Ghost Dog - Jim Jarmusch

Jim Jarmusch is one of those filmmakers that most everyone has heard of, but at the same time most people have never seen any of his output nor could they even name one of his films. In this way, Jarmusch is very much like David Lynch, and the fact that he is a white guy from middle America with big white hair doesn't help to separate them. However their films could not be more different. From what I've seen of Jarmusch (Ghost Dog, Dead Man, and Broken Flowers) his movies tend to be very simplistic studies of idiosyncratic individuals while Lynch focuses more on the surreal nature of life and the human mind, and are sometimes complicated to the point where they step on their own toes.

Ghost Dog is a fantastic film that is squarely in Jarmusch's wheel house. It's simple enough that the plot doesn't get in the way, but interesting and innovative enough to keep the viewer interested and engaged. Ghost Dog tells the story of a black man, named Ghost Dog, who envisions himself as a modern-day samurai. He works for a member of the local mob, doing 'cleaner' work for them when necessary. During a job at the beginning of the film, something goes awry that is not the fault of the ever professional Ghost Dog, and the local mob leaders decide to take Ghost Dog out so as to cover their own tracks. The rest of the film follows Ghost Dog as he attempts to take out these mobsters before they get to him, and delves further into the psyche of this modern samurai.

What makes Ghost Dog great is not the plot but the characterization of the title character. It is never really in doubt that Ghost Dog will be able to get to the mobsters before they get to him, but that doesn't make the movie any less exciting. The ways in which Ghost Dog preemptively strikes at the mob are often fresh and innovative and watching him take out the overweight, ineffectual mobsters is very satisfying. Although Ghost Dog is technically a murderer, there isn't much in terms of moral ambiguity here: he's the good guy and he's going to take the bad guys out.

Much of the film is spent going into the samurai code that drives the way Ghost Dog lives his life. He is often seen reading the Hagakure, which records the samurai code and sayings of famous samurai Yamamoto Tsunetomo. There are many sections of voice over where the text of a passage of the Hagakure is displayed on the screen accompanied by Ghost Dog's reading. In many other directors hands this technique might feel clumsy or appear to be spoon feeding the audience, but Jarmusch is able to make it work with an assist by Whittaker's dramatic line readings.

Ghost Dog does have many of those 'quirky' qualities that would qualify it as an 'indie' movie besides just its budget. There are many peculiar characters besides Ghost Dog, including his Hatian best friend who speaks only french yet runs an ice cream truck in the ghetto, and the little girl who takes a shine to him and carries not lunch in her lunchbox but a wide variety of books. One clever scene has Ghost Dog and his Haitian friend view someone building a wooden ship on a roof and have a discussion about it without understanding a word the other one says (this is a recurring theme that could be seen as a joke, or as an examination of the connection two people can make even without the use of words). Additionally, Ghost Dog only communicates to his handler through carrier pigeons and practices with his Katana outside his bird coop even if he doesn't use the sword for his jobs. Finally, at it's core, Ghost Dog is a blend of the gangster and samurai genres that were wildly influential in rap music of the time. And as we all know white indie kids love both blending genres and analyzing black inner city culture that they weren't really a part of.

However as much as I joke, this is not meant as a criticism, Ghost Dog does not feel disingenuous in any way. There is/was a reason that so much of rap music focused on gangsters and samurais (especially the Wu-Tang Clan in the latter case) and this movie does that connection justice.

Forrest Whittaker is absolutely fantastic in a career performance as the title role and the soundtrack (done by Wu-Tang's RZA) is mesmerizing. Hollywood puts out gangster and assassin movies like it's going out of style and frankly I am usually annoyed by them, usually feeling that the genre has nothing new to offer. However, this movie is a great take on those old genres and is one of the best films that I've watched in recent memory.

Angel: Seasons 2 & 3 - Joss Whedon

Hey, remember when I wrote that Angel was more of a procedural than Buffy ever was, and that this 'vampire detective' schtick was exciting, fun and a refreshing change from Buffy? Well that may all true about the first season, but about halfway into the second season all that goes flying out the window. There are multi-season story archs, plot lines darker than most anything I've seen on television, and one ridiculous cliff hanger. Oh, plus Pete from Mad Men shows up as an evil Peter Pan from hell, but I'm getting ahead of myself here.

The second season starts right where the first one left off. Angel is busy being a champion (the show's word, not mine) and saving all sorts of helpless people. Already being more useful than she ever was in Buffy, Cordelia acts as the show's emotional center and as Angel's guide to the higher powers by receiving visions of people Angel is supposed to save. In addition to a tougher and more likable Wesley the show adds to the main cast Gunn, a 'street' (read: black) vampire fighter. Eventually added are Lorne the empath demon (also the most likable 'theater person' I've ever seen on screen) and Fred the quirky but intelligent girl discovered in Lorne's home-world. As well as I thought the 3 man team of the first season worked together these character additions (especially Lorne and Fred) add a much needed breath of fresh air to the show. As the series progresses and gets darker and darker, any level of levity is greatly appreciated. So let's get to those dark plot lines that plague Angel's middle seasons.

At the end of the first season Angel's main rival, the law firm Wolfram and Heart, brought back Darla, the vampire that sired him back in the 18th century. It's never really clear why they do this, nor why this is such a big deal, but they pretty much bring her back to screw with Angel. We get lots of exposition about Angel's past (not really that much more than what we got in Buffy) and when he eventually finds out that Darla is alive he obviously loses his shit. There are some pretty intense (and occasionally melodramatic) scenes where Angel is deciding what to do about Darla being alive. Eventually an old friend turns Darla back into a vampire (she comes back as human) and this upsets Angel so much that he fires everyone he works with, starts to brood constantly, and starts blurring the line between 'hero' and 'villain'.

This section of season 2 was a little melodramatic, especially given how annoying Darla is. It's hard to buy that Angel cares so much about her as a human when he only knew her as an evil fiend. Additionally, we're supposed to believe that Buffy was Angel's true love, so it's hard to understand his actions with respect to Darla seeing that he was only with her when he was evil himself. It also seems a little forced to rely on the possibility of Angel going 'bad' seeing that Buffy's second season already explored this territory very successfully. However after the Darla storyline finishes, and Angel gets everything back in order the show picks back up. The final story arch with the crew going to Lorne's hometown to save Cordelia is especially good, and it's nice to see these characters interact in a more traditional 'fantasy' type setting.

Whereas the episodes of the second season was about half and half overarching story and one-offs, the third season completely destroys this ratio. From the get go we get scenes of a pregnant Darla, and discover that she's pregnant with Angel's baby from a night of hate sex which occurred during the previous season. This pregnant-Darla storyline dominates season 3, and the MOTW episodes completely disappear when a rival from Angel's past shows up to muck up things further. Darla eventually gets out of the picture and dies in childbirth (by her own hand even!) and at that point the series takes an extremely dark turn. There are lots of dire monologues about revenge and vengeance, hate, and the steps necessary to dispose of one's enemies. Gone are the days of the loquacious mayor who is both a germaphobe and an immortal demon, and instead we have a villain who is driven purely by hate of the long-gone evil Angelus. Frankly, Hotlz is not much fun, and every thing he's involved in is covered by a thick depressing cloud.

Having Holtz around to make everyone act out of character was bad enough, and I haven't even brought up the 'prophecy'. Wesley discovers that according to a prophecy (that later turns out to be false) that Angel is destined to kill his son. Being overly distraught, he plans on stealing the baby from Angel and raising it himself far away. Of course Holtz gets involved in this as well and eventually steals the baby (now named Connor) after Wesley takes it, and slits Wesley's throat for good measure. After stealing the baby Holtz takes it to a 'hell dimension', seemingly never to be seen again. Obviously Angel is distraught over these events, but it seems a little extreme to have him try to suffocate Wesley while he's recovering the hospital. Wesley essentially gets ostracized from the group even after they understand his side of the story, and starts hatefucking one of their main opponents from Wolfram and Heart. (There sure is a lot of hate sex in Angel, isn't there?)

The child eventually comes back from the dimension as a teenager (time works different in different dimensions) and after gaining the trust of Angel Investigations he finally turns on them as are Holtz's wishes. The season ends with Holtz killing himself in a manner than makes Connor believe that Angel was responsible, and then Connor trapping Angel in a large metal box and throwing him to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. I cannot think of a darker cliffhanger than having Angel's son betray his father by making the immortal Angel suffer with this knowledge at the bottom of the Pacific ocean for the foreseeable future.

Joss Whedon's shows are famous for their witty dialog and humor even when the shows delve into serious storylines, as they often do, and I think Angel lost sight of this somewhere. This is not to say that I wasn't engrossed in the story, it's just that I wish there was a little more time for the characters to interact and play off each other with the original premise of the show. There are so many character additions in these seasons just having them solve demon or paranormal related events would be more than enough to keep the show interesting. While Buffy also introduced 'big bads', I think that it was much more able to successfully fit those stories within the original premise of the show. By the end of the third season Angel pretty much turned into a supernatural soap opera with teeth.

House - Season 6: Episode 1

As you may have noticed my posting has become a little more sporadic as of late. The main culprit behind troubling trend is the fact that the fall TV season has started once again. When I was a child this time of year was very exciting for me. I loved getting new school supplies and finding out what classes I'd be taking and who I'd be sitting next to in those classes (yes I was a big dork). Combine this with the fact that this was the time that my favorite shows would begin anew and my birthday is not far off made fall one of my favorite seasons (changing leaves and the cooling of the air rules as well).

So as this time has approached I've been a little conflicted on how I should continue writing. I obviously won't have as much time to watch about movies since I keep up with a couple of shows, and thus if I continue with my current format I won't have much to write about. So I have decided to write my thoughts on a couple of my favorite shows as they air. I may not post about every show I watch or every episode of shows that I do write about, but I will comment on things when I find them interesting or thought provoking. So without further ado let's start with the first week of the fall TV season (at least for most shows).


House - Season 6: Episode 1

As was probably the case with most fans of House, I was a little concerned with how this season would unfold. At the end of the previous season House checked into a mental institution after battling a both a drug addiction and hallucinations. It was interesting to see how these would play out in the fifth season, and I think the writers did a fantastic job weaving House's problems within the case of the week plots throughout the season. At it's heart House is a procedural, and it was pretty neat to see how that format could be combined with a riveting season long character arch. They kept the whole 'medical mystery' format of the show while delving into House's psyche in a way that most procedurals don't usually attempt.

Although I appreciated the build up to the end of last season, I was pretty weary about how they could keep House, House with the titular character being completely out of his element. Would they keep him in the mental institution for the majority of the season and have him solve mysteries within the compound or possibly as a consultant to his 'crew'? Or would they have him leave fairly quickly and return to the status quo? The first route completely changes the dynamic of the show and would make House much more of a serialized show. And the second route would seem to negate all of the emotional impact that the fifth season created.

After a fantastic opening sequence set to No Surprises from Radiohead's essential album OK Computer, the episode shows House settling into living in the mental institution and causing problems as you would expect. Even the biggest House supporter can't really defend his bullying of the other mental patients (making suicide jokes at a cutter? really House?) but these episodes eventually show House finally having some of that elusive contentment. After his initial posturing and misbehaving, House actually shows remorse over some bad choices, and even makes a real personal connection. It remains to be seen if the show will continue his personal improvement when he goes back to work next week, but it was a little nice to see House act like a real person.

Overall I was pretty satisfied with the premiere even if I did have a few qualms with it. While it was nice to see House improve as a person, we didn't really get anything in the way of 'medical mysteries' (there was a tease midway through that was pretty frustrating) that gave House a chance to use that brain of his, and there was nothing to be seen of the rest of the cast. It also seemed a little rushed having him get over his addiction and hallucination problems within the first 5 minutes of the show, and the rest of his stay at the hospital pretty much involved him trying to be less of a dick. I think they could have drawn out his addiction storyline and had him stay at the hospital much longer, as long as he was consulting with the rest of the doctors from Plainsboro so that the show could still keep some semblance of what it used to be. Or maybe I've been watching Mad Men too much and just find all this plot development a little hectic and possibly forced.

The Blind Side - Michael Lewis

The subtitle of The Blind Side is 'Evolution of a Game'. This gives one the impression that Lewis will spend a large amount of the book delving into the development of the left tackle and how it affected football strategy over the past fifty years to the same depths in which he probed the changing strategies of baseball throughout Moneyball. Although there is somewhat of a discussion of these ideas, less than a quarter of the book is spent discussing football strategies and players while the rest is spent telling the (often saccharine) tale of a troubled young man named Michael Oher who fits the new prototype of the increasingly important left tackle. Moneyball was a fantastic book, and it had far reaching implications for the public's understanding of the new trends in baseball statistics. I was hopping that The Blind Side would do the same thing for football, more specifically offensive line play.

The impetus behind The Blind Side is the fact that as football has become more and more pass oriented and the quarterback became the most important position on the field, the man that protects the quarterback, and thus the entire game plan, has also become increasingly important. Traditionally offensive linemen were thought to be interchangeable and replaceable, and they were the lowest paid players on the team. The left tackle (the offensive lineman who lines up at the far left) was thought to be no different than the other 4 lineman. However as most quarterbacks are right-handed, when they drop back to pass the left tackle is the one protecting the quarterback's back and blind side. As defensive schemes were being developed to attack the nervous system of the passing game, it became increasingly obvious that the left tackle was not only another part of the line, but a 'skill position'.

The biggest misconception about football is that the players, more specifically the linemen, are just a bunch of big, dumb, fat men running into each other mindlessly. It is often thought that this takes no skill and that the only requirements to be a lineman is the size involved. While it is true that some linemen are pretty overweight, most of them, and especially the best ones, are incredible athletes. As the left tackle became increasingly important it could even be said that the best athlete is often found at that position. They are fast, nimble, strong, intelligent and unrelenting.

What The Blind Side does best is to educate the reader about these 'freaks of nature'. The few chapters that focus strictly on football, and many of the sections on Michael Oher, make it very clear the importance of and skill involved in playing left tackle. Michael Oher is described in highschool as a 300 pound six foot two athletic freak. He shoots and handles a basketball like a guard, and is able to dominate in many track events (that obviously involve throwing) on his first attempt. He's not just some big, dumb, strong jock. These things are hard to notice for outsiders because on television the camera just follows the ball. Even when you try to specifically pay attention to the line play it's hard to see what they're doing and I think it's important for fans of football to understand these positions on a deeper level. I know that line play is complicated and that it is often said that they are the most intelligent players on the field next to the quarterback, and I wish The Blind Side did a better job of explaining the intellectual aspect of the position.

Although the most interesting part of The Blind Side is when Lewis is discussing the position of the left tackle (and figures such as Bill Walsh and Lawrence Taylor that made it important) the largest chunk of the book is spent discussing Michael Oher and his life. The book was written when Oher was a tackle at Ole Miss and tells the story of how he came to find himself at an SEC University when he basically grew up homeless. Through some events that could attributed to chance, Michael was introduced to a christian high school in Memphis and later to the Tuohy family. Although he basically knew nothing of schooling, organized sports, or the rich white person lifestyle that he would soon inhabit, Michael was accepted into the school and eventually taken in by the Tuohys. The rest of the book tells this story and discusses how this poor black kid from the Memphis ghetto was able to overcome his deficits and make it in a private school and later in a major university. Often when his personal life is being discussed, The Blind Side turns into an overly sweet after school special that extols the virtues of dedication, loyalty and hope. It is heartwarming in a way, but often a little too touchy-feely for my taste.

The one aspect of Michael's personal story that was the most interesting to me was when he was preparing to enter college, and all the complications that go along with that decision. Many people know that I am highly critical of the institution known as college football, and this book just reaffirmed my positions. After Oher narrows his decisions down to just a couple, the head coaches at these schools come to visit the Oher family. Big names like Nick Saban (who comes off as the snake oil salesman he is) and Phillip Fulmer come to woo Oher and the whole process is disgusting. They pretty much offer him everything except the kictchen sink all the while telling lies about themselves and the rival schools. Michael eventually chooses Ole Miss, but this causes some issues seeing that Ole Miss is the Tuohy's alma mater. It's sickening that he has to be investigated for making this decision because of his adoptive parent's affiliation, and even more sickening because it's not completely ludicris that a southern family would take in a poor black kid just to get him to play for their school. The whole college football obsession is beyond me.

As much as I don't really get the college football culture, the thing that really upsets me is how the kids are treated. They are expected to be both students and athletes when they don't really have the time or skill to do both. Many people are skilled enough to play football at the college level and even the NFL, but at the same time not trained to attend college. Why should a prospective athlete be required to have academic skills when it has no connection to their chosen line of work? As a grad student I am not expected to be able to dunk a basketball, so why should a prospective athlete be required to learn how to write research papers? I love education and have thus far dedicated my life to it, but that doesn't mean that academia is right for everyone. And don't get me started on the fact that everyone associated with college football makes an assload of money off of the product except those producing it. The students are used up and then spit out with nothing to show for it except a degree built on classes they barely had time to attend.

This problem doesn't just start at the college level, many young people don't even make it that far. Even someone like Michael Oher who had the support system and the will to get the grades he needed couldn't do it without some trickery. His adoptive father had to pull some strings and find loopholes so that Michael could have the GPA to attend college. There are countless numbers of kids who are in terrible situations in the ghetto and elsewhere who don't have an education system or social structure that supports them in this way, and they are just left by the wayside. It's obviously not feasible for every poor kid from the ghetto to become a professional athlete, but there are plenty of them who don't get the opportunity because of the way the system is set up.

I obviously don't have a solution to this, and the fact that some students do make the best of their scholarship makes it even more of a difficult situation. I'm not sure if students should get paid, or not be required to actually be 'students', but I know the current situation isn't right. It works out great for the small handful that makes it to the NFL or who use their degree to pursue a career, but there is a large number of college athletes who don't even end up graduating and just leave school after their last game. Michael Oher is a spectacular success story, and it's too bad that the majority of people in his position don't have the slightest chance of following in his footsteps.

Thirst - Park Chan-wook

When Oldboy was released it was a cultural phenomenon for movie lovers my age. Set as a part of Park's 'vengeance trilogy' Oldboy is the story of Oh Dae-Su's search to find out why a man has trapped him in a prison-like hotel room for 15 years. After that time he is released into the word like a rat in a maze until his captor's game reaches its completion. It's everything that Quentin Tarantino wishes his movies were, and more. It's violence is guttural, exciting and unique (check out the famous and awesome hammer fight that was done in a single shot) and the torture scenes are brutal but not without purpose. It also has probably one of the best 'twist endings' I've ever seen in a movie (as long as it's not spoiled for you or you think too hard about what the twist is). If you can stand violence I would heartily recommend it, as it's probably the best 'violent movie' of the decade.

When it was released many people felt the same way about Oldboy as I do so you can imagine the anticipation when it was announced that the same director would release a vampire movie. If anything I knew it wasn't going to be another vampire story high on romance and low on teeth and in this aspect I was not disappointed. Thirst is every bit as brutal as Oldboy, even if it is a little slower and less exciting.

Thirst tells the story of a self-flagellating priest who hates himself and life to the point where he volunteers for a medical experiment that has a 0 percent success rate. He volunteers to be infected with a leprosy-type virus so that researchers can try to find a cure. Predictably he cannot fight off the infection, and seemingly dies as he's being treated. However as a complication from his treatment, it seems that he was injected with a bag of vampire blood (from where? who knows?) and thus his transformation starts. Typing all this out the setup seems a bit clumsy, but while you're watching the film it's easy to go along with it. The priest soon finds out what he has become, and he begins to thirst for human desires much more than he ever has.

During his initial discovery and transformation, Thirst is pretty entertaining and novel. The audience is pretty unsure where this vampire lies within the vampire canon, and it's fun to discover one scene at a time, which cliches will be used here and which won't be. He's damaged by sunlight but we're not sure what else. He has super-human abilities that come directly after drinking blood, but there are also a few clever scenes in which we are assured that yes, he still has a reflection. The best parts of Thirst come when both the audience and the priest is finding out what his new powers are, and where his limitations lie.

However once Thirst starts to develop its plot and progress towards the climax, it becomes pretty much Park's standard fare. The priest develops an unstoppable lust towards a friend's wife, and she is enamored with him both because of his strange magnetism and because of her awful home life. Kim Ok-bin is pretty great in playing the love interest and the faces she makes early on garner some of the strongest laughs of the film. However after she becomes interested in his vampirism the film takes a turn towards the south.

Like Park's other films, Thirst eventually exists mostly as a morality tale and a story of revenge. The priest's actions eventually leave a trail of death (some not solely on his hands) that eventually catches up with him. Park is obsessed with violence and sex and their consequences, and he uses Thirst to again explore this fixation.

Thirst doesn't completely lose its footing once the plot because a little more standard, there are still some interesting ideas found throughout the film. I thought it was particularly clever to have the vampire virus amplify the desires and vices of those it infects, rather than make anyone who gets it a blood sucking demon. Because the priest was always a do-gooder and someone who denied himself bodily wants, he tends to be somewhat of a thoughtful vampire and tries not to kill to feed himself. However another character who is infected eventually becomes bloodthirsty and downright evil. I liked the idea that the virus affected everyone differently, even if we didn't get a lot of test cases for this theory.

Thirst does have a place in today's cinema, but I'm not sure if it's really worth going out of your way to see it (which you would likely have to do). It's often very beautifully shot, I think it makes a good counterpoint to the relatively safe and romantic vampires currently in vogue (Twilight, True Blood), and be assured, no vampires in Thirst sparkle. However the movie drags on a little bit at 130 minutes, and it seems not to know where it's going until it decides to be a straight up morality tale. Park's other efforts never reach the pinnacle that Oldboy did, and I worry that he may be a filmmaker that only has one great film in him, and a bunch of mediocre ones.

Angel: Season 1 - Joss Whedon

When it first aired, I wasn't very invested in Angel as a series. I was a huge fan of Buffy, and although I was excited for Angel to get his own show and to see more of Joss Whedon could do, the show didn't really grab me. This might have been partially because I was so into the whole Buffy world and didn't really want to leave it, or that I was just liked the characters in Buffy more (especially Willow and Giles), but whatever the reason I never really considered myself an Angel fan: I was a Buffy guy. Then when Buffy switched networks after the fifth season and at the beginning of my senior year of highschool I stopped watching both of them. It seemed like a clear stopping point for Buffy, and I let Angel fall with it. I always considered picking up watching Angel at some point, and besides a little viewing here and there I didn't re-watch any of it until I saw it on uber-sale at Target. (4 seasons for $35? How could I resist!?).

Watching the first season it's hard for me to see what I didn't really like about the show. It's true that because the three main characters are castoffs from Buffy it did feel a little bit like Buffy JV, and the characters they picked were some of the least likable from the parent show. They took the rich spoiled Cordelia, the brooding overly serious Angel, and later the bumbling super-British occasionally dickish Wesley. Although fans from the early seasons of Buffy might balk at watching the show from the list of characters, they are given much more of a diverse and in depth characterization. Plus, Angel is spectacular. Many of the MOTW plots are extremely inventive, there are some extremely funny scenes, and overall the show is both clever and engaging.

Like Buffy, the majority of Angel is done on a MOTW (monster of the week) basis. Each week our heroes investigate a demon or supernatural event and try to help those in need. However, unlike Buffy, the first season of Angel doesn't have a 'big bad'. For those unfamiliar with he show, each season of Buffy would have a 'big bad', or a super evil villain, that drove much of the plot and was finally defeated at the end. The first season of Angel chooses to forgo this route, and I think it's refreshing. There are overarching themes, and recurring characters (both good and bad), but there is no videogame-like villain that needs to be defeated by episode 22. I hear the show has more of a series long story arch, but since I haven't seen much else of the series I can't really comment on it.

Because of this, Angel is much more of a typical procedural than Buffy was. In this day and age calling a show a procedural (a drama that has mostly stand-alone episodes that follow a similar formula) is often considered an insult, but I don't think that it should be. Having somewhat of a formula can be comforting, and makes episodes where overarching themes or plots occur that much more exciting. In this context, an episode that is a two-parter or ends on a 'to be continued...' is much more exciting than if every episode ends this way. This is not to say Angel doesn't reward faithful viewers, but you can easily pick up and watch a stand alone episode of the first season much easier than you can most of Buffy.

Speaking of faithful viewers, one of the major problems of Angel season one is that to fully appreciate it the viewer needs to have seen Buffy. In fact, in the first season (and I believe also the second) there are many crossover episodes where something would happen on Buffy, and then repercussions would be seen on Angel (which aired immediately afterward). I remember being very excited for these at the time, but mostly they are unrewarding. Typically the only thing that you get from the crossover episodes is getting to say something like 'hey I remember Oz!' where people who never watched Buffy would be left slightly in the dark. Furthermore, the episodes where Buffy visits the show tend to be more depressing than one would like. I know people want to see them interact because of their epic love affair on Buffy, but watching them yell at each other like the recently broken up lovers they are is extremely upsetting. Buffy comes across as a one-dimensional bitchzilla without the lush characterization she is given in her own show. I recall Angel also being a one-dimensional mopeasaurus during his appearances on Buffy so maybe the writers just have problems writing the titular characters in each other shows.

As with many shows, the first season takes a little while to get going. There are some clunker episodes here and there and it takes a while to get used to 'Angel the private investigator' rather than 'Angel the vampire boyfriend'. But one thing is sure, Angel is much more likable on his own show than he ever was on Buffy. David Boreanez shows a much wider range of acting ability (much of which he uses in Bones) and he is easily able to carry the show. Additionally, because Angel takes place in LA rather than in the small-time Sunnydale, we're introduced to a much wider word of demons than we ever are in Buffy. In many ways it's a more complex world, where there are less events or characters that are strictly good or bad, and much more in the moral gray. When first watching Angel it feels like you're watching un-aired or 'lost' episodes of Buffy. However as the show develops over its first season it starts to separate itself from Buffy and becomes its own beast, and another worthy addition by Joss Whedon to the pantheon of great sci-fi shows.

Plastic Fantastic - Eugenie Samuel Reich

'Science' is often seen by the outside world as a perfect, well oiled machine. Money pours in, smart-guy scientists work towards a predetermined goal, and then after reaching said goal they use it to help humanity. Outsiders like to think that any problem in science (and especially medicine) can be fixed by just throwing enough money at it. Scientists are infallible geniuses and if only they had enough time and resources all problems and questions in our world would be solved. Plastic Fantastic is an attempt to give laymen a look inside the way scientific progress is really made, and how scientists as individuals are far from perfect.

Plastic Fantastic follows the story of Hendrik Schön and his rise and fall within the scientific community. Schön received his PhD from the University of Konstanz in 1997 and then went on to work at the prestigious Bell Labs in New Jersey. Even those who don't know much about the history of science may have heard the name Bell Labs before, and if you haven't it was the site of many important discoveries of the 20th century including the creation of the transistor, the discovery of cosmic background radiation, and laser atom trapping (by our Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu!). Bell Labs was the place to be for cutting edge research, but it has since fallen on hard times and is nowhere near the powerhouse it used to be. In just four years Schön published eight papers in Science, seven in Nature and six in various Physical Review journals. Science and Nature are the two most prestigious journals for those within the scientific world to publish, and Physical Review is the main outlet for discoveries in the field of Physics. This rate and quality of publications is almost unheard of, and it seemed that Schön was on his way to a Nobel Prize and other greatness until it all came crashing down.

It turns out that all of it was fake. Schön manipulated existing data, created artificial results from theoretical functions, and even duplicated the same plot on multiple papers. Plastic Fantastic takes a journalistic approach to figure out how and why this happened, and why it took so long for the scientific community to catch him.

In part, Plastic Fantastic is an attempt to try to describe how the normal process of checks works in science and how it failed this time. Typically, when a scientist believes he or she has done some research of worth, they submit a paper to one of the various journals in which their research topic is published. The editors at said publication then sort through the submissions, and send many out for peer review. Peer review involves the editor sending the manuscript out to multiple authorities in the field on which the paper is based, and the authorities taking an objective look at the science to see if it is new, interesting, and correct. If the reviewers decide on a whole that the paper is a good one (often with corrections or additions needed) the author is allowed to make changes before the paper is published. This can be a long and laborious process, but it usually weeds out badly written papers or those with bad science. However one aspect of the paper that the reviewers don't usually check for is fraud. Science is based on trust, and the reviewers are trusting that the results reported in the paper are factual.

This is where Schön was able to fool the scientific community and those close to him. Because the reviewers were not checking to see if he was lying, or just plain making stuff up, his papers passed with flying colors. In preliminary discussions, Schön would present some data to a colleague and ask him what experiments he might try next, and what results he might expect. He would then go off, and seemingly work hard to get those results, and then would precisely replicate that which was expected. In this way he played off scientists hubris in that they were more than excited to see their theories come true. Because all of his early papers seemed reasonable and had wonderful plots that mirrored what theorists would expect, he was able to get away publishing fraudulent papers at a breakneck speed.

He was finally caught because a couple of skeptics started to look hard at him and his suspicious data. No one was able to replicate his results, and he was unable to describe his techniques to those interesting in doing so. Finally someone noticed that two of his plots where exactly the same in seperate papers describing wildly different devices. This lead to a review of his work and eventually it was discovered that he had never done any of it, and that all the work others had been doing to follow up on his results had been a waste.

Plastic Fantastic is written from a journalistic point of view, trying to get all the specifics of when and where and who down to try to build a complete picture of Schön's actions. It's very successful in this and those even more familiar with the case or the people involved might get much more out of it than I did. Where Plastic Fantastic fails is in trying to build a central narrative or trying to flesh out the people, especially Schön. I was not left with a strong feeling about Schön, and maybe this was a reflection on his personality, but I would have liked much more about what kind of person does this. Schön wasn't particularly egotistic, and he wasn't really that selfish or headstrong, he just seemed like a guy who wanted to fit in and wanted to appease his superiors. However beyond that description there wasn't much personal information about him, and more anecdotes might have been nice. Additionally the subtitle 'How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World' is bit much. Although it's true that these events had a huge effect on those involved with the subject at hand, it would be quite a claim to say that they 'shook the scientific world.' I'm sure many scientists are aware of the case, but it is also true that many are only overly familiar with their own field and it probably barely affected them.

One interesting note that was brought up was that apparently Isaac Newton was guilty of fraud! Apparently during his work on optics, he claimed that something was true (that you couldn't make an achromatic lens) in all cases even though he only viewed it in a specific case. Furthermore he reported results that would be ideal as work he had actually done. Newton was also apparently notorious for fudging numbers and figures in his work on gravity. However this makes sense because his gravitational theories are only approximately true and one needs Einstein's work to fix the problems. It's just very fascinating to me that one of the sharpest minds of human history could fall prey misrepresenting his work because he wanted his theories to be 'perfect'.

I think that Plastic Fantastic works pretty well as an introduction into the way science works, and the kinds of people involved in the work behind the curtain. It's important for people to understand how 'Science' works, and how results are made. The book is also fairly informative on the science involved, which is nice for those with somewhat of a technical background and want to know what was going on scientifically. Obviously people aren't infallible, and in this case it took a little while, but science is self correcting and the truth will be found out eventually. Reproducibility the corner stone of modern science, and without it we would just be a bunch of alchemists trying to turn rocks into gold. In this case 'Science' won, but not before a sad man had everyone on the ropes wasting tons of resources and believing ridiculous claims.