"Weird, right? A Hollywood kid who doesn't seem like a total asshole?" the feminist website Jezebel wrote about Jones last year. And it's true. She has all the credentials to be a total cliche – she even went to the same school as Paris Hilton and the Kardashians – yet she's thoughtful, unselfconscious and funny. I have interviewed some of those "Hollywood kids". One – so thin I could nearly see through her – binge-ate throughout the interview; another informed me that he "refused to be interviewed by the work-experience girl" (I was 27). Jones, by contrast, extends our time together twice over and sends me off with a box of cookies."NY-LON is still available to watch on 4oD. My old spoilery reviews are here.
Showing posts with label NY-LON. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NY-LON. Show all posts
Edie.
TV NY-LON's Rashida Jones is interviewed by The Guardian's Hadley Freeman:
'Would you fly all the way to New York, to see me?'
TV There was always a nagging feeling when watching NY-LON that something was missing - like everything was so close but not quite amazing. Something kept me coming back for the seven episodes. Partly it was because every now and then something really interesting would happen - a performance, storyline or dialogue exchange which would sizzle which would lead to the other reason, that at some point everything would finally gel together and I'd fall in love. But eventually, finally, it didn't really happen. On the positive side the acting was uniformally superb and the show looked very picturesque. But the same problems kept re-occuring throughout and I want to discuss them here from script perspective.
The overall concept was perfectly fine and interesting. The subject of long distance relationships hasn't really been covered in great depth on screen and this could have offered hundreds of story ideas as the couple dealt with having a relationship in separate time zones, in different countries. Just the logistics of getting flights there and back and how much they cost for example. But in the end these elements only really came into play in the final episode and they weren't really inhibitors. For much of the series the actual premise felt like a mcguffin - a way to separate the lovers at key moments. To be honest one of them could have been on day release from prison and it would have made as much difference.
Equally it needed to be about the main characters. To care you need to give those characters time to breath. But in scene after scene, week after week, some plot or secondary character got in the way. To the extent that the only time we ever saw the couple talking was either in arguing about something or after sex. The audience needs to spend time with them in order to invest loyalty and sense of caring about the relationship. For that you need to see the couple together just talking - that's what Nora Ephron and Richard Curtis and since the programme makers were effectively splicing the genes of those writers it's a pity they didn't follow their working formula. We needed to see Michael and Edie showing each other around London and New York or sharing a plane for the odd episode. You need to see the relationship when it works - that way we care when it doesn't. The shorthand here of a minimal montage followed by a cutaway to a landmark just wasn't enough. The first episode was the best episode. Why? All the talking.
And why have so many secondary characters? On both sides of the Atlantic there were enough bodies running around having feelings for two different shows. Which might have been the idea. The problem was that having created these characters they were to some extent more interesting than the mains but equally not given enough to do to compensate. You've serious problems when the viewer wants to know what's happening in the supporting character's life when the main character's relationship is falling apart. This is not the kind of premise designed for an ensemble cast but that's exactly what they tried to so.
A decent comparison is the first series of Alias. In there, Sydney Bristow has a double life - she's a spy and a college girl - and so she interacts with two sets of characters which seldom interact with each other. But in each side of the story there only enough for the needs of the plot and we only know enough about them so that if anything happens to them we care about how that effects our hero. The problem here was we had about a dozen characters and the writers felt the need to service them all to some degree, which meant that in the end we wanted to know more about them. To a certain extent we cared more about Astrid dealing with the suicide and loving Edie's boyfriend and the breakdown and rekindling of Raph's life than what was happening in the 'A' plot and that the show flew when the programme maker's decided to concentrate on what they were doing hurt the central premise. It's important to see the reaction of friends and family to this batty relationship but not to this degree.
But I think the ultimate down note was the tone. For some reason the programme makers decided to temper the fairy tale with tragedy. Which is fine - it grounds the show in reality and the premise possibly needs that. But you let love blossom before throwing a curve - you don't have you a main character return to the city to find her flatmate has committed suicide. That's the kind of thing which can hang over a series. It never really recovered. Temper this with the multiple relationship break-ups and job losses and its like Notting Hill directed by Ken Loach. A nice little funny premise drowned out through all the crying.
So inevitably everything ran out of steam in the final episode. Mike proposing to Edie might have been the desperate act of someone trying to solidify a relationship but it also felt like an act of desperation from script writers looking for something else to do. Which is odd considering the amount of material which had been left untapped. I have a feeling they're keeping something back for a second series. Which is a brave assumptive move - if you're any good you throw everything into your first shot at it and then inspiration will come if they grant you a second chance. It's only now the supporting characters were being underwritten and in this case were literally standing around watching -- which is really annoying because I wanted to know how Lauren felt about Raph leaving. As the episode drew to a close and we'd 'enjoyed' yet another row between Edie and Michael we were treated to another in the seemingly interminable endless shots of them walking around their respective cities alone leading into a down ending and sort of cliffhanger.
And a confession. I don't think the show should end there. I want it to continue. Because the ideas are all in there. Because as I said at the start of this, now and then something really interesting would happen - a performance, storyline or dialogue exchange which would sizzle. I want to see the secondary characters from each side of the pond interacting more as well. Who would much rather be seeing Lauren and Astrid on the town together or Raph and Luke trying to comprehend each other. Now that would be somewhere to go...
The overall concept was perfectly fine and interesting. The subject of long distance relationships hasn't really been covered in great depth on screen and this could have offered hundreds of story ideas as the couple dealt with having a relationship in separate time zones, in different countries. Just the logistics of getting flights there and back and how much they cost for example. But in the end these elements only really came into play in the final episode and they weren't really inhibitors. For much of the series the actual premise felt like a mcguffin - a way to separate the lovers at key moments. To be honest one of them could have been on day release from prison and it would have made as much difference.
Equally it needed to be about the main characters. To care you need to give those characters time to breath. But in scene after scene, week after week, some plot or secondary character got in the way. To the extent that the only time we ever saw the couple talking was either in arguing about something or after sex. The audience needs to spend time with them in order to invest loyalty and sense of caring about the relationship. For that you need to see the couple together just talking - that's what Nora Ephron and Richard Curtis and since the programme makers were effectively splicing the genes of those writers it's a pity they didn't follow their working formula. We needed to see Michael and Edie showing each other around London and New York or sharing a plane for the odd episode. You need to see the relationship when it works - that way we care when it doesn't. The shorthand here of a minimal montage followed by a cutaway to a landmark just wasn't enough. The first episode was the best episode. Why? All the talking.
And why have so many secondary characters? On both sides of the Atlantic there were enough bodies running around having feelings for two different shows. Which might have been the idea. The problem was that having created these characters they were to some extent more interesting than the mains but equally not given enough to do to compensate. You've serious problems when the viewer wants to know what's happening in the supporting character's life when the main character's relationship is falling apart. This is not the kind of premise designed for an ensemble cast but that's exactly what they tried to so.
A decent comparison is the first series of Alias. In there, Sydney Bristow has a double life - she's a spy and a college girl - and so she interacts with two sets of characters which seldom interact with each other. But in each side of the story there only enough for the needs of the plot and we only know enough about them so that if anything happens to them we care about how that effects our hero. The problem here was we had about a dozen characters and the writers felt the need to service them all to some degree, which meant that in the end we wanted to know more about them. To a certain extent we cared more about Astrid dealing with the suicide and loving Edie's boyfriend and the breakdown and rekindling of Raph's life than what was happening in the 'A' plot and that the show flew when the programme maker's decided to concentrate on what they were doing hurt the central premise. It's important to see the reaction of friends and family to this batty relationship but not to this degree.
But I think the ultimate down note was the tone. For some reason the programme makers decided to temper the fairy tale with tragedy. Which is fine - it grounds the show in reality and the premise possibly needs that. But you let love blossom before throwing a curve - you don't have you a main character return to the city to find her flatmate has committed suicide. That's the kind of thing which can hang over a series. It never really recovered. Temper this with the multiple relationship break-ups and job losses and its like Notting Hill directed by Ken Loach. A nice little funny premise drowned out through all the crying.
So inevitably everything ran out of steam in the final episode. Mike proposing to Edie might have been the desperate act of someone trying to solidify a relationship but it also felt like an act of desperation from script writers looking for something else to do. Which is odd considering the amount of material which had been left untapped. I have a feeling they're keeping something back for a second series. Which is a brave assumptive move - if you're any good you throw everything into your first shot at it and then inspiration will come if they grant you a second chance. It's only now the supporting characters were being underwritten and in this case were literally standing around watching -- which is really annoying because I wanted to know how Lauren felt about Raph leaving. As the episode drew to a close and we'd 'enjoyed' yet another row between Edie and Michael we were treated to another in the seemingly interminable endless shots of them walking around their respective cities alone leading into a down ending and sort of cliffhanger.
And a confession. I don't think the show should end there. I want it to continue. Because the ideas are all in there. Because as I said at the start of this, now and then something really interesting would happen - a performance, storyline or dialogue exchange which would sizzle. I want to see the secondary characters from each side of the pond interacting more as well. Who would much rather be seeing Lauren and Astrid on the town together or Raph and Luke trying to comprehend each other. Now that would be somewhere to go...
'So no one told you life was gonna be this way...'
Life I feel like I need to apologise for not typing in anything longer than the pithy words which accompany what has basically become a linkblog over the past couple of days. For various reasons I've not been in the mood to write because I can't really write about what I want to write about -- it's never been that kind of weblog as you know. I think I'm going through a bit of late twenties angst really. In twenty-nine days they're over and I still don't feel like an adult or that I should be let out into the real world. Watching NY-LON the other week (of all things) I saw that shot of the little boy lost in the big city and I really identified with it. And I know I'm not alone, but why isn't anyone brave enough to say it?
I have plans, but as usual it's a waiting game -- waiting for the next thing to happen leading onto the thing after that. Like Anthony Rapp and friends in Dazed And Confused I'm in a perpetual state of preparing for something, like a train creaking slowly from station to station. The other issue being that I'm the only passenger and the destination seems to be moving further and further away. At least on an Arriva train someone apologises for the delay (even if they don't mean it). Now can you see why I haven't been writing about things much lately? I think I'll just go back to linking to stories about films for now if that's OK...
I have plans, but as usual it's a waiting game -- waiting for the next thing to happen leading onto the thing after that. Like Anthony Rapp and friends in Dazed And Confused I'm in a perpetual state of preparing for something, like a train creaking slowly from station to station. The other issue being that I'm the only passenger and the destination seems to be moving further and further away. At least on an Arriva train someone apologises for the delay (even if they don't mean it). Now can you see why I haven't been writing about things much lately? I think I'll just go back to linking to stories about films for now if that's OK...
And of all the titles, why that one?
TV Three weeks into NY-LON and I still can't decide whether I'm enjoying the show because its very good or because its utterly different to anything else out there and I'm reveling in the shock of the new. Certainly the appearance of Emily Corrie this week was a shot in the arm and I hope they find something else for her to do other than stand around and be sarcastic (although that was OK). It's not really the premise which is at fault here, I think it's the execution. I would have started the show with the long distance relationship already in place and then it could have been about the stresses and strains of keeping a relationship like that together when both parties are apart.
For me, in that first episode Michael didn't seem to have enough motivation to fly half way across the world to date Edie. Yes she's lovely and different to anyone else he's ever met but because we don't know anything about him we can't really follow why he would plunge into such a desperate act. Imagine how much more redolent it would have been if he had to sit down and relate the story to another character at some other time. Screenwriter William Goldman bangs on about this stuff - you have to earn the moments.
Part of the problem is that it wants desperately to be Cold Feet. You can see that in the way that it forever shifts time about. We'll see an action, a clock appears, drifts backwards and then we see everything leading up to that action from another character's point of view. It adds a kind of false tension and feels vaguely out of step with the stories being told. Cold Feet frequently had a dramatic moment leading into a break, then after the ads you'd see one of the characters in a bar telling his friends what happened after that, perhaps intercutting it with a different perspective. It felt real there. Here, it pulls the viewer out of the action at crucial moments and also seems to be a shorthand so that we don't have to see the difficult scenes which could cripple the tone (that's providing drug overdoses, accidental pregnancies and potential financial desolation don't do it for you instead).
But I don't come to bury the show. It looks excellent - it's a real shock to see New York in so-called British style photography which doesn't emphasis the enormity of everything. And the playing from everyone is uniformally great (apart from in Michael's workplace were everyone seems to be auditioning for the Eighties film Dealers). I just think it could have been a breezy romance but at the same time say a lot about the isolation of relationships and coping with the love of your life being a big sea away which leads me to the one oddity which hasn't fully been explained. Given that last minute tickets to New York are upwards to three hundred pounds, who in the real world has a salary to cover that kind of commitment?
For me, in that first episode Michael didn't seem to have enough motivation to fly half way across the world to date Edie. Yes she's lovely and different to anyone else he's ever met but because we don't know anything about him we can't really follow why he would plunge into such a desperate act. Imagine how much more redolent it would have been if he had to sit down and relate the story to another character at some other time. Screenwriter William Goldman bangs on about this stuff - you have to earn the moments.
Part of the problem is that it wants desperately to be Cold Feet. You can see that in the way that it forever shifts time about. We'll see an action, a clock appears, drifts backwards and then we see everything leading up to that action from another character's point of view. It adds a kind of false tension and feels vaguely out of step with the stories being told. Cold Feet frequently had a dramatic moment leading into a break, then after the ads you'd see one of the characters in a bar telling his friends what happened after that, perhaps intercutting it with a different perspective. It felt real there. Here, it pulls the viewer out of the action at crucial moments and also seems to be a shorthand so that we don't have to see the difficult scenes which could cripple the tone (that's providing drug overdoses, accidental pregnancies and potential financial desolation don't do it for you instead).
But I don't come to bury the show. It looks excellent - it's a real shock to see New York in so-called British style photography which doesn't emphasis the enormity of everything. And the playing from everyone is uniformally great (apart from in Michael's workplace were everyone seems to be auditioning for the Eighties film Dealers). I just think it could have been a breezy romance but at the same time say a lot about the isolation of relationships and coping with the love of your life being a big sea away which leads me to the one oddity which hasn't fully been explained. Given that last minute tickets to New York are upwards to three hundred pounds, who in the real world has a salary to cover that kind of commitment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)