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.

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.

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.

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 An Age Of Myth And Magic...

So they've been showing MERLIN again on the BBC. My brother said about it that 'it's not quite as bad as being punched in the face'. Now see, I have to question that particular statement, since it relies on whether or not you're just being punched in the face that one time, or repeatedly throughout the run-length of each episode. Because if it's the first one, I'll take that.

Merlin is the kind of television that makes you question just why you're watching it, while at the same time wondering when the next episode is on. It's really, really, really bad... but I still want to watch the next one. It kind of makes you wonder why people like Anthony Head and Richard Wilson actually do it... except that at the end of the day a job's a job and a paycheck is a paycheck.

Just one point about stupidity that I noticed in the second episode of it, however (entitled Valient and guest starring WHITE VAN MAN and TWO PINTS OF LAGER AND A PACKET OF CRISPS' Will Mellor). Why on earth would you get a magical shield that has the ability to make snakes shoot forwards from it and bite people? Especially to use it in a tournament that's gonna be watched by a king that hates all magic and has made this publically known? Seeing as how it's a bit difficult to hide three magical big-ass snakes... argh... it's just not very well thought through, is it? But then it does stuff like making Mordred's first appearance actually interesting.

And it's got John Hurt in it. Or at least his wonderful, wonderful voice. Oh well, when's the next one up?

JONATHAN CREEK
(Continued)

I don't want to be one of these people who constantly says 'it was better back in the old days', but I can tell you that in terms of the Creek, it was definately better before Maddie left. Carla as a replacement assistant was much more irritating that Maddy with a whole new method of calling Jonathan daft that just didn't really work. Despite being played by the sumptuously gorgeous Julia Sawahla, I never really got on with the character of Carla, especially since it involved dragging Adrien Edmonson around, and I'm pretty sure that he had better things to be doing with his time (like being on the dole).

The series took a decidedly darker note with all the serial killing and illegal immigration that became the focus of several episodes, as well as the brutal revenge murders in Carla's first Christmas special. I can't say as I enjoyed this later stuff as much as I did the more classic Creek, but it's hard to fault the continuity since every single episode of this series has been written by the same pen, that of David Renwick, the creator of the show. I've said this before, but perhaps having a different perspective sometimes may help smooth things along in terms of viewpoint. I've said that before and I'm sure I'll say it again.

With Carla as the assistant, the show lasted only one more season, which was split into two parts of three episodes each. A number of specials followed, with Carla no longer appearing and replaced with Joey (played by TWO PINTS' Sheridan Smith). So far Joey's only been in two specials and both of them suffer from what every Creek special has suffered from, they're just too long, too overly complicated and too elaborate to draw the interest in. The Judas Tree in particular needed a hell of a lot of editing and altering, but didn't recieve it, not even the guest starring of Paul McGann could save it.

The Judas Tree was back in Easter 2010 and I don't really expect to see the series resurface, especially since it was five years in between Carla and Joey's stints. I don't hold great hopes for the future of the series, if there even is one.

Well, that ended on a downer, didn't it?

Next time I talk about: Actually I don't know.

He lives in a Windmill?

There are times when I frickin' love television and times when it bores the hell out of me. There I am, surfing through all that is available on the iPlayer and find that the thing I really want to watch most of all is last week's episode of Have I Got News For You. The one I've already watched. Twice.

I really don't think I have much to talk about at this point, although the keen followers of my habits will notice that I'm ridiculously behind on posting these things, which is pretty much the norm when it comes to me and blogging. I'm not all that reliable at it when it comes down to it.

Well. Sort of.

So instead I'm going to scan my DVD shelf and find something that I'd like to talk about from the dim distant past of memory. However, since it's much bigger than the series I've been talking about in the past, I'm going to break it into two parts, just so that I don't have to think of something else to write about next time. Because, you know, lazy.

JONATHAN CREEK.
(Part 1)

So to start off with I'm just going to talk about the first three proper seasons, which were the Caroline Quentin years, from 1997 to 2000. Or as I like to think of it, the better part of the show's history.

So, Jonathan Creek... what can I say about it that hasn't been said already? Posted as a detective series that focuses on bizarre methods and even more bizarre explanations for those methods, rather than motive and criminial intention, and with a heavy bent on the craft of the Stage Magician, this series was sort of an alternative to the many, many, many, countless thousands of crime dramas that loited public television like chavs at a job centre. Okay, that was a bit harsh, crime drama is certainly more popular than any other in the history of television, but that to me just means that any particular series has to work extra hard to impress me or even get noticed in the first place. So making one about a nerdy anorak that lives in a windmill and solves crimes because he's a massive mystery buff is a step in the right direction.

The series was created and written completely by David Renwick, who was responsible for every single episode. Now, I've always felt a little wary about single-writer shows, mainly because as a writer myself I know that there's only so much imagination that goes on in there and every now and again a fresh perspective really helps freshen the show up a little. And lets face it, there were certainly times when this show needed a little freshness. While the characters were quirky and eccentric (the way that Jonathan and Maddy play off each other works brilliantly well) and the plots are all technically clever, there are quite a few that have a sense of being over stodgy and full of technical detail that detracts from the actual sense of story. The supporting character of Adam Klaus, however, is sheer genius throughout.

The problem with crime is that the real stuff is committed through passion. Passion isn't planned, it just happens. So the majority of the crimes within this series are utterly implausible due to the amount of depth within.

In fact, the very best episodes of this series (Time Waits For Norman and The Omega Man in particular) are the ones that don't actually revolve around murder, but instead elaborte con jobs that are designed not to hurt anyone.

Interestingly enough, the role of Adam Klaus was first played by Anthony Stewart Head, who then defected to the States in order to play a librarian in some schloky vampire series or something. Stuart Milligan took over and pretty much improved on the role in the second season onwards, with the majority of the comedy in the series coming from Klaus and his antics. In fact, a number of comedic actors were in the series, only to play straight-faced characters who barely cracked a smile.

So, if they stayed away from murder, the first twenty or so episodes over the first three years were great, they were in-depth, detailed, well-structured, great characters and a sense that the joke, somehow, was on you.

Next up:... more Creek.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

In the television this week... my parents were on the news.

And I missed it. My mum and dad were on the BBC Breakfast show.

Basically, because of all this Royal Wedding tedium bollocks, various people at the BBC sent out a series of emails to as many people as they know asking if anyone knows any other couples that got married as a result of going to St. Andrews University together (which my parents did, that's where they met and got married) and it just so happens that one of my mum's dog-walking friends was a former BBC News Foriegn Correspondant, so she gets this email and immeadiately shows it to my mum and dad. They get interviewed and it was on the news on saturday morning (09/04/11).

And I missed it. I was in a car.

If you drastically wish to see it, I believe that it's still on the BBC News website, search for 'St. Andrew's Matchmaker' when you get there.

So, new series of HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU. I've always, always loved Have I Got News, it's probably my favourite panel show, ahead of Buzzcocks, Would I Lie To You and any others that I stumble upon. And they got Jon Richardson back for the opening episode of this series, which is great, because I think he's one of this country's brightest young comedians.

Other than that, all I can say is that I'm ridiculously looking forward to the return of a certain madman in a box, and can't really be thinking about other things right now. WHITE VAN MAN is actually getting better, while TWENTY TWELVE seems to be sagging a litte, but comedy is always difficult to do, so I shall reserve judgement until later on, when it's done.

GARROW'S LAW.

So this was another BBC Courtroom Drama that I started avidly watching. In fact I watched the second series before I bought the first, but hey, continuity is flexible enough to allow that. I figured that since I did Silk last time I could get away with doing something that's largely the same show, just set in a period where Sean Bean is quite at home (Which reminds me that I must do one of these on Sharpe).

But of course the main difference is that Garrow's Law is historical in the sense that most of these characters actually existed. William Garrow, John Southouse, Judge Buller and Sir Arthur Hill were all real people and all the cases brought before the court of Old Bailey are indeed real cases straight out of the history files. Obviously some artistic licence has been taken, but I'd only hold that against them if it were a bad show.

And this is no way a bad show.

A stellar cast led by Andrew Buchan (or Sean Bean mk2 as I like to think of him), with the legendary nose of Alun Armstrong, current BBC royalty of Rupert Graves and the multi-talented Lyndsey Marshall who was last seen wasting her time in Being Human.

All I can really say about Garrow's Law is that both seasons have so far impressed me so much that I made sure to recommend it to everyone I know, just in case they missed it. This is a show that will suit many audiences, which I could only hope to match.

So next time, something more retro: JONATHAN CREEK.