MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
Bioth Wrath of Khan & Field of Dreams are superb scores, because theyboth exemplify and also amplify the essence & heart of each story.
Increasingly shorter attention span, I suspect. And it's a pity.
"This conversation can serve no purpose anymore."
Asimov himself would have disagreed with you.
Considering Asimov's later novels in the Foundation series, and his own clearly stated social & cultural views, he wouldn't have minded more diverse casting for the series in the least. It's the ideas that truly matter, not who's espousing them, in the Foundation books. He offered more diverse characters in his late-in-life novels himself.
Sadly, it was around long before this movie came out.
I think you're right about that. And that could also be part of the reason they changed actresses, in order to have a new dynamic for the character of Nancy.
I'm definitely on the progressive side of things, but I agree that this series ought to respect the vision of the author. I welcome more diversity in movies & TV—if it's natural & organic to the story material, not just forced in. For instance, a Conan series should have a diverse cast, due to the very nature of the Hyborian Age, which features many races & cultures as part of its world. But Middle-Earth was quite specifically created by Tolkien to be a mythology for the England that had shaped him. So any series about Middle-Earth should reflect that, not because of politics or culture wars, but simply to be faithful to the writer & his work.
I can understand that. For me, the original actress playing Nancy actually looked as if she could be Sada Thompson's daughter. Apparently the network wanted someone with more sex appeal to play Nancy, so in came Meredith Baxter. But she was very good in the role, I agree.
The first season was just 6 episodes, and a summer replacement at that, so it would have been all too easy to miss it at the time.
It wasn't a new Nancy, though. It was a new actress playing the same Nancy. Viewers didn't have a problem with that then.
When going to order a copy of The End of the Megamachine just now, I noted that both it & Fisher's book are published by Zer0 Books, one of the best small publishers around today, dealing smartly & deeply with the world as it currently exists. So, a good sign!
Thank you for the recommendation! I'll check it out.
Let me recommend in return a slim little book by the late Mark Fisher, <i>Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?</i>, that also looks at the soul of current society in terms that the protagonists of <i>Mindwalk</i> would recognize.
Yes, a lot of us are hungry for movies of real substance!
I re-watch Mindwalk every so often, and find that so much of what they were talking about some 30 years ago now, is even more timely & pressing. Just as so much of what Wally & Andre talked about some 40 years ago now is equally more timely & pressing.
Yes, Mindwalk! At least MDWA is available on DVD, Blu-Ray, and streaming. The best we can do for Mindwalk is to catch it on YouTube. Many years ago, I converted my VHS copy to homemade DVD, but that's the best I've got for the time being. It really would make a great Criterion release.
I believe it's Andre Gregory: Before and After Dinner, if memory serves.
And I agree, MDWA is a masterpiece, one that rewards repeated viewings over the years.
Or in the "Betty Goes Steady" episode, where college freshman Betty falls into the social rules mandated by the campus elite, so that she'll be one of "The Acceptables" everyone so desperately wants to be. Except for the few non-conformists, including one played by young Robert Vaughn, who questions the validity of such a system, with some pointed quotes from Emerson on conformity.
I could go on, but that's a good beginning. While encouraging 1950s values, it also encouraged the questioning of those values at times, especially if they were simply being followed blindly, "because that's how it's always been done." It had respect for tradition, but also realized that tradition changes over time, too. Yes, it could be corny & problems could be wrapped up a little too neatly. But at its best, it offered decent people of their times, doing their best with what they knew. In the end, isn't that what caring families of every generation have tried to do? Besides, some of what we think of as being so enlightened & progressive today could well look corny & out-of-date a few decades down the line. We should remember that, be a little forgiving, take what was genuinely good about the series while acknowledging the changes since.
I also thought it was dated when I was younger, which was decades ago now. But in re-watching it in the past few years, it's clear that the series had more nuance than that. Yes, it was somewhat idealized. But not to an overly unrealistic extent. Every character had moments of weakness, pettiness, selfishness. And if they came to realize that more often than happens in our own lives, what of it? I don't think an ideal is necessarily a bad thing to have, as long as we remember that we won't & can't always live up to that ideal as frequently as the Andersons did.
And yes, it was shaped by 1950s culture, as all TV series are shaped by their times. Yet it also offered some interesting angles on that culture, too, not just blindly accepting it.
Look at the episode "Bus to Nowhere" with Betty, which could almost be a Twilight Zone episode in its questioning the purpose of each generation just doing the same thing as all previous generations: going on dates, getting married, having children, sending them on dates, them getting married, them having children--and for what? It's asking the same question many more serious writers were asking in novels & plays at the time.
Or the episode in which Margaret takes a day off, just on a whim, and Jim is wondering if their marriage is falling apart. He finally realizes that like their children, he's been treating Margaret solely as Wife & Mother, not as a person who might have her own interests. Tellingly, in a later episode, when she decides to take a college course in English, Jim wholeheartedly supports her without any questions or qualms.
Or the episode where Jim & Margaret have Betty's college career all planned for her, right down to the same courses they took at the same college. It's done out of love, but they have to realize that Betty doesn't want to walk in their footsteps, but would much rather take her own path. And they not only accept that, they encourage it.
(continued)
Thanks so much for posting the link to that article.
Yes, you may find MDWA different & more engaging on a second viewing. For me, it's not just <i>what</i> they talk about--although that's fascinating to me, as it always sparks new ideas & thoughts whenever I watch the film again--but it's also <i>how</i> they talk. They actually listen to each other with interest, wanting to understand what the other is saying, rather than just waiting for a chance to jump in & refute it. Oh, they disagree, but they never become insulting or bitterly angry with each other.
There's also a lot of humor in their conversation. Andre Gregory the actor is sometimes sending up the artistic pretensions of "Andre Gregory" the character--affectionately, but knowingly. He agrees with what he's saying, but he can also see the amusing or absurd side of it, too. He's serious, but never ponderously solemn.
And while Wally says almost nothing during the first part of their conversation, he's giving a masterclass in non-verbal response to what he's hearing, as shown by the constant shifting of his expressions: amazed, bewildered, dubious, flustered, absorbed, curious, outraged.
I'd also call attention to things like background sounds, as when a police siren punctuates Andre's talk about preserving culture & art & civilization. Or how the other diners slowly disappear as the evening moves forward. And moments with their waiter, whose expressions also speak volumes. His eyebrows speak volumes!
When you do watch it again, I hope you'll post your reaction to that second viewing!
Early Beaver is better overall, as Jerry Mathers lost much of his natural innocence & charm as he got a little older, without gaining much acting skill. Tony Dow, on the other hand, became a good actor with a natural ease & sense of humor. That's why later season of the show tend to feature more stories about Wally.
I don't think the writers quite knew what to do with Beaver as he was growing up, so they kept putting him into ridiculous situations that would have been funny & delightful in the first couple of seasons, but seemed leaden & unfunny in the later seasons. He was already too old for those sort of stories, but they couldn't find more age-appropriate ones for him.
Love is blind ... and deaf?