The Case For Mystery Science Theater 3000

Last week I played the devils advocate, pointing out the reasons why many people dislike one of my favorite shows. Now I offer the support for the show.

* * *

Humor is based on the reaction to something unexpected. You sit down to watch a movie and you expect some basic things in it to work. Sure those expectations may be unreasonable, especially if the names involved in the film are ones you appreciate. Sometimes that movie doesn't meet your expectations. The result is laughter. For example: you expect a movie call "Space Mutiny" to be an exciting adventure of heroes and villains in space, doing battle. What you get is something that is not exciting, not really an adventure. The heroes are not likable and the villains are laughable. The space shots are all done with borrowed scenes from the original "Battlestar Galactica" and interior shots done in warehouse. There are battles but they involve souped up golf carts. How are you not supposed to laugh at that?

What Mystery Science Theater does is take the movie as a launching point. It takes the expectations you have for a movie and uses those as the basics of it's humor. But in a way it is more than that. The writers really outdo themselves with the vast amounts of knowledge they have at their disposal. They will use references to obscure album covers, forgotten TV shows and even classical history to create a fabric of sophisticated humor. Added to that is the (then) current pop culture references, low brow jokes, and even open name calling. To me, the humor on display here covers such a wide stretch that it can appeal to nearly everyone. Most people who watch an episode of the show will find it amusing because there is something for everyone.

On top of it, the movies shown are mostly forgotten. They were released, some may have been moderately popular for their time, but now, most people will not have a clue who or what "The Beast of Yucca Flats" is all about. Yet the movie "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and "The Incredibly Strange Creatures to Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies" would be all but forgotten except for the fact that they have been shown on MST3K and actually gained a following of a sort. Some movies were never even released. The "The Dead Talk Back" was given their first life on MST3K. Sure it's a dubious fame, but many of the creators embrace the chance and can say "Who am I that I can't be laughed at."

And yes the host segments are low budget, extremely goofy and sometimes so obtuse they are painful - but these guys and gals go out of their way to make you laugh. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail, but much like the riffs they come up with they give you such a scattershot of comedy that something is bound to work. Some may find "Public Pearl" incredibly annoying. I will find myself frequently singing about "loving lovers love again."

In their own way, the creators of MST3K love movies. It's obvious with many of the quips they make, that they have watched and enjoyed countless films. And the willingness to sit through these movies tells me that at some level they enjoy them. This show was made by movie lovers for movie lovers. And while fans of the show may debate if "Pod People" is more hideous than "The Final Sacrifice", most of us would be more than happy to sit back and watch both of them as a double feature. Some of the quips maybe a bit cynical or even rude - but at the core, there is a love for all movies there.

This is a perfect storm of comedy entertainment. The writing is often top notch, with lines that will surprise and delight you. The movie selection is top notch and the energy is always high. For me this show was one of the funniest I've ever seen. Sure there are people who won't like it or won't understand it's appeal. But the majority of us will always find something fun about a man in a rubber suit attempting to be monster even if his zipper shows.

The Case Against Mystery Science Theater 3000

As many of you know, I enjoy bad movies. Something about them just makes me smile. The goofier and more inept the better. It's the only reason I have a movie like "Bloodrayne" in my collection (and I got it real cheap from the used DVD rack). For me there is fun to be had watching and mocking movies that just don't quite meet thier goal. But there are those people who don't feel that way. In fact, I've run into some serious detractors of the art of mocking. This got me thinking. Is there a case against a show like Mystery Science Theater 3000? Is one of my favorite television series nothing more than a collection of haters mocking something they don't even have the guts to do themselves? I decided to play the devil's advocate.

* * *

Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) is really nothing more than a group of mean spirited people mocking a weak opponent and beating up on it for the amusement of other cynical and bitter people. There is no true joy in this television series. The comedy is all based on making fun of others, something that the best comedians keep to a minimum. In some cases the targets of MST3K are foreign made films and the jokes are based on making fun of other cultures and people (especially guilty in the Japanese and Russian imports). Other times the movies are made in another era, one that had different values and stylistic concerns. These are shown as "not normal" or "ignorant and stupid" and there for worthy of mockery. On this basis alone, this series is actually pretty hateful.

But one of the most annoying things about the whole concept of the show is that they do not take into account the amount of sheer effort it takes to make a film. No matter what the intentions of the film maker (Coleman Francis obviously wanted to comment on the bay of pigs in "Red Zone Cuba" and Roger Corman was just trying to turn a profit in "Swamp Diamonds"), the fact that they attempted to create something lasting in a medium that requires large amounts of money, cooperation and luck and actually got it release is a huge achievement. Such achievements should be rewarded with some respect and yes some critical examination - but not outright abuse.

And who are these people who can sit back and question technique, acting, writing, music or any other part of a movie - when it is obvious that they lack the skills to do any of these themselves. Just look at their "host segments". What do you see in the way of technique, acting, writing or music? Would they be mocked on their own show? Sure they would. The few self deprecating comments they made to that point do not change the fact that they are no one to judge the achievements of others.

In the end, this series is made by cynics for cynics. Its humor is not anything more than what you'd find at a party with a few drunk friends. Humor should be entertaining and at its heart it should impart some kind of joy. With something as mean-spirited as this, there is no way the "humor" on display here can do anything other than create more cynical and frankly depressing feelings in a viewer. This is not entertainment. It's venom and it's poisonous.

* * *

What do you think of the show? Do you think the opinion above is valid or is made by someone to takes movies a bit too seriously.

(My next post will take up the counter argument)

Rome if you want to - Rome

I recently read about Roberto Rosselilini, a famous Italian director who, in the later part of his career, suddenly stopped making movies. He believed film was dead and that television was going to be the new medium. Unfortunately he felt that most of the shows on television were complete crap (and this was back in the early 70's, I wonder what he would make of "reality" television). So he decided to bring history to life on the small screen creating television movies about famous historical figures.

I wonder what he would have made of HBO's "Rome". The series plunges the viewer into the ancient Roman world around 54 BC up to around 30 AD. It's full of war, sex, intrigue, double crossing, romance, tragedy, triumph, and heroism. So not only are you entertained by watching it, but the series has something for everyone and you get to learn a bit about history while you are watching.

The series covers all the high points of the early Roman Republic including the rise of Julius Caesar, his battles against Pompey, his assent to Emperor and his murder in the senate. In the second season, the aftermath of the death of Caesar entangles famous names such as Brutus, Mark Antony, Octavian, Cleopatra and Livia. The series ends with Octavian becoming Emperor over Rome and beginning the Roman Empire.

The series also introduces us to figures who aren't quite so lofty as generals, senators and Emperors. We meet lowly soldiers like Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo. Slaves like Posca and Eirene. Thugs and nar-do-wells like Timon and Quintus. We get a clearer insight into some of the powerful ladies of Rome, such as Atia, Octavia and Servillia. By weaving these other characters, some of them real some of them created for the series, the writers pull us into the action. We understand Vorenus' struggle to connect with his family after spending years battling barbarians in Gaul. We connect with the conflict of Timon who's dedication to Atia conflicts with his Jewish beliefs. And speaking of Atia, her scheming and battle of wills with Servillia is one of the highlights of the show. Both women are equally matched, but fate keeps dealing them deadly blows. It's fascinating to watch how they handle fortunes blessing and curses and how they deal with each other.

By creating such interesting characters and weaving the history as well as some interesting fiction (what really did happen to Caesar and Cleopatra’s son?) a show was created that not only brought the ancient world to life but held our attention. Watching the show on DVD with the historical track running at the same time is a real treat (for anyone interested in history). It repeats itself a bit here and there, but for the most part it goes into detail on all kinds of things from Roman diet (dormice!) to the types of units used during famous battles. All in all it is a package of entertainment and enlightenment all wrapped into one. I think Rossellini would have approved.

Do you think that it's possible to bring together history and entertainment in television? Did you see Rome? What did you think of it?

It takes two - X-Files Season One

Nostalgia is a funny thing. Sometimes your memory of a film or TV show can be colored by so many things that when you go back and see it again you just shake your head and say "What was I thinking?" It makes the possibility of seeing old favorites in a new light a very scary thing. This time I got lucky and found that my memories of the show were pretty much right on. Yes the X-files still holds up.

I ended up re-watching the first season. We picked it up on DVD a few years ago (back when it was still in the huge boxes) but never really got around to watching all the episodes, mostly revisited our favorites. This time around I wanted to get a feel for the series in the order it was shown on TV and see how things developed. Sure time has affected some aspects of the series. The lack of cellphones and the size of the few you do see actually makes you wonder how this show would have played out if Mulder and Scully had tiny little phones to use at a moments notice with a handy camera to get pics of all those lovely spaceships, EBEs and monsters.

However everything else remained enjoyable and effectively moody. I realized how much shows like CSI borrowed their look from this series. The X-file was one of the first cinematic television series, bringing the look of the theatrical thriller to a small screen on a TV sized budget. The music is very atmospheric and atonal. It may not work well separated from the images on the screen, but while you are watching it really adds to the experience. The plots are usually very well written, balancing the supernatural, scientific, horrifying and paranoid very well. Even in this first season where things are just starting out, the threads that would drive the show later are laid out with enough depth to keep you interested but also keep you guessing.

However the linchpin for the show was the dynamic between Mulder and Scully. This was something that grew out of the writing, the acting and the chemistry between the leads. Without this chemistry the X-files wouldn't have survived more than a couple of seasons if it was lucky. The first season gives us these two characters, defines them and then starts screwing with them. Because the characters are defined well and the actors understood the characters, the writers are able to present situations that really explore the two agents and cause them to question and keep questioning. Tie this into the overall conspiracy plot and suddenly you have magic.

If I learned anything from rewatching this first season it was how important a good character dynamic is for a successful story. If you have partners they need to have some kind of difference to create conflict (Scully won't believe without proof, Mulder wants to believe it all). They need to have something that unites them (They both want to find the truth). They need to have strengths and weaknesses that compliment each other (Scully's analytical mind both blinds and aids the team). As a writer this is a great way to make a good team.
Do you think Scully and Mulder were a good team? From a writer's perspective would you have changed anything about their character dynamics? What other partner characters (in TV, film, books) do you think serve as good models of great character writing?

Buffy Summers - you’re my hero! - Buffy the Vampire Slayer

This topic came up as a type of sideline to my princess blog. Most myths and legends revolve around a male hero who does most of the action and a female secondary character who has a vital role to play but isn't the mover or shaker. There are exceptions, but they are few.

Most modern stories are based on these mythic molds and as such most stories in genre fiction revolve around a male hero. Now, I've been noticing more and more stories with a female lead and one that is much more active in the hero role. You even see the male secondary character playing a more low key approach (going so far as to become the damsel in distress).

One of the great examples of this is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The creator of the series made a conscious effort to switch around the stereotypical approach to a hero. By switching the roles around he brought us a warrior who was still a woman. The Buffy series is filled with strong women and stories that test these women in all kinds of ways. Now, many writers and readers have been influenced and excited by this type of character and she's become an archetype of sorts.

And this leads me to the question... is this type of female warrior set along the same path as a typical male hero - or does she face different obstacles and different trials based on her sex?

I think that in the grand scheme of things, the story is the same. She receives the call to adventure. She tries to avoid it, but is forced to make a decision. She faces many trials and gateway blockers. She faces the final challenge and initially fails (and may even die). She returns from death (or a long training montage) and fights again, this time using her newfound knowledge and/or power. She wins and saves not only her friends but her love.

Its the details that get different. Who is the love? Who is her nemesis? What forces her hand to act? Like all good mythic stories the details make a difference and give each story their own feel.

What do you think about a female in the lead of of hero's journey story? Does she have a different road to travel? What are your favorite female hero characters, and do they take a different path?