Film

Odd film marketing: Sweet Home Alabama

Not exactly the most recent film, I know, but for some reason, the movie crossed my mind this weekend and I just thought I’d draw your attention to the odd way Sweet Home Alabama was marketed in France. Here are the US poster and French poster for said movie. Click to make them bigger.

Sweet Home AlabamaFashion Victime

The movie was about a New York fashion designer, originally from Alabama, who returns home and finds love. The name is a cash-in on a well-known song by litle-known band Lynyrd Skynyrd. The US tag line is “Sometimes what we’re looking for is right where we left it.”

In France, the movie had something of a revamp. It got a new name, Fashion Victime, presumably because the song was unknown in France. But you don’t need me to tell you it means either “fashion victim” or potentially “victim of fashion” if you take into account the rest of the poster, which suggests something quite different.

We’ve also lost the original US tagline in favour of “no boys allowed” in a lipstick kiss and “The romantic comedy number one at the US box office”.

So on the left, we have a fashionable woman returning home with her bags and dog to find love; on the right, we have a fashionable woman with shopping bags, luggage and a dog, doing girly things. We’ve gone from a movie that’s a sort of a rom-com but basically a vehicle for Reese Witherspoon to a bit of on-screen chick-lit allegedly about a shopaholic.

Trouble is, the movie didn’t change for French audiences, so they still got the original movie, even if they thought they were going to see something a bit more frothy.

Incidentally, the “number one at the US box office” tagline that gets inserted on so many posters is meaningless. I’ve seen in on posters for movies that haven’t even been released in the US yet. I do not think it means what they think it means.

Next time, I’ll try to hunt down a copy of the UK promo poster for Long Kiss Goodnight, which had some of the worst Photoshopping ever. Geena Davis’s head wasn’t even attached to her body!

News

Monday’s dirty beast news

David TennantDavid Tennant again

Because you need it



Doctor Who

  • Torchwood goes filming in the Rhondda
  • Peter Davison “too tubby” to wear his original costume for Comic Relief
  • Mackenzie Crook willing to take over from David Tennant if asked

Film

Invasive intrusions into people’s personal lives

British TV

US TV

  • Lipstick Jungle recasts: Paul Blackthorne now Brooke Shields’ husband
  • David Simon to make HBO series about musicians in New Orleans
  • Old people ejected from Jericho
  • Al Gough discusses things coming up on Smallville [spoilers]
  • First ep of Women’s Murder Club does well in the ratings
  • George Lucas looking for writers for Star Wars TV series
  • TV Land to stream Andy Griffith, Gunsmoke and Leave It To Beaver
  • Parker Posey’s new show cut from 13 to seven episodes
  • Patrick Swayze to star in A&E pilot, The Beast, about unorthodox FBI vet. No, not that sort
  • Will Smith turning Hitch into a sitcom
US TV

Third-episode verdict: Dirty Sexy Money

The Carusometer for Dirty Sexy Money2-Partial-Caruso

Does a show that aspires to be intelligent need to have a message? Does the author/auteur behind it need to tell us something about life, the universe and everything and does that need to be something we probably wouldn’t have worked out for ourselves?

There’s a considerable camp that thinks the answer to both questions is ‘yes’. Is it true though? Can’t we just enjoy a show without being told something? If the audience is looking for intelligent drama and therefore likely to be composed of intelligent people, is there likely to be a message that an intelligent drama could bring to the audience that it doesn’t know already?

It’s a vexing issue, probably best solved by a man of letters such as Christopher Hitchens, rather than me, someone who’s watched too much television for his own good and has probably got brain rot by now. I can tell which cycle of America’s Next Top Model is on Living TV, simply through the set decoration and end theme music of the episode. Mr Hitchens I am not.

I think it’s also fair to say that the producers of Dirty Sexy Money are not peers of Christopher Hitchens either, because they’re not sure of the answers. They’re fudging the issue. They want to imply there’s a message to the show. Maybe it’s that rich people are complicated and weird and different and spoilt. Maybe it’s that they’re just like you and me. Maybe it’s learn to accept yourself and others’ eccentricities if you want to achieve nirvana.

Whether they’re pointing they’re finger like gawpers at a trust fund freak show or simply Buddhist playwrights in disguise, the producers are hoping that by sticking with some of the conventions of intelligent drama and hoping we’ll stick around while they try to work out their message or lack thereof, that they will be producing an intelligent drama that smart, advertiser-friendly, affluent people want to watch. As Hannibal Lecktor used to say in Manhunter, if one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is – that is, if you act like you’re producing an intelligent drama for long enough, you will actually end up producing an intelligent drama. Of course, good old Hannibal was talking about killing people because God clearly enjoys doing it so much Himself, but the principle applies.

Whether Dirty Sexy Money is actually an intelligent drama or not is unclear. It’s certainly not stupid. It has a good cast, with Donald Sutherland particularly fine as you’d expect, BrianPeter Krause doing a good job of holding everything together, and William Baldwin now scaring me with how similar he is to his brother Alec when playing rich people. It has relatively interesting plots, even if does seem like each episode is like a serialised version of Treasure Hunt, with BrianPeter Krause getting a new clue at the end that takes him off on another exploration of his dad’s possible murder the following week. It’s also quite funny, with good dialogue and the occasional twist of farce.

But I’m just not sure if there’s much point to it. None of the characters are ones you can really identify with, with the possible exception of Krause’s. They’re not really representative of real rich people or in fact any other human beings on this planet, as far as I can work out. And as of yet, there’s no real exploration of these fake people anyway: we’re just supposed to marvel at their antics, rather than find out what truly makes them tick.

It’s like a comedy-drama sudoku, a puzzle that needs to be solved for no real reason other than it passes the time. It’s a well-executed puzzle, but it doesn’t really grab me emotionally. I’m probably going to carry on watching for a while, since I like BrianPeter Krause and I like sudokus, but I could quite easily drop it from schedules without missing it, I suspect.

So it turns out there needs to be a point to drama, but only as long as it’s because you don’t care enough about the characters to watch because of them. Blimey. I am Christopher Hitchens after all. Where’s the gin?

The Medium is Not Enough declares Dirty Sexy Money a two or “Partial Caruso” on The Carusometer quality scale. A Partial Caruso corresponds to “a show with two walk-on cameos by David Caruso as a family lawyer. However, when faced with a cast that includes transgender prostitutes, adulterers and professional divorcees, he will storm off, citing ‘creative differences’ and claiming that he ‘thought ”family lawyer“ meant something else’.”

Negligence on my part: Cane and Big Shots

I’m probably not going to be doing third-episode verdicts on Cane and Big Shots. The simple fact is that despite the fact they’re there, sitting on my iPod, waiting to be watched:

  1. What will all the other new shows on at the moment, I’m just not going to have the time to watch them
  2. The thought of watching them isn’t exactly thrilling me at the moment.

Now I know I did give an almost-positive review of Cane, but since the first episode, I’ve lost any interest I might once have had in it.

As for Big Shots, that I hated from the outset and have a firm intention of continuing to hate it. Life’s too short to be watching Big Shots.

Of course, there’s always the potential of a re-evaluation of both shows with the Random Carusometer later in the season. And I might change my mind completely about watching the episodes I already have, given that I’ve a three-hour train journey to Swansea to look forward to this afternoon.

Life might be short, but train journeys are actually sometimes longer.

Review: Peter Serafinowicz and Flight of the Conchords

Much more of a Look Around You feel to last night’s The Peter Serafinowicz Show, I thought. It’s definitely getting weirder and funnier with the hit/miss ratio getting much more acceptable. "Check your poison sockets", "Limpy has cancer": these things should be T-shirts.

As for Flight of the Conchords, I’ve stuck with it for three weeks and I’m still not getting it. It’s been pretty much the same two jokes (one of them says something, the other picks him up on it, then keeps picking him up on it for between four and five more exchanges; New Zealanders aren’t very worldly, but hey, neither’s anyone else really) plus some songs for these three episodes.

But I think I know where it’s falling down. I had my suspicions when I got more laughs from their web site than from the TV show and since Mark mentioned it was a radio show, I tried closing my eyes while I watched it. You know what? It’s a whole lot funnier without pictures. Really, try it and see.

Essentially, Flight of the Conchords is a wordy radio show that someone has incorrectly added pictures to. So I might keep listening to it – is BBC4 actually Radio 4 if you keep your eyes closed while you watch it?

Of course, The Carusometer won’t since it mercilessly mocks the masculinity of anyone who would listen to the radio. I think it might have even used the word ‘wieners’ when I suggested it. Although now it says that only wieners use the correct spelling of weiner.

It can be so harsh sometimes.