll make to keep the audience interested.

The Prestige

Christopher Nolan enjoys toying with his spectators’ expectations. As with Memento, his film The Prestige (2006) is a film that demands all of your attention, and usually multiple viewings, to fully understand. This film is one of my favorites, but I remember not feeling that way when I originally saw it. I attribute this phenomenon to the unique, sometimes confusing timeline of The Prestige that isn’t explicitly explained early on in the film. You realize as the film goes on that two men are reading each other’s diaries and act as the narrators for two different points of view. The men are two magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), who are bitter rivals. The film explores how far rivals can go just to best one another.

One of the aspects of the film that makes it so unique is that The Prestige, much like a magic trick, relies heavily on audience manipulation. Throughout the film, Nolan does a great job of manipulating the spectator and making them unsure of what is going on and who they should root for. Viewing the film leads me to believe that Nolan is making a statement about a director’s relationship with a film being much like a magician and a magic trick. Perhaps Cutter, Angier’s assistant, says it best in the film.

“The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret… but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled.”

I believe Nolan wants us to see the duality of the magician and the director. Each director looks for new and innovative ways to get people to watch their films. Spending a fortune even, just like Angier does in the film, to make a film great. With the scene of “The real transported man” it seems Nolan wants to send a message to the spectators that although, as Angier says, “What you are about to witness is not magic, it’s purely science,” the graphics of technology are no less mesmerizing and impressive than the trick of classic illusion.

The scene gives me goose bumps every time. 

Nolan also wants the spectator to grasp the dual meaning of the devotion to the art of directing being mirrored in the devotion to the craft of being a magician both by the old Asian magician, and by Borden and his twin. It takes a lot, too much, even, if we are to believe the movie’s metaphor to be literal, to pull off the greatest masterpiece.

In the end the only thing holding this film back from being one of the greatest is that it is a little too confusing the first time you watch it. Nolan probably wanted it to be confusing on purpose to mimic the magic trick once more, but I believe he takes it a little too far. While hints are there throughout the film if you look for them, the majority of people aren’t looking, as they are not used to needing to in a typical film.

Children of Men

Children of Men (2006) is a classic example of why you can’t measure the quality of a film by its box office success. The film had a budget of $49 million but only made $45 million in the box office. Anyone who watches this film would be perplexed to learn of its poor performance. But this could be attributed to various factors other than the quality of the film, such as its marketing campaign, or the fact that it is a British film rather than a traditional Hollywood blockbuster.

Children of Men is a dystopian science fiction film set in the year 2027. The film’s premise is that after two decades of unexplained human infertility, society is on the brink of collapse. As human’s face the possibility of extinction, countries have to become militarized states to keep the peace. Our main character is Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a civil servant who has destiny call his name when he is tasked with escorting the first pregnant woman in twenty years out of a revolutionary warzone.

This film is a cinematographic masterpiece. Director Alfonso Cauron took deliberate steps to make each scene feel real. His unusual approach to the modern action film may have contributed to the poor performance of the film, as people like what they are used to, and they certainly aren’t used to what they see in the film. Cauron utilizes many single-shot action sequences, something few movies of any kind have ever done before. Traditional thinking is that action can only seem fast-paced and dramatic if you have fast paced cuts in your editing as well. An example of typical action movie sequences can be seen below.

Cauron wanted to break the mold and does so in a very innovative way. His scenes get your heart racing because they seemed so relaxed and then something unexpected will happen and there’s no cut to warn you. This documentary/newsreel style is something that I’ve only ever seen in my favorite war film and series, Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Band of Brothers (2001). Just as in those, a distinct feeling of realism adds a level of meaning that other films lack, as it feels as if the spectator is another one of the people in the scene. Children of Men takes the documentary/newsreel style and adds a one-shot element to it that has an extremely effective result. An example of this and a major spoiler can be found on the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfBSncUspBk

As you can see, it feels as if you are right there in the car with the characters, and the scene is very tense without any fast-paced cuts or disorienting camerawork. This combination of camerawork is present in almost all the action sequences, and is very refreshing to an avid movie watcher.

The movie has an interesting premise and innovative cinematography, but its themes also play a major role in its overall quality. I don’t say this because the themes of hope and faith are profound and that any film that covers them is automatically of a higher caliber than films with different themes. I say this because they are present on the screen but allow the spectator to draw their own conclusions. And I must say that if a film can make you think about your own outlook on life, than it is by definition a meaningful film. Cauron despises films that explain everything to the viewers. He thinks viewers should be presented with events that lead to questions, and to draw their own conclusions for them. The theme of “hope in the face of overwhelming despair” permeates all facets of the film. It’s present in the overall premise of the human race going extinct. It’s tied to Kee, the pregnant African illegal immigrant and the first pregnant woman in 18 years. Theo is caught in it, as he is just a guy who ends up as potentially the only hope for the survival of the race. No scene is a more powerful example than the one below.

After being chased through a warzone, Theo and Kee are trying to get the baby to safety, but are trapped in a building with rebels fighting against the military. After an explosion, the baby crying is enough for everyone to completely stop what they’re doing for a few minutes and remember that they are human beings. This scene goes a long way in cementing the message into the spectator; one of hope in the face of all odds. All of these elements combine to create a masterful film.

Lost

Lost is easily my favorite TV series to date. I didn’t know that characters could be, or should be as important in filmmaking as they were in this show. It helped fuel the mentality I have developed which is that entertainment should always be character-driven. Lost tells the survival story of the passengers of a jet liner that crash lands on a remote “deserted” island. There are 70 initial survivors of which over 20 become main characters.

Having more than 20 main characters gave a lot of freedom to the show-runners. Many of the characters’ deaths were actually due to negative fan response to the respective characters, rather than being planned ahead of time. This is great, because when you’re watching and don’t like a character usually that character gets written out within a season.This method of instant feedback actually changing the content of a show is a new-age concept that’s really taking off now with the rise of social media. Lost helped pioneer this extremely effective concept.

The casting process for those characters played a huge role in the show’s development. Many roles were reportedly changed or written-in for the actors who impressed in the initial auditions. As a result, Lost has genuine feel to it as many of the actors could bring a lot of their own personality into their characters.

 Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Sayid, Jin, Sun, Claire, Hurley, Juliet, Charlie, Richard, Bernard, Rose, Faraday, Boone, Miles, Michael, Ana Lucia, Charlotte, Frank, Shannon, Desmond, Eko, Locke, Ben, Libby and Vincent. All of these characters play a crucial role in the plot at various times throughout the series. There are a few that get more screen time than others. Our main character is Jack (Mathew Fox), a troubled surgeon who wants to save everyone all the time.

The series starts from Jack’s point of view; waking up on the island and responding to the crisis on the beach. We can see from the beginning that he’s a good guy and will try anything to keep everyone alive. The characters in this show are all vastly different, and so they rarely agree on anything. Jack constantly wants the group to do what he thinks they should, while other characters, such as Sawyer (Josh Holloway) and Locke (Terry O’Quinn), try to steer the survivors in their own direction.

Kate (Evangeline Lily) serves as a love interest for both Jack and Sawyer, and the resulting love triangle makes for a constant source of drama throughout the series. These characters, along with Jin, Sun, Hurley, Charlie, Claire, and Sayid are our core group that the majority of episodes focus on throughout the series. You either love or hate each of these characters, but the show does a great job of making you feel something about them.

Lost was conceived as a survival type show, which would have looked like a TV show version of Castaway (2000). J.J. Abrams brought the Supernatural element to it and I feel that’s a major reason the show is so good. The characters are trying to survive on this island, much as if it was deserted, but then they are confronted with a mysterious supernatural “monster”. The monster is never shown on screen until much later in the series, which leaves it up to the viewer’s imagination until then. This makes you feel the same fear and confusion about the monster as the characters do, as they hear it and run and never get a good look at it. The feeling of reality mixed with the supernatural is a major factor that makes this series amazing.

The last facet of Lost I wanted to touch on was the framing device for the each episode. Each episode is from the perspective of one character, with flashbacks to their pre-crash lives interspersed. This method of revealing more and more of each character’s back story as the show progresses is highly effective. Click on the link for an example of a flashback in the show.

The more you find out about each character, the more you want to keep watching, hoping that another “Jack” episode or another “Hurley” episode is coming next. This is a crucial part of what makes Lost so successful, as the show keeps you wanting to know more and more throughout. Overarching mysteries and character’s full back stories in Lost can be thought of as the “reveal” in a magic trick, with the audience captivated the whole way, desperate for the end.

Band of Brothers

Band of Brothers (2001) is one of the greatest adaptations of war onto the small screen. It’s a WWII mini-series created by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg that tells a fictionalized story of paratroopers that were part of the 101^st Airborne Division’s “Easy Company” during the ally invasion of Normandy. It follows the company throughout the entirety of the War. It first aired two days before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Centers. Despite great ratings and critical acclaim, its viewership declined throughout the series following the Sept. 11^th attacks, as HBO pulled its marketing campaign following the tragic events of that day.

Band of Brothers does almost everything right. A large amount of that is thanks to Hanks and Spielberg for taking their time and doing things the right way. Their attention to detail and respect for the history is evident throughout, which creates a signature feeling of realism. They based the series off Stephen Ambrose’s book of the same title and went directly to the source to ensure the right feeling was present in the final product. They used actual accounts from the veterans to come up with a lot of the story and even use their interviews at the start of every episode to set the tone for the events you’re about to see. This detail, combined with the same grainy shutter timing of 90 or 45 degrees used in Hanks and Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998) creates a kind of documentary effect, as if the footage were almost from the 1940s. As a result, many of the battles feel more hectic than a typical war movie, with a distinct grittiness present throughout.

So it’s a very real adaptation of war. What else does it do well? As you probably guessed, if I think it’s good, then it probably has some amazing characters. Band of Brothers is no different than anything else I’ve reviewed in this aspect; the characters are amazing. The show focuses on a few main ones, specifically focusing on one of them at a time each episode. This proves to be a great narrative device, offering a fresh perspective on the events taking place with each new episode. It also allows you to get some deeper character development than you would if they had spent an equal amount of time on all of the characters, since there are so many in the show.

Since they are paratroopers and are usually on their own in each of the major battles, the show really sets itself up to be a character-driven series. Richard Winters (Damian Lewis) is the central character, as he assumes command of Easy Company on D-Day and works his way up the chain of command throughout the series.

A few other characters have episodes from their perspective, and each one is likable in his own way, but Winters remains your favorite throughout the series. I could give you a summary of each of the characters but that would be getting away from the main point of the blog. The main reason a whole company of characters are likable and a large part of what makes this series so good is the usage of the eye-witness accounts in the film-making. The characters feel real because the actors got to speak with their surviving real-world counterparts.

The survivors even helped by telling the actors about their friends that didn’t make it, as many of the characters do not. This all helps to create a sense of realism that makes the battles that much more gripping, as you actually feel the danger the characters are in and you care if they make it through. So in the end it’s the steps the filmmakers took to make it a faithful adaptation of what events really were like in WWII that is so effective and the main reason this series is so good.

How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM)

Quality has many different forms. A serious movie with great cinematography may be what most critics think of as a “quality”. I argue that quality can come from any venue, even a sitcom such as How I met Your Mother (HIMYM). Entertainment has a value in of itself that should be accounted for when measuring the quality of content. While this value may be hard to measure precisely from a quantifiable standpoint, it is no less a very real and powerful value. TV shows do attempt to quantify it with ratings and movies attempt to measure it with box office receipts, but ultimately these methods never paint the entire picture as some good movies perform poorly in the box office and some great shows get cancelled due to poor performance in ratings.

Regardless, HIMYM has done well enough to make it through 9 seasons, something that few TV series ever manage. This alone speaks volumes of its quality. But, is popularity enough to determine quality? The businessmen would have to say yes. Jersey Shore is certainly not what most people think of when they think of “quality”, yet it is one of the most successful series of all time.

The critic in me would argue that entertainment content can be successful without being quality entertainment. And, as a whole, quality movies and TV shows have historically been more successful than their counterparts. So what makes HIMYM good? Well, it’s funny. It’s really funny. The writer’s comedic genius comes through the screen in all kinds of ways. Being funny isn’t enough to be considered good though. You need something else to help you stand apart. So what else does it do well? For one, it is not a traditional Sitcom. HIMYM focuses on Ted Mosby (Josh Radnor) as he tells his children in the year 2030 the series of events (the entire show) that led up to him meeting their mother.

This framing device is very unique and a huge part of the show. It allows the creators of the show to jump back and forth in time through flashbacks over a 25 year span. This creates a lot of content and ensures the show remains fresh. Additionally this allows the show to fool the spectator at times because Ted is an unreliable narrator, and so can misremember things. The spectator is constantly engaged as a result.

Another major reason this series is so good is its characters. A sitcom requires great characters more so than any other format, as it has few locations and little else besides the characters interacting with each other in a limited number of small spaces. Barney Stinson (Neil Patrick Harris) drives the humor in the show.

His unbelievable nature contrasted with the very real nature of all of the characters makes the show hilarious. Most of the episodes involve Barney trying to get Ted to do something that Ted doesn’t want to do. Ted is a hopeless romantic, and you cannot help but root for him.

Lily (Alyson Hannigan) and Marshall (Jason Segel) provide their own comedic presence as well as a steady romantic relationship throughout the series entirety.

This helps drive fresh content as well by giving Ted a measuring stick for how happy he should be in all of his attempted relationships. Robin Scherbatsky (Cobie Smulders) serves as Ted’s romantic interest early on in the series, and the show creators credit the actress as a major reason the series stuck around in its early days.

Each of these characters brings their own unique element to the show, and their willingness to stick it out has given the show a sense of continuity that is increasingly rare nowadays. All of these reasons make HIMYM a great TV show that I fell in love with. It played a major role in driving my desire to get in to the entertainment industry.