Showing posts with label House of Cards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Cards. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Cinematic TV and 'Carnivàle'

With shows like our dearly departed “Breaking Bad,” Netflix’s offering to the zeitgeist, “House of Cards,” and recent critical and, increasingly, fan darling, “True Detective,” the divide between television series and movies as we’ve traditionally understood it is in a state of erosion. Zachary Wigon over at Tribeca Film has written a brief thought piece on why this blending of form, narrative styles and technique is a development worthy of our enthusiasm.  Says Wigon:


“…filmmakers who are apprehensive of working in TV need to understand that the medium is continually reshaping itself to accommodate their needs. Anyone who has doubts about TV’s allowances for formalism should check out the virtuoso 6-minute shot that ends episode four of True Detective. But just as crucially, it’s necessary to remind TV fans that TV is not gaining a greater share of cultural influence because it’s ‘better’ than cinema; it’s gaining a greater influence because it is reappropriating the tenets of cinema.”


Wigon’s blog post led me to wonder which other shows demonstrate a flair for the cinematic and, specifically, which shows, if any, “reappropriated the tenets of cinema” long before it was cool to do so. Although I had a list in mind (classics “The Wire” and “Twin Peaks” foremost among my ideas), there is one series that stood out as a preeminent example of a cinema-TV hybrid – and which, for all its opacity, maintains its preeminence.


I first came across a clip from HBO’s “Carnivàle” last year, embedded in a blog post that asked if the below scene was the most beautiful ever filmed for TV. The author admitted he had no idea what was going on between the characters, but also that his ignorance didn’t bother him. The scene was that compelling.


 


“Carnivàle” is a bizarre show with a dense mythology many viewers found daunting and many others found pretentious when the series ran on HBO from 2003-2005. The show’s pilot set a record ratings high for an HBO original upon its premiere, but, although creator Daniel Knauf had crafted a storyline he intended to unwind over six seasons, the network cut “Carnivàle” short after only two.


The show concerns itself with a mythic battle between the forces of good and evil as played out against the backdrop of the Dust Bowl. These opposing forces seek human proxies with each new generation, “avatars” who must continue their fight. Of course, the humans don’t necessarily know they’re proxies, which is the case with “good” Ben Hawkins (Nick Stahl) and “bad” Brother Justin Crowe (Clancy Brown).  “Carnivàle” follows both men, although Ben’s relationship with a traveling troupe of carnies, many of who possess their own magic abilities, seems to be the focus.


Biblical imagery and allusions, historical references, “avatars,” tarot readings, “prophets,” “ushers,” and many more abstract and esoteric elements left viewers scratching their heads, especially as the above explanation was never explicitly given within the series, but rather left for audiences to parse on their own and actively discuss in online forums, “Carnivàle” being one of the first shows to foster intense Internet fandom. Much of the cinematic beauty of “Carnivàle” is in fact a function of the series’ obsession with leaving clues. For instance, the positioning of Ben Hawkins and Brother Justin Crowe in relation to the two men sitting at the table behind them in the clip above is a clue, as is, possibly, their re-positioning when Brother Justin looks in the mirror. The song that plays in the background of the scene, as well as the waitress’ cryptic “Every prophet in his house” are both repeated several times throughout the series – more clues.


“Carnivàle” could be considered cinematic for the painstaking attention afforded its cinematography and the staging of its shots, as well as by virtue of the sheer scope of its narrative ambition – you don’t get much grander than biblical. Of course, neither an emphasis on style nor one on universal themes is exclusively the purview of film. However, given cinema’s larger budgets and scale, “big” has traditionally been left to the big screen.  Not so with “Carnivàle,” which HBO afforded $4 million for its every episode. Additionally, given HBO’s great no-commercials policy, the show’s creators were able to tailor the runtime of each episode to the story’s needs. The hour-long show in actuality often ran anywhere from 40, 45 to a little over 60 minutes.


That Carnivàle seems to share a cinematic sensibility may have something – or everything – to do with the fact that creator Knauf initially wrote his series as a film script. Since “Carnivàle’s” cancelation, Knauf has vocalized his desire to either have another network pick up the rest of his story, or possibly have a studio turn it into a feature film. Given the hybridized nature of TV today, the landscape is ripe  for a continuation of his cinematic show. Audiences may not have been ready for “Carnivàle” a decade ago, but by the looks of things, pop culture may have finally caught up.



Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Netflix's 'House of Cards' turns content into a science--are movies next?

In the old days people baked cookies. Now the market is dominated by specially-formulated packaged food that's engineered to fall right into a U-shaped graph that measures bliss. Perhaps you could say the same thing about content. In the old days, people came up with movies and shows by combining great ingredients with a hunch. Now, it's scientific. I'm twelve out of thirteen episodes into Netflix's "House of Cards," drawn in by the smooth credits music, arty feel, and sordid look at political scandal. According to recent articles in the New York Times and Salon, this wasn't
House of cards kevin spacey robin wrightjust a well-put together show hitting it big, but due to an analysis of Netflix viewer habits that ensured that "House of Cards" would have the broadest appeal.


"House of Cards" is based on a 1990 BBC series (that did well on Netflix), stars Kevin Spacey (an actor who tracks well on Netflix), and has episodes directed by David Fincher (drawing in Netflix cinephiles). It's an addictive, adult-geared drama, with some episodes ending on cliffhangers that make it almost impossible not to click "next episode." That's something Netflix tracks too. In the old days, a test screening might measure the laughs and gasps of an audience, adding beats when necessary to accommodate them. Now, Netflix measures when people pause episodes, and especially when they don't return to them.


I might have taken an anti-Big Brother stance on this information, if it weren't for the fact that "House of Cards" is so good. It doesn't feel formulaic, but daring and innovative. (Unless it's just scientifically pushing those "daring" and "innovative" buttons right up to the point where it knows it will start to alienate viewers). Major networks air at least half a dozen new shows each season, and most of them fail. There's something to be said for the fact that Netflix is currently batting one for one. I'm sure there's data to parse when it come to movies too. If a movie plays better on Netflix than in theatres, what does that mean? In passing during a recent Q&A, a filmmaker mentioned that Netflix doesn't release information about how often a movie is viewed to the filmmaker or distributor. I imagine that releasing that information could eventually become a bargaining point in acquisition discussions, if it hasn't already.


Whenever a mindless superhero picture releases, people bemoan that studios are catering to the lowest common denominator, and neglecting other audiences. Maybe the studios are accurately playing to their audience, but maybe looking at a different set of data could reveal other truths. It takes a film like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, for example, for many to realize that boomers are now a huge part of the moviegoing public. What plays well on Netflix doesn't always play well in movie theatres, but within this data there is a possibility to create great television and movies that also pass the "numbers test."



Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Amateur filmmaker arrested for murder he wrote in screenplay


By Sarah Sluis

For all the borrowing that goes on between real life and fiction, occasionally people step over the line.  Severely.  After writing a screenplay called House of Cards about a man who posed as a woman online and then lured his dates to their death by arranging to meet them in person, the man, Mark Andrew Twitchell, allegedly went out and committed the crime.  Police seized the screenplay, which had already been the subject of a dubious "work now, maybe get paid later" Facebook casting call, and possibly was in the midst of shooting:

"I'm casting all of these roles personally so just contact me through facebook to start the process. We're short on time so the sooner the better.

Roles are non paid for House of Cards but we are working on a $3M feature right after this with major A-list talent and I remember things like work ethic and true acting chops when considering roles for that too."

As he wrote in the screenplay, Twitchell reportedly hacked into the e-mail account of the victim and sent a message saying he had left town to go on a tropical vacation.  More details involving the method of the killing and disposal of the body also match up to the screenplay.



The screenplay itself was inspired by the television show "Dexter," about a vigilante serial killer.  Adding another twist to the sordid tale, the man who was killed was apparently his second target.  A first man, attacked while wearing a mask, escaped and did not report the incident--perhaps out of embarrassment for his involvement in online dating?  The "Dexter"-inspired screenplay was not the first of Twitchell's rip-offs: he helmed an unauthorized, 60k "fan film" featuring Star Wars characters a few years ago.



The odd things is, I could imagine the Twitchell story itself being turned into a movie: a film about a Peepingtom
man who makes a film about murder, then commits it.  With this idea in mind, I was reminded of the 1960 Michael Powell film Peeping Tom, a creepy and self-implicating movie about a man (a member of a film crew) who films the murders of his victims.  He gets a voyeuristic thrill out of watching and re-watching his victims' deaths.  The problem is, you're watching his secret films too, and enjoying (or tolerating) them, putting you in the same camp as the twisted serial killer.  If you hate the killer, you must address your own love for the suspense and thrill of his actions.  Twitchell has already been brought into custody, but the bizarre events put a shivering reverse on the oft-heard "based on a true story."



Links:
Original Story
Update
Cinematical