So, now that I'm done with talking about crime, let's have a look at what else is on. Not much, it would see. I'm pretty behind with watching television, to be honest with you. I'd say something like 'I need to get back into the habit', but it's television, so no, no I don't.
Reading, that's what I need to get back into. There used to be a time when I would read a novel in a day or two. Now I struggle through them over the course of months. I only seem to get any reading done when my laptop is out of action, but that's just the way of things.
But still, there must be some television that's worth talking about, isn't there? Ah yes, my favourite quiz show.
POINTLESS.
I love me some Pointless, I think it's the best quiz show to have ever quiz-showed. In fact I was inspired to start this Televisual because (those of you who read my other blog) I went to see Pointless being filmed back in February of this year, and it was most awesome, as Coates and Macina can attest to.
I love the idea of playing against the odds of 100 people's knowledge and that you've never met any of them. It's a bizarre take on general knowledge, but it's presented in such a pleasent fashion that it's hard to stop watching. Armstron and Osman are a good team, almost as good as Armstrong and Miller.
There isn't much that can really be said about it, it's a quiz show after all, it's pretty much the same for every episode, it's got some very interesting questions and some rather stupid competitors, but every time someone gets a Pointless answer, you just wanna punch the air in victory.
I should really go on it some time.
Also, I was particularly fond of Armstrong saying 'let's meet our Pointless Celebrities' for the recent celebrity edition (you were so close, Lembit), since pretty much all celebrity is pointless. But that's just me and my thinking. Readers of OK Magazine clearly disagree with me.
Next up: Another Movie
Sunday, 10 July 2011
Sunday, 3 July 2011
It's Not Very Keith Richards, is it?
So, the third part of my crime-drama ramblings. Mainly because I'm gonna be talking about my absolute favourite crime drama series at the end of this collection of my thoughts.
I'm not a big crime drama fan, you may have surmised over the last few posts, but I can certainly see the appeal. In science fiction we have to explain how we got from here to there. In fantasy we have to tell you again how magic works, in comedy we have to make you laugh, in political drama we have to know what we're talking about. But crime? Crime we all know, because it's the dark part of ourselves that we're tapping into, that edge to the completely average person that could tip them over.
Just think, would you ever kill someone? The instant answer you want to go with is 'No'. But is that really true? What about in self defence? What if a crazed madman (for whatever reason) came at you with a knife and it was you or them? Is your life worth more than theirs in that situation? Of course it is. They've made their choice. What about in the defence of others? Your loved ones? What if the only way to protect the love of your life was to kill the threat towards them?
It's pretty morbid, but that's what appeals about crime drama. We all have it within ourselves to be doing these terrible things, but we are all contained by the utter lack of need to do so. Well, most of us, anyway.
LUTHER.
It's entirely possible that there may not be a new series of this come next year, as Idris is now such a massive star that he's off doing super-hero movies and hanging out with Ridley Scott. Well, at least he managed to shake himself from the most over-hyped show in the world (THE WIRE). LUTHER as a series appeared to be some kind of pet project of his and Neil Cross (a man of some serious writing talent, it must be noted, unlike his Spooks co-contributer Ben Richards). I thought it also a rather cynical attempt to get the exceptionally talented Elba back over to this side of the Atlantic ocean, since he's a London boy after all. And boy, was it worth it.
Last year, the first six episodes of this show actually blew me away. It was dark, cutting, fast-paced, brilliantly timed, well acted and each episode had a different kind of psychopath that seemed to work so well together when viewed as a whole. From the brilliant relationship between Luther and Alice (his first suspect, who he is unable to prove as guilty, so instead becomes a close friend), to the appearance of Sean Pertwee as the brutal imprisoned former Army Sergeant and the utterly chilling finale to the series, rich in betrayal and character pay-off, there wasn't a beat in this series that I would defend from any of it's detractors.
However, it was the very nature of the climax of the first series that left the second in doubt. Would he be arrested? Would he go to jail? Go to court? As it happens, it all got a little glossed over and Alice took the fall for it and it all seems to be business as usual for season 2. Which is good, because they had some cracking bad-guys for the two two-parters that they did. Cameron Pell was a great performance from Lee Ingleby, and then the role-playing twins were just a nerd-tastic idea, but could have done with a little more research into the source material. The second season lasted only four episodes, making the total into ten overall.
I felt that the sidelining of series 1 regulars, Ruth Wilson's Alice and Paul McGann's Mark, was a weakness of the second season, especially since the relationship between Luther and Alice, as well as Luther and Mark, were becoming highly interesting. How do three people that all helped murder a murderer get along with themselves and each other afterwards? Alas, it wasn't quite expanded upon in the second season, but it was made up for in other areas. The idea of Luther going to work in Schenk's new department was genius, since Schenk was the one man who could always stare Luther down. Jenny, the new girl, was an up-and-down, but I think she worked well.
Y'know, unlike many of the other shows and films I talk about on this blog, I think I could actually keep going for another few pages, but I'll leave it there. Until I write my complete shot-by-shot annotation of the entire series, of course. With most of the notes just being 'AWEsome'.
Next up: POINTLESS.
I'm not a big crime drama fan, you may have surmised over the last few posts, but I can certainly see the appeal. In science fiction we have to explain how we got from here to there. In fantasy we have to tell you again how magic works, in comedy we have to make you laugh, in political drama we have to know what we're talking about. But crime? Crime we all know, because it's the dark part of ourselves that we're tapping into, that edge to the completely average person that could tip them over.
Just think, would you ever kill someone? The instant answer you want to go with is 'No'. But is that really true? What about in self defence? What if a crazed madman (for whatever reason) came at you with a knife and it was you or them? Is your life worth more than theirs in that situation? Of course it is. They've made their choice. What about in the defence of others? Your loved ones? What if the only way to protect the love of your life was to kill the threat towards them?
It's pretty morbid, but that's what appeals about crime drama. We all have it within ourselves to be doing these terrible things, but we are all contained by the utter lack of need to do so. Well, most of us, anyway.
LUTHER.
It's entirely possible that there may not be a new series of this come next year, as Idris is now such a massive star that he's off doing super-hero movies and hanging out with Ridley Scott. Well, at least he managed to shake himself from the most over-hyped show in the world (THE WIRE). LUTHER as a series appeared to be some kind of pet project of his and Neil Cross (a man of some serious writing talent, it must be noted, unlike his Spooks co-contributer Ben Richards). I thought it also a rather cynical attempt to get the exceptionally talented Elba back over to this side of the Atlantic ocean, since he's a London boy after all. And boy, was it worth it.
Last year, the first six episodes of this show actually blew me away. It was dark, cutting, fast-paced, brilliantly timed, well acted and each episode had a different kind of psychopath that seemed to work so well together when viewed as a whole. From the brilliant relationship between Luther and Alice (his first suspect, who he is unable to prove as guilty, so instead becomes a close friend), to the appearance of Sean Pertwee as the brutal imprisoned former Army Sergeant and the utterly chilling finale to the series, rich in betrayal and character pay-off, there wasn't a beat in this series that I would defend from any of it's detractors.
However, it was the very nature of the climax of the first series that left the second in doubt. Would he be arrested? Would he go to jail? Go to court? As it happens, it all got a little glossed over and Alice took the fall for it and it all seems to be business as usual for season 2. Which is good, because they had some cracking bad-guys for the two two-parters that they did. Cameron Pell was a great performance from Lee Ingleby, and then the role-playing twins were just a nerd-tastic idea, but could have done with a little more research into the source material. The second season lasted only four episodes, making the total into ten overall.
I felt that the sidelining of series 1 regulars, Ruth Wilson's Alice and Paul McGann's Mark, was a weakness of the second season, especially since the relationship between Luther and Alice, as well as Luther and Mark, were becoming highly interesting. How do three people that all helped murder a murderer get along with themselves and each other afterwards? Alas, it wasn't quite expanded upon in the second season, but it was made up for in other areas. The idea of Luther going to work in Schenk's new department was genius, since Schenk was the one man who could always stare Luther down. Jenny, the new girl, was an up-and-down, but I think she worked well.
Y'know, unlike many of the other shows and films I talk about on this blog, I think I could actually keep going for another few pages, but I'll leave it there. Until I write my complete shot-by-shot annotation of the entire series, of course. With most of the notes just being 'AWEsome'.
Next up: POINTLESS.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Criminology 102
Felt I didn't really finish with my thoughts on the subject in my last post, so here's some more.
Since crime is a commonly accepted fact of life, it's fairly safe to assume that it will have happened to the majority of people, that at some point in our lives, we're going to have to have dealt with the ramifications and repercussions of crime. The one thing that always strikes me is that we tend to blow crime way out of proportion on the screen. I mean, look at the cold-hearted killers that we get on the screen, take Cameron Pell from LUTHER as an example. I'll talk more fully about LUTHER next time.
He wanted to make London remember its myths and dark secrets, while brutally murdering people in a Mr. Punch mask. That's all well and good, it makes for compelling television, but at the same time, is there much of that in real life? The vast majority of crime is committed as Crime Of Passion, it simply comes out of the moment before we know what we're doing. I think the best series to highlight this is ACCUSED in recent years, if one can tolerate it's over ponderous and preaching nature.
So does that make the majority of criminal drama as fanciful as science-fiction and fantasy? Since this stuff doesn't really happen in 'real life', should we just accept it as fiction in the same way as we do MERLIN or STAR TREK? Or is it that it's grounded in reality and then takes off from there? The cops and robbers are still present in our everyday lives, but just not in such a way that we see on screen. Is there serious crime out there? Of course, but not enough of it for an episode a week.
Maybe that's why The Bill ended?
CASE HISTORIES.
You know, I really did quite like this show. The characters are easy to get on with, the writing's pretty well rounded and the style is very friendly to it's audiance. The whole two-part story lines are a common thing for the BBC, what with one of their producers having discovered a long time ago that a novel can be neatly divided in half and made into a TV serial and it certainly works in this instance.
It's always good to see Jason Isaacs get work, he's got to be one of my favourite actors over the years. His range lends itself well to this particular role, a gruff Yorkshire-born Private Detective working in Edinburgh, who's often carting his daughter around with him on his investigations. He's charismatic and ignorant at the same time and he seems to gather lost girls to him like a lighthouse gathers lost fishing ships.
All in all, I think my only real complaint with this series is probably drawn directly from the books themselves. Why are all the secondary cases he investigates somehow tied into the main one? He looks into the murder of a girl, a homeless girl then attaches herself to the father of this murdered girl, who just so happens to be the daughter of another woman who had hired Brody to go find her daughter? It's all a little convoluted and why do they all have to be linked? Surely the world's a big enough place for people to not have any connections to each other? Surely the story's big enough for that as well?
With six episodes under it's belt, which constitutes three out of the four current Jackson Brody novels, it's unceartain whether or not there'll be anymore Case Histories in the future, seeing as how they'll be out of source material. It's definately one I'd be interested in getting on DVD.
Next time, the one, the only, LUTHER.
Since crime is a commonly accepted fact of life, it's fairly safe to assume that it will have happened to the majority of people, that at some point in our lives, we're going to have to have dealt with the ramifications and repercussions of crime. The one thing that always strikes me is that we tend to blow crime way out of proportion on the screen. I mean, look at the cold-hearted killers that we get on the screen, take Cameron Pell from LUTHER as an example. I'll talk more fully about LUTHER next time.
He wanted to make London remember its myths and dark secrets, while brutally murdering people in a Mr. Punch mask. That's all well and good, it makes for compelling television, but at the same time, is there much of that in real life? The vast majority of crime is committed as Crime Of Passion, it simply comes out of the moment before we know what we're doing. I think the best series to highlight this is ACCUSED in recent years, if one can tolerate it's over ponderous and preaching nature.
So does that make the majority of criminal drama as fanciful as science-fiction and fantasy? Since this stuff doesn't really happen in 'real life', should we just accept it as fiction in the same way as we do MERLIN or STAR TREK? Or is it that it's grounded in reality and then takes off from there? The cops and robbers are still present in our everyday lives, but just not in such a way that we see on screen. Is there serious crime out there? Of course, but not enough of it for an episode a week.
Maybe that's why The Bill ended?
CASE HISTORIES.
You know, I really did quite like this show. The characters are easy to get on with, the writing's pretty well rounded and the style is very friendly to it's audiance. The whole two-part story lines are a common thing for the BBC, what with one of their producers having discovered a long time ago that a novel can be neatly divided in half and made into a TV serial and it certainly works in this instance.
It's always good to see Jason Isaacs get work, he's got to be one of my favourite actors over the years. His range lends itself well to this particular role, a gruff Yorkshire-born Private Detective working in Edinburgh, who's often carting his daughter around with him on his investigations. He's charismatic and ignorant at the same time and he seems to gather lost girls to him like a lighthouse gathers lost fishing ships.
All in all, I think my only real complaint with this series is probably drawn directly from the books themselves. Why are all the secondary cases he investigates somehow tied into the main one? He looks into the murder of a girl, a homeless girl then attaches herself to the father of this murdered girl, who just so happens to be the daughter of another woman who had hired Brody to go find her daughter? It's all a little convoluted and why do they all have to be linked? Surely the world's a big enough place for people to not have any connections to each other? Surely the story's big enough for that as well?
With six episodes under it's belt, which constitutes three out of the four current Jackson Brody novels, it's unceartain whether or not there'll be anymore Case Histories in the future, seeing as how they'll be out of source material. It's definately one I'd be interested in getting on DVD.
Next time, the one, the only, LUTHER.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Criminology 101
So we're currently awash with crime dramas over here in iPlayer land. What with the BBC making a big deal out of THE SHADOW LINE and now with CASE HISTORIES, the return of the superlative LUTHER and memories of ZEN and WAKING THE DEAD still fresh, it makes me wonder what captivates audiances about crime thrillers? With so many of them around, what makes a good one?
I read in an article recently that crime novels outsell virtually every other genre of novels put together and if I were to look on my mother's shelf up in Scotland, I'd find that she has her fair share of them, not to mention the countless thousands that get checked out at the library. Makes my future as a sci-fi writer look even more dubious, to be honest.
So, Crime. It's all around us, it's in our everyday lives, it's something we hear about in the news all the time, so why do we romantacise it? Why do we put it up on a pedestal in order to view it with sexy actors and snazzy camera angles? Perhaps because it excites us, danger and being close to the edge and all that, but I don't think that people in those actual situations would agree with that point of view. Perhaps because it's very basic to human nature, the urge to see Justice?
Of course, the one thing that comes hand in hand with criminals are the police. And let's face it, if there's one institution that the UK tends to have a massive problem with, it's the police. How often do we see the police as self-serving, callous or sometimes just downright corrupt on the television? How often are they simply no better than the criminals that they intend to track down? Why do we even look to them for protection? Hmmm... I feel I may have to qualify my thoughts on this.
THE SHADOW LINE.
Right then, this was one hell of a series. I mean, it's not often you see this kind of thing. It's slow, serious, heavy, hard-hitting and well acted. It's got a cast that makes you do a double take and it's so auter-driven that it makes you wonder why anyone else bothered to turn up to work on it. For every positive point about this series, I can probably find a negative one, so to me the series kind of blanked itself out as soon as it was done.
Don't get me wrong, this is a visually sumptuous and very indulgent series, it languishes detaild attention on the smallest of facets, it boasts an impressive opening cast (what with Christopher Eccleston still looking for work after Doctor Who and Chiwitel Ejiofor gracing the screen with his immense presence) and then only adds to that with the persons of Eve Best, Stephen Rea and Rafe Spall (an extremely entertaining nutcase).
But at the same time it's ponderous, preachy, confusing and not particularly riveting. By the end of the series and the reveal of the central plot, I'd all but completely lost interest due to the roubd-about methods of getting there. What was it about in the end? Laundering drug money into funding police pensions? Was that about it? Because if you ask me, something that mundane doesn't really deserve the reverance this series seemed to ladle onto it.
The almost endless series of murder and double-dealing was difficult to keep track of, especially when most of it didn't really seem to have much of a purpose, or was for it's own sake. Tobias Menzies' journalist character was to be commended for acurately portraying what the general public probably think of journalists these days (ie, ruthless scum), but he was killed off just when he was about to get interesting. As was the same with Robert Pugh.
So all in all, I could probably ramble on about this series for a good page or so, but it would just round-about whinging, much like the series itself. So much potential, so much gorgeous camera work and excllent acting, but so little substance to back it up with, and you can have all the pretty lights and people doing good jobs as you want, but if there's nothing underneath, then there's not much point. The ending was perplexingly annoying, as well.
Ah well. Next time, CASE HISTORIES.
I read in an article recently that crime novels outsell virtually every other genre of novels put together and if I were to look on my mother's shelf up in Scotland, I'd find that she has her fair share of them, not to mention the countless thousands that get checked out at the library. Makes my future as a sci-fi writer look even more dubious, to be honest.
So, Crime. It's all around us, it's in our everyday lives, it's something we hear about in the news all the time, so why do we romantacise it? Why do we put it up on a pedestal in order to view it with sexy actors and snazzy camera angles? Perhaps because it excites us, danger and being close to the edge and all that, but I don't think that people in those actual situations would agree with that point of view. Perhaps because it's very basic to human nature, the urge to see Justice?
Of course, the one thing that comes hand in hand with criminals are the police. And let's face it, if there's one institution that the UK tends to have a massive problem with, it's the police. How often do we see the police as self-serving, callous or sometimes just downright corrupt on the television? How often are they simply no better than the criminals that they intend to track down? Why do we even look to them for protection? Hmmm... I feel I may have to qualify my thoughts on this.
THE SHADOW LINE.
Right then, this was one hell of a series. I mean, it's not often you see this kind of thing. It's slow, serious, heavy, hard-hitting and well acted. It's got a cast that makes you do a double take and it's so auter-driven that it makes you wonder why anyone else bothered to turn up to work on it. For every positive point about this series, I can probably find a negative one, so to me the series kind of blanked itself out as soon as it was done.
Don't get me wrong, this is a visually sumptuous and very indulgent series, it languishes detaild attention on the smallest of facets, it boasts an impressive opening cast (what with Christopher Eccleston still looking for work after Doctor Who and Chiwitel Ejiofor gracing the screen with his immense presence) and then only adds to that with the persons of Eve Best, Stephen Rea and Rafe Spall (an extremely entertaining nutcase).
But at the same time it's ponderous, preachy, confusing and not particularly riveting. By the end of the series and the reveal of the central plot, I'd all but completely lost interest due to the roubd-about methods of getting there. What was it about in the end? Laundering drug money into funding police pensions? Was that about it? Because if you ask me, something that mundane doesn't really deserve the reverance this series seemed to ladle onto it.
The almost endless series of murder and double-dealing was difficult to keep track of, especially when most of it didn't really seem to have much of a purpose, or was for it's own sake. Tobias Menzies' journalist character was to be commended for acurately portraying what the general public probably think of journalists these days (ie, ruthless scum), but he was killed off just when he was about to get interesting. As was the same with Robert Pugh.
So all in all, I could probably ramble on about this series for a good page or so, but it would just round-about whinging, much like the series itself. So much potential, so much gorgeous camera work and excllent acting, but so little substance to back it up with, and you can have all the pretty lights and people doing good jobs as you want, but if there's nothing underneath, then there's not much point. The ending was perplexingly annoying, as well.
Ah well. Next time, CASE HISTORIES.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Going To The Movies
When I stay up in Newbury I do actually get the chance to watch actual television, not just the constant barrage of iPlayer streams that I'm normally exposed to. So since my friends up there have Sky, me and Kerry have been keeping up with GAME OF THRONES, which I was undoubtably going to have to talk about at some point. It's a pretty cinematic series, if that term works, in that if definately feels like they've tried to make Lord of the Rings in a ten-part installment. I'll talk about that one in a more complete sense some other time.
Back with the BBC, IN WITH THE FLYNN's is a sitcom too far for Will Mellor, who should really try and break out of the rut he's in. I watched the first episode and didn't find it to be much of a patch on OUTNUMBERED, which has a much more cynical take on parenting small children.
In reference to the title, I very rarely actually watch movies on the iPlayer, I always think that I'll try and get round to it, but never manage to, they're just too long for the amount of time that I devote to the iPlayer each time. However, I did make an effort for this particular one...
GROW YOUR OWN.
Now while I appreciate that this film did get a cinema release and I normally talk about things that get a cinema release in my other blog, I caught this one today on the iPlayer and it's co-made by the BBC, so I figure 'what the hell' and watch. And I loved it, this was a lovely little film.
It suffers in a number of areas, I can't quite tell if it was meant to be a multi-protagonist film, since there quite a few little stories running through the piece, also I wasn't certain about Benedict Wong's central character, I'm not sure he held up the film, our real hero was Kenny.
Omid Djalili (yes, I had to check to remember how to spell his name) recieves very little screen time, which is a shame for such a recognisable and well-loved face. The mobile phone company 'villains' of the piece weren't very noticable, we could have had a bit more of them, I think.
But these little things aside, this was a charming film with some good funny moments and a lot to root for.
No, I can't quite believe I just made that joke either. Next time will by SHADOW LINE. Definately SHADOW LINE.
Back with the BBC, IN WITH THE FLYNN's is a sitcom too far for Will Mellor, who should really try and break out of the rut he's in. I watched the first episode and didn't find it to be much of a patch on OUTNUMBERED, which has a much more cynical take on parenting small children.
In reference to the title, I very rarely actually watch movies on the iPlayer, I always think that I'll try and get round to it, but never manage to, they're just too long for the amount of time that I devote to the iPlayer each time. However, I did make an effort for this particular one...
GROW YOUR OWN.
Now while I appreciate that this film did get a cinema release and I normally talk about things that get a cinema release in my other blog, I caught this one today on the iPlayer and it's co-made by the BBC, so I figure 'what the hell' and watch. And I loved it, this was a lovely little film.
It suffers in a number of areas, I can't quite tell if it was meant to be a multi-protagonist film, since there quite a few little stories running through the piece, also I wasn't certain about Benedict Wong's central character, I'm not sure he held up the film, our real hero was Kenny.
Omid Djalili (yes, I had to check to remember how to spell his name) recieves very little screen time, which is a shame for such a recognisable and well-loved face. The mobile phone company 'villains' of the piece weren't very noticable, we could have had a bit more of them, I think.
But these little things aside, this was a charming film with some good funny moments and a lot to root for.
No, I can't quite believe I just made that joke either. Next time will by SHADOW LINE. Definately SHADOW LINE.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Demons Run
Oh my SHITTING CHRIST. Have you been watching Doctor Who? I mean seriously, have you been watching this?! I can't talk about it because it would just be a little ridiculous to do so, but if you aren't... well... then you're mentally disturbed for denying yourself the genius of Moffat. I mean, there are television writers, then there are great television writers, and then there's Moffat. I seriously don't think I can textually suck this guy off enough, it's just not possible. And to think that he'll probably still be in charge when the 50th Anniversary comes around...
In other news, the SHADOW LINE is also hotting up and I think I should probably check out CASE HISTORIES as well, all depending on how much I can trust my laptop.
Other than gushing more about Doctor Who, there isn't much else for me to talk about at the moment because I haven't really had much computer access lately.
So...
THE SCHEME.
Now, this series caused and still continues to cause a fair amount of antagonism and controvosy amongst its viewers and I was compelled to check it out in order to see what all the fuss was about. And now I can definately see why.
After just one episode there's drug abuse, broken families, prison sentences, excessively ugly people and numerous police visits. There are homeless teenagers living by the grace of benefits earners and there are needles on the side of the road.
And this is a documentary.
This series was described as 'poverty-porn', and I know that one of my former lecturers would call it 'class-tourism', since it's intended for middle class audiances and is about an extremely under class housing scheme.
My mother called it 'grim'.
I call it 'taking advantage'.
The people in this show are real and their woefully pathetic and painful lives are on display for the rest of the world to see. I don't really approve of this kind of television, but I can't deny just how fascinating and compelling it is. This is a side of life that I'll never really know and know that I would never want to. I feel that I pity the people who have taken part in it and I know that my pity is probably the last thing they would ever want. It doesn't surprise me that the last two episodes may never be shown due to an ongoing court case.
It makes me sad to think about, so next time I'll probably either be talking about the SHADOW LINE or another classic from my dvd shelf.
In other news, the SHADOW LINE is also hotting up and I think I should probably check out CASE HISTORIES as well, all depending on how much I can trust my laptop.
Other than gushing more about Doctor Who, there isn't much else for me to talk about at the moment because I haven't really had much computer access lately.
So...
THE SCHEME.
Now, this series caused and still continues to cause a fair amount of antagonism and controvosy amongst its viewers and I was compelled to check it out in order to see what all the fuss was about. And now I can definately see why.
After just one episode there's drug abuse, broken families, prison sentences, excessively ugly people and numerous police visits. There are homeless teenagers living by the grace of benefits earners and there are needles on the side of the road.
And this is a documentary.
This series was described as 'poverty-porn', and I know that one of my former lecturers would call it 'class-tourism', since it's intended for middle class audiances and is about an extremely under class housing scheme.
My mother called it 'grim'.
I call it 'taking advantage'.
The people in this show are real and their woefully pathetic and painful lives are on display for the rest of the world to see. I don't really approve of this kind of television, but I can't deny just how fascinating and compelling it is. This is a side of life that I'll never really know and know that I would never want to. I feel that I pity the people who have taken part in it and I know that my pity is probably the last thing they would ever want. It doesn't surprise me that the last two episodes may never be shown due to an ongoing court case.
It makes me sad to think about, so next time I'll probably either be talking about the SHADOW LINE or another classic from my dvd shelf.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
I Am Definately A Madman In A Box
So he's back. The Doctor is IN! And what an opening to the series, I mean, I cannot quite believe just how good this show has been since Moffat and Smith took over. DOCTOR WHO is back on our screens and we have 13 episodes of pure genius to look forward to. I'll have to collect my thoughts on the good Doctor at some point in the future, but for now let's just say I'm nibbling my fingernails in barely contained girlish excitement.
In other news, intriguing new crime thriller series THE SHADOW LINE has just cropped up, boasting an impressive cast of Chiwitel Ejiofor, Christopher Eccleston and Rafe Spall. The premise is very good and the show certainly takes its time, poring over every detail that's available to us. I won't lie, I almost lost interest a few times due to the ponderous nature of the opening few scenes, but I stuck with it and it was worth it.
Anything else been on?
Actually, I haven't really had that much time to watch stuff lately, it's been busy. So since I only really like to talk about series fully when they're finished, I think I'll take my cue from what I did last time and find something else from my DVD shelf to pick at. What could it be...
JEKYLL.
So, one of the other offerings from Steven Moffat to prove just how much of a frickin' genius he is, JEKYLL is a modern re-telling and pseudo-sequel to The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Our central protagonist, Dr. Jackman (played by James Nesbitt in the role of a lifetime, one that I doubt any other living human could do any better in), is haunted by missing time in his life, strange occurances and the feeling that his body does not belong to himself all the time.
This beautifully sinister and expertly crafted series lasted a full six episodes, featured genuinely terrifying implications and acting beyond compare. There's a fair amount of ridiculousness that goes with it as well, there's a mega-corporation that believes Hyde is the next stage in human evolution and is hell-bent on dissecting him, decent British actors with stupid American accents and some truly dodgy cloning for one of the sub-plots. The last episode was also a little messy.
But it just doesn't matter.
For those of you who are aware of my movie reviews, I tend not to actually talk that much about things that I actually really like. This is definately one of those things, since I truly, truly liked what they did with Jekyll. Yeah, some of the elements were a bit weird, yeah, some of the episode storylines were a bit convoluted, but at the same time... they really, really worked all together as a series and I can only recommend it over and over again to anyone stupid enough to listen to me.
My hope would be that Moffat's other recent re-imagining of classic literature, SHERLOCK, would follow the same kind of formula (be both a follow on from the classics yet a fresh story in its own right) and that they could somehow tie-in the two series for some kind of cross-over, but that's just the mega-nerd in me talking. Ah Moffat... what will you do for me next?
Next time: THE SCHEME
In other news, intriguing new crime thriller series THE SHADOW LINE has just cropped up, boasting an impressive cast of Chiwitel Ejiofor, Christopher Eccleston and Rafe Spall. The premise is very good and the show certainly takes its time, poring over every detail that's available to us. I won't lie, I almost lost interest a few times due to the ponderous nature of the opening few scenes, but I stuck with it and it was worth it.
Anything else been on?
Actually, I haven't really had that much time to watch stuff lately, it's been busy. So since I only really like to talk about series fully when they're finished, I think I'll take my cue from what I did last time and find something else from my DVD shelf to pick at. What could it be...
JEKYLL.
So, one of the other offerings from Steven Moffat to prove just how much of a frickin' genius he is, JEKYLL is a modern re-telling and pseudo-sequel to The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Our central protagonist, Dr. Jackman (played by James Nesbitt in the role of a lifetime, one that I doubt any other living human could do any better in), is haunted by missing time in his life, strange occurances and the feeling that his body does not belong to himself all the time.
This beautifully sinister and expertly crafted series lasted a full six episodes, featured genuinely terrifying implications and acting beyond compare. There's a fair amount of ridiculousness that goes with it as well, there's a mega-corporation that believes Hyde is the next stage in human evolution and is hell-bent on dissecting him, decent British actors with stupid American accents and some truly dodgy cloning for one of the sub-plots. The last episode was also a little messy.
But it just doesn't matter.
For those of you who are aware of my movie reviews, I tend not to actually talk that much about things that I actually really like. This is definately one of those things, since I truly, truly liked what they did with Jekyll. Yeah, some of the elements were a bit weird, yeah, some of the episode storylines were a bit convoluted, but at the same time... they really, really worked all together as a series and I can only recommend it over and over again to anyone stupid enough to listen to me.
My hope would be that Moffat's other recent re-imagining of classic literature, SHERLOCK, would follow the same kind of formula (be both a follow on from the classics yet a fresh story in its own right) and that they could somehow tie-in the two series for some kind of cross-over, but that's just the mega-nerd in me talking. Ah Moffat... what will you do for me next?
Next time: THE SCHEME
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)