CKohls

Let's set The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Maverick, Quantum Leap, Seinfeld, and Breaking Bad to one side a moment. These were shows that were great not only for their brilliant writing and production value but also for their originality. They either created, defined or redefined a genre. Stranger Things is another thing entirely. Another, completely NEW thing which is, in itself, original.

But I doubt this will ignite an entire genre, and this is why I consider it unique and incomparable to traditionally groundbreaking shows. Stranger Things is retro. This is obvious and has been noted by everyone. But I don't know if many people have noticed the ASTONISHING attention to detail. Lots of shows are set in history. And lots of shows do a good job of it. But Stranger Things is perfect. It's perfect, not in that it is a perfect reflection of the 80s. It does a damn good job of that. But it goes several steps further. Stranger Things also captures the cinematic style of the 80s. And it does it with such acute accuracy that it is truly mind blowing for a writer and filmmaker who grew up on 80s cinema and was primarily influenced by it as a child. (Me).

I'd like to take a moment to specifically note the props. When I was a boy in the 80s, that was the furniture we actually owned. It is perfect in every detail. The girl's room could have been my sister's room. My sister literally had that exact music box with the ballerina in it. Furthermore, the show draws attention to brands that were popular in the 80s. This adds a touch of authenticity. Sure. But what is so brilliant about this is that it's done in the kind of obvious way that 80s movies did it.

I'd also like to address the brilliance of the casting. I realized something about attraction many years ago. There is traditional look, there are unique looks, and there are fashionable looks. In every major era of cinema, there are particular "types" that the industry, for whatever reason, tends to like to cast. The 80s had an extreme version of this. And almost everyone in this cast is straight out of 80s casting. (Winona Ryder is an exception. I actually love Winona Ryder, but I think casting her in this was a mistake). The daughter is a great example of this. She reminds me of the actress from The Great Outdoors Lucy Deakins (I just looked that up) and several other actresses from the era. I honestly don't understand how these filmmakers are getting these performances out of these actors. My guess (and this really is just a guess) is that much of this was casting. I think probably the actors they chose, not only were perfect because they fit the 80s look, but also because they fit the 80s style of acting. Much of acting is exploiting natural quirks in your real character, and my guess is that many of these actors all had a natural tendency to be this way. Tendencies that might not be particularly charming in a typical 2016 project, but that are perfect for this. The filmmakers may also have had them watch 80s performances to try to emulate. Either way, credit needs to be given to the filmmakers for this.

But the writing is where it all begins. The foundation of it all. Here's why I'm so impressed with the writing. They didn't just include a lot of good 80s stuff, they included 80s clichés. And not even good clichés. They added clichés that are kind of lame like completely senseless character motivations that we're just supposed to buy because it's movie logic. This show really steeps itself in movie logic and I LOVE IT. I usually hate this but, in this case, it's a beautiful homage to 80s films. And what really works for me is that they do it with a real reverence. Any time they include movie logic, the do it with the same straight face as was done in the 80s. There is no tongue in cheek; it's a perfect mimeograph.

There are so many little touches. Kids-on-bikes being a signature of 80s cinema, especially with Spielberg. A lot of this seems to be very Spielbergian, but there are so many 80s films that this project draws from that I wouldn't define the influence so narrowly. As a writer and filmmaker myself, I can't help but watch, jaw open, astonished and mesmerized by this project. It's truly incomparable to other films or television projects. It's something entirely new and different, and I think it will stand apart for a very long time. I've never seen this level of accuracy in the depiction of an era, and I lived through the era. And maybe that's why it's so compelling to me. The first 10 years of my life were 1980-1990 and, in many ways, those are the most important year of one's life. It's one's introduction to the world, to one's self, to sights and sounds and smells, music, food, entertainment, etc. I don't think about the 80s all that much. I didn't love it. But I can tell you, there are things about my childhood that I haven't thought about for years, that this show has drawn back into the forefront of my mind. Wonderful things. And something makes me think that, maybe, our world is a little more synthetic today. Somehow the world was more "real" back then. I don't tend to buy into this idea that everything was better before smartphones, but... maybe some things were better. I don't know. I suppose, love it or hate it, this show has made this viewer think about some things, and that's one of the most important things great art can do.

It is rare that I come upon a classic film I like this much. Comedy, drama, a charming story, all well produced and satisfying. I am not a fan of screwball comedies or slapstick, and a lot of times that's what people think of when they think of classic comedy, which is a shame. Much of the comedy in this film could be used today. William Powell is brilliant as ever. Annabella is stunning. Henry Stephenson is charming. He reminds me of a friendly C. Aubrey Smith. And they were in fact cast together in Little Lord Fountleroy (which, if you haven't seen, is an excellent forgotten classic). I can't recommend this film highly enough. Someone has uploaded it to youtube recently, which is where I watched it.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I even rented this film, though I could not bear to watch it. As the crappy after effects title revealed itself at about 5 frames per second over the first shot of the film I said to the girl next to me, "Uh oh. That's not a good sign." I am torn with whether or not to dignify this movie with the designation "film," as it appears to have been shot with a 1998 prosumer video camera.

Poor, poor Billy Zane. I feel bad for everyone in this film actually. The acting, from the few scenes that I watched, looked as though it might have been okay. It's hard to tell when the only mic used seemed to be the one that came mounted on the camera.

I really wonder what it cost to produce this movie. I was fooled because the cover art of the DVD looked pretty good. Why does Hollywood video even stock this thing? There should be a warning next to it. "This movie was shot with a video camera!"