http://www.blendernation.com/sixth-sense-technology/

Namaste Pranav Mistry I honour The Light Within You

Red Planet? No Mars is Blue

Pic taken by NASA's Mars Orbiter

Explanation: At first glance these undulating shapes in shades of blue might look like waves on an ocean. Seen here in a false-color image from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter’s HiRISE camera, they are actually layered rock outcrops found in Aureum Chaos. The larger Aureum Chaos region is a chaotic jumble of eroded terrain in the eastern part of Mars’ immense canyon Valles Marineris. Distinct layers composing these outcrops could have been laid down by dust or volcanic ash settling from the atmosphere, sand carried by martian winds, or sediments deposited on the floor of an ancient lake. This close-up view of the otherwise red planet spans about 4 kilometers, a distance you might walk over flat ground in less than an hour.

Magnetic resonance imaging opened a new chapter in the history of medical diagnostics, but it still cannot answer all the questions. Researchers at the Iowa State University came up with a wonderful solution. They developed a software, BodyViz, that can convert common 2D MRI and CAT scans into 3D visualizations, enabling physicians to navigate inside the body using an Xbox controller.

Two-dimensional imaging technologies have been used in medicine for a long time, said  (BodyViz co-founder) Eliot Winer, an Iowa State associate professor of mechanical engineering and an associate director of Iowa State’s  Virtual Reality Applications Center. But those flat images aren’t easily read and understood by anybody but specialists.

“If I’m a surgeon or an oncologist or a primary care physician, I deal with patients in 3-D,” Winer said.

(The creators) like to quote a doctor who told a reporter that when preparing for complex procedures, “2-D is guessing and 3-D is knowing.”

Realism is a hotly debated topic in the games industry, and it is interpreted in many different ways. Some developers are will strive to make their games as realistic as possible hoping for an immersive experience, often to the detriment of the game, while others will try and find the balance between keeping a game fun and realistic.

With current computing technology advancing at such a rapid pace the Video Game Industry is left with the freedom of improving graphical properties of their works. Gone are the days of 2D low resolution sprites being cutting edge, and enter advanced 3D models and real time lighting effects. The advances have let game developers produce incredibly realistic effects, from environmental physics, ray tracing, high definition bloom, anisotropic filtering, anti-aliasing and of course surround and positional sound. This culminates in incredibly realistic environments that a game can be set within, and ultimately adds to the immersion of a game, however there is nothing stopping a cell shaded comic book style game being immersive, as story and interactivity play vital roles in immersion.

Other techniques game developers use to induce the illusion of realism are alterations to the style and interactivity of a game. For example, some games have done away with the standard health bars in favour of pseudo-realistic mechanics such as Metal Gear Solid 3’s ‘Survival Viewer’ which in the event the player is shot requires them to first dig the bullet out with their combat knife, then suture the wound and apply antiseptic. This sort of mechanic can add an incredible amount of realism and immersion to a game, but can become incredibly repetitive and in turn can shatter the illusion (Robert Janelle, 2007). Other examples are Call Of Duty 2’s doing away with the health bar for a full screen effect in the event of being shot, the borders of the screen would become blood stained and the sound would become muffled, this of course was both a realism inducing and shattering effect as the player could hide for several seconds and would be considered fine again.

An effect of realism in Video Games can be addiction, as with all things, however as the games are presented as such realistic worlds and universes it is common for the player to be lost completely within it. In the past few years there has been an increase of people being diagnosed with gaming addictions, and centres specifically for the treatment of such ailments have been set up including the world’s first World of Warcraft rehab centre in the United States(Ben Parr, 2009). Some mental health experts have even reported clients showing up for appointments without sleeping for days on end, the grip of their addiction is so strong, there have also been reported deaths due to sleep deprivation and depression resulting from occurrences within the game universe(G. Allendorfer Anderson, 2008).

While realism can lead to immersive and rich game universes and worlds, it must be noted that it can affect not only the interactivity of a game and in turn the fun of it but also the health of the players themselves. With addiction spawning from the immersive nature of a game, this is generally the exception to the rule however and developers cannot be expected to cease making realistic and immersive games due to mental ailments of some individuals.

By Cameron Leyden

References:

Internet Addiction(2009). Ben Parr. http://mashable.com/2009/08/23/restart-internet-addiction/ – accessed 17/11/2009

The Pros and Cons of realism in video games(2008). G. Allendorfer Anderson, PhD. http://www.helium.com/items/624235-the-pros-and-cons-of-realism-in-video-games – accessed 17/11/2009

The Realism of Video Games(2009). Michael Coley. http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/103725/gaming/the_realism_of_video_games.html – accessed 17/11/2009

Video Game Realism(2007). Robert Janelle. http://videogames.suite101.com/article.cfm/video_game_realism – accessed 17/11/2009

Mauroof Ibrahim, an Animation degree student in LimKokWing University of Creative Technology, Malaysia did an interview with me for a research project “Virtual Reality: Establishing Medical Hallmarks”. I asked him to publish the comprehensive results in a well-structured form on Scribd. Enjoy:

Cult of Cyberattack – George Smith, Global Security

Twitter and Iran: First Get the Data, Then Talk – Patrick Philippe Meier, iRevolution

The Cyberwar Plan – Shane Harris, National Journal

Kung Fu Shrine Under Attack – People’s Daily Online

How Your Brain Sees Virtual You – Ewen Callaway, New Scientist

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Says Battlefield Success Depends on Technology Development – defpro.news

Fort Hood and Social Media: Between Two Extremes – Adam Elkus, Huffington Post

Consumed: The Hype Around Augmented Reality – Rob Walker, New York Times

Email Surveillance: Ditch It For Good – Simon Davies, The Guardian

Words To the Wise – CyberSec.eu

GAO: Los Alamos National Lab’s Cybersecurity Lacking – Grant Gross, PC World

Lawmakers Set to Probe Broadband, Privacy, Cybersecurity – Kenneth Corbin, InternetNews.com

CDW-G Issues Federal Cybersecurity Report – TMC News

A Web of Lone Wolves – Evan Kohlmann, Foreign Policy

Introduction: Ubiquitous Human Computing – The Future of the Internet

I just published a summary about the last week of my “Medicine and Web 2.0” university credit course. This time I focused on how virtual worlds can be used in medicine and healthcare.

I also have a detailed guide dedicated to this topic on Webicina.

And I have recently had a virtual presentation for a course of the Nova Southeastern University (including audiocast):

With no warning whatsoever, Virtuality hit store shelves today. Well, Best Buy’s shelves, anyway. You can order it right here, and at $9.99, it’s a steal!

When I first heard about Defying Gravity, I was surprised to see another space show, following the dead-in-the-water Virtuality which went from pilot to TV-movie backdoor pilot to TV-movie that everyone knew wasn’t going to become a series.

Defying Gravity had a number of similarities to Virtuality – ensemble-sized crew on multi-year mission deep into space, their efforts being made into a reality show for people back on Earth, driving off of interpersonal conflict exacerbated by the enclosed space and mission stress.

However, Defying Gravity has a far milder version of the ‘reality show’ aspect, and lacks the virtual reality material featured in Virtuality.  As a result, the show is much more focused — it’s serial SF with episodic interpersonal plot — originally pitched as “Grey’s Anatomy in space” — the show released on ABC over the late summer, but was only aired for episodes before it dropped off of the schedule — ABC has stated that they they are looking for the best time to air the remaining episodes — meanwhile, the episodes have been airing elsewhere, due to the show’s status as a multi-country, multi-network production.

I hope to see the remainder of the season on television, but I have doubts about the show getting picked up.  It’s likely rather expensive given the sets and FX required, and the show’s ratings were lukewarm when aired — though that’s far from unexpected from a relatively un-advertised mid-summer show with a high concept.  Depending on how its ratings fare elsewhere, it’s possible that even if ABC drops its support, it might continue on.

Here’s why Defying Gravity is cool, for me:  It’s probably the best new straight-up SF show (recently) on television.  The show addresses advanced speculative elements (deep-space missions, plus other SF-inal spoilery things that are very intriguing).  It also sustains and develops strong interpersonal drama, throws in good doses of comedy, and includes the best use of flashbacks since LOST, using a parallel structure depicting the mission crew and other personnel in the years-long training that served as the characters’ introduction to one another and informs their relationship with one another in the ‘now’ segments.

Unlike LOST, the characters are deeply interconnected with one another throughut their flashbacks, meaning that instead of revealing a ’small world’ setting where disparate characters were more connected than they suspected, the crew of Defying Gravity are shown working through years of interpersonal relationships — it’s two stories that are one and would theoretically come together by the end of the series, when the flashbacks lead up to the start of the ‘now’ part of the show and provide (10-11) years of contiguous storyline.

Back to the title of my post:  Why this show needs to not get canceled — Defying Gravity depicts a future where space exploration brings us into a larger universe, valuing both science for science’s sake; also the love of exploration.  It also introduces and explains SF-inal elements unseen in television, if well established in SF literature.  The SF writing world talks about how film/TV is two decades behind prose.  The ideas get investigated in prose, and go from brilliant innovation to discussed and debated trope, and once well known enough, if the materials that lead into the trope are established in the popular imagination, then it can reach a broad audience to be digested.  Shows like LOST took several years to build up to and introduce SF elements, and Fringe is popularizing parallel/alternate universe theory.  Dollhouse is a possibly-too-complex-for-tv meditation on the possibilities of interfacing with and modifying memories through technology.

It’s all well and good for the SF community to investigate ideas and develop discussion, but it’s a small world, and for those ideas to reach the majority of the populace, either you need a massively popular novel on the level of Stephen King or Dan Brown, or you probably need to make a movie/TV show.   And if shows that further the collective understanding of the culture-shaping ideas that SF produces keep getting canceled, it serves as a barrier to that dissemination of ideas.

For these reasons and because I think it’s engaging on an interpersonal level with strong performances by a fairly-ethnically diverse cast, I would really like Defying Gravity to continue long enough to tell its story, to convey its speculation about a possible future.

Meat Is More Important Than Meta – Russell M. Davies, Wired UK

The Gaming Renaissance – Brendan Drain, Massively

Porous Online Network – The Korea Times

DHS Secretary Stresses Cyber-Security Requires Partnerships, User Awareness – Brian Prince, EWeek.com

Government IT Spending To Slow – J. Nicholas Hoover, InformationWeek

Russia Considers New Internet Filtering Technology – Evgeny Morozov, Net Effect

CYA, Not Cyber Security, Is Job One For Energy Asset Owners and Operators – Jeff Carr, IntelFusion

Hackers Gave Notice Before Striking PM’s Website – Karen Dearne, The Australian

[h/t InfoWar Monitor]

The interplay between the user and the game is tended to be thought as of being an active and interactive one. But how accurate is this conception? Through the work of Slavoj Žižek I will argue that there are deeper underlying aspects that question if the interplay between the user and, in this case, the game ‘The Sims’, is ultimately an interactive or interpassive one.

The interpassive subject

There are two types of ways in which we can react towards cyberspace. According to Žižek the first reaction involves the one in which the end of Oedipus stands central. Cyberspace functions as an environment in which:

‘Individuals regress to pre-symbolic psychotic immersion… (the idea that the computer functions as a maternal Thing that swallows the subject, who entertains an attitude of incestuous fusion towards it).’ [1]

The second reaction involves a view in which the aspect of freedom is central:

‘In cyberspace, ‘you can be whatever you want’, you’re free to choose a symbolic identity (screen-persona) … but you must accept representation in cyberspace by a signifying element that runs around in the circuitry as your stand-in.’ [1]

Both reactions towards cyberspace are basically wrong according to Žižek. Instead of choosing one of these visions we should rather take the middle position. This middle position is coined by Žižek as ‘interpassivity’. Interpassivity involves the transfer of activities and emotions onto e.g. an object like an avatar that acts in place of the user. In other words, the user enjoys himself and feel emotions through an object.

Interpassivity, or in other words our ‘surrogate self’, is explained by Žižek through the example of the ‘canned laugh’. Agency is mediated by auditory technology. We do not laugh ourselves, but the ‘canned laugh’ laughs on our behalf and through this agent we can enjoy ourselves and get some kind of relief.

‘The emotions I feel and “feign” as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my “true self” does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense “true”, just as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter, where, even if I do not laugh but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard day’s work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show.’ [2]

When we engage with a game through an virtual object like an avatar e.g. the avatar becomes a stand-in for our real-space selves, a representative of ourselves. One’s self is extended or projected onto the screen enabling agency on to the virtual world. A plurality of shifting selves is created which lead to disembodiment and identities can be build up on a fantasy or dream that user has in real life.

Interactivity versus interpassivity

Interpassivity and interactivity are two different kind of ways in which digital technologies position users as responders [3]. Interactivity can be seen as:

• Interacting actively with the medium instead of being a passive consumer.
• Actions proceeded by the user that lead to in-game actions. In this type of interactivity the user perform some tasks and on the basis of these tasks the game takes over control so that the user can ‘sit back and remain passive, just observing the game.’ [2]

The second type of interactivity is the reversal of interpassivity. The user is actively engaged with the game while his avatar is fulfilling the game’s demand.

The Sims: when interpassivity comes in to play

The game ‘The Sims’ is a fascinating simulation game in which the daily activities of virtual persons, Sims, play an important role. Objective is to organize the time of the Sims in such a way that they can achieve their goals. Users are encouraged to design their own avatars but there are some pre-made characters you can choose from. Even the type of personality and skin color can be chosen out of a dozen of options. Important thing to point out is that the user is in control of basically every activity that the Sims perform (sleeping, eating, taking a bath, playing, etc.).

Somewhere I always thought of The Sims as being a very interactive game in which I could totally control every aspect of the game. But the notion of Žižek ‘interpassivity’ has shed new light. Instead of talking about interactive usage I speak now of interpassive usage

Through ‘my Sim’ I transfer a little bit of myself onto my Sim. The Sim acts on my behalf and through the Sim I can really enjoy myself. Ofcourse, otherwise I wouldn’t play it anymore. I really can feel sad or happy for ‘my Sim’ and in a way it represents me but I have also exaggerated the Sim a little bit. Would that be like Žižek stated the dreams and fantasies I can not pursue in real life? Maybe…

—

Sources:

[1]
Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. ‘Is it possible to traverse the fantasy in cyberspace?’ The Žižek reader, eds. Elizabeth Wright and Edmond Wright, 102-124. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

[2]
Zizek, Slavoj. 2002. ‘The Interpassive Subject.’ The Symptom, 3, Autumn, <http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-interpassive-subject.html>

[3]
van den Boomen, Marianne et al. Digital Material, Tracing New Media in Everyday Life and Technology. Amsterdam University Press, 2009.

[4]
Wilson, Laetitia. ‘Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.’ University of Western Australia, 2003.

—

Further reading & documentaries:

• Zizek, Slavoj. ‘The Cyberspace Real.’ The European Graduate School, 2009. < http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-cyberspace-real.html>
• Turkle, Sherry. ‘Who Am We?’ Wired Magazine, June 1996. < http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html>
• Taylor, Astra. Zizek! <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478338/>

In the movie War Games (1983) Matthew Broderick wanted to hack a new computer game, in the process he accidently hacked the actual American defensive system. He engaged in global thermonuclear war in the process. While he’s playing a game the world suffers the real consequences of his actions. The connection between playing games and real war was far fetched at the time this movie was made, but since then a lot has changed. In this post I will discuss the learning potential of video games, the new Army Experience Centre opened in Philadelphia, and the use of games in recruiting practices.

In: What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2007) James Paul Gee stresses the importance of video games in the learning process.  According to his writings people have much more learning experience playing a game then they have in the school benches. When I read some of his work I quickly realized that there is some truth in this, I remembered playing a game while also studying for a test. Each time I memorised one chapter by heart I rewarded myself with an half an hour of playing. I soon realized that solving the problems in the game was harder then memorizing dead authors and theories which I had to reproduce just once. While I was taking the test, which I aced, I still found myself thinking of ways to advance in the game, frustrated but intrigued by it. This experience showed me what every kid already knows; studying is boring and playing games isn’t. so why don’t we make studying more like playing games?.  Alongside James Paul Gee are other thinkers like Kurt Squire, David Shaffer and David Hutchison who also stress the pedagogic potential of video games.

James Paul Gee encourages the educational system to incorporate gaming in the learning process. Videogames pose interesting challenges to the mind. In my life I often found myself frustrated with studying and throwing aside the book to do something more interesting. Videogames also frustrate me, but I still find myself continuously playing them. This is because of what cognitive science refers to as: the regime of competence principle [Gee 2003]. [1] This results in a simultaneous feeling of frustration and pleasure. If the game is developed right, which the free market makes sure of (if it sucks it won’t sell), it will be hard but still doable. Good games have a perfect balance between being hard but still interesting or fun. This challenges the mind to solve problems and thus teaches us new things. Challenging the brain stimulates a state of neuroplasticity which creates new connections in the brain. (new skills). Another principle Gee talks about is: the principle of expertise [Gee 2003] . Games challenge players to master a level, attain certain skills, and then undo all that mastery in the next level in which they have to adapt to new situations and challenges. These adaptive skills are important in teaching, many of the skills taught in schools are irrelevant by graduation time. Information in games is always given just in time and within the specific context, this isn’t the case in schools. The way games teach is situational, instead of merely learning words without reference there is a experience connected with the teaching, so more connections are made in the brain. Gee also sees agency as key to a games successful learning potential. Gamers are active producers of the narrative, they form a strong connection with their virtual character and become committed to the virtual world in which they learn. Risk can be taken without dire consequences, if the character dies you just start over again, also the game can be customised to fit the players learning and playing style. All the above factors point to the learning potential of videogames in the educational system, but it seems to cling to the old systems that have bored us for centuries.

This brings me to my point, on the 2^nd of September the Army Experience Center opened in Philadelphia. (take the virtual tour!). It is a pilot program offering visitors a virtual gaming experience of the many aspects of Army life. It houses a number of interactive games and simulations. Its situated near a skate park and a arcade, the entrance is free. While kids play the many interactive fun games trained recruiters walk around the facility to share stories and inform, however it is NOT a recruiting centre (?). According to the AEC it is not built to recruit, but to change perception about the army. Through marketing research the army found that the best way to change perception was to allow people to experience the army virtually. The facility is a large spectacle of games, immersive VR, and many other sophisticated technology that entices the young and teaches them about the real army.  This video introduces the spectacle and illustrates the media coverage of its opening. The army is building a brand with this new centre, it is indeed changing perception. It is adapting to the way kids want to be taught, but what are they teaching?. It is a very sad thing to see schools struggling for attention while the army gets all the attention by playing the game wisely. The method (videogames) is not being criticized here, I am a active gamer myself, but the stuff being taught should be scrutinized. The content of war games has been proved to have a strong ideological charge, these games are partly developed to spread the Army brand. [Nieborg 2005]. The glorification of war in these centres which focus on the virtual and neglect the actual consequences of war is also a very dangerous thing in my opinion. Kids can go inside a virtual world, enjoy a good little war,  and then go off to eat some McDonalds afterwards. I took the virtual tour around the centre and was astonished by the cool games, however I did not see the ‘super busy hospital’ game in which medics have to treat dying soldiers from the frontline. I thought this was supposed to be the REAL Army experience?!?. I like playing games like Call of Duty, but I never confuse it with the real Army experience. I wonder if a thirteen year old has the same thought process. There are no continues in the actual army experience, just as there is no war trauma after killing in a game. The blurring boundary between the virtual and the actual is a ongoing theme within media theory and in this particular instance can be very dangerous. Maybe that’s why there have been many organized protesters surrounding this new centre. (which have not been given the same media coverage as the opening of this centre of course).

While education struggles to maintain students interested , the army uses more logical ways to teach people to be soldiers and gets kids interested in enlisting based on a virtual experience. The military has been using simulations since the 50’s and that’s a good thing, games can teach in a way that books cannot.  I don’t oppose simulators and other game environments to teach soldiers the art of war AFTER recruitment, but this centre which obviously serves as a recruitment tool and a vessel for the Army brand is teaching kids the great side of war within the virtual without stressing the not so great side within the actual. To me it’s a shame that the educational system is not adapting to new ways of teaching, which obviously work much better, while the army is generating huge interest easily by acknowledging this potential. If only the board of education was better at playing games.

[1] Gee. J.P. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, 2003

[2] Nieborg, David. “Changing the rules of engagement. Okt. 2006

The new TV season is full swing, and yet here I am, still talking about last season. Of course, I’ve farted around for a couple of weeks doing very important things (not playing Halo 3: ODST, no matter what my endless tweets and Raptr updates will say), and am only now getting around to putting this up. Please forgive my tardiness.

Though I don’t want to say too much about the new season, which is just coming into shape, I will say that some shows (Fringe, House) have yet to get back to full strength, some (CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Dollhouse, Lie To Me) have come back with a confident bang, and some new shows (Community, Flashforward) have really piqued my interest. One new show (Modern Family) made me think I will never trust another critic ever again. Unless something really dreadful comes along, I think I have my Worst New Pilot of the 2009-2010 Season winner already sewn up.

Anyway, here are my final thoughts on the 2008i-2009 season. There were originally going to be more YouTube clips on here, but I’ve had a dispiriting day watching them get taken down. Fox and NBC, sorry for infringing on your copyright, but all you did was get rid of some free publicity, as I was going to tell the world how awesome your shows were. Except for that clip from Heroes. That was up because Angela Petrelli’s insanely histrionic reaction to her son’s death was the funniest thing of the year. So I can understand that one. And now, on with the hyperbole…

Best New Show: Sons of Anarchy

If one were to be unduly harsh, you could compare the first episode of Sons of Anarchy with the pilot of The Shield. Considering that is easily one of the most impressive and instantly captivating pilots ever made, there was little chance that showrunner Kurt Sutter could ever compete. That he made a pilot as good as the one that kickstarted his biker epic is a testament to his skill as a writer, and his decision to get Sopranos director/producer Allen Coulter in to co-direct it is exactly the kind of smart move that a good showrunner should make. The first few episodes were not perfect, but the building blocks were there.

What sets Sons of Anarchy apart from every other show debuting during the 2008-2009 period — even the eventually superb Dollhouse — is how quickly changes were made, and how confidently they were put in place. By the time season highlight The Pull came around, it was already shaping up to be essential TV, but that episode propelled it onto a completely different level of excellence. Ramping up the pace of the show and throwing one or two of the less interesting characters into terrible danger / potentially ruinous moral compromise, Sons of Anarchy hinted that it could become something that will rival the mighty Shield for complexity and dramatic power. It helps that it features one of the best ensembles on TV right now, filling out its main cast (which, let’s not forget, includes Ron Perlman, an impressive star-making turn from Charlie Hunnam, and relentless magnificence from Kim Coates) with guests spots for Mitch Pileggi, Drea DeMatteo, Jay Karnes, Dayton Callie, Maggie Siff, and the incredible Ally Walker, who blows everyone else away with her terrifying warrior mentality and fearless sexuality. And in season two, we get Adam Arkin and Henry Rollins. Seriously, what’s not to love? From all accounts, the second season is even more unhinged than the first, which is saying something considering the incredible brutality and amoral shenanigans from the first. I can’t wait to dive in.

Worst New Show: Parks and Recreation

Creators Greg Daniels and Michael Schur are not idiots, obviously, but this landed with a terrible splat and couldn’t convince me to hang around long enough to see if it would improve. Part of that was because I was mad at the dip in quality over at The Office. Was it fair to blame this show for that? Probably not. Parks and Recreation has been mooted for so long (remember when it was supposed to be a straight spin-off of The Office?) that their attention has probably been divided for a long time, and the fourth season of The Office was great. Nevertheless, the energy of one show definitely seemed to have been split between two, and the result was a listless hour of supposed comedy.

I have fought with myself over whether it would have been worth hanging around to see if it got better, but then I remember little things that irked like the way the showrunners differentiated the talking head interjections from those of The Office — using two cameras for the faux-interviews instead of one — which drove me into fits of absurd rage. The Office already has trouble keeping the faux-doc format going, and this conceit draws even more attention to the fakeness of it all. Perhaps I’m just burned out on this format. ABC’s new comedy Modern Family has been heralded as the next great sitcom after just two episodes, with across the board raves. We watched last week’s pilot in a state of shock. Flamboyant gay stereotypes? Clunking, obvious jokes about the generation gap? Appalling overacting from everyone (with Julie Bowen being the worst offender)? A character misinterpreting the accent of a Columbian woman? (I say Columbian because Sofia Vergara is from Columbia. She’s probably expected to play someone from a different country in this.) Modern Family is exactly the kind of retrograde laugh-track-enhanced sitcom that seems almost archaic now, but because it’s filmed in a single camera faux-doc style, it’s treated as a cutting-edge exploration of modern American mores. Bullshit. It’s Everybody Loves Raymond. Dressing a raccoon in baseball gear doesn’t make it a baseball player. It just makes it a raccoon covered in sport gear. (Note to self: use less raccoons in metaphors. It just complicates things.)

I also remember one potentially funny scene in Parks and Recreation — involving hapless and strangely unlovable Leslie trying to convince a bunch of ill-informed citizens that her plans are worthwhile — failing to take off, and I realise that after this summer of purposely ignorant right-wing hijacking of the health-care town hall debates, this kind of scene probably won’t ever be funny again. Democracy failing to work because of the Crazification Factor getting in the way of intelligent debate is something I just can’t laugh at right now. What makes this turn of events most sad is that the concept is so full of potential, and yet it didn’t even work before the protests. I can’t figure out how you could take an idea this promising and fail to make something that mixes madness and profundity in the same way as The Office. Compare that to Knight Rider. That was always going to be shit. This should have been a potent mix of satire and ridiculousness. That’s why I have to put it in this category. Apparently it has found its stride in the second season, from what I’ve heard on the Hinternet. Sadly, the people who are saying that also keep going on about how Modern Family is hilarious. So, you know…

Best Title Sequence of the Year: Hung

The choice of music (I’ll Be Your Man by The Black Keys), the phallic objects in the background, the pace of it…

…It’s a perfect title sequence.

Best Pilot: Kings

From what I can gather, there was very little publicity for Kings when it made its way onto the screen. Many have said this was the reason for its failure to find an audience, though to be honest a literate curio like this was unlikely to ever become a breakthrough hit. Alternate histories? Playing with Biblical stories? Unappealing main characters? It just seemed like a real long shot. It was impressive to see NBC gamble on making the show in the first place, but as with the equally intelligent Journeyman, making a show and trying to make the show available to a wide audience are two different things.

To be honest, with Journeyman the hurt is greater. That show was less ambitious, but as a result was more likely to find an audience if given a chance. It also improved as it went along. Kings started off incredibly strong and then stalled a little. That’s the problem when a show gets a pilot this impressive. Written by showrunner Michael Green and directed by the underrated Francis Lawrence, Goliath (the name of the pilot) was like no other pilot I’ve ever seen. Even though it was made on a shoestring, it looked incredible. Even more appealing, it had a weird edge of fantasy even beyond the alternate earth conceit, with God interacting with certain characters in a matter of fact way even though the show did not explicitly preach Christian values.

Perhaps this more than anything alienated audiences: atheists might rebel against a show that openly debates the wishes of God, and Christians might be irked by this God not being a recognisable version of their God. While I fall into the first category, I don’t mind God turning up in fiction as long as It’s not used as a deus ex machina or Unexplainable Puppeteer (hello Battlestar Galactica) or as an accurate version of “our” God (a sky bully who gets pissed off if we don’t play by Its crazy rules). The version of God in Kings was not a big deal, but Its mysterious behaviour, and effect on the behaviour of the main characters, was fascinating.

As was the superb character King Silas Benjamin (not to mention his allies and enemies), and the superb use of New York locations (standing in for the fictional city of Shiloh) to give a sense of epic scale to the show, and the incredible cast… As I say, the show was fascinating to watch right up until its unfortunate cancellation, but it never quite lived up to the promise of that amazing pilot, simply because the pilot made you think you were watching the most amazing show ever. We weren’t, but it was damn good nevertheless. Even the slightly disappointing finished product was better than almost everything else on TV. You could practically sense the cult following develop as you watched, not to mention hear the knives coming out for it as you realise how odd the project was. We’re lucky we saw any of it, to be honest.

Worst Pilot: The Unusuals

Seemingly rushed into production as a result of the writers’ strike, The Unusuals matched an underwhelming concept with a poorly defined set of uninteresting characters, failed to find a consistent tone, and handed off directing chores to the ever-feeble Stephen Hopkins, a man who has never made even one good film (I remember liking The Ghost and the Darkness when I first saw it, but I fear I’m being kind). There was no way I was going to enjoy this.

The main reason for my annoyance is that there were some good actors in there who just couldn’t rise above the material or the execution. Some of the most interesting actors — both promising and established — flounder within the show’s poorly thought-through format, with some characters played as broad as possible and others reining in the madness. Jeremy Renner in particular looks like he’s wandered in from another show. Harold Perrineau does okay with his skittish character, while Adam Goldberg sucks all of the energy out of his scenes with a sour and unappealing demeanour, not to mention a terrible mustache. The conceit that a hypochondriac with a fear of death is partnered with a man who wants to die and yet seems blessed is one of those ideas that sounds great on the page and fails on screen.

As for Amber Tamblyn, playing a high-society girl trying to make it as a cop in the cuh-rayzee precinct, it was a more entertaining concept when rich-boy Carter turned up in E.R. That was only one of the shows this seemed to emulate. M.A.S.H., NYPD Blue, Hill Street Blues, Hooperman (for crying out loud): it was an echo of greater shows, a throwback to 80s cop dramas when they started to become more confident and complex. Sad thing is, we don’t want babysteps any more. We’ve moved on. The low ratings and inevitable cancellation of this show proved that. Let’s hope those good actors turn up in better projects now.

Best Pilot of the Year Not Selected For Series: Virtuality

I won’t go into how much I hated the Battlestar Galactica finale again, as I’m beginning to come across as a total crazy person who is obsessed with going on about it, but it did make me reconsider trying out Caprica, the Stoltzified spin-off. Why should I keep watching shows set in this universe, made by this team, who had so disappointed me throughout the last few seasons? Yes, Jane Espenson would be there too, and I love her work, but still, I cannot imagine being invested in this story any more. There is a good chance I’ll relent, because good SF is hard to find on TV at the best of times. Nevertheless, my annoyance remains.

You can imagine how uninterested I was in another Ronald D. Moore / Michael Taylor show (I was never fond of his BSG episodes), especially one that seemed so prosaic. Moore has stated in the past that he was interested in making BSG because he felt the urge to rebel against Star Trek’s chirpy universe and its reliance on holodeck technology to change up the show, which made Virtuality — a show about space travellers who use virtual reality technology to relax — a curious proposition. I resisted this too, and then relented after seeing the feeble Defying Gravity, which seemed to be drawn from the same template. Thinking Virtuality would be nothing more than a space soap along the same lines as the other network drama, I gave it a spin, expecting little.

I love it when I’m proved wrong like this. As much as Fox’s other new SF show – Dollhouse – Virtuality is a fascinating and challenging exploration of ideas, dramatically filmed and featuring an excellent cast. In fact, the cast is even stronger than that of Dollhouse, with excellent turns from Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Sienna Guillory, Richie Coster (who needs more work, stat), and the ever-dependable Clea DuVall. All the actors are on top form, but these four really stand out. As for the comparison with Defying Gravity, the only thing they have in common is being set in space. Virtuality is about so much more: our perception of reality and how it will inevitably be twisted by the lens we observe through, how technology can affect us emotionally, how we refuse to let it go even when it is obviously not doing us any good (an idea expressed far more clearly here than in Lee Adama’s ridiculous speech in the final BSG episode). While Defying Gravity really is a soap set in space (with one character seemingly completely defined by the pregnancy she once terminated, which is as regressive a character arc as is possible), Virtuality is about ideas. It’s proper SF.

At least, it was proper SF. Even though it was obviously incredibly ambitious and beautifully made (with top direction from Shades of Caruso favourite Peter Berg), and even though were was huge potential for relatively cheap but gripping drama, it was shelved. I’m utterly depressed by this turn of events. There was only one misstep in the whole pilot, with a nasty perception-rape sequence that made me uncomfortable. Reliance on rape plots always upsets me, but here even this most unpleasant of plot threads is used to further the show’s exploration of whether there is a gap between virtual and actual reality, and what happens to us when we lose track of the difference between the two. If the show was willing to treat something potentially exploitative as cleverly as this, we would almost certainly have seen a lot of very smart SF in the rest of the series. But no. While Whedon got lucky with Dollhouse, the Virtuality team saw their show taken away before they could go any further. The best thing I can say about it? It was better than most movies I’ve seen this year. It’s a crying shame there will be no more.

Most Unfairly Cancelled Show of the Year: Reaper

Patton Oswalt is a brilliantly funny and caustic man, but recently he broke my heart. In this interview, he explained how, while filming his turn on Reaper, he saw the crew and cast crushed by their parent network, The CW.

When I did Reaper, the episode I originally did was supposed to be the beginning of this introduction to this overall mythology, because they clearly were taking the Joss Whedon playbook: You have a monster of the week for a while, and then you start linking it all up, and you create this overarching kind of world and story. And in the middle of the week, the network just came down on them and said “No, go back to monster of the week.” And you could feel this deflation amongst the actors, because they really understood that they had to start putting mythology into things. The network was just like, “Nope!”

This is the network that, when it was The WB, cancelled Angel, so I already have a big problem with them. Now I have an even bigger one. It may have not become something more ambitious, but it was endlessly lovable, and became admirably silly in the second season. The first was funny, but at times the second season was funnier than many sitcoms. The monster-of-the-week format of the show, which had seemed so restrictive, sometimes ended up shoved into the cold open, with the rest of the episode dealing with silly relationship drama, Sock shenanigans, or sly mythology expanding business with recurring characters like Nina or Tony. This might not be as involving as Buffy, but it was never as blandly diverting as something like The Mentalist. It fell right in the middle, which is apparently deadly.

That greater focus on just being daft was working for us, but the lack of a coherent arc from week to week (other than Sam’s lacklustre efforts to get out of his contract, and the hints that he is a more important player in the battle between God and The Devil) seemed to doom it. More than any other show departing this year, this is the one we’ll miss. Goodbye to one of the most entertaining casts on TV, some of the most eccentric writing of the past few years, and most of all, goodbye to the best Devil in recent pop culture history. He may be showing up in Dollhouse, but will Ray Wise be this mischievous, charming, delightful? Ray Wise fans everywhere, please come together one last time to marvel at that beautiful, beautiful grin.

At least one of us is smiling, I guess. [Insert sad-face emoticon here]

Best New Double Act of the Year: Ray Drecker and Tanya Skagle - Hung

When compiling the list of best and worst characters, I had certain unspoken rules in place to stop myself from focusing exclusively on certain shows. Party Down’s cast of beautifully observed characters could have dominated the first list, and Knight Rider could have dominated the second. My biggest quandary was caused by Hung, HBO’s lovable male-prostitution-and-economic-disaster comedy that has so entertained us recently. How do I get to honour two of the funniest characters of the year without breaking that rule? As ever, inventing a new category is the perfect answer. Hung is a show that has a few tonal errors (what was going on with the horribly misconceived Jessica, played with occasional delicacy by Anne Heche?) and a very loosely defined season arc (two pimps fighting over Ray and his magical dong), not to mention some wasted actors (why hire Gregg Henry and put him in about five scenes?). At times, it felt like we were watching half a show.

Nevertheless, it became appointment viewing just because of the wonderful work of Thomas Jane and Jane Adams. Their chemistry, and their relentless bickering and grudging friendship, was the thing that made Hung exceed its limitations. It also made Shades of Caruso reconsider the talents of both actors. Thomas Jane was given moments of pathos which he has never really had a chance to play before, and he excelled, especially in the season finale. Jane Adams has always played sad-sack losers, but this time she was given a chance to give Tanya some nobility even as her plans fell apart around her. Both actors also got to show off their physical comedy skills, with Adams especially amusing during her many impotent temper tantrums.

It was their interplay that really held the show together. Even as other plot threads and arcs seemed to falter or shoot off in predictable directions, watching these two actors play off each other was more than enough to save the show. It’s notable that episodes where Ray and Tanya aren’t onscreen together were the weakest of the season, whereas the ones which explored their dependent relationship and accidental exploration of each other’s personality were the most satisfying. Hopefully the show continues to throw these polar opposites together next year.

Best New Couple of the Year: Sawyer and Juliet – Lost

Ah yes, the love triangle/quadrangle. The constant refrain of Lost doubters (and some fans) is that the show is wasting its time whenever it focuses on the relationship drama of Jack, Sawyer, Kate, and Juliet. “We don’t care about that shit! Show more Faraday!” Yes yes, love drama tends to make me go to sleep as well. Many shows are hamstrung by tedious relationship dramas: House is at its dreariest when Thirteen and Foreman, or Cameron and Chase, go on and on about their coupledom; Kings ground to a halt every time David and Michelle made goo-goo eyes at each other. Hell, even the otherwise perfect Party Down was at its least interesting every time Henry and Casey got together. So there is precedent.

However, I love the relationship drama from Lost for two reasons. One: at the end of the season, we see how far Jack has fallen from grace. We thought he was the square-jawed all-American hero who would bring everyone out of the wilderness like a be-stubbled Moses, but over time we see he’s a deeply damaged, semi-psychotic loser who – as we find out in the final episode of season five – even lied about his character-defining anecdote from the very first episode. How much of a loser is he? After pushing away the woman he “loves” with his whiny attitude and various emotional breakdowns, and after years of trying to figure out what his purpose is now that his dad isn’t around to torture him, he has two choices to make a difference in his life: a) man up and seek help for his depression, all while giving up on the thought of making a go of things with Kate, or b) detonate a nuclear bomb, killing everyone on the island, in the hope that it will change history and allow Oceanic 815 to land safely in LAX so he doesn’t have to put up with the mess he made of his life. I’ve said before that one of the things I love about Lost is that it shows the psychology of its characters in minute detail, and this final touch – showing how far people will go to avoid making simple changes in their lives because of their fear of what will happen if it fails – is the perfect metaphor for how we hold onto our broken selves even when we know how to make things better.

Two: It also gave us the wonderful, tragic pairing of Sawyer and Juliet, which justifies all of the sturm and drang to get there. So far, all of the pairings that have been tried were wrong somehow. Jack and Kate didn’t work because Jack is insane. Kate and Sawyer didn’t work because Kate keeps messing with Sawyer’s head. Jack and Juliet didn’t work because Jack was not even slightly into Juliet and was just using her to get over Kate. However, as soon as the fourth season ended with a shirtless Sawyer walking out of the sea towards a drunken Juliet, I knew we would get to see something go right. And, for the most part, it did, even though it was not to be.

It’s not just that the combined hottness of Sawyer and Juliet is so great that it probably melted most of the TVs in the world. It’s also not just that selfish Kate and crazy Jack were finally out of the equation. It’s even not just because seeing Sawyer and Juliet flirting while shooting people was the most awesome thing ever. It’s that there was barely any controversy in the relationship, which probably would have even survived the forthcoming Purge, somehow. It’s only when Kate returns to the island and reignites Juliet’s psychological damage (previously caused by the break-up of her parents, the infidelity of her ex-husband, and the death of her lover Goodwin) that it all goes horribly wrong. Did Sawyer still hold a candle for Kate? Probably. Did he love Juliet? I reckon yes, and I believe he would have done anything for her if she had given him the chance. All of this made the quadrangle emotionally powerful, as we finally had something to hang on to. Would Sawyer and Juliet survive the machinations of the island/Esau and Jacob? More than any other relationship in TV history (except for Fred and Wesley in Angel), my nerves were set on fire by the possibility that those kids might not make it after all. Of course…

Most Upsetting, Most Harsh, and Most Unfair Scene of the Year: The Incident finally happens – Lost

…we all know how it turned out. Nothing else this year made me cry as much as this.

Damn you, stupid TV show! Damn you for being so fucking mean! And damn you Emmy voters for not giving nominations to Elizabeth Mitchell and Josh Holloway. They were amazing all season.

Worst New Couple of the Year: Luke and Bess - In Treatment

In Treatment’s second season deviated dramatically from its source material — the Israeli drama Be’Tipul — when it moved main character Paul Weston from Maryland to Brooklyn, allowing the show to dramatise his dislocation from his family, as well as to provide a reason for why he suddenly has so many new patients. This meant that we lost the chance to see season one patients Amy and Jake return, this time as a divorced couple fighting over their son, leading to the creation of two new patients, Luke and Bess. With their marriage in tatters and resentment flying between them, their son Oliver suffers terribly, putting on weight and falling into depression as his parents either fight for custody of him or, amazingly, against custody.

None of the characters in this show are particularly nice to Paul, but the games Luke and Bess play with him, using his advice as justification for a serious of awful, selfish choices, were worse than the usual antagonism people show their therapist. Many times during the season I was horrified by their behaviour, and by the time the season finished they were openly talking about how their lives had been ruined by their marriage and how they wanted another chance at what they had with barely any regard for Oliver’s well-being. When Paul finally loses his temper with them in episode 28, it elicited a round of applause from us. Figuratively speaking. And to be honest, he should have been even angrier with them.

Of course, this being In Treatment, these two horribly selfish people are written so well that we can see their point of view — and their humanity — clearly enough that even at their worst we cannot completely write them off. Their eventual remorse is a relief, but it’s still not enough considering how completely both parents are oblivious to the young boy’s needs. Thankfully, Paul is there to prove to Oliver that he will still be there for him, in some respect. His final scene with Oliver, talking to him via “phone” in his office, started a deluge of tears from this admittedly weepy viewer. If Oliver escapes this miserable situation with his psyche intact, it will have nothing to do with his parents.

Most Underused Character of the Year: Boyd Langton - Dollhouse

Whedon has a talent for peppering his casts with older character actors playing the “parents” to the younger crew. With Buffy we had Giles, in Angel there was Wesley (though his efficacy is doubtful; he’s arguably more flawed than any of his compatriots), and Firefly had Shepherd Book. These stern characters with hearts of gold gave their respective shows some kind of grounding when things got wacky, though Whedon wasn’t averse to making them run through some ridiculous hoops (Book’s mad hair, Wesley’s various pratfalls, Giles’ guitar playing). Sadly, while Langton got a chance to be silly in the disappointing comedy episode Echoes, he rarely got a chance to do anything interesting either. Many characters got to have interesting arcs and secrets, but Langton seemed to be getting less and less screentime as the series wore on. Making him head of security broke the student-mentor relationship between him and Echo, but then this might be Whedon trying to throw his own archetypes out, confounding our expectations. That he would give handler-duties to someone who appears to have an unhealthy sexual attraction to Echo (I’m talking about the plasticine-man known as Ballard) shows there might be something to that.

Nevertheless, it is a shame to cast someone like Harry Lennix — who has intense onscreen presence and then some — and then not give him as much to do as possible. His new role means he will interact more with Olivia Williams, meaning the two best actors on the show get to bang heads together: joy! That promotion, along with his new connection to Whiskey/Dr. Saunders, suggests he will be given more to do in the second season, but nevertheless, his relative inaction in later episodes was one of the few things I didn’t like about the improved half of the first season.

Most Entertaining Villain of the Year: Gemma Teller Morrow – Sons of Anarchy

One of the great pleasures of Sons of Anarchy is how it mixes up its Shakespeare. The debt it owes to Hamlet has been acknowledged by creator Kurt Sutter, but less attention has been paid to his shameless steal from Macbeth. Gemma Teller Morrow — former wife of SAMCRO leader John Teller — at first seems like a strong biker chick, but by the end of the pilot episode has revealed herself to be a conniving, power-hungry Queen whose sense of morality has been twisted until she will do anything to protect her family and the direction of the gang, a fact proved by her attempt at driving Jax’s junkie wife Wendy to an overdose. Later in the season she apologises to Wendy for this act, but even then she’s only doing it because she’d rather her son stay with a recovering junkie than return to his longtime sweetheart Tara. Plus, she does seem to be implicated in John’s death, possibly committed by her current husband Clay Morrow, which appears to have been done to prevent a change of direction towards legitimacy for the biker gang.

The most miraculous thing about this character is that she has dispelled my previous reservations about the talents of Katey Sagal. I’ve complained about her terrible voicework on Futurama before, where she leaves no joke intact, but I had suspected her dramatic work was not as shaky. She was great as John Locke’s departed love Helen in Lost, for example. In Sons of Anarchy, she’s even better, outacting even Ron Perlman when she’s in full flow. This display of Macchiavellian sneakiness got even more entertaining as the season progressed. There was a certain amount of character modulation during the latter half of the season, with some of her excesses toned down, and the horribly stagy confrontations between her and Tara tweaked until they sounded like actual human conversations, but even so, her Lady-Macbeth-esque manipulations of all around her were a source of delight even when she misfired a little. Gemma, as Journey almost said once, don’t stop conniving.

Least Entertaining Villain of the Year: Miguel Prado - Dexter

Dexter sure does have some crappy nemeses. In the first season, he goes up against his own brother, played with ridiculous camp evilness by Christian Camargo. In the second season, he is forced to conquer his evil girlfriend, manifested by Jaime Murray with a bag of absurd tics even more annoying than those of Dexter’s sister Debs, who is played by the equally dreadful Jennifer Carpenter. In the fourth season we’re getting John Lithgow. My memories of his madness from De Palma’s Raising Cain do not bode well for any Over-Act-O-Meters used to track the progress of this show, though I reckon he will be infinitely more entertaining than Dexter’s other “villains”.

Last year we got to see Jimmy Smits contend with the usual quota of ineptitude, improbable motivation, and mustache-twirling obviousness that comprises the Dexter Big Bad, and he made a meal of it. Amping up his intensity to sky-high levels, Miguel Prado went from saint to madman in the blink of an eye, all pretense at showing him as a morally complex human thrown out of the window with a haste even this most feeble of shows has never exhibited before. His cluelessness meant his occasional victories against Dexter relied upon our “hero”’s IQ dropping 100 points, which is a flaw that has run through the show from the beginning. Prado would then, naturally, make a bunch of mistakes, all the while chewing scenery like a murderous Donald Sinden. I say he was the least entertaining villain of the year because watching his character arc was deeply unsatisfying, with him changing his personality from moment to moment in order to move the plot, and not vice versa, but I did get a lot of pleasure from his reaction after he finally kills a bad guy.

Nastiest Villain of the Year: Nolan – Dollhouse

I can’t make any glib observations about this. Whedon is an avowed feminist, and this new show seemed to be a peculiar expression of that worldview, drawing both perplexed condemnation and optimistic readings. The fact that the show didn’t immediately say that the Dollhouse was a bad place threw a lot of viewers (including myself), but I’m sure a lot of Whedon’s fans (again, including myself) hoped that things would be clearer in the long run.

By the end of the season it was obvious that the Dollhouse tech was meant to be The Worst Thing That Has Happened To Humanity Ever, and not just because it brings about the end of the world (or at least, the end of Humanity). The most graphic and upsetting example of this comes in the excellent episode Needs, where the Actives come to and “escape” their prison (but only because they are allowed to). Drawn to the terrible things that have made them volunteer for Activeness, we see November visiting the grave of her child, and Echo deciding to stay behind to rescue her fellow Actives (surely this should worry the Dollhouse executives a bit more). Sierra, who I’d never found to be particularly compelling, goes to see the man who has paid the Dollhouse to make her an Active. Any doubt that the Dollhouse is a force for evil is removed once we find out that Nolan (played with oily menace by Vincent Ventresca) has paid the Dollhouse to turn her — a woman who once refused him — into an Active just so that he can violate a woman her whenever he feels like it. As Couch Baron says here, there truly are no words that can describe how awful this is. It was the most potent way to show how dreadful this technology is, and upset me deeply. The bad taste remained for the rest of the season. How rare for a network show to explore this kind of moral depravity without shying away from it.

Best Cast of the Year: Party Down

Just as with this year’s Best New Double Act category, I created this category last year to give shout-out to Reaper’s wonderful cast, which featured a host of great actors, especially Ray Wise, Tyler Labine, and Ken Marino. This year, Party Down gets a nod for featuring so many great actors, including Ken Marino. If I’d been blogging when Veronica Mars started, I probably would have highlighted the terrific cast of that show too, which would have meant discussing Ken Marino’s turn as sleazy private investigator Vinnie Van Lowe. Basically, Ken Marino seems to be my weakness. If he’s around, I am helpless.

Which is not to say Party Down worked solely because of him. As I’ve mentioned at length in my Best New Characters award list, Jane Lynch is breathtakingly good as Constance Carmell, and her replacement (Jennifer Coolidge) was just as good. Of the core cast, I’d highlight Ryan Hansen too, playing the adorably clueless Kyle Bradway — basically Dick Casablancas with a heart of gold. His vapid interactions with Jane Lynch are the highlight of many episodes, and he even manages to make tolerable the time spent with Martin Starr, here doing worryingly convincing work as the deeply unpleasant Roman DeBeers. He’s probably the weak link in the cast, though I would also become annoyed by the endless hipsterish emotional evasions of Casey Klein, played by Lizzy Caplan. (Side note: I think it’s fair to say that, thanks to real-world annoyances too numerous to count, I automatically take against any character on TV who spends all of their time on the phone instead of doing their job, or while other people are trying to talk to them. Those caveats are meant to signify that Jack Bauer is not to be considered one of these people. When he’s on the phone, he’s actually saving the world).

At the heart of this amazing ensemble is Adam Scott, formerly playing Palek the Vulcan Inseminatron from Tell Me You Love Me, and now utterly rehabilitated from that indie-movie-aping earnestness after his incredibly bold turn in Step Brothers. Here he is required to be in enormous emotional pain for the majority of the time, and it’s a credit to him that playing a completely shut-down shell of a man doesn’t mean he isn’t funny. His ability to mix up this world-weariness and emotional vulnerability with deadpan wit is essential to the success of the show. He’s Tim-from-The-Office, but even more pathetic. You weep for him in every episode.

So, they’re a fantastic core group, but they’re not the only reason Party Down wins this award. Just as with 30 Rock and Arrested Development before them, this show manages to get some of the best character actors around to populate the secondary cast. In the first season we saw Ken Jeong, J.K. Simmons, Steven Weber, Marilu Henner, Joe Lo Truglio, Mather Zickel, Joey Lauren Adams, Molly Parker, Breckin Meyer, Rob Corddry, Rick Fox (as himself), George Takei (also as himself), not to mention — for the Veronica Mars fans out there — Kristin Bell, Enrico Colantoni, Daran “Cliff McCormack” Norris, Ed Begley Jr., Alona Tal and Jason Dohring. Matched up to the best sitcom scripts of the year, there was no way this show was going to fail. Even though I’m agnostic on the appeal of Megan Mullally (drafted in to replace Jane Lynch in season two), I have a strong feeling she will be magically transformed by this most glorious of shows.

Worst Cast of the Year: Parks and Recreation

I feel a little ill, because I’m about to criticise the casting of a show that has Amy Poehler in the lead role. Amy Poehler, who was the best thing about last year’s Baby Mama. Amy Poehler, who was one of the best things about SNL for the past few years. Amy Poehler, who was one of the three things in Southland Tales that was actually great and entertaining instead of desperately bad and misery-inducing (the other two things being The Rock and Wood Harris, with whom she shared her scenes). She makes me laugh pretty much every time I see her, but not here. In that case, I’m willing to assume she was just dealt a bad hand, and given a character who is unworkable. The only times Leslie Knope comes alive and becomes more than a badly formed lump of unrealistic character flaws is when she pines over Mark Brendanawicz, her selfish and unappealing colleague played by the talented Paul Schneider. Again, another talented actor playing an unlikeable and uninteresting character. Maybe I should rethink this category. Is it the cast, or the show, that I don’t like?

Well, Aziz Ansari is in it. I’ll admit, I have not seen much of his work. He was in Funny People for a couple of minutes, and the effect he had on me was akin to having my soul Maced. Perhaps I’m wrong. This show seems to be underwritten and poorly thought through, which could account for it, but his turn as Tom Haverford is almost unwatchable. I’d say that’s more than just a glitch in the writing. The same goes for Nick Offerman as the Dwight-Schrute-esque Ron Swanson, a character that screams desperation from the writers but is not at all helped by Offerman’s flat performance. Both Haverford and Swanson seem like the kernel of a joke expanded to character-size without much thought given to whether these characters will work. As it is, they’re just belligerent. The less said about Aubrey Plaza and her pointless teenage character April Ludgate, the better. (See above for comments about affectless, oblivious characters like Ludgate and Casey from Party Down.)

Perhaps the thing I resent most is putting someone as funny as Chris Pratt opposite a comedy void like Rashida Jones. She was charming enough in The Office but wasn’t expected to be particularly funny. Here she is either a dope being manipulated by Pratt’s Andy, or she berates him, making her seem churlish and him seem like a victim, which he isn’t. Crappy couples on TV are not often fun to watch (ask any Lost fan who despairs whenever Jack and Kate get together). I’m more than willing to accept that a lot of these actors are far better in other roles. Hell, I’ve seen them be better. Pratt was hilarious in The O.C. as Che, and Paul Schneider was riveting in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Perhaps I’m being way too harsh on these actors. Sadly, the bottom line is that, unlike The Office that came with only a couple of good characters, already based on archetypes from the UK series, and then built the supporting cast as they went along, Parks and Recreation started from scratch and got none of the characters right. Even a good cast would have trouble making this bunch of half-formed comedic scribbles come to life. In time, if it doesn’t get cancelled, perhaps this will change. Let me know when it does. Until then, I’ll stick with Community, Dan Harmon’s brilliant new sitcom, which recently started almost fully-formed and will hopefully keep getting better.

Best Guest Star of the Year: Jon Hamm - 30 Rock

For a little while, we were non-converts to the Cult of Hamm. He entertained us enough in Mad Men, but we had enough reservations about the first season that he didn’t really register in our consciousness, even after the Dick Whitman revelation gave Hamm the best acting opportunities. Perhaps we thought he was just a pretty face, and couldn’t imagine there was anything else in there. Canyon was also offended by his Brylcreemed hair. She deemed it unappealing. I wasn’t about to argue.

Then came the far superior second season, and sightings of his normal hair (adorably floppy), and then a turn on Saturday Night Live that was so confident and charming that I fully expect Hamm to eventually challenge the hosting records fought over by Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Dramatic excellence, perfect comic timing, a willingness to play off his image, and seriously, one of the handsomest faces on Earth; if he can sing and dance, he’s got it all. We are now members of the Cult. Wearing robes and everything. It’s proper infatuation.

His three episode run as Dr. Drew Baird on 30 Rock was joyous. It was so good that the plot of his final episode, with him coming to realise that having everyone fawn over him all the time is something that doesn’t happen to anyone else, was even alluded to in the third season of Mad Men (reacting with bemusement when Sal points out that he doesn’t get hit on by flight attendants on every flight he takes, unlike Don, who is obviously spoilt for choice). Once Mad Men is over, Hamm can pretty much pick a direction. Not many actors get to achieve stardom and show both comedic and dramatic chops. Maybe he’s more like Dr. Drew than he realises.

Most Resurrected Character of the Year: Captain Jack Harkness - Torchwood: Children of Earth

I thought I always wanted Captain Jack’s immortality to be used more, as it’s a nifty little gimmick. I don’t think that any more.

Most Surprising Directorial Work of the Year: Akiva Goldsman on Kings and Fringe

Akiva Goldsman has done some awful things. His script for Batman and Robin is rightly reviled. He’s great at simplifying complex narratives and turning them into multiplex fodder (A Beautiful Mind, I, Robot). He’s the go-to guy for big movies based on crappy thrillers by bad writers (he’s adapted John Grisham and Dan Brown). When nerds hear his name, they sob with misery. “Why is this man so beloved of Hollywood?”, they shout. “It must be proof of its awfulness, along with the career of Michael Bay!” Of course, my own feelings about Bay are not so straight-down-the-line, and now, Goldsman has begun to win me over.

All he had to do was build up his experience as a director by making two of the strongest hours of TV of the 2008-2009 season. His debut, on Kings‘ The Sabbath Queen, showed a talent for atmospherics and interesting visuals, pacing the episode beautifully and getting some good performances from even the weaker actors on the show. After that he wrote and directed Bad Dreams, one of the highlights of Fringe’s first season. Again, the creepy atmosphere was beautifully judged, and the opening few minutes were hypnotically staged. Even better, the big finale was disturbing and tense, even as it played with some less than fresh ideas, and then we got a video clip of a young Olivia that wouldn’t have looked amiss in Hideo Nakata’s Ringu. If you’ll forgive me for cheating and ignoring my own rules, we’ve also seen his work on the first episode of the second season of Fringe, and again, it was very impressive. In time it’s obvious that he will be directing films too. I hope he finds some interesting material to work with, but even if not, I look forward to seeing what he will come up with.

Least Surprising Directorial Work of the Year: Greg Yaitanes on House and Lost

Shades of Caruso took against the TV (and occasional film) director Greg Yaitanes after some hilariously overwrought and showy work on shows such as Heroes and Drive, and we’ve yet to be convinced he deserves reappraisal. Last year he won an Emmy for his work on the first part of the House season finale, which would have been understandable when you take the logistics of the shoot into account, but is frustrating when Katie Jacobs’ work on the far more affecting final episode wasn’t even considered (and she’s listed as co-director of the Yaitanes episode too, but didn’t get a nomination). Since then, Yaitanes has been given a co-producer credit on House, and contributed numerous episodes to this season, including the shocking Simple Explanation, in which Kutner (Kal Penn) commits suicide offscreen.

I will say this: the scene where Foreman and Thirteen discover the body was brilliantly done. Unfortunately, Yaitanes had a vision for this episode and went ahead with it. Everyone at Princeton Plainsboro is obviously very depressed about Kutner’s death, so Yaitanes lights the entire episode as if all the colour has been drained from the hospital. It’s an entirely grey hour of TV, just in case you didn’t get it from the performances or dialogue or sad music all over the place. To be honest, the episode Joy, directed by an unexpectedly off-colour Deran Serafian, featured the worst direction of the season, but Yaitanes was consistently bad here, and worse elsewhere.

You see, he also managed to infect my beloved Lost with his ridiculous film-cooties. I could talk about the flashy work he did on Heroes, but to be honest he’s the least of that show’s problems, so I don’t really mind if he stays on it. Lost, however, is a totally different matter. He had worked on the show before, in the first season, and as we started rewatching the show recently, I noticed he was kinda bad then too. That was when the show was in its infancy, and was still trying to find its tone, so his attention-seeking excesses were less obvious. By now, we all know what works and what doesn’t work within the very specific Lost world, which made Yaitanes’ excesses even more noticeable than usual. We know that Ben is creepy and Sayid is scary and intimidating, which are characteristics stressed by their very specific line-readings. In He’s Our You, we see a flashback to a face-off between the two characters, and both Michael Emerson and Naveen Andrews draw out their sentences to absurd lengths, with poorly edited pauses between each shot emphasising that they are both very methodical people who hate each other.

Lost usually treats these big moments with a sense of grandeur that works well, considering the unapologetically grandiose nature of the narrative, but this scene stepped over the line between epic and ridiculous. It made my favourite show seem like a parody of itself. I don’t even want to get into the awful “interrogation” scene later (included above), which was poorly written but even more poorly directed. What was Andrews doing here? It’s all over the place. The final scene with Sayid shooting young Ben was brilliant, but it was the only bright spot in a very disappointing hour of Lost. When you compare this horrible misinterpretation of the tone of the show to the consistently impressive work of star directors Jack Bender and Stephen Williams, it just looks amateurish. I keep hoping he’ll settle down, but the latest episode of House was directed by him, and as it was about a games programmer, most shots seemed to feature arms coming out of the side of the frame towards the person being observed, just like an FPS, so it might be a while before he realises less is more.

Best Shout-Out of the Year: House

Stephen Colbert is a huge fan of House, and it seems the feeling is mutual. (It’s the photo above his shoulder, obviously.)

This is the only way Colbert is ever going to get on a Fox channel without being mischaracterised as a baby-eating Trotsky clone.

Intensity of the Year: Lance “Intensity” Reddick – Fringe

While Parks and Recreation fans, or Dexterites, or people with Unusual taste, might be mad at me for being a big meanie and saying such terrible things about their favourite shows, surely there can be no controversy here. No one else this year was so stern and scary and just fucking in charge.

I suspect Lance “Intensity” Reddick can atomise titanium just by looking at it. As with Harry Lennix on Dollhouse, Reddick is pretty under-used on Fringe. Most of the time he is onscreen he’s taking the Fringe team to various crime scenes, or giving Olivia either a bollocking or a pep talk. This is not a good use of this man’s talents. He also showed up in Lost, as the sinister Matthew Abaddon, where he stopped being sinister just before getting shot and killed. Which sucked. I hope season two of Fringe sees him doing more entertaining stuff. I’d like him to shoot one of their ridiculous monsters (a part squid, part mushroom teenager hiding under carpets, for instance), or have more screen time with Blair Brown and Her Metallic Arm. If the Fringe showrunners don’t hurry up, he could well get very bored very soon. In this AV Club interview,  he says he wants to try his hand at comedy. (For the record, though he is seemingly never required to show it on TV, Mr. Reddick is fully capable of expressing amusement, and isn’t just a scarily intense man.)

If he left Fringe to do that, you know I’d be checking it out.

And that’s it for this year. In the next few weeks, some new polls or something. Maybe some chatter about the London Film Festival (I got really carried away buying tickets the other week). Stay tuned, new readers. As you can see, I may not post as often as I would like, but when I do, I tend to post big.

You can’t stop it.

From Sci Fi Wire.

แม้ลูกถนัดด้านภาพและผังความคิดหลักในการสืบเสาะความหมายแฝงจะต่างกันสุดขั้ว แต่กลับมีขนบการสร้างงานพ้องกันอยู่ในผลงานของเอ็ม ไนท์ ชามาลัน(M. Night Shyamalan)กับไมเคิล มานน์(Michael Mann) ใต้ผ้าพันแผลอาบยาสลบของค.ศ.2000 สังคีตยุทธพลันกัมปนาท ความระทึกพวยพุ่งในความเงียบสงัด วันดีคืนดี วิญญาณมนุษย์ค้างคาวเข้าสิงนกฮูกซึมกระทือใน Unbreakable ส่วนผู้บริหารขี้หงอใน The Insider(ค.ศ.1999)ก็องค์ลง ปวารณาตัวจองเวรกับวงการยาสูบ มีความละม้ายในงานของสองผู้กำกับต่างวัยทั้งในงานขนาดย่อมและงานไว้ลาย

ความพ้องพานในงานของเอ็ม ไนท์ ชามาลันและไมเคิล มานน์จะเป็นที่ประจักษ์ในชั่วความยาวของบทความนี้ ไม่เฉพาะในแง่ใดแง่หนึ่ง หากหมายรวมไปถึงความสอดประสานอันสืบเนื่องลื่นไหล แม้จะมีให้เห็นเพียงนานทีปีหน แม้กระนั้น การเปรียบต่างคนทั้งสองพิกัดต่อพิกัดน่าจะช่วย น่าจะช่วยทุ่นแรงได้มาก ในแง่หนึ่งมานน์เป็นรุ่นลายครามคร่ำหวอดอยู่ในวงการถ่ายทอดเรื่องราวผ่านภาพ ไม่เกี่ยงงาน กำกับได้ทั้งงานเดินตามขนบและตามใจตัวเอง อีกด้านหนึ่งคือรัตติกาลขี้อาย(Night and Shy)ในคราบเด็กพิเรนท์ตาแป๋ว มุ่งมั่นและคึกคะนอง

เหมือนเป็นการบ่มกลั่นจนเกือบนานเกินรอเป็นครั้งที่สอง มานน์กำกับ Heat(ค.ศ.1995)ในวัย 50 ต้น ๆ ตบะหนังแก่กล้าเจนจบ ถึงพร้อมด้วยกลเม็ดทว่าสุขุมในทุกก้าวย่าง ขณะที่หนังผีของราตรีขี้อายก็แสนละเมียดเนิบนาบเสียจนตะคริวจับ

ลูกผีลูกคน(Gray Zone)

งานทั้งสองเรื่องเข้ากันเป็นคอหอยลูกกระเดือกในเรื่องความเคลือบแคลงวังเวง ปราศจากอารมณ์ฟูมฟาย รปภ.กะกลางคืน(บรูซ วิลลิส)เพิ่งประจักษ์ในพลังแห่งเจตจำนงของตนลอกคราบกลับไปกลับมาระหว่างภาพลักษณ์ซีดหมองพอกันระหว่างการเป็นพ่อบ้านเงื่องหงอยเหมือนสีเทากระดำกระด่าง และผู้พิทักษ์สนามกีฬาผู้มาพร้อมกับเงาทะมึน

เจฟฟรีย์(รัสเซล โครว)ผู้บริหารปลายแถวถูกนายจ้างตักเตือน จากนั้นบททดสอบชวนใจหายใจคว่ำก็ประเดประดังเข้ามา เดวิดเป็นผู้รอดชีวิติหนึ่งเดียวจากอุบัติเหตุทางรถไฟ

ลือกันไปทั่วว่าเจฟฟรีย์จะลากไส้บริษัทที่ตนเองเป็นลูกจ้าง รอเพียงคนจุดประกายมาปรากฏตัวเพื่อปลุกจิตวิญญาณวีรบุรุษ และมอบอนุสติ ทั้งนี้คนจุดประกายมักเป็นพวกอยู่ไม่สุขและสีสันจัดจ้าน ไม่ก็ฉลาดเป็นกรด เหมือนเคยกะล่อนหาตัวจับยากมาก่อนแต่เลิกพฤติกรรมนั้นแล้ว

เอไลจาห์(แซมมวล แอล แจ็คสัน)ใน Unbreakable คอการ์ตูนเข้าเส้น ผู้พิสมัยชุดเสื้อคลุมสีช้ำเลือดช้ำหนองยาวกรอมเข่า เขาคนนี้เชื่อว่าเดวิดคิดไม่ตกคือวีรบุรุษ ส่วนใน The Insider นักข่าวโลเวล(อัล ปาชิโน)(กับการวาดลวดลายสวมบทขั้นสุดยอด)ร่ายโวหารชักแม่น้ำทั้งห้าไม่รู้จักเหน็ดเหนื่อยสมราคาความกร่างระหว่างตามตื้อเจฟฟรีย์ให้ดับเครื่องชนกับสารเสพติดในบุหรี่

ก็เห็นอยู่ว่ามนุษย์หาเช้ากินค่ำเหล่านี้ตะหงิด ๆ จะประกาศธาตุแท้อันองอาจให้รู้ดีรู้ชั่ว แต่กระนั้นความอึมครึมลูกผีลูกคนในตัวพวกเขาหาได้สูญสลายไป หนำซ้ำกลับหนักข้อกว่าเดิม เจฟฟรีย์เป็นนักสู้ลมเพลมพัด เขาพร้อมจะผละหนีจากเส้นทางการลุยไถทุกขณะจิต ฉันใดก็ฉันนั้น เดวิดยังคิดไม่ตกอยู่วันยังค่ำนับแต่เหตุการณ์ที่สถานีรถไฟจนถึงสระน้ำ การให้สีดังกล่าวแทบจะถือได้ว่าเป็นเบาะแสสำคัญคอยการคุ้ยแคะ ดังจะเห็นต่อมาใน The Village(ค.ศ.2004) ชุดคลุมหัวสีบาดตาห้องล้อมด้วยฉากหลังหม่นทึม ขับเน้นภาวะการเป็นผู้พักพิงดุจเดียวกับนักบวช ส่วนสีแดงกระชากขวัญของผีป่าคือการตายตกไปตามกัน

หนังเรื่องอื่น ๆ ของชามาลันและมานน์ต่างอัดแน่นด้วยภาวะอึมครึม(greyness)เย็นชา ไม่ว่าจะเป็นแสงฤดูหนาวชวนสั่นสะท้าน(ใน The Sixth Sense งานค.ศ.1999)  มนุษย์ต่างดาวปรากฏตัวสร้างความพิศวงงงงวยกลางทุ่งข้าวโพดเหลืองอร่าม(Signs งาน ค.ศ.2002)   การประลองลำหักลำโค่นระหว่างระหว่างขาใหญ่ของวงการ เดอ นิโร และปาชิโน ในทำนองเสือสองตัวอยู่ถ้ำเดียวกันไม่ได้ก็มีปูนและอลูมิเนียมเป็นส่วนประกอบหลักของสังเวียน(Heat)

มีการลดความสดปลั่งในภาพลักษณ์ทอม  ครูสกลายเป็นเพชฌฆาตสีเงินยวง ตะลุยไปทั่วแอลเออาบสีหมากสุกมลังเมลือง(งาน Collateral งานค.ศ.2004)  มือสังหารวินเซ็นต์แดกดันความแล้งน้ำใจและกักขฬะของแอลเอโดยถึงขั้นตั้งข้อสังเกตว่า ต่อให้มีคนขาดใจตายอยู่ในรถไฟก็อาจไม่มีใครผิดสังเกต และบทอวสานของเขาก็เป็นเช่นที่ว่า  จิ้งจอกเงินสิ้นชื่อปล่อยร่างงอก่องอขิงราวกับจะหลอมรวมเข้าเป็นเนื้อเดียวกับตัวถังสีเงินมันปลาบของรถไฟที่ซึ่งเดวิดพาตัวเองฝ่าออกมาในช่วงต้นของ Unbreakable

เหลือแต่ชื่อ

รสนิยมร่วมในเรื่องพิสมัยความเนิบเนือยและมิจฉาทิฐินับเป็นจุดแข็งในดงฮอลลิวูด ขณะที่การปฏิวัติทารันติโน(Tarantinian revolution)สีสันแสบทรวงก็ไม่เลือนหาย  เรื่องความแตกต่างนั้นไม่ต้องพูดถึง แต่ที่โลกของมานน์และชามาลันอึมครึมก็เพราะมวลสมาชิกเป็นเช่นนั้น ผู้คนในโลกเหล่านั้นล้วนตายไปแล้ว  ในงานของชามาลัน สร้อยการเล่าอันเจ้าเล่ห์ถักทอราบรื่นชวนตายใจเรื่อยมาจนกระทั่งมาความแตกในตอนท้ายของ The Sixth Sense  วิลลิสตามมารับบทให้ใน Unbreakable อีก ก็ไม่พ้นอีหรอบเดิมอยู่ดี ถึงจะแคล้วคลาดจากอุบัติเหตุรถไฟ แต่เขาก็ไม่ต่างกับผี เขามืดแปดด้านกับการประคับประคองชีวิตส่วนที่เหลือรอดมา  ใน Signs ก็เช่นเดียวกันภาพภรรยาที่ตายไปแล้วเหมือนยังคงวนเวียนอยู่ใกล้ ๆ คอยเ็ป็นปกป้องสามี   The Village คือภาพการมุงของเหล่านักมุง ผสมโรงด้วยภาพดงป่าอันน่าสะพรึงกลัว ความล้มเหลวในการผลิตซ้ำมัจจุราช(the Grim Reaper)  พวกชาวบ้านไม่รู้ว่าตนเป็นเพียงเงา(เพราะพวกเขาเหลือแต่ชื่อในโลกความเป็นจริงเบื้องนอก) แม้แต่ในโลกที่พวกเขาเดินเหินไปมาทุกเมื่อเชื่อวันชุดผ้าคลุมของพวกเขาก็ละม้ายกับบุคลิกของปีศาจจากหน้าหนังสือการ์ตูน

เบาะแสที่ทั้งตอกย้ำและขัดขาภราดรภาพคือ Manhunter งานค.ศ.1986 ของมานน์ หนังเรื่องนี้เข้าฉายในปารีสในชื่อว่า The Sixth Sense หนังของมานน์นั้นไม่ได้เน้นที่การเจาะภาพบุคลิกส่วนปีศาจ แต่จะมุ่งเสนอความเป็นไปของเหยื่อการพิพากษาแบบรวบรัดตัดความจะเอาโทษให้จงได้  การสิ้นชื่อไปแล้วในความหมายของมานน์ จึงมาในรูปของการต้องโทษตามธงพิพากษาที่ปักไว้ล่วงหน้า วิถีของตัวเอกในงานของมานน์จึงไม่ต่างกับหมูเดินชนปังตอ

ในกรณีของ Heat การหักเหลี่ยมเฉือนคมระหว่างปาชิโนกับเดอนิโรจบลงเหนือความคาดหมาย เพราะฝ่ายหนึ่งมีอันพลาดท่าแก่คมกระสุนอีกฝ่าย  Collateral ก็เช่นเดียวกันมือสังหารผู้ปลิดชีพผู้คนง่ายดายราวพลิกฝ่ามือกลับประจันหน้ากับมรณกรรมโดยปราศจากการแข็งขืนเป็นเรื่องเป็นราว ปริศนาธรรมว่าด้วยวงแดงที่ฌ็อง ปิแอร์ เมลวิลล์(Jean Pierre Melville)วางระบบไว้ในงานชุดนักสืบผู้ยอมพลีตนเพื่อภารกิจอันลือลั่นของเขาเป็นอันกระจ่างด้วยบทพิสูจน์ของมานน์

พวกนอกกฏหมายในหนังของมานน์ไม่เพียงมีชีวิตแบบตายผ่อนส่ง หากยังเวียนวนดำผุดดำว่ายข้ามไปข้ามมาระหว่างพรมแดนคุณค่าความหมายของความเป็นความตายอยู่เป็นทุนเดิม(ไม่เชื่อก็ดูปีกดำเมื่อมของอัศวินรัตติกาล – มนุษย์ค้างคาวเดวิด อันแสนประพิมพ์ประพายกับภาพลักษณ์ยมทูต(Grim Reaper)) หรือสารรูปของชาวบ้านใน The Village ก็เหมือนภูติผีไม่มีผิด ฉาบหน้าหนึ่งแปลงโฉมสู่กะโหลกต้นแบบดูเป็นพ่อบ้าน(เสื้อผ้าผมเผ้าอยู่ในกลุ่มสีเทา)ผู้ไม่เคยลังเลท่ามกลางห่ากระสุนหูดับตับไหม้ เขาไม่ลังเลจะจับเด็กหญิงตัวเล็กเป็นตัวประกัน อ้ายคนจัญไรหัวจรดเท้าโผล่มาสร้างความวินาสสันตะโร และลงท้ายก็สติวิปลาส ตะโกนสาปแช่งโสเภณีว่า นรกกำลังจะมาลากคอแกไป

 
ร่างไร้ชีวิตพเนจรไปในจักรวาลสีเทา ผู้กำกับทั้งสองอาจดูคล้ายเป็นพวกพิสมัยการสังฆกรรมกับศพซึ่งเข้าทางปืนสมมติฐานว่าด้วยมรณกรรมของภาพยนตร์(death of cinema) ไม่ก็ ..ของมนุษยชาติ ไปโน่นเลย ต้องเข้าเป้าสักอัน) จากจุดยืนดังกล่าวกอปรกับความอ่อนหัดก็อาจยกข้อหานั้นขึ้นมาปรักปรำ สูตรการแบ่งขั้วตามธงทฤษฎีมีบ้างที่ประเมินค่าชามาลันกับมานน์ในทำนองว่ารายแรกนั้นฝักใฝ่กับการเล่าเรื่องย้อนรอยเป็นบ้าเป็นหลัง ขณะที่ฝ่ายหลังก็ยังมีข้อหามือปืนรับจ้างทำงานตามใบสั่งติดเป็นชนัก

แต่ทั้งสองย่อมมีลูกหาิกินเป็นธรรมดา ทว่าพวกเขาก็สั่งสมบารมีจนเข้าขั้นเซียนเหยียบเมฆไปแล้วและนับวันก็ยิ่งติดลมบน คน ๆ หนึ่งแตกดับไปแล้วย่อมไม่มีวันตายหนสอง สีเทาจึงมีสถานะทั้งจุดเริ่มต้นและจุดสิ้นสุด คอยรองรับแย่งชิงพื้นที่ความหมาย สีแทนความหมายมากล้นของความเสมอเหมือน(virtuality)ในฐานะแหล่งสิงสุมของอะไรต่อมิอะไร) หัวเลี้ยวหัีวต่อระหว่างการจุติกับความตายดังที่พอล คลี(Paul Klee)ว่าไว้ ชามาลันและมานน์ไหนเลยจะไม่เฉลียวใจว่าพวกเขาย่อมมีวิถีของตน อันมีเรื่องราวที่พานพบ รหัสนัย เป็นตัวกำหนด แต่พวกเขาไม่ได้มาเพื่อนำเสนอสุสานวิจิตรอ่อนช้อยหรือเปลือก แต่อยู่เพื่อซักฟอกเรื่องราวเหล่านั้นให้จืดสนิทกันไปข้าง

วัฏจักรและจอ

รักจะเล่าเรื่องต้องตั้งศูนย์ถ่วงดี ๆ  ชามาลันและมานน์ต่างให้ความสำคัญและคิดค้นช่องทางขยับขยายเรื่องราว และทั้งคู่ต่างก็ไม่ถูกโรคกับสภาพบางอย่างเหมือนสวรรค์แกล้ง กล่าวคือ หัวเด็ดตีนขาดทั้งสองก็ไม่มีวันข่มเ้ขาหนังขืนให้ฟูมฟาย หรือแฉโพยเรื่องราวจนหมดเปลือกภายในคาบเหตุการณ์เดียวได้ ทำนองเดียวกับ Signs ที่เริ่มจากฟากฟ้าก่อนออกลายในภาคพื้นดิน  หรือเอไลยาห์ วาดจินตภาพตามเค้าโครงการ์ตูนทาบสวมเข้ากับตัวตนของเดวิด

องค์ประกอบพื้นฐานในงานของมานน์จากมุมมองดังกล่าวมีให้เห็นได้จาก Ali (งานค.ศ.2001) กับการบิแบ่งชีวประวัติอันเกรียงไกรออกเป็นเศษเสี้ยว หินผาล้มคว่ำไม่นำพาจะยืนหยัด หนังเริ่มจับเหตุการณ์ช่วงยอดมวยกลายเป็นตำนานไปแล้วมาขยายความและพุ่งเป้าไปที่การฉายภาพความสำเร็จล้มหลามเหลือเชื่อ ลีลาการขายขนมจีบกะเร่อกะร่าพอ ๆ กับการทอดไมตรีกับมัลคอล์ม  เอ็กซ์และพิธีกรรายการโทรทัศน์

คนดูไม่อาจล่วงรู้ตัวตนแท้จริงของอาลีว่าเป็นแค่ราคาคุยหรือคนจริง ซื่อหรือประชดส่ง  เท่าที่สัมผัสได้ก็จะเป็นการปลอบใจตัวเองด้วยภาพชีวิตยามรุ่งโรจน์สุดขีด  ในแง่การเล่าแล้ว โลกทัศน์ในหนังแบนราบขาดการร้อยโยง ตัวละครก็บ้องตื้น มีแบบแผนตายตัว ขุมข่ายเรื่องเล่าเข้าทำนองขึ้นต้นเป็นลำไผ่ลงท้ายกลายเป็นบ้องกัญชา ชิ้นงานแห่งความทรงจำต้องยกให้งานตามล้างตามล่าอย่าง Heat และ Collateral

กรอบการมองเปลี่ยนจากชุมชนเมืองมาเป็นวงการสื่อเมื่อมาถึง The Insider และ Ali แต่ที่มาที่ไปของกรอบการมองก็ไม่ได้เพื่อสนองตอบแนวคิดสัมพัทธนิยม  กลไกเหตุและผลกรองเก็บฝีภาพ “ฝากไว้ก่อน” และชักใบให้เรือเสีย หลงทางอยู่ในลายแทงหยาบ ๆ ของทะเลทรายอันไพศาลไร้ที่เปรียบ

แต่มาดการเล่าของชามาลันจะหนักไปในทางละมุนละม่อม อ้อมค้อมและเป็นสัดเป็นส่วน เรื่องราวจะกวาดรัศมีการเล่าและชำระความตัวละครผู้รักสันโดษและทนทุกข์กับการพลัดพรากจากปัจจัยพื้นฐานของชีวิต จอมหมกเม็ดยอมเสี่ยงต่อคำครหาว่าจมปลักอยู่กับอุปลักษณ์เรื่องราวใกล้ ๆ ตัว เพื่อที่จะวาดวัฏจักรอันมีจุดเริ่มต้นจากท่าบังคับแล้วค่อยหาทางหลบลี้จากหนี้เวรหนี้กรรมในบั้นปลาย

ชามาลันไม่เล็งผลเลิศกับปุจฉาโวหารเพราะเขาเชื่อในเรื่องนรกในใจ ในการนำเสนอภาวะอันเป็นรูปธรรมชามาลันจะกวาดตาไปรอบข้าง ภาพใหญ่ของหนังก็จะเป็นเหมือนรูปสัญญาณขนาดยักษ์เป็นอนุกรมการบอกเล่าที่ไขปริศนาได้ทั้งการมองเบื้องบน และลงพื้นที่สำรวจ  กรอบการทำงานจะเน้นฉายภาพวงจรนับจากวงจรหนึ่งขาดสะบั้นลง วงจรทางกายภาพสองอันก็จะลัดถึงกัน

นักเลงในงานของมานน์ฝันถึงวัฏจักรอันไม่มีวันพานพบ ความชิดเชื้อเป็นของแสลงสำหรับพวกเขา คนเหล่านี้ใฝ่ฝันจะมีบ้านดุจเดียวกับที่คนขับแท็กซีีใน Collateral แปรสภาพพื้นที่บนยานอวกาศลอยค้างเหนือค่ำคืนของแอลเอ ให้ลิ้มลองชั่วครู่ชั่วยาม

ในทางกลับกัน บางครั้งเอาเข้าจริงบ้านในหนังของชามาลันกลับหาได้เป็นป้อมปราการอันปลอดภัยไม่ หากซ้ำร้ายตัวละครกลับถูกจองจำด้วยภารกิจรักษาฐานที่มั่นไว้ให้จงได้  เหตุการณ์โอละพ่อจนโลกกลับตาลปัตร คนเหล่านั้นอ่อนไหวและห่วงหน้าพะวงหลัง ทางหนึ่งก็ไม่อยากเอาเป็นอารมณ์ แต่ก็มักตบะแตกกับปัจจัยยั่วยุโดยมีความรักเป็นเดิมพัน ขาดการห่วงหาอาทรมานานจนเกินเยียวยา  ดุจเดียวกับที่ เดวิด ตื่นขึ้นมาในเช้าวันหนึ่งของ Unbreakable อย่างคนหมดเคราะห์หมดโศก

จบ

แปลจาก

Aubron,  Herve. 2006. ’MIRRORED IMAGES: SHY AND MANN’. http://www.cahiersducinema.com/article823.html

• A Student’s Guide to the Medical Literature

• Social Media’s Promise for Public Health (e-Patients.net)

• Wikipedia to Color Code Untrustworthy Text (Wired Science)

Starting this fall, you’ll have a new reason to trust the information you find on Wikipedia: An optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page.

• Wikitude Breaks From the Pack; Releases Augmented Reality Browser API (Read Write Web)

• Doctors, Patients and Social Networks (Law.com) If you participate on a personal social network site, make it private. Keep professional relationships professional and personal relationships personal.

• Augmented Reality in a Contact Lens

Conventional contact lenses are polymers formed in specific shapes to correct faulty vision. To turn such a lens into a functional system, we integrate control circuits, communication circuits, and miniature antennas into the lens using custom-built optoelectronic components. Those components will eventually include hundreds of LEDs, which will form images in front of the eye, such as words, charts, and photographs. Much of the hardware is semitransparent so that wearers can navigate their surroundings without crashing into them or becoming disoriented. In all likelihood, a separate, portable device will relay displayable information to the lens’s control circuit, which will operate the optoelectronics in the lens.

I’m a member of the international advisory board of The Second Virtual Congress of General Practice and Family Medicine that is starting on the 21st of September. In the latest newsletter, Dr. Alexandre Gouveia included my thoughts as well:

Dear Colleagues,

I’ve been organizing medical events and scientific conferences in Second Life, the virtual world for years. Since 2007, I’ve been writing about the possible medical implications of such virtual environments on my blog – http://www.scienceroll.com. I really believe in their potential as I see many examples about how it can be used in language learning, meetings or conferences.

In today’s global financial crisis, it’s very important to lower the sky rocking costs of medical conferences, also travelling and logistics issues take precious time and doctors lose days in order to give a few slideshows and talk with colleagues. It shouldn’t work like that.

We all should be able to have sophisticated, secure, and fast channels for doctor-doctor; as well as doctor-patient communication. Web 2.0 will certainly play a major role in this development.

The 2nd Virtual Congress is a huge step in this direction and maybe the only initiative that can gather that many doctors around one important issue: making communication as simple and efficient as possible.

I’m looking forward to working with you on this and let’s organize more and more virtual conferences.

Kind regards,

Bertalan Meskó

Sultana projects has a virtual voyage available on the web, commemorating the 2007 voyage that recreated the 1608 voyage that John Smith took around the Chesapeake 400 years ago. The site John Smith 400 provides maps, excerpts from journals kept in 1608, and photos from the 2007 recreation of the voyage.

I wonder about this idea of virtual voyage: to what extent it can apply to any encounter we might have with the natural world. Say–the kind of encounter you will have when you go to Jamestown. Or the kind you have already have: say, on the Sultana Saturday afternoon. That was a real voyage, but also virtual. Does “virtuality” limit the importance or significance of the experience? Does virtual suggest less than natural?

The film The New World that we will screen is another virtual experience of Smith and the first encounter of the Chesapeake by English speaking voyagers. But isn’t the journal Smith and others kept during the experience another virtual experience: words they use to record encounters; sketches of what they see and what they hear coming from the people they encounter; the maps that are drawn. Or even further–though it might be perverse to think of virtuality this way: the virtual experience of the new world of the Chesaepeake and its environment that Smith has in the food he eats from the water. Isn’t that first oyster eaten a virtual encounter, of sorts, with the whole history that leads up to it–and stranger still (like a film might do, flashing back and forward), the virtuality of the many more times such things will be done in years to come.

Might virtuality be, in fact, not just a limitation–what we are left with–that is inevitable but a necessary way to understand our experience? Might a film of the Chesapeake, such as The New World, be a way not just to represent the Chesapeake in its history and human culture but in fact a good way to understand it?  Good, because virtual. I may be getting into some ethical issues here as much as aesthetic. But I wonder what you think of the virutality of your experience as you head around the Chesapeake, exploring it like a new world, like John Smith 400 years ago.

The DVD of the film includes a documentary of the making of The New World. It describes quite an extensive process that the filmmakers undertook to recreate the world of Smith and Pocahantas. Not just the attention to detail–which we might expect from a film, getting things historically accurate. I was more struck by what I am thinking (now) of as virtuality. The various actors portraying the groups of colonists and natives all trained in advance, as a group, in a sort of camp, in order to become closer to what they were portraying. Something like doing an intensive study for a semester. This got me thinking. Would a good research model for studying the Chesapeake–even this Chesapeake semester–be making a movie of it? In other words, a movie in which the product is significant, but just as important would be the process of making it. So, maybe one or more of you will consider that as you continue: turning your learning into filming. We will give more time (by way of Dillard and seeing) to some work with visually recording the Chesapeake. For now, think about The Chesapeake: The Movie. What would yours be?

Food for expanded thinking.

Recently I have been compiling a comparison chart of characteristics between Reality and Virtuality. How are they similar? Do they have unique properties/characteristics that only exist in each realm?

During a conversation with an author, I began pondering something he stated about how a world (The environment in which a story or writing occurs to maintain the reality of the story)  must be as complete, both in the modeling  and in the belief structure just as they are in reality. A world, to be completely believable or plausible, must have consistent rules or laws that govern actions and affects. Working outside these rules breaks down the creditability of the story and also creates errors in the writer’s and reader’s mind. You must have full control if you are to have truth in your reality.

I must admit, heavy stuff to think about, but, and this is a big but, what if this is true of virtuality. Does virtuality have rules and belief structures in place in order to support its sense of reality? If so, could this be the main reason why some virtual applications fail to be believable while others excel at popularity and involvement? Are there rules and belief structures in virtual realms? That is the big question moving forward.

Just as there are rules for morality, religion and social interaction, laws that govern structural perimeters like physics and nature, are there boundaries, bylaws and beliefs in virtuality? How similar is the virtual world to the world of reality?

Since virtuality is just beginning, the present is the perfect time to begin investigating what defines Virtuality. Some individuals have stated to me that virtual worlds exist beyond rules, but that is far from the truth. To be virtual, the application alone is a vast world of codes. These codes are the law or physics that govern the fabric of virtuality. I see the One’s and Zero’s as the atoms that make up our reality. Each smallest particle within each “Place” is controlled by the laws of its physics and nature. If this is true, then where does the comparison end? Is there an afterlife in “Second Life”? If so, what is spiritual presence in a virtual realm?

Who knows, maybe there is a whole new science. Quantum physics, Astrophysics and now Virtus physics. Virtual Einstein’s theory of “Virtualtility” V=ECsq.

Next in science the lab, we split of bits to create reality?

Coster-Waldau, who recently starred in the sadly-failed TV pilot Virtuality has been cast in HBO’s Game of Thrones, a series based on the George RR Martin series of fantasy novels. I have to confess to not being familiar with the novels at all, so if any of you readers have enjoyed them, let me know! I thought Coster-Waldau gave an interesting performance in Virtuality; it’s a shame we’ll probably never see that story brought to life, since most of the cast have moved on. (Kerry Bishe, who also appeared in Virtuality, has just been given a regular role on Scrubs.)

It’ll be interesting to see if Game of Thrones does well, simply because fantasy is such a hard genre to get right. Take the material too seriously and it comes off as po-faced and inaccessible, but treat it too lightly and it seems immature and cartoonish. Still, if HBO are pumping money into it, at least we know it’ll be visually impressive. Perhaps this could be the next Rome? The BBC co-funded that series with HBO, just as they’re doing with Game of Thrones, so it’s entirely possible.

Shooting starts in Belfast in October 2009.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has been cast as Jaime Lannister

Over the summer a number of interesting casting calls and subsequent choices are always announced, but the most interesting developments I’ve been following are those in the ongoing process to cast the HBO pilot Game of Thrones. Initial announcements that Sean Bean and Peter Dinklage would appear in major roles excited fans, but casting news soon dried up after reports that HBO was upset about the leaked names and was searching for the culprit behind them.  However George R.R. Martin, the author of the fantasy series Game of Thrones is based on, was aware of who had been cast in seven of the show’s roles and has been offering fans clues throughout the week on his Not a Blog.  Unfortunately, what he couldn’t offer fans was any idea of just when an official announcement confirming their suspicions would be made.

Tonight’s announcement of the actors and actresses cast in many pivotal roles in the series comes as a relief for fans, who have been madly working through Martin’s clues in an attempt to figure out the casting choices to date.  While official confirmation in itself is great news for fans, especially for this TV enthusiast who leaves for a week’s vacation on Saturday and feared the casting might occur while without Internet, the more impressive achievement is that the fans over at Winter Is Coming managed to collectively puzzle out who had been cast in each of the five adult roles!

Iain Glen is cast as Jorah Mormont.

Danish actor Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has been cast as Jaime Lannister, the twin brother of Queen Cersei and a Knight of the Kingsguard who earned the nickname “Kingslayer” after he killed the Mad King Aerys.  Waldau starred in the short-lived American series New Amsterdam and had a role in the Fox TV movie Virtuality.

Tamzin Merchant, who most recently appeared in The Tudors as Henry VIII’s fifth wife Catherine Howard, will play the exiled Princess Daenerys Targaryen, while Scottish actor Iain Glen (Into the Storm) has been cast as Ser Jorah Mormont, an exiled knight who becomes Daenerys’ trusted companion.

Rounding out the new additions to the cast are Richard Madden (Hope Springs), as Robb, Ned Stark’s eldest son and heir to Winterfell, and Alfie Allen, better known as the younger brother of singer Lily Allen, as Theon Greyjoy, Ned’s ward and hostage.  Newcomers Sophie Turner and Maisie Williams will play Ned’s daughters Sansa and Arya Stark respectively.

Tamzin Merchant will play Daenerys Targaryen.

Fan reaction to the casting choices has been mixed, with some very positive comments about the casting choices and some cautious about giving their approval.  As is often the case when a character is described as “handsome” or “beautiful” in the text, there is some debate over whether or not the actors and actresses cast have the right look for their roles.  However, the cast have Martin’s seal of approval.  He recently posted, “Yes, I’m thrilled with this cast. David and Dan and Tom and casting director Nina Gold are assembling a terrific group of actors”.  Martin has begun to post on each of the chosen actors explaining the clues that he gave and reassuring fans that Alfie Allen’s reading for Theon was strong.

Commenting on the two unknown actresses, Maisie Williams and Sophie Turner, Martin wrote, “Maisie brought Arya alive in a way that none of the other kids could match, right from the first. Sophie read two scenes; the scene with Arya on the kingsroad, and a much later one… two very different sides of the character. She knocked ‘em both out of the park.”

My Thoughts: I can’t speak to acting ability, as I’ve only seen the actors in snippets on youtube since they were cast, but I think Coster-Waldau looks like a perfect Jaime.  He’s handsome, appears to be charismatic, and after watching a fanvideo on youtube that Martin linked to I’m convinced that this is the Jaime I pictured when reading the novels.

I like Tamzin Merchant but The Tudors didn’t give her much of a chance to act beyond playing the seductress.  She’s not the most classically beautiful girl but I can see her working very well in the role if she has the acting ability and I trust George Martin and the casting team who have assembled such a wonderful group so far.

Richard Madden and Iain Glen both look the part, although again I haven’t seen either of them act, and Martin’s comments about Williams and Turner have me convinced that they will be great.  I think Alfie Allen is the one I’m least sure about.  He doesn’t fit the image I had of Theon, but then Theon has never been my favourite character or one that I considered particularly interesting.  However, if George Martin believes he did a great job then I’m sure that we have nothing to worry about.

After by Amy Efaw
Devon never knew she was pregnant. As a straight-A student, soccer star, and all-around girl next door, she’s done everything possible to avoid being the teen mom and general screw-up her mom was.  But after one night with a very kind boy, everything spun out of control, and now Devon is awaiting trial for leaving an infant in a dumpster. But how can she be guilty if she can’t recall a thing? And what will happen to the life she planned?  This book is 100% un-put-d0wn-able.  While the story may sound grim, Devon’s plight is touching, not shocking, and her voice reels you in from page one.  After is absolutely one of my top picks for August 2009.

Rampant by Diana Peterfreund
Forget everything you’ve heard about unicorns.  They are not fluffy or cute, they do not grant wishes.  They are vicious, man-eating beasts who can only be killed by virgin descendants of Alexander the Great.  Astrid grew up hearing these stories from her lunatic mother.  But when she is attacked by a zhi, her nightmares come to life and her mother’s obsession has all the proof it needs to turn Astrid’s world upside down.  She is sent off to Rome to meet up with other 21st Century would-be unicorn hunters.  It may sound like a vacation, but danger is around every corner.  Rampant is an absurd thrill-ride and a perfect escape from every other fantasy out there.  Killer unicorns?  Come on – there have been enough vampires, zombies, and werewolves to keep us sated for years to come.  But Peterfreund’s YA debut is fresh, new, and ready to help you end your summer vacation with a bang.  Or an “alicorn” to the chest, if you like.

Fade to Blue by Sean Beaudoin
Fade to Blue is easily among the weirdest books I’ve ever read – and the most engaging. The heroine, Sophie Blue – or Gothika, as her not-so-friendly classmates call her – is haunted by visions of a mad popsicle truck driver, and thinks she hears a voice telling her to visit ‘the lab.’  Sophie’s best friend, Lake, an ex-cheerleader-turned-paraplegic, has little advice to offer.  Her mother is too depressed and disconnected to help.  The school counselor only makes her write essays, and her brother, O.S., is seemingly too caught up in his comic books to do anything but get fatter.  But when Kenny Fade, basketball star, starts to question his perfect life, reality begins to unravel, and Sophie is forced to confront something she has been trying to put past her: the disappearance of her father.  With its references to pop culture, snarky sense of humor, and a pleathora of bizarre characters, Fade to Blue will stick with you long after you’ve turned the last page.

Rhizome, a favorite website here at tirado/thrown, directs our attention to these animated gifs from artist MDCCLXIV.  At first, they resembled little more the Mayan temple’s  ziggurat cousins to us.  But a close eye on the way the images unfold rewarded us with the deceptively simple geometric patterns that give structures like those in Tikal the austere rigidity to peek their tops out over the jungle canopy.  The contrast created by the crayon and pastel-colored gradations only heighten the possibility of grasping the geometry at work- breathing, pulsing, spinning, rising and falling.  From the name of the series from which these pieces belong, “About the Field of Statistics”, there’s quite possibly some mathematical ontology to be had here.

The initial allure of these pieces comes on the heels of a day where chats, discussions, phone calls, and re-established connections with friends and relatives from Guatemala and Honduras occupied a great deal of time.  They’re potent, abstract reminders of a land and culture that’s in our cells and are yet to discover here at tirado/thrown. On this occasion they were even more potent than photos of the pyramids themselves, in that their truth resided precisely in their rendering as virtual, which was more faithful to the nature of the highly mediated communicatons conducted via cell and internet than a photo or video of a temple itself (which served more as a secondary reference than anything).

[Image Credit: MDCCLXIV, via Rhizome.]

I’ve been writing about the possible medical implications of virtual worlds for years. We do case presentations in Second Life and organize medical events in virtual environments almost for free. And now here are two more examples.

Dr James Bateman (Coventry & Warwickshire University Hospitals) talks  about how virtual patients can be integrated into simulation-based teaching.

Wired wrote about a tool I tried myself at the Medicine Meets Virtual Reality conference in Long Beach, CA this year.

More about medicine in the virtual worlds:

• Top 10: Virtual Medical Sites in Second Life!
• How and Why to use Second Life for Education?
• Scientific Events in Second Life?

• 23andMe in Second Life: LIVE
• Nature’s role in e-Science: Second Life conference LIVE
• Famous Scientific Bloggers in Second Life: LIVE
• SciFoo lives on in Second Life: Web 2.0 and Medicine

• Live Blogging Today: First Medical Simulation in Second Life!
• Near-real Clinical Experience in Second Life
• Unique Medical Simulation in Second Life!
• New Educational Tools in Second Life
• Genetics in Second Life
• Interview about the genetic revolution of Second Life
• Electronic Medical Records in a Virtual Hospital: Interview!
• From Virtuality to Reality: Second Life Fitness