British film's big night has been and gone. I won't offer a comprehensive list of winners, or even many thoughts on them -- such things are easily found elsewhere -- but I will instead offer my thoughts on one of the few ceremonies this year to be presented in full (well, relatively speaking), and the only film awards ceremony that receives a terrestrial television airing in the UK.
The first thought that comes to mind is, "oh dear". Anyone would think the writer's strike was affecting the UK too, if this was the evidence they had to go on. Jonathan Ross's jokes were few and far between, and rarely gained much reaction from his audience. To be fair to Ross, Stephen Fry had a good deal of excellent material when he used to host the BAFTAs and he was often met with silence too... but not as often, and it tended to be the silence of "that went over the heads of the yanks in the audience" rather than of "it wasn't that funny..." I like Ross as a presenter, generally speaking -- I enjoy his Friday night show, and while I rarely catch his radio show (I'm rather lax about listening to anything on the radio) I enjoy that even more; and I liked Film 200-whatever, because I often find I agree with his views and have some broadly similar tastes. But he's no BAFTA host. He's just not funny enough... oddly, because his work at the Comedy Awards is usually hilariously good.
The opening, with a troop of 300-style Spartans, was by far the most interesting bit. It all seemed quite incongruous for an awards show, but through this it suggested a show with some flair and excitement. Sadly it just remained incongruous, with nothing else even vaguelly close amongst the endless troop of fairly famous people reading poorly from an autocue. Evening that Spartan-packed opening was flawed though, missing out on the apparently obvious joke of having someone enter and yell, "THIS. IS. BAFTA!", which would've been a far stronger opening than... whatever Jonathan Ross said... I can't remember now...
It's a shame we couldn't make a better fist of it for a year when more eyes than ever were on the BAFTAs, thanks to the faltering performance of US awards shows under the strike. A new host would help. Eddie Izzard, maybe -- he got laughs. So did Ricky Gervais, not that he'd do it. But when even Hugh Laurie can't bridge the cultural divide of British and American humour, you have to wonder if the host is doomed to failure from the start. At least the awards themselves threw up some surprises, with enough nods to the American films (and a consequent shunning of British talent) to keep them interested -- I do wonder if the BAFTAs pander to trying to gain an American audience too much, but one could probably debate that for hours.
There's one thing we do better thought: fewer awards, and we don't even screen them all. It makes for a much less tiring experience.
This review first appeared at 100 Films in a Year.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
TV: The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby (1982)
Whatever one might think when viewing this version of Charles Dickens' novel, you can't not be awed by the sheer scale and technical complexity of the thing. It is, in essence, a filmed version of the RSC's eight-and-a-half-hour stage adaptation of the novel, originally performed over two evenings of four hours each! There are 39 cast members who between them play over 100 roles. The staging, including any number of scene transitions and set pieces, as to be seen to be believed. It's incredibly impressive.
The adaptation itself is sadly lacking at times, however. There's an over-reliance on having cast members read chunks of the novel out for narration -- at times it's useful, but at others is so utterly pointless that it seems to be present merely to keep up a flow of narration so we don't forget it's there. Some segments could do with a good trim and modified pacing, especially during the first act of the first half (around episodes 1 to 3 of this miniseries version), where the story struggles to get going and, I must admit, I almost gave up on the whole thing several times. It is worth sticking with, though, even if just to appreciate the feat of its staging.
The performances are, unsurprisingly, quite theatrical, which can be problematic at first but is less so once you become accustomed to them. This is not always the case, however: David Threlfall's Smike is as convincing as anything you might see in a realistically-played film or TV programme; so much so that I wasn't convinced it was a performance (as opposed to a genuinely disabled person) until I finally recognised who the actor was a fair way in. He steals the show. He's also one of only two actors to play just one role, the other being Roger Rees as Nicholas. Rees was 38 when this was shot but convinces pretty well as an 18-year-old, though I wasn't always so sure of his performance. He's not a poor actor as such, but I didn't always warm to Nicholas.
The primary villain of the piece (probably, anyway -- there are several) is Nicholas' uncle, Ralph Nickleby, played by John Woodvine as a calmly uncaring man, which makes a pleasant change from the usual scheming evil villainy. His semi-redemption at the end is well played, but an unfortunate piece of plotting -- in typical Dickens style, it's based on a coincidence too far and also lacks a decent comeuppance. The dirty, snivelly evil is left for Alun Armstrong as Mr Squeers, Ralph Nickleby's sometime co-conspirator, a delightfully evil performance that would surely be labelled Dickensian were it not in a Dickens. Then there's Bob Peck (yes, Muldoon from Jurassic Park) as both the comical and good-hearted Yorkshireman John Browdie and the thoroughly dastardly Sir Mulberry Hawk -- as the former he becomes one of Nickleby's greatest friends, as the latter one of his greatest enemies. Sir Mulberry gets more suitable justice served than Ralph Nickleby, which is most satisfying.
Finally, no overview of the performances would be complete without mention of Edward Petherbridge as Newman Noggs, Nicholas' greatest friend of all. At first I found him a tad irritating, with his over-the-top hand gestures and odd way of speaking, but his many snide remarks (so very Dickens) provide a great deal of the play's best humour, and his unusual manner ultimately seems very befitting -- when Petherbridge turns up briefly as another character, it serves to highlight just how effectively affected his portrayal of Noggs is. His truly noble character, existing to serve those he believes are worth it and never after anything for himself, makes him all the more likable. If anyone comes close to equalling Threlfall then it's Petherbridge, albeit for different reasons.
Looking back on the whole nine-hour affair (which, thankfully, I watched over many nights instead of two!), it becomes easier to be impressed with the play. While viewing it can occasionally feel like a bit of a slog, especially when the plot chooses to go round in circles or drag things out interminably. But it's an achievement, that's for sure, full of memorable performances and memorable staging. Be glad it was filmed -- I can't imagine anyone being daring (or foolish) enough to attempt this again... and I'm not sure many would wish to sit through it in such large chunks anyway!
The adaptation itself is sadly lacking at times, however. There's an over-reliance on having cast members read chunks of the novel out for narration -- at times it's useful, but at others is so utterly pointless that it seems to be present merely to keep up a flow of narration so we don't forget it's there. Some segments could do with a good trim and modified pacing, especially during the first act of the first half (around episodes 1 to 3 of this miniseries version), where the story struggles to get going and, I must admit, I almost gave up on the whole thing several times. It is worth sticking with, though, even if just to appreciate the feat of its staging.
The performances are, unsurprisingly, quite theatrical, which can be problematic at first but is less so once you become accustomed to them. This is not always the case, however: David Threlfall's Smike is as convincing as anything you might see in a realistically-played film or TV programme; so much so that I wasn't convinced it was a performance (as opposed to a genuinely disabled person) until I finally recognised who the actor was a fair way in. He steals the show. He's also one of only two actors to play just one role, the other being Roger Rees as Nicholas. Rees was 38 when this was shot but convinces pretty well as an 18-year-old, though I wasn't always so sure of his performance. He's not a poor actor as such, but I didn't always warm to Nicholas.
The primary villain of the piece (probably, anyway -- there are several) is Nicholas' uncle, Ralph Nickleby, played by John Woodvine as a calmly uncaring man, which makes a pleasant change from the usual scheming evil villainy. His semi-redemption at the end is well played, but an unfortunate piece of plotting -- in typical Dickens style, it's based on a coincidence too far and also lacks a decent comeuppance. The dirty, snivelly evil is left for Alun Armstrong as Mr Squeers, Ralph Nickleby's sometime co-conspirator, a delightfully evil performance that would surely be labelled Dickensian were it not in a Dickens. Then there's Bob Peck (yes, Muldoon from Jurassic Park) as both the comical and good-hearted Yorkshireman John Browdie and the thoroughly dastardly Sir Mulberry Hawk -- as the former he becomes one of Nickleby's greatest friends, as the latter one of his greatest enemies. Sir Mulberry gets more suitable justice served than Ralph Nickleby, which is most satisfying.
Finally, no overview of the performances would be complete without mention of Edward Petherbridge as Newman Noggs, Nicholas' greatest friend of all. At first I found him a tad irritating, with his over-the-top hand gestures and odd way of speaking, but his many snide remarks (so very Dickens) provide a great deal of the play's best humour, and his unusual manner ultimately seems very befitting -- when Petherbridge turns up briefly as another character, it serves to highlight just how effectively affected his portrayal of Noggs is. His truly noble character, existing to serve those he believes are worth it and never after anything for himself, makes him all the more likable. If anyone comes close to equalling Threlfall then it's Petherbridge, albeit for different reasons.
Looking back on the whole nine-hour affair (which, thankfully, I watched over many nights instead of two!), it becomes easier to be impressed with the play. While viewing it can occasionally feel like a bit of a slog, especially when the plot chooses to go round in circles or drag things out interminably. But it's an achievement, that's for sure, full of memorable performances and memorable staging. Be glad it was filmed -- I can't imagine anyone being daring (or foolish) enough to attempt this again... and I'm not sure many would wish to sit through it in such large chunks anyway!
Sunday, 3 February 2008
TV: Thank God You're Here - Season 1, Episode 4
This week, Paul Merton's improvisational sketch show finally hit its stride. So far it's been a sporadically amusing affair, with most of the guests (who are thrust into a sketch they know nothing about and must make it as funny as the can) struggling to get many good laughs. Even the host himself, a master of improvisation on Have I Got News For You, frequently flounders in the one sketch he does every week.
But not so this week, with all six sketches and the two sets of linking clips managing their fair share of decent humour. It was also quite nice to see most of the guests messing with the regular cast members, throwing them the odd line or direction that had them struggling to keep up for a change.
Obviously the quality of this show will always hinge on the guests and what they can do, meaning that there's never any guarantee of a consistent standard. Thus far they seem to have struck a good balance with guests and given them mostly strong enough starting points that those with enough ability can do with it what they will. Hopefully they can keep it up -- and keep people watching -- because it's fast becoming one of my favourite comedy shows.
But not so this week, with all six sketches and the two sets of linking clips managing their fair share of decent humour. It was also quite nice to see most of the guests messing with the regular cast members, throwing them the odd line or direction that had them struggling to keep up for a change.
Obviously the quality of this show will always hinge on the guests and what they can do, meaning that there's never any guarantee of a consistent standard. Thus far they seem to have struck a good balance with guests and given them mostly strong enough starting points that those with enough ability can do with it what they will. Hopefully they can keep it up -- and keep people watching -- because it's fast becoming one of my favourite comedy shows.
Friday, 1 February 2008
Film: January Round-up
Here's a little round-up of all the new films I saw this January, with links to the full review over at 100 Films.
The Simpsons Movie
"it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book."
Dark City
"probably the most underrated film I've ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant."
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
"short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster"
Churchill: The Hollywood Years
"most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding."
The Mirror Crack'd
"the direction is flat and lacks suspense, half the cast phone in their performances, and Angela Lansbury, lumbered with a sprained ankle and premature aging, seems to be in a dry run for Murder, She Wrote."
Keep an eye on the regular 100 Films in a Year blog for full length reviews of all the films that are new to me as I see them.
The Simpsons Movie
"it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book."
Dark City
"probably the most underrated film I've ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant."
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
"short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster"
Churchill: The Hollywood Years
"most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding."
The Mirror Crack'd
"the direction is flat and lacks suspense, half the cast phone in their performances, and Angela Lansbury, lumbered with a sprained ankle and premature aging, seems to be in a dry run for Murder, She Wrote."
Keep an eye on the regular 100 Films in a Year blog for full length reviews of all the films that are new to me as I see them.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
TV: The People Watchers - Episode 4
BBC Two's new daytime pop-psychology series sees a group of psychologists use hidden camera experiments to demonstrate human behaviour, in the process explaining why we do the things we do, what tricks are sometimes used to influence us, and how or why we should avoid them. It's a little bit of Derren Brown mixed with The Real Hustle mixed with Dragons' Den mixed with Trigger Happy TV (or any other hidden camera show you care to mention). Sometimes it works and there's something to be learnt, other times it seems to be an excuse to pull off hidden camera stunts -- not necessarily a bad thing, but not quite what was advertised. At its worst, however, it's utterly misleading -- some of the experiments are very obviously being rigged.
Today's fourth episode saw two of the worst examples of this. In one, they asked mothers to predict if their child was lying (all of them were), to see if mums could really tell when they were being lied to. Their extensive survey covered three mothers, two of whom guessed correctly. Apparently this showed an "almost even split" between mothers who could tell and mothers who couldn't. Except you could equally (and almost more accurately) say that these results prove that twice as many mums can tell their child is lying as cannot -- a very different implication. Occasionally the show admits that its test samples are too small to really demonstrate the point, but in this case it was just glossed over.
But far worse was to come. In an experiment to demonstrate reverse psychology (or something along those lines), one of the team held two seminars on healthy eating. With the first group -- the Nice group -- he behaved in a friendly manner, and took an "everything in moderation" approach to what they should eat. With the second group -- the Naughty group -- he was sterner, more patronising, and took a "bad foods should never be eaten" approach. To see the effect on their behaviour, when the group members left the seminar they were confronted around the corner by two other team members giving away free food, apparently as part of some marketing thing. Would one group be more tempted than the other? Allegedly, yes -- the Nice group all resisted temptation with ease, while two of the Naughty group actively took something and the other member seriously considered it.
All well and good. Well, no. Because as the members of the Nice group passed by the two team members with the food simply stood around and let them go, but when it came to the Naughty group they actively sought them out and offered them something! It doesn't take a genius to tell that this completely skews the results of the experiment. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of result is supported by more extensive properly conducted research, but when the demonstration we're shown is so blatantly flawed it does rather undermine the point.
It's a bit of a shame, as a populist show about human psychology presented in a broadly entertaining way is no bad idea, it could just do with a little more integrity in its execution.
Today's fourth episode saw two of the worst examples of this. In one, they asked mothers to predict if their child was lying (all of them were), to see if mums could really tell when they were being lied to. Their extensive survey covered three mothers, two of whom guessed correctly. Apparently this showed an "almost even split" between mothers who could tell and mothers who couldn't. Except you could equally (and almost more accurately) say that these results prove that twice as many mums can tell their child is lying as cannot -- a very different implication. Occasionally the show admits that its test samples are too small to really demonstrate the point, but in this case it was just glossed over.
But far worse was to come. In an experiment to demonstrate reverse psychology (or something along those lines), one of the team held two seminars on healthy eating. With the first group -- the Nice group -- he behaved in a friendly manner, and took an "everything in moderation" approach to what they should eat. With the second group -- the Naughty group -- he was sterner, more patronising, and took a "bad foods should never be eaten" approach. To see the effect on their behaviour, when the group members left the seminar they were confronted around the corner by two other team members giving away free food, apparently as part of some marketing thing. Would one group be more tempted than the other? Allegedly, yes -- the Nice group all resisted temptation with ease, while two of the Naughty group actively took something and the other member seriously considered it.
All well and good. Well, no. Because as the members of the Nice group passed by the two team members with the food simply stood around and let them go, but when it came to the Naughty group they actively sought them out and offered them something! It doesn't take a genius to tell that this completely skews the results of the experiment. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of result is supported by more extensive properly conducted research, but when the demonstration we're shown is so blatantly flawed it does rather undermine the point.
It's a bit of a shame, as a populist show about human psychology presented in a broadly entertaining way is no bad idea, it could just do with a little more integrity in its execution.
TV: Torchwood - Season 2, Episode 3
To the Last Man by Helen Raynor
The second season of Torchwood just goes from strength to strength, and one of its main strong points is variety. Episode one was a suitable season opener -- it was light on plot, just a simple MacGuffin chase designed to facilitate a display of characters and the show's style, with suitable amounts of humour, violence, language and snogging present. Then there was Sleeper, with its creepy sci-fi mystery and apocalyptic ending working alongside a strong character-based plot.
Now we have Helen Raynor's latest contribution to the Whoniverse (after last season's rather good Ghost Machine and Doctor Who's rather bad Evolution of the Daleks two-parter). The characters are even more central here than in Sleeper, and, where last week's episode gave the great part to a guest star, here it goes to Tosh. It's nice to see Naoko Mori at the centre of an episode again as, with the exception of last season's Greeks Bearing Gifts, Tosh seems to be mainly relegated to a supporting technical role. Here she's front and centre, in love with a World War One soldier who's awake for just one day every year... and who she must send back to 1918, to face certain death.
It's a decent sci-fi plot, actually, with a nice explanation involving scrunched up paper. But where Sleeper's sci-fi story was the main thread and the human impact a subplot, To the Last Man reverses things -- in fact, the mystery is so reduced that the solution is literally handed to the team in time-sealed orders from 1918. But it's the execution of those orders, tied inextricably to the relationship we've seen develop between Tosh and Tommy, that provides the drama of the story's climax. Both Mori and Anthony Lewis as Tommy give excellent performances, creating moments of intense happiness and sadness in such a short space of time. There are no easy answers to the dilemmas they face.
It's this, and the downbeat ending that develops from it, which makes Torchwood a show for grown-up audiences this week. Yes, some episodes may use the adult-focus remit to provide violence, gore and sex, but when others use it for affecting human drama it's clear that the show can be, and now often is, a lot more than some would care to give it credit for. In an earlier review I expressed hope that they keep up the level of variety and experimentation; on the evidence of this opening salvo of episodes, and the trailer for next week's, I'd say they're doing a good job. Long may it continue.
The second season of Torchwood just goes from strength to strength, and one of its main strong points is variety. Episode one was a suitable season opener -- it was light on plot, just a simple MacGuffin chase designed to facilitate a display of characters and the show's style, with suitable amounts of humour, violence, language and snogging present. Then there was Sleeper, with its creepy sci-fi mystery and apocalyptic ending working alongside a strong character-based plot.
Now we have Helen Raynor's latest contribution to the Whoniverse (after last season's rather good Ghost Machine and Doctor Who's rather bad Evolution of the Daleks two-parter). The characters are even more central here than in Sleeper, and, where last week's episode gave the great part to a guest star, here it goes to Tosh. It's nice to see Naoko Mori at the centre of an episode again as, with the exception of last season's Greeks Bearing Gifts, Tosh seems to be mainly relegated to a supporting technical role. Here she's front and centre, in love with a World War One soldier who's awake for just one day every year... and who she must send back to 1918, to face certain death.
It's a decent sci-fi plot, actually, with a nice explanation involving scrunched up paper. But where Sleeper's sci-fi story was the main thread and the human impact a subplot, To the Last Man reverses things -- in fact, the mystery is so reduced that the solution is literally handed to the team in time-sealed orders from 1918. But it's the execution of those orders, tied inextricably to the relationship we've seen develop between Tosh and Tommy, that provides the drama of the story's climax. Both Mori and Anthony Lewis as Tommy give excellent performances, creating moments of intense happiness and sadness in such a short space of time. There are no easy answers to the dilemmas they face.
It's this, and the downbeat ending that develops from it, which makes Torchwood a show for grown-up audiences this week. Yes, some episodes may use the adult-focus remit to provide violence, gore and sex, but when others use it for affecting human drama it's clear that the show can be, and now often is, a lot more than some would care to give it credit for. In an earlier review I expressed hope that they keep up the level of variety and experimentation; on the evidence of this opening salvo of episodes, and the trailer for next week's, I'd say they're doing a good job. Long may it continue.
TV: Wonderland - Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love
What if your partner spent anything up to 16 hours a day living in a virtual reality world on the Internet, spending all her time with someone from the other side of the world, and neglecting you, your kids, and all other duties in the process? That's one of the fundamental questions behind this documentary in the BBC's new Wonderland series, which is apparently something to do with the weirdnesses of modern life but seems more like an excuse to lump together a collection of unrelated documentaries under a heading that isn't Horizon.
Anyway, this particular episode is about Second Life, which most people have heard of by now; more specifically, it's about relationships in Second Life. Far from being the vitriolic criticism of such things that you may have expected from the programme's blurb -- or, indeed, it's first ten minutes -- it winds up showing a fairly balanced portrait of the effects of such things. Yes, there's the American couple whose life is being destroyed by the wife's obsession with the game and relationship on it with a British man, but there's also the pair from Nuneaton who are now happily married and expecting a child, after having met on Second Life.
This latter couple are the Positive Side: the game allowed the woman to escape an oppressive relationship, the man left his former partner as soon as he realised what he had in the game was actually something serious. They may be a subplot beside the Negative Side of the main 'love triangle', but the unreserved success of their pairing goes a long way to combat any accusation of bias. As for that American-Brit thing, after ruining their lives for 10 months the American finally meets the Brit, they don't get on as well, and that's that. She returns to America intending to give her marriage another go. It's not as happy an ending, but considering how poorly she's been treating her husband for nearly a year it's hard to feel any sympathy for her.
It's a wonder he stuck by her for so long -- and, in this case, there's the answer to the question. In a modern age where divorce can be all too easy, it's almost miraculous to see a partner prepared to stick by their spouse for so long and through so much. Whether she deserves such care is another matter.
Anyway, this particular episode is about Second Life, which most people have heard of by now; more specifically, it's about relationships in Second Life. Far from being the vitriolic criticism of such things that you may have expected from the programme's blurb -- or, indeed, it's first ten minutes -- it winds up showing a fairly balanced portrait of the effects of such things. Yes, there's the American couple whose life is being destroyed by the wife's obsession with the game and relationship on it with a British man, but there's also the pair from Nuneaton who are now happily married and expecting a child, after having met on Second Life.
This latter couple are the Positive Side: the game allowed the woman to escape an oppressive relationship, the man left his former partner as soon as he realised what he had in the game was actually something serious. They may be a subplot beside the Negative Side of the main 'love triangle', but the unreserved success of their pairing goes a long way to combat any accusation of bias. As for that American-Brit thing, after ruining their lives for 10 months the American finally meets the Brit, they don't get on as well, and that's that. She returns to America intending to give her marriage another go. It's not as happy an ending, but considering how poorly she's been treating her husband for nearly a year it's hard to feel any sympathy for her.
It's a wonder he stuck by her for so long -- and, in this case, there's the answer to the question. In a modern age where divorce can be all too easy, it's almost miraculous to see a partner prepared to stick by their spouse for so long and through so much. Whether she deserves such care is another matter.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
TV: My Fake Baby
Channel 4's recent documentary about Reborns, a product that's not widely known about (until now, anyway) but which has a surprisingly large and dedicated community around it. Reborns are essentially dolls that look and feel (when done well) exactly like a young baby. Don't go calling them "dolls" or "fake babies" to those who make and enjoy them, though, as they don't take especially kindly to it.
It's a tricky area to cover. It would be all too easy for the filmmakers to paint the women who buy these reborns as mad or weird, but instead they take a more hands-off approach, showing them in a balanced and sensitive way and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. The film takes a fairly broad view of why people choose to get these reborns too, from a woman who has several that she likes to dress and take out, to another who wants a replacement (for want of a better word) for her grandson who now lives in New Zealand, via a woman who makes them and another who has a collection of dozens. There's also their partners, who invariably take a fairly dim view of such things.
The film doesn't go into much detail on the wider scope of the reborn community -- there are dozens of people who make them, mostly selling on eBay as either pre-made or made to order; there's even a guild of reborn creators. But rather than tackle the intricacies of this the film focuses on the more interesting human aspect -- what leads these women to want a reborn, and what is the pleasure they derive from it? Despite C4's usual shock-doc titling, it's an appropriately made look at an interesting emerging phenomenon.
It's a tricky area to cover. It would be all too easy for the filmmakers to paint the women who buy these reborns as mad or weird, but instead they take a more hands-off approach, showing them in a balanced and sensitive way and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. The film takes a fairly broad view of why people choose to get these reborns too, from a woman who has several that she likes to dress and take out, to another who wants a replacement (for want of a better word) for her grandson who now lives in New Zealand, via a woman who makes them and another who has a collection of dozens. There's also their partners, who invariably take a fairly dim view of such things.
The film doesn't go into much detail on the wider scope of the reborn community -- there are dozens of people who make them, mostly selling on eBay as either pre-made or made to order; there's even a guild of reborn creators. But rather than tackle the intricacies of this the film focuses on the more interesting human aspect -- what leads these women to want a reborn, and what is the pleasure they derive from it? Despite C4's usual shock-doc titling, it's an appropriately made look at an interesting emerging phenomenon.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
TV: Torchwood - Season 2, Episode 2
Sleeper by James Moran
The central premise of this second episode is an excellent one: there are a group of aliens in Cardiff, who don't know they're aliens, gathering information to eventually mount an attack so their race can seize the planet. It's a play on the idea of sleeper cells -- groups of terrorists in hiding in a country, working on plans to attack. Thankfully this analogy is never made too blatant: rather than using sci-fi to make a 'clever' comment, it uses a very modern, real concept to launch its own strong tale.
The episode is a bit of a slow burn, surely closer to the sort of adult drama many critics were demanding of Torchwood, though it's neatly decorated with action, blood and gore when appropriate. The whole episode hinges on Beth, who is magnificently portrayed by Nikki Amuka-Bird. I've seen her in a few other things and not always been that impressed, to be honest, but here she shines, carrying all of the episode's emotion -- and there's a lot of it. Beth is one of those aliens-who-doesn't know, who comes to the attention of Torchwood following an accidental manifestation of her alien abilities. The plot then makes a beeline through their discoveries about her true identity to a plot involving a secret nuclear missile base and the destruction of the planet.
This is the sort of episode where Torchwood can really shine: a mix of powerful human emotion, original and well-considered science-fiction, and a nice bit of action and gore to round things off. The adult time slot and focus also allow it to be more uncertain than Doctor Who ever will be, in terms of the moral compass of the characters (even the good guys) and the sorts of endings we might find -- in this case, one both downbeat and with several key threads unresolved.
If Torchwood can keep up the level of quality and variety displayed in the first two episodes then we're in for an excellent season, one where the show doesn't so much find its feet as pull on its boots and sprint off. With a gun. To kick some alien arse.
The central premise of this second episode is an excellent one: there are a group of aliens in Cardiff, who don't know they're aliens, gathering information to eventually mount an attack so their race can seize the planet. It's a play on the idea of sleeper cells -- groups of terrorists in hiding in a country, working on plans to attack. Thankfully this analogy is never made too blatant: rather than using sci-fi to make a 'clever' comment, it uses a very modern, real concept to launch its own strong tale.
The episode is a bit of a slow burn, surely closer to the sort of adult drama many critics were demanding of Torchwood, though it's neatly decorated with action, blood and gore when appropriate. The whole episode hinges on Beth, who is magnificently portrayed by Nikki Amuka-Bird. I've seen her in a few other things and not always been that impressed, to be honest, but here she shines, carrying all of the episode's emotion -- and there's a lot of it. Beth is one of those aliens-who-doesn't know, who comes to the attention of Torchwood following an accidental manifestation of her alien abilities. The plot then makes a beeline through their discoveries about her true identity to a plot involving a secret nuclear missile base and the destruction of the planet.
This is the sort of episode where Torchwood can really shine: a mix of powerful human emotion, original and well-considered science-fiction, and a nice bit of action and gore to round things off. The adult time slot and focus also allow it to be more uncertain than Doctor Who ever will be, in terms of the moral compass of the characters (even the good guys) and the sorts of endings we might find -- in this case, one both downbeat and with several key threads unresolved.
If Torchwood can keep up the level of quality and variety displayed in the first two episodes then we're in for an excellent season, one where the show doesn't so much find its feet as pull on its boots and sprint off. With a gun. To kick some alien arse.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
TV: Louis Theroux Behind Bars
Louis Theroux visits the infamous San Quentin prison, in this documentary shown about two weeks ago on BBC Two. It's a hard place, full to bursting with something like 3000 murderers, rapists, paedophiles, other serious criminals, and plenty of relatively minor ones too. The segregate themselves into gangs, often along race lines; many are in 23-hours-a-day total confinement; attacks on other inmates and guards seem to be rife... and yet there is a bizarrely genial, almost co-conspiratorial, relationship between the wardens and inmates.
I've never watched a Theroux documentary before, despite some of the interesting topics he's covered -- at first I just thought he was into pointlessly weird things, so ignored him, and then even as the areas he was investigating become more interesting the scheduling was quite poor (i.e. it clashed with something better). His style is not hard-hitting or furiously investigative -- to be honest, who can blame him not wanting to push these men with hard questions? Instead he seems to have a series of pleasant conversations with a variety of prisoners and wardens, but in the process learns a lot about what it's like to live in San Quentin.
This isn't a technical exercise in how the prison works -- there are a few details about solitary confinement, the amount of yard time they get, how meals work, etc, but these are the bare minimum, almost window dressing, around the stories of the people. Nor does it really delve into the issues of why these people are here, if they deserve their punishments, and why it is so many of them come back within months, if not weeks. Instead Theroux is more interested in 'prison society' -- how the gangs function, how new inmates survive, what happens to those who drop out of gangs, how relationships can flourish and how they're treated. Through his gentle probing, a surprising amount of information is revealed.
Yet there's always a sense that he hasn't quite got to the heart of things. When gang members and guards appear to speak candidly about the inter-inmate violence, the racism-that-isn't-(honest) between gangs, or various other potentially shocking facts of prison life, there's a feeling that there's something more, just beyond that -- something that they won't, or can't, talk about. I'd wager no documentarian could get at the stuff. Theroux succeeds in getting closer than most.
I've never watched a Theroux documentary before, despite some of the interesting topics he's covered -- at first I just thought he was into pointlessly weird things, so ignored him, and then even as the areas he was investigating become more interesting the scheduling was quite poor (i.e. it clashed with something better). His style is not hard-hitting or furiously investigative -- to be honest, who can blame him not wanting to push these men with hard questions? Instead he seems to have a series of pleasant conversations with a variety of prisoners and wardens, but in the process learns a lot about what it's like to live in San Quentin.
This isn't a technical exercise in how the prison works -- there are a few details about solitary confinement, the amount of yard time they get, how meals work, etc, but these are the bare minimum, almost window dressing, around the stories of the people. Nor does it really delve into the issues of why these people are here, if they deserve their punishments, and why it is so many of them come back within months, if not weeks. Instead Theroux is more interested in 'prison society' -- how the gangs function, how new inmates survive, what happens to those who drop out of gangs, how relationships can flourish and how they're treated. Through his gentle probing, a surprising amount of information is revealed.
Yet there's always a sense that he hasn't quite got to the heart of things. When gang members and guards appear to speak candidly about the inter-inmate violence, the racism-that-isn't-(honest) between gangs, or various other potentially shocking facts of prison life, there's a feeling that there's something more, just beyond that -- something that they won't, or can't, talk about. I'd wager no documentarian could get at the stuff. Theroux succeeds in getting closer than most.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
TV: The Riches - Season 1, Episode 10
This is Your Brain on Drugs by Ellen Herman
When The Riches began, I was a bit surprised. You see, I was expecting a fairly light comedy-drama sort of show -- "family of con artists steal the American Dream by pretending to be rich lawyers" rather suggests that to me. Instead I found a pilot filled with random death, drug addiction, arranged marriages, and other generally serious and rather depressing plot points. Heavy. The rest of the series lightened up a bit, thank God, and has managed to be a good mix of the serious and the comedic, the episodic and the ongoing.
Episode 10, however, is pretty much all-out comedy. And it's hilarious, which is what's inspired me to write about it for the first time. Following the events of the last episode, in which Wayne turned down a partnership from his boss (sort of) and Dahlia was left a bag of meth by her ex-cellmate (called Chunky K), a pissed off Wayne takes "a shitload of meth" out of spite, and heads off on a journey that includes trying to get a job from a guy he fired, kidnapping a senile old woman, and confessing to a priest who's having an existential quandary. It's absolutely as barking as it sounds, if not more so. It's also incredibly fast-paced, racing from one crazy situation to the next as Dahlia's attempts to remotely control Wayne, whilst also taking care of the real estate agents he should be dealing with, spiral out of control. And, as I believe I said, it's hilariously funny.
The Riches grew on me very quickly, after the pilot that, while well written and performed, was not what I was after. I can't say I've fallen for it as much as that other darkly comic US drama, Dexter (coming to ITV1 soon -- watch it), but I'm glad it's been re-commissioned. Meanwhile, I've still got three episodes of the first season to go...
When The Riches began, I was a bit surprised. You see, I was expecting a fairly light comedy-drama sort of show -- "family of con artists steal the American Dream by pretending to be rich lawyers" rather suggests that to me. Instead I found a pilot filled with random death, drug addiction, arranged marriages, and other generally serious and rather depressing plot points. Heavy. The rest of the series lightened up a bit, thank God, and has managed to be a good mix of the serious and the comedic, the episodic and the ongoing.
Episode 10, however, is pretty much all-out comedy. And it's hilarious, which is what's inspired me to write about it for the first time. Following the events of the last episode, in which Wayne turned down a partnership from his boss (sort of) and Dahlia was left a bag of meth by her ex-cellmate (called Chunky K), a pissed off Wayne takes "a shitload of meth" out of spite, and heads off on a journey that includes trying to get a job from a guy he fired, kidnapping a senile old woman, and confessing to a priest who's having an existential quandary. It's absolutely as barking as it sounds, if not more so. It's also incredibly fast-paced, racing from one crazy situation to the next as Dahlia's attempts to remotely control Wayne, whilst also taking care of the real estate agents he should be dealing with, spiral out of control. And, as I believe I said, it's hilariously funny.
The Riches grew on me very quickly, after the pilot that, while well written and performed, was not what I was after. I can't say I've fallen for it as much as that other darkly comic US drama, Dexter (coming to ITV1 soon -- watch it), but I'm glad it's been re-commissioned. Meanwhile, I've still got three episodes of the first season to go...
TV: The Palace - Season 1, Episode 2
I wonder if SFX will be covering The Palace? After all, it's clearly set in some alternate Universe. On the obvious level, our royal family is not made up of an early-20s King, his younger "playboy prince" brother, their scheming older sister ("oh I just can't wait to be Queen", to paraphrase The Lion King), and a Queen Mother who can't be any older than Prince Charles. Oh, and there's a younger sister too, but she only turned up for about two minutes of episode one. Maybe they forgot she existed? I did. It's not only the family, mind -- it's the general level of believability in the whole thing. Which is pretty low.
The Palace's jaunty theme tune and cheesy character shots are the key here. This is, to all intents and purposes, a soap -- albeit a soap with the odd posh accent, better performances and better direction. The political machinations on display are much more Eastenders than The West Wing, its characters more... well, ITV than BBC, to be blunt. Jane Asher looks faintly martyred as the Queen Mother, probably quite aware that if this were on the BBC her role would've gone to Susan Hampshire and she'd have actually had some dialogue. The older sister (whose name escapes me) sits in her room, scheming away to be Queen, with only the support of her ex-military secretary... and constantly fails to get anywhere. You half expect each episode to end with her plans failed, unnoticed by anyone else, and her exclaiming, "why if it weren't for you pesky kids... I'll get you next time King Richard!"
In this week's episode two, Richard (or King Richard IV, as the credits insist) takes on the Government over cuts in defence spending (the Iraq war apparently still happened in this alternate reality). The King isn't meant to do this, you see, as the British monarch should remain political impartial. But despite the Prime Minister's attempts to stop him, Richard fights on, because he believes in his cause. Hooray! But then the PM's office leaks photos of him partying, a move orchestrated by Richard's girlfriend Miranda (who, incidentally, works for the PM -- oh the complications!) So what does Richard do? Does he fight on regardless, sure of his moral standpoint -- hoorah good King Richard! Go go New Monarchy! -- or does he give up, write a letter of apology to the PM, and dump his girlfriend by ignoring her? You guess.
Some of the actors appear to be under the impression they're in a serious attempt to examine the royals through drama. While they're clearly wrong, their relatively heavyweight performances lend the primary storylines a bit more depth and interest than the childish twitterings of the staff -- who, this week, were on a mission to collect toenail clippings and hair samples from each of the royals; not to sell to gullible folk on eBay, as you might expect, but to swap for cigarette butts of that guy from Manic Street Preachers who died (clearly, this alternate universe hasn't been thoroughly thought through, it's far too similar to ours -- tsk tsk.)
The Palace is, by and large, ridiculous, and only occasionally consciously so. While I'm far from being a Royalist, I can't escape the feeling that such an institution as the British monarchy should be given a bit more respect than to be turned into a clone of Dynasty (or so I'm told; I've never seem Dynasty, but this is rather how I imagine it).
The Palace's jaunty theme tune and cheesy character shots are the key here. This is, to all intents and purposes, a soap -- albeit a soap with the odd posh accent, better performances and better direction. The political machinations on display are much more Eastenders than The West Wing, its characters more... well, ITV than BBC, to be blunt. Jane Asher looks faintly martyred as the Queen Mother, probably quite aware that if this were on the BBC her role would've gone to Susan Hampshire and she'd have actually had some dialogue. The older sister (whose name escapes me) sits in her room, scheming away to be Queen, with only the support of her ex-military secretary... and constantly fails to get anywhere. You half expect each episode to end with her plans failed, unnoticed by anyone else, and her exclaiming, "why if it weren't for you pesky kids... I'll get you next time King Richard!"
In this week's episode two, Richard (or King Richard IV, as the credits insist) takes on the Government over cuts in defence spending (the Iraq war apparently still happened in this alternate reality). The King isn't meant to do this, you see, as the British monarch should remain political impartial. But despite the Prime Minister's attempts to stop him, Richard fights on, because he believes in his cause. Hooray! But then the PM's office leaks photos of him partying, a move orchestrated by Richard's girlfriend Miranda (who, incidentally, works for the PM -- oh the complications!) So what does Richard do? Does he fight on regardless, sure of his moral standpoint -- hoorah good King Richard! Go go New Monarchy! -- or does he give up, write a letter of apology to the PM, and dump his girlfriend by ignoring her? You guess.
Some of the actors appear to be under the impression they're in a serious attempt to examine the royals through drama. While they're clearly wrong, their relatively heavyweight performances lend the primary storylines a bit more depth and interest than the childish twitterings of the staff -- who, this week, were on a mission to collect toenail clippings and hair samples from each of the royals; not to sell to gullible folk on eBay, as you might expect, but to swap for cigarette butts of that guy from Manic Street Preachers who died (clearly, this alternate universe hasn't been thoroughly thought through, it's far too similar to ours -- tsk tsk.)
The Palace is, by and large, ridiculous, and only occasionally consciously so. While I'm far from being a Royalist, I can't escape the feeling that such an institution as the British monarchy should be given a bit more respect than to be turned into a clone of Dynasty (or so I'm told; I've never seem Dynasty, but this is rather how I imagine it).
Sunday, 20 January 2008
TV: Thank God You're Here - Season 1, Episode 2
Paul Merton's new improvisational sketch show seems to have turned up with no fanfare, until this week when adverts have started cropping up all over the place. I presume it's filmed in the week leading to transmission, then, as the only clips in the trailer were from last week's episode. Which was a shame, because the fact that likes of Ben Miller (who seems to be bloody everywhere at the minute) and Fern Britton were among the first guests helped persuade me to watch. But no, that was last week's.
Nonetheless, the concept is a good strong one. Essentially, four celebrities each walk into a comedy sketch with absolutely no knowledge about it, bar the costume they've been put in, then have to improvise their way through it. It seems such a simple idea that you wonder why no one's done it before (or maybe they have, before my time). You might also assume that it's all a big act and written for them, but judging by the mixed quality of the performances and the genuine struggle on their faces at times, I'd guess it's done for real. (Of course, in the current atmosphere of distrust surrounding TV, it would be a brave producer who put a scripted show on the air claiming it was improvised!)
As you'd expect, the sketches are bit of a mixed bag. Australian comedian Hamish Blake made a good job of a tennis player trying to get into Heaven, while as a shopaholic housewife Sally Lindsay barely got through the scene. Michael McIntyre was forced to resort to being confused and useless as his character, a technique which got him by with a few laughs and no real effort. Clive Anderson was deemed the best of the bunch though, for his World War Two RAF commander... and also playing a giant beefburger in a final ensemble scene. The final scene -- featuring all four guests as fast food restaurant employees -- made for a decidedly lacklustre finale.
Also disappointing was the sketch attempted by host Paul Merton. Under the same rules as everyone else, he played an irresponsible butler. I expected much from Merton, as his improvisation on Have I Got News For You is so good and he's one of the few people to have managed a whole minute on Just a Minute, but he struggled to get through this one. But that's the problem with the show's format: whether it's any good relies on the performers' abilities to improvise, which will always make it inconsistent, not just from week to week but from sketch to sketch. They weren't always aided by the scripted parts of their scenes either, which all too often seemed to get in the way more than help.
All that said, it was still fairly amusing and quite entertaining. Knowing the setup means the audience's empathic sympathy for the guests helps gloss over any lack of comedic ability in favour of a "well they tried; it's not easy" reaction, making it easier to forgive weak sketches than it would be on a fully scripted show. It's also nice to see something funny on ITV again -- you wait years for something to make you laugh on ITV and then two come along at once! Ain't it always the way.
Nonetheless, the concept is a good strong one. Essentially, four celebrities each walk into a comedy sketch with absolutely no knowledge about it, bar the costume they've been put in, then have to improvise their way through it. It seems such a simple idea that you wonder why no one's done it before (or maybe they have, before my time). You might also assume that it's all a big act and written for them, but judging by the mixed quality of the performances and the genuine struggle on their faces at times, I'd guess it's done for real. (Of course, in the current atmosphere of distrust surrounding TV, it would be a brave producer who put a scripted show on the air claiming it was improvised!)
As you'd expect, the sketches are bit of a mixed bag. Australian comedian Hamish Blake made a good job of a tennis player trying to get into Heaven, while as a shopaholic housewife Sally Lindsay barely got through the scene. Michael McIntyre was forced to resort to being confused and useless as his character, a technique which got him by with a few laughs and no real effort. Clive Anderson was deemed the best of the bunch though, for his World War Two RAF commander... and also playing a giant beefburger in a final ensemble scene. The final scene -- featuring all four guests as fast food restaurant employees -- made for a decidedly lacklustre finale.
Also disappointing was the sketch attempted by host Paul Merton. Under the same rules as everyone else, he played an irresponsible butler. I expected much from Merton, as his improvisation on Have I Got News For You is so good and he's one of the few people to have managed a whole minute on Just a Minute, but he struggled to get through this one. But that's the problem with the show's format: whether it's any good relies on the performers' abilities to improvise, which will always make it inconsistent, not just from week to week but from sketch to sketch. They weren't always aided by the scripted parts of their scenes either, which all too often seemed to get in the way more than help.
All that said, it was still fairly amusing and quite entertaining. Knowing the setup means the audience's empathic sympathy for the guests helps gloss over any lack of comedic ability in favour of a "well they tried; it's not easy" reaction, making it easier to forgive weak sketches than it would be on a fully scripted show. It's also nice to see something funny on ITV again -- you wait years for something to make you laugh on ITV and then two come along at once! Ain't it always the way.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
TV: Primeval - Season 2, Episode 2
If you've never seen Primeval then you need to know that it is essentially a "Monster of the Week" style show. And this week the monsters are... giant worms. Not as in Dune-style massive, mind; more dog-sized. As monsters go, they sound almost as weak as the first season's Dodo episode, though at least that had a killer virus to help liven things up.
Now, to be fair, the worms aren't as weak as they sound. Hidden in mist, their sudden attacks are almost surprising enough to make the viewer jump (but not quite), and there's some degree of eeriness as they potential skulk around nearby. But they seem to spit mud, for some reason, which I at first thought was perhaps mud-a-like poison, but it doesn't seem to have any effect whatsoever. And when one of them got Connor's head in its mouth, for a good 30 seconds it seemed, he came out just a bit gooey when Cutter finally got round to killing it. So not that threatening at all, really. In fact, the worms were at their worst when they did, spraying baby worms all over our heroes which then tried to burrow into their skin, in what seemed to be a desperate attempt at dragging things out by about 90 seconds.
I'm probably being too harsh on Primeval again. As I believe I said before, it manages the whole action/adventure thing moderately well. Sometimes. Other times it's just a bit dragging and repetitive. It also seems to be fighting a losing battle against its on-going plot threads, either like it really really wants to remain a Monster of the Week show but those pesky story arcs won't go away, or like the writers really really want to turn it into a conspiracy-based serial but don't quite have the nerve to lose those monsters.
As far as I'm concerned, the mysteries hinted at are more interesting: what does Helen want (as she turns up, briefly and for no good reason, this week)? How will the whole Jenny/Claudia thing play out? What was all that about with the undead security guard / soldier thing? And just what is the point of the anomalies / where do they come from / etc? That last question is an especially interesting one; one that the show keeps asking but I'm afraid will never answer. It seems to be central to the whole purpose of this little group and their ARC -- finding out what the anomalies are, where they come from, how to stop them -- yet they're just stuck fighting the latest things to come through it each week. This would be fine if the anomalies had been somehow explained, if they were just an occurrence and it was their effects that needed halting; but the whole mystery of what they are is constantly repeated, central to the point of the team, and yet they never get a chance to look into it because they're always having to shoot raptors or behead worms.
I'm not saying I want Primeval to switch from monster-killing action to a group of men in a room debating time travel phenomena. But it would be nice if there was some progression, or some hint that they'll eventually find answers. They've made the existence and point of the anomalies into a mystery rather than a simple fact, so now they need to pay it off and explain it at some point... I just don't believe they'll ever bother. Maybe I'm underestimating them, but on the evidence so far I'm not sure.
In the meantime, next week's sabretooth cat looks like it could be fun...
Now, to be fair, the worms aren't as weak as they sound. Hidden in mist, their sudden attacks are almost surprising enough to make the viewer jump (but not quite), and there's some degree of eeriness as they potential skulk around nearby. But they seem to spit mud, for some reason, which I at first thought was perhaps mud-a-like poison, but it doesn't seem to have any effect whatsoever. And when one of them got Connor's head in its mouth, for a good 30 seconds it seemed, he came out just a bit gooey when Cutter finally got round to killing it. So not that threatening at all, really. In fact, the worms were at their worst when they did, spraying baby worms all over our heroes which then tried to burrow into their skin, in what seemed to be a desperate attempt at dragging things out by about 90 seconds.
I'm probably being too harsh on Primeval again. As I believe I said before, it manages the whole action/adventure thing moderately well. Sometimes. Other times it's just a bit dragging and repetitive. It also seems to be fighting a losing battle against its on-going plot threads, either like it really really wants to remain a Monster of the Week show but those pesky story arcs won't go away, or like the writers really really want to turn it into a conspiracy-based serial but don't quite have the nerve to lose those monsters.
As far as I'm concerned, the mysteries hinted at are more interesting: what does Helen want (as she turns up, briefly and for no good reason, this week)? How will the whole Jenny/Claudia thing play out? What was all that about with the undead security guard / soldier thing? And just what is the point of the anomalies / where do they come from / etc? That last question is an especially interesting one; one that the show keeps asking but I'm afraid will never answer. It seems to be central to the whole purpose of this little group and their ARC -- finding out what the anomalies are, where they come from, how to stop them -- yet they're just stuck fighting the latest things to come through it each week. This would be fine if the anomalies had been somehow explained, if they were just an occurrence and it was their effects that needed halting; but the whole mystery of what they are is constantly repeated, central to the point of the team, and yet they never get a chance to look into it because they're always having to shoot raptors or behead worms.
I'm not saying I want Primeval to switch from monster-killing action to a group of men in a room debating time travel phenomena. But it would be nice if there was some progression, or some hint that they'll eventually find answers. They've made the existence and point of the anomalies into a mystery rather than a simple fact, so now they need to pay it off and explain it at some point... I just don't believe they'll ever bother. Maybe I'm underestimating them, but on the evidence so far I'm not sure.
In the meantime, next week's sabretooth cat looks like it could be fun...
TV: Moving Wallpaper & Echo Beach - Season 1, Episode 3
The more it goes on, the more convinced I am that Echo Beach exists solely to support and pay off Moving Wallpaper. Take this week's beach buggy -- the "Buggle" -- for instance. It turns up first in Moving Wallpaper as a "prop for this week's episode", where it's used to comic effect in another scene of Jonathan Pope's hilarious ineptitude as a human being. When it turns up in Echo Beach, some of the characters drive around in it for a few minutes (in a bit of poorly sped-up footage) for no reason. At all. It's there for the sake of Moving Wallpaper, and because it needs an excuse to be in Moving Wallpaper it's also in Echo Beach.
The same can be said for various other things -- including several lines of dialogue, or Susie Amy's character (if you just watched Echo Beach her slow involvement might seem to be mysterious, but paired with Moving Wallpaper her begging is clear -- and unless Echo Beach pulls out a "why she's so mysterious" twist, the Moving Wallpaper gag will remain the only reason for it). And the acting and writing of Echo Beach is generally pretty dismal too. I can't be certain if that's deliberate, as it's clearly a spoof just tied in with the sitcom it follows, or just because everyone involved is a bit rubbish. Still, as the only reason to watch it is for those Moving Wallpaper pay-offs, does it really matter?
As for Moving Wallpaper itself... well, that's just great. While it may lack a great deal of originality (beyond the obvious ties to its sister show), it still manages amusing characters, situations and dialogue. It's certainly the funniest thing ITV have produced for a long time. Or the most intentionally funny thing, anyway. Even the impression that it's a vague collection of subplots with no primary storyline does little to dent the amusement value of it. Ben Miller is infinitely more at home as Pope than he is in Primeval, and the rest of the cast make a fair job of their largely formulaic characters (incidentally, the guy playing the young male writer (I have no idea of any of the other characters' names) seems to play the same role in everything I've seen him in. I wonder if he minds being so typecast?)
Providing it can keep it up, I hope Moving Wallpaper survives to further seasons. I could well stand to lose Echo Beach, however... but then, one wouldn't be quite the same without the other.
The same can be said for various other things -- including several lines of dialogue, or Susie Amy's character (if you just watched Echo Beach her slow involvement might seem to be mysterious, but paired with Moving Wallpaper her begging is clear -- and unless Echo Beach pulls out a "why she's so mysterious" twist, the Moving Wallpaper gag will remain the only reason for it). And the acting and writing of Echo Beach is generally pretty dismal too. I can't be certain if that's deliberate, as it's clearly a spoof just tied in with the sitcom it follows, or just because everyone involved is a bit rubbish. Still, as the only reason to watch it is for those Moving Wallpaper pay-offs, does it really matter?
As for Moving Wallpaper itself... well, that's just great. While it may lack a great deal of originality (beyond the obvious ties to its sister show), it still manages amusing characters, situations and dialogue. It's certainly the funniest thing ITV have produced for a long time. Or the most intentionally funny thing, anyway. Even the impression that it's a vague collection of subplots with no primary storyline does little to dent the amusement value of it. Ben Miller is infinitely more at home as Pope than he is in Primeval, and the rest of the cast make a fair job of their largely formulaic characters (incidentally, the guy playing the young male writer (I have no idea of any of the other characters' names) seems to play the same role in everything I've seen him in. I wonder if he minds being so typecast?)
Providing it can keep it up, I hope Moving Wallpaper survives to further seasons. I could well stand to lose Echo Beach, however... but then, one wouldn't be quite the same without the other.
Thursday, 17 January 2008
TV: Torchwood - Season 2, Episode 1
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang by Chris Chibnall
Captain Jack, Gwen, Owen, Tosh and Ianto are back, for another 13 stories of... well, you can never quite be sure what you'll get with Torchwood. Which has led to a lot of criticism, but is one of my favourite things about the show. There were some really good episodes in the first season, as well as some dreadful ones -- and, tellingly, most people disagree over which stories fall into which category. The writers dared to be a little experimental in what sorts of tales they chose to tell last year, which opened it up to easy criticism when something didn't quite work. But it has a lot more potential -- and, in fact, a much higher general quality level -- than many review scores would lead you to believe.
This new season doesn't necessarily feel greatly different to how it did first time round -- it's Torchwood 1.1 not Torchwood 2.0, if you will. Despite what some of those critics would have you believe, this is no bad thing: the show's first run was far from perfect, true, but it didn't need a total overhaul. It needed tweaking, not redesigning, and that's what they've done. It's funnier, faster paced, action-packed, the characters are more likable, they get on (finally), and there were fewer faintly embarrassing moments (though I still think the use of video instead of film is still poorly handled, making it look cheap and amateurish from time to time). Of course, this is just episode one, so some of the old problems may still be in store. But compare this to the overall impression of last year's opener and you can feel the subtle shifts. It's altogether more promising. Incidentally, there's no sign as yet that they'll lose that experimental side I praised above, so fingers crossed they don't -- while I didn't fully enjoy every episode of season one, I did always appreciate their attempts to provide something a bit different.
This episode is what might be deemed a 'standard one' (or 'normal one', or whatever), which seems wholly appropriate for a season opener. James Marsters turns up as Captain John Hart, a clear parallel of Captain Jack and reminiscent of how Jack was before the Doctor effected him. Relatively little is made of the "Jack used to behave like this" angle, which is perhaps something of a shame, but equally stops the episode from getting bogged down in anything so introspective. Instead they all race off an exciting quest to find three missing bombs, and Chibnall weaves his character scenes in around this rather effectively. The main emotional thread here is the return of Jack, who has been missing for several months. The reactions of the rest of the team are nicely played, coming across as more realistic and consistent than they ever seemed in season one. Hopefully they'll continue on this path.
As Captain John, Marsters was perhaps a little too much like Spike from Buffy and Angel (for those who might not know, that's the role Marsters is best known for), but then Spike was a damn good character and Captain John shows enough differences to still be enjoyable. It's not much of a spoiler to say this (as the trailer at the end revealed it!), but he'll be back, and I for one am very glad. The other performances were also aided by the improvements in the writing. Jack's much more fun again after his time with the Doctor, Owen is less irritating, Tosh is more active, and Ianto is still quietly effective. Which leaves Gwen: unduly hated by some, she is still the show's emotional heart and will clearly continue to be so. Considering the others can often be lacking in this department, it's a much needed role; but it's nice that she is now also fully one of the team, to the extent that she led it in Jack's absence, and is not just a filter for the viewer's understanding.
Some of Torchwood's critics could do with getting down off their high horses. They moan that the show's not genuinely adult or grown-up enough. Actually, Torchwood delivers exactly what it promises: "Doctor Who for adults". That means it is essentially a romp, with content that displays more violence, sex and adult characters & relationships than its parent show. It may not be 'deep' or 'complex' or 'intricate', and you may be able to follow the plot without the feeling you need a character map and a degree -- don't get me wrong, because I absolutely adore those sorts of dramas too -- but that doesn't mean that Torchwood is not a good quality programme for a grown-up audience.
Maybe some people just need to learn how to have a bit of fun?
Captain Jack, Gwen, Owen, Tosh and Ianto are back, for another 13 stories of... well, you can never quite be sure what you'll get with Torchwood. Which has led to a lot of criticism, but is one of my favourite things about the show. There were some really good episodes in the first season, as well as some dreadful ones -- and, tellingly, most people disagree over which stories fall into which category. The writers dared to be a little experimental in what sorts of tales they chose to tell last year, which opened it up to easy criticism when something didn't quite work. But it has a lot more potential -- and, in fact, a much higher general quality level -- than many review scores would lead you to believe.
This new season doesn't necessarily feel greatly different to how it did first time round -- it's Torchwood 1.1 not Torchwood 2.0, if you will. Despite what some of those critics would have you believe, this is no bad thing: the show's first run was far from perfect, true, but it didn't need a total overhaul. It needed tweaking, not redesigning, and that's what they've done. It's funnier, faster paced, action-packed, the characters are more likable, they get on (finally), and there were fewer faintly embarrassing moments (though I still think the use of video instead of film is still poorly handled, making it look cheap and amateurish from time to time). Of course, this is just episode one, so some of the old problems may still be in store. But compare this to the overall impression of last year's opener and you can feel the subtle shifts. It's altogether more promising. Incidentally, there's no sign as yet that they'll lose that experimental side I praised above, so fingers crossed they don't -- while I didn't fully enjoy every episode of season one, I did always appreciate their attempts to provide something a bit different.
This episode is what might be deemed a 'standard one' (or 'normal one', or whatever), which seems wholly appropriate for a season opener. James Marsters turns up as Captain John Hart, a clear parallel of Captain Jack and reminiscent of how Jack was before the Doctor effected him. Relatively little is made of the "Jack used to behave like this" angle, which is perhaps something of a shame, but equally stops the episode from getting bogged down in anything so introspective. Instead they all race off an exciting quest to find three missing bombs, and Chibnall weaves his character scenes in around this rather effectively. The main emotional thread here is the return of Jack, who has been missing for several months. The reactions of the rest of the team are nicely played, coming across as more realistic and consistent than they ever seemed in season one. Hopefully they'll continue on this path.
As Captain John, Marsters was perhaps a little too much like Spike from Buffy and Angel (for those who might not know, that's the role Marsters is best known for), but then Spike was a damn good character and Captain John shows enough differences to still be enjoyable. It's not much of a spoiler to say this (as the trailer at the end revealed it!), but he'll be back, and I for one am very glad. The other performances were also aided by the improvements in the writing. Jack's much more fun again after his time with the Doctor, Owen is less irritating, Tosh is more active, and Ianto is still quietly effective. Which leaves Gwen: unduly hated by some, she is still the show's emotional heart and will clearly continue to be so. Considering the others can often be lacking in this department, it's a much needed role; but it's nice that she is now also fully one of the team, to the extent that she led it in Jack's absence, and is not just a filter for the viewer's understanding.
Some of Torchwood's critics could do with getting down off their high horses. They moan that the show's not genuinely adult or grown-up enough. Actually, Torchwood delivers exactly what it promises: "Doctor Who for adults". That means it is essentially a romp, with content that displays more violence, sex and adult characters & relationships than its parent show. It may not be 'deep' or 'complex' or 'intricate', and you may be able to follow the plot without the feeling you need a character map and a degree -- don't get me wrong, because I absolutely adore those sorts of dramas too -- but that doesn't mean that Torchwood is not a good quality programme for a grown-up audience.
Maybe some people just need to learn how to have a bit of fun?
Monday, 14 January 2008
Film: Annie Hall (1977)
I only saw Annie Hall for the first time two months ago. Most times I wouldn't watch a film again so soon, preferring to watch new stuff when possible, but I really need to for an essay I'm currently writing. So, here it is (again): Woody Allen's breakthrough movie, and that incredibly rare thing, an Oscar-winning comedy.
I have a slightly different perspective on it this time round, for two reasons. Firstly, back when I first saw this the only other Allen film I'd seen was Match Point, a brilliant thriller but totally unlike most of his other work. Now I've seen a further four films, giving me a much broader view of his oeuvre. Secondly, I'm watching it very much with my essay in mind, which is all about the analysis of urban rhythms. I'll try not to let anything too pretentious seep into this review.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much difference the first perspective shift makes. First time round I was aware how much this exemplified the cliches of an Allen movie, and while he can clearly manage a lot more than those (and do so very well), I still wouldn't care to say for sure if this is the originator of the cliches or just a prime example. It doesn't really matter anyway: what's important is that Annie Hall is both very funny (always a noteworthy feat for a comedy on repeated viewing) and also very insightful -- not in a preachy-therefore-dull way, importantly, but it is (for want of a better way of expressing it) a comedy set in the real world.
Allen manages to balance the drama of the main storyline (the relationship between his character, Alvy Singer, and the titular Annie Hall) with the jokes, so that both feel natural together. The flashbacks, monologues to camera, animated interlude, and various other third-wall-breaking techniques are very self conscious, but then so is all of Allen's filmmaking -- he's essentially playing himself in something that is, to at least some degree, autobiographical. This may be what enables the film to feel so real and so impossibly funny at the same time ("impossible" because it's the sort of humour we all wish we were capable of on the spot, but know we'd only think of later, at best).
One thing disappointing me this time is the quality of the transfer. Allen isn't big on the additional benefits of DVD, in a way several other older filmmakers aren't -- he's of the school of "the film speaks for itself", so there are no extras on his films (beyond trailers) and certainly no commentary. (I rather suspect this will change at some point after his death, as it has with directors such as Kubrick, with inevitable re-issues on whatever format is around then providing some retrospective things. But that's another issue.) But, obviously, the transfer is part of the film, and here it seems bizarrely blurred at the top & bottom (not always noticeable, but I keep spotting it) and with a fair number of glaring faults here and there. Ultimately it doesn't ruin the film, as some truly dreadful transfers can, but it was distracting enough for me to mention it.
I have a slightly different perspective on it this time round, for two reasons. Firstly, back when I first saw this the only other Allen film I'd seen was Match Point, a brilliant thriller but totally unlike most of his other work. Now I've seen a further four films, giving me a much broader view of his oeuvre. Secondly, I'm watching it very much with my essay in mind, which is all about the analysis of urban rhythms. I'll try not to let anything too pretentious seep into this review.
To be honest, I'm not sure how much difference the first perspective shift makes. First time round I was aware how much this exemplified the cliches of an Allen movie, and while he can clearly manage a lot more than those (and do so very well), I still wouldn't care to say for sure if this is the originator of the cliches or just a prime example. It doesn't really matter anyway: what's important is that Annie Hall is both very funny (always a noteworthy feat for a comedy on repeated viewing) and also very insightful -- not in a preachy-therefore-dull way, importantly, but it is (for want of a better way of expressing it) a comedy set in the real world.
Allen manages to balance the drama of the main storyline (the relationship between his character, Alvy Singer, and the titular Annie Hall) with the jokes, so that both feel natural together. The flashbacks, monologues to camera, animated interlude, and various other third-wall-breaking techniques are very self conscious, but then so is all of Allen's filmmaking -- he's essentially playing himself in something that is, to at least some degree, autobiographical. This may be what enables the film to feel so real and so impossibly funny at the same time ("impossible" because it's the sort of humour we all wish we were capable of on the spot, but know we'd only think of later, at best).
One thing disappointing me this time is the quality of the transfer. Allen isn't big on the additional benefits of DVD, in a way several other older filmmakers aren't -- he's of the school of "the film speaks for itself", so there are no extras on his films (beyond trailers) and certainly no commentary. (I rather suspect this will change at some point after his death, as it has with directors such as Kubrick, with inevitable re-issues on whatever format is around then providing some retrospective things. But that's another issue.) But, obviously, the transfer is part of the film, and here it seems bizarrely blurred at the top & bottom (not always noticeable, but I keep spotting it) and with a fair number of glaring faults here and there. Ultimately it doesn't ruin the film, as some truly dreadful transfers can, but it was distracting enough for me to mention it.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
TV: Primeval - Season 2, Episode 1
ITV's answer to Doctor Who is back for a second series, this time with 7 episodes -- conveniently bumping the total number to an international-sales-friendly 13. Not usually a good sign for longevity. But regardless -- Primeval is Torchwood crossed with Jurassic Park for a family audience, essentially, as a team of semi-qualified pretty people chase dinosaurs (and other prehistoric beasties) that have fallen through time all over England.
Primeval's main problem, for me, is that it's actually quite slow-moving. For all the quick editing, slick direction, good quality special effects, and quick start to the plot, once things get to the meat of the situation not much happens. For instance, this week's episode resolves (sort of) and moves on from last season's cliffhanger in a matter of seconds, then rushes us through a revised setup, before sending the team out on a new mission, all within about five minutes. And then, for the next 50, they run around a shopping centre trying (and usually failing) to stop a pair of raptors. Sensible plotting and large chunks of continuity gradually go out the window in the quest for new set pieces to prolong the story. The thing is, there's just not enough actual plot to fill the running time, so we're left with half a storyline stretched out with repetitive action sequences. Usually non-sensical ones. That repeat themselves.
I don't want to be too harsh on Primeval. Well, OK, I do a little. It does have its moments, now and then: some of the action is quite decent, the mystery of the anomalies is occasionally intriguing, and there's even the odd moment of something approaching character development. Even the acting seems to have improved on season one, although as I came to this after watching last night's Echo Beach it would be hard not to look good. On that topic, Moving Wallpaper's Ben Miller is here, still as hopelessly out of place as ever -- though I've come to believe that's not really his fault: he's great in his show with Alexander Armstrong, he's the best thing about the whole of that Cornish-based-soap-production-hour (I need to find a catchier combined title for that...), but in Primeval his character is simply badly written. He's actually quite well-cast for the role intended, it's just that the intended role shouldn't be such dismal comic relief. And now they've given him an all-too-similar and equally bizarre sidekick/deputy, just to compound the problem. Oh dear.
This is just one of Primeval's flaws that, in spite of the fun and excitement, do still niggle away, occasionally bursting through into unmissable obviousness. Primeval can be fun, but you suspect that with a bit more effort that sentence could read, "Primeval is fun."
Primeval's main problem, for me, is that it's actually quite slow-moving. For all the quick editing, slick direction, good quality special effects, and quick start to the plot, once things get to the meat of the situation not much happens. For instance, this week's episode resolves (sort of) and moves on from last season's cliffhanger in a matter of seconds, then rushes us through a revised setup, before sending the team out on a new mission, all within about five minutes. And then, for the next 50, they run around a shopping centre trying (and usually failing) to stop a pair of raptors. Sensible plotting and large chunks of continuity gradually go out the window in the quest for new set pieces to prolong the story. The thing is, there's just not enough actual plot to fill the running time, so we're left with half a storyline stretched out with repetitive action sequences. Usually non-sensical ones. That repeat themselves.
I don't want to be too harsh on Primeval. Well, OK, I do a little. It does have its moments, now and then: some of the action is quite decent, the mystery of the anomalies is occasionally intriguing, and there's even the odd moment of something approaching character development. Even the acting seems to have improved on season one, although as I came to this after watching last night's Echo Beach it would be hard not to look good. On that topic, Moving Wallpaper's Ben Miller is here, still as hopelessly out of place as ever -- though I've come to believe that's not really his fault: he's great in his show with Alexander Armstrong, he's the best thing about the whole of that Cornish-based-soap-production-hour (I need to find a catchier combined title for that...), but in Primeval his character is simply badly written. He's actually quite well-cast for the role intended, it's just that the intended role shouldn't be such dismal comic relief. And now they've given him an all-too-similar and equally bizarre sidekick/deputy, just to compound the problem. Oh dear.
This is just one of Primeval's flaws that, in spite of the fun and excitement, do still niggle away, occasionally bursting through into unmissable obviousness. Primeval can be fun, but you suspect that with a bit more effort that sentence could read, "Primeval is fun."
Friday, 11 January 2008
TV: Moving Wallpaper & Echo Beach - Season 1, Episode 1
British readers can't fail to have missed the hype surrounding these, ITV1's big new event TV. If you have, let me summarise: Moving Wallpaper is a comedy (I think everyone expected it to be a drama, but there's no doubt it's a comedy) about the making of a new soap for ITV1; Echo Beach is the aforementioned soap. Events on each show impact on the other. Innovative! Well, it is from the makers of Spooks, Hustle and Life On Mars... yet they were all on BBC One and this is on ITV... well, that says something straight away...
Several reviewers have wondered about the potential success of Moving Wallpaper, for two reasons. One, TV programmes about TV never fare that well. This I can agree with, and, as the lead in to Echo Beach, it could have a knock-on effect. However, the primetime scheduling, heavy advertising, innovative idea, and the fact that it is actually quite funny, might be enough to combat this. Secondly, that you need to watch Echo Beach to get it. Based on the evidence of this opening pair of episodes, that's bollocks. Yes, Moving Wallpaper references in to Echo Beach in a way that the latter show doesn't, but here's the key:
If you just watch Echo Beach, it'll seem to be a pretty shitty, derivative soap. If you watch both shows, you'll realise that Echo Beach is actually a great big spoof of the genre, where everyone's in on the joke. (I hope it is and they are anyway, cos if not...) For example, in Moving Wallpaper there's a reference to producer Jonathan Pope having spent all of the design budget on his office, so the key set of the club/diner/surf house/whatever will now have to be a derelict building... and then, in Echo Beach, it's derelict. Another example: there's a small girl they need to cry in episode one, but she won't... so Pope tells her that her parents have died -- hey presto, waterworks. She turns up in Echo Beach for no apparent reason. The soap services the the sitcom, not the other way round.
I feel a great big clue to this lies in the scheduling. They're on at 9PM, for one thing -- not a soap slot. And they're usually on Friday night, which is quite definitively Comedy Night for pretty much all stations (with the obvious exception of BBC Two and their horridly over-done Thursdays Are Funny campaign). And then, to top it off, they're paired with Al Murray's Happy Hour, which is even more obviously a comedy. And just to compound things, this Thursday-shown opener was paired with Katy Brand's Best Bits, just to remove any doubt that what you're watching is a spoof.
I'll be curious to see the reaction to these shows, though I don't tend to read things like Heat or go trawling forums so maybe I'll never know. But I rather suspect that the soap is just serious enough to fool most people, but not good enough to keep them around; and, as we've established, TV shows and TV shows never do well. It won't be the greatest loss if this flops, but it will be a shame that such a good idea has been thrown away. My greatest fear, though, is that Wallpaper will flop, Beach will be a hit, and we'll be left with another shitty soap filling our schedules...
Several reviewers have wondered about the potential success of Moving Wallpaper, for two reasons. One, TV programmes about TV never fare that well. This I can agree with, and, as the lead in to Echo Beach, it could have a knock-on effect. However, the primetime scheduling, heavy advertising, innovative idea, and the fact that it is actually quite funny, might be enough to combat this. Secondly, that you need to watch Echo Beach to get it. Based on the evidence of this opening pair of episodes, that's bollocks. Yes, Moving Wallpaper references in to Echo Beach in a way that the latter show doesn't, but here's the key:
If you just watch Echo Beach, it'll seem to be a pretty shitty, derivative soap. If you watch both shows, you'll realise that Echo Beach is actually a great big spoof of the genre, where everyone's in on the joke. (I hope it is and they are anyway, cos if not...) For example, in Moving Wallpaper there's a reference to producer Jonathan Pope having spent all of the design budget on his office, so the key set of the club/diner/surf house/whatever will now have to be a derelict building... and then, in Echo Beach, it's derelict. Another example: there's a small girl they need to cry in episode one, but she won't... so Pope tells her that her parents have died -- hey presto, waterworks. She turns up in Echo Beach for no apparent reason. The soap services the the sitcom, not the other way round.
I feel a great big clue to this lies in the scheduling. They're on at 9PM, for one thing -- not a soap slot. And they're usually on Friday night, which is quite definitively Comedy Night for pretty much all stations (with the obvious exception of BBC Two and their horridly over-done Thursdays Are Funny campaign). And then, to top it off, they're paired with Al Murray's Happy Hour, which is even more obviously a comedy. And just to compound things, this Thursday-shown opener was paired with Katy Brand's Best Bits, just to remove any doubt that what you're watching is a spoof.
I'll be curious to see the reaction to these shows, though I don't tend to read things like Heat or go trawling forums so maybe I'll never know. But I rather suspect that the soap is just serious enough to fool most people, but not good enough to keep them around; and, as we've established, TV shows and TV shows never do well. It won't be the greatest loss if this flops, but it will be a shame that such a good idea has been thrown away. My greatest fear, though, is that Wallpaper will flop, Beach will be a hit, and we'll be left with another shitty soap filling our schedules...
Thursday, 10 January 2008
TV: Cranford (2007)
Cranford was at the forefront of a spate of new costume drama on the BBC around New Year (which has so far also included a new (still running) Sense and Sensibility, and will progress with Lark Rise to Candleford this weekend). It'll be a tough one to beat, though. The critical reaction to this mini-series, starring Judi Dench and a host of other familiar faces, has been overwhelming positive; and, in a rare bit of luck possibly not seen since Doctor Who returned, it was overwhelmingly right.
It's hard to know where to begin with what's so great about Cranford, or where to end once started. Every performance is flawless, every character and scene beautifully written. Every character is so rich, you see; all torn between their desires and their duties in the way that only characters in period drama can be. And just when you begin to suspect that, maybe, one of them might be a tad one-note, something comes up to add to them. Even the supporting characters and the 'bad guys' have depth and complexity, so that, while you still may not like them, you can at least understand them.
There is comedy worthy of bigger laughs than most sitcoms manage these days, and absolutely heart-wrenching tragedy -- so skillfully juxtaposed that you can't help but be caught off-guard by one or the other, to impressive effect. In this respect it is ruthless, not shying away from killing off major characters or ruining their lives; yet it is never done lightly, no jaded fear that anyone could die so why even care (unlike in, say, 24 (an unusual comparison, I know)). It's rare to find a show that can pull of good comedy or good drama, so one that can do both (and at the drop of a hat) is an absolute Godsend.
I suppose Cranford won't -- or can't -- be for everyone: there are some who will always reject period drama; some who refuse to delight in the old-fashioned manners, duties and romances. It's their loss, here more than ever. I'm not a big fan of period drama myself -- don't get me wrong there: I happily watch them, I always enjoy them, but I mean that they're not the sort of thing I watch again, unlike thrillers, action, sci-fi, etc.
But I love Cranford. You'd be hard-pressed to beat it, in any genre.
It's hard to know where to begin with what's so great about Cranford, or where to end once started. Every performance is flawless, every character and scene beautifully written. Every character is so rich, you see; all torn between their desires and their duties in the way that only characters in period drama can be. And just when you begin to suspect that, maybe, one of them might be a tad one-note, something comes up to add to them. Even the supporting characters and the 'bad guys' have depth and complexity, so that, while you still may not like them, you can at least understand them.
There is comedy worthy of bigger laughs than most sitcoms manage these days, and absolutely heart-wrenching tragedy -- so skillfully juxtaposed that you can't help but be caught off-guard by one or the other, to impressive effect. In this respect it is ruthless, not shying away from killing off major characters or ruining their lives; yet it is never done lightly, no jaded fear that anyone could die so why even care (unlike in, say, 24 (an unusual comparison, I know)). It's rare to find a show that can pull of good comedy or good drama, so one that can do both (and at the drop of a hat) is an absolute Godsend.
I suppose Cranford won't -- or can't -- be for everyone: there are some who will always reject period drama; some who refuse to delight in the old-fashioned manners, duties and romances. It's their loss, here more than ever. I'm not a big fan of period drama myself -- don't get me wrong there: I happily watch them, I always enjoy them, but I mean that they're not the sort of thing I watch again, unlike thrillers, action, sci-fi, etc.
But I love Cranford. You'd be hard-pressed to beat it, in any genre.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
TV: Robin Hood - Season 2, Episodes 12 & 13
A Good Day to Die & We Are Robin Hood
Major spoilers follow.
I've always had a bit of a mixed reaction to the BBC's Dominic Minghella-headed version of Robin Hood: it's frequently too chatty, too light on action, with too many modern touches (there's nothing wrong with modernising the style of drama, but medieval casinos and other such blatant references? No no no.) The second season has, all told, been an improvement on the first, with the apparent realisation that they're making light entertainment, action-adventure drama -- the best bit of this being the dropping of the painfully blunt allegories to the modern War On Terror.
The season finale is something of a mixed bag, however. The first half sees Robin Hood and co trapped in a barn throughout. It's a neat little siege conceit that allows for some character interaction and development, but at times it feels like they've been shoved out of the way so that the Sheriff's lot can get on with setting up the plot for the season finale. The attempts at trying to hide the fact they're all off to the Holy Land are rather ruined by it being all over last week's trailer. The fight when the gang finally escape the barn is welcome, but after the particularly good one in episode 11 it's slightly disappointing.
Things almost pick up in the second half -- the Holy Land may be well realised visually, but nothing seems to happen there particularly quickly. Once again the show slowly putting things into place and then only gradually pays them off, and not always thoroughly. The Sheriff and Guy stand around vaguelly putting into play a simple plot that takes too long to occur. Our gang trek to see King Richard with very little incident, and once there are quickly strung up... to stand around for a bit... before being predictably rescued (what took him so long?!) The final battle is neatly set up but too quickly over and lacking in impact. The Sheriff and Guy are barely in it, simply disappearing with an "I'll get you next time!", and Marian's death, while surprising, is too drawn out and implausible (would she be so lucid? For so long? And able to pull the sword out herself?) The levels of emotion caused in the other characters are far too low also.
At the end of the day, the highlight for me was the Heroes-spoofing, "Save the King, save England." Nice.
What this episode really leaves me with are myriad questions about the already-confirmed third season. With Marian dead, and Will and Djaq staying in the Holy Land, the very dynamic of the show will be greatly altered. Presumably there'll be three new gang members to replace them (one obvious one being Friar Tuck), but is Robin Hood really Robin Hood without Will Scarlett or, especially, Marian?
And, more importantly, if the King knows all about the Black Knights, the plot, that the Sheriff of Nottingham is in charge of it, and so forth... why is he sending back just four men and not a whole brigade to sort things out? Or even actually heading back himself?! With these questions unanswered, the season rather limps to its credit scroll, over a shot of a depleted and down-trodden gang walking off into the sunset. I'm rather worried that this series is headed for a slow, painful, lacklustre end, dragged out over 13 more episodes. Or 15 if you choose to count these.
Major spoilers follow.
I've always had a bit of a mixed reaction to the BBC's Dominic Minghella-headed version of Robin Hood: it's frequently too chatty, too light on action, with too many modern touches (there's nothing wrong with modernising the style of drama, but medieval casinos and other such blatant references? No no no.) The second season has, all told, been an improvement on the first, with the apparent realisation that they're making light entertainment, action-adventure drama -- the best bit of this being the dropping of the painfully blunt allegories to the modern War On Terror.
The season finale is something of a mixed bag, however. The first half sees Robin Hood and co trapped in a barn throughout. It's a neat little siege conceit that allows for some character interaction and development, but at times it feels like they've been shoved out of the way so that the Sheriff's lot can get on with setting up the plot for the season finale. The attempts at trying to hide the fact they're all off to the Holy Land are rather ruined by it being all over last week's trailer. The fight when the gang finally escape the barn is welcome, but after the particularly good one in episode 11 it's slightly disappointing.
Things almost pick up in the second half -- the Holy Land may be well realised visually, but nothing seems to happen there particularly quickly. Once again the show slowly putting things into place and then only gradually pays them off, and not always thoroughly. The Sheriff and Guy stand around vaguelly putting into play a simple plot that takes too long to occur. Our gang trek to see King Richard with very little incident, and once there are quickly strung up... to stand around for a bit... before being predictably rescued (what took him so long?!) The final battle is neatly set up but too quickly over and lacking in impact. The Sheriff and Guy are barely in it, simply disappearing with an "I'll get you next time!", and Marian's death, while surprising, is too drawn out and implausible (would she be so lucid? For so long? And able to pull the sword out herself?) The levels of emotion caused in the other characters are far too low also.
At the end of the day, the highlight for me was the Heroes-spoofing, "Save the King, save England." Nice.
What this episode really leaves me with are myriad questions about the already-confirmed third season. With Marian dead, and Will and Djaq staying in the Holy Land, the very dynamic of the show will be greatly altered. Presumably there'll be three new gang members to replace them (one obvious one being Friar Tuck), but is Robin Hood really Robin Hood without Will Scarlett or, especially, Marian?
And, more importantly, if the King knows all about the Black Knights, the plot, that the Sheriff of Nottingham is in charge of it, and so forth... why is he sending back just four men and not a whole brigade to sort things out? Or even actually heading back himself?! With these questions unanswered, the season rather limps to its credit scroll, over a shot of a depleted and down-trodden gang walking off into the sunset. I'm rather worried that this series is headed for a slow, painful, lacklustre end, dragged out over 13 more episodes. Or 15 if you choose to count these.
Friday, 4 January 2008
TV: Jam & Jerusalem - Season 2, Episodes 1&2
(aka Clatterford in the US)
Jennifer Saunders' sitcom (a loose use of that term, in many ways) is back, with the same cast of crazy Devon villagers to amuse and occasionally baffle us. I'm glad to see its return: I enjoyed the first series a lot, but was rather worried it wouldn't be popular enough to manage a second.
Nothing fundamental seems to have changed, though I don't remember laughing quite as much at the first series. While many of the situations, incidents and characters are a bit larger than life or apparently unbelievable, there's a certain grounding (possibly Sue Johnston's wonderfully written & performed lead) that makes it all seem not so far removed from reality. Of course, having grown up in Wiltshire and now living in Devon, I can somewhat relate to the realities of the characters and their lives, whereas City Folk may view it as a bit barmy. Or possibly they think it's even more real than they do. It's hard to tell. (It also means I get a slight thrill every time they mention Exeter, where I currently reside -- once an episode so far!)
As the only bit of comedy (or indeed decent TV on the whole) left on a Friday night now, J&J is certainly the highlight of the evening. But it's also already one of my televisually highlights of the week -- something to look forward to at the end of all that hard, er, essay writing, for the next four weeks.
Jennifer Saunders' sitcom (a loose use of that term, in many ways) is back, with the same cast of crazy Devon villagers to amuse and occasionally baffle us. I'm glad to see its return: I enjoyed the first series a lot, but was rather worried it wouldn't be popular enough to manage a second.
Nothing fundamental seems to have changed, though I don't remember laughing quite as much at the first series. While many of the situations, incidents and characters are a bit larger than life or apparently unbelievable, there's a certain grounding (possibly Sue Johnston's wonderfully written & performed lead) that makes it all seem not so far removed from reality. Of course, having grown up in Wiltshire and now living in Devon, I can somewhat relate to the realities of the characters and their lives, whereas City Folk may view it as a bit barmy. Or possibly they think it's even more real than they do. It's hard to tell. (It also means I get a slight thrill every time they mention Exeter, where I currently reside -- once an episode so far!)
As the only bit of comedy (or indeed decent TV on the whole) left on a Friday night now, J&J is certainly the highlight of the evening. But it's also already one of my televisually highlights of the week -- something to look forward to at the end of all that hard, er, essay writing, for the next four weeks.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
TV: The Big Fat Quiz of the Year / The Big Finish
Is it really that time again? Oh dear...
The end of the year brings endless quizzes and polls, in magazines, newspapers... and of course on TV. The two biggest ones (it seems to me) are The Big Fat Quiz of the Year, Channel 4's highly comedic effort, broadcast between Christmas and New Year, hosted by Jimmy Carr and boasting such panelists as Jonathan Ross, Rob Brydon, Noel Fielding and the ubiquitous Russell Brand. The other is the BBC's The Big Finish, broadcast on New Year's Eve itself, hosted by Graham Norton and featuring teams made up of reality show judges, soap actors, and sports people you've never heard of. And it's for charity.
The BBC's effort does sound immediately duller and probably more worthy. Well, except for the teams... But, of course, anything hosted by Graham Norton is far from a serious affair. The Big Finish may have a great deal less spontaneous humour or mad bantering between the teams, but it still has Norton's occasionally cruel comments and... well, it had the Zimmers, they were fun. Possibly the major problem is that, coming after Channel 4's effort, it inevitably covers much of the same ground; actually, an even bigger problem is its lack of interactivity: the teams have to buzz in most of the time, or answer immediately otherwise; whereas Channel 4's moved through rounds that allowed the viewer to play along.
Ultimately the two quizzes are for different audiences, but for someone watching both it would seem that the BBC version is more brainless late-evening entertainment, whereas the Channel 4 version, while descending into deeper levels of madness, is in some ways the more serious quiz.
At the end of the day, though, they weren't on at the same time, leaving such a direct comparison feeling almost futile. Oh well...
The end of the year brings endless quizzes and polls, in magazines, newspapers... and of course on TV. The two biggest ones (it seems to me) are The Big Fat Quiz of the Year, Channel 4's highly comedic effort, broadcast between Christmas and New Year, hosted by Jimmy Carr and boasting such panelists as Jonathan Ross, Rob Brydon, Noel Fielding and the ubiquitous Russell Brand. The other is the BBC's The Big Finish, broadcast on New Year's Eve itself, hosted by Graham Norton and featuring teams made up of reality show judges, soap actors, and sports people you've never heard of. And it's for charity.
The BBC's effort does sound immediately duller and probably more worthy. Well, except for the teams... But, of course, anything hosted by Graham Norton is far from a serious affair. The Big Finish may have a great deal less spontaneous humour or mad bantering between the teams, but it still has Norton's occasionally cruel comments and... well, it had the Zimmers, they were fun. Possibly the major problem is that, coming after Channel 4's effort, it inevitably covers much of the same ground; actually, an even bigger problem is its lack of interactivity: the teams have to buzz in most of the time, or answer immediately otherwise; whereas Channel 4's moved through rounds that allowed the viewer to play along.
Ultimately the two quizzes are for different audiences, but for someone watching both it would seem that the BBC version is more brainless late-evening entertainment, whereas the Channel 4 version, while descending into deeper levels of madness, is in some ways the more serious quiz.
At the end of the day, though, they weren't on at the same time, leaving such a direct comparison feeling almost futile. Oh well...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)