Kathryn Bigelow: From TV to Oscar-Nominated Director

Kathryn Bigelow is perhaps best known for her theatrical film work, but she has also dabbled from time to time on the small screen of television.  Continuing with her quest to work on projects that make a difference and have something to say, Kathryn directed several episodes of the ground-breaking television series “Homicide: Life on the Street” (multiple Peabody Award winner and Television Critics Association honoree).  So in honor of a film director who brought her unique talents and perspective to television before it became a trendy thing to do, I chose to share a bit about Kathryn’s latest passion project – the film and Best Picture Oscar nominee, “The Hurt Locker.”

On February 24, 2010, the Truman National Security Project hosted a special presentation and screening with a select panel of guests to discuss the significance and impact of the film “The Hurt Locker.”  Attending the panel were: Kathryn Bigelow; Mark Boal, screenwriter of “The Hurt Locker”; Christine Pelosi, member of the Democratic National Committee; Paul Clark, retired Air Force officer and former White House representative; Drew Sloan, member of the Truman National Security Project and retired U.S. Army Captain who fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan; Jim O’Neil, Executive Director of the EOD memorial and former demolitions technician; and Frank McAdams, also a war veteran and current USC faculty member.

With such an extensive panel of vastly different perspectives and experience, it was intriguing to find out, not only about the genesis of the film, but also how it sheds light on the lives of the individuals that the film so vividly and humanely portrays.

When asked how the “Hurt Locker” story was initially conceived, Kathryn Bigelow credited the story as originating with Mark Boal, a writer who had been a journalist embedded with an EOD (explosive ordnance disposal) unit in Iraq during the winter of 2004.  As the audience looked in askance at him, Mark Boal humorously quipped, “Everyone has their own version of how they broke into Hollywood, I had to go to a f***ing war zone!”

After the laughter died down, and on a more serious note, Mark explained that while he was embedded in Iraq with an EOD unit, that a typical 3-men bomb squad had an average of 10-15 IED (improvised explosive device) calls in a 24 hours period. He said, “Just the sheer number of bombs.  . . these were incredibly gutsy guys, highly trained, into their jobs, wanting to do the very best they could – yet there are just so many bombs.  The war had boiled down to running around the city trying to find all the IEDs.  I hadn’t quite realized until I got there that this was the subject of the war: it was a war of bombs and this war did not have a frontline tactically.  So these bombs increasingly became with methodology of terror and bomb disarmament became the key tactical response. I was really struck just by how totally overwhelming it was.” And because the Iraq war has become the “war of bombs,” demolition squads were thrust to the forefront of this particular war.

When asked about the significance of wanting to illuminate the “human cost” of the war, Kathryn said, “I thought it was interesting. The fact that these men arguably have the most dangerous job in the world — and it is an extremely challenged situation.  From my perspective as a film maker and looking at this particular conflict in terms of the human cost — that was very, very moving to me.” Because it is the most dangerous job in the world, it is in one word: hellish.  Kathryn further shared that she just wanted to try to capture the chaos and tragedy of the conflict, as well as promote and engage in a meaningful debate regarding this unpopular war.

Looking at how “The Hurt Locker” depicted this new battlefield technique and how it matched up with the reality of demolition work in Iraq, retired Air Force officer Paul Clark stated that because IEDs are so readily available that this has become the signature weapon of the war.  There are literally hundreds of unexploded artillery that has been simply left in Iraq. Because of its ready availability, the abandoned weaponry is harvested for terrorist campaigns; thus forcing the U.S. military to develop a counter-insurgency campaign that consists of bomb squads working to prevent deaths.  Mr. Clark also explained that, “We came to the conclusion that the military system as a whole had to have that resolution — that we should protect the civilian population.  That is the primary goal and that’s what we see now in Iraq — and the same idea is now in Afghanistan where IEDs are showing up.” Thus, because so much undetonated artillery has been left behind, those unexploded bombs have become the key weapons of the war after the war and the U.S. military’s role is focused on counter-insurgency work in order to protect civilian lives.

When asked what it was like in the mind of somebody who has done this type of demolition work, Jim O’Neil shared from his own personal experience that “these guys all have something in common:  it’s a commitment to a mission and purpose.  It’s a passion for the job and it’s the compassion that is required for a guy or a woman to put on that bomb suit and willingly walk that line towards an uncertain future – and probably a future that is either going to result in death or a very serious injury.  To me, that takes a very special person.  It is a little bit different than being in the regular military, as the EOD guy knows what is waiting for him, even though he doesn’t know how it’s going to be built, he doesn’t know how many of them there are, and he doesn’t know the exact scenario – so it takes a person who is exceptional.  There is no greater love than what is inside a EOD tech because he or she is willing to take that walk and sacrifice theirself to save another person.”

Mr. O’Neil further shared that when he watched the film “The Hurt Locker,” that “one of the elements that really struck me in the movie was that war is a drug. Think about it in terms of when you’re over there you actually feel like you’re making a difference.  One of things I noticed about this movie is there are really no politics involved in this movie.  This is simply a movie about soldiers doing a soldier’s job – and it is amazingly sensitive.  The purpose you have when you’re the ‘tip of the spear’ — when you’re in Afghanistan or Iraq — you believe in what you’re doing, even if people back home don’t quite understand.  You feel like you really matter.”

When asked how “The Hurt Locker” got past the war-fatigue or clutter of all the other war films that are out there, Kathryn explained that from her point of view, “We certainly were not going to wait until the war ended because that could have been several lifetimes.  I think we [she and Mark] both felt so strongly about this project and we basically were undeterred by the other films.  Quite honestly, I felt that there was something so specific about this movie being the ‘tip of the spear’ — that EOD was at the heart of this particular conflict.  There were very specific assumptions that we were exploring and examining and that it really separated this particular project from anything that I was aware of, and also just to the general public.  Certainly, speaking for myself, nobody understood that this conflict has no front — no rear.  So being able to kind of examine it through the eyes of this particular solider — looking at this conflict as a character study became very, very important to distinguish it from whatever was out – from the Iraq-fatigue, whatever you call it. And, I was determined.” Kathryn felt strongly that focusing on the ‘tip of the spear’ story was inherently compelling — and she really wanted to address the issue of:  what does victory mean in this particular conflict?

Screenwriter Mark Boal also explained that “The notion that people don’t care about the war is totally very, very wrong. I think people really do care. But there’s a difference between caring about it and convincing a studio to market a film. It was the film critics that pushed the movie out into the culture and, without the support of those people, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.” Mark too shared Kathryn’s compulsion to emphasize the importance of separating the story of the warrior from the story of the war.

Trying to tie the film back to whether it was an accurate portrayal of what a soldier would go through, Drew Sloan volunteered, “I think one thing that the movie captured very well was the sheer intensity of moments of combat.  Most tours are a year long, during which time probably only 1-5% of that time is like ‘game on.’  The rest of the time is you’re just kind of hanging out.  I thought the movie did a very nice job of really being realistic.  The way the streets look and the trash — how that made my heart palpitate a little bit, because trash over there, it hides so much.  And that really is what an IED is all about.  An IED is all about being hidden so people who are superior to you in terms of technology don’t see it and then all of the sudden – bam!  And there’s nobody there to fight against.  There’s nobody there.  It’s what really kind of makes the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan so awful in a lot of ways.  You can see the long term effects of that:  a year of not knowing when you’re going to get attacked.  And I think that right there is what this movie did.  It captured the sheer intensity of moments.”

Also nicely captured and portrayed in the film was the unspoken emotion.  Mark Boal explained that in writing the screenplay, he felt that action provokes emotion.  Thus, it was a deliberate attempt to be naturalistic — to make dialogue as real as possible.  Kathryn also shared that in producing and directing the film, she looked at it as, “I just came to realize how inherently dramatic just a day in the life of a bomb tech was.  And realizing that the silence was almost as profound as the detonation and those sequences really required a kind of cadence and a kind of resonance.  There was a tremendous amount of anticipation once you went through that opening sequence which was almost designed so that it educated the audience.  That was the method by which you would understand what a day in the life of a bomb tech really was.  And I think the silence is something so critical in this profession.  I mean, these are individuals who have only seconds to make a tremendous amount of decisions under extreme pressure – at any moment someone could call in a sniper’s strike.  So it is not just the problem in front of them in the ground. I was just trying to give the audience that kind of understanding.  That was beautifully crafted in the screenplay – the rhythm and cadence.  The silence became as important as the sound.”

Kathryn further elaborated, that the film was “an opportunity to use film as social commentary — an opportunity to explore this conflict — to look at it through the eyes of the character, through experiences of the soldiers, to invite the audience into a day over there, to try to bring the war home.  I think that was something that we both felt very strongly about.”

Mark also stated that, when comparing a journalist’s perspective to a soldier’s perspective of the war, that it was impossible to portray.  He could not even begin to describe it as it would be a pale imitation.  Thus, “The Hurt Locker” was intended to be an exploration of what makes the EOD team tick and to make them as humanistic as possible.

Finally, in response to the question whether the film should be viewed as a political-film, Mark explained that “The Hurt Locker” is first and foremost a work of art.  But he acknowledged that the film is clearly political because it deals with a political subject – just not with a capital “P.”  He also explained that because of the events of 9/11, he is much more attune to the people involved – the “human cost.”  Thus, when he wrote “The Hurt Locker” and because modern day news is such a black-hole, the film was to be a way to show people what it is really like over there.  The film would take on the role that journalism used to serve.  Kathryn added that it was not their intent to use the film strictly as social commentary, but really it was intended to bring the war home on a human level.  Drew Sloane interjected that it was key to remember that this is not just a movie; that there are soldiers going through this right now.  To which Jim O’Niel shared that, in 2009 alone, 16 bomb technicians lost their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are true “warriors” — they are doing something they feel that matters.  And Kathryn summed it all up with that it was her intent that “The Hurt Locker” invite a debate and dialogue and a quest for resolution so this conflict so that it is never abandoned. Thus, the purpose of the film was not to emphasize the polar opposite viewpoints, but to bridge the gap with understanding of the people who do volunteer for this heroic work – to serve and protect in other nations.  It is not about who is right or not, but focuses on service to help others at personal risk and cost – it is perhaps the perfect example of pure altruism.

After hearing all these remarkable viewpoints on a film that is credited with reawakening the movie-going and television audiences to the plight of those still suffering in the war zones, it is a privilege to honor and showcase Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal’s astounding film “The Hurt Locker.”  May it inspire another generation of film and television writers to share more of these extraordinary stories of the men and women to voluntarily serve our nation and the entire global community in order to make the world a little safer for us all.

Related article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/03/01/kathryn-bigelow-from-tv-to-oscar-nominated-director/

Spotlight on Tiffani Thiessen

Celebrating a long, successful television career spanning two decades, Tiffani Amber Thiessen first arrived on the television landscape after landing a major television role that would keep her steadily employed for 5 years playing the vivacious Kelly on the teen series Saved by the Bell. During that same period she also made guest appearances on family sitcoms: Charles in Charge, Married With Children, Valerie, Step by Step, and Blossom. As she advanced into her teenage years, she also made appearances in more dramatic made-for-television films such as A Killer Among Friends, The Stranger Beside Me, She Fought Alone, Sweet Dreams and Buried Secrets. But perhaps wishing to meld her innate talent for comedy with more light-weight dramatic television, she went directly from Saved by the Bell to starring in the hot teenage phenomenon, Beverly Hills, 90210. So for the better part of a decade, Tiffani was best known as either the lively Kelly from Saved by the Bell or as conniving Valerie on 90210.

Then, in 2000, when 90210 finally wrapped its final season, Tiffani continued to work steadily appearing in an eight episode arc on Two Guys, A Girl and a Pizza Place appearing opposite Ryan Reynolds, Traylor Howard and a little known actor at the time, Nathan Fillion (who now stars in the ABC series Castle). She also appeared in three episodes of the comedy series Just Shoot Me which starred Laura San Giacomo and Enrico Colantoni. Then she took a quick detour to dabble in the Woody Allen theatrical film Hollywood Ending which starred Tea Leoni, Debra Messing and Treat Williams.

But the lure of television was too tempting and she returned in 2002 to star in the television series Fastlane opposite Peter Facinelli (who stars as Carlisle Cullen in the Twilight films) and Bill Bellamy, which ran for two seasons. After playing the enigmatic Billie Chambers in Fastlane, Tiffani returned to her comedic roots to play Victoria Hill in the comedy series Good Morning, Miami which starred Mark Feuerstein (best known now for his work on Royal Pains). She also appeared for a brief five episode arc in the dramedy series What About Brian with Barry Watson, Matt Davis (who plays Alaric on Vampire Diaries) and Sarah Lancaster (best known as Ellie on Chuck).

However, in 2009, in a stroke of good fortune, Tiffani secured the coveted role of Elizabeth Burke in the red-hot series White Collar. Playing along side Tim DeKay and Matthew Bomer, Tiffani is the heart of the show. She plays Peter’s loving yet insightful wife who helps keep the balance between the naturally friction-filled relationship of Peter, the FBI agent, and Neal, the reformed con man. It is Tiffani’s own warm personality and inquisitive nature that shine brightly through her character. In what could be just another clever police procedural, Tiffani helps keep the series firmly grounded in the solid interpersonal relationships amongst the characters. Portraying Elizabeth, a strong woman who owns an event planning business, her unwavering love and support of Peter reminds the audience that behind every good man stands an even better woman. Tiffani is a rare find in Hollywood: a woman with a heart of gold.

White Collar airs Tuesdays at 10/9c on USA Network.

 

Related article: “Tiffani Thiessen Talks About Her Fun Role Amongst the WHITE COLLAR Cons and Capers”

 

 

Where to find this article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/02/23/spotlight-on-tiffani-thiessen/

Does science fiction allow for the possibility of a soul or is it taboo to have a soul in modern sci-fi TV shows and movies?

With all the avant-garde trends in sci-fi television and movies to allow for cloning and downloading, it poses a mind-bending question: what about a person’s soul? Perhaps no two television series have addressed so thoroughly this impossible question than the sci-fi dramas “Dollhouse” and “Caprica.” Both are dependent upon the idea that a person’s persona or personality can be saved onto a computer chip and downloaded into another being – whether it be human or robotic.

But as we watched the collision of personal identities between Echo (the imprintable doll) and Caroline (the person) in “Dollhouse,” how can we say which was more entitled to the physical body than the other. As interesting as it is to believe that Echo was more entitled because she was the evolved consciousness, what about Caroline’s soul? Does the soul evolve too? Or is that soul now cut-off from the body it was attached to because a new identity (person) has taken residence?

While many may argue that discussion of what happens to a person’s soul is entirely too theological or philosophical for mere science fiction shows, I disagree. After all, both “Battlestar Galactica” and its prequel series “Caprica” delve deeply into religious theology and what it means to be human. In “Caprica,” even the avatar version of Zoe understood the importance of the fact that she was a trifecta of existence: the persona of Zoe, her avatar version and her robotic body. Just like in the Judeo Christian religion which allows for a trichotomic existence, in science fiction, it also allows for the possibility of a 3-tiered existence melding three unique spiritual and physical forms: the emotional (the soul), the physical (the body) and the mental (the downloadable persona aka memories). The soul being perhaps the most essential part – it is what makes a person unique – it is what makes them who they are. But, as we have seen, a physical body can be cloned or replicated and memories can be stored and transferred like data on a computer hard-drive — at least in science fiction. That only leaves the soul as unique and un-copyable.

In the age-old debate of nature versus nurture (whether a person is formed by who they are at birth versus shaped by their environment), we have seen illustrated in films like “Groundhog Day” how a person can be molded into almost another human being entirely simply by repeating the same experiences over and over again and learning from those repetitions; we have also seen how in “Dollhouse,” a person can be shaped by their experiences due to residual imprints of other identities surfacing and becoming part of the stem identity; then in the classic sci-fi film “Blade Runner” and the more contemporary film “Moon,” it was explored whether a clone can even be a person with its own self-identity.

It is fascinating to explore whether and how a person’s identity can be imprinted, shifted, altered and manipulated. Can a person’s “persona” actually change or be replaced? Then what happens to the soul? Is the soul then imprisoned by the shifting “persona” which it inhabits or does it become detached – set free, if you will – because an alien host has taken up residence?

Looking back at the examples cited above, in “Dollhouse,” it is not clear whether Echo and Caroline were the same person, with Echo simply being an evolved version of Caroline due to the melding of all the imprinted personalities. Thus, was Caroline’s soul actually the same as Echo’s soul? Given that Caroline was one of the base personalities of Echo, it is arguable that Caroline’s soul and Echo’s soul were one and the same. But it was never clearly addressed or discussed so it is conceivable that once Caroline was “stored away,” that her soul went inactive and may not have reactivated so long as Echo was in possession of her body.

In “Caprica,” it is much more clear. Zoe actually died. She was blown up in the terrorist suicide bombing. It is merely her avatar (computer generated conglomeration of her memories and experiences) that still exists – albeit, a mighty sophisticated avatar capable of artificial intelligence, which ultimately leads to the creation of the Cylon race. So it is much more easy to distinguish that whatever soul the original Zoe had, it lives outside of and beyond the avatar-version of Zoe that was placed in the Cylon-body.

In films like “Groundhog Day,” there is no such separation of body, consciousness and soul, instead it is merely the same person with soul intact that repeats the same day over and over again until fate/destiny determines that they have learned the specific lesson to be learned.

But in cloning scenarios, like in “Moon” and “Blade Runner,” it is very dubious that the clone can even have a soul. According to religion and theology, a soul is granted or bestowed by God. It is not something that can be man-made or created out of nothingness. Thus, in the case of Cylons and clones, they are soulless. In science fiction, this is very perplexing. These beings may walk and talk like a human, but they are in essence just a machine: something man-made – not created by God — and thus not bestowed with a soul.

So we are left to wonder how can something that looks and acts human, not be human? Science fiction asks us to stretch our imagination and accept the impossible, which we happily do. But are we ignoring a fundamental fact: has it eliminated the soul? Is there no room for a soul in science fiction? Does science fiction choose to ignore one of the most vital parts of what it means to be human? Does it posit that we actually should not consider the soul? However, what is key are the dilemmas faced in “Dollhouse,” “Caprica,” “Blade Runner,” and “Moon” which only arise because we are looking for the soul. We are trying to figure out how these beings can exist without it and who they actually are with or without a soul. Are they real?

The conflict and moral/ethical dilemmas only originate from that specific quandary: what does it mean to be human? Can artificial life (artificial bodies and artificial consciousness and artificial personas) be real? Will God bestow a soul on a man-made creation? Not likely. God does not appreciate man attempting to mimic his ability to create “life.” But does God allow for the possibility of shifting a soul from one body to another if a person’s consciousness is downloaded or imprinted into another body? This is after all one of the possibilities that the Bible does allow for: if the human body dies, the human soul is set free and will be later put into a new and perfect body after Judgment Day. This very concept of soul-shifting or another variation of downloading into another body has a foundation in a very deep religious tenement. Who is to say that while a clone can’t have a soul that God did not allow for the possibility of a soul one day inhabiting it? It seems far-fetched and sacrilegious, but in science fiction, there is the possibility.

One could say that science fiction at its core is all about the exploration of the new and impossible — and the examination of what we would do in that wondrous universe. Downloading, imprinting, transfer of personas from body to body, cloning, and avatars – it is simply mind-boggling and intriguing all at once. But closer examination does indeed reveal that, while it looks on the surface that science fiction does not allow for a person’s soul, it is in fact the foundation of many sci-fi shows and films. We are constantly trying to determine if artificial life (avatars, clones and dolls) are real people. It is the question that haunts us and challenges us to think about what it means to be human. Undoubtedly, it is not a question we will be able to answer any time soon as science and science fiction continue to present new ways to explore humanity and artificial life. It is indeed a wondrous universe of possibilities.

Spotlight on Magda Apanowicz

From an early age, Magda Apanowicz knew she wanted to be an actress and, once that decision was made, she made a rapid ascent and took the television world by storm.  As a teenager, she first appeared in an episode of the post-apocalyptic series “Jeremiah” along side Luke Perry and Malcolm-Jamal Warner.  She then did a series of other brief appearances in the sci-fi series “John Doe,” which starred Dominic Purcell and Sprague Grayden and the films, “Sweet Lullaby,” “Riverburn,” and “The Butterfly Effect,” which starred Ashton Kutcher, Amy Smart and Eric Stoltz (her future co-star in the television series “Caprica”).

She then appeared in a three episode arc in the television series “Cold Squad,” which starred Tahmoh Penikett and Julie Stewart.  With astonishing ease, Magda continued to secure work and worked next on the series “The L Word,” which starred Jennifer Beals and Mia Kirshner and “Bionic Woman,” which starred Michelle Ryan and Katee Sackoff, while simultaneously working on the films “Holiday Wishes,” along side Amber Benson and “Devil’s Diary,” with Brian Krause.

Then, in 2006, Magda landed her first regular television series playing the role of Alex Young in “Renegadepress.com.”  The show focused on the trials and tribulations of teenagers today and starred Ksenia Solo (who currently plays Natasha on the CW series “Life Unexpected”).

Moving on quickly, Magda immediately scored a plum role on the teenage sci-fi series “Kyle XY,” which starred Matt Dallas, Marguerite MacIntyre, and Bruce Thomas.  Playing the quirky, but lovable Andy, Magda’s performance as a teenager living with cancer was touching and insightful.  She showed with ease the duality of a young girl wanting to live her life carefree and to the fullest, yet burdened by a debilitating disease.  Perhaps it was her graceful and gracious portrayal with a hint of mischievous and playfulness that captured the eye of the casting directors for “Caprica.”

As is evident from her career, the sci-fi realm beckoned early on and made Magda one of its rising stars. While her “Caprica” co-stars Alessandra Torresani, Eric Stoltz and Esai Morales are more recognizable from the splashy advertising campaign, it is actually Magda portraying Lacy Rand that the viewers closely identify with. Lacy was, after all, the sensible one who did not go through with the plan to escape to Gemenon and then watched in anguish as her best friend died in a terrorist bombing. The audience watched with equal parts horror and fascination when Lacy got that fateful call from her dead best friend – whose persona had been implanted in a first generation Cylon. It is the unique friendship that develops between Lacy and the Cylon version of her friend that captivates and enthralls. It is a credit to Magda that she brings us into a wondrous world of discovery, acceptance and secrecy. Her portrayal is poignant, conflicted and ultimately intriguing — and we cannot stop watching.

“Caprica” airs Fridays at 10/9c on Syfy.

Related article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/02/19/spotlight-on-magda-apanowicz/

When sci-fi television shows fall beneath the guillotine

 

 

 

Why some shows are allowed a dignified death and others are killed-off without warning

While shows like “Dollhouse,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Stargate SG-1,” and “Stargate: Atlantis” and even “Lost” are given the opportunity to conclude their series with some semblance of a storyline wrap-up, more frequently networks just unceremoniously yank sci-fi shows off the air without the dignity of a proper send-off or good-bye – “Firefly” being perhaps one of the more glaring examples.

With Joss Whedon’s “Dollhouse” airing its final episode last month, this is a perfect time to analyze how sci-fi shows are treated by the networks when their time has come. Fortunately, with “Dollhouse,” Joss was given advance notice that Fox was not going to be picking-up the back 9 episodes of the 2nd season and it allowed Joss the opportunity to wrap up the series – unlike when Fox abruptly cancelled “Firefly” a mere 8 years before, which ended with Fox airing “Firefly’s” 2 hour pilot as its swan song; a maneuver that still has fans scratching their heads in bewilderment. I mean who airs the 2 hour pilot after a show has been cancelled? It’s like rubbing it in the fans’ faces that a terrific show was forever gone.

But even with the chance to tack on an ending to the series, “Dollhouse” felt like it was rushing to its conclusion and the 1 hour finale left a disjointed feeling for many who felt like it was trying to tie up the show with a bow on top. Unfortunately, the show’s mythology and various character back-stories were never explored properly in the haste to conclude the show. But like several other shows prematurely killed-off before their time (e.g., “Pushing Dairies” or “Eli Stone”), there is only so much a creator/writer can do to tie it all together, working within the time-constraints and miniscule budget allowed to conclude a series.

“Lost” may be the exception as ABC clearly committed to an end date several seasons before its conclusion and appears to have spared no expense. It is arguable that “Battlestar Galactica” was also allowed the luxury of a decent amount of time to conclude its saga as Syfy also allowed them to select an end date to end the series. But for anyone who watched the 2 hour tie-in “The Plan,” you can plainly see that Syfy was keeping a tight reign on the budget in order to tie-up the extraneous storyline on what the Cylons were really up to – what was their master plan. So “Lost” is an example of a network fully standing behind its creative product and providing it with a properly funded good-bye. “Battlestar Galactica” (the series) too was given just enough time, but it is dubious whether they were granted sufficient funding to really go out in style. (Imagine what “The Plan” would have looked like with ABC’s money behind it.) But “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica” are the exceptions and not the rule.

As noted previously in my prior article: “The Grieving Season Continues: Mourning the Loss of Last Season’s Sci-Fi Shows Cut Down Before Their Time,” the past television season has been particularly blood-thirsty in killing off many sci-fi television shows – a record 16 sci-fi shows have been cancelled. Of those 16, only two had scheduled end-dates (“Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica”) and the remaining 14 were simply terminated without notice. Those shows cruelly decapitated were: “Dollhouse,” “Defying Gravity,” “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” “Stargate: Atlantis,” “My Own Worst Enemy,” “Reaper,” “Kings,” “Kyle XY,” “Pushing Daisies,” “Eli Stone,” “Eastwick,” “Life on Mars” (U.S. version), “Merlin” (while it still airs in the U.K., it was not picked-up for a 2nd season in U.S. by NBC, though it was just announced that Syfy has agreed to air its 2nd season), and “Primeval” (it was initially cancelled and then re-picked up by the BBC six months later after further financing was secured).

As the 2009-2010 season is not yet over, it is conceivable that another 6 sci-fi shows will also suffer a similar fate in the next few months: “Heroes” which may not be picked up for its 5th season after a lack-luster year of ratings; “V” and/or “FlashForward” which may not have the ratings power to convince ABC to grant them 2nd seasons; “Demons” which also did not garner the critical acclaim and ratings that the BBC was hoping for and ended after just one season, “Saving Grace” which TNT has already announced will be ending after this next season; and possibly the British version of “Torchwood,” which the BBC has been reluctant to pick up for a 4th season and Russell T. Davies has announced that he plans to make an American version of the series (furthermore, with its lead John Barrowman currently moonlighting on “Desperate Housewives,” the show’s fate is certainly dubious and uncertain).

So with 22 sci-fi shows vanishing off the television landscape, it may leave you wondering what exactly is left. Here it is, the sci-fi shows still standing are: “Caprica,” “Stargate Universe,” “Warehouse 13,” “Eureka,” “Sanctuary,” “Doctor Who,” “Being Human,” “Fringe,” “Chuck,” “Smallville,” “Supernatural,” “Vampire Diaries,” “True Blood,” “Legend of the Seeker” and “Being Erica.” (NOTE: I know there is some debate as to whether fantasy-based shows should be considered under the genre umbrella as “sci-fi,” but for purposes of this article, they are being included.)

However, in a sign that not all is well in its world, J.J. Abrams has allegedly requested an end date from Fox for the series “Fringe.” This is ominous as Fox has not been known for its generosity in time-table or budget for forecasting the end of its shows. Rather, it prefers the guillotine-method: any show not worthy of its time and money is immediately pulled off its schedule. So the blood-letting is likely to continue if there is not some way to successfully triage the dozen or so sci-fi shows still left.

Also, in light of the fact that “Heroes” ended its 4th season on a minor cliff-hanger with Claire Bennett revealing her unique abilities to the world and with the ratings having fallen to a precipitous low of just barely 4 million viewers, there is little hope that the show will return for a 5th season. So how will fans react then knowing full well that they did not get an ending worthy of the show they loved? Will NBC allow it to return for a limited number of episodes to wrap-up the series, like CBS did with “Jericho”? Or will NBC simply turn its back on a show that has earned it hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and garnered it accolades for such risk-taking programming? Fans and critics have debated whether even allowing “Heroes” to wrap-up would be satisfying enough. After all, the show has become a shadow of its former self creatively, evidenced by the hemorrhaging of viewers. So is an opportunity to wrap-up the characters’ storylines even necessary? Or should the show be allowed to fall off the radar without much fan-fare or notice? And has the death knell sounded with the recent news that Tim Kring is working on another series that may be picked up for this Fall? Surely if the creator of the show has jumped ship, it is an ominous sign that the show is ready to be fitted for a coffin.

And what about the ABC shows “V” and “FlashForward”? Should they too be allowed to air their remaining episodes and quietly be put to bed as well? Or should ABC make an effort to revitalize these shows and pledge its commitment towards a second season for both? With the loss of both David Goyer and Marc Guggenheim as show runners from “FlashForward,” the triaging seems too little and too late. The powerhouse visioneers have abandoned ship. Is all hope gone for what was supposed to be two of the biggest sci-fi sensations in years on television?

And if any of these shows are canceled, will they too be allowed a dignified death or will they simply fall beneath the guillotine as the network screams “off with their head!” (Hopefully Lewis Carroll doesn’t turn over in his grave with the liberal borrowing of that particularly visual reference.) And if any of our beloved sci-fi shows are canceled, what do we as fans do? Do we cry for hours and vow never to watch the mean ole network ever again? Do we sit in shock for months denying it ever happened? Do we immediately start “save our show” campaigns in order to get it re-picked up by the network or by another supposedly sci-fi friendly network? Or do we take the time to grieve quietly and say a proper good-bye to the television show that struck a chord within our soul?

Thus, this begs the question: should creators and network executives have built in expiration dates for sci-fi series? Is the open-ended sci-fi series a thing of the past? Will viewers actually stick around and commit to a series if they know exactly when it will end? Is built-in “obsolescence” the dawn of a new era of sci-fi television? Is this the only way to guarantee death-with-dignity for a sci-fi series?

As unimaginable as it is, perhaps planning for obsolescence (a definite “end” date) is preferable to watching our TV shows decapitated without warning in the increasingly mercurial arena of television ratings. There certainly is an argument for planned-obsolescence versus letting our beloved shows fall beneath the guillotine for not every TV show is allowed the time and money to actually end the way they want.

To answer the question: why are some shows allowed a dignified death and others are killed-off without warning? The answer comes down to one simple factor: money. No network wants to pay for the show that is losing money and viewers faster than it can recoup its investment. It used to be that a television show did not get out of the red and into the black until it hit the magical 100th episode mark – hence, the big celebration when any show makes it that far. Thus, if a network does not believe that a show will actually make it to that point, it will cut its losses and try to invest its money in another show that will make it that far. As for why some networks are more generous with allowing a show to wrap-up its storyline, well, that is perhaps because they see a monetary value in concluding a series so that it will sell successfully as a DVD box set. And sometimes, it is because the network simply feels it is the right thing to do so it does not upset the fans and viewers. After all, if viewers believe from the get-go that the network will just keep killing off shows without allowing them to conclude a storyline, the viewers may not bother tuning into new shows at all. It is a difficult decision, but ultimately the smarter network plans for cancellation and treats both the show and the viewers who watched it with respect.

So whether the future answer should be that sci-fi shows have pre-planned end-dates or planned for obsolescence, sci-fi viewers must simply be more vigilant for there is still no guarantee that their shows will not vanish without a trace. The guillotine will continue to fall suddenly and without discrimination. Sci-fi television remains a dying genre.

Review of ‘The Vampire Diaries’ – Fool Me Once

Damon got a nasty Valentine’s Day surprise and a good witch’s spell had a deadly side-effect

This was the moment everyone was waiting for: the crypt was opened. While it was not as horrific as anticipated, it did yield a few surprises and some dastardly consequences. The biggest surprise was that Katherine (Nina Dobrev) was not inside. The bad result was that casting the spell to open it and keep it open drained the life-force right out of Grams (Jasmine Guy) – and it left the door open for one of the entombed vampires to escape. And surely if one can get out, they all ultimately will.

Curse Damon (Ian Somerhalder) and his foresight to bring a pack of blood for Katherine so she would not feel the need to feed on any of the helpful humans nearby. It was both sweet of him and stupid. Sweet because he only thought of his beloved and how she would be hungry. Stupid because, when he did not find her in the crypt, he threw it against the wall in a fit of anger only to be found by a blood-starved vampire. Thus, it is Damon who unwittingly perhaps unleashed an angry hornet’s nest of ravished vampires who will not think twice about eating everyone they come into contact with; for scruples are sure to be low on their priority list after 100 years entombed without sustenance.

So with Grams’ sacrificial death and the crypt now open, it feels like a big first season finale may be brewing.

What Worked

Damon’s encounter with Bonnie’s grandmother tickled the funny bone, particularly when he told her, “Step outside and say that” and she did! Her fierce declaration, “I am not Bonnie — you don’t want to mess with ME,” was awesome to behold as she unleashed some of her power on Damon who promptly fell backwards in agonizing pain.

Bonnie (Katerina Graham) was the girl of the hour as everyone seemed to want her – Stefan (Paul Wesley), Damon, Anna (Malese Jow), Ben (Sean Faris) and even Elena (Nina Dobrev). But each had their own personal reasons for wanting to find her. Stefan wanted to find her so that he could find Elena. Damon, Anna and Ben all wanted her to open the crypt. And Elena and Grams just wanted Bonnie safely back. But all this “where’s Bonnie?” felt more like a treasure hunt. It left me wondering: are they all just tools to each other – a means to an end? Or do they actually see each other for who they are? Do they actually have self-identity and free will? Food for thought.

Another cool moment was when Anna noted with surprise upon meeting Elena at last, “Well, well, Elena Gilbert. You really are Katherine’s doppelganger.” What is up with that anyway? How is it possible that Elena is Katherine’s virtual identical twin? Another intriguing observation raised about Anna: where did she get her daylight ring? Weren’t only Damon and Stefan supposed to have those rings? If she has one, then surely other vampires might as well.

Jeremy (Steven McQueen) continues to delight, like when he told Anna, “I like you. You’re fun and you’re also kind of strange and lurky — but I guess I like that too.” He is showing real growth as he is clearly making an attempt to fit in and be a part of the world around him. He does not want to be merely labeled “The Enemy of Fun.” His evolution is marked by his willingness to show up at Duke’s party, to open his heart to another girl, and to make an effort at friendship with his peers. Plus, his quiet acknowledgment that he missed Vicki, when he found himself standing in the graveyard where they used to hang out, was touching. His look of flickering pain when he found out that Anna was going to be moving away felt very real as a result. The crowning moment then was when he psyched out Elena and pretended to not remember anything, yet the moment she was gone, he typed in “vampires” into the computer. Very clever of young Mr. Gilbert.

Also loved that it was Grams who Stefan ultimately turned to and she had only to cast a simple locator spell to find Elena and Bonnie. It allowed Stefan to be the hero by coming to save them from Ben’s evil clutches. It was also nice to see Ben get his just desserts when he did not heed Stefan’s warning and was then set afire — a nice grisly death for a heartless soul.

But the real heart of the story was the love story between Damon and Katherine. It was Elena who insightfully told Stefan, “We need to let him have Katherine back. He’s not going to stop until he gets her.” She knew perfectly well that Damon will not stop. And, while it was noble for Stefan to try to admit fault for betraying Katherine, it was not entirely his fault because Katherine was never sealed in the crypt. For unbenownst to Stefan and Damon, she had bribed a guard and got away. So it was not Stefan who had been keeping Katherine away, but rather, Katherine herself. It begs the question, what on earth has the wicked Katherine been up to for over 100 years and why hasn’t she gone in search of the lovely Salvatore brothers? It is even more revealing when Damon said to Stefan, “Admit it. You can’t wait to get rid of me.” They seem to be each other’s albatross and cannot break free of their intertwined destiny. Perhaps Katherine knows something that we don’t about the foreshadow of doom that hangs over the Salvatores and that is why she stays away.

Another surprising development was the deepening friendship and affection between Damon and Elena. The look of sorrow on Damon’s face when he told Elena, “Fool me once, shame on you.” It was the unsaid portion of the famous saying that rang in our ears, “Fool me twice, shame on me.” Then when Damon softly said, “I wish I could believe you,” Elena, in a demonstration of complete trust, removed her vervain necklace and determinedly said, “Ask me now.” Surprisingly, Damon refused her offer to be willingly compelled and gently put the necklace back on her. When she looked in askance, he explained, “I didn’t compel you in Atlanta because we were having fun. I wanted it to be real.” Damon’s loneliness is all consuming to such a degree that he is not only desperate to get Katherine back; he wants the tentative friendship with Elena to be real. And it is beautiful to see that the bond between them continues to strengthen as they test the foundations of their blossoming friendship. Thus, it was heart-breaking when Damon realized that Katherine is not in the crypt and just stood in silent anguished pain. It was telling that it was Elena who went to him and hugged him for she understood his loss and how it had brutally crushed his heart. Later when Damon told Anna, “You knew Katherine wasn’t in there” and Anna admitted, “Last time I saw her was in Chicago 1983.  She knew where you were — she didn’t care,” Damon looked stunned and angry. Beware the scorned lover, Katherine!

What Didn’t Work

As intriguing as it was to see Bonnie use a glass of water to set Ben’s arm on fire, it seemed pointless when he just reached out and grabbed Elena. Surely Bonnie is more powerful than that or everyone would not be so anxious to locate and use her. Plus, the exchange between Bonnie and Ben sounded silly and juvenile, such as Bonnie, “Don’t hurt her” and Ben’s nasty reply, “Don’t make me.” It also did not help when Ben’s ominously said, “That’s why she’s here – motivation for you to behave.”

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

‘Fool Me Once’ was written by Brett Conrad, and directed by Marcos Siega. ‘The Vampire Diaries’ stars Paul Wesley, Nina Dobrev, Ian Somerhalder, Steven R. McQueen, Candice Accola, Katerina Graham, Michael Trevino, Zach Roerig, Sara Canning, Matthew Davis and Marguerite MacIntyre. ‘The Vampire Diaries’ airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on the CW.

Spotlight on Sofia Vergara

For anyone who has been watching the new ABC comedy sensation Modern Family, the name Sofía Vergara is already well known to you. Sofía plays the luminous Gloria Delgardo-Pritchett.

However, before crossing over to American television, in the 1990’s, Sofía was a reality television star in the Columbian travel series Fuera de Serie. Then, after a successful 4 year stint traveling all around the world to the most exotic locales, she appeared briefly hosting a reality series A que no te atreves. But as her fun-loving personality and stunning looks had begun to garner lots of attention, Sofía was quickly offered a number of film roles.

Beginning in 2002, she worked on the film Big Trouble co-starring Tim Allen, Rene Russo and Stanley Tucci, which was followed by her ground-breaking role in the film Chasing Papi. Chasing Papi was produced by Forest Whitaker with brief appearances by D.L. Hughley and Ian Gomez (a Felicity alum who now works on Cougar Town). With her career moving rapidly ahead, Sofía then filmed in quick succession the films: The 24th Day which co-starred James Marsden and Scott Speedman (another Felicity alum); Soul Plane co-starring Tom Arnold, Method Man and D.L. Hughley; Lords of Dogtown with Heath Ledger; and Four Brothers with Mark Wahlberg.

With barely a pause, Sofía then turned her sights on American television and nabbed a role on the ABC series Hot Properties, which co-starred Gail O’Grady and Stephen Dunham. Alas, the series ran only 13 episodes and Sofía returned to Columbia television in Amas de casa desesperades (the Columbian version of Desperate Housewives with Sofía playing the Mary-Alice role for that series). Simultaneously, she also worked on the ABC series The Knights of Prosperity, which co-starred Donal Logue. Once those roles concluded in 2007, she appeared briefly on the series Dirty Sexy Money as Jeremy Darling’s girlfriend and in the Mexican telenova Fuego En La Sandgre.

Then in 2008 and 2009, after Terry Perry discovered the Columbian comedic dynamo, Sofía appeared in his films Meet the Browns and Madea Goes to Jail. But because ABC was certain that Sofía was the magical ingredient for yet another comedy series, Sofía was cast as Gloria in Modern Family. The third time was the charm and Modern Family has not only become a break-out hit comedy series for ABC, it also won the Director’s Guild Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in a Comedy Series, as well as receiving Golden Globe, Screen Actor’s Guild and Writer’s Guild nominations for best comedy series.

Having finally secured a television series worthy of showcasing both her precision comedic skills and her radiant beauty, Sofía continues to shine. Her portrayal of Gloria is finely-nuanced so that the audience never forgets that she is a mother first and foremost; in fact, some of the best comedy has been in the tender moments between Rico Rodriguez II, who plays her precocious son Manny, and Sofía. Sofía is a lightening rod as the wicked combo of ravishing beauty combined with meticulous comedic timing electrifies any scene in which she appears. As Modern Family continues to earn raves and critical acclaim, Sofía will continue to dazzle us all.

Modern Family airs on Wednesday nights at 9:00 p.m. on ABC.

Related article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/02/10/spotlight-on-sofia-vergara/

Review of ‘Heroes’ – Brave New World

In what was to be a showdown between a super-hero and a super-villain, many heroes were left standing on the sidelines

With the fate of the series hanging in the balance, this episode was pivotal. It was time to pull out all the stops. It was time for a “shock and awe” campaign. It should have been a tension-filled roller-coaster ride to the final battle between Sylar and Samuel. So imagine my surprise, when the episode took its time to blissfully allow for a fake-out tearful good-bye scene between Noah Bennett (Jack Coleman) and Claire (Hayden Panettiere); for Parkman (Greg Grunberg) to debate with Peter (Milo Ventimiglia) and Sylar (Zachary Quinto) whether or not the five years of incarceration in Sylar’s mind had truly made him rehabilitated; and for Hiro (Masi Oka) to find Charlie (Jemma Mays) and reminisce about the good ole days and whether they could still have a future. This just did not feel like the right time and place to explore those stories. Instead, this was the time to rally the troops and take down Samuel (Robert Knepper). Samuel received his comeuppance, but it was not as expected. It was much tamer and less satisfying.

Was it truly Peter’s destiny to tackle Samuel while Hiro took all those with abilities to a safe distance away? Was Sylar even needed to help Emma (Deanne Bray) when all she had to do was flick her fingers and it sent Doyle (David H. Lawrence) flying? With Samuel seconds away from mass destruction and the death of thousands, would not his loyal family at the carnival rallied on their own and stopped him? After all, they each had some pretty amazing abilities as well. Surely, Eli the Replicator (Todd Stashwick) and Edgar the knife-wielding speedster (Ray Park) would have intervened, or even the two-faced puppet-master Doyle would surely not have allowed Samuel to continue to destroy and kill at whim. Thus, were Sylar, Peter, Noah, Claire and Hiro even needed at all?

There was a lot of creative interweaving of storylines used to try to justify why they all were needed. But, in the end, it was really about one thing: once everyone saw who Samuel truly was, they would have left him alone anyway. His grand plan was nothing more than a demonstration of his demented desire to demonstrate his superior god-like ability to destroy the world and those who lived within in it. It was evil and insane. But his Achilles heel was that he needed others with abilities for his power to work. It simply made no sense that he would endeavor to kill everyone when he needed them so desperately.

What Worked

One of the better moments was when Tracy (Ali Larter) finally appeared to save the day. Alas, it was too short of an appearance and she was left behind while the other heroes went to stop Samuel.

It was also about time that Emma developed a back-bone and stood up to Samuel and refused to participate in his nefarious plan to use her ability to lure unsuspecting specials within his power-zone. Another nice twist was the revelation that it was actually Doyle, the puppet-master, who was pulling the strings when he forced Emma to play the pied piper’s song on her magical cello.

Loved that knife-wielding speedster Edgar finally turned to Noah for assistance in unmasking Samuel before the entire carnival – especially since Samuel killed his beloved. Thus, making the reveal of Samuel’s evil heart all that more satisfying.

And it was about time that Hiro was finally able to say good-bye to Charlie. This time they were not separated by her murder, but rather by time. Samuel had trapped Charlie by simply leaving her in the 1940’s. Thus, she was an 85 year old woman by the time Hiro ultimately found her. It was a sad and poignant realization that Hiro had to let her go. After all, Charlie already lived a lifetime and did not want to erase the lives of her children and grandchildren by agreeing to have Hiro re-set the time-clock. This then freed Hiro to return to his destiny as a hero, for as Hiro softly said to himself, “Destiny calls.”

While not entirely believable, it was cool to see that the five years of isolation perhaps altered Sylar’s self-perception from monster to hero. When Doyle told Sylar, “You’re like me,” Sylar angrily lashed back, “No – I’m a hero!” It seems that Sylar has found another calling – or another addiction to feed — rather than being reviled and abhorred by all, he now just wants to be the savior of them all.

What Didn’t Work

There was so many wasted opportunities to turn this 4th season finale (and possibly series finale) into the epic finale that the show deserved. Too many of the heroes felt redundant and superfluous, and those that could have been useful were missing. Where was the Haitian (Jimmy-Jean Louis) who could nullify Samuel’s monstrous power? Where was Dr. Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy) ? Why did they bring back Tracy to rescue Claire and Noah only to leave without her? Tracy surely would have been a great ally to have for the confrontation with Samuel. And why send Sylar to rescue Emma when he would have been equally as effective against Samuel and Peter could have gone to rescue Emma? While it was great to see Lauren (Elisabeth Rohm) play a part in the rescue of Noah and Claire, was she really just there to call the chopper and bring in the news crew at the end? Plus, did we really buy into the idea that Sylar could be redeemed from his villainous ways into
becoming the hero of the story? Why would Matt choose to sit this out and send Replicator Eli in his place for the showdown with Samuel? Why would Noah spend his dying moments trying to explain his lifetime of regrets to Claire, rather then just telling her how much he loved her and was proud of her? Plus, Noah was always a man with a plan. He should have known that Lauren would not abandon him and would be along shortly. Did he not know his partner at all? It was also weak that his dying wish was that Claire hide from the world and never reveal who or what she was. There were just too many questions that went unanswered, including when it came down to the wire and it was time to deal with the villains. There simply was no way that Doyle could have controlled Sylar for very long when Sylar had already figured out how to mimic other’s abilities without cutting open their head. Thus, why was it necessary for Sylar to rescue Emma in the first place when she demonstrated with a twitch of a finger that she could knock Doyle off balance? Sylar would have perhaps been better served confronting Samuel. That was the showdown everyone had been waiting for.

And did Samuel’s plan actually make any sense when he declared, “And so I make this pledge to you: tonight, once and for all: we pull back the curtain and reveal ourselves for who we truly are. After tonight, we will be respected!” That was the promise Samuel made, but he really just wanted to draw all those with abilities close to him in order to make himself all powerful so he could kill thousands of people. Such a desire was diabolical and insane. As Noah noted, all they all had to do was “walk away and he’s powerless.” Thus, Samuel was nothing without them all. Why kill them all if he needed them?

What we wanted to see was a demonstration of power by our heroes: strength and fearlessness. There should be no regrets, no hiding. It was further anti-climatic to watch Peter and Emma embrace without a hint of their growing attachment; to see Sylar grinning so foolishly after merely tying up Doyle in a strand of lights; and for Claire to heedlessly climb the Ferris wheel only to hurl herself to the ground with the camera crews capturing all of it on film. Thus, when Lauren asked, “What is she doing?” and Noah replied, “Breaking my heart,” we could all relate. And Peter wisely noted, “She’s going to change everything.” For once the world knows about the specials, it will be a witch-hunt; and Sylar’s optimistic, “It’s a brave new world” comment was a unsettling summation of it all.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

‘Brave New World’ was written by Tim Kring and directed by Adam Kane. ‘Heroes’ stars Jack Coleman, Greg Grunberg, James Kyson Lee, Masi Oka, Hayden Panettiere, Cristine Rose, Milo Ventimiglia, Robert Knepper, Sendhil Ramamurthy, and Zachary Quinto. ‘Heroes’ airs Mondays at 9 p.m. on NBC.

Review of ‘The Vampire Diaries’ – Children of the Damned

While searching for the witch’s cookbook, the cooking gets a bit spicy

A few big questions were raised in this week’s episode, such as: Can there be such a thing as a good vampire? And are all vampires cursed with eternal loneliness?

Looking back through time again to when Katherine (Nina Dobrev) ruled the Salvatore brothers’ hearts and walked with apparent impunity throughout the world, we saw that not much has changed in Mystic Falls.  The town is still riddled with vampires living amongst them, the Salvatore brothers are trying to get exactly what they want regardless of the consequences, and everyone is desperate not to be alone.

While Stefan (Paul Wesley) debated with his father, Giuseppe Salvatore (James Remar), and with himself whether or not a vampire can be good or if all vampires are merely soulless demons, we witnessed the lengths that Damon (Ian Somerhalder) was willing to go to so that he would not be alone.  Damon was willing to give up his own humanity and soul to be with Katherine for eternity.  It is still debatable whether or not Stefan was so willing initially, or whether he was indeed deceived by Katherine and turned against his will.  But, as Damon found out, being a vampire is not a guarantee against eternal loneliness – for he has been separated from the love of his life who has been encased in a magically-sealed crypt.

Loneliness and trust were the prevalent themes – and there were no easy answers to be found.  For in the end, Damon discovered once again that he cannot trust anyone and he is just as alone as he was before.  Stefan and Elena (Nina Dobrev) are in a slightly better position having each other, but who is to say that there is still not some hidden agenda that Stefan has that has not yet been revealed.

Also, what is really tickling the brain is the question:  why has it taken over 100 years for Damon and Anna (Malese Jow) to return to Mystic Falls to attempt opening the crypt?  Surely, they could have come back sooner and manipulated everyone into handing over the crystal, the journals and ultimately found the grimoire.  Why the 100 year wait?  Did some kind of stars have to align first?  Surely, there was not something to be afraid of that kept them away.  If there was something that was guarding Mystic Falls, what was it and why is it now gone?

What Worked

This week offered more of the usual witty exchanges and punch-lines.  Damon got off a good first shot when he walked in on Stefan and Elena in bed and, when they expressed their outrage at his audacity, he archly said, “If I see something I haven’t seen before, I’ll throw a dollar at it.”  This quip was nicely followed up when Damon had to explain why he had interrupted their private solitude and he exasperatedly emphasized, “In order to open the tomb, we need to find the journal, to get the grimoire, to undo the spells.” Apparently, Damon really needed Emily’s grimoire (aka Witch’s cookbook) because every spell cast is unique unto itself and every witch typically documents her work.  So when Stefan tried to throw a wrench into Damon’s gung-ho plans by reminding Damon, “What about our mystery vampire?  . . . Dim wit obviously was not working alone.  So whoever is out there knows who we are,” Damon merely flippantly replied, “And I don’t like THAT disadvantage.”

Later, it was surprisingly perceptive when Elena noted, “I really think Damon believes that everything he’s done – every move he’s made – he’s done for love.  It’s twisted, but kind of sad.”  Stefan, in attempt to remind her that Damon is never that simple, warned, “Damon has no regard for human life.  He enjoys inflicting pain on others.” So, as Damon and Stefan continued their dance to determine whether to trust each other, Elena was again the insightful one when she told Damon, “Trust breeds trust.  You have to give it to get it.”  But later, when Damon caught her and Stefan red-handed with the grimoire, Damon said, “Well, what do you know?  This is an interesting turn of events.” Damon wryly told Stefan, “I learned I could not trust you a long time ago,” but as he turned to Elena, he sadly said, “But you — you had me fooled.”

On the lighter side, there was a funny verbal exchange between Jeremy and Anna at the Grill when Anna mischievously told Jeremy (Steven McQueen), “You couldn’t live without me.”  To which Jeremy smiled and replied, “Well, I kind of missed my daily dose of cute stalker chick.”  But, as we saw, Anna is not one to be taken lightly for despite the bumbling ineptness of her colleagues, she not only managed to snatch the Gilbert’s journal right out from under Alaric’s nose, she also finessed an invite into Jeremy’s home in order to kidnap Elena.  Clever girl.

Another fun scene was watching Damon try to integrate himself into Elena’s family and, in delightful display of domestic competence, Damon had a pleasant bantering exchange with Jenna (Sara Canning) while cooking them dinner and later another fun exchange with Jeremy as they played video games where he got Jeremy to admit that he was dodging Anna’s calls.  Jeremy then explained that Anna was kind of hot, but weird.  To which, Damon quipped, “Hot trumps weird.  Trust me.”  That was quickly followed by the perfectly-timed remark from Jenna in the background who breathlessly said, “He’s ridiculously hot,” while staring admiringly at Damon.  Also quite funny was Stefan’s reaction to seeing Damon and Elena open the front door together.  Stefan looked downright perturbed by Damon and Elena’s ease with each other as it gave an oddly casual appearance of togetherness.  Perhaps this was a foreshadowing of the future?

Also loved the reveal that Isobel’s (Mia Kirshner) body was never found.  That was particularly interesting as for Damon to have fed on her in her own home, Isobel must have invited him in.  In hindsight, Damon is beginning to look a lot more innocent in this encounter, especially since we now know that Isobel is Elena’s mother.

What Didn’t Work

I found it hard to believe that Alaric (Matt Davis) was foolish enough to read the Gilbert journal at school, after hours. I understand that he may have thought that it was helpful to be near a copy machine; but surely, it was not really wise to stick around to read it where anyone can enter the school uninvited.  He should have promptly gone home where he could have read it without fear of attack.  Plus, it was even more ludicrous that he would keep his only protection in a locker in the outer hallway.  Surely, he would have kept the air gun close by like at his feet or on his desk.  Alaric’s days are numbered if he does not smarten up a bit.  His survival instincts are woefully lacking.

Another not too bright person is Ben (Sean Faris), Anna’s boy-toy bartender/newly turned vamp-bud. I find it unfathomable why Anna insists on recruiting some of the most dim-witted people to be her partners in crime.  Logan, Noah, Ben have all demonstrated astounding levels of lower intelligence.  They all also have showed a ridiculously pathetic ability to survive as a vampire.  A classic example was when Ben’s opened the window curtain and scorched his arm for the umpteenth time because he kept forgetting that he was not impervious to sunlight.  To give him one redeeming credit, Ben showed a glimmer of intelligence when he thoughtfully asked Anna, “why me?”  To which Anna surprisingly replied, “You were sad then.  You lacked purpose – you needed me.”  She is searching for lost souls perhaps because she too feels lost and without purpose?  Loneliness does seem to be one of the curses of being a vampire.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

‘Children of the Damned’ was written by Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec, and directed by Marcos Siega. ‘The Vampire Diaries’ stars Paul Wesley, Nina Dobrev, Ian Somerhalder, Steven R. McQueen, Candice Accola, Katerina Graham, Michael Trevino, Zach Roerig, Sara Canning, Matthew Davis and Marguerite MacIntyre. ‘The Vampire Diaries’ airs Thursdays at 8 p.m. on the CW.

Spotlight on Alicia Witt

At the tender age of 8, Alicia Witt became a world-renown film actress after David Lynch cast her to co-star in the sci-fi film Dune along side Kyle McLaughlin. She played the iconic role of Alia, the younger sister of Paul Atreides. With such an auspicious start to her career, it helped launch her into an exclusive arena of acting professionals. Fortunately, she took a break to focus on school and did not return to regular acting work until she was 14, when David Lynch gave her a small role in the cult TV series Twin Peaks (also starring Kyle McLaughlin). In Twin Peaks she played Gersten Hayward, the piano-playing child extraordinaire. This brief appearance was a great way to showcase Alicia’s own piano prowess and afterward she played professionally at the famed Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel for a period.

During the next 5 years, Alicia appeared in numerous films, fine-tuning her acting skills in such projects as Bodies, Rest & Motion with Phoebe Cates and Bridget Fonda, Fun with Leslie Hope, Four Rooms playing Madonna’s daughter, Mr. Holland’s Opus with Richard Dreyfuss, and Citizen Ruth with Laura Dern and Swoosie Kurtz. Never one to shy away from controversial roles or an opportunity to stretch the boundaries of character portrayals, Alicia played an array of challenging roles. Then, in a complete change of pace, Alicia took on a major role in the television series Cybill playing Cybill Shepherd’s daughter, Zoey. It was a light-weight, fun comedy series that ran for four seasons, reintroducing Alicia to mainstream American audiences.

After Cybill ended, Alicia returned to making brief appearances on shows like Ally McBeal and The Sopranos, and then went onto pursue the stage. She appeared briefly in the musical The Gift but then quickly moved on to feature film roles, with bit parts in Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, Two Weeks Notice with Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock, and The Upside of Anger with Kevin Costner and Joan Allen. She also moved abroad for a number of years, during which she wrote and produced two short films, Girl’s Lunch and Belinda’s Swan Song.

Finally, after tackling both film and theater work abroad in the UK and South Africa, Alicia returned to the United States in 2007 and promptly landed a multi-episode arc on the Dick Wolf series Law & Order: Criminal Intent (filling in for Julianne Nicholson who was on maternity leave). She also made a pivotal guest appearance in the hit drama The Mentalist playing Rosalind Harker, the blind-fiancée of the infamous Red John.

Most recently, Alicia has been appearing in the critically-adored television series Friday Night Lights as Cheryl, the amorous bartender/landlord of Tim Riggins and mother of beauty pageant-aspiring Becky. In a role that many other actresses would naturally shy away from due to its sensitive nature, Alicia has embraced the tough role and made it relatable and sympathetic for viewers.

Additionally, while on hiatus, Alicia has worked on a few independent films, including Peep World with Michael C. Hall, Kate Mara and Judy Greer; The Pond with David Morse; and Backyard Wedding with Frances Fisher.

Clearly, Alicia is a determined young woman who seeks out roles that will expand and enhance her acting experience. She seems to relish the taboo and does not hesitate if the subject matter is unusual. No matter how risqué or thought-provoking the role, from the first moment she lit up the movie screen, Alicia has been mesmerizing to watch. It will be a pleasure to see what she does next and how she shapes yet another piece of Hollywood history.

Friday Night Lights currently airs on DirecTV on Wednesday nights and will begin the rebroadcast of its 4th season on Friday nights starting April 30th on NBC.

Related article:

http://nicegirlstv.com/2010/02/03/spotlight-on-alicia-witt/