Fortunes & Fables

* I am of course talking of iPlayer. Thanks to the rewatch feature I caught Timewatch - Atlantis last night, having missed it on BBC4.

Bettany Hughes travels to the Greek island of Santorini to trace Plato's tale of the island of Atlantis onto the Bronze age civilisation of Thera, devastated by volcanic eruption. She excited and enthused, but even without her energetic delivery the documentary is well worth it - the city being unearthed is beautiful.

Stills of archeological restoration work can be found the Thera Foundation Website. The site also houses open source scholarly articles, if you're interested - these on excavation/restoration work, not Plato.


* I noticed that Mary Quant has, apparently, written her autobiography. The title may be more than a little uninspiring, but an interview in the Daily Wail (Yes, I habitually glance at the front page of all the main papers - aside from The Times thanks to it's paywall) makes it sound enticing.

* Also enticing is a coat, obviously inspired by the period, as seen at the V&A Shop. Very pretty it is too, regrettably with a pretty price to match!

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/368882.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

If you've even glance at this blog for the past month or so you'll know I've been besotted by Borgen. Barring a sudden windfall (the second season, imported, is £55+ from Amazon, which is an insane price) my fix is up tomorrow night. That's when the last two episodes of the first season will be broadcast.

This was one reason I watched the last two episodes, one at a time, spread out across the week.

What I have loved, throughout, is how understated, how down-played a character's emotional turmoil is. Muted, yet massively powerful. There are such nuanced performances amongst the main cast. ( Spoilers ) Borgen may be television, but it has all the compelling aspects of fine theatrical performance. The work some of the actors are doing is simply riveting, and what is denied the viewer (and who didn't want to see the conversation Kasper didn't have with Katrine about his childhood?) is as compelling as what we do see.

Spanning the season, I've loved the way Katrine and Kasper's relationship works as an inverted mirror of Brigitte and Philips'. So here, as one couple's relationship possibly fractures, we see the other take their first steps back to possible reconciliation. I've also really appreciated seeing Birgitte eat, breathe, sleep and become State's Minister. It's a role she cannot shed like a suit jacket at the end of the day and we, the viewer, are shown up as having shared her initial naivety in believing she ever could have. On a less nuanced, more cliche'd, show I'd speculate that Birgitte and Kasper might one day have an affair - or at least be passing ships across bedsheets. Borgen though has continued to surprise me, so I doubt that will ever come to pass.

As for the revelation of Kasper Juul's secrets, I am wondering if they might not unbalance the series emotionally, given what a powder keg they are. I'll have to think back on that after the final two episodes. What is inescapable is that Pilou Asbak gives a phenomenal performance, nuanced, believable and heart breaking. Asbak may have been quietly stealing the show all series.

Amusingly, I note that half the British media is in mourning for the end of this series.

The upside to the textual outpouring of grief is that The Guardian interviewed Sidse-Babett-Knudsen. Well worth a read, and not only because you'll find out where the art Sanne first chose for Birgitte's office came from.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/368436.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

* Dear fandom, I take it you all know that Shirley Mclaine is joining the cast of Downton and will be playing Lady Cora's mother? UK tabloids are already anticipating the barbs which are sure to fly between her character and Maggie's Smith's. The less said about the analogies being drawn between this and the Alexis/Crystal feud which apparently powered The Carrington's back in the 1980's, the better.

* I was more interested to hear Alex Kingston is coming into second series of Upstairs Downstairs, this something I regret as her presence will make me tune in - last year the show was something worse than dreck. Damn. And no, rumours about the plot don't titillate. I'm too busy pondering the writers. The IMDB tells me that last series there were five writers for three episodes, talk about too many cooks. This year the press have just announced Heidi Thomas as writing the new series (she one of last year's five) and I have to ask: If she can - and did - adapt Cranford why oh why was this so utterly dreadful?

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/367971.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

If you missed the Jean Shrimpton/David Bailey biopic on BBC4 last week, tonight is your last chance to catch it on iPlayer - here for another hour/until 10pm.

This got very mixed, and in the main, lackluster reviews. For the life of me, I cannot see why. We'll take Manhattan explores one week in 1962 when David Bailey and Jean Shrimpton travelled to New York for a photo-shoot which was later heralded as ground breaking. It's the shoot that ushered in the swinging sixties - at least at Conde Nast. This film is glossy, fun, well acted - more on that in a moment - and aptly pitched for a story which slid out from between the pages of a magazine. It isn't, and probably was never intended to be, a hard hitting piece of sixties social commentary. Reviewers seem to find that unforgivable *grin*.

Both Karen Gillan and Aneurin Barnard were good. Okay, Gillan was good. Barnard was excellent. He is both bolshy and charismatic, arresting enough to steal most scenes, and in so doing give the viewer a palpable sense of how and why he captivated Shrimpton. And Karen Gillan? Playing against this energy, she showed an understated strength a stillness and focus that I found increasingly magnetic. Karen Gillan doesn't have the innate beauty of Jean Shrimpton herself - those cheek bones, the neck, the line of her nose - but Barnard's portrayal of Bailey is so convincing that we do get a sense of what he saw through the camera lens, a sense of what was so captivating and different.

Add to this a host of interesting cameos - such as Alex Jennings who plays Vogue Art director John Parsons (more amused than harried as events unfold, with a lovely wry smile) and it's a delight to watch. I could also mention Robert Glenister's performance as Shrimpton's father, or Helen McRory's performance as Lady Clare Rendlesham but by the time I do all that the film will no longer be on iPlayer.

We'll take Manhattan is glossy, lovely, fun. Well worth watching - and not just for the fashion.

Image from August 2011 Vogue - possibly by D.Bailey

ETA:

I admit, I hunted this down on iPlayer mainly because I was curious about Karen Gillan's acting prowess. I hadn't throught much of her in her early days on Doctor Who (though she improved exponentially!) and so wanted to see if I'd find myself watching Amy Pond, wearing Mary Quant.

I didn't.

Early on in the film I found Gillan/Shrimpton's insecure awkwardness believable and most unlike what I'd seen on Who, especially in scenes with Robert Glenister. Later, as Jean Shrimpton became the muse, or pawn, in a tug of war between Bailey and Lady Clare Rendlesham the stillness in Gillan's performance read as watchfulness to me, far more than as passivity. And, again, I rarely saw flashes of Amy Pond, or of Karen Gillan herself breaking through. I enjoyed Gillan's performance, and doubtless would have had more to say about it if Aneurin Barnard hadn't stolen so much of my attention. He played Bailey as the archetypal angry young man, but there's also a strong sense of him as a force of nature.

Enjoyable fun, and I regret the BBC has decided not to make it available for rent (going by Love Film for I find its price tag (on Amazon) is a little steep for what it is.

So, unless We'll take Manhattan repeats, it is bound to disappear into the BBC archives - and that is a shame.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/367648.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

And where did the past week go?

* Eternal Law and I have officially parted company.

Samuel West may be divine in wings (on yonder York rooftop) cigar in hand, but I've never seen a pair of lawyers act more like social workers. This is casework of the week, with a dash of heavenly help and that isn't enough to hold my attention. Nor is Gist's love for Hannah, which still seems inexplicable to me - and this episode three of six.

* With regards Borgen, I am this show's bitch.

I utterly adore each episode seen to date. On the one hand it can be said that this show is wish fulfillment with regards a strong, fair, female leader - and quite possibly with regards the writing of the female cast as a whole. On the other, all becomes irrelevant and we're watching the changes power and pressure bring to a character, to their interactions, personality, family life. It's compelling. There is a beautiful moment, in the Borgen hallway, when Birgitte tells a colleague that she's lucky to still has the luxury to have convictions - I'm paraphrasing a tad... That just encapsulates the show, in my opinion, the fact that power and the complexities of needed compromise erode ones convictions and that there may be alternative.

Pacing is slow and even, with the story/issue of the week holding attention easily - even if I do admit to watching for clues with regards the over-reaching arc. If one episode is less gripping than the next, that doesn't detract from this fact that this is quality drama. In these past two episodes Pilou Asbak/Kasper really impressed. Kasper's heartbreak (when Katrine takes up with her fitness instructor) was palpable - lovely moment when he spots them on the bridge, lovely acting in the way he dumps the coffee and croissant he's brought for her. And, oh the scene where he turns up drunk, inconsolable and plunges into a fight on her floor - gorgeous acting - and aside from his very credible pain, there are all those delicious secrets of his threatening to come forth.

It's a show you should be watching and, if you miss one, you may like to be reminded that dear Auntie is stacking on iPlayer for another month. For those who are curious, may I say the subtitles get easier by the time the second episode is running? Funny thing that...

Last week I and thrilled with the way Birgitte/Knudsen played poker/hardball with a conglomerate boss and won. I wonder what will thrill me this week.


* In The Torygraph today Robbie Collin is so enthused and delighted by the new Muppets movie that his review makes me long to see it. Unexpected, believe you me, for I never pay attention to mainstream reviews. *g* He writes:

Some films contain moments of such pure, infectious happiness that even the most black-hearted cynic has to throw up their hands in surrender and break out into an enormous grin. The Muppets begins with just such a moment, and it lasts for 109 minutes.

& tells us that Miss Piggy has been working for French Vogue during her showbiz hiatus. He talks of the Muppets filmed in a dreamy shallow focus that makes them look irresistibly reach-out-and-ruffleable. And damn, he makes this sound enticing. Right, I'll just have to borrow a friends child then.

* Also in The Torygraph there's an obituary for Frederica Sagor Maas (who has died aged 111) and who was almost certainly the last surviving screenwriter of the silent movie era. An interesting read. I note she's also written an autobiography The Shocking Miss Pilgrim, which I'd have already bought, if not for the price.

& finally:

* From all the papers - the work of Cecilia Paredes - camouflaged, body painted self-portraits. Terribly pretty, even if they are a tad Colefax & Fowler.


image gakked from Torygraph & used w/out permission.


***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/367405.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

I love film. I adore the early days of Hollywood, so I booked to see this with somewhat high hopes, that I do admit. Finding out early on Anthony Sher would be returning to the N.T. (I last saw him in the stunning production of Primo that he did) was an added plus. So was finding out the play was penned by Nicholas Wright - he of Vincent in Brixton fame, among other things.

Yes, you can tell I'm building up to disappointment here, can't you?

Travelling Light is light hearted and comedic, exactly the kind of play Nicholas Hytner loves doing (he directed this which I didn't know when I booked. He also directed London Assurance, which I found disappointing.) It is an easy piece which feels superficial, rather than one rich with nuance and meaning. For a play which celebrates movies and specifically celebrates narrative and storytelling, it has a thin tale to tell. But it is charming and amusing.


Image gakked from the N.T. Website & used w/out permission.

Although the play is about one Motl Mendl (Damien Molony of Being Human fame) who returns to his small village after his father dies, discovers a cinematograhpe and begins making motion pictures (leading to a future in Hollywood) the play is really a loving parody and celebration of every cliche ever seen or read about the early - and current - days of cinema. That, is its strength.

It's weakness comes from an uneven pace, for the play does sag, and Anthony Sher's accent. Other critics have referred to Sher doing 'a Topol' (which isn't inaccurate - think Fidler on the Roof) and his accent does grate as the play unfolds. Acting wise performances felt equal, though if anyone does shine it's not Sher but Paul Jesson. Jesson plays the older Motl, now a Hollywood director/producer/mogul thinking back on his youth.

With regards the production as a whole I commend Bob Crowley, the Designer, as the set design and use of projection above the stage works beautifully. I loved the use of filmed footage, projected in such a way as to give a real sense of silent films of the era.


Image gakked from the N.T. Website & used w/out permission.

One to see, if you can get tickets at a discount, or:
One to see at N.T. Live on February 9th
(Global cinema booking information: HERE.)

Booking at the N.T. continues until March 6th. The play is then going on a regional tour (Salford/Leeds/Aylesbury/Newcastle)

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/367252.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

So, you probably know by now that MU is RIP.

Unsurprising really, and truth be told we're lucky I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. What I don't get is why producers/studios (US & UK) aren't offering a subscription based, or better yet a micro payment based, fully legal alternative which is global.

Take BBC iPlayer: They have long touted that they will be rolling out a global, or at least European, version of the service at half the cost of an annual TV license. Apparently, some kind of service was launched this summer, but it's only available via App. And, what is mind bogglingly batshit mad, it's not a catch up service equal to the UK's.

It gives a person access to the BBC archive (valuable I agree, worthwhile I agree) but NOT to the catch-up service. This ISN'T THE SAME THING AT ALL and isn't what most people would paypal good money for. I cannot fathom the logic behind this. And don't tell me it's DVD sales.

People who buy DVD box sets will doubtless buy whatever if they love it enough. Do people buy sight unseen? Regularly? Often? Most of the DVD box sets I own are of shows previously watched and loved. Very few have been bought sight unseen, and those are probably all classic, not current shows.

If it's not a DVD revenue model gumming up the cyber-streams and it's money from foreign market sales, then surely micro payments and subscriptions would exceed revenue made from selling a program into a foreign market? Surely. No?

I cannot fathom the logic behind this AT ALL.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/367065.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

If this was Saturday, I'd title the post Sundries.

As it's Thursday, let's make do with points.

* The front page of the Torygraph tells me that Bradgelina are the new Von Trap family.

* The same paper, yesterday, had pictured of Cindy Crawford's ten year old daughter, modelling Versace. She looks like a doll version of her mother at a younger age, and personally I find the add campaign more than a disturbing.

* George Lucas is retiring from Hollywood, or is that just from blockbuster film-making? I read the headline and the first thought in my mind was to lament the fact that he didn't retire earlier, before he filmed the prequels. Then I remembered that The Phantom Menace gave the world fandom some brilliant (and okay, not so brilliant, but beloved) fanfic and one of my favourite pairings. Before Snape/Harry was a twinkle in Albus' eye, there was Obi/Qui Gonn.

* Gossip from the Globes talks of Downton Abbey, the movie. I have little to say on this front aside from bl**dy typical! I was mollified to read that they won the Globe for Series 1 and not for Series 2, by the way.

& finally, the Guardian Borgen blog writes:

• I am extremely confused by the upstairs situation in the Nyborg-Christensen house. What is up there, aside from one teenage bedroom? Why is everything else downstairs?

which made me giggle.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/366826.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

If the blurb in the new R.T. is anything to go by, Borgen's episodes alternate between focusing on domestic and on international affairs. If it's the case by design, and not just my supposition (based on four episodes and reporting blurb for another two) then may I say, I rather like this?

But, then there's an awful lot I like about this show.

First things first: I'm adoring Mikael Birkkjaer, who is as sexy as he is wonderful. Well, okay, the actor is sexy and the character he plays (Birgitte's husband and the father of her children: see right) is wonderful. There is a gorgeous, warm, natural, chemistry between all members of the Christensen family, and Philip Christensen/Birkkjaer also benefits from great bantery dialogue. Undoubtedly, I will say this every week.

Interestingly, in contrast to the main couple/family we're given Kasper and Katrine (Pilou Asbak and Birgitte Hjort Sorensen) the young journalist and the spin doctor whose relationship is a seething bed of possibilities. The drama inherent in their individual and personal stories seems as tangled as Katrine's bedsheets.

( In case you'll be watching the iPlayer stack and are avoiding spoilers: )

This show is such a joy to watch. Pacing-wise the politics of compromise don't drag, and the personal plot threads entice. It's smart, sexy, intelligent, heart warming drama. And the acting? Oh the acting...

I'm so damn hooked.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/366403.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

& before tonight's episode, thoughts on last weeks:

Begrudgingly I do have to admit episode two was an improvement on the series opener. Not that this translates into my saying Eternal Law is good - it isn't - but Samuel West is excellent. He is such leading man material, I truly regret he's wearing wings and not a frock coat in some other production.

Eternal Law gives us the last temptation of Zak Gist, an angel flirting with the fall for the love of a human woman. And West's emotional range is gorgeous, not that this helps much. The show remains thin, trite... Worse, there is precious little mystery.

( Spoilers below the cut )

Am I mad, or in a coma? That was the question Sam Tyler asked, the question which hooked multitudes. Regrettably, Eternal Law asks little and delivers the same. As a show-reel for Samuel West it is fantastic. As anything else I find it lacking.

I'll tune in again this week, but as for next it clashes with We'll take Manhattan so unless writing improves radically in episode three, I think I'll be leaving this half-baked show at its halfway point.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/365819.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

There's an interview with Una Stubbs, Laura Pulver and Louise Brealey in the new R.T. Fluffy, light, likely to infuriate - or maybe not? With no scanner handy I resorted to a trusty camera phone. Pictures of the interview which should *fingers crossed* be visible and legible, are over the cut.

( In case you're curious )

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/365352.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

with regards Sherlock: Are Gatiss and Moffat pitting the intellect of the world's greatest web detective against his own primal (or would that accurately be basic) emotions?

Last week gives us attraction and something which might, or might not, be love. This week fear, irrational or otherwise. And next? If anger is the emotion that will drive the plot, let's just say things bode ill for the characters on the strength of the trailer. I do not like the implications we're being teased with.

eta: Theories, which may or may not be spoilers, in comments below.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/365215.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

Before I praise the phenomenal acting in this episode - all hail Russell Tovey, who is exquisite - can I say what a pleasure it was to watch something which feels balanced plot wise. When Gatiss' re working of The Hound of the Baskervilles gets close to it's denouement all the pieces feel as if they fit into place, in this puzzle on the moors. Villains' motivations ring true - unlike last week. That alone makes for satisfying viewing, but damn if this wasn't also a pleasure to watch because it's a damn good thriller.

Gatiss was aiming for horror? Well, I'd say action-thriller comes closer but then I did grow up watching the X-Files and so this, this, was right up my Dartmoor.

( Scary, brilliant, I found: )

Or, to put it another way, Gatiss brings his mystery of choice into the modern age far more successfully than Moffat did. And Tovey is exquisite.



eta:* Reviewing that scene on iPlayer, in answer to a comment on LJ, I am stunned to note it's Watson who drops in the Aspergers term, not Lestrade.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/365038.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

{There is no rant within. What there is, runs long. Thus there shall be cut tags to delineate:} Sherlock, the program, is as audacious as the man. That is unmistakable after the first episode in this, the second series.

( The Woman, the Virgin & the Doctor )

( Of writers, directors and visuals in the series as a whole )

( The positive on the modern rendering )

( And the not so positive. )

( Of barbs, brothers and friends )

( And Cumberbatch's portrayal )

( A writers' possible motivations, or the meaning that I found herein )

Acting wise Cummberbatch's performance is a thing of beauty - see the difference between his role as Sherlock and Sherlock's role as mugging victim. Martin Freeman is solid support and brings nice comedic timing to his role as Watson. And Laura Pulver? She did nothing for me and I rather feel that as Irene Adler she was miscast.

Finally, a nod to Moffat's dialogue writing skills. Banter in this show is a thing of utter beauty.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/363921.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

I time shift a great deal of my viewing, otherwise I'd be stating here and now that the next four Saturday nights are now penciled in, blocked off in my diary for a date with BBC4. Yes, Borgen is that good.

Solid acting, great pacing (with a measured feel to what is a large ensemble cast) and an endearing female protagonist makes for a watchable hour. Then we have back-stabbing, shady deals, one upmanship and spin. The dialogue (or at least its translation) doesn't clunk, and the banter between Birgitte and her husband is fun. This seems to be fine, solid, drama - on the strength of these two episodes.

I'm not as sharp watching this as I might otherwise be. The reason? Subtitles. Yes, I admit, I'm the only drama buff who didn't watch The Killing so my eye isn't trained to travel down to the bottom of the screen, take in dialogue and simultaneously take in action, nuance, subtext and camera work.

It will take me a while I imagine. But, even with my focus slightly blunted, damn if I wasn't increasingly riveted.

( Spoilers from the ballot box )

The interwebs tell me that this series is the first of three. I'm not sure how I feel about this. They also tell me iPlayer is stacking the whole series, from H E R E.

A quick, and fairly positive review in the Torygraph tells me that Borgen is the Danish word for castle, and that that is how their Parliament is known, in case you were curious.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/364663.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

News which caught my eye this week includes the death of Bob Anderson, English Olympic fencer, and renowned film fight choreographer who died on New Year day. I ought to be fannishly excited about his life, because of his connection with films such as Star Wars & Lord of the Rings but it's all about Errol Flynn for me. Well that, and The Princess Bride.

Then Ronald Searle laid down his pen - an artist whom I shamefully admit to being fond of thanks to his St. Trinians work. Searle apparently grew tired of the focus on said school drawings, but damn they're wonderful.

A particularly nice article on the artist can be found here while Gerald Scarfe salutes him here. Yes, it's in the Daily Wail, but don't let that stop you. It's a great article. Flickr hosts a series of excepts from Lilliput of the St. Trinians girls and mistresses here which delight for the text as much as the pictures.

I used to own all these film on video (taped off the BBC) but they have vanished into the ink blots and pen slashes of time. First spare bit of cash I can scrounge, I think I'll fork out for the DVD box set.

More on the morrow...

PS: I don't think the image is original and suspect it to be a homage. Still wonderful though...

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/364459.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

On the strength of the first episode I'd say this was marginally successful, at best. ( Sam West may not be enough to save this )

Not up to Pharoah and Graham's LoM/Ashes standard. Brilliant as a conception, not so hot on execution. I will tune in again next week to see if it improves - but I'm not holding my breath.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/364063.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

Initial reaction:

Much to love. This show is as clever as its protagonist, and dialogue sparkles, or should I say it cracks like a whip?

More on this later, or tomorrow, but what I did note was the element of heart or caring which sits firmly in centre of this episode - here I'm talking about Mrs Hudson and her boys, Mycroft and his conversations with Watson and what is revealed in that pivotal scene between Watson and Adler - which gives the show a greater emotional depth that last series. Can three episodes be called a series?

Very, very interesting stuff. I'm loving this modernisation and find it a fitting homage to the brilliance of the original.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/363582.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/363165.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

I will, of course, be watching Sherlock tomorrow evening (hopefully live, all things familial permitting.) Aside from that I'm ambivalent about a lot of the programs that are coming back onto our screens this week. To begin:

*Hustle: No matter how much I like Adrian Lester as Mickey Stone (sharp, smooth and gorgeous), or Robert Glenister as Ash Morgan, well the chemistry on the show hasn't been the same since Marc Warren and Jamie Murray left. And what is that girl doing anyway? I could be overtly gossipy here and ask what she's been doing since she stopped doing a certain married, middle-aged pop star, but I won't. *grin* You had all heard/read/ignored those rumours, hadn't you? Wikipedia informs me that she's joined the ranks of the CW. Well, she is definitely pretty enough. Kelly Adams and Matt Di Angelo do nothing for me and Robert Vaughn just isn't compensation enough.

Now, if only David McCallum would guest-star.

*Public Enemies: I know Danny Mays is talented. Ashes to Ashes proved that to me, irrevocably. I also found him lovely and utterly endearing in both Made In Dagenham (which is apparently to be turned into a West End musical) and the Doctor Who episode Night Terrors. So maybe it's Anna Friel who is the ultimate turn-off, for me *g*

I ought to mention that I did try to watch Without You when it was on but ditched it at the end of the first episode. Considering Charlotte Jones adapted this (she of Humble Boy fame - which I shall forever regret seeing with Felicity Kendall and not Diana Rigg) I had high hopes that it would be decent drama, but I found the dialogue risible. I also hated the fact that the ghost/memory of Ellie's late husband (played by Marc Warren) was able to touch her. It gave him a physicality I didn't feel worked, no matter how strongly she was supposedly evoking him through memory.

I do think the script was weak - but I also think Friel's acting wasn't up to carrying it. Could Mays force her to raise her game? Possibly, but damn if she isn't impediment enough to keep me from tuning in.

Two magazines I read, without fail, are Vanity Fair & The Radio Times. Reading the latter I often find myself agreeing, or disagreeing, with Alison Graham. She doesn't think much of the new legal-supernatural drama - Eternal Law - starting on ITV, but I'm a fool for Ashley Pharoah and Matthew Graham, thank you Life on Mars & Ashes to Ashes.

*Eternal Law: will probably bring to mind Wim Wenders Wings of Desire as well as the Hollywood remake City of Angels. My memory of that film, by the way, is of loving Nic Cage's performance yet being utterly unconvinced of his love for Meg Ryan's character. Anyway, Graham seems to imply that Eternal Law will fall far short of its goals through its six episode run, but damn if I'm not insanely curious to see what Pharoah and Graham (the other) come up with. This I will be tuning in for.

...Maybe I should put Wings of Desire & Faraway so Close on my DVD rental list.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/363288.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.

I didn't say much, if anything, on the use of the title Caretaker in the Doctor Who Christmas Special.

I have though been thinking about titles - monikers if you will - and their use in the Moffverse. Rory is The Last Centurian. Amy is The Girl Who Waited. Melody Pond, River Song but also Doctor River Song. And then we have The Doctor whose name translates to Mighty Warrior for the people of the Gamma Forests, and who once (in an unrebooted universe) was known as the Oncoming Storm. Let's not forget that the Pandorica was built to contain him. A prison lost in time, thought of as myth, built to house the most feared thing in the whole Universe.

What's in a name?

In one sense what Moffat may be telling us is that the way we perceive ourselves is often not the way others see us. Amy continues to see herself as Amy Pond long after she is Amy Williams, her sense of self as 'Pond' so strong that Rory takes her name. And Rory? It is apt to say that he seems himself in Amy's shadow, until his Auton self becomes The Lone Centurian.

A subjective view of oneself, or of events, versus an objective one is to some extent what a companion's friendship offers the Doctor. Companions give him another (alien?) point of view, and call him on his behaviour. But, he's the other/adult figure in this show, his companions undeniably less than he, for all that he pushes them to grow and exceed their own expectations, hot-housed as they are in the TARDIS.

His companions cannot help but take on board his vision of himself: Doctor. Time Lord. Mad man in a box.

In the Christmas special he introduces himself as the Caretaker. In part it has to be because he feels a sense of obligation to Madge Arwell, and so is stepping in to take care of her family at Christmas. But I didn't get the sense he was embracing his new role - for all that he delights in fixing up the old country pile they're staying in - as much as purposely leaving his previous one behind. The Doctor dies at a fixed moment in time, on a beach, shot by the Lost Astronaut. He escapes death, thanks to the Tesselator, but leaves his name/title on the pyre. Thus 'the Doctor' still dies in that time, in that place.

Why name himself Caretaker though? Well, we have seen Amy and Rory noticing the Doctor's footprints across history's timeways. By giving up his name, at least for a while, he slips away quietly and disappears. And maybe that was his aim. It is possible to read the latter scenes in the episode as proof that he's hiding from friends he fears have moved on without him - the irony here being the Doctor is always the one to move on first - but I'm not sure that's the only meaning which can be gleaned.

What I found far more interesting was the visual way in which he comes to meet the Arwell family, as the caretaker, flinging half the front door to the ground as he opens it. It's a wonderful moment, brilliantly encapsulating the Doctor, for is what he really if not the man who opens doors - to magical blue boxes, dimmensional vortexes, to possibility.

His title/moniker/name? Until Moffat tells us otherwise, next year, it's either something earned, or what he chose to call himself.

***
This entry was originally posted at "http://boji.dreamwidth.org/362642.html"
If you wish to comment there, you can do so using OpenID.