Why Did they Have to Go and Cancel... 'Bored to Death'?

I'm bothered. Extremely bothered. Even though it has been a few months since HBO cancelled 'Bored to Death' I'm still rather annoyed about it. For those who don't know, 'Bored to Death' was a clever little comedy about a novelist who takes jobs as a private detective on the side. The programme stars... I mean starred (sigh), Jason Schwartzman, with Ted Danson as his mentor and Zach Galifaianakis as his best friend. I bloody love Jason Schwartzman. It has long been my intent to start a short people club and I shall be petitioning him to join. Everything he's in is brilliant. His many collaborations with Wes Anderson, 'Marie Antoinette', as well as 'Scott Pilgrim vs. the World' are all among my favourite films, and he was again brilliant in 'Bored to Death' as white wine-drinking, love-lorn writer of varying success, Jonathan Ames.

The show was a whimsical mix of gum-shoe detection and farcical comedy. It was so good. I looked forward to their misadventures, like the time they performed a rescue mission from an Asian spa, or when they defended their honour in a grudge-match against their rivals from GQ magazine. Episodes of 'Bored to Death' had a refreshing unpredictability. Oh how I'll miss their zany adventures. Series writer, Jonathan Ames, who gives his name to Schwartzman's character is apparently noted for this kind of anecdotal, biographical style of writing, where he recounts events of significance and humour in his life. Ames' stories are coloured not only by the events of the narrative but the neuroses of his characters and their concerns. And the fact they were often quite stoned on the job. That also had some pretty excellent results.

The characters were well formed and we grew to care dearly about the bromance of Jonathan, George and Ray. There was a continuity in story-lines, with certain plot lines being revisited, most significantly that of Ray's sperm donation. It moved from being just a brief story arc to becoming a major plot device in Ray's battle for visitation rights. Jonathan's, George's and Ray's friendship had depth. It's fairly commonplace in TV today to have complete inconsistency and shallow characterisations, but not in 'Bored to Death'. George is portrayed as a loveable old stoner rogue, who acts as a father figure/ mentor to Jonathan. A sort of a bon viveur, he is excellently played by Ted Danson. Zach Galifianakis fills his typical role of 'the lone wolf', a characterisation more deeply explored in that famous monologue from 'The Hangover'. We don't understand his actions, he operates using a type of logic none of us are familiar with, but he is held with special fondness  in all of our hearts. The dynamics were brilliant, especially the introduction of a nemesis and rival to Jonathan in the form of Louis Green.

Curse you, HBO, for commissioning fine, well produced programming! You sucked me in with your relatable, funny characters and humorous, absurd plot-lines, then you took it away! So rarely do we come across characters that are so endearing and modern, without falling into the dreaded pitfall of 'quirkiness'. I love the little details in everything, like Jonathan's penchant for white wine and the inclusion of a goodly number of Ray's works. Le sigh, HBO, you've made this little nerd immensely happy and tragically sad in equal measures.

Review: 'Stardust' by Neil Gaiman

I was slow to come to the work of Neil Gaiman. For a long time I felt like I was missing out on something, or that his books were something that I should have read. Niggled by this feeling that I was missing out on something good, I marched myself into Waterstones and joined the legions of existing Gaiman fans. ‘Stardust’ follows Gaiman’s belief in the necessicityof fairy-tales, bringing together questing and adventure, with a deeper meaning. He dots the quest narrative with darker elements, not too far removed from the Grimms’ Märchen. Witches, murder, false imprisonment, and ruthless lords all appear. Gaiman himself classed ‘Stardust’ as “a fairy-tale for adults.” All this brought together, ‘Stardust’ presents an strange, sometimes threatening, but ultimately engaging fairy-tale world. 

‘Stardust’ tells the tale of young Tristran Thorn, an ordinary youth, who is of less than ordinary parentage. Raised in the small village of Wall, Tristran spent his childhood preoccupied with stories of far-flung lands and longs for adventure. Tristran pines after local beauty, Victoria Forrester, but with little success. One night, as the two see as shooting star fall, Victoria promises Tristran whatever he desires if he retrieves it for her. On this promise, Tristran crosses the wall into Faerie and in the traditional way of romance fiction, he undertakes a quest to win his lady’s favour. Tristran will encounter living forests, lions, unicorns and he will unearth important information about his own lineage and status in the world. 

Despite only reaching about 200 pages, ‘Stardust’ has an astoundingly intricate plot and structure. Subplots are carefully introduced and incorporated. As a sort of a bildungsroman, the novel starts at Tristran’s very earliest origins. As in ‘twinkle in his father’s eye’ early. The novel opens with the story of young Dunstan Thorn and the coming of the fair to Wall, a fair which only occurred once in every nine years. Anything that Gaiman mentions has some import and significance. He writes in the register of traditional fantasy fiction in the vein of C.S. Lewis and others, with intermittent witty, modern dialogue. It’s for this reason that ‘Stardust’ doesn’t get too antiquated. Gaiman is careful not to cast aside tradition either, bringing in nursery rhymes and folklore that we’re all familiar with.

While ‘Stardust’ shares the simple narrative form of classic fantasy fiction, it would be a grave injustice to dismiss it as basic or lacking that something that we can engage with. While it follows a classic romance narrative of the young hero, seeking to win the favour of a fair lady, it also provides the something with a little more meat. Tristan’s story shows us how we pursue certain plans and ideals, but these can be radically changed. While we hang on to these ideals, they can lead us down drastically different paths and sometimes they are for the best. I quite like that idea. Tristran’s journey also works well as a kind of analogy for reaching adulthood. The idea of the wall as threshold into another world is both reminiscent of Lewis’ 

Narnia, but also could stand for Tristran’s crossing into the world of adulthood.

Overall, ‘Stardust’ is an excellent re-configuring of the fairy-tale form. It has all the key elements, he just twists them and turns them into something a little more modern. I feel the main strengths are Gaiman’s carefully wrought plot and his sharp, funny plot. Nobody realised it until they read it, but Gaiman knew that everyone wanted to hear a fallen star shout ‘fuck.’ He knows what’s good for us, that Gaiman.

9/10.