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.
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC. Show all posts
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!
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.
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.
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?
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)