My Neighbours the Yamadas (Isao Takahata, 1999)

Rather than the bold and bright animation of Pom Poko, Isao Takahata’s My Neighbours the Yamadas is a collection of short stories celebrating family. Indeed, the anime style of Studio Ghibli is considered a defining element of the studio itself. The watercolour, pastel-coloured animation of My Neighbours the Yamadas combined with the flippant, YouTube-like length of each episode, separates this film from the others.

We observe the trials and tribulations of the small Yamada family. Mum, Dad, teenage son, a (roughly 5 years old?) young daughter and Grandma. Stories range from family-engagements as they return from shopping realising they’ve lost the daughter to duo-plays between Father and Son, or Mother and Grandmother. There is no narrative that runs throughout the entire film and, between the larger-scale bookends of the film (a toboggan race to represent married-life and a final flying-on-umbrellas musical number), it is merely comedic vignette’s shrewdly observing the highs and lows of this family life.

Isao Takahata, director of Grave of the Fireflies (heart-breaking wartime animation, told from the perspective of deceased children) and Pom Poko (a retelling of the magical tanuki who can morph into humans and use their testicles as parachutes) manages to reinvent his approach to storytelling – and changes the definition of what animation should be. His films couldn’t be more different and shows how he himself can morph between artistic styles for the sake of story. In comparison, Hayao Miyazaki clearly showcases a more consistent and definitive style.

But it is Takahata’s sense of detail that is so engrossing. The family dog, whose apathetic eyes seems to capture his I’ve-seen-it-all-before mood. The father, Takashi, shifting gears as he speeds back to collect his daughter. The briefest of brush strokes and minimal lines that manage to capture the humour, tone and attitude of this clearly loving family. Each character is shown to have many more sides to read too. Takashi’s laziness is offset by his keenness to bond with his Son, Noboru. The put-upon Mother Matsuko, who endlessly prepares food but has to contend with her own forgetful Mother, Shige, throughout the day.

Clearly, My Neighbours the Yamadas will never be considered a masterpiece, as Spirited Away and Grave of the Fireflies is, but it is unique. The wry jokes that capture the atmosphere and truth in every family, shows a sharp script. The animation may provide a limited visual palette for our attention, and after an hour of mini-movies, this can get tiresome. But like many Studio Ghibli films, My Neighbours the Yamadas offers a different meaning to feature-length filmmaking. Cartoons are not necessarily for children, and they can be a moment to laugh and relate to the trials and tribulations of all families. The father slowly considering his sanity when forgetting an umbrella; a son who realises family-inheritance will surely, inevitably, involve him; the family-member whose timing of a family-photo is at the most inopportune time. My Neighbours the Yamadas speaks to the heart – something many blockbuster, computer-cartoon behemoths of Hollywood often miss.

This was originally written for Flickering Myth on 19th May 2014

100W: The Sixth Sense

As a writer, it is expected that you keep to a strict word-count. When you pick up a magazine, articles can be a 100-word write-up or a 1000-word analysis. Notes created for films are easily over 100 words - so this feature will focus on reviewing films in a concise 100 words. No more, no less.

The Sixth Sense (Dir. M. Night Shyamalan/1999)

14 years ago, The Sixth Sense proved Shyamalan as a master filmmaker. Psychologist Malcolm Crowe (Willis) helps social-outcast Cole (Osment) face a fear of ghosts that haunt him - while Malcolm himself tackles his own demons, as his marriage breaks down. Relationships between Cole and his Mum (Collette), and Crowe and his wife (Williams) provide solid foundations that connect the audience with deeply distressed characters. When Cole confesses his sixth sense, we become fearful. As the temperature drops, we see the horror he does. Themes of loss and regret haunt this exceptional film, as it only improves when viewed again…

Rating: 9/10

American Pie (Chris Weitz, 1999)

Still, for Mostly Unsure

*This was originally published on 6th May 2010 but I have edited it a little and written new posts for American Pie 2 and American Pie: The Wedding to follow this week so let's start from the first piece...

"Well, they're safer than a tube sock..."

Introduction

I am going through a phase of weeding out the unneccessary DVD's in my collection. In my opinion, everyone has a DVD pile at their house its not about how many DVD's you own - its what you own (this sentiment eventually led to the A-Z posts). If you only have a stash of the free DVDs that came with the newspaper or have too many teenage rom-coms, your film-knowledge credability takes a little blow. As a film fan, your film collection represents you. What you stand for - what you aim to understand, etc.

Fact is, with American Pie I can vividly remember wanting to watch it. I remember first watching it post-house party - a house party Mum and Dad shouldn't have known about, but the did find out about it because of so many kitchen appliances being broken. My best friend - and fellow blogger Pete, you must remember this party. Legendary.

It was the early days of the DVD and, as one of the first ten or twenty I owned, I watched and rewatched it many times (certain sequences many, many times ... but thats private and, as a teenager at the time, its allowed). But now, I look at my 'threesome' boxset and have to decide. Should it stay or should it go? I have never watched anything further than the third American Pie movie - American Pie: The Wedding. So, do I wait until I care enough to be a completist and watch the others (will I really watch them?) or, even await, the potential 2012 film: reuniting the original cast for American Pie 4?

Jim and his sock

The film primarily follows one character - Jim. Yes, we know all about his buddies, but we care about Jim. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that from a casting point of view we do have an ensemble cast all with the same 'goal'. Akin to 'Porkys' they plan to lose their virginity. The thing about American Pie for me and my buddies is that we all associated ourselves with the different characters. The sports-like dude, the clever-but-clearly-a-geek dude, the friend-who-has-a-steady-girlfriend and then the middle-of-the-road-one with weird parents. I would assume I was that one with weird parents. Not to mention the parties we went to were not too unlike Stiflers ... but with less sex. For me. Chances are that at these parties, behind the dark corners, dark deeds took place ... which began in the rumour mill Monday morning in college.

The structure of the film is interesting as all the character have an anti-climax two-thirds into the film. So Finch's plan to build a reputation fails when he shits in a girls toilet, Jim loses Nadia by breaking some type of surveillance law. I'm sure, if you did what Jim did yourself you wouldn't be praised by anyone - you'd be simply called a perv. Kevin finds the bible but blows his chances of nookie by shouting a little too loud (in honesty, he rectifies this pretty quick...) and then the La Crosse fella played by Chris Klein, Oz, loses his girl when he appears to be mocking her (well, Stifler was mocking her, La Crosse man was merely a bystander).

A Moral Compass

Obviously, a film like this needs a moral compass. The characters have to have some sex but they can only do this by changing their attitude to it. Jim gets sick of the bet - happy to settle for minx-in-disguise Alyson Hannigan ("This one time at band camp..."). Kevin and Vicky (Tara Reid), on their separate struggle to have sex 'for love'. Then they split up. Oz bails on his sporting skills to be in the choir and revealing his passion may actually be singing and he, turns out, is 'actually' in love. And - very brave for a first time I think - he loses his virginity outside in what appears to be a very public cabin. Lastly, what appears to be quite a strange occurence is Finch and Stiflers Mom. Finch's moral compass doesn't really change... he is just abused.

Fact is, for a teenager...

The film is quite explicit - in a comedic manner and in a jovial tone, but there is plenty of nudity and conversations about 'stuff' many people would find quite offensive. The film discusses sex positions and the nature of sperm (seen sitting in a beer). Its obviously all in jest - all merely comedy - but it surely informs teenagers. I know when I was a teenager, I didn't know too much so the information about positions and stuff did help me understand a little more. In a more interesting way, deeper issues of desperation and pressure is also raised. The idea that Jim's completely embarressing situation 'came too soon' and, again, shows that this small faux-pars in your teenage years aren't such a big deal. Even the involvement of your parents in your personal life - these are all relatable and make light of a time in a teenagers life that can be incredible awkward. It even showed the pain of sex during the first time as Vicky and Kev do the deed. Yes, this is balanced out by the nympho Jim has to deal with and we don't see Oz and Heather, but for anyone who is worried a little about these situations, the actual reveal of a certain element of truth should put them at ease.

I do love the film, but I am in two minds. I have grown out of these films, but I watched it so many times and I adore the characters. It even informed my music taste - introducing me to Bic Runga and her beautiful song 'Sway' and it made me take Blink 182 a little seriously (not much, just one song: Mutt). I think the important role the film - and the two sequels - played in my life is something I will cherish, and is the reason I am keen to re-watch all these films. There are problems ("Do you know Chris Finch?" to a classmate they have studied with for a whole year!) but I think it is a much better film than the average teenage-comedy and it has great heart. Not to mention Eugene Levy scene-stealing every single sequence he is involved in.

Wait a sec' - its eleven years old! F*** me. I am old.

Tomorrow, we continue with American Pie 2 ... 

A Room For Romeo Brass (Shane Meadows, 1999)

"I knew there and then that there was a spirit in the room and it was trying to attack me. So what unfolded then was a fight between me and this unseen entity."

Introduction

So, to continue with a celebration of films by Shane Meadows, we move onto the film that propelled me to actually commit to this blog-a-thon of sorts. I was travelling to Birmingham to see young Richard and thought, 'Hey - I should watch another film from the Shane Meadows boxset I was given' so, with Sarah inserting the right earbud into her ear, I placed the left earbud into my own and as we travelled the Chiltern service between London and Birmingham we watched A Room For Romeo Brass. And, as previously stated, this simply confirmed how great a filmmaker Shane Meadows is...

Before Secondary School, Before Life ...

We follow Gavin (Ben Marshall) and Romeo (Andrew Shim from This is England) as they muck about as young boys do. Romeo has a broken family, whereby his Father has left his family and his Mother and sister

Animal Farm (John Stephenson, 1999)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Introduction

Now, I made this promise a few years ago to log, on a 3 x 4 inch piece of card, every film I watch. My intention is to be able to access my initial thoughts on a film after I watched it, hopefully, upon reading the card again, I shall tap into those same emotions and remind me better of the film. The idea came from what Peter Biskind noted in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls about Peter Bogdanovich. He done the same thing. Biskind tells us he had thousands and thousands of these cards ... having kept a record from a younger age and, obviously, watched more films. I have a few hundred since 2007, but I haven't counted them i just know I have gone through a few packs of 200 cards. Very few of these cards are used elsewhere. This was by no means the first film to get the fabled card (I had just bought a James Cagney boxset so I think it was The Public Enemy) and, as you can imagine, these reviews all tap into those cards to gage my initial reaction. It does work if you must know - in some cases showing me how naive I was upon the first viewing and, in other cases, showing me how bang-on-target I was... all in all, its a good idea and any film buff I would recommend this form of record taking. (To add to it, its interesting to find that in some cases it is difficult to fill the card while in other cases you feel you could write hundred of cards after the first view). So, Animal Farm, was an inevitable consequence. Sometimes you watch a bum film. Vantage Point is somewhere within the cards. This, though based on a classic story, is bad adaptation. I watched it alongside hundreds of pupils at my school on a day focused on equality and human rights. Rabbit Proof Fence and Watership Down were other options. But this film won out ...

Opinion

So, it is based on George Orwell's book of the same name. It is an allegory of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is when a state dictates its own rules on everything - and in that respect, we mean everything. Totally everything. Inevitably, this control - which is usually a political faction rather than a democratic whole - eventually changes to suit its rulers, abusing the people under its control (when this happens, it is called authoritarianism). So, we have animals, who create rules in good faith to live by but, bit-by-bit, the rules are changed to suit the 'leaders' who, in this case, are pigs - specifically Napoleon the pig. In this film, the pigs - who topple the humans and despise how they live - begin to live like the humans themselves - getting drunk and even wearing clothes.

Enough of the politics - because you will find lots of that stuff in any books on Stalin (the ruler Napoleon the pig represents) and other historical films. You got the words, so if interested, hunt that information down. As a film - ignoring the highly intelligent allegory Orwell is responsible for - it's pretty bad. It's all live-action - akin to Babe - and therefore looks like a joke, negating any serious depth. Even though the themes explored are incredibly deep and emotionally involving. Maybe this is where books cannot be adapted - the allegory dominates your thoughts on reading the book, but when watching the film, some pig speaking Shakespearean English is more comedic than classical. And it is Shakespearean actors hired: Kelsey Grammer (as Snowball), Patrick Stewart (as Napoleon), Peter Ustinov (as Old Major), etc.

It makes the story non-linear by starting after the Animal Farm has fallen apart and then tracks back to its beginning, and how it was set up and how the animals took control of the farm in the first place. When it was Manor Farm, back in the day, the animals were abused, used and taken advantage of - and so they fought back and took over the farm.

Considering the source material, it is surprising to find that inaccuracies abound - in the book (so I see) Old Major dies naturally three days after his speech, while in the film he is shot soon after the speech. This is more 'action-packed' I assume. In the book the animals never want humans back while in the film they wish the humans would come back because the regime is so awful. I'm sure that tells a very different story - is the moral that 'sometimes you have to stick with things because change is wrong - look at these poor saps, they changed things and look what happened to them?'. Not the moral Orwell went for I'm sure.

I won't waste much time on this. Its a poor adaptation that cashes in its political stance for family fun - which is not the source material's intention. When I think of the 'adult' nature to Fantastic Mr. Fox , I only wish the same rule was applied here because it would be more accurate. Stick with the 1954 animated film - a film with enough political focus that the BBFC of 1954 rated it X ... now it's a U ... but clearly its more in line with the intentions of George Orwell. Though I wouldn't know because I watched this sh*t version instead.

John Stephenson, the director, is worked on many movies. He directed two films (at this time of writing) - this one and another kids movie called Five Children and It in 2004. His real experience lies in special effects - working on Lost in Space and The English Patient. Alas, nowadays he is a second unit director, his next gig being Andrei Konchalovsky's Nutcracker: The Untold Story ...

The West Wing - Series 1 (Created by Aaron Sorkin, 1999 -)

Introduction

This is a big deal. maybe a bigger deal than most people realise. Literally years ago - before I even started watching 'The Sopranos', my good friend Pete recommended it to me. I had heard of it briefly, but I did not know, necessarily, what to make of it. The idea of 'politics' and 'good drama' is not the most interesting of mixes - but then, I guessed, that was its unique appeal - 'The President - up-close-and-personal'. Woo hoo. So, he gave me the whole first season to watch - but it sat on the shelf. For many months. he eventually took it back, insulted at how I could be so ignorant. By this point I had formed a negative opinion on it - assuming the people who watch it are wannabe-politicians who desperately wanted someone to show them that politics is fun when, deep down, we all know its all a little bit boring. The people who actually think its fun or in anyway enjoyable often study politics or work in politics or are, in fact, politicians. Watching 'The West Wing' won't make you more politically aware because, the fact that you are watching it, probably means you are already politically aware. You don't need Josh Lyman telling you that. But Josh does tell it, interspersed with humour and, after forty minutes, you can turn it off - fully confident that you have spent time learning politics, when you haven't really, you've watched a gossipy and fleeting programme that is pretty much a sitcom - but is arrogant enough to think that, just because its based in the Oval Office, its above it all and not as shallow as a sitcom. Its so funny, there is something that I completely despise about this programme but I just can't put my finger on it. Now as a TV series - before I mock every scene one-by-one (you could do it...), I shall do some sort of summary ... I have one episode to watch conveniently, so there will be a prologue post-watching the last episode of series 1...

Summary of Series 1...

Each episode generally consists of some political issue - responses to conflicts, death penalty, gay rights, established and expected rules within American politics - and going against these rules in the name of freedom. The only continuing political issue that sustains the entire series - kind of - is liberals sitting on the fence to the point that [shock] the President can't sleep at night. eventually he decides he has four years to make a difference and reinvigorates his team and they set to change the world,

But, underneath all the actual important political context there is something more interesting going on ...

1) Sam (Rob Lowe) sleeps accidentally with a high-class call girl - this is an interesting start, until about four episodes in whereby this story is dropped for the opportunity to expand on another relationship Sam is having with his bosses - Leo's (John Spencer) daughter. Quite a player. But then - for no real reason, that story is dropped also - and turns out Sam is still 'hooking' up with the prozzie. Seriously, this prostitute story is suddenly brought up again in the second-to-last episode ... will it be a part of the finale ...

2) CJ (Allison Janney) - the White House Media face - fancies a guy called Danny - a man who works in the media - this is toyed with for a few episodes, until they kiss, banter, kiss a little more and - surprise surprise - their seems to be some sort o conflict between their two jobs. Didn't see that coming. Currently prior to the last episode, post-fall out, we are watching CJ and Danny try to mend their [boo hoo] broken relationship.

3) Leo had a drug and alcohol addiction. He is over it now, but it might look a tad bad for the President but it hasn't come out in a way that it has affected the White House too much so, at the moment he just harps on about it every now and then - "Whats your view of an alcoholic?", "The problem is, I don't want one drink - I wasn't ten"... now I understand alcoholism. Thank you Leo.

4) Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford) begins the story as the wonder boy of the White House, who has previously dated Mandy (Played by Moira Kelly, who initially appears to be the catalyst for some crazy events - crazy rock music rather than orchestra - in the White House, but alas - as she is an incredibly annoying character - she simply seems to disappear of radar until some old 'memo' discredits the democrats and she is shoved out from the inner circle...) and then does a lot of self-analysis - he feels bad carrying a card that would save his life in the event of a nuclear attack, he reflects on the nature of his job on a TV show, etc - until a new relationship is possibly begun in the character Joey Lucas, and the banter and flirting continue over at least 4 episodes.

5) Charlie (Dule Hill) is hired very strangely to become the Presidents personal aide and ends up dating his daughter. We are then subjected to many issues involving Charlies African-American roots - Can the Presidents aide be a young black man? Can the Presidents daughter date a black man? Charlie previously worked at an elitist executive club as a waiter and was racially discriminated against - or so it is implied.

6) Toby (Richard Schiff) and President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) are simply perfect people to some extent. Toby is passionate and cynical to a big degree (passionate, cynical ... target audience ... ) and, obviously, delivers all his lines perfectly making very few - if any- mistakes. President Bartlett though brings the whole gang together - mixing all the crews liberal views together in some big melting pot and pulling out a spoon of the perfect solution. But, more importantly, everyone is very happy with his final choice anyway. He's the president after all.

So, the politics are sidelined generally for the sake of, lets see, prostitutes, relationships with bosses daughters, conflicting jobs affecting relationships, drug addiction, alcohol addiction and racism. All these threads are the only ones which continue one-episode-after-another. Only in one instance - something about a conflict in India which lasted two/three episodes - did something other than generic-programme situations come about - albeit an edgy programme that shows after the watershed, but importantly, generic.

What I reckon ...

My view is very clear by this point. I was mocked for stating to a friend that I was 'in awe of myself' - but seriously, I was spot on before I even watched the programme: It dances over the politics, but focuses on the banter and relationships, akin to any generci programme. Highlights from what I said a [facebook] conversation with friends about the programme - obviously I was telling this to friends who liked the programme who even went so far as to say that the opening credits were good... but here are a few of my primary points:

"It is trying to be a cross between a serious political drama (akin to John-Grisham-novel-based-movies or JFK or Frost/Nixon) but, without the budget and the horrendous music, it often appears like a cheap-TV-series or, dare i say it, soap. Now, serious-political-drama crossed with a soap has so much conflict. How can you take a soap seriously ... you can't."

"The music ... completely jars - not to mention the awful title sequence. Add to that the 'funny' 'quirky' attitudes they have ... 'oh, look, the president is high on pills', 'oh, how funny Sam and Toby banter about their credit on his speech', 'oh, how funny CJ and Mandy caress Leo's pearls for his wife' ... i hesitate to use the word, but big cheese is what it is."

"You DO NOT get such cheap shots for comedy in Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, Life on Mars ..."

"considering the nature of the programme, this [trashy] sit-commy style and cheesy music undermines the intentions of the programme makers".

"The case on the left [may] need to be told - but [the programme is] so arrogant about it, thus not being 'fair' about its views and invalidating its point. See Michael Moore for someone making the right point about the right issues but fudging up the delivery by twisting words - you don't need to lie about Bush, he is wanker and there is real evidence to prove it."

"Choices over 'proportional responses' and the relevance of an - and I quote Toby - an 'archane constitution', this is relevant even now and interesting even now, it is the [prostitute plots, etc]which are a bit - as I have said - cheesy and sit-commy."

So you can see the main problems - awful cheap tone, arrogance of characters, quirky-comedic-situations and the horrendous music.

To finish on a lighter note - my problem is people taking the programme so seriously- but, if people didn't take it seriously there are many great things going on:

The roaming camera while talking really really fast is actually quite fun, its so fast-paced it can catch you out of breath because clearly the characters aren't going to take a breather, they just keep walking and talking. On the plus side, if you miss something, they almost always clarify.

The characters are so likable, you do want to see what happens. Toby - though cynical and passionate (hmmm) - is played so well. He's like some fuzzy bear with the beard. Strangely enough, as a ridiculous Jurassic Park fan, I was well aware of Richard Schiff's previous work - he was the guy torn in two by the Tyrannosaurus Rex's in 'The Lost World' and also played Elijah Wood's dad in pre-Lord of the Rings, 'Deep Impact'. So, it will be interesting to see his character develop. I reckon he has a little thing for CJ - which - when CJ and Danny are passionately in love I guess - will be revealed. Josh is also very likable - the whole Josh/Joey relationship is so much more interesting than the Sam/Leo's daughter/Prostitute debacle.

Also, for all the liberal-ness of the programme, it is worth noting that currently the staff of the White House, bar Charlie and the fella in charge of the military (big, black and could kick the shit out of you), there are very few black characters - let alone Asian or of any other descent other than white American. Then again, 'Mendoza' is Hispanic. But that's it. Three. though they seem to go on a lot about characters Jewish roots - is the writer Jewish - yes he is. No homosexuals introduced yet - or not openly gay. The majority of female staff - Donna, Ginger, Mrs Lanigham - are secretaries to the men in authority. Then again, maybe that was the way it was in 1999. So that last point could be scrapped.

Specific high points: Ave Maria playing while Josh and CJ talk, Bartlett telling his daughter how she could get kidnapped (though ruined in both cases by the awful music at the end of each scene) and the episode on the death penalty.

Overall, I reckon if people didn't big it up as some important programme I would have been more impressed. But, is it worth a watch? Yeah, I guess so - and I am, to some extent, keen to watch the second series (even before watching the final episode) but I won't because I have so many other programmes that I am invested in and want to finish. No offence intended, but I am keen to watch Series 6 of 24 which has been sitting on my shelf for a long time, and I have yet to watch the last two series of Frasier - all programmes that aren't set in the White House (24 a little actually ... ) but programmes that don't take themselves too seriously and are just a load of fun. Maybe I will miss the banter (opposed to missing the deep discussion on American politics which, for all intents and purposes, is not really deep in any way, shape or form - maybe a brief glimpse of American politics would be a better way to summarise) and therefore will come back to the West Wing and, if I do, you will surely know about it ...

Right, predictions on the first seasons finale ... I saw a gun on the DVD so, clearly someone gets shot. I'll put my bet on the Presidents daughter...

Epilogue

For gods sake. They decided not to choose who is shot/killed until episode one, series two. Who

could it be. They were so aware of how obvious the shooting-finale was, that they preempted the whole thing and showed us the end in the first opening and then flashed back to fill us in. Its the final episode! You have had 21 episodes to fill us in! I still think the daughter may be shot - even killed. She seems expendable. Would also give the floundering President Bartlett even more cause to ... continue what he's doing, but with more passion. Charlie is going to be injured I reckon. Because the target was the daughter and, he was close enough. Maybe Leo. Maybe Josh. Hell I don't know and obviously they want to keep their options open so whoever everyone reckons it isn't they will choose to be 'the one'. Cliffhangers ... another feature of a generic programme. Just to clarify my meaning on the word generic:

generic adj. Relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class; general.

So, 'The West Wing' is a generic TV series. I'd even go so far as to say that the plot lines are the type of plots that appear in soaps. Yes. I said it. 'The West Wing' is akin to a soap opera.

To finish, as I said at the end of this overview prior to the epilogue, I have decided to go back to 24. Yes, its cheap. yes, it appeals to the lowest common denominator - but I'll tell ya, I'm so much more gripped! Its exciting, its fast-paced. There are no stupid relationship troubles. This season we have terrorists who have got the President to cave into their demands. The context of the 24 hours is after 11 weeks of terrorist strikes and attacks on the USA. The value of life is decided by a bullet. I am five episodes into the series and I have held my hand over my mouth, aghast at the shock of some situations. Utterly gripped again. Though, I shall add, from all my banter of - is it Snuffy or something - who does the music for West Wing, Sean Calley is better, but not much. The music sounds very cheap on 24. I'll save the review after watching the sixth series.

Quick note to Al:

Al stated that one frustration of 24 was that it spent 2 minutes at the start of each episode recapping the previous episodes, so that after the 24 episodes of the season, effectively, those 2 minutes would accumulate to - approximately - the same length of an actual episode. fair point ...

BUT...

The West Wing doesn't spend as long recapping episodes - though it does - but has an additional 1 minute of [the most awful, embarrassing, cheap and rubbish] opening credits. So, its probably the same - if not more - time spent on not just recapping (which can be quite handy if you've been away or something) but also THE SAME SEQUENCE SHOWING PEOPLES NAMES. Do I need to know Rob Lowe is in 'The West Wing' 21 times? 24's credits last 5 seconds. No 'Keifer Sutherland is...'. We know who he is... he is Jack Bauer. Brother of Graham Bauer. Son of Phillip Bauer. Husband to the late Teri Bauer (now THAT was a finale), and Father to the stunning Kim Bauer.