Riker's Skank of the Week

Recently I've been re-watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I don't think there is anything new to be said about this show, but there is at least one thing worth repeating: it's really disgusting seeing some new skank throw herself at Commander Riker every other week. Who wrote that shit? Is the idea to make Riker into a stand-in for the writer or the viewer, to play out his fantasies where some female on every planet instantly wants to bed him? It's unrealistic to the point of distraction, and it's gross. This show needed some female writers. Or at least someone smart enough to cut that shit out and leave it on the editing room floor.

Hannibal Should Have Eaten Alana Bloom

I have been re-watching the Hannibal TV series, and I cannot express strongly enough how much I hate Alana Bloom in the third season.

She spends most of the third season strutting about in ridiculous pantsuits with big shoulders. The Beetlejuice jacket is by far the most ridiculous, but the shoulder pads are ever-present. She engages in conspiracy to commit premeditated murder, and then she murders a man with her own hands. Later, like the petty bitch she has become, she lords her power over Hannibal in her psychiatric hospital, threatening to take away the only thing he cares about, his dignity. And then she does that.

One of the really confusing and infuriating things about hating Alana Bloom is that any time you hate a female character, people view this as misogyny. For example, a quick Google search of "hate Alana Bloom" yields this quote: "If you hate Alana Bloom, then seriously, enjoy your little waltz with misogyny." Lucky for me, I don't really care if all of womankind thinks I'm a misogynist. I'm perfectly happy to state the truth and let them bitch about me.

Incident to the feminists' hatred for people who hate Alana Bloom is their strident insistence that she is a "strong" female character. Another thing that popped up in a Google search was this poor guy backpedaling:

I didn’t actually think she’s a dumb whore. I typed those words and wasn’t calling her promiscuous ...I just made up some reason why she’s promiscuous when she isn’t. She’s not a dumb whore. She’s a very smart and reasonable woman and she is in no way promiscuous. I didn’t want to admit that I didn’t have a good reason to hate her...She’s a good example of a strong female character.

That's just sad. If you think she's a dumb whore, then stand by your words. I for one don't think she's a dumb whore. I think she's a common, petty, murderous, loathsome bitch. She's definitely not strong. She gets wafted about like a leaf. After getting pushed out a window, her whole personality changes. A strong person's personality doesn't change based on circumstances. They endure.

As I have mentioned before, there are plenty of strong female characters on TV. See Buffy, Xena, or even on the same show Jack's wife Bella, played by Gina Torres. Gina Torres can't help but play a strong woman in anything she does.

But Alana just being a loathsome bitch in shoulder pads isn't quite reason enough for me to hate her like I do. Ultimately, it's because a creature like her should never have power over someone like Hannibal. And seeing him caged with her holding the key is an abomination. She is beneath him. And again, to the strident feminists, it's not because she's a woman. It's because she is petty and small. She is stupider, and lesser in every way. She momentarily holds borrowed power over Hannibal when in the natural order of things he is superior.

So, yes, I wish the series had ended with Hannibal eating Alana Bloom rather than Dr. Du Maurier.

Hannibal. Why do we love him?

In case you are not aware of it, Hannibal is a TV series that ran for three seasons from 2013 to 2015. The titular character is Hannibal Lecter of Silence of the Lambs fame. I recommend the show. You can currently watch it on Amazon Video.

If you are entirely unfamiliar with the character Hannibal Lecter—or if you only think you know about him because you have some idea of a mad man who eats people—then read on, because that is not what Hannibal is. Hannibal is not insane. He knows full well what he is doing at all times. He's also urbane, surpassingly intelligent, and an excellent cook.

Undoubtedly the most famous appearance of Hannibal Lector in any medium is the movie The Silence of the Lambs, where he was played by Anthony Hopkins. People seem to adore Hopkins' performance. Frankly, I think it lacks subtlety. I've read the books, seen the movies and now the TV adaptation. It's that thing Hopkins does during the most iconic scene—he says the line, “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti”, and then he does that weird air-slurping thing.

It makes Hannibal look like a goddamn lunatic. While Hannibal is most certainly a sociopath with no sense of empathy with other human beings, he would never appear to be a lunatic. Hannibal is worldly and sophisticated. He does not appear insane. That is my problem with Hopkins' performance. He made Hannibal appear insane.

Mads Mikkelsen of the TV adaptation gets it right.

The show is an extended cat-and-mouse between Hannibal and the FBI. Most of the time Hannibal is well known to the FBI as a consulting psychiatrist. All the while he is killing people and leaving them to be found in tableaux that are grotesque and sometimes beautiful. Even if you cannot possible conceive of these tableaux as “beautiful”—and I admit it may be a poor choice of word—they are certainly designed with a sense of purpose and aesthetic, just as much as any painting.

There is gore, quite a lot of it. Some of it may be quite shocking. But that isn't really the main event. For every gory scene, there is a scene of Hannibal preparing some exquisite and artistic meal, either just for himself or for himself and a guest or for an entire lavish party complete with cater waiters. (Hannibal appears to be quite wealthy in the TV adaptation.) Do the meals contain people? Often, but not always. And the preparation is always interesting. For example, one dish he prepares involves encasing the meat in clay before putting it in the oven. Afterward, the clay is hardened and he brings the entire dish to the table and theatrically cracks open the clay to reveal the meat.

Hannibal cares very much about presentation and beauty. He writes beautiful letters in delicate calligraphy. He folds origami. He composes and plays harpsichord music. He despises rude people and, when possible, he eats them. He maintains a Rolodex of rude people for use when he is planning a dinner party. He removes things that are not beautiful.

Criminal Law: Procedure Above All

I've been re-watching the 3rd season of The Practice, which is available on Hulu. I watched this show originally back when it aired in the late 90s and early 2000s. I find myself wondering how much shows like this have influenced the way I feel about the criminal “justice” system even though they are all just fantasy written for the sake of drama.

For example, in the 3rd season episode “Infected”, Rider Strong (the guy from Boy Meets World plays a kid who lies in court to get his father acquitted on a murder charge.

After that, prosecutor Helen Gamble goes completely off the rails and charges Strong's character with felony murder and promises to get him life in prison.

My hair is cutting off the circulation to my brain.

I think we, the viewers, are supposed to sympathize with Gamble. She wants to punish evil doers, and she has clearly had some kind of mental break-down after the nun-killer got off “on a technicality”. While speaking to the judge on sentencing, she gets confused and starts raving as though the defendant is the nun-killer. The woman can't even keep track of who she is trying to railroad.

By the way, they call elements of due process “technicalities” when they correctly free a man because the police abused their power and because the State cannot make its burden to imprison and torture him. They call due process just and proper when they sentence a man to 20 years for lying because his lie corrupted “the process”.

That latter thing is exactly what happens in this episode. Gamble makes a deal with Rider Strong. She dops the felony murder charge and he pleads guilty of perjury. At sentencing, Gamble makes a ridiculous argument about how she and the judge “work for the room” and they have to uphold the process of the law. Then the judge, citing the importance of criminal procedure, hands down a sentence of 20 years in prison for perjury.

I'm locking you away so you can't continue to hurt people by, like, saying words.

A quick Google search shows that in real life people have been sentenced to 20 years in prison for perjury, but 5-10 years is more common.

Which leads me to my point. Shows like The Practice leave me feeling like the main purpose of the criminal justice system is to ruin people's lives—to ruin people's futures because of mistakes they made in the past. Unfortunately, while The Practice is undoubtedly exaggerated for dramatic effect, everything I know about criminal law in the real world leads me to believe that this is true. Life ruiners—that is what judges and prosecutors are.

Sometimes they ruin someone's life just because they can't get the guy they really want, so they settle for anyone nearby.

The judge in this episode says that he's giving 20 years because of the court's need to “ensure the integrity of this criminal justice process”. The process has no integrity, and never did, if the judges and prosecutors are more concerned with the process than with the actual facts and circumstances at hand.

Lost: Man of Science, Man of Faith

At the moment, I'm re-watching the first season of Lost. In the first season, the show had not yet become all about mystery and weirdness for its own sake. Since I know what's going to happen (mostly), I know I'm going to really enjoy the appearance of Ben Linus (and Michael Emerson's performance). I know that I'm only going to hate Michael more and more every episode. I seriously wish someone would drive wooden stakes through Michael. For me, though, the most interesting aspect of this show is the relationship and dichotomy between John Locke and Jack Shephard.

The thing I find most puzzling about these two characters is the characterization of Shephard and Locke as “man of science, man of faith”. In particular, everyone—including the writers unless I'm mistaken—seems to be suggesting that Jack is the “man of science” and John Locke is the “man of faith”. And they have it backward.

Insofar as Jack continues to ignore the weirdness he sees with his own eyes and clings to what he has always believed, Jack is a man of faith—blind, arrogant, stupid faith. John Locke, on the other hand, immediately accustoms himself to learning based on what he sees, no matter how strange it seems. John is a man of science. Is that what the writers had in mind all along? I really don't think so. Somehow they don't seem quite smart enough to realize the irony of their own creation.

The Fall's Hacky Cliffhanger Ending

Gillian Anderson's Only Facial Expression

A TV series ending a season on a cliffhanger is the work of a hack. It says to the audience and to everyone two important things:
(1) The writer(s) can't keep you coming back for more based on the quality of the show, so they need some gimmick to try to keep the audience waiting to see what happens next;
(2) They can't write a decent conclusion to a story that leaves the audience feeling like something has been accomplished but there is still more worthwhile story to come.

The Fall's cliffhanger ending at the end of Season 2 fails spectacularly. It's not even good as far as cliffhangers go. The season ends with Spector in custody. Is there anything more to say about their whole cat-and-mouse thing? It ends with Spector shot and bleeding out in Stella's arms. She seems desperate to save him, which is completely out of character. It would be much more in character for Stella to walk over nonchalantly and with cool disdain order one of the nearby male cops to call for an ambulance and then walk away to take a phone call—and then sleep with that cop later. That would have been a conclusion true to character and to the story. Suddenly Stella cares if a man dies?

But anyway, my point was that the episode didn't even show me that there was more story to be told. Do I particularly care whether Spector lives or dies? I already know he lives, else there is no more story. That other cop that Stella slept with got shot too, but I don't give a damn about him—just like Stella in that regard.

Ultimately, I'm not sure I'll be back for next season.

The worst you can say about Spector...

Now I'm up to Season 2, Episode 6 of The Fall. The drama is still compelling. Stella shows emotion for the second time in the history of the show: while watching a video of a capture girl, she sheds a tear. For a moment one might believe she has been a feeling human being this whole time. The police have Spector in custody and it looks like everything is falling into place for the police. Stella, ever the man-hating cunt, gets her man and gets to stand with her boot on his face.

I'm conflicted watching this show because I don't particularly want either of these two antagonists to succeed. Stella is just horrible. She spends her time sleeping her way through all the male cops and, if any of them suggests and substance or emotional involved in the transaction, she quickly shuts that down by referring to it as "fucking". She's a man-hater who chooses to sleep with men in order to exert power over them and demean them.

The worst you can say about Spector is that he kills people.

Also, by the way, the show ends this season on what might generously be called a cliffhanger. It's more like someone just took a script and chopped it randomly in half with an ax and sent the top half to production. Sloppy, cheap writing. The cliffhanger is the tool of a hack. I'm not sure I'm interested enough to return for the next season.