Tag: movie

Categories
movie

So They’re Really Doing It…?

About a year and a half ago I blogged on the then rumour that a Buffy film might be made without Joss Whedon’s involvement – and that that might not be so terrible a thing.

For those who hate clicking links and actually reading stuff, my argument was boiled down to:

  1. Most movies, even ones where there’s a real script and real people involved, don’t get made.
  2. Most movies that are made aren’t any good.
  3. Sometimes a different take on an idea is better than a continuation.
  4. A movie probably isn’t the right kind of medium for the kind of stories Buffy on TV was about – so even with Joss it wouldn’t be the same.

So I came out in favour. Partly it has to be said, because I didn’t think it would happen and partly because I wanted Joss to go on and do new and fresh things. Well he did and is. But also it is.

Happening that is.

That is, I mean they really are making it. A new Buffy. Without Whedon, without Gellar and without a lot of the characters we know and love[*].

And I find my theoretical “It might not be so bad” has been challenged somewhat by the reality. In particular:

  • the fact that they’ve hired Whit Anderson (who?) to write the script. Apparently she (seriously who?) had an interesting take on the concept.
  • the fact that it’s perhaps pitched primarily as a comedy (that worked out well for the original didn’t it?)
  • that it looks for all the world like a cynical attempt to cash in on the whole vampire thing that culminated in the Twilight movies. (That Buffy pre-dates most of this by at least a decade has meant I can safely deride this trend without attacking my beloved show.)

So yes, I concede it probably won’t be any good and I’ll probably hate it (though I’ll have to see it of course). But I won’t be joining any protests or online petitions (although feel free to yourself).

Because the other half of the argument – that Joss should move on and do other things – is still valid. He should and he is.

 

[*]I think because the people concerned own the rights to the original movie and underlying concept – but not the TV show and its add-ons i.e. Xander, Willow, Angel, Spike and Giles. Or maybe they do but they just wanted to make it a clean slate.

Categories
6000 pages reading reviews

6000 Pages, It’s Only a Movie – Mark Kermode (pages 3527-3846)

It's Only a Movie

So we’re on to book 11 (only 11! It’s November!!) and this is my first non-fiction. In fact it’s my first since I started doing these reading blog projects. The last non-fiction I remember reading was Danny Wallace’s Join Me which must have been pre-2006 and I didn’t finish that.

Mark Kermode is someone I enjoy on the radio on the weekly podcast of his movie reviews with Simon Mayo. It’s Only a Movie is a sort of autobiography. I say sort of only because it’s in more or less the right order but leaves lots out and jumps around – as he often does on the radio once he gets on to a tangent about a particular movie he goes with that.

What you end up with is a series of anecdotes about being a film critic. They are well told and funny and yet don’t seem to add up to a whole lot. Strangely it felt a lot like the radio show but I liked it less. I think the value of having someone to spar with, and someone who drags him back on topic is not inconsiderable.

6/10 – a light entertaining read but not much more.

Categories
movie

Buffy Movie Again (Again)

There’s a blog post here with an analysis of the original Buffy movie. Worth a read, it’s a fairly in-depth look comparing the script with the movie with the TV show. No real surprises though I’m glad to see they like Swanson.

My own review of the Buffy movie is here.

Categories
movie reviews

Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

Despite lukewarm reviews I had high-ish hopes for this movie – at least in a stay-in-and-slob-out-feel-good-waste-of-time kind of way. Firstly it’s the kind of movie I’ve liked in the past – gentle rom-com with young attractive leads – and second I liked Michael Cera in Juno. So did it live up to my modest expectations?

Not quite.

It reminds me of those movies from the eighties that involve some kind of journey – Adventures in Babysitting; Blind Date; Planes, Trains and Automobiles; and even Risky Business. Here the MacGuffin is the quest for a secret gig by a cool on-the-up band. Michael Cera’s Nick and Kat Dennings’ Norah are on the hunt for this gig and along the way they share some fun, grow a little closer, there’s misunderstanding then… well you can guess the rest, it’s a rom-com right?

The leads are likeable enough but I can decide if the lack of spark between them is the fault of the un-inspired script of just that missing je ne sais quoix they call chemistry. The film also suffers from not really knowing what it wants to be tonally – there are elements of gross-out comedy, slapstick and as mentioned, following the leads’ strengths, a very gentle burgeoning teen romance. It never quite meshes but one would be expecting a lot to think that it might – I blame, as ever, the legacy of American Pie for that.

It’s also the fact that none of the necessary non-Nick, non-Norah scenes are that memorable or interesting. The obligatory comedy sidekicks are neither endearing nor outrageous enough. The funny set-pieces aren’t funny enough.

Perhaps notable is the sex scene, not for any lascivious reasons – it was reasonably discreetly done – but for message it conveyed. The idea that “it’s in his kiss” is used in many rom-coms – they use the song in Adventures in Babysitting – but this was the first time I seen a movie where “you’ll know he’s the one if he can give you an orgasm” was the message. And as this was – of course – their first mutual experience that’s kind of unhelpful and unrealistic. But it is the logical extension of what Hollywood has been saying about romance for years I suppose. I dunno though there’s room in the subtlety for a little more realistic fantasy.

5/10 – vaguely likeable, almost entirely unmemorable and done better elsewhere.

Categories
reviews

A Whedon-less Buffy Film? Why Not?

In case you haven’t heard the rights-holders to the Buffy franchise are thinking of “rebooting” Buffy with a movie – without involving Joss Whedon. It wouldn’t star Sarah-Michelle Gellar and familiar characters like Willow, Giles and Xander would not be in the script.

And I think it might not be bad idea.

Heresy? Unthinkable? Me, a self-proclaimed fan of all thing Whedon suggesting that this travesty not only be allowed to continue but that it might actually be a good thing?

Well almost.

Heresy is Good

At the very least I think the unthinkable should be thought about and that contemplating heresy is good for the soul every now and then. One of my favourite Depeche Mode songs is “Somebody” which describes the kind of person the singer is looking for and includes the lines:

Someone who’ll help me see things
In a different light
All the things I detest
I will almost like

I think it’s a truly valuable thing to be able to sympathise with a radically opposing viewpoint. To understand how someone could get there even if you couldn’t yourself.

So that’s the first thing.

Getting Films Made is Hard

Film-making is probably hard. In fact I’m pretty sure it is. But from the little I know and have heard/read that’s nothing compared with actually getting them made in the first place. Most films never get made. Most professional screenwriters have sold scripts that’ll never see a screen. Most actors and directors – big names with a successful track record – have projects that they’ve never quite managed to get made. And of the tiny number that do get made, most are unsuccessful – critically and financially. Remember Sturgeon’s Law – 95% of everything is crap.

That’s the second thing. Try to keep these in mind when thinking about the possibility of a Buffy movie.

Not Giving The Fans What They Want

There have of course been rumours of a Buffy movie for years. And they’ve been just that – groundless rumours, based not on real facts but speculation and fan longing. I can understand this. I too felt a loss when Buffy ended. I can understand wanting there to be more.

But that’s the very reason I never wanted to see a Buffy movie (though of course I would have gone to see one if it had been made). Because I love movies and have done since long before I ever heard of the idea of Vampire Slayers. A Buffy movie would have been more of the TV show and TV shows are not movies – one is on-going stories, dealing with big themes but examining them on an everyday scale in sometimes minute detail. The other is epic and grand with sweeping huge brushstrokes.

Trying to make a movie that fulfils the longing of fans to see “more” of their show and yet works as a movie in its own right is nigh on impossible. Joss almost succeeded with Serenity – I mean creatively it does work in both those ways but it was only a moderate box office success and made money on DVD and largely due to the buy-everything-Whedon fan behaviour.

Joss famously[*] said once that he “needed to give the fans what they need and not what they want.” He was referring to the fact that he couldn’t let the desires of fans to see certain outcomes in the on-going Buffy story dictate where that story went. It was creative suicide and it was actually less satisfying to those same fans in the end.

At least that’s how I’ve always read this comment.

Well not giving them what they want at this stage means not just not giving them a particular romantic coupling or other given story outcome – but not giving them “more Buffy” in the form of a movie that’s trying to carry on its back the weight of a 7-series TV show.

So Buffy needs to be left alone. Left in peace to fade gracefully in our collective memory.

A Different Approach, A Point of View. Different is Good.

…or it needs to be rebooted. Re-imagined. By someone far enough away from all the things that have been done with the franchise already to see it with fresh eyes. Already there are hints in the article that they would go darker, more of a genuine horror experience.

So no Xander, Willow or Giles – they’re all too comfy. It might even not be Buffy but another Slayer. Betty. Bertha. Belinda. Or Martha. OK – probably not the last one.

Whether this will lead to anything good who knows? But it’s an interesting idea. It might spark something strange and wonderful. Or it might just be a curate’s egg.

What about Joss?

Joss doesn’t need Buffy. He’s got other ideas. Newer, fresher, dare I say, better ideas. If I ever doubted that Dr. Horrible confirmed it. Dollhouse started weak but got better and better.

Sure he still has Buffy stories left in him – but he’s got the perfect medium for that in the comic books. It’s an on-going episodic form, similar to the TV show.

Besides what he really needs is to be allowed to make great TV and Movies and I can’t help feeling that being associated largely with an ultra-loyal and sometimes not-so discriminating fanbase kind of gets in the way of that.

But What About the Fans?

What about the fans? Don’t they deserve something? Anyway isn’t it crazy to take something so beloved and take away the thing that made it beloved? On a pure business level surely you want, you need, to please the fans?

No.

The Firefly fans were the most rabid of an already fearsome fanbase. They were as dedicated to their cause as any evangelical cult member. They tried their best to spread the gospel  of Firefly-ness and Serenity. They went to see the movie multiple times, bought up extra tickets to give away, trying to convince everyone and anyone of its goodness. They did all this and yet they still couldn’t make the movie a hit.

The thing about Buffy is that it always managed to have a bigger cultural impact than was reflected by its core audience. References to Buffy, “the Scooby Gang” and “Buffy-esque” dialogue still crop up all over the place. There was an audience of casual viewers that had seen the odd episode and knew it was good. They were not fans but enjoyed it when it was on. They were also slightly put off by the really obsessive fanboys and girls.

Oh and there are millions of them.

All of which means that using the Buffy name, the “brand” to bring in the general populace could work even if you piss off the fans.

It could just work.

But it probably won’t – because even though this is not a groundless rumour, most movies don’t get made and of the ones that do, most aren’t any good. But I’m more stirred by the idea of someone else having a go at a reboot than more of the same. Leaving Joss free to do new things.

OK you can burn me at the stake now.

[*]For values of “famous” scaled to fit the relatively small world of Buffy online fandom. i.e. not very.

Categories
movie reviews

The Boat That Rocked

The Boat that Rocked
The Boat that Rocked

I saw this movie with M. on my birthday so I figure I owe you a review on it. However I’m not sure how much I have to say.

OK it’s a Richard Curtis movie that’s not a romantic comedy (well not really). It’s a (very) fictionalised version of pirate radio in the 60s. It takes place on a boat in the north sea which houses a radio station. There’s a colourful collection of characters – some obviously based on real life DJs – and a plot about the authorities trying to shut it down.

It’s good fun, it rattles along pretty well and there’s plenty to laugh at. It does suffer from some of Curtis’ particular ‘sins’ i.e. a tendency to over-sentimentality, plus an entirely unrealistic moment where the guy is completely inept but the girl goes for him anyway. It also has an ending that’s both illogical and too drawn out.

But… I dunno, it’s hard not to like. Thanks to all-round good performances the  characters are so amiable, and it’s all so breezy and light that you don’t really care about that stuff. At least I didn’t.

8/10 – a fun, even if completely unmemorable, way to spend a couple of hours.

Categories
movie reviews

Another Watchmen Blog Post – Why?

Movie Poster
Movie Poster

M. and I went to see Watchmen on Tuesday night and one of the things we did afterwards was to browse some of the online comment about the movie together. She read out one blog entry that basically just kept repeating the question “Why?”

Which is kind of how I feel – about this post, not the movie.

I’m not sure I have anything original or insightful to say. Still most of my reviews are well after the fact so I’m going take the opportunity to gain a bit of passing trade by comment on something current when I’ve actually seen it.

So… I think I agree with most of the reviews that one problem with Watchmen is that it’s too reverentially close to the source material. Perhaps that’s unfair because as I said in my review of the comic book

That and extraordinary visuals. Take for example the iconic cover-art image (above) and see how that’s used and developed on the very first page. This kind of thing — starting on a small detail and pulling back and back until a fuller picture (literally and thematically) is revealed — is done throughout the book. It’s no wonder people want to make this into a movie. It’s like a pre-drawn storyboard for itself.

Though actually it’s not the direct copying of the book’s visual ideas that’s the problem. It’s the adherence to the plot – which makes the film episodic – which is obviously fine for a comic book but not for a movie where we need a single consistent story.

Where I also agree with a lot of the reviews is that the ‘Hallelujah’ sex scene was cringe-makingly awkward and awful. It reminded me of the kind of soft porn I used to furtively seek out as a teenager. Superficially enticing, once you get over the “ooh naked bodies” of it, it’s extremely un-erotic due to how obviously fake it is. Two naked people rubbing themselves against each other but blatantly and deliberately not having sex is weird and embarrassing.

I did enjoy the movie – Rorshach was great, as was Dreiberg/Nite Owl – but it felt slow and ponderous in places and gratuitously violent in others. The change to the ending was not as radical as it might have been (should have been perhaps) and in my opinion slightly improved it. But then I never really liked the comic book ending.

But having agreed with a lot of people who basically said it was a disappointment let me say this: it’s not so very long ago that a big budget CGI-fest like this came with a free lobotomy. Aside from a few notable exceptions such as Dark Knight many still do. One of the trailers was for Transformers 2 and that doesn’t look like it’s got anything interesting to say about the moral ambiguity involved in wielding power. It’s nice to see a blockbuster that’s actually got some ideas in it.

6/10 – enjoyable but not as good as the book because it needed to be not the book a bit more.

Categories
movie reviews

Ghost Town

Ghost Town Poster
Ghost Town Poster

They seem to love Ricky Gervais in the US. Something I can’t quite understand – for the simple, arrogant reason that I personally think he’s just ok. I can’t see why many other fine British actors or comedians never get the reception he gets.

Anyway they obviously like him enough that someone thought he could star in a romantic comedy. And you know what maybe they’re right because it oh-so-nearly works. And as you may know if you’ve read this blog for a while that’s quite an acheivement for a rom-com in my opinion. The nearly-great ones are rare enough never mind the tuly great.

Gervais plays a mildy misanthropic dentist, Bertram Pincus, who dies briefly on the operating table and acquires the ability to see ghosts. This is not much fun as they all want something from him – all that unfinished business with the living – “tell my daughter I love her”, “the will’s hidden behind the…” and so on.

Chief amongst these is Greg Kinnear who is the dead husband of Téa Leoni and it’s his attempts to frustrate Leoni’s new relationship via Gervais that occupy most of the film. Naturally Gervais falls for her and thus we have a story, albeit a fairly predictable one.

Which is not to say this movie is without its charms – it looks great, it manages to find some shots of New York we’ve not seen a million times before – but let’s get to the key question: does Gervais pull it off as a romantic lead?

Well yes and no.

First the no. At the end of the day he doesn’t look like a leading man. It’s not actual looks per se it’s the way he holds himself I think. He’s too used to being the figure of fun. Also whilst I think he’s likeable and has some chemistry with Leoni, when Greg Kinnear comes on screen you realise what a great comic actor he is and what’s lacking a little with Gervais.

Also, and this is not Gervais’ fault really, there’s this thing that happens in some comedies with a forceful comic personality at the centre where the comedian steps outside of the plot and basically does his schtick – his well-known sitcom character, or even his stand-up routine – and the characters around him/her carry on as if this is nothing unusual. You see it in everything from Woody Allen to Groucho Marx and it makes for a certain kind of comedy, but I don’t think it works in a rom-com because it distances you slightly from the emotional reality of the characters.

What works is that Gervais does sadness well. Cleverly David Koepp co-writer and director, has fashioned a story in which Ricky’s character is more sad than bad. He doesn’t really hate the world he’s hiding from it because he’s been hurt. This is where Gervais’ training as a comic loser comes in, because such characters as David Brent are really tragic figures. So Gervais knows how to make us feel sorry for his dentist Pincus. It’s a short step from there to empathy and to imagine why Leoni feels something for him.

Overall it’s a brave attempt and I did enjoy it. As a movie per se it’s no better than quite good, but if you have to choose a rom-com from the last 5 years you could do an awful lot worse.

lots of ghosts
lots of ghosts

7/10 – Mildly enjoyable

Categories
25 books reading reviews

25 Books, book 2: I am Legend

I had a dilemma as whether to include this book or not in my 25 Books list. You see I didn’t actually read this, I listened to an audio book version of it. An abridged version as broadcast on Radio 7. However since I’m lagging seriously on my books (I should be onto book 5 or 6 by now) I’m allowing it. After all it is a book and I spent the time to “read” (i.e. listen to it). But I’m adding a rule that I can have a couple of audio books.

By the way on that whole “I’m way behind” thing look for an upcoming blog post, hopefully later today.

Anyway to this book.

I first became aware of “I am Legend” in the credits to the 1971 movie “The Omega Man”. The movie, based fairly loosely on the book, is about a man living alone in a world devastated by a world-wide plague that killed 95% of the population and left the remaining few as pale-skinned… well what they are is an interesting point but let’s just say they can only come out at night and they’re no longer quite human, and definitely not friendly.

Anyhow I enjoyed the film – though it was a bit dated – and always intended one day to go back to the book. I intended this even more after the recent Will Smith remake of the film – which I’ve not yet seen. And now I finally have read/listened to the book.

I enjoyed it but it wasn’t the big step up from the movie that I thought it might be. It was better in some ways but less satisfying in others.

This kind of story – last man left alive – has always appealed to me, both as a reader and a writer. In fact I did, during Eurofiction, write a story that was compared by the judges to I am Legend. It was one of my two highest scoring stories but not one I was particularly proud of. I think the appeal – which is obviously not unique to me – is that one can easily imagine oneself as alone in the world. Being alone aside from hostile not-quite-human creatures can easily become a metaphor for “No-one really gets me, I feel as if I’m all alone”.

The book was written in 1954 and it betrays its era in a couple of ways, notably its handling of sex. It’s actually quite coy on details to a modern eye/ear whilst maintaining a tone that suggests it knows it’s being shocking – which I guess it would have been. At times it felt like what I imagine an old-fashioned bodice-ripper would be like – lots of “heat rising in his loins” and so on. There’s a discussion of Neville’s frustrated desires, but absolutely no mention, nor even implication, of masturbation as a release.

One thing it does, which I imagine was fairly new in 1954 but has become almost a cliche since, is to give us a “scientific” explanation of a classic mythical monster. And this is where it diverges from the movie (ok, more properly the movie diverges from the book) because it explicitly calls the plague victims “vampires” whereas in the movie they’re not – at least I don’t recall any fangs or bloodsucking. I actually quite enjoy this trope and Matheson does it well, though it has been done better since.

The story is fairly slow-moving. There are some fast paced moments of fleeing from or fighting his vampire foes, but there are also long passages, discussions of how he survives, of his scientific theorising, in which not a lot happens. I actually didn’t mind but I can imagine some readers being impatient.

The ending is another area where the book differs from the 1971 movie (and the 2007 one is different again I believe). I actually think the movie ending is the better one – but I won’t spoil either.

6/10 – enjoyable but a bit dated and not quite a classic.

Categories
book movie reviews

Atoning for the Lack of a Proper Ending

Stupid title, oh well.

I recently read Ian McEwan’s Atonement for the Ship of Fools Book Club, and then, since it was availble in Tescos for a fiver, I got the DVD and watched that too. So here’s your all-in-one multi-purpose Atonement review.

The Book

I really enjoyed the book, well most of the book. It’s in four parts and the first four tell the story of Robbie and Cecilia a couple whose fledgling love affair is almost prevented by class, family, war and false accusation of a crime. The final part reveals the fact that the previous three parts were a novel written by Briony, who made the accusation, regretted it and is atoning by writing the story. Only she reveals that she may or may not be telling the truth, part of her atonement may be to tell a better version of the story, one which gives Robbie and Cecilia the happy ending that real life denied them.

Except of course it’s all fiction any way so there is no “real life”, so it doesn’t matter right? As McEwan, speaking through Briony says,

I know there’s always a certain kind of reader who will be compelled to ask, But what really happened?

Well yes, and sorry Mr McEwan but I am that kind of reader. But I’ll come back to that. Anyway if you want to hear my musings on the ending read my comments on the Ship thread.

As for the parts I enjoyed, the other 90% of the book, let me say a few words about that. The first section was slow to start but very atmospheric, something quite deliberate as we’re later told this is one of the flaws in Briony’s writing style. It’s very clever in the way it switches perspective and moves around in time, without ever being confusing. As someone who’d like to be a better writer I envied McEwan’s talent and will go back and look at those parts to learn I suspect.

The second section of the book is Robbie’s journey to Dunkirk through a war-torn France. I haven’t read a lot of wartime fiction (though I’m aware there is a lot) so perhaps it was that that made me so engrossed in this section. I learnt a lot and like the first thirty minutes of Saving Private Ryan it put me there in that situation and gave you that feeling of how utterly brutal and yet random the sufferings of war can be.

The third section is the story of Briony training to be a nurse and treating some of the victims of that suffering. Again it was the things I learnt, the empathy evoked for the suffering and the sense of Briony’s growing up. There’s also a very real sense of wanting to know what will happen, how it will play out when, if, Robbie and Cecilia are re-united. This leads up to a riveting scene where Briony meets with them to tell them she’s recanting and to make her atonement.

Of course it’s this very sense of wanting to know what happened that is frustrated in the final section. Although at the very end there’s a cosy call-back to Briony’s childhood which if not making up for her ripping the narrative rug from under us, at least leaves a better taste in the mouth.

But the unsatisfying ending is all the harder to take because the rest of the book is so good.

8/10

The Movie

In terms of structure the movie is very faithful to the book. It’s beautifully shot, especially the first section, but then almost all period dramas are. I guess once you’ve got gorgeous locations and wonderfully made period costumes that it seems a shame not to make the most of them, and so the cinematographer is given his head.

My problems start with the middle section, the France section, which in the book was my favourite and in the movie is truncated. That’s ok, adaptations have to cut stuff out, but what they removed was most of the tougher stuff, so that sense that the journey was perilous and at any moment you might be killed, or saved, by pure dumb luck wasn’t really in the movie. The scene at the beach at Dunkirk, a masterfully shot 4-minute one shot, gave the impression that it was merely that things were a bit disorganised.

I also had a problem with the casting. Keira Knightley does ok, she’s as good here as anywhere, and James McAvoy is slightly better but in key moments they fall short of the source material. That killer scene I mentioned earlier, the confrontation with Briony, contains a moment where Robbie becomes enraged and may even harm Briony, and Cecilia brings him back from the edge by force of will, her love and holding him with her eyes. The scene is in the movie but it has none of the sense of physical menace nor the restraining power of Cecilia’s love communicated in a look. I watched it and thought, they just didn’t nail it.

Perhaps where the movie is most different is the ending. They replace the putting on of Briony’s play with a TV interview about the publishing of her book. In doing so Briony tells us exactly what happened. That Robbie and Cecilia both died, unre-united in separate senseless losses of the war. That her atonement was to write them a happier ending and that that’s precisely what she did.

Watching this made me realise that whilst I didn’t like the ending of the book, I preferred some remaining ambiguity to the certainty of the movie. The movie ending did have at least one thing going for it though, and that was showing Robbie and Cecilia enjoying their happy ending, playing in the surf near their seaside cottage. And leaving them on a happy moment, even a false one, is nice that it otherwise would have been.

6/10

The Buffy Episode

No really.

The discussion around the ending and the nature of storytelling has reminded me of the Buffy episode Normal Again. Naturally I’ll be getting to this in the Buffy Re-watch project but since it’s season 6 and therefore it’ll probably be 2019 before I get to it I’ll mention a few thoughts here.

Normal Again is superficially just BtVS’s version of a staple plot in genre TV – the alternate reality story where two interpretations of events unfold and the hero is not sure until the end which is real. In this case Buffy is attacked by a demon which infects her with some kind of drug that causes her to hallucinate that she’s really in a mental hospital. Her dead mother is alive and visiting with her abandoning father. It’s explained that Sunnydale, the monsters, her powers and all her experiences are an imaginary world she’s created as a kind of comfort.

It’s cleverly done but so far so Star-Trek-did-it-first. What sets apart Normal Again is that it ends the wrong way. There are certain conventions about this kind of episode. One is that you tell it from the hero’s point of view until you’re ready to reveal which reality is the true one, but Normal Again pretty much sticks with thirdy party pov all the way through. The plot is set up so that Buffy has to choose which reality she wants to live in – if she kills her friends it will “kill” the hallucinatory Sunnydale world and be cured, able to return to her mom and dad. What she actually does is kills the demon and the hospital world disappears.

But the kicker is that it ends, not in Sunnydale, but with Buffy catatonic in her hospital room, the camera pulling back slowly. In TV language that’s saying this is the true reality and it (it being the whole series so far) was all a sick girl’s imagination.

This made a lot of people angry, as Atonement apparently did also. However I think that given that we know from the consistent point of view and the fact that the show carries on and is in fact about Buffy fighting monsters in Sunnydale, that that final shot is about something else. It’s about saying that like Buffy we get to choose which reality we want to live in. We can choose to suspend disbelief and we get the fantasy world of Buffy with all her exciting adventures.

This episode came at a time when there was lots of discontent amongst the fans, a lot of which was around how unrealistic, how untrue to the characters, the show had become. There was also a lot of nitpicking over plot holes and inconsistencies. I always thought of Normal Again as a sly dig at those fans, as an appeal to suspend disbelief again and thereby enjoy the fantasy.

I guess the difference is that BtVS managed to do it in a way that didn’t make me angry.

In case you’re wondering, I’ll rate Normal Again when I do a proper review.