I’ve rewatched the Life on Mars American pilot (the one which will not air) and it’s improved slightly on a second viewing, but not much. Some general comments:

Colm Meaney as Capt Gene Hunt

• Colm Meaney as Capt Gene Hunt: Meaney is a terrific actor—he was brilliant in Layer Cake—and I thought he would bring that sort of demeanour to his Gene Genie. But apart from the orientation scene when he tells Sam it’s 1972, and threatening a witness, he’s plain nice. Even though he knows Sam claims he’s from 2007, he asks him nicely to interview a witness. He also doesn’t smoke, there’s no hint of him being the high sheriff of his domain, nor is there any hint of racism or homophobia. I had hoped he would evoke John Wayne in McQ or Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle but the man is given no room to be a “licensed hood” in the script. He’s certainly not ‘an overweight, over-the-hill, nicotime-stained borderline alcoholic homophobe with a superiority complex and an unhealthy obsession with male bonding’ as was described in the original series;
• Jason O’Mara as Det Sam Tyler: rigid, and never feeling that much confusion over being back in 1972. With John Simm, we felt a sense of disorientation, but we don’t with O’Mara’s performance. O’Mara is a great leading man but shows none of the vulnerability here that I think the Sam Tyler role needs. I don’t know much of his work, but I believe he has that Celtic edge that’s needed to pull off the role well—but he needs better direction;
• 

  Rachelle Lefevre as Det Annie Cartwright
  Rachelle Lefèvre as Det Annie Cartwright: playing the straight woman to Sam Tyler, it’s not hard to see why she was cast first by David E. Kelley. Her performance is about the only one I would rate highly, and it’s on a par with Liz White’s PW Annie Cartwright without being an attempt at copying her. Although her publicity shots are rather glamorous, the Rachelle Lefèvre in the programme looks more down-to-earth and real. Perfect.

   My other comments about the overall storyline in the earlier post stand. It is missing something in the first half, but the second half and, in particular, the last act where Sam is in the diner to the rooftop scene with Annie are quite well done.

Rachelle Lefevre and Jason O’Mara in Life on Mars (unaired pilot)

   It’s still mostly inconceivable that everyone in the department knows Sam thinks he’s from the future, yet no one throws him into the funny farm. There’s a veiled threat, not much more. The story lacks humour and there is little “how far we have come” about it other than in technology and location—the social commentary seems to have disappeared for a straight twenty-first-century cop show that just happens to be set in 1972. There is only one sexist line—but in a 1972 police department, one would expect much more misogyny. Heck, there was more in The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
   I normally complain about network tinkering, but in this case I think it’s needed. I just hope the remake of the remake fixes the problems in Kelley’s Life on Mars, as some network types tend to worsen things. Simply having more dialogue with the creators—Graham, Pharoah and Jordan—might help, rather than the two hours Kelley reportedly spent. Even The Office in the US had the hand of Gervais and Merchant. Life on Mars needs help, because, put simply, it lacks life.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Life on Mars USA—well, let’s say it’s little wonder ABC wants it reshot and the leak is a great way to get comments from fans, many of whom have downloaded the unscreened pilot as made by David E. Kelley and directed by Thomas Schlamme.
   The storyline is identical to the original, which is not a bad thing, but the British media comments about the American version lacking something are not far off the mark. They are not being anti-American or unduly negative.
   First, some neutral comments: the LA setting does not annoy me. To me, New York City, especially Manhattan, is not different enough between 1972 and 2008 unless one heads down to Battery Park and some of the reclaimed-land bits. It should also shut up all those who moaned about the Bowie song not being on the TVCs (a “duh moment”—of course it would be in the programme but not in ads, and since when was the song in the British ads?).
   Now, the good points:

• the second half does draw you in, even when you know what is happening;
• re-elect Nixon posters on the high street;
• no Nelson, replaced by a waitress pouring coffee at a cafeteria—good character, but Sam needs someone whom he can chat to;
• a reference by Colm Meaney to Klingons;
• Annie being a detective actually works; and Rachelle Lefèvre gives a good performance;
• the briefing scene with Sam and Annie and the camera going around the performers;
• sexism by a detective during Sam’s briefing (responding, ‘Her titties’);
• the musical score (by Edmund Butt?);
• Sam’s realization that Colin Raimes lives next door to Kenmore—well acted and directed;
• final shot of Sam and Annie on the hotel roof with ‘Life on Mars’ playing is a different take on the original—and is quite nicely done.

   And the bad points:

• dull first act;
• Sam tells everyone in the police station that he’s from 2007 so it gives no reason for him to have a closer relationship with Annie;
• bad special effects for 1972 Los Angeles (though I assume these are temporary) and I can see modern cars in the high street scene where Sam goes into the record store;
• Stephanie Chaves-Jacobsen is very pretty but I felt no chemistry between her and Jason O’Mara—while they are meant to be distant, I never felt Jason’s Sam Tyler cared for Maya before her abduction;
• Gene Hunt is not foul-mouthed and not even politically incorrect except for the orientation (punching Sam) and abusing a woman helping with police enquiries;
• generally no sexism other than the scene mentioned earlier—contrast this to, say, the movie The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, from 1974;
• no racism (an Obama-for-president reference might be interesting if it’s remade);
• Gene Hunt asking Sam nicely to join him for an interrogation—and lack of tension between the two beyond unconvincingly trading a few punches;
• absence of humour;
• no Chris and Ray, and Lenny Clarke is no substitute (I expect he will be recast);
• not much in the way of contrasting 1972 and 2007 methods;
• Sam’s 1972 arrival does not seem particularly tormenting to him and I was not drawn in to his feeling any confusion. Jason O’Mara almost seems too rigid and suffers in comparison to John Simm;
• bland performances from O’Mara and Meaney—watch the scene when Beryl Raimes tells them about the music next door ceasing to annoy her and contrast it to the original—which can be blamed in part on direction;
• certain lines copied verbatim from the original.

   I know the majority of people who will see the US one will not have seen the original. However, I believe it lacks a lot of sparkle and even cohesiveness and it could harm the series’ chances Stateside. The comparisons do need to be made: the success of Life on Mars was based on how deeply we were drawn in to Sam Tyler’s predicament. The American producers need to understand (if they don’t already) that it is possible to create that effect, but possibly with another director (with respect to Mr Schlamme).
   This first US version lacks that depth—and it is nothing to do with it being American.
   A remake prior to the fall début in ABC might not be a bad idea because there is room for improvement, especially for the underdeveloped Gene Hunt character and O’Mara’s rigidity.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

From: Jack Yan
To: Drake

Please encode message before sending.

Drake: given your recent successful assassinations, our organization will pay you to eliminate from New Zealand screens the Beaurepaires spokesman, Vince Martin. Since 1982 we have had to put up with his ads for Dunlop and Beaurepaires, listening to him whine about blunt axes and singing Christmas carols. You are free to choose what method of killing you like, but the old hallucination and dive out of a high-rise gag is a good standby. Try not to run afoul of Jim Phelps and his Mission: Impossible team if you can.—JY

Mission Impossible: The Killer, Part 1/7

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Life on Mars US

US Life on Mars looks like it’s in some sort of Hollywood hell, because of all the back-room deals that have gone on. The only new drama from ABC TV in the US this fall, there’s a lot riding on it. The pilot was already made, but now the network wants to tinker. David E. Kelley, who wrote the adaptation and executive-produced it, has departed. In fact, there’s talk of scrapping the pilot and starting from scratch, shifting the story from Los Angeles to New York. Somehow it’s all got to work out before the series débuts.
   Scott Collins of the Los Angeles Times tries to summarize what has been going on and it looks like a mess. One excerpt:

The network and producers are talking about tossing out the pilot and starting over. Or not; maybe they’ll just tweak a few details. Some of the actors might get canned. Not necessarily, though. One thing we know for sure: Over the last few days, the decision was made to move the series out of Los Angeles—in both its setting and its production—to shoot on location in New York City, giving it a very different look.

   What I thought was funny was that the network felt Kelley departed too much from the original.
   I do agree that New York is a better venue for the show; I always felt Seattle would have suited the theme more. But if they are retooling the show before the première, they had better work fast.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Finally, I have read the judgement from California about gay marriage. It may be prudent to post a comment from an earlier post, in response to a commenter, Madonna. I should note that I am not part of a conspiracy behind an ‘anti-gay industry’ or ‘“ex-gay” head cases’. I’ll also refrain from saying ‘You’re not bright,’ as you did to another Voxer, but I will begin with your own words, ‘Let me educate you.’ One proviso: I have read fewer Californian cases than, obviously, someone trained in an American law school. I have written based on what I have observed with Californian and American cases.
   It may also be instructive to read the below in conjunction with the previous post, also a response by me to a commenter who was considerably more civilized, in where I deal with Perez v. Lippold in more depth.

After having read the majority opinion, I remain unconvinced. While I agree the article is biased, I have to come to the same conclusion as Justice Baxter, principally for many of the reasons I outlined above.
   This may be time, now, to address Madonna’s points.
   First, Madonna, your attack on another commenter is unwarranted, and it’s a shame you would deny her her opinion from the outset without putting your reasoning first. It would not be unfair to dismiss anything that came afterward from you.
   I can equally attack you with your words:

No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

Precedents do not govern, they persuade. And if you do look back at Californian decisions, regardless of whether the issues are as controversial or not, they show a gradual, progressive moving forward of the law, catching up to public opinion in many cases. I believe you are ignorant of this basic fact of how the law has worked in California and, indeed, your own country, based on this very general, sweeping proposition. Indeed, Perez itself shows this, and I find the lead judgement in particular to be very, very clever.
   These precedents which I have at least enquired into do show some persuasiveness but none of them get around the problem California has with the Governor’s vetoes. The fact that the ‘a man and a woman’ definition has been placed in really do not help supporters of gay marriage. So we are essentially stuck with the position that I stated in my comment to the Gay Curmudgeon.
   Effectively I believe that the law has been circumvented, and not very cleverly, the majority judges trying to bury the core issue with legalese.
   Your bill argument is unconvincing. If the Governor’s position is so dead wrong, then vote the man out. I come back to the basic idea: the judge’s role is to interpret the law. And a bill is not law.
   As are your arguments, from a legal standpoint, about polls (not really a consideration generally for courts, though they are slightly persuasive), while another state’s court ruling is based on the legislation of that state.
It is also irrelevant which party appointed the judges.
   The position I had in the above post, then, is the one I must take. Perez shows how a clever court gets around restrictive legislation. You obviously believe that the law is restrictive and unfair here and perhaps even offends public policy. I respect your view. Common law precedents are littered with cases where the court has got around such law. The court in this latest case has not done its job and I would say that if the majority had an agenda to accept marriage for same-sex couples, then it has done it in a clumsy way that opens the case for future attacks.
   Even if I were on your side totally—and I am not saying I am totally against you, either—I would advise you both to continue campaigning for your cause, because this judgement is weak when compared with others that have, let’s say, pushed the law in a certain direction.
   Your battle is far from over though given current trends in the California, you may yet win. However, I will guarantee you now that it won’t be on this decision.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The following is a comment in response to the exchange from my earlier blog post on gay marriage in California. I believe it is important (for my own ego!) to address charges that I am prejudiced against gays or am a bigot. It is a pity that while I am open to seeing the other side of the argument in favour of gay marriage in California, as a heterosexual man I am already labelled (prejudged) as being incapable of that.
   I am going to Lawcrawler to see if I can find this controversial judgement and will give my thoughts on it later.

T. G. C., I am reading your extract short of seeing the full judgement, and I find it somewhat unconvincing.
   Let me address one point: the article I posted is an article I posted. Simple. I do find it somewhat offensive that you and Madonna would attribute its position to me when even I have not done so. Yes, you may feel it has a personal endorsement by its mere appearance here. In that case your opinion of me is forgiveable. I can understand that the article inflames certain passions. However, it is my opinion that if the article were fair, then the judges in this case do not understand their jobs.
   A bit about my history, so at least we can get on the same page here. I have a fairly good grasp of the law as I am qualified with an LL B. I live in a country that was an early pioneer in homosexual law reform and has a proud tradition of embracing lifestyles that traditionalists would be appalled at. I could probably even find you two gay couples who would attest to my views on the subject that I would say most gays (here) would believe are reasonable and fair.
   My posting an article is for promoting understanding, certainly my own, and certainly, too, to contrast the way your country handles legal positions against the way my one does.
   Let me take one of your highlighted points:

we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question

   Obviously without reading the statute I am less informed, but this is fairly true: in general, in most common law jurisprudence, courts to interpret laws in line with (state or federal) constitutions.
   Then, however, we have a conflict if the definition of marriage is codified, and this is perhaps the stem of the conflict more than anything.
   Traditionally, even when legislation is interpreted in the spirit of a constitutional document—a familiar argument here given the Treaty of Waitangi—it is not done by completely violating the wording of that legislation.
   To you and Madonna, it may be an issue of what the public wants, but if you have a Governor who keeps vetoing such bills, then I find it unconvincing that we rely on those bills in legal interpretation. In fact, this fact alone illustrates the law’s insufficiency at this present stage for those supporting gay marriage.
   The judicial task when faced with wanting to respect the will of the people and equal-rights doctrines in a constitution is to find third ways, clever exceptions that provide citizens with what they want without violating the legislation before them. This is a given in common law.
   While this means that gay marriage will take far longer to be recognized if this is the prevailing trend, law is something that takes decades to remould, but it should not be short-circuited.
   The law of negligence is a classic example in tort: probably most law students will recall this took decades before the landmark Donahue v. Stevenson case in 1928 and Lord Atkin’s classic judgement.
   Laws are slow, they are often reactive, but it is the system we are laboured with. An ideal world would be one without laws and with self-regulation between people acting with their complete free wills. I hold this to be an ideal and it matters, at the end of the day, little what definitions state about this word or that—but it does matter to me that while we have our current system, it is conducted fairly until the people decide on another system again.
   You bring up Perez v. Lippold. You are right that this is actually highly convincing and I thank you for reminding me of it. I do know a little about this case but there are some distinctions based on religion, the Fourteenth Amendment and constitutional interpretation, and these really helped the couple there. The respondent also presented some heavily biased opinion that the court saw through.
   There was indeed a law written in statute that barred the marriage of the couple in that case, one that was, admittedly, steadily eroded by the courts as it expanded the definition of marriage to increasingly more races.
   The court held (inter alia) that the sections in that legislation were too vague especially when it came to racial classifications—which was how ultimately it got around the interracial ban.
   You see, there was no legislating from the bench: the judge in Perez showed how lacking the legislation was, how it offended the basic tenets of the requirements of American law, and it was effectively a challenge to the legislature that: if you want to block us, revisit the law and redraft it if you dare. This I accept as this fight goes on all the time in a democracy.
   This is why I asked you and Madonna to find me the judgement, though since I haven’t heard back, I’ll have a trawl through Lawcrawler myself in a sec.
   Without clever methods of finding a way around fairly strictly worded statutes, I do believe from what little I know (yes, maybe I shall accept the ignorance charge) the judges crossed the line here.
   Contrary to your and Madonna’s biased views of me, I retain an open mind.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

John Armor in the Sun–Sentinel gives an excellent summary of the controversial case in California over gay marriage, where judges have ignored the separation of powers, trying to create laws from the bench. He begins:

The recent decision on gay marriage handed down by the California Supreme Court will have long-lasting and widespread effects far beyond the issue at hand. It creates a dangerous precedent justifying judicial violation of the separation of powers and demonstrates the increasing inclination of some judges to usurp the lawmaking powers reserved for the legislature and the people.
   Creating laws is clearly designated as a legislative function in both the California and U.S. constitutions. For example, it is the business of California’s legislators (or the people, in the case of a referendum) to vote for, or against, gay marriage. Enforcing the laws and applying the Constitution is the role of the courts. But as Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in his dissent, in handing down this decision, “the majority places this controversial issue beyond the realm of legislative debate and substitutes its own judgment in the matter for the considered wisdom of the People and their elected representatives.” …
   Sadly, some of our judges have become black-robed politicians who happen not to be elected and who serve for life. They have turned their courtrooms into ad hoc statehouses, handing down laws that appear to have more to do with their personal beliefs than the Constitution.

   The rest can be read here. My view: if a schmuck like me outside the US understands the legislative function, democracy and the separation of powers, how come those four judges don’t?
   Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, this is an assault on democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers.
   If I were an American, I’d be very worried—dodgy politicians on the one hand, and contemptuous judges on the other.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Here’s the full publicity picture from US Life on Mars, including the American Gene Hunt himself (Colm Meaney), Sam Tyler (Jason O’Mara) and Annie Cartwright (Rachelle Lefèvre).

Life on Mars US

Cast photo

US Life on Mars trailer

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Interesting commentary on ABC’s brand-new hit shows for 2008 in the American TV Week:

Buzz projects: Game show “Opportunity Knocks,” which takes the game show out of the studio and into contestants’ front yards, is gaining steam. An adaptation of British crime drama “Life on Mars” is virtually on the air, although producer David E. Kelley’s involvement is in doubt.

   We know Life on Mars is a remake, but Opportunity Knocks? Talk about reviving something very, very old.
   It began on BBC Radio in 1949 and the Hughie Green TV version on ITV began in 1960 in the UK.
   While this version sounds a bit different (‘contestants’ front yards’?) I can’t help but think it’s somehow the same show—it certainly sounds like a talent show with everyday contestants, as with the original.
   The original was infamous for having a young Su Pollard beaten by a dog and some dude called Gerry Dorsey (Engelbert Humperdinck to most of us) getting rejected at auditions. But it was a solid ratings’ hit for ITV and Thames in its day.
   It was so famous that Benny Hill did a parody of it in 1971, pretending it was on German television:

Benny hill-opportunity knocks

   Again, I shall be interested to see what transpires, and I mean that most sincerely, folks.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I’m not even that huge a fan of Kath & Kim but I find the US remake news interesting. The two lead characters will still be Kath and Kim Day, but there will be no Sharon, Kel or Brett! Yes, they are being Americanized to Heather, Phil and Craig!
   I am keeping an open mind but just as I can’t visualize this set in the US, I can’t see Sharon called Heather!
   Official site is now up with very little content: http://www.nbc.com/Primetime/Kath_and_Kim/index.shtml.
   I’m wondering what sort of American accent would equate to Melbournian suburban—and no one I know in Melbourne talks like Kath and Kim anyway!

   Meanwhile, I understand that Outrageous Fortune already has a UK remake (Honest, with Amanda Redman) and that the US version approached Rene Russo for the Robyn Malcolm role, but IMDB says it has gone to Catherine O’Hara. I was wrong about the name: Throng reports it is to be called Good Behavior and IMDB confirms this.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend