Great Migrations - TBD

I am becoming a great aficionado of nature docs. Perhaps the great turbulence of human lives has become too much for me to endure on a regular basis. Nature docs offer a meditative beauty and a sense of scientific assuredness at their core.

Watching my first installment of "Great Migrations", I am struck by the power of the narrator. Don't get me wrong. Alec Baldwin is no David Attenborough. Attenborough's joy and tenderness make him second to none. But I love the poetic turn that Baldwin brings to this new series. I can't imagine Oprah pulling off describing the sun as "the great watch-maker". Instead of the humanizing folksiness attempted in "Life", "Great Migrations" astounds with the drama inherent in the ebbs and flows of the non-human world. The cinematography may not be as staggering as in 'Life', but this is entirely to "Great Migrations"' advantage. Rather than spending all of their money on a few shots and then replaying them in different segments, "GM" seems to be focusing its attention on the stories of the critters and the poetry of the dramatics. The direction of this series is actually quite touching and mesmerizing.

The creation of this series by National Geographic, rather than the Discovery Channel, aids the production in another way. National Geographic rightly should be the premiere creators of nature docs from the US. "Great Migrations" includes a clarifying device that other producers may not be able to produce with as much grace and precision: maps. It is so important to orient the stories. I hate being distracted, wondering where this is taking place.

All in all, I'm impressed and eager for the next installment. I sure do hope that they don't recycle stories and repackage shots like 'Life'. It ruined the entire series, but I guess there wasn't much there in the first place.

And now I'm off to watch Nature on PBS. It's about Wolverines!

American Experience: We Shall Remain - % % % % %

It never ceases to amaze me how little I know about North American Native American peoples. I learned all about Aztecs, Maya, Incas and Nazcas. But I know diddly about Algonquin or Shawnee people and culture.

This series is beautifully constructed of recreated scenes and interwoven interviews with historians and descendants of the historical figures. Watching the first episode I was struck over and over how enlightening this program is. Our children's history books are mediocre and fail all of us.

500 Days of Summer - % % %

Nestled inside a nifty structure, moving throughout a relationship by days from middle to beginning to end, is a romantic comedy of mediocre and flimsy proportions. Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt carry the film admirably, but from the very beginning the narration indicates that this film is filled with crummy people who do stupid things and aren't worth our time. Really. The film tells us that these people suck at the beginning of the movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Tom is shown in flashback as a child and we are told that he sadly misunderstands love, and then we learn that Deschanel's character, Summer, gets everything more easily in life because she is cute. From the beginning we are told not to trust or respect the main characters. Bleck. Why should we want to watch this movie then?

I have a nit-picky problem with this film as well. According to the film, these characters are two years younger than me. There were no eight-year-olds listening to Joy Division when I was 10. I knew who they were because of my brother, seven years older than I. As I pieced together the time-line of Tom's life, I think this screenplay is 10 years old and no one thought to up-date it. In the intro, we see Tom as a child listening to "bad British pop music" while wearing a Joy Division t-shirt. Joy Division was British, but they were neither pop music nor bad. This is a total mis-characterization of the music. This odd misunderstanding of the music indicates a misunderstanding of the main character. If the screenwriter misunderstands this seemingly autobiographical story, how can the audience be expected to connect with the story?

I did get swept up in the the joyous moments, like the choreographed dance sequence following the consummation of the relationship. And while I enjoy a nicely designed set and costumes, this film went into a nauseatingly heavy-handed cutesy-ness of 60's sharp suits and brunette bangs. Heck, they play house in a set of Ikea furnished rooms, as if their romance is entirely an idealized facade. The film, like the furniture, may look cute at first, but it's made of hollow cardboard and won't hold up. A film like "Singles" is a great example of capturing a style or music scene without overloading the film and crushing what little substance it may contain. Perhaps this has to do with the particular style of the film, rooted in child-like illustrations and clean, sharply-styled 60's fashion. Such a style resists a productive outlet for anger or depression. It is meant to evoke nostalgia, innocence and polish. It's exhausting even midway through the movie.

No one seems to have a sense of humor about themselves either. They are all so serious and sincere. Early on in the film we see Tom smashing plates in his kitchen, devastated at the loss of Summer, who just isn't that into him (no better explanation is ever offered). It's ridiculous but no one laughs at it. His precocious little sister speaks sage wisdom in a monotone to him trying to set him straight. A little laughter might release the intense pressure in Tom to hang on to his crummy relationship. A little levity and humorous self-reflection might endear the audience to the characters. In the end, Tom meets Autumn and starts it all over again. Bleck.