matthewfahey Reviews

The Golden Compass (2007)

The true climax is floating in the ether ::minor spoiler::

[7/10 · 1 December 2007]

I just saw the preview and I am astonished. It seemed like they were doing it right! As a big fan of the books, I was thoroughly enjoying this film. I was in the middle of anticipating the climactic scenes, when suddenly the music swelled and dissolved into the credits. I felt like I had been "sucker-punched".

The entire climactic scene involving Lord Asriel, Mrs. Coulter, Lyra and most importantly Roger (not to mention the city in the sky) is missing. I hope they will put it in the next movie, although they seem to be waiting to see promising box office returns before deciding on the sequels so who knows if we will ever see it on the screen. Even if the next film is made, the events at the end of "The Golden Compass" belong in the eponymous film.

In fact, from a storytelling perspective, the film ended on a section of the book that was more than anything only about exposition. The film's abrupt ending is 'shoe-horned' into a false closure by a short, substance-less monologue from Lyra.

I am still holding out hope that the version I saw was a "test" version designed to compare audience response with the FULL version of the film. Therefore I will not discuss the details of the missing climax. Suffice it to say that the events at the end of the book are PIVOTAL to the development of Lyra as a character.

It is also pivotal for the journey of the audience. How can we (the audience) invest emotionally in this character, indeed, enough to create demand for the sequels, if we aren't allowed to share in the part of Lyra's journey that involves suffering? They were dead-on true to the violence of the bear fights. So why coddle the audience by removing the ending of the story? The argument that mortality is taboo for a holiday audience is an intellectually bankrupt one.

To assemble such tremendous talent in the telling of such a wonderful story only to decimate the thing at the end seems a most horrible waste.

Homicide: Life on the Street (1993–1999)

Why the Best?

[25 June 2005]

Simply, the most rewarding dramatic broadcast television show I have ever seen. HLOTS was consistently character driven, well written and beautifully shot and edited. The acting stands alone as a singular achievement in broadcast TV. An across the board gifted ensemble speaking emotionally provocative, unflinchingly honest and challenging words.

Two things kept this show from legendary status: First, for most of it's run, it suffered from a terrible schedule spot, Friday. Second, it was a challenging show. In no way is that a denigration, in fact, the opposite. The levels of meaning presented in the writing and reinforced by the camera style and acting required a level of attention that people normally bring with them to watch the theatre.

Regarding it's lack of very many Emmy's, it was produced outside of Hollywood, yet was made with substantive quality and artistic integrity. My guess is that it therefore lacked clout and engendered jealousy at the same time.

It's cliché, but HLOTS was ahead of it's time. Many shows on today echo much of the style and substance HLOTS pioneered. Look no farther than THE SHIELD, NIP TUCK or THE SOPRANOS for dramatic quality similar to what HLOTS was doing 10+ years ago.

There are other good dramas on TV today, but HLOTS connected so consistently on an emotional and aesthetically fulfilling level that I felt like I had lost a friend when it finished it's run. I can't say that about anything I've seen before or since.