The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5A Miniseries mix-up "I think there may be a mole in our ranks." Fantastically foxy iniseries are like small-screen purgatory: They don't quite have the heavenly aura of the everyday TV show nor the demonic dullness of most made-for-TV movies. This puts them in a generally awkward position for viewers and critics alike. If a miniseries succeeds, people complain there wasn't enough content created. If it fails, people JAMIE complain it took up too BLOCK much prime air time and should havebeen a telefilm. Either way, the miniseries leaves something to be desired. This is no fault of the works themselves. Rather, it's the fault of the misclassification of miniseries into other genres for the pur- poses of criticism. Two of my favorite miniseries of the moment are "The Lost Room," a then-SciFi Channel original starring Peter Krause ("Six Feet Under") and the recent remake of "The Prisoner" on AMC starring Ian McKellen (the "Lord of the Rings" films) and Jim Caviezel ("The Passion of the Christ"). The latter is particularly fresh in my mind, as Gandalf and Jesus shed those former roles to duke it out in a power strug- gle for a village that may or may not even be real. "The Lost Room" concerns the contents of a motel room, all of which have gained supernatural powers after an unex- plained universe-altering incident. Both are strange head trips. Both are incredible. But both were panned by most critics. Now, my taste may not always be per- fect. But disagree with me twice, shame on you, critics. I know in my heart of hearts that these miniseries are fantastic, artful, original works. They are impressive in their sheer scale, great production value, excellent casts and innovative premises that set them apart from most things on TV. To put it simply, they're just plain good. So something must be going on here. How are some of the greatest critics, on which this nation relies to maintain its cultural fortitude, so very, very wrong? I say it's a matter of background. Regardless of whether or not Iam (some- how, miraculously) incorrect about these two miniseries in particular, criticism of miniseries needs to be re-analyzed. Itis unlikely that most TV critics are adequately qualified to review movies (see my review of"Up" to gauge for yourself) and equally uncertain that film critics could review TV. They are differentmedia, each withaspects- that critics of the other aren't as likelyto consider. But what is a miniseries if not a hybrid of the two? A miniseries is, essential- ly, too much of a film for the TV critics and too much of a TV show for the film critics. For instance, one of a TV critic's main questions is thatof sustainability. The critic must assess not only the show's quality on an episode-by-episode basis, but its ability to carry on smoothly through multiple epi- sodes. With a miniseries, this isa mootpoint. The film critic, on the other hand, is not trained in such matters as the cliffhanger. Also, cinematography is incredibly differ- ent on a movie than it is on a TV show, and miniseries here tend to again strike a mid- dle ground. You have the grand panning shots often reserved for film mixed with the casual-feeling character chase shots of a traditional sitcom or drama. In recent history, the miniseries that have garnered the most critical acclaim are those on the more cinematic side. HBO in its infinite infallibility has created some of the most highly praised miniseries of the past 20 years. "John Adams" and Gandalf vs. Jesus in television purgatory. "Empire Falls" both come to mind as hype machines. They were all over the Emmys, and ads for the latter were plastered all over my home town of Washington, D.C. But we shouldn't just let HBO continue this domination over miniseries. As HBO says, "It's not TV. It's HBO." Well HBO, minise- ries are at least partially TV, and should be critically assessed as such. It seems necessary to create some hybrid critics, or perhaps some particularly spe- cialized ones. It takes a combination of both the TV and film disciplines to accu- rately judgea miniseries. Or, we can sim- ply have critics whose sole domain is the elusive miniseries, but why anybody would go for a career in reviewing one of the least frequently produced art forms is a ques- tion with nogood answer. I'm not saying that a TV or film critic can't be right about a miniseries -I think our review of "The Prisoner" on the arts blog, The Filter, was quite accurate - but to avoid any critical mishaps, we should train a new generation of miniseries critics for the future. Block is tearing down old 'John Adams' ads. To help hirmfight thegood fight, e-mail him at jamblock@umich.edu. Wes Anderson's Dahl adaptation will charm adults, befuddle kids By TIMOTHY RABB Daily Arts Writer Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a triumph in auteurism that can be attributed to the imagi- native quirkiness of its creator. Seasoned Anderson veterans can Fantastic expect a familiar the- Mr. FOX matic emphasis on the inportance of family, At Quality 16 diversity, honesty and and Showcase community, all pre- 20th Century Fox sented with the aid of an unconventional animated medium that lends value and originality to the "Rushmore" director's repertoire. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is an adaptation of the classic children's novel by Roald Dahl (famed author of "James and the Giant Peach," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Matilda") that details the misadventures of the aptly named Mr. Fox (George Clooney, "Burn After Read- ing") and his wife Felicity (Meryl Streep, "Doubt"). The catalyst that moves the story forward is Mr. Fox's kleptomania, which that drives him from his house in a tree to steal poultry and hard cider. Farm- ers Boggis (newcomer Robin Hurlstone), Bunce (newcomer Hugo Guinness) and Bean (Michael Gambon, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince") get wise to his schemes and embark on an obsessive quest to kill Fox and his cohorts. The movie is fascinating in the way it applies the moststaple elements of Amer- ican culture and modern science to the life of a fox with such absurd humor. This facet of Anderson's style is often applied to his characterizations of Fox and his peers. For example, Mr. Fox is always demanding that his possum friend Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky, "The Simpsons") use hand signals to indicate he's pay- ing attention because his vacant pos- sum eyes show no emotional reaction to Fox's earnest diatribes. The use of stop- motion animation in "Fox" - though by no means unprecedented in the world of filmmaking - is executed in a particu- larly wonderful way that has never really been done before. The dialogue is a witty hodgepodge of highbrow discourse and vulgar euphemisms. In short, it's a quint- essential Anderson film with the wel- come addition of stop-motion animation and children's themes. On that note, one prominent criticism of "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is its complete fail- ure to pitch its inherently adult humor to the proper demographic. Though the auteur's childish, lighthumor is designed to win over even the coldest and most cynical of intellectuals, the context in which it's presented will only befuddle the young audience for which the movie was intended. For example, the literal use of the word "cuss" as a stand-in for any and all swearing in the dialogue betrays the innocence of a child, but what child will understand Fox's refer- ring to his dilemma as a "complete clus- tercuss?" Furthermore, the grotesque nature of the stop-motion animation and the unflattering close-ups of the char- acters seems to be deliberately tailored to incite a child to scream rather than laugh. One could almost assume this is Anderson's way of biting his thumb at the conventional expectations of chil- dren's book adaptations. Misdirected marketing aside, this film is familiar Wes Anderson fare: a movie about the perils of the young genius, intended for the young genius. It's not afraid to deal with the restlessness and machismo of the American husband while also exploring the unbridled (yet inno- cent and well-intentioned) motivations of youth. "Fox" is a relevant, timeless com- bination of 20th century values and 21st century quirkiness that's guaranteed [r to please. That is, so long as you leave your kids at home. W"HAT'S NEW ON THE DAILY'S ARTS BLOG: * It's the same old song, or fuck Ingrid Michaelson: Fine Arts editor David Riva lists his picks for the best singer/songwrit- ers of the past three years. * 'Jon & Kate plus 8' equals over: TV/New Media editor Caro- lyn Klarecki says goodbye to the twins and sextuplets that made up TLC's primetime guilty pleasure. * President Obama gets his game on: Senior arts editor Jamie Block wishes he were a library so he could get a free PlayStation 3 and a copy of 'LittleBigPlanet.' Oh, and you could win lots ot money. Check it all out at http://michigandaily. com/blogs/the%20filter SMALL SCREEN, BIG HEART. WRITE FOR DAILY TV/NEW MEDIA E-mail join.arts clumich.edu for information on applying. The MCAT 10 Point - Avg Score Increase " 12 Point -Top Quarter Increase 105 hours live insruction 5 expert instructors 800-2Reiew IPrincetonReview.com Corner of S. University & S. Forest SH- .M K1 H PV Fact: Your boyfriend can't get screened for HPV-wwthe virus that causes gTenita wart s There's something you can do. Vst your campus health center.