Review -- The Killing: The Danish Original, Season One

Forbrydelsen (The Killing)

When I heard that the TV show The Killing, now airing on AMC, is actually a re-make of a Danish series, Forbrydelsen, (more accurately translated as "The Crime"), I had to find and watch the original.

It's been a while since I've been totally immersed in a story, like I was watching Forbrydelsen. And that great feeling of having the whole season ready to go instead of waiting for episodes to trickle in week after week.

The show calls itself, right in the opening credits, "A thriller by Søren Sveistrup". I like the honesty -- they know what they are trying to accomplish and they're not passing it off as something else.

And, it is thrilling (and highly addictive - make sure you have time in your schedule because you won't want to stop). It has plenty of twists and turns and you really don't know what's going to happen or who's guilty.

Most crime series have set characters and rotating crimes that are solved by the end of each episode. The concept of Forbrydelsen is to follow one investigation for a whole season. Like many great modern TV classics, it sticks with the big story.

One episode roughly correlates to a day in the investigation. Yes, similar to 24 in concept, but better because it is more natural for plotting and logistics to have it take place over 3 weeks rather than 24 hrs. I could never watch 24 because I was always wondering when they went to the bathroom.

In keeping with the thriller tradition, there are high stakes and political intrigue surrounding the case. The victim is a teenage girl, but suspicions run deep into all kinds of powerful circles. An upcoming election in Copenhagen amps up the pressure on investigators, as any allegations might have huge consequences to the fate of the city.

Forbrydelsen takes itself seriously. There's no camp. It's acted superbly and aside from some of the necessary manipulative techniques built into each episode, to keep you hooked and wanting the next one, it comes across as naturalistic.

Investigator Sara Lund, played by Sophie Grabol

Great production quality, casting, and camera work. Moody tone. They must have excellent talent development over there to produce such high quality TV for such a small market. Impressive, really. It holds its own with any big market productions.

It makes you wonder why they re-made it. Why not just run this series in North America? Are they afraid people can't read subtitles?

Canadian Electoral Reform Starts With Better Journalism

Does this do anything?

Elections are coming up in Canada and there's a general grumbling and discontent on the street about it. The lack of useful information from the parties and the media is not helping.

Political coverage is always about the race, rarely about building a better Canada. You can maybe understand why politicians are cagey about actually saying anything true or real. Politics is a slippery business.

But, the press has different pressures. Consistently they have concluded  that it doesn't sell to inform and educate -- that people want a horse race. It's just not good business to actually offer anything real in the way of reporting. It's all about the game of politics -- polls, scandals and etc....  

One of the sticky problems in Canada is the powerlessness of MPs (members of parliament). They are elected to represent the interests of the people in their riding -- a bottom-up direction that you want in a democracy. But, the on-the-ground reality is that it works in the other direction -- top-down. MPs have to tow the party line and communicate that to the people. They can't speak out against the party, even if it would be better for the people in their riding. 

When an MP does stray from the party line, they get penalized by their party. What is worse is that the act of dissent is seen by journalists as ridiculous. If a party can't keep its MPs silenced then they are a joke. But, isn't that the point of an MP? It is a complete disconnect from what the democratic process strives to be.

I suppose it is an easier, and more compelling, story to write about a 'scandal' (i.e. an MP that speaks against their own party), than to dive into the issue. It's easier to do a he says, she says piece than a long investigative piece. Maybe it even sells more papers. Although, I am skeptical -- I think Canadians want real reporting.  I know I crave it.

For example, I found out more about the actual mechanics of the Canadian political system by reading the Wikipedia entry on Canadian Elections, than I did from hearing the news all my life. There's something really wrong about that.

One notable exception to the bad coverage of Canadian politics is TVO. They just ran a series called "Politics is Broken". Check out the first installment: Broken Party Politics

We Are Water Illiterate

Same water that goes on our lawn

I don't know about you, but I have a limit to how much bad news I can hear about the environment. Nuclear disaster in Japan has me tapped. I flinched today when I heard Terry Gross announce her next subject: an author who just wrote a book about water. Uh, oh, here goes... I thought. But, before I could reach my 'skip' button on my IPod my curiosity was peaked.

Turns out it's not all doom and gloom. We are entering a new era of water use -- changes similar in scale to the changes in telecommunications, argues Charles Fishman in his interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air. Think of how we've gone from having phones that do one thing to portable hand held devices that can access the sum of human knowledge from anywhere.That kind of change is coming for how we use, and re-use water.

Places forced into efficiency, in particular Las Vegas, have made great advances in water use policy and technologies. Vegas has doubled in population recently and in that same time, not increased water use. Doing things like making it illegal to have grass, and re-using 95% of their waste water.

On absolute terms, the water we use in our households is crazy, but it is only a fraction of the water used in the the generation of power through coal/nuclear power. Over 50% of water consumption is for power generation! Then there's farming and etc. If we are to address water use, it has to be nuanced and sophisticated. Household signs on bathroom doors that say, "if it's yellow let it mellow", don't really come close to a solution. 

Charles Fishman, who's on the circuit now promoting his new book The Big Thirst has a fresh approach to talking about environmental issues. Instead of browbeating us about how wasteful we are, and how it is all doom and gloom, he focuses more on opportunities, facts, and innovation. When asked how he's changed his water use, it wasn't much. For him it is about awareness and appreciation.

He proposes several solutions for our upcoming water shortages and water supply issues, including changing the price. Basically it's free right now and that just leads to waste.

We use purified drinking water to flush our toilets and water our lawns. That doesn't make any sense," says Charles Fishman. "In an era of scarcity, we won't need to limit whether we have water to boil pasta or take a bath. But we will think differently about a whole portfolio of water. There will be different kinds of waters for different uses. And water itself will get smart."

Public Radio in America - Under Attack

South of the border, the Tea Party and Republicans are going after public radio. The basic logic of the attack is: "why should we pay for liberal bias content? If you want that perspective, great, you pay for it! Don't make me pay for it through public funding".

I would actually sympathize with that sentiment if the programming on public radio were as flawed and biased as say, Fox news -- which isn't 'news' at all but some kind of perverse post-fact-era edutainment. But, to the contrary, public radio coverage of newsy content is better than anything else out there. It actually amounts to a public service.

The ratings show it, too. Public radio is the source for Americans looking for news on the airwaves. Period. Americans trust the content. The shows on public radio are, in fact, wildly successful -- surpassing, by a wide margin of listeners, privately produced radio.

There's something about the radio biz -- when left to the private sector it just kinda sucks. It could be the way the numbers work. Perhaps stations are forced to create that kind of content. It's a book-length subject, not a blog post.

Across the English speaking world, this is also true: public radio wins. US (NPR, PRI, etc.), Canada (CBC), England (BBC), Australia (ABC). I can't speak to non-English radio, because, alas, I'm a bad Canadian -- I only speak one language. 

The public radio in America that you hear now is actually a fairly recent phenomenon. It started around 1970-1 with NPR (National Public Radio). They were able to piggy back on some bill to get funding. It started off slowly, with so-so content.

But, over the last 40 years it has grown up. In a way, public radio is a modern American success story. I'm not sure why more people don't frame it that way when under attack from the likes of the Tea Party. I guess it just goes against the grain of the American mythology to think that people can make better stuff as a community.

Well, it looks like the anti-public radio lobby is going to have their way -- funding is being cut. Before you freak-out, don't worry, government funding only amounts to less than 10% of the NPR budget. They raise funds in a variety of ways and have a lot of support. The unfortunate thing is that in some remote communities, the amount of that cut may be disproportionate - reducing service.

That is All: The Judge John Hodgman Podcast

"That is all"

Today, I review Judge John Hodgman, a half-hour comedy podcast distributed by MaximumFun.org and available free for download from their website or  ITunes. 

The concept of the podcast: People submit disputes to Judge John Hodgman and he selects one main case per episode to conduct over Skype, in a faux courtroom proceeding.

There's often a secondary segment called 'snap judgements' where he quickly passes judgment on several submissions without hearing the cases.

The disputes that the judge presides over include:

• "The Potluck Problem" Two best friends disagree on the morality of the potluck. One says it's a great opportunity for everyone to pitch in. One says it's a sign of a host who's abdicated responsibility for the party. Only one man can decide who's right.
• "Dish Soap or Handsoap" The wife says their kitchen sink's built-in dispenser should house dish soap. The husband argues that it should hold hand soap. Only one is correct.
• "The Lovely Couple" where a young married couple debates the importance of physical attraction in mate selection. He thinks it's everything, she thinks its all about personality.

The show simulates courtroom proceedings with mock seriousness. Sound effects are thrown in to give it courtroom weight. There's a gavel striking wood, the noise of chairs moving as bailiff Jesse Thorne says, "all rise while Judge John Hodgman enters the courtroom".

The bailiff adds gravitas: "do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God... or whatever?" and "do you swear to abide by Judge John Hodgman's ruling, despite the fact that his only expertise comes from owning a suit that he claims makes him look like Perry Mason?". 

Charming, and Reliable

Hodgman asks each side to present their case, all the while peppering it with commentary and about their logic and about them generally. Hodgman is a master of being simultaneously charming and LOL funny. He's very good on his feet, riffing on what they're saying without a script.

There's nothing mean-spirited in the humour. Everyone participating is having fun, and the tone of the questions, and ruling, while at times may be gently teasing, never crosses the line. In other words, it's a feel good laugh -- which is not so common these days.

Of all the comedy podcast I've surveyed so far, this one stands out as being the most reliably funny, and reliably charming. Hodgman is a sweet, and, funny man.