What Movies need to learn from TV series, such as 'Breaking Bad'...

After a marathon session which involved sitting through the final 7 episodes, this weekend my wife and I finished watching 'Breaking Bad' - and what a truly, utterly superb TV series this has been.  It boasts what I can safely say is possibly the greatest acting performance I've seen in anything, film or TV - Bryan Cranston as Walter White; I've never watched anything where the actor is so submersed in his role that you completely disassociate him from any other roles I've seen him in.  Bryan Cranston becomes Walter White - his mannerisms, facial expressions, the way he walks, talks - this is someone who has fully inhabited his character.  Of course, the rest of the cast is uniformly superlative, but this is Cranston's show.  Walter White's transformation in to 'Heisenberg', and - spoilers! - his eventual downfall are forever seared in to the memory of anyone who has watched this series.  On top of this, the series is brilliantly written, and directed with no small amount of panache by various Directors who have handled different episodes.  There are many sequences, camera shots, and memorable scenes which show that Films have not only been an influence on the visual style and intent of the show - but it is successfully using the same tools to make the story visually compelling and interesting.  TV has often felt like it could do with drawing from Films, and I'd argue that Breaking Bad is just one of several contemporary TV series which demonstrate a desire to match films and achieve the same visual impact.

When I grow up, I want to be a bad-ass like Heisenberg.  Only, without the drugs, and murder, and criminality, y'know.

Watching one episode during our marathon, an astounding sequence involving a number of simultaneous 'hits' on different individual prisoners in various prisons, it occurred to me that not only is this series delivering exhilarating, audaciously shot and edited sequences which match anything most films have to offer, but also it has given me something which many films often fail to do: a compelling, intelligent and nuanced story.  This is the mark of many contemporary TV series - what is often referred to as 'long form story telling' - taking multiple series to present and explore all aspects of a narrative.  I think that it is now time for films to start to demonstrate the same amount of ambition that TV series now have, and embrace this approach of storytelling.  This is already happening to an extent with the series of movies Marvel Studios have been releasing.  Although each stands on its own rights as a self-contained story, there are threads which are picked up and carried throughout, culminating in The Avengers movies.  I expect you're probably now thinking 'well, so what?  There have been movie franchises which have told a story over 2 or more films for decade.'  Of course, you'd be right - we've had the Star Wars saga, the Godfather Trilogy, Lord of the Rings...  But to be honest I'm not talking about a trilogy, or a saga.  What I mean is a series where each film works on its own as a satisfying, self-contained story in its own right, but there are elements which run throughout and all come together for a 'final chapter'.  Think of each film as like a 'season' of a TV series - you've got the over-arching narrative (e.g. with Breaking Bad Walter White's journey from decent man to creator of a drug empire, until his eventual downfall), but in each season there's a specific thread (e.g. Breaking Bad's second series where Walter struggles to keep his dealings from his wife and family, whilst dealing with very dangerous drug dealers), which comes to fruition by the end.  This, for me, is where the TV storytelling format surpasses film franchise building - because once each 'season arc' is tied up, TV series allow for a great deal of exploration of the impact and consequences of the conclusion of the previous season's arc.

Franchise films - whether trilogy or saga - never really allow for this; mostly because there is often a passage of time which has passed between them (often for practical reasons, due to the length of production on a lot of films) - if there are consequences which have been felt by a character or have impacted on the story/setting, these are often dealt with in broad strokes.  We often jump straight back in with the characters having dealt with these and in their situation accordingly.  I think the nearest any ongoing film series has got to what TV does is in 'Iron Man 3' - following the events of 'The Avengers' (or 'Avengers Assemble'), there are suggestions that Tony Stark has been hugely impacted by his encounters with genuinely super-powered and highly skilled individuals - even as his allies; and that's before you get to his emerging PTSD as a result of his experiences.  I think there's a lot of potential for this in films which take a series approach.

So why don't more movie franchises take an ambitious, long term approach to storytelling?  Firstly, it's down to the potential risk of making films - there's no guarantee that a new film is going to be successful enough to merit a sequel.  And even if it is, there's no guarantee the sequel will do well either!  So perhaps this approach is not ideal for big budget, high risk tent-pole films (e.g. your typical summer blockbuster); but as most TV series often rewards investment of time and attention on the part of the viewer, perhaps it requires a more low-key but none-the-less compulsive setting - maybe a political or espionage thriller, or a family-based drama, or a police procedural...  Okay, so these are staples of TV drama at the moment - but why couldn't they work on the big screen as multiple film series?  A film in one of these genres is likely to cost significantly less than a Superhero Blockbuster to make, so I would argue the financial risk is far smaller; the first film would only need to be a moderate success to financially justify continuing the sequel.

This brings me to my second point: movies set out to have a satisfying, self-contained story which works on its own.  Even the Marvel Studio films, linking to each other as they do, only contain subtle threads which are more likely to be picked up by fans, either of the series or of the source material; you didn't have to have seen Captain America: The First Avenger to appreciate what the Tesseract was in The Avengers.  If plot elements are left unfulfilled at the end of the film it can leave the audience feeling deeply unsatisfied - or even worse, just plain confused! The challenge would be to make each film stand on its own rights, but handle the ongoing threads, which would find resolution and fruition in the final film of the sequence, not feel like plot-holes or lazy 'sequel-bait' elements.  I think any film series which takes this approach would need at least the first couple of films to feel self-contained, in terms of having a satisfying conclusion in their own terms (whilst obviously setting up links to the ongoing narrative arc) - then as the series grows in terms of success and popularity there would be opportunities to have cliff-hanger endings, setting up immediate links to the next film.  TV Series have long done this - picking Breaking Bad again, the first two series have pretty solid endings (while leaving enough open for a continuation) - but Season 3 had a - SPOILER! - pretty significant cliff-hanger that didn't get resolved until the start of Season 4.  So keeping a film satisfying in its own right shouldn't mean that the writers/makers can't have ambition for continually evolving and gripping narrative twists.

Finally, what stories could form such a franchise?  Well, I've suggested the types of genres which could form the basis of this approach to film making, but there are other, already existing works which could also do this.  There's Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series - 8 books so far, and too dense to squeeze in to a trilogy, never mind a single film; ironically there's been attempts to get this made, and have also considered alternating between films and TV to tell the saga.  However, a drawback could be the cost of bringing this high concept fantasy, mixing elements of Western, sci-fi, post-apocalyptic, horror to life and doing it justice; the first film on its own would not be satisfying at all, and might not draw those unfamiliar with the series to keep watching.  Another example is the amazing 'Preacher' series of comics; the biggest obstacle - other than, again, budgeting to realise a story involving God, Angels, Demons Vampires, Serial Killers and everything in between! - is the controversy that would be generated if they really stick to the comics (taking in, as they do, drugs, S&M, suicide, and a hefty, hefty dose of blasphemy & iconoclasm).  Fortunately, the AMC network now have the rights to this series, and it's arguable it will get a more effective and faithful adaptation.  Another suggestion would be one of the countless crime/thriller novel series out there, by the like of James Patterson etc etc etc.  I must admit that I'm not too familiar with these as they're not the sort of books I read, and I'm aware that the above-stated author's 'Alex Cross' books have had a few adaptations, but not as an ongoing, linked series - however the advantage of doing these as they already have an established 'fan-base' familiar with the work; but beyond that, I'm not sure how many would lend themselves to an ongoing series that weave in longer narrative threads through their course.

Either way, I believe there is a lot of potential, but ultimately I feel that movies have a huge amount to learn from TV series at the moment - and, at the very least, more studios need to show greater ambition.  Long form story-telling shouldn't just be confined to Superhero Blockbusters!  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and find a TV show to fill the 'Breaking Bad' shaped void in my life...

Movie Review - American Hustle: Elaborate yet patchy, like a 70s comb-over...

The opening scene of 'American Hustle' depicts Irving Rosenfeld - Christian Bale in another of his radical physical transformations, this time with a spectacular paunch - applying the finishing touches to the comb-over that barely covers his receding hair, which is aptly described later on by Amy Adam's Sydney Prosser as 'elaborate'.  You could go so far to say that Bale's character's hairstyle is an accurate metaphor for the entire film: elaborate, in a way consistent with the wild '70's fashion prevalent throughout it, but ultimately it's a bit patchy.

The film's plot sees Bale's Rosenfeld, a moderately successful businessman and - more importantly - con artist - initially trying to balance his girlfriend/partner-in-crime Prosser, with his young wife (played by Jennifer Lawrence) and son.  When they succumb to an FBI sting, led by Bradley Cooper's Riche DiMaso, Rosenfeld and Prosser are forced to take part in FBI plans to use scams to catch high profile criminals.  This leads to the Abscam plot (which actually happened, folks), in which DiMaso's ambition spirals in to attempts to take down corrupt politicians and senators, and even the mob - against the wishes and advice of Rosenfeld.  The problem is, this is mostly played out in a manner which is by and large predictable - although there are a couple of moments which suggest the likelihood of Rosenfeld getting in to deeper and deeper trouble with dangerous mob types, the story rarely ventures in to the potential of the tense thriller and morality tale it might have become in another director's hands.

I wonder if they find it difficult being really, ridiculously good looking?

Instead, David O. Russell keeps it light, and on the side of a quirky comedy.  Certainly, the hairstyles of his two male leads have been played for laughs.  If the story ultimately feels in danger of being inconsequential, the acting raises the whole endeavour.  Russell has assembled an outstanding and really, ridiculously good-looking cast (even under 70's hairstyles!) - in fact there's an argument that this film veers in to becoming 'talented, young, Oscar-bait Actor' porn - we've all seen superb performances from Bale, Adams, Cooper, Lawrence and Jeremy Renner in other films, putting them altogether would almost be a wet-dream for the Academy 'Best Acting' board.  And that's before you get on to the fact that, yes, the leads are all extremely easy on the eye, and Russell exploits that entirely - giving Adams and Cooper a sizzling dance scene at a disco, where Cooper manages to create the right sort of chemistry with Amy Adams, as he did with Lawrence in 'Silver Linings Playbook'.  Seriously, stop it now Bradley, you're making the rest of us non-dancing blokes look bad!  Even Bale, despite his comb-over and paunch, exudes a wry, knowing confidence and odd-sort of charm, which makes it possible to see how a guy like him could get beautiful young women like Lawrence and Adams; and most importantly makes him a sympathetic character, despite the fact he is essentially a criminal.

Aside from this, the supporting cast is solid, and the '70's era detailing is, well, spectacular - but ultimately it's all there to serve the performances of the five lead actors.  The draw here is primarily seeing this great cast looking good, giving solid performances, but beyond that, there most likely isn't enough here story-wise or in plot development for audiences to really take hold of.  Beyond the great leads, there is a certain superficiality to this film - given the emphasis on capturing '70's fashion so well in this film, perhaps that's entirely intentional..?

'Don't put metal in the science oven!'