Eliza Interview (Flashback to 2010)

I've been busy finishing up my novel Sound, to the point where I didn't have time to write a blog this month. A flashback to a 2010 interview with Eliza Dushku will have to do instead!

For those who aren't familiar, Eliza played Faith in Buffy The Vampire Slayer and spin-off series Angel, Tru in Tru Calling, Missy in Bring It On, and Echo in Dollhouse.

It's a transcript (with the last few minutes of casual chitchat left out). Fans of Buffy and Dollhouse should enjoy the read. 

We laughed a lot, and Eliza remains one of my favorite celebrities: very friendly, thoughtful and articulate. As a major fan I was having a problem forming whole sentences (haha), but luckily, she offered indepth answers so my inability to speak coherently for long periods never became an issue(!).

Here goes:

Operator: I have Eliza on the line now please go ahead.

Me: Okay, thank you.

Eliza: Hello there.

Me: Hello, how are you going?

Eliza: Hi, I'm going good, how about yourself?

Me: Oh, I'm good, thank you. Are you enjoying Australia?

Eliza: I am, it's our second day here, but we got to walk around a little bit yesterday, inbetween fighting off jetlag. We went down to Darling Harbour and everything's in good walking distance from where they have us.

Me: Excellent. Have you been here before? You haven't?

Eliza: This is my second time, I was here fifteen years ago, I did a film here, kind of a crazy little film with Halle Berry and Jim Belushi. We spent a month in Sydney, we went out on the road and we worked in Alice Springs and Broken Hill, but we were here for about three months. I loved it then, and I was so excited to come back.

Me: Oh, excellent, have you been to Perth before?

Eliza: I've never been to Perth, no.

Me: The most isolated city in the world, that'll be an experience for you.

Eliza: Oh wow, yeah, I'm excited. This was sort of a perfect opportunity. Having had Dollhouse just finish a second season here, it was just a nice opportunity to come and thank the fans and, you know, it's been so many years that I feel like, ever since Buffy, I've had such Australian support from followers and fans. It was just really the perfect opportunity to come.

Me: Oh definitely. Someone at the office said to me, I can't believe you're interviewing the five-by-five girl, and I said it must be amazing to think five episodes of Buffy you were originally meant to do, and eleven years and people are still yelling Faith, Faith. Like, they just love you.

Eliza: I know, I know, I had no idea. I was literally supposed to come out and just do a few shows. I just graduated high school and I was enrolled in university in Boston. Actually, my mum's a Professor and I was enrolled at her school, and I was going to come out and make some tuition money. Four episodes turned into seven, turned into, you know, a lifetime of Buffy support, and fans, and Faith fanatics, but I love them, you know? 

I realized at a certain point how incredible that role was when I had young women come up to me on the street. They were writing me letters, and telling me stories about how they had been abused, and when my character came on Buffy they confronted their abusers. It just empowered all these young women, and I just I couldn't believe it, it was unlike anything- You know, I'd already been in the business for about seven years at that point, but I'd never had a role that affected people that intensely, and it really felt good, it really felt meaningful. So it was reason enough to withdraw from school, and put off my education, to empower young women in another way, for a short time.

Me: Oh definitely, and I just wondered, actually, when she turned to the dark side, I consider Faith turning to the dark side, like, Darth Vader's number one, and then Faith's turn to the dark side in pop culture would probably be number two.

Eliza: Wow, I'm after Darth Vader? 

Me: Yep.

Eliza: Huge. I have three older brothers, they would- that's amazing. Ah yeah, she did, she turned to the dark side, but you know, what I loved about her was that even when she was completely in the dark side and completely out of her mind, and, um, killing people and torturing people, there was something... You know, she was written in a way, and we played her in a way, that people still felt for her, people still pulled for her, and so it wasn't it wasn't just black and white, good and evil, it was this really complex grey area, you know? People loved her, in spite of everything she did, and it was really sort of fascinating to me.

Me: Did they actually let you know that your character was going that way, or was it sort of sprung on you in one episode?

Eliza: With Joss it depends. I mean, I feel like, over the years, both in Dollhouse and in Buffy, and also in Angel, you know the writers will come to you, I feel like they sort of reveal things as they should be revealed to the actor; like they don't tell you two months in advance, but about a week in advance they'll come to you and tell you that I'm going to be torturing Wesley with cooking spray and a lighter, and slashing his face up, and trying to kill Buffy’s boyfriend, and yeah, they'll tell you in just sort of a nonchalant way, and then you just trust them, because every time I've ever worked with that group, they found a way to make it make sense, and you know, definitely, it's provoking and it's- they push the envelope, and they provoke the audience that they love so much, but I think that's why the audience loves them back, because they never know what to expect, and they don't ever do something without there being, you know, something that's revealed from it, other than what's expected.

Me: Well I thought it was wonderful that you produced Dollhouse as well, I thought that was really impressive, and I just wondered, did you find your relationship with the writers and such, as a producer, is it different, and since you're an actress as well, was it a different experience for you?

Eliza: It was, and it was definitely a different turn for me, being the main role and being a producer and being, you know, sort of the centre of it, and I think when Joss- I first called Joss and sat him down and he was not planning on doing a television show, but over a four hour lunch (this infamous lunch), I talked to him, I told him I wanted to do something and I really wanted it to be with him, and he sort of started brainstorming and we came up with the show over lunch. It just really, to us, meant that we were going to be a true team going into this, and that it wasn't going to be just Joss delivering this whole world to me on a silver platter. I mean, he wanted me-

(Eliza cut off by music)

Eliza: Hello?

Me: Hello?

Eliza: Oh sorry, somehow the phone just cut out, it went blank and then it came back.

Me: Yeah, I got music, so I was like, oh, she's gone...

Eliza: Oh, okay. But anyways, so it was really something, you know, that he wanted to have be collaborative, and we wanted to pull together the right group of people; we only wanted, you know, we've both been in this business for a long time, and we've worked with some lovely people, and we've worked with some not-so-lovely people, and so we really said we would only pull together a group of people that would bring their A-game, and that wanted to be there, and that would make the best show that we could possibly make.

And that we would do it together, and that there was no, you know, there was no question that we were a team on this, so as far as working with the writers and developing stories, I mean, I never pretended that that was a role that was, that I felt that I could- you know, I'm not a writer, and I'm not a story breaker, but we would, you know, they would bring ideas to me and we would talk about different possibilities and different ways that the characters should go, but I think once we got into filming, it became pretty clear pretty fast that it was, that there was, ah, there were a lot of plates spinning in the air. There was a lot going on, and again I just; I really trusted Joss and the team, as far as breaking stories and as far as directions that all the characters, including Echo, went in.

Me: It seems like a lot of the material that you've been involved with, like even the movie that's coming out soon, Locked In, there's no, there's not a lot of lighthearted romps in there. Do you like a certain level of intensity in your scripts? 'Cause there seems a lot of morality and sense of self and destiny and questions of such; a lot of the material you work with has those themes.

Eliza: Yeah I think so, and I think for me, my art has, that saying art imitates life, it's always been very true. And I think especially with Joss, he got to know me from seventeen years old and as we sat down for lunch two years ago, at twenty seven years old, he looked at things that were happening in my life and, you know, I was at a point two years ago that I didn't know sort of who I wanted to be in this business, and people were sort of pulling me in all these directions. 

So I wouldn't say it was biographical, but I think that was absolutely something that we drew from, was this parallel of who am I, and who do people want me to be each day, and exactly, that sense of self. 

So those are things, that's a level of intensity that I do enjoy, but I have to say you know I would love to, and I think I'm going to be involved in, something a little more lighthearted and comedic in my next project (which I think I'll be announcing maybe in a couple of weeks). But it's definitely, it's one of those things where the grass is always greener; when you're doing a comedy you feel like a total goofball, and you would do anything to do something serious and intense and artistic, and then when you're doing that, you would kill to do a comedy. So, mix it up.

Me: I was going to say after all the intense kind of genre shows and unusual, I don't like the term scifi but that sort of unusual genre, you must sometimes think maybe I should do a procedural cop drama, just to balance it out?

Eliza: I don't know, I mean I feel like I had a bit of an experience with a procedural type show with the other tv show I did, Tru Calling. And while I enjoyed it, and it was something that I'm glad that I tried, I have a little bit too much ADD to do the sort of same procedure every episode in a row, but I would like to do more comedy and something more comedic. 

I feel like it's a part of me, and when I meet fans or when I meet new people or you know writers or directors in town, they always comment on sort of what a funny goofball I am in real life, and how that’s something that hasn’t really been seen. I mean, it was seen a little bit in Bring It On, and I did a few comedies over the years, and they were really fun for me, and they were just a great opportunity to show other colors, and I think I want to do some more of that, and explore some more of that.

Me: Are you focusing more on film, or on television, or on producing, or are you just open to opportunities that come?

Eliza: I think, I mean I'm open to opportunities that are coming and that I've created, and I'm definitely producing and working behind the camera as far as a few films that we have that we're working on. And you know television, you never know. I mean, it might be something also I would see myself producing again, and I think I guess there's no crystal ball in Hollywood and things are always changing, and the climate’s always changing. As far as television versus film, I don't think that I'll be headlining a television show for some time, but who knows, that could change in six months.

But I do feel that right now I really now am looking for the material, and so I'm excited about this project that I have coming up, and I know I can't talk too much about it so I don't mean to tease you with it, but it’s just, as far as we were talking about, in terms of a genre that I've worked in and that I sort of have all of these fans and followers from, I felt in a way, that with Dollhouse - it came out and it was so exciting when it first came to be, and everyone was on board, and all the fans internationally were as excited as we were, and then the show ended, and yeah, I guess it sort of ended in a dark way, and I have this feeling that fans sort wonder if I'm okay, or wonder if I'm broken? 

And you know, it's quite the opposite- we were grateful for the opportunity, I feel like we created this exciting and smart world for people with the two seasons of the show, and we were grateful that Fox let us finish out the story and finish out the second year, and now it's time to move on to something else.

(The project I have coming up, it's more satirical and it plays with the genre.)

This is still the entertainment business, and it's not- you know, I am okay and I am moving on, and this is still fun for me, and it's not something that I'm really licking my wounds over for the rest of time, you know? It's movies and tv, and you have an opportunity, and when that ends you pick up and do something else, so I am excited to let my fans know that I'm okay. We're all okay.

Me: Well I just thought I'd ask... You played the iconic vampire slayer, and I wonder, with the vampire resurgence now, if someone actually asked you to play a vampire, if you'd consider it?

Eliza: I've been asked that question! I mean it all depends on the material. Again, I think I've been offered a few of the shows that I've seen come out, or a few roles, and there is the part of me that says to follow one of the most iconic vampire shows of all time with one that is sort of subpar is not something that I would want to do, so I think (with as far as my agents) when a vampire thing comes along, unless it's, you know, Bram Stokers something, we’ve been a little selective about that.

Me: A lot of critics have always put out that you tied up the storylines beautifully in the finale of Dollhouse in the second season, it was quite brilliant. Do you think it makes a difference to fans when you can tie up your stories like that?

Eliza: Absolutely, because you ask them to become invested, and come along on this journey with all of the characters, and I think it's absolutely important to give them an ending, and to give them a finale. Again, that was something that we were really proud of and also something that we were grateful that we had the opportunity to do.

Me: I always thought it was interesting (the show) because my dad had a brain tumor and it's the same, ie the personality, people have no idea that the mind (the brain and the personality), is so much more fragile than people imagine, and that’s why I just thought the story was brilliant in Dollhouse, because it’s not- people think the concept is so science fiction, but it’s actually really quite possible. Like, you don’t realize the mind is like a computer program, and that’s why I thought the show was fantastic, because it was actually quite close to real life in a way.

Eliza: Yeah, I mean I think that’s, again, something that Joss is just so amazing at doing. And you know, of course, even Buffy, it was vampires and monsters, but it was the themes of the show that people connected to, and that people felt like they could understand, and everyone could somehow relate to the characters and to the situation. Obviously Buffy was about high school, and it was something that everyone could understand. 

Dollhouse had themes and characters as well, and some outsiders looking in would talk about how confusing a world it was and how, you know, that it was quite simply human trafficking and prostitution and all of these things that we heard, but I think we all knew it was something deeper, and people who really got into the show felt like they could relate in some way with it.

Me: Would you happily work with Joss again?

Eliza: What's that?

Me: Would you happily work with Joss again?

Eliza: Of course. He's my buddy, he's my bro.

Me: A fantastic partnership.

Eliza: I just have so much respect for him. I've been in this business now for almost twenty years, I can't even believe it, I'm not even thirty and I never imagined myself saying, I've done that for twenty years, but here I am. And I've worked with a lot of people, and I just have genuine respect and admiration for him and his storytelling and his, you know, his themes about young women. 

I mean, I sort of tripped and fell into this business when I was nine, and my mother is s professor, a feminist, and she has raised us travelling the world, and being involved in women's rights and issues, and I don’t know if I would of stayed in this business had I not had the opportunity to be working with Joss. Working with Joss on Buffy, like I said, was the first time I felt like the work I was doing had social and emotional relevance; that I felt like I was really contributing something to the world, and it gave me faith that I could be an actress and not just be superficial, and play a role on a greater level and a greater scale, and I've always been grateful to him for that.

An Open Letter To The Writers Of Friends

You guys...

I can't believe it's been twenty years since Rachel ran away in her wedding dress. 

Who thought, when that first episode aired, we'd spend at least a decade hanging out in coffee shops hoping to find a Central Perk crew of our own? (No? Just me, then?)

At first I considered blogging weird facts I've heard about the show, in case fellow fans missed them. Like these gems:

- Courtney Cox was supposed to play Rachel, and Jennifer Aniston play Monica, but there was a last minute switch. 

-The actor who played Gunther got the part because he was the only extra on set that day who could work a coffee machine.

But then I decided I wanted this blog to be more a thank you note to the relatively unsung heroes, the writing team, who (I'm guessing) were considerate enough to surround themselves with strange friends, families and acquaintances, just to fuel this show. Research can be a bitch.

So, thanks for the weirdest group of tv "friends" to ever mesh well together (okay, not the time for a bastardized Clueless quote).

Here's some opening credits to get us in the Friends zone. (Wait, I think that came out wrong...)

Let's start with the gem in the show's character crown: Phoebe. I loved that she was previously homeless, I loved how she just was who she was without apology, and I loved the way she wore her hair. Thanks so much for bringing her to life!

 Most women I know want to be Phoebe, but truth is, we're mostly Monicas. Or as my brother would tell me, "You wish you were Phoebe, but you're actually Ross. A total nerd." (Cheers bro.) 

Phoebe was the ultimate in Arty Tarty. (Yes, I was young when I made that up.) She slept with whoever caught her eye, but didn't match the traditional sitcom stereotype for the sexually adventurous female character. No boobs on parade here. 

And, dear writers, the introduction of her sociopathic twin sister, the porn star Ursula, was magnificent.  I think this is also the right moment to reference Phoebe's live performances:

And I'd just like to add that I think, musically, Ross was before his time. Hipsters would love him now. He should rerelease an album:

As writers, you worked some magic, making me like scripted versions of people I would generally run away from.

For example, Rachel. The character was magnificent, because in reality, she'd be quite awful. Most of the time she didn't have two intelligent thoughts to rub together, was terribly shallow, and let's face it, kind of judgmental, but somehow the writing made her adorable.

Likewise, Joey was mysteriously loveable. In real life he would be sleazy and yuuuccckkk, the kind of guy who makes you want to shower with disinfectant when they so much as shake your hand.

Oh man. Ross and Rachel. There was a romance.

Chandler perfectly embodied the hilarious, nice-guy friend nobody in the group (initially) wants to date.  A lot of men out there probably should thank you for romantic successes that wouldn't have been possible if the Friends team hadn't made an insecure office worker in a sweater vest seem strangely sexy.

Monica was wearying (even in a thirty minute window I'd get a tad tired of her), but she was often the "straight man" in comedic scenarios so quirkier characters could shine. And I love how she became the flashback star (both skinny and plus-sized versions). 

Ross. I can't talk about Ross without hearing my brother yelling YOU'RE SO HIM. Instead, here's a clip that I chose because, let's face it, cotton candy:

All those storylines! Damn you lot could write. Remember when Phoebe's brother fell in love with his teacher, and Phoebe became a surrogate for them? (Best actress pregnancy cover ever.)

Or when Ross said Rachel's name at the wedding? How about when Phoebe's gay Canadian figure skating husband wanted to end their visa marriage because he'd decided to come out of the (inverted?) closet, and admit he was straight?

As writers, fearlessly tackled the important stuff nobody could bring themselves to talk about. Like thoughtless friends who insist on splitting restaurant bills, even though you're so poor you only ate the free bread. We've all been there.

And not forgetting the (possibly) unintentional moments of humor. Like when Chandler left a soul-destroying job in search of his true calling, something that would nourish the spirit... and secured an internship in advertising. WAY TO BE IRONIC. ('Cause you were being funny right? Right?!)

Hats off, also, for writing in hotty older actors. Woah. Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis. It does not get better than flashes of Magnum PI and John McClane in the Friends mix. 

Then there was the time Isabella Rossellini dropped by the coffee shop. And who can forget Brad Pitt coming over for Thanksgiving dinner? 

Best of all, though, were the flashbacks. Cue Chandler and Ross rocking the Miami Vice look:

Of course, no one's saying there weren't hiccups. I'm guessing the pressure was intense, what with the specter of Seinfeld hanging over your heads. And we all have our bad days... 

I'm not going to dwell on storylines that sucked (Rachel and Joey's hookup is a standout). But that's what friends do, you know? They sit through the crappy episodes in your life, because they have faith there are great ones up your sleeve.

Wow. Twenty years. As writers, aren't you itching to jot down where the crew are now? Sure, chances of a reunion are slim when none of the cast have been reduced to working retail (or starring in a stream of infomercials), but a girl can dream. 

And so many burning questions still unanswered. How many years did Chandler stay married to Monica before admitting he was gay? And how long, in good conscience, can we leave Joey trapped in that terrible spin-off? 

(No comment on Monica, she's happy in Cougar Town. Can't remember the names of the other characters in the Cul de Sac crew, but I do remember the names of Cox's character's wine glasses. RIP Big Lou, Big Joe, Big Carl, Big Tippi, Little Richard, Big Kimo...) 

On a sidenote, I also want to say thanks to the true stars of Friends: The Chick, The Duck, and the monkey Marcel. Those animals scored great scripts that gave them a chance to portray a wide spectrum of emotions. (I heard the actor who played Marcel left because he wasn't included in the group contract negotiations. Any confirmation on that?)

To summarise, thanks for the all the fun times. For the endless new catchphrases (this parachute is a knapsack!). For making dysfunctional look cool. For kickstarting a weekly ritual of making time with friends, to spend watching Friends, and then discussing Friends, but not, you know, actual friends (so meta). 

Write on! 

(Had to say it). 

xxx

Outlander vs. Intruders

I decided to talk about these two new programs at the same time, since narratively-speaking, both deal with displacement, albeit in entirely different ways.

The first show, Outlander, follows the adventures of a woman from the 1940's thrown back in time to the Scottish highlands of the 1700s. The second series, Intruders, follows a secret society in the present day who defeat death by jumping into the bodies of unwilling victims.

Outlander is an interesting experiment, in terms of trying to market what is, at heart, a romance, to a broader audience. The problem was always going to be selling the show, based on a book series, beyond its primarily female readership. 

There's a stigma attached to romance, but by comparing it to Game of Thrones, and upping the graphic sex and violence, Starz is making a serious play for a larger market. The science fiction aspect (ie time travel) has also been highlighted over the romantic elements.



I think it has a mixed success rate. The pilot was shaky, but by the third episode I'm enjoying the story. Rather than Game of Thrones level intrigue, think an intelligent soapie set in the past - it doesn't have the scope of GoT, but I'm enjoying the relatively straightforward narrative. Most of all, I like the characterisation.

The lead actress is probably the weakest link, but that impression was more from the pilot. By later episodes she's relaxed into the role. I think the problem is the 1940's scenes remind me of Poirot, and it's hard to come off well when compared to that level of masterful television production.

(On a side note, I will say I think the pilot included some of the worst sex scenes I've ever seen. I get that cable wants to spice it up, but figure out how to do it well first!)

The move to the highlands/past couldn't happen fast enough, and the supporting cast is magnificent. Seriously, they're scene stealers. The sets are stunning, the lighting beautiful, the attention to historical detail impressive... I love all of these elements.

But at heart, Outlander is a romance, and the casting of the lead love interest is where the program gains strength (no pun intended). Sam Heugan is the perfect foil for actress Catriona Balfe. Fans of the book are happy, from what I've seen online. Having never read the novels I can't make a comparison, but I often forget that he's acting, which is basically the highest compliment.



Still, something about the lead character Claire rings empty - I don't feel her emotional turmoil as much I do the other characters. She is displaced, yes, but unfortunately, she also feels less real.

I think this is partly a combination of the actress's performance, and an occasionally clunky script that has her narrating inner turmoil more often than not, rather than communicating these emotions through well written scenes. (The explanatory voiceovers drive me crazy. Stop hitting the audience over the head with an emotive hammer!)

Maybe this kink will be worked out over time (almost punning), but at present I care more about what is happening to the housekeeper, and Jamie (or even the laird and the town healer), than I do about the lead's problems, and I'm pretty sure that's not the empathic reaction the show intended to evoke.

Maybe the displacement at the core is the problem? In 1945 the character was already displaced, adrift, so her struggles to return to that time don't feel... as a viewer, they don't feel important to me, somehow. And I think that may be a large part of the apathy I feel toward her plight.

Cinematically, the best scene so far was when Claire was describing the sensation of falling through time, likening it to a car accident at night, which was displayed in slow motion, with disorienting angles and beautiful lighting.

Incredibly sophisticated, reminding me for a moment of the Sherlock series, before returning to more traditional and formulaic filming styles. Hopefully in future they'll mix it up a little, because the Outlander team's obviously capable of stunning visuals that really communicate complex ideas. Most of all, it worked in sync with the voiceover (one of the only times the V.O. didn't jar.)

In summary, Outlander is interesting viewing, with a generally stellar cast and an eye for historic detail, but the script is not on par with Game of Thrones, and the lead not quite as easy to engage with as you'd hope. That said, the show is really enjoyable, and more entertaining than a lot of programs currently on television - already laying the groundwork for future storylines that look set to deliver drama/adventure/intrigue.

On the other hand we have Intruders, an odd little eight episode spooky outing that I quite like. It has some clunky script moments, but overall, I'm enjoying the weird atmosphere they're working to create.



Once again, the lead is the weak point. (What's that about?) John Simm is a great actor, but he's just not believable as the retired cop. Not at all, so that's a bit jarring (especially his faux American accent). Likewise, James Frain is a real talent, and he plays his part well, but I just wouldn't have cast him as the hitman. I guess it comes down to that old conundrum - do you cast people because they're amazing actors, regardless of the part, or do you cast less impressive talents more suited to the roles?

BBC America, as part of the BBC, is fine with backing these moody, strange, dramatic philosophical outings in recent years, and I've really enjoyed them. They can be jarring and occasionally unbelievable, but at the same time, they possess an intensity that's often smoothed out of more formulaic commercial offerings.

Intruders makes you feel disturbed. Even when you can see some plot points coming a mile away and are forced to watch associated scenes stretched out for minutes too long, the show still evokes a response. (And I won't lie - when the kid killed the cat, I nearly had a heart attack.)

I've only seen two episodes so far, but I'm looking forward to watching the story unravel. I love disjoined narrative, so I don't have an issue with not starting at the "beginning' of the tale, in a sense; I like to piece the plot together myself over time, but this kind of storytelling can alienate audience members with more traditional linear tastes.

I like that the show is washed out and cold; filmically, I mean. But even the characters are that way, too. Everyone feels isolated. Everyone is alone. Except, of course, those forced to carry other people inside them (but even they are alone, within the boundaries of a horror genre-style internal conflict). There are occasional borderline hammy gothic kind of lines, but they suit the mood.

Love, death, secrets, mortality; these are not simple or light themes, so it makes sense that such a heavy, almost ominous energy permeates the series. And once again, displacement is a central theme. Even the innocents, the ones who haven't had their bodies invaded, even the ones who have no idea what is going on, seem just as displaced in their everyday lives (especially in terms of marriage and family). I kind of like that.

And of course, like many tv shows these days, the consequences of one choice drives the narrative. (Outlander is the same - one choice, and she falls through time).

Heavy.

Extant Me, But This Is Terrible.

I really wanted Extant to work. I've lamented before on the uneven quality of recent genre television efforts, but I'll admit, I had high hopes for Extant. Big stars, big budget, big network. What could go wrong?

I suppose its greatest crime is the fact that at heart, Extant is boring, and science fiction should never be boring. On occasion, scifi tv shows might be too violent, overly ambitious, fall back on beloved but well-worn tropes... never just dull, though. Even the horrible mess that is Defiance (terrible, bordering on God-awful), isn't actually dull.

With Extant, it's like the futuristic beige costuming seeped through other layers of the production and beiged my brain.

Beige out.

So I decided to think about why exactly it doesn't work, instead of vaguely slamming it. I mean, the premise is full of promise; an astronaut (Molly, played by Halle Berry) on a solo mission for a year, returns to earth to find herself pregnant. Throw in a robot child, and theoretically, you should be golden (totally wanted to work in some kind of clever reference to PK Dick's novella The Golden Man here, but alas, nothing.)

In an attempt to define why the show falls so flat (and hopefully never replicate the error), I've focused on elements that negatively impacted my viewing experience:

For God's Sake, Hurry Up!

Pacing may be part of the problem. Extant looks like a beautiful movie (especially in terms of production) but it hasn't mastered the faster pacing required in today's television world. Events spread out over the first three or four episodes (and boy do I mean spread out) should have all happened in the pilot. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of slow paced material (Solaris lover, right here), but only if it's literally seething with thematic complexity. This material should be, but it just isn't - the ideas feel dumbed down for mass consumption.

You get the impression Extant underestimates its audience, and the audience can tell.

John's "robots are exactly the same as real people" schtick,
and the fact this is so obviously his fatal character flaw,
gets real old, real fast.

Dramatic Tension and Reveals that Reveal... Not Much I Hadn't Guessed In 20 Seconds

A big issue is the handling of narrative tension. The few times Extant managed to build it, the narrative threads didn't POP like a balloon (ie with a wild crescendo of drama and revelations). Instead, storylines proved to be more like a balloon blown up with an unseen hole in it; the narrative tension just fizzled out, leaving the audience deflated.

Example? Fellow astronaut Harmon, supposedly dead, who appears in Molly's driveway one night, does the whole "trust no one" shtick and then "vanishes". Fantastic, because who doesn't love a good conspiracy? 

I thought he was going to be part of some vast underground network fighting government/corporate (sadly these labels are now almost interchangeable) "baddies", and an intense web of hidden truths would be revealed bit by bit... 

Couple of episodes later, turns out he's "hiding" in an old caravan by itself on the edge of a deserted cliff (cause THAT'S not conspicuous) and his message is basically, yeah, they did something weird to us/something weird happened to us, in space.

Uh huh.

Seriously Harmon that's ALL you've got?!

Obviously Harmon is rebelling. The man's wearing green, for God sake.

Worse, his secret location is so secret that Molly drives there whenever she wants to chat about, you know, crazy space stuff. The guy faked his own death! Top tip Molly: When under surveillance, maybe you shouldn't drive in what is probably the company car, straight to your paranoid supposed-to-be-dead co-worker's door.

This disappointing mess (in regard to reveals) is a recurring issue. Extant borrows a lot of scifi ideas but can't quite figure out how to run with them, or more accurately, how to utilise them in a way that intrigues the viewer (similar to Flash Forward, a show that alluded to potentially thought-provoking notions but couldn't offer a complex enough script to honour said concepts).

Molly's Boring And Epically Self Indulgent Emotional Turmoil

Don't even get me started on this one. 

Soooo much of the first few episodes revolves around Molly's reluctance to tell her husband what is happening to her. Which, let's face it, is REALLY ANNOYING. She disappears for hours at a time, acts vague/distant, he's not happy about it, and this results in constant conflict that is incredibly lame to watch. By the third episode I was so tired of her I kind of didn't care who'd knocked her up.

Maybe Halle Berry's "star power" is the problem, in that too many pointless scenes are dedicated to her character's inner turmoil and personal journey because emoting equals Emmy? Who knows.

Ironically, the alien impersonating Molly's dead human husband
 feels like the most "real" character so far. That can't be good.

Minor Characters With Better Stories Than The Lead, But With Minimal Screen Time

Potentially fascinating narrative threads for interesting minor characters are hinted at, but not really explored, the camera too busy returning to Molly mulling over her internal conflicts, insecurities, and fears (that to reiterate, deserve much less screen time!).

As the current big baddie (from what the audience can tell), Yasumoto feels under-utilised. Researcher Julie's frustrations with her (sort of) surrogate mother relationship to the robot child, and her professional "wife" connection with Molly's husband John, is actually a much more interesting (almost maternal) relationship narrative than the core motherhood plot, but is only hinted at/inferred, rather than focused on.

The lab scenes are actually interesting, hence they're kept to a minimum.

Are the show's creators putting in place storylines for a seven year run and therefore taking their sweet time getting anywhere? Perhaps they should have focused more on engaging the audience during the first season, if they wanted a second one to play with...!

The potentially fascinating shadowy corporate power figure
has already been dulled down a tad.
Continuum, this aint.

High End Suburbs Will Always Be High End Suburbs, Please Go Back To Space

Go back to space Molly. We liked space.

Strangely, the scenes in space, designed to show Molly isolated in a sterile environment, don't feel that different from the scenes at home. If this was intentional, it would be clever, but I think it might be accidental - it's obvious the homely moments are intended to be warm and fuzzy (hence the "warm" lighting, because whoever works on this show follows these kind of rules ad nauseam) but they just manifest as bland. 

Turns out, even in the future, when facing (possible) alien impregnation and dealing (really badly) with The Good Son robot child, yuppies are still kind of boring.

 

The party scene, where some of the future-people wore colour
for early evening drinks in the lounge room
and my eyes nearly died of excitement.

Molly and John Are God Awful Parents

Ironic, given that motherhood, and by extension parenthood, are such major themes here. Molly's interest in robot child Ethan is lacklustre at best, and for John he's an extension of his professional ego.

What's possibly creepier is that the show honestly thinks the occasional pat on the head and five minutes of attention is enough to convince the audience Molly and John are wonderful, loving parents. Yeah, that's reall-y not how it comes across.

Their negligence toward Ethan is astounding. Molly is subconsciously judging and monitoring the kid 24/7, to the point where any time he doesn't act like an extra from Stepford Wives, he's instantly Children of the Corn, and she freaks. John is basically every pushy parent, tenfold. Sending Ethan to school was the cruelest thing I've seen a character do on television this year.

I think the fact their child was upset and had gone to bed during his mother's birthday party, in their own home, and neither parent EVEN NOTICED, pretty much said it all... 

(That the scriptwriters think this is a valid representation/portrayal of great parenting is actually more interesting, and more disturbing, than the material in the actual show.)

Kid, even robots deserve decent parents.

(Just when we all thought Gossip Girl maxed out 

the self-absorbed parents quota with Lily and Rufus.)

Finally, An Overall Disrespect For The Genre

In my mind, science fiction is clever and well thought out, addressing complex societal fears and attempts to comment on difficult issues facing humanity in a way that both entertains and inspires thought/discussion.

At its core, Extant is mundane, something scifi should never be.

Family dinner in the Land of Beige.
(I'm amazed that uber-green salad made it to the table.)

The Chemistry Lottery

"Why do you always have to prove you're the Alpha male?"
"I don't have to prove anything love, I am the Alpha male!"

In Television Land, chemistry is a fickle thing. 

There are many sexy actors who smoulder (onscreen and off), but there's no guarantee personal charisma will automatically transform into great chemistry with another actor. Sometimes two actors just don't connect, no matter how lovingly they gaze at each other.

It's a weird phenomena that drives writers and EPs up the wall. Some production teams make the mistake of forcing a relationship because they feel mentally locked into a particular narrative, but truth is, chemistry-free pairings are bad for ratings.

(Side note: I consider this the difference between writing a tv show and a novel -  if the audience can't "see" any chemistry between an onscreen couple, let go of the storyline. Adapt, and follow the fireworks!)

The flipside of the no-chemistry coin is an actor with Universal Chemistry (capitals warranted). This is pretty interesting, and relatively rare. For those chasing a small screen career, having U.C. is like holding the elusive golden ticket to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. 

To clarify, it's not about beauty (though that doesn't hurt), it's about an actor's ability to create the illusion of connection; to somehow make the audience see romantic potential between their character and whoever they happen to be sharing a scene with. Nobody knows how it's done, it's just an elusive element certain thespians "bring to the screen".

An actor who creates chemistry with almost any of their onscreen co-stars is the best gift a writing team can get. So many storylines that otherwise wouldn't be viable, are suddenly on the table. 

You can generally spot a U.C. actor by the diverse range of shipping videos they star in on youtube. (For those not in the know, "shipping" is the desire for two characters in a tv show to hook up.) 

A U.C. actor's character is usually "shipped" with everyone, from their onscreen best friend to the extra behind the coffee cart. They smile at someone, and suddenly the audience imagines a romance unfolding.

Here's half a dozen of the best examples of actors with Universal Chemistry currently on the small screen (and by best, I mean ones that have stuck in my mind):

Candice Accola, who plays Caroline in The Vampire Diaries

Caroline and Stefan, a long time coming.
(& no, that is NOT a pun.)

Followers of the show know Candice can sizzle with any co-star. From a bit part as the annoying small town mean girl, she quickly became a fan favourite, partly thanks to her universal chemistry.

Originally the character dated human footballer Matt, with fans wholeheartedly behind the sweet pairing. Then she formed a connection with werewolf Tyler, and audiences began to think this was a great idea instead. After Tyler, came Klaus, the oldest, most psychotic of vampires (a hated villain in the series), who suddenly seemed like boyfriend material.

Personally, I loved her with Klaus (the irredeemable bad boy thing), but now Caroline's spending a lot of (screen)time with... Stefan. Yes, the character whose soul mate love for Elana kickstarted the whole bloody show in the first place. And yet, Accola makes the idea feel believable, rather than a blasphemous 360 away from the show's premise.

Even the program's creators have admitted the actress creates chemistry left, right and centre, making Candice Accola the reigning queen of U.C. 

Here's one of her many touching onscreen moments with a co-star (or two):




Tyler Blackburn, who plays Caleb in Pretty Little Liars

Who knew computer hacking was such a saucy past time?

Tyler Blackburn's character was a committed boyfriend to Hannah on Pretty Little Liars, but any time he shares a screen with another actress, accidental sparks flare. His first few scenes on the show were actually with the character Emily. (I remember because I thought they seemed like a great potential couple, before recalling Emily's gay, and wondering how I could have forgotten that?)

The photo above is of Caleb and Spencer, a totally platonic afternoon of computer hacking that somehow became rife with sexual tension. Then there was a moment talking to Aria where even Aria's mum thought Caleb was her boyfriend. Oh, and the time the character bro-bonded with Tobey (ie getting their detective on), that had recappers suddenly envisioning Hannah's boyfriend and Spencer's boyfriend running off together...

Caleb even visited Hannah's mum in jail at one point, and managed to lace the emotional scene with unintended chemistry. (Seriously, how does this guy do it?!)

Blackburn's universal chemistry scored him his own spin-off show, Ravenswood (as set up in the scene below), but the premise sparked its own problems, and he's now back in the PLL's hood.




Alexander Skarsgard, who plays Eric in True Blood

Eric fantasies. A True Blood staple.

Firstly, the Skarsgard family are all such talents, it's no surprise Alexander's got the U.C. touch. Casting him as seductive vampire Eric was a stroke of genius. 

His character's scenes with Pam always sizzle in a weird way, while Eric's interactions with series lead Sooky are (of course) very seductive. Not forgetting the passive/aggressive sexual tension he brings to clashes with Bill. Even when sharing the screen with characters more than a little afraid of him (like Tara and Lafayette), there's still some sparkage. 

And do I really need to start listing male and female vamps who've smoked up the screen with Skarsgard's character? 

Because of the kind of show this is, the writers usually follow through and have Eric hook up with, let's face it, almost everyone (not really, but sometimes it feels like it!). Even Jason has erotic dreams about his sister's vampire ex.

In a way, Alexander Skarsgard's universal chemistry perfectly captures/channels the supernatural charisma of the character he's playing.




Ksenia Solo, who plays Kenzi in Lost Girl

Torn between two lovers?  Tango it out.
(That totally won't backfire.)

Ksenia Solo, aside from being a serious scene stealer on Lost Girl, also kind of messes with the relationships on the show the writers want you to "ship" by accidentally sizzling with almost everyone.

On a romantic level, the series revolves around bisexual character Bo, her male lover Dyson, and her female lover Lauren. Unfortunately, in an hallucination Bo imagines her straight friend Kenzi kissing Lauren, and fans noted the kiss had more chemistry than four years of the Lauren/Bo romance. (Oops.)

Last season everyone forgot Bo existed for a while (long story) and Dyson dated Kenzi for an episode. There was more sizzle between Kenzi and Dyson in those scenes than the whole Dyson/Bo relationship fans are supposed to "ship".

Basically, after a scene or two with anyone, Ksenia Solo makes the pairing seem like a perfect match. Her romantic relationships on the show, most notably with childhood crush Nate, and later with Hale, all had a true love vibe to them, thanks to the actor's U.C. powers.

(I chose this clip because, hey, it's kind of sweet.)



Eva Green, who plays Vanessa Ives in Penny Dreadful

Eva Green plays fragile and intense, just as
easily as she plays powerful and intense.
Frankly, her range is... intense.

Arguably, Eva Green as Vanessa uses sexual allure to manipulate the men in her sphere - it's how the character's written. What's notable is the way the actress can share just a gaze with a male character, and the audience is drawn into acknowledging the complex romantic possibilities present.

Vanessa began the series verbally sparring with the wounded and mysterious gunslinger Ethan Chandler, before flirting with the mysterious and erotically indulgent Dorian Gray. When she's with Sir Malcolm, it almost seems like shared history is enough to kickstart a complex romantic entanglement, while the way she understands Dr. Frankenstein's motivations highlights an odd potential there, too.

Eva Green has a fabulously intense onscreen presence, and when you throw universal chemistry in the mix, you have an actress who can make a character really come alive in the viewers' minds. (It's important to note she isn't a vapid love interest flung from one male character to the next - Vanessa's in control of each interaction.)

I went for a pretty safe sample here (since a lot of Penny Dreadful scenes are, let's face it, gore porn):



Nathan Fillion, who plays Richard Castle in Castle

Have we been married before?

Oh, Nathan Fillion. The undoubted King of Universal Chemistry (I know, there should be some kind of Game of Thrones pun here.)

What makes this man a master is how he channels the chemistry in any given scene - instead of seeing romantic potential, you're forced to envision the kind of emotional connection the writers/Nathan would prefer you to imagine. 

That's a handy talent.

Kudos, firstly, for the chemistry Fillion creates with Detective Beckett (possibly one of the dullest female characters on tv). Sparks with Beckett's best friend Laney are channelled into a harmless flirtation. Next up is the accidental chemistry with the actors who play his mother and daughter that he manages to keep familial, and the energy with the male cop characters that's determinedly held to a "buddy" vibe.

Fillion really is a consummate small screen performer.