Good Omens - the TV show
Jun. 1st, 2019 05:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beer_good_foamyOK, so with a combination of crap weather and the whole town being closed down for a Marathon, I spent today watching all of Good Omens. Quick thoughts from someone who's read the book a couple of times but not religiously under the cut.
Stuff I really liked:
- It was certainly faithful to the text. Gaiman has said that doing this without Pratchett around made him all the more adamant to not let producers change any of Gaiman's contributions, and it shows. It is, largely, exactly what you'd expect the book to look like on screen, and what's more, they mostly manage to capture that quick-fire delivery of gags, references, asides, etc.
- The leads are perfectly cast. Sheen and Tennant dig into their roles with so much relish. And it's not just them; Michael McKean as Witchfinder Sergeant Shadwell, Jon Hamm as Gabriel (though seriously, has Hamm had even one serious role since Mad Men? It seems his entire career these days is, well, hamming it up in comedies), Anna Maxwell Martin as Beelzebub, Miranda Richardson as Madam Tracy, the kid actors, Nick Offerman as the US ambassador, Ned Dennehy as Hastur... A lot of good actors having a ton of fun with their roles here.
- The design of both heaven and hell. The whole show looks beautiful, but I love how they make both angels and demons look both silly and conceited but still dangerous. And put up against rustic Tadfield and bustling London, they both look like pretty awful alternatives.
- The flashbacks. Starting with the actual scene of the expulsion from Eden, and then that quick history of Aziraphale and Crowley through the ages.
- The extended ending. The ending was always one of the weakest parts of the book, and while the series does share some of those problems, it does add a few things that really help out. Rubber duck indeed.
Stuff I was not entirely wowed by:
- It was certainly faithful to the text. For better and for worse, it's extremely fan service-y, checking off scenes and jokes and lines without developing or modernizing the story beyond what the book did. Not that the book has aged that badly, but... Two cases in point:
- The baby switch. In the book, the three-card-monte simile was needed to set up how the switch goes wrong. On screen, it's just an awkward way to explain to us what we're already seeing on screen.
- The Riders. Not only did they cut the Hell's Angels, but the Riders got a lot less room than I'd been hoping for. The design and casting is mostly excellent (and I love that they kept the Delivery Man) but it feels like they're just there, leaving a lot of unexplored metaphor, especially considering that they're adapting a 30-year-old book and might have gotten further into what War, Famine, Pollution and Death mean today as opposed to at the ass-end of the cold war.
- Perhaps as a result of the faithfulness, some of the characters feel underdeveloped. Anathema and Pulsifer especially, who are big POV characters in the book but feel demoted here. This should have been a good opportunity to give them more depth, not less. There's an unfortunate metaphor in how a series about an angel and a demon falling in love with humanity seems far more interested in angels and demons than in humanity.
- The voiceover. I would die for Frances McDormand same as anyone, but at times it feels too much like an excuse to just read the book aloud. You have a camera that can show us these things. Also, is it a good idea to have God narrating a story about the silence of God? I'm... honestly not sure.
- I miss the Buggre Alle This Bible. Not just because it's a good gag, but because it's part of how the series edges away from tackling religion and its role in the story as opposed to just making fun of angels and demons. I'm not asking it to go full Religulous, and thank Insertdeityhere that it doesn't, but for a show about heaven and hell, it's almost scrubbed clinically clean of any mention or parallel or comment on actual faith.
Stuff I actively disliked:
- Nothing, really. It's brilliant in flashes, overly duty-bound at some points, but it's never actually bad. We got a decent adaptation, not a great one but not an embarrassing one either. Rejoice.
So what did everyone else think?
Stuff I really liked:
- It was certainly faithful to the text. Gaiman has said that doing this without Pratchett around made him all the more adamant to not let producers change any of Gaiman's contributions, and it shows. It is, largely, exactly what you'd expect the book to look like on screen, and what's more, they mostly manage to capture that quick-fire delivery of gags, references, asides, etc.
- The leads are perfectly cast. Sheen and Tennant dig into their roles with so much relish. And it's not just them; Michael McKean as Witchfinder Sergeant Shadwell, Jon Hamm as Gabriel (though seriously, has Hamm had even one serious role since Mad Men? It seems his entire career these days is, well, hamming it up in comedies), Anna Maxwell Martin as Beelzebub, Miranda Richardson as Madam Tracy, the kid actors, Nick Offerman as the US ambassador, Ned Dennehy as Hastur... A lot of good actors having a ton of fun with their roles here.
- The design of both heaven and hell. The whole show looks beautiful, but I love how they make both angels and demons look both silly and conceited but still dangerous. And put up against rustic Tadfield and bustling London, they both look like pretty awful alternatives.
- The flashbacks. Starting with the actual scene of the expulsion from Eden, and then that quick history of Aziraphale and Crowley through the ages.
- The extended ending. The ending was always one of the weakest parts of the book, and while the series does share some of those problems, it does add a few things that really help out. Rubber duck indeed.
Stuff I was not entirely wowed by:
- It was certainly faithful to the text. For better and for worse, it's extremely fan service-y, checking off scenes and jokes and lines without developing or modernizing the story beyond what the book did. Not that the book has aged that badly, but... Two cases in point:
- The baby switch. In the book, the three-card-monte simile was needed to set up how the switch goes wrong. On screen, it's just an awkward way to explain to us what we're already seeing on screen.
- The Riders. Not only did they cut the Hell's Angels, but the Riders got a lot less room than I'd been hoping for. The design and casting is mostly excellent (and I love that they kept the Delivery Man) but it feels like they're just there, leaving a lot of unexplored metaphor, especially considering that they're adapting a 30-year-old book and might have gotten further into what War, Famine, Pollution and Death mean today as opposed to at the ass-end of the cold war.
- Perhaps as a result of the faithfulness, some of the characters feel underdeveloped. Anathema and Pulsifer especially, who are big POV characters in the book but feel demoted here. This should have been a good opportunity to give them more depth, not less. There's an unfortunate metaphor in how a series about an angel and a demon falling in love with humanity seems far more interested in angels and demons than in humanity.
- The voiceover. I would die for Frances McDormand same as anyone, but at times it feels too much like an excuse to just read the book aloud. You have a camera that can show us these things. Also, is it a good idea to have God narrating a story about the silence of God? I'm... honestly not sure.
- I miss the Buggre Alle This Bible. Not just because it's a good gag, but because it's part of how the series edges away from tackling religion and its role in the story as opposed to just making fun of angels and demons. I'm not asking it to go full Religulous, and thank Insertdeityhere that it doesn't, but for a show about heaven and hell, it's almost scrubbed clinically clean of any mention or parallel or comment on actual faith.
Stuff I actively disliked:
- Nothing, really. It's brilliant in flashes, overly duty-bound at some points, but it's never actually bad. We got a decent adaptation, not a great one but not an embarrassing one either. Rejoice.
So what did everyone else think?
no subject
Date: 2019-06-01 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-06-02 08:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-06-01 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-06-13 12:20 am (UTC)It works whenever C & A or Tennant and Sheen are on screen, when they aren't, it drags. Although I did love the casting, and the four horsemen were well cast and sort of fun metaphorically speaking...the kids could have been slightly better, and the Anathema/Pulsiver romance was boring.
I think the God voice over bits where Gaiman's way of giving a voice to Prachett's footnotes (which I could have done without in both, but liked better in the film version just because not a fan of footnotes in fiction.)
I enjoyed it though and rec'd it to a co-worker who didn't read the book, who absolutely adored it.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-08 12:12 pm (UTC)(Only halfway through. Will try to remember to come back when I have watched it all.) (And yes, I am scrolling through my flist trying to catch up. Am on skip=200...)
no subject
Date: 2019-06-09 11:39 am (UTC)And yes, that scene on the wall is the first of many, many good Crowley/Aziraphale scenes.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-13 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-06-14 07:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-06-15 08:32 am (UTC)Oh it's a great deal more than that...
And I mean that. It's a love story. And it's not even subtle about it (icon is v simplistic, since I knocked it up in about 5 minutes, but I just love that scene to distraction). The point of the series is a demon and an angel fall in love. Now the *framing* is an apocalypse, and a very well done and detailed apocalypse it is, but it's there to push our love struck heroes into admitting their feelings, and finally ditch their abusive/toxic 'families'. Also of course their love saves the world. It's like... Becoming. The whole thing is carefully structured so that Buffy kills Angel in the most painful way possible. And it *is* beautifully structured, and everything is very well written, the plot is great, and all the characters are well used, but it's still a story about Buffy and Angel, not Acathla. :)
As for some of your other points, then I haven't read the book, so these are my observations as someone who has only watched the show:
- The baby switch. In the book, the three-card-monte simile was needed to set up how the switch goes wrong. On screen, it's just an awkward way to explain to us what we're already seeing on screen.
That scene was one of the most hilarious things it has ever been my privilege to watch. Most shows need exposition, and it's generally done very awkwardly, because it's repeating something to the characters they already know. But THIS just took that to the next level, and didn't even pretend that it wasn't ridiculous. A+, wish more shows would just own it like this. ETA: Was thinking about the big cardboard cut out thing, more than the cards, but the cards worked in the same way (like the winking) - over-explaining stuff doesn't bother me, as long as its tongue-in-cheek. Also I think the three-card-monte was included quite simply for the sake of Baby A, Baby B and The Adversary: The Destroyer of Worlds. Which is just brilliant and I'm glad they kept it. :)
There's an unfortunate metaphor in how a series about an angel and a demon falling in love with humanity seems far more interested in angels and demons than in humanity.
They fall in love with each other. And... sort of become human in the process. They are the lens through which we view humanity; the things they love (food, books, the Bentley, the plants), the reason they fight for humanity, when neither Heaven nor Hell seems really interested. (As someone whose 'type' is 100% Renegade Immortals I don't mind the focus. *g*) If they'd had more time, they might have expanded the depth of all the humans, but with six episodes they kept a tight focus. Also I liked the Show Don't Tell aspect? Immortals loving humanity can veer worryingly close to the Tenth Doctor waxing lyrical about how special they are.
- The voiceover. I would die for Frances McDormand same as anyone, but at times it feels too much like an excuse to just read the book aloud. You have a camera that can show us these things. Also, is it a good idea to have God narrating a story about the silence of God? I'm... honestly not sure.
IMHO (and referring back to my first paragraph) Crowley & Aziraphale falling in love WAS Her ineffable plan. Also I loved Her narration, loved that She was female... Yeah, twas all good. :)
but for a show about heaven and hell, it's almost scrubbed clinically clean of any mention or parallel or comment on actual faith.
Depends on how you view it I guess - if you see Heaven & Hell as fundamentalists, happy to destroy anything in their path just to prove they're right, following rules for the sake of it, and Aziraphale & Crowley as those questioning the system, who put kindness above everything... Then I'd say it's very critical of uncritical faith, especially the way Heaven was portrayed - Gabriel came across as so many tele-evangelists. After all, in this story, Jesus is killed for telling people to be kind to each other, and the importance of kindness is the overall theme, from Aziraphale giving the sword to Adam and Eve, to Crowley and Aziraphale basically telling Adam that he is fine just the way he is, and accepting him unconditionally. So, I think it's basically a fairy tale. Or a morality play or fable. And actually, thinking about it, the moral of the story is profoundly Biblical (even if the overall theology is... not so much - but again, by divorcing it from 'real' faiths it worked far better):
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Corinthians 13, 1-7
I have many many feelings about this show, but most of all I am overwhelmed with joy at how firmly it stands up for what it believes in. Be kind. Love one another. If you do, you can defeat the armies of Armageddon. (And then have a lovely lunch with your beloved.)
no subject
Date: 2019-06-20 08:10 pm (UTC)Oh it's a great deal more than that...
I agree that it wants to be, and a lot of the time succeeds in.
It's a love story. And it's not even subtle about it. The point of the series is a demon and an angel fall in love.
Absolutely. And I love that part. (And I love how Michael Sheen has been allll over it on social media.)
That scene was one of the most hilarious things it has ever been my privilege to watch.
That's interesting. I'm beginning to think it wasn't a great idea to re-read the novel just a few weeks before the show aired. To me, that scene felt strained; it could have been made to flow so much better by either ditching (or at least downplaying) the 3-card-monte thing or by not showing us the same thing. But I'm glad it worked for you!
They fall in love with each other. And... sort of become human in the process.
Point taken, and bad phrasing on my part. And like I said, all the bits with Crowley and Aziraphale work really well. It just bugs me a bit (and this is a criticism of the novel as well) that they are, if anything, more human than all the other characters. With six hours I do think they had time to get into other characters as well, but if anything they made them less three-dimensional, IMO. Especially Adam and Anathema.
Depends on how you view it I guess - if you see Heaven & Hell as fundamentalists, happy to destroy anything in their path just to prove they're right, following rules for the sake of it, and Aziraphale & Crowley as those questioning the system, who put kindness above everything... Then I'd say it's very critical of uncritical faith, especially the way Heaven was portrayed - Gabriel came across as so many tele-evangelists. After all, in this story, Jesus is killed for telling people to be kind to each other, and the importance of kindness is the overall theme, from Aziraphale giving the sword to Adam and Eve, to Crowley and Aziraphale
Absolutely, and again, bad phrasing on my part. I should have said religion rather than faith. It just feels a bit weird to have a show that's so explicitly about heaven, hell, God, Satan, angels, demons, etc etc... and the only time any actual human religion shows up is in that flashback to the Blitz. The novel at least acknowledges that some of the characters are religious. I'm not asking for it to be a huge part, but I'd have loved to see the scene from the book where Aziraphale temporarily possesses a US televangelist, for instance.
ETA: They seem to have hit a sore spot anyway. 20 000 US evengelicals petition Netflix to cancel Good Omens. Yes, Netflix. Yes, cancel a finished miniseries.
After all, in this story, Jesus is killed for telling people to be kind to each other
I did love that scene. Especially with Crowley being the one to "tempt" him, and explaining he only wanted him to see the world.
All that said: I'm really glad so many are liking this, to see the fandom flare up again after all these years, and like I said - that we got an enjoyable, if IMO far from perfect, adaptation with a lot of things to build on and discuss. That's awesome, in every sense of the word.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-25 09:52 am (UTC)Ditto. Although in my case it's also because I have been reading the book, and wanted to finish it before I replied, so I could be properly informed.
Absolutely. And I love that part. (And I love how Michael Sheen has been allll over it on social media.)
Michael Sheen is fandom's new boyfriend, and quite rightly too! :) Also, I knew that the Crowley/Aziraphale angle had been used as a focus for the show, but reading the book really throws that into stark relief. It's an amazing feat.
That's interesting. I'm beginning to think it wasn't a great idea to re-read the novel just a few weeks before the show aired. To me, that scene felt strained; it could have been made to flow so much better by either ditching (or at least downplaying) the 3-card-monte thing or by not showing us the same thing. But I'm glad it worked for you!
This is where (pondering the translation from book to screen) that I think the TV show just gets far more mileage out of it. Sure it's a fun thing, and possibly over-explains the baby swap, but it does more than that. It's when one of the cards is shown to change and now depicts a (very distinctive) image of the devil, as a way for us to visualise 'the Adversary, Destroyer of Kings, Angel of the Bottomless Pit, Great Beast that is called Dragon, Prince of This World, Father of Lies, Spawn of Satan, and Lord of Darkness', beyond the amusing and OTT title, and mentally tag the evil baby. Because it's the same image that Anathema puts up in her cottage, and the same image that Adam sees and that flicks the switch in his brain so that he becomes aware of his powers, and we are reminded of who/what he really is. (It's a bit like the fez and the mop in The Big Bang, anchoring images that we can process.) The show is full of them, and I honestly feel like Christmas came early.
It just bugs me a bit (and this is a criticism of the novel as well) that they are, if anything, more human than all the other characters. With six hours I do think they had time to get into other characters as well, but if anything they made them less three-dimensional, IMO. Especially Adam and Anathema.
I see what you mean, but 6000 year old immortal renegades are *inherently* more interesting than any human. You may have seen this, but their story became what anchored the whole story and pulled it together. The book is very... democratic, for lack of a better word. It feels like the best of Classic Who (say, City of Death). Story-driven. Whereas the show is character driven, through-and-through. Which you prefer I'm guessing is down to personal taste. I know that, for me, Aziraphale's 'To the world' hits me harder than anything has for many, many years. It floors me. (Also see this little Tumblr thread.) None of the other characters have that sort of scope.
and the only time any actual human religion shows up is in that flashback to the Blitz. The novel at least acknowledges that some of the characters are religious. I'm not asking for it to be a huge part, but I'd have loved to see the scene from the book where Aziraphale temporarily possesses a US televangelist, for instance.
First of all - that's a brilliant moment (as are all the random possessions), but again it's about focus? Faith & religion are huge, huge subjects. The show borrows the imagery and uses it, but I don't know that it's interested in those questions? Because once you start, you'll end up as The Good Place with no space for anything else. Or look at Sabrina, which co-ops the whole pantheon as metaphors for the evils of the patriarchy. It's a funny book about the end of the world, and although the book goes into things a tiny bit more (like you say, that scene where they discuss the rapture), I don't know that shoe-horning it in would have done any good. Overall, as you say, 'Be kind to each other' is probably by far the simplest and best message.
ETA: They seem to have hit a sore spot anyway. 20 000 US evengelicals petition Netflix to cancel Good Omens. Yes, Netflix. Yes, cancel a finished miniseries.
I saw. It's hilarious. I'm also amused that they're so angry about 'the occult' and not Teh Gay. But then I figure they haven't watched it...
I did love that scene. Especially with Crowley being the one to "tempt" him, and explaining he only wanted him to see the world.
Again, the theology of this show is... *hands* A fairy tale.
All that said: I'm really glad so many are liking this, to see the fandom flare up again after all these years, and like I said - that we got an enjoyable, if IMO far from perfect, adaptation with a lot of things to build on and discuss. That's awesome, in every sense of the word.
It certainly is. Although I'd (of course) argue that it's damn near perfect. I was reading the book and basically just found myself in AWE at the skill with which Neil Gaiman translated it to the screen. The only vaguely comparable thing is Lord of the Rings. It's *exquisite*. And the sheer attention to detail is ridiculous. This thing has so many layers I don't even know where to start.
(I could carry on, but I think I'll try to write something of my own. Apologies for the tl;dr.)
no subject
Date: 2019-06-25 07:53 pm (UTC)Yay!
Also, I knew that the Crowley/Aziraphale angle had been used as a focus for the show, but reading the book really throws that into stark relief.
I do love that they make it a lot more obvious without the couple of gay jokes that the 30-year-old book stuffs in there.
I'm also amused that they're so angry about 'the occult' and not Teh Gay.
Apparently their petition complains about how "an angel and a demon are good friends", so they either haven't seen it or it went completely over their heads.
Also,
no subject
Date: 2019-06-25 08:19 pm (UTC)Speaking of... My other half loved the show (this from the man I am usually referring to as 'Darcy' because he is an unrepentant snob when it comes to anything TV/movie related), but did remark that Michael Sheen's performance as Aziraphale was a little OTT. At which point I whipped out the book and read him the bit about 'gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide'. He conceded the point that MS was clearly just playing the part as it was written. :)
Apparently their petition complains about how "an angel and a demon are good friends", so they either haven't seen it or it went completely over their heads.
That's hilarious. And considering that they think it's on Netflix, presumably they haven't seen any...
The tweet very nearly killed me. Except I am already dead because of this. But the tweet made me do a lot of the same undignified noises.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-20 02:37 pm (UTC)I think I had a bit of a hard time with Adam himself. I could see the shape of his arc and all, but it felt like both his heel turn and face turn were...rushed, maybe?...while watching. I think maybe the focus on Aziraphale and Crowley makes the "You're not good, you're not evil, you're human" material a little flat. Similarly it felt like they needed more on how large Adam's human father looms in his consciousness to earn the "You're not my dad, Smaug!" moment. I mean, I get it though, and it wasn't executed badly, it just felt like it needed a bit more breathing room or something. (On the other hand, Dog rejecting Adam when he goes mad with power had full impact for me. Dog person I guess.)
no subject
Date: 2019-06-20 03:10 pm (UTC)(Anyway, criticisms aside, I liked it!)
no subject
Date: 2019-06-20 08:48 pm (UTC)Yep. The novel does give both Adam and The Them a lot more ... I'm not sure if "depth" is the word, but more to do and more time to develop.
Similarly it felt like they needed more on how large Adam's human father looms in his consciousness to earn the "You're not my dad, Smaug!" moment.
Agreed, though that particular moment is a problem in the book as well. I mean, some of these problems are part of doing a very faithful adaptation of a not-flawless original. The ending of the show, IMO, feels if anything less anticlimactic than the book - the one big change they make is the epilogue of C&A switching bodies and going on trial for each other, and that's a huge improvement without cheating the spirit of the story. I really wish they'd had a few more moments like that.
Dog rejecting Adam when he goes mad with power had full impact for me.
Oh yes. (Dog was excellently cast too.)
Re cold war, Pence etc - exactly. The story still works, but if they'd wanted to make something more relevant, they could so easily have tweaked it to do that without having to change a whole lot. That might have given the secondary characters something more to do as well. I mean, we're feeling just as apocalyptic right now as we did in the mid-80s, only back then we felt at the mercy of powers greater than us and now we feel responsible with every choice we make. It makes the story feel just a little... I dunno, quaint, for instance compared to the obvious successor The Good Place.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-25 05:53 pm (UTC)I'm certainly glad of the body swap -- the only problem is that the "demon invulnerability to fire" was pretty unclearly set-up earlier, what with Hastur burning up when Crowley drove through the burning ring of fire ("I went down down down and the flames went higher") and all; I mean, Crowley survived the drive but I didn't know that meant he had permanent fire immunity or whatever.
Dog was great.
only back then we felt at the mercy of powers greater than us and now we feel responsible with every choice we make
Ugh yes. Actually we sort of get to feel both at once, huzzah.
for instance compared to the obvious successor The Good Place
Yeah, that's an excellent comparison. (Though I haven't seen season 3 yet. Shh!) This also makes me think how comparing Ted Danson as Sam Malone vs. Ted Danson as Michael also sort of gives a handy comparison of what the limits of the range of moral behaviour felt like in the late 80s/early 90s versus now -- then it's like the limits of behaviour were rakish selfish libertinism versus small-scale community togetherness, while larger events pass by without us having any effect whatsoever, and now we are supposed to lift ourselves out of a sucking pit of ancient perpetual evil and save souls by our bootstraps. I don't know whether "God's plan" is ineffable or not, but it sure is effed.
PS Watched Rolling Thunder Revue! I don't think I understood it though (like, the Sharon Stone, fake congressman stuff). Was Scorsese doing ~experimental documentary magical lying to make a point about...society???~ in his George Harrison doc too? I'm so confused.
no subject
Date: 2019-06-25 08:03 pm (UTC)I don't know whether "God's plan" is ineffable or not, but it sure is effed.
Heh. I like to quote Douglas Adams. "Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."
PS Watched Rolling Thunder Revue! I don't think I understood it though (like, the Sharon Stone, fake congressman stuff). Was Scorsese doing ~experimental documentary magical lying to make a point about...society???~ in his George Harrison doc too? I'm so confused.
I was mostly having a ton of fun watching that, but IMO, if there's any point to the outright fictitious bits (and note that several of the non-music scenes from 1975 - most notably that Serious Relationship Discussion between Dylan and Baez - are presented as documentary shots when they're actually scripted scenes from his movie Renaldo & Clara), it's that Dylan's career has always been about creating an alter ego. Even Robert Dylan, né Zimmerman, doesn't exactly know who Bob Dylan is (or was). The myth is bigger than the man. Which means you can't tell his story without a bit of fiction thrown in. Or something. Which is why I still think I'm Not There, where he's played by a half-dozen different actors including Cate Blanchett, is the most accurate portrayal of Dylan on film.
ETA: this goes a bit over the top but basically yeah.
“Truth was the last thing on my mind, and even if there was such a thing, I didn’t want it in my house. Oedipus went looking for the truth and when he found it, it ruined him. It was a cruel horror of a joke. So much for the truth. I was gonna talk out of both sides of my mouth and what you heard depended on which side you were standing. If I ever did stumble on any truth, I was gonna sit on it and keep it down.”
To quote another hero of mine, Romanian author Mircea Cartarescu: "Authenticity is just a literary device."
no subject
Date: 2019-06-29 03:44 pm (UTC)I didn't know that about that Dylan/Baez footage! Still so much to learn. I did love I'm Not There, though I don't think I "got" all of it.
Authenticity can be, if taken too seriously, a trap -- the ability to adapt is itself a chameleonic quality, and so authenticity can mean locking those colours down until you get eaten. Neophyte that I am, even I know that Dylan's multiple-act career depends on his frequent reinventions, along with the angry jeers whenever he "goes electric."
no subject
Date: 2019-07-01 02:28 pm (UTC)...Anyway, I then had to watch Paul Schrader's pseudo-remake First Reformed as well, which makes a lot of interesting choices, but one really interesting side: In Winter Light, the whole impetus of the plot is that one character is having an existential crisis because he's terrified of nuclear holocaust (hey, it was 1962). In the 2018 remake, the same character is going through largely the same crisis but because of climate collapse; the first half of the movie plays almost exactly identically, but since the change in times (both the nature of apocalypse and the change in setting and culture) demands action rather than just coping mechanisms, the whole second half becomes very different.
I'm not saying Good Omens should have changed everything about the second half, but I thought it was an interesting parallel.
no subject
Date: 2019-10-23 09:39 pm (UTC)I have one social media acquaintance who posts regularly about the Aziraphale/Crowley ship, and it does occur to me that the A/C story is the one thing in Good Omens that is *least* time-sensitive, in that they're immortal beings. The non-heteronormativity is something that is easier to portray on TV now than 20 years ago, certainly, but I think it does maybe hint at some of the ways in which the show's deep focus on that ship is somewhat at odds with commenting on our current troubles as individual humans, like if BtVS were just the scene where Anyanka explains the inevitability of the proletariat uprising to Halfrek. Which is only a problem insofar as GO does seem to be trying to be that for us.
But anyway yeah, along the lines of what you're saying, Aziraphale and Crowley dropping out in order to live out their (indefinite) lives quietly rather than having to actively work to bring about the Apocalypse is more appropriate for a time in which the primary problem was the intractable war between two behemoths, where if everyone just stopped and hung out with each other instead everything would mostly be okay. That's not really our problem now. I mean, it wasn't *really* our problem then either. But the message was probably more internally coherent for the major problems of the time. It's still true that it's better to drop out and have quiet, pleasant lives than to actively make things worse, but as you say there's a certain need for action now that there wasn't before. (Though in reality it's also unclear whether we aren't as powerless as we were in 1962/1990, or more so, but still....)
no subject
Date: 2019-10-25 02:00 pm (UTC)I didn't actually know that First Reformed was playing with the same type of story (I mostly just knew "anxious priest") but that makes sense.
It's more than just the type of story, the first half of the movie is a remake in all but name, including the very austere style. After that, the difference in story (and it being, well, a Paul Schrader movie) turns it into something different. But yeah, Ozu might be a good comparison too.
I've spent 2019 watching one Bergman movie per week (curse you, huge DVD box set they released for his 100th birthday last year) and... it gets a bit much, but very few of his movies are boring. I'm just constantly amused by how they were sold in the US. Viz this trailer for The Silence.
I think it does maybe hint at some of the ways in which the show's deep focus on that ship is somewhat at odds with commenting on our current troubles as individual humans, like if BtVS were just the scene where Anyanka explains the inevitability of the proletariat uprising to Halfrek. Which is only a problem insofar as GO does seem to be trying to be that for us.
Heh. I like that comparison.
Aziraphale and Crowley dropping out in order to live out their (indefinite) lives quietly rather than having to actively work to bring about the Apocalypse is more appropriate for a time in which the primary problem was the intractable war between two behemoths, where if everyone just stopped and hung out with each other instead everything would mostly be okay. That's not really our problem now.
That's a really good point. At the same time, with a bit of hindsight, I feel like there's a lot more to the story than just a cold war metaphor. The kids' rejection of the pre-programmed apocalypse that's enabled by A&C works, even if I think the series could have made more of it. In a way, it feels like the ending doesn't so much solve the old conflict as render it irrelevant; heaven and hell become interchangeable and therefore pointless, A&C get to live together as retirees, and the next apocalypse is a different matter. I'm not sure that's a good ending, it certainly doesn't dial back the nostalgia factor, but it's one that's at lest internally consistent.