criterionforum.org

Haha, though the ruling classes of Mexico are largely white European sorts.

About The Wire: I don't see how Baltimore is a boring location, even in the most superficial sense, as the setting creates life and death stakes for at least half of the characters every episode. To Andre's point that The Wire might have worked elsewhere: You're kidding, but in a sense, you're kind of right. Simon has said his show -- steeped as it is in personal journalistic and novelistic detail about Baltimore -- was meant to reflect the broader experience of urban African Americans in the drug war of the past few decades. It could have worked in Newark (like the fictionalized stand-in Dempsy in Richard Price's novel Clockers, one of Simon's touchstones for his series), parts of NYC, Chicago or even Los Angeles (at least in the 1980s-1990s). Elements of the police bureaucracy storyline were borrowed from NYC innovations like CompStat. Yet it's the literary aspirations of the show that go beyond the genre elements and the universal themes that elevate its achievement and justify the uniqueness of the location. I don't think anybody here is making claims like this for either incarnation of The Bridge.

I'm absolutely not begrudging the Danes for setting a story in their own backyard. It's obviously a compelling locale for their national audience. And I'm sure, like those above have said, it's well executed for what it is.

Just that the idea that these things can and should be exported seems goofy to me. Like those cross-cultural adaptations of sitcoms such as Everybody Loves Raymond or Friends based on not very original "originals" that nevertheless end up seeming so different that they might as well have been "based on" nothing at all. Or compare the silly thrills of Homeland to the more somber dramatics of the Israeli original, which to my line of argument here might at least in theory make more sense geopolitically and thematically but seems a lot less addictively watchable in practice. In this case it's the nearly gleeful contextlessness of Homeland that allows it to work for me as entertainment.

What about any other border in the world? Like the still-in-development version of The Bridge between England and France called The Tunnel? For me it seems a more promising setting than the original but perhaps less than the American remake. But my point about this has always been that, yeah, you could tell this kind of story anywhere. Just that if you want it to go on for more than a few hours, the specific socioeconomic and geopolitical context matters more. I'll also note that nobody's standing up for the U.S./Canadian border as a location, which is, in fact, where the American version of The Bridge was initially supposed to be set -- just Detroit/Windsor instead of the West Coast. I guess because Canadian tension played better as a Michael Moore comedy? Or could it be that, even within the U.S., one border might be more interesting than another?

Andre, you're not incorrect to note that a posture of war -- even perhaps or especially a Cold War -- would amp up the tension. Which is why I suppose HBO is working on a Berlin set Cold War pilot right now. Once border tension gets beyond a certain point, though, it starts to limit narrative possibilities too, to turn most of the potential players into soldiers or spies. An ideal border for a crime thriller ought to have some degree of permeability.

About the idea that a murder on a border is original in crime fiction? Not so much. Perhaps just that initial image and the admittedly brilliant halfsies reveal.

Of course, those fictional pitch meetings were obviously exaggerated parodies (should I have used a ?). Though, at least from the real meetings I've been privy to, the concerns expressed by showrunners and execs are not. Which is the very reason money men are so adapt-happy. If they're going to bet their career on a "yes," then they might as well bet on something that's already succeeded somewhere in the world. In terms of their own self-preservation, how is that not a smart thing to do? It's also, often, the easier thing to do too. But if you'll notice, I've been giving both the American showrunners and execs this time around massive props for taking a tangible risk and changing the setting to one that's both more compelling and dangerous than it might have been.

About the straw man suggestion that what I've been saying about the relative homogeneity of Scandinavia might as well imply, for instance, that Chinese and Japanese culture is the same: Since you've brought them up, let's say that their simmering political tensions -- and baggage from fairly recent memories of 20th century war crimes -- seem to trump any ancient Viking grievances that might be hanging over those darn Scandinavians.

Name-calling -- really, knives? Anyway, if you can find some detailed official government warnings about travel to the border regions of Denmark/Sweden, we'll talk more about your take on the marginal differences between those two countries vs. the U.S./Mexico.

Andre is almost certainly being sarcastic in his "boring ol' Baltimore" comment

Consider this a friendly mod reminder to everyone involved to please take a deep breath and step away from the thread for a bit if necessary

The Sweden/ Denmark border might not have a 1:1 to Mexico and the US, but I don't think anyone has argued that. Just that the political tensions between the cultures which can be evidenced in a lot of their art (Insomnia and Pelle the Conqueror for example) is ripe for examination that can benefit a television in much the same way the tensions between the US and Mexico (which frankly I think on a local level you are greatly exaggerating) is interesting. Without seeing how they comment on each other you are coming across as just daft in your criticisms of the original (especially given what a terrible show this remake is proving itself as).

knives wrote:Haha, though the ruling classes of Mexico are largely white European sorts.

What are you laughing at? In the context of Andres last statement, yours makes zero sense when it comes to issues about the border.

I was laughing at his joke. My intent was to convey that I found what he said humourous without relying on something annoying like 'lol'. Subsequent to that my statement was meant to convey the further ridiculousness of the concept Andre was satirizing by pointing towards modern Mexico's European heritage amongst the upperclass.

OK. I haven't seen the original. So I won't begin to touch on the discussion about its merits versus the US remake. Additionally, since there is a monumental difference between the micro cultures found on the Texas / Mexico border versus where I grew up, on the California / Mexico border, I'm not going to get into the minutiae of how trying to tackle "Frontera" issues in this specific show are futile.

Unfortunately, I found the show to be a real letdown. Especially after finding out it was a remake. After watching the trailers during The Americans, my wife and I were both intrigued, thinking it was going to be about the unsolved serial murders of women from Juarez. It was a disappointment to find out it wasn't anything close.

This series is attempting to do, say and tackle way too much and it falls flat. It's interesting that a show as excellent as The Wire was mentioned because part of the success of that show was that it didn't try to take on all issues at once. On the contrary, it tackled specific issues every season all the while developing the core cast and thematically studying a body of topics.

One other disappointment is the fear mongering. For example, the sequence where the reporter goes to Juarez and witnesses a murder that took place in broad daylight in a market, that appeared to happen over some inane disagreement, is just asinine. The chances of an American crossing the border and actually witnessing a murder are pretty much zero. Yet, I actually have to have discussions with people, such as coworkers, about how going south will not result some kind of violence, kidnapping or witnessing of a murder.

I will give credit to Demian Bichir, who's performance, for the most part, has been refreshingly authentic Mexican. Unlike his cliched character / performance in the sorry ass show "Weeds."

So the one certainty from this discussion is that I really have to work on being more obvious when applying my terrible sense of humor.

warren oates wrote:About The Wire: I don't see how Baltimore is a boring location, even in the most superficial sense, as the setting creates life and death stakes for at least half of the characters every episode.

Yeah, as domino pointed out, the use of the term "boring" was supposed to be in jest. Having said that, I don't really agree that the setting is specifically responsible for augmenting the stakes encountered by the characters. Setting the series in Baltimore certainly enhances the show due to Simon's knowledge of the city and his ability to convey the concept that it's a forgotten city within US society, but the dynamics between characters and the weight of the bureaucracy they encounter is only mildly associated to Baltimore specifically.

Yet it's the literary aspirations of the show that go beyond the genre elements and the universal themes that elevate its achievement and justify the uniqueness of the location.

You would have to explain that point further in order for me to understand why having literary aspirations and universal themes justify the specific location being used. In my mind - which, truthfully, might be completely off-base - those qualities don't really have an automatic association with a unique location. In fact, the universal themes seem to actually add weight to the idea that the location need not be unique.

I don't think anybody here is making claims like this for either incarnation of The Bridge.

Whether The Bridge is in the same league if TV-greatness as The Wire (or whether it's considered high or low art) is not really the topic under discussion. What the series will ultimately achieve is still to be determined. What's relevant is how changing the setting influences the quality of the show, or more specifically (I guess) the assumed increase in interest for the show based on the perceived notion that a change in setting somehow vastly improves the results ... despite the absence of a baseline of quality to judge against.

I'm absolutely not begrudging the Danes for setting a story in their own backyard.

I don't know, it really sounds like you are begrudging them, as if it was ridiculous that they attempt this concept based on how slim the differences are between the two cultures:

"Don't forget all the cultural differences!" "Right, we're so different from the Swedes. They'll be all kinds of subtle tensions..."

... it's about actual, measurable "cultural differences" ... versus the more minor quibbles between two comparatively safe, stable, gun-free and homogeneous countries...

I'm sure that two of the tallest, healthiest relatively whitest and wealthiest nations in Europe could disagree all day about their "cultural differences" but that won't make a show about a border between them any more interesting or relevant ...

It's obviously a compelling locale for their national audience.

I'm not sure why this concession isn't also being applied for the US audience. The US-Mexican border is a more obvious choice for drama for US audiences, because it's more easily comprehended by US viewers.

Just that the idea that these things can and should be exported seems goofy to me.

Yet you seem pretty supportive about it in this case.

Or compare the silly thrills of Homeland to the more somber dramatics of the Israeli original, which to my line of argument here might at least in theory make more sense geopolitically and thematically but seems a lot less addictively watchable in practice. In this case it's the nearly gleeful contextlessness of Homeland that allows it to work for me as entertainment.

Perhaps one of the problems within this discussion is that the element of entertainment or direct engagement seems to be taking priority over all others. Seems as though the more contemplative or somber a series in the less obvious the appeal seems to be.

But my point about this has always been that, yeah, you could tell this kind of story anywhere. Just that if you want it to go on for more than a few hours, the specific socioeconomic and geopolitical context matters more.

I think the point that everyone else is trying to make is that the already obvious and known socioeconomic and geopolitical context and differences, while perhaps more immediately compelling, might not be as fascinating over the course of 10-50 hours as all the subtle differences in culture that create discord between characters. It might be a difference in having preconceived notions and expectations reinforced versus having to explore and examine some unspoken and hidden grievances.

I'll also note that nobody's standing up for the U.S./Canadian border as a location, which is, in fact, where the American version of The Bridge was initially supposed to be set -- just instead of the West Coast. I guess because Canadian tension played better as a Michael Moore comedy? Or could it be that, even within the U.S., one border might be more interesting than another?

I'm not sure how we're supposed to make declarations on a concept for a show that doesn't exist. For all we know the version of the show with the US/Canada border might have been better than either version of the show and would have revealed more about the actual differences between two friendly countries that do have a great deal of unspoken contempt or disdain for each other.

Andre, you're not incorrect to note that a posture of war -- even perhaps or especially a Cold War -- would amp up the tension... An ideal border for a crime thriller ought to have some degree of permeability.

Some of the borders I mentioned are still relatively permeable.

About the idea that a murder on a border is original in crime fiction? Not so much. Perhaps just that initial image and the admittedly brilliant halfsies reveal.

I don't know where it's been stated that the idea of murder on a border is original in crime fiction. I'm saying that no US TV-exec came up with the concept for this show on their own by pulling the idea out of thin air through a sudden moment of originality, and that their choice to tweak the premise while apt for their audiences, is not exactly all that original. The Danish version had to exist for any TV-exec in any other country to try to adapt it. Your original statement was that there was no other reason for the US-version to be based on any pre-existing property other than the overly-cautious attitude adopted by all TV-development execs who require the safety of saying something is a remake of a Danish TV-series. Your original statement implied that the US-execs really created something amazingly unique with their adjustment, but just required that their premise be rubber-stamped as a Danish-remake for the purposes of getting the final go-ahead.

Of course, those fictional pitch meetings were obviously exaggerated parodies (should I have used a ?).

Yeah, somehow I managed to figure that out. And no, smilies aren't necessary to convey how ridiculous they were, but it would probably have been easier to take and better suited to your argument if you didn't reduce the Danish TV-execs to uncreative dolts incapable of creating anything new while the American execs were pitched as bold and innovative for having figured out where the most high-profile border in America is. It just doesn't seem to be that much of an accurate parody when the folks that created the initial concept are far more inept at their job than the folks that adapt an idea, with their biggest contribution being the more obvious of their two potential choices.

Though, at least from the real meetings I've been privy to, the concerns expressed by showrunners and execs are not. Which is the very reason money men are so adapt-happy. If they're going to bet their career on a "yes," then they might as well bet on something that's already succeeded somewhere in the world. In terms of their own self-preservation, how is that not a smart thing to do? It's also, often, the easier thing to do too.

I'm aware how the entertainment industry works. I briefly worked at the head-offices of a movie studio and I still have friends who work within the TV and movie industries.

But if you'll notice, I've been giving both the American showrunners and execs this time around massive props for taking a tangible risk and changing the setting to one that's both more compelling and dangerous than it might have been.

Yes. It was noticeable. However, this decision doesn't seem to be the more daring of their two possible choices. It seems like the more obvious one.

About the straw man suggestion that what I've been saying about the relative homogeneity of Scandinavia might as well imply, for instance, that Chinese and Japanese culture is the same...

That was an exaggeration on my part for the sake of comedy. It was obviously poorly executed.

... seem to trump any ancient Viking grievances that might be hanging over those darn Scandinavians.

Yeah, Scandinavians should really just get over their collective ancient history. They're so silly.

[quote=""membrillo""]After watching the trailers during The Americans, my wife and I were both intrigued, thinking it was going to be about the unsolved serial murders of women from Juarez. It was a disappointment to find out it wasn't anything close. [/quote] From the interview linked to above:

Meredith Stiehm wrote:And we hope to not just be a police show. That's like one very strong strand of what we're doing. But the border is so interesting and El Paso and Juárez are so different in that they're so close that we feel like there's all these other stories to tell. And we're both just crazy about “The Wire.” And so our model in our minds of this is the way “The Wire” became about so many things in the city. It wasn't just a cop show. And I don't know if you know about the girls of Juárez, it's a genocide, really. These girls have been missing and being found dead for years, decades. And something we say in the room a lot is what drugs are to Baltimore, the girls are to Juárez. It's a chronic, horrible crime and a situation that we want to take on. And to us that's really what our second season is going to be about but we're going to start it now, The Girls of Juárez.

N.B.: Just sayin' here that by posting this I'm not in any way espousing Meredith Stiehm's assumption that it's fair to mention The Wire in any sort of favorable comparison with her show. Don't want to cause another row.

warren oates wrote:

Meredith Stiehm wrote:And something we say in the room a lot is what drugs are to Baltimore, the girls are to Juárez. It's a chronic, horrible crime and a situation that we want to take on. And to us that's really what our second season is going to be about but we're going to start it now, The Girls of Juárez.

Yet, the vast majority of murders in Juarez are drug/narco related.

David Simon knew what was doing and he knows Baltimore well. On the other hand you have some writer from LA with no firsthand experience talking out of her ass about something she knows zero about.

As I've no experience either in the entertainment industry, or even being close to Mexico (Bloomington is about as furthest south as I've ever been in my life), I really can't joust with anyone on the finer points of what's being debated here. All I know is that I like it for what I see it as, a well-crafted mystery with (mostly) interesting characters moving it along.

What do you make of where the show's gone so far, warren?

I'm not fully caught up. The last episode I've seen is Episode 8 "Vendetta," the one where, it seems,

Spoiler

the true villain was revealed and we see that he's got Marco Ruiz's wife! Oh no!

Frankly, that stuff bores the living shit out of me. It's one of the worst sins of contemporary thrillers in any medium and at every level -- just a lazy lifeless cliche -- to have the plot driven by the over-elaborate and laughably contingent plans of a patient crafty uberbaddie who can predict exactly what everyone will do (it's all part of his years-in-the-making plan after all!) and plays them like a fiddle until, invariably, because the story must soon end, one cop gets out ahead of him just in the nick of time. And if some or all of that by the numbers junk is what's borrowed from the original, then I was at least right about my own interest in this show having nothing to do with that. Most of the other material in the show -- many of the characters and plenty of the other U.S/Mexico border specific subplots are great and I wish that were what the show was really about. At least we already know that if it gets renewed that's kind of what it will become.

Just to liven things up, an Anglo-French remake has just been announced. Only for geographical reasons they're renaming it The Tunnel.

Somewhat surprisingly, this has been renewed

Just finished with episode eleven of this, which is roughly where the Scandinavian version ends, if I recall. The American remake is a perfectly adequate remake, but it's exactly that: mediocre. It exists because the Scandinavian version was so critically acclaimed and relatively popular, but can never match the original, yet it even attempts to surpass it by cellotaping another story onto the side, which just makes the show bloated. One of the fine aspects of the original was how neatly everything tied together into a single mini-series, which leaves you believing the case is one thing, before swerving you and it turning out to be another. For this reason I'm apprehensive about the second series of the Scandinavian, even though they could do any number of cross-border cases with the characters.

The Bridge's concept lends itself to being remade as it could feature procedurals across the borders of any number of bordering countries. The more subtle the differences, however, the greater potential the show will have, I'm inclined to believe. Between Denmark and Sweden, differences were slight and were more limited to attitudes towards work-ethic and jobsworthiness etc. Here the differences in wealth are relatively vast and we fall into the obvious trap of rich, privileged people and poor, deprived, abused Mexicans, which provides a less intriguing and more blunt dynamic. How many times did we need to be reminded that people die in Mexico everyday, unlike in America allegedly?

The American The Bridge isn't bad, but nor is it close to being one of the great pieces of modern TV/film, which the original was, in my opinion. Nordic noir simply has had this wonderful, uncompromising, foreboding essence to it, which is always going to be lost in translation to an extent.

I was surprised it was picked up for a 2nd season (which I've yet to see). It was a good show, but it didn't get the kind of reception that earns Emmy's and other awards. Plus it didn't have the kind of hook a show needs to survive even on a network like FX.

domino harvey wrote:Canceled

How could that happen when it was so vastly superior to the highly-thought-of original, according to the guy who'd never seen the original?

Well, not that you're really interested in any sort of actual discussion or even in reading or understanding what I'd previously written above, but let's play pretend. I can't say why the network gave up on this show, but I can say why I did. And it has everything to do with how The Bridge minimized then ignored and betrayed most of the essential specificity of its border in favor of simply aping many of the more generic story elements it seemed to borrow from the original. Which is why I stopped watching before Season 1 was over. Season 2 was initially supposed to have been about the missing girls of Juárez -- which would have even more resonance now with the ongoing discoveries of mass graves full of ordinary citizens all over Mexico -- but from the looks of it devolved instead into even lamer bits of genre business.

So you still don't feel even a teensy bit foolish for loudly pronouncing the conceptual inferiority of a TV series you'd never seen, even after the one you were praising in comparison turned out to be pretty shitty? Wow.

I preferred second season of the Danish/Swedish original even though I gave up on second season of US series on its second episode...

zedz wrote:So you still don't feel even a teensy bit foolish for loudly pronouncing the conceptual inferiority of a TV series you'd never seen, even after the one you were praising in comparison turned out to be pretty shitty? Wow.

I don't feel compelled to apologize (is that what you're after?) to you or anyone else for being interested in the dramatic potential of one border over another, which is all my argument in this thread has ever been about. The run of episodes I saw failed to capitalize on those aspects of the show's world I was most interested in and that the showrunners themselves spoke about most passionately in interviews. But imagine for a second that the show hadn't betrayed itself in precisely this fashion and it was still ultimately cancelled? What would that prove? Would that somehow mean that this remake ought to have been about the U.S./Canadian border instead, as it was originally conceived? It's hard to see what point you're trying to make. And it's both a little head-scratching to see you persist, and, frankly, also sort of unbecoming of your status as a moderator if it is as it seems and you're just kind of aimlessly picking a fight.

Let's not even get into the weird hypocrisy of your suddenly declaring this show "pretty shitty" when it's clear that you haven't seen it. If you're going to be so concerned with policing everyone else's position, you might at least hold yourself to your own rules.

Dude, you're having a conversation with yourself. We were all first surprised that you wrote off the original, because of the 'lack of dramatic potential' from "white people", then you came back to say that the remake was shitty after all. Now you are arguing that simply staring at the Rio Grande is better than either program. It's funny for the bystander, yes. Some good natured ribbing should be expected.