tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73199513618652558102024-02-22T15:57:48.244-07:00Lost In British TVSmart writing on great drama. Mostly British. Mostly television and film -- from Pride and Prejudice to Spooks (MI-5) and much more. If its good drama, I'm on it.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-11183526950186034842018-11-08T20:40:00.000-07:002018-11-14T08:58:46.429-07:00The Mansfield Menagerie<br />
It is very challenging for the fan of the novel <i>Mansfield Park</i> to dip a toe into the world of its adaptations. They are uniformly unsatisfying. Austen's work generally lends itself so well to portrayal on screen, it is hard to say why exactly <i>Mansfield Park</i> has had such a rocky road to the screen. I know that it is not one of Austen's best loved works. It is her longest and features an interesting assemblage of characters in which our hero/heroine stand for a moral line. The themes of class stratification, understanding one's self, one's talent's, one's "place" may not translate well to a modern audience. But these themes play well for me, and I love the novel. I love its complexity and depth.<br />
<br />
Were I to simply rank and pick my "favorite" of the three adaptations (a 1983 BBC miniseries, a 1999 theatrical release, and a 2007 TV movie ) there'd be an unquestionable winner, because only one of these adaptations does a proper job of actually adapting the book: the 1983 miniseries. The other two are seized with misguided attempts to spice up the story - make Fanny Price exciting, to make Sir Thomas evil, to focus on irrelevant details (the slave trade), or push the sexuality over the top.<br />
<br />
In quick recap of how all the watching came about: I wanted a lengthy miniseries fill my evenings and reached for the 1983 Mansfield Park which I own on dvd. I knew what I was going to get because I've seen it many times before and I enjoyed it, but for some reason, on this viewing, I was distracted by the grating affectations many of the actors employ. I also noted with displeasure that the Edmund / Fanny story wrapped up really awkwardly. These dissatisfactions led me to reach out for more.<br />
<br />
Because it had been many years since I'd watched the other productions, I could no longer remember details and was flying blind. So I rented the 1999 version online. I figured, well, it had Jonny Lee Miller. This would be a good place to start. I couldn't have been more wrong. It didn't take long to remember that this was the light-porn adaptation. There is a sex scene with nudity; there is a lesbian hint between Fanny and Mary Crawford; there are shocking drawings shown of slaves beating raped, beaten, hung. Um....seriously. They are adapting... ?Austen? Do they know what she writes about? Oddly, the 1999 production also chose to morph Fanny Price into more of a "Jane Austen" character, changing the feel of the story significantly. I thought I'd hit rock bottom with one of the worst Austen adaptations there is.<br />
<br />
So I was glad I'd only rented, not bought, and went over to eBay and and bought the 2007 version on dvd thinking it'd be nice to have another MP in my collection. Oh my word! This version is hardly an adaptation of anything. It is so pared down as to be unrecognizable. The sexuality is rampant and brazen; Fanny is insipid; plot details are bastardized. Its a mess! I think it is actually a worse adaptation than the 1999 version (and that is truly saying something), if only because it has hacked away at the novel so severely. If 1999 is bad because of its interpretations being unacceptable, 2007 is bad because it is a sprint.., on the wrong course.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless! interesting things have happened in the past when I have taken the time to dig into the portrayals one at a time and compare them. So, just as I have done previously with both the adaptations of <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/07/emma-cubed-four-emma-adaptations-all.html" target="_blank">Emma</a> and of <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-triple-shot-of-persuasion.html" target="_blank">Persuasion</a>, I will go role by role into the Mansfield Parks, grading each production on the performances/characterizations of the main roles, assigning "casting points" to them. At the end I calculate a CPA (casting points average) and choose a winner.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
Here we go!<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Fanny</b><br />
As mentioned above, I found all of the Fannys unsuitable. Austen has crafted heroines with a range of personality types: the lively and intelligent, the sensitive and romantic, the girlish and misguided, the reserved and proper. Why is Fanny's moral everywoman so hard to hit the right note on?<br />
<br />
I have often heard Fanny accused of being boring. Sure, she might not be sparkly, but her character still packs a wallop. Austen describes Fanny through the voice of Henry Crawford as he tells his sister that he wants to marry her. According to Henry, Fanny has grace and goodness, is gentle, modest, and sweet. She shows patient forbearance and has strong affections. She has a warm, gentle heart and an understanding beyond question. He describes her elegant mind, her good principles, her steadiness and regular conduct and integrity. To this, Henry's sister Mary replies that this praise is "scarcely beyond her merits." In other words, yep. Fanny is all that. She is also young, pretty, relaxed and content. in the full bloom of youth, as Austen would say.<br />
<br />
I picture her character as somewhere between Anne Eliot and Elinor Dashwood in terms of her clarity about what is right. Since she comes from poverty, she doesn't have their same decorum or self-confidence. She doesn't always know how to act in company; but her motives and actions always come from the right place. She may be girlish in the line of Catherine Moreland, but with a naturally strong central core. It's extraordinary that she has all these qualities, given her neglect and removal from her family as a child. In fact, as I think of it, she's somewhat of a Harry Potter character: completely good, very aware of what is right, and willing to stand up for that at every turn. She is remarkable for what she manages to be, despite everything in her background.<br />
<br />
None of these characterizations do her justice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmYH8N4_Ve47mhx3ZtIZwx5_hwqt2mq227z2lxbPOmePd2nke3P3uXWwrAG_x_jvh8ecznNFri1TYcys4N1tPaHXZtXJcwnJS_enl-7rQKWg21aKoxpPeyQwmYKnvLNXRrMgt3C-T7ysue/s1600/fanny+1983+better.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="512" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmYH8N4_Ve47mhx3ZtIZwx5_hwqt2mq227z2lxbPOmePd2nke3P3uXWwrAG_x_jvh8ecznNFri1TYcys4N1tPaHXZtXJcwnJS_enl-7rQKWg21aKoxpPeyQwmYKnvLNXRrMgt3C-T7ysue/s200/fanny+1983+better.jpg" width="200" /></a>1983 - Sylvestra Le Touzel conveys some qualities of Fanny Price. She evokes the diligent niece, the compliant cousin, the kind friend to the disenchanted (see, e.g., her treatment of poor Rushworth); she is the moral line in the sand. But isn't relaxed, warm and natural enough. Sylvestra has an interesting look. She is actually somewhat beautiful at times, but doesn't suggest Fanny's striking attractiveness that many other characters in the book are struck with. The portrayal is a bit too frumpy. She has an odd, exaggerated, affected acting style with stilted mannerisms and a flat, decided, cadence. She seems almost apoplectic at other times. She is memorable but she doesn't capture Austen's heroine. B<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mo0YZUx_7r6CPzxiVS1ZpN5Ia_aWCGABGZbDtQ7bU-yTnqplmXfZSQ-k-yxudX_I6A8IgsLUhYJyPT1gpe6dCalBVL2vIitmLXK3vlAjgnactdEy_amWMrYQeHO2EwFba0trvjc-Is-O/s1600/fanny+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mo0YZUx_7r6CPzxiVS1ZpN5Ia_aWCGABGZbDtQ7bU-yTnqplmXfZSQ-k-yxudX_I6A8IgsLUhYJyPT1gpe6dCalBVL2vIitmLXK3vlAjgnactdEy_amWMrYQeHO2EwFba0trvjc-Is-O/s200/fanny+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a>1999 - Frances O'Connor is far too sparkly. She plays an interesting character, but that character isn't Fanny Price. It is some blend of Jane Austen herself and a new heroine written to confuse us. O'Connor is an appealing lead actress. She might make a great Austen heroine. Just not this one. Although this might not be through O'Connor's design or fault, this characterization of Fanny is far too outgoing, charming, intellectual, literary, and outspoken. Fanny doesn't need to be glossed up to be interesting. She would be interesting just as she is, if somebody would care to try doing that. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyqt9K910HkDNogFnYSOT-HhrWlCgn6SdPZo2-ZsK1Wg1giai23-Y5zaJdd7wcd6V_NJ7eYpsDRYty41d_M0gUyl1nPJB63tXeHlJZG12XgUHJljMfMCgS_xEQofsQIbEsXnrPKvY0MB6R/s1600/fanny+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="853" data-original-width="1056" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyqt9K910HkDNogFnYSOT-HhrWlCgn6SdPZo2-ZsK1Wg1giai23-Y5zaJdd7wcd6V_NJ7eYpsDRYty41d_M0gUyl1nPJB63tXeHlJZG12XgUHJljMfMCgS_xEQofsQIbEsXnrPKvY0MB6R/s200/fanny+2007.jpg" width="200" /></a>2007 - Billie Piper is a lovely actress, but her Fanny Price is too far afield from anything Austen intended. She pouts; she's uncouth and open-mouthed. She stands around staring in a childish way. Interestingly, this worked well for the younger actress who played Fanny as a child, but doesn't translate to what grown up Fanny should be. This Miss Price speaks without decorum or reserve; she is a tomboy, running around disheveled and demanding a dance outside when Sir Thomas proposes a ball. Seriously? Not. Fanny. B-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Edmund</b><br />
<br />
2007 - Blake Ritson<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcRIqZXch6-omgoJdpYNivK5JYf2WOpRFFhpEmRxIfp6zridJb0ZDa22dDSldolRs26ntsMWrbfOf7XtxGVmpMSL7prTQ1wR2jnizRUjMeZBCVmN6otG35zWTYSiicMtnqVnzGBw6d-J8c/s1600/edmund+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="258" data-original-width="335" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcRIqZXch6-omgoJdpYNivK5JYf2WOpRFFhpEmRxIfp6zridJb0ZDa22dDSldolRs26ntsMWrbfOf7XtxGVmpMSL7prTQ1wR2jnizRUjMeZBCVmN6otG35zWTYSiicMtnqVnzGBw6d-J8c/s200/edmund+2007.jpg" width="200" /></a>Warm, kind and introspective, Ritson strikes a good brotherly tone with Fanny. He comes across as both dignified and honorable with an appropriate affect and tone of voice. He is relaxed much of the time, but more importantly, appears to be in control, almost always. He uses anger well when anger is need. Unfortunately, at the end when he becomes rather giddy in love with Fanny it feels rather strained and out of character for our Edmund. A<br />
<br />
1983 - Nicholas Farrell<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWbp21IUk6MscoDPfwvTw5rCMAAFUnqHGgN4Dy2qwGQMSQr46xJ4loE9-ypvw5Lewi3QqCXE4D-KfQLgd2vSp7-FJym9zIcmfzHnSZCjuPGCo4x5F47CgBKeHmymTVngE9Y_-t1cpXoE7/s1600/edmund+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWbp21IUk6MscoDPfwvTw5rCMAAFUnqHGgN4Dy2qwGQMSQr46xJ4loE9-ypvw5Lewi3QqCXE4D-KfQLgd2vSp7-FJym9zIcmfzHnSZCjuPGCo4x5F47CgBKeHmymTVngE9Y_-t1cpXoE7/s200/edmund+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>He hits a good blend of morality and charm. Though probably not quite enough charm. He is a good moral center and does a nice job of making us see Mary's faults; we don't get a lot of chemistry with Fanny, but we do get a tiny nice scene which feels like almost flirting with Fanny (in the carriage on the way to dinner). He is not as personally appealing as the other two and has some notable mannerisms that feel awkward, but generally, he personifies Edmund. This 1983 production wraps up abruptly with Fanny and Edmund getting together with no change in manner or shift in their relationship. (The opposite problem of the 2007 version.) I can't put this all on Farrell, but he can bear his share. B+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaJlr9O1h2zLPVzjPnY7j3Q5NrHnCICarNEwlO7vqOdTu3lw4IDi9J7l-9DrHgpXwxnk2ZMGm1Q_GQWBHIfdChB2qxynn2GM1VE5QAXwxoPQ_7_qU8MNPWsflGS01QzQ5A-xGuS6bBzsR3/s1600/edmund+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="290" data-original-width="250" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaJlr9O1h2zLPVzjPnY7j3Q5NrHnCICarNEwlO7vqOdTu3lw4IDi9J7l-9DrHgpXwxnk2ZMGm1Q_GQWBHIfdChB2qxynn2GM1VE5QAXwxoPQ_7_qU8MNPWsflGS01QzQ5A-xGuS6bBzsR3/s200/edmund+1999.jpg" width="172" /></a><br />
1999 - Johnny Lee Miller<br />
He is a very handsome man and has the potential for great charm. They just aren't on full display here, where he's fairly forgettable. He seems earnest enough and a bit confused much of the time. In fact, he seems buffeted about without real endeavor and that is the opposite of what Edmund should stand for. He should be direct, sure of himself, honorable to a fault, and appealing enough personally to have 2 ladies fall in love with him. He succeeds well enough on that last one, but feels too changeable and weak to be a good Edmund. I don't like seeing JLM down here a the bottom of any list, but he just doesn't stand out as much as the other two. If you want to see him shine, go over to <u>Emma</u> where his is the <i>definitive </i>Mr. Knightly. But as Edmund: B<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Mary Crawford</b><br />
<br />
Mary Crawford is one of Austen's most interesting women. She is so appealing, attractive and intelligent, but ultimately stands for base amorality and ends the book in disgrace, shut out from the man she has come to love and the family and home to which she's become attached. She is often compared to Elizabeth Bennett for her sparking wit, but I think that's too simplistic. I do see Elizabeth's wit, intelligence and playfulness in Mary Crawford, but I also see the overt interest in social climbing, the ambition and inappropriate character of say Mrs, Elton. And, unlike either of these women, Crawford also possesses the well-bred surface elegance and manners of someone like Miss Bingley. This must be a juicy role and the actresses who portray her in these productions do a pretty nice job with it.<br />
<br />
1999 - Embeth Davidtz<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGg9uLID2-zAgSyHJjTGdNhzap6BTlhqp2IZjEBg2oCeF8hWmzr9d6Dn0uYlKm6Viq0mZiH3399vnLAXqIvePTms6UjOu6SXjpQsqOPvgJFYgNnp2sxV97BXGiTpXKKkQJJrAB6ZRLdGyQ/s1600/mary+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="640" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGg9uLID2-zAgSyHJjTGdNhzap6BTlhqp2IZjEBg2oCeF8hWmzr9d6Dn0uYlKm6Viq0mZiH3399vnLAXqIvePTms6UjOu6SXjpQsqOPvgJFYgNnp2sxV97BXGiTpXKKkQJJrAB6ZRLdGyQ/s200/mary+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a>She hits all the markers. She is quite elegant. Quite beautiful. And maybe just a touch too regal. She looks a bit like Jackie Smith-Wood who handled the role in 1983, and acts a good deal like her too -- but without the awkward edges. You get the feel for the slightly conniving, self-interested lens through which she views the world, while able to sell herself seamlessly at Mansfield Park. The production in which she acts is way too raw and places Mary in a bit of a sex tease scene with Fanny Price. Remarkably, Davidtz' performance manages to overcome that awkward bit and stay refined. A<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB-EkIol_gKtlD-ViCdZhGSWN6FVA79rQsF-CEgvuGGXOenLTzbz8Io9kmxcMftnu-Dx-vX-_uU4198a288JjtHBUarRmdUoynKGSyV7wqDkbLUDLGcn4X1x2ZEtc7Zjm824a3rpChPv1c/s1600/mary+1983.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB-EkIol_gKtlD-ViCdZhGSWN6FVA79rQsF-CEgvuGGXOenLTzbz8Io9kmxcMftnu-Dx-vX-_uU4198a288JjtHBUarRmdUoynKGSyV7wqDkbLUDLGcn4X1x2ZEtc7Zjm824a3rpChPv1c/s200/mary+1983.jpeg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
1983 - Jackie Smith-Wood<br />
Like many others in the 1983 production, she acts with too much consciousness and has an affected style. If she could have been just a bit more natural, she'd be spot on as a Mary Crawford who speaks readily and easily with charm and wit, has the right amount of baseness in her motivations. She and her brother as a team probably have the best chemistry as well, seeming very much like siblings. B+<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB5LQzzg239h7xNgk_kEL0K14uxEtVbi9N3L78zjxwD00lhuYrV4x_NevbhOu4MwtM-xRKMtg6YALbL5zJZdsDXOs8IS_MO45nYzBCksw6GHikz4g0YjlYfjR66F1Qk8376VnwYaO4nWYL/s1600/mary+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="323" data-original-width="375" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjB5LQzzg239h7xNgk_kEL0K14uxEtVbi9N3L78zjxwD00lhuYrV4x_NevbhOu4MwtM-xRKMtg6YALbL5zJZdsDXOs8IS_MO45nYzBCksw6GHikz4g0YjlYfjR66F1Qk8376VnwYaO4nWYL/s200/mary+2007.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
2007 - Hayley Atwell<br />
This lady looks like Cindy Crawford. She is very pretty. but, her Mary Crawford is too sharp, calculating, and coarser than she should be. Mary should be elegant, lovely, a true lady on the surface. Atwell gives an impression of a cold, strategizing player from the start. We don't have to dig deep to see her flaws; they are on full display. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Henry Crawford</b><br />
<br />
How are you supposed to pick! All three are reasonably good approximations of Henry, but two are fairly forgettable (Beattie and Nivola) and one (Burbage) has irritating, though memorable, affectations.<br />
<br />
I'll give the edge to the memorable one.<br />
<br />
1983 - Robert Burbage<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE8gNePCWORjfkDlKDrAhAen1h9ycKk8pkXeXLulauPC7WprtA6YxF_OXAx1QDn231EM58dPikxcZ6l2J7pWsS4XaWlK5rG2D73IA3huJ1_7Z1JNZJMvMnguTDXsOFGBIaf28OVZrnruuO/s1600/henry+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE8gNePCWORjfkDlKDrAhAen1h9ycKk8pkXeXLulauPC7WprtA6YxF_OXAx1QDn231EM58dPikxcZ6l2J7pWsS4XaWlK5rG2D73IA3huJ1_7Z1JNZJMvMnguTDXsOFGBIaf28OVZrnruuO/s200/henry+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>He is tightly curled, like his sister, with whom he shares a nice chemistry. He plays Henry well, showing the rakish side in the beginning, developing into an earnest young man who seems to really love Miss Price. He sees her -- her value, her character -- while others are blind and Burbage manages that memorably. Alas, he also acts with an over-the-top awareness. Unfortunately, he enunciates with emphasized diction and gives big meaningful nods to make his points. Could he have only tamed that tendency, he'd have not only been memorable, but truly enjoyable. B+<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEianLGJMjbuPZhgpOF-02qtJS4-mz_PEPDu59EQvCpRDQ_1cgiA358l1nNe-Ckcfv87S9YWmjA0SEpRrNVq2oA842lycuh9WmFqjOCqQ2uLR0rRa02TYn5rTCHzPijdM_LqX2CMXa9jJjXP/s1600/henry+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEianLGJMjbuPZhgpOF-02qtJS4-mz_PEPDu59EQvCpRDQ_1cgiA358l1nNe-Ckcfv87S9YWmjA0SEpRrNVq2oA842lycuh9WmFqjOCqQ2uLR0rRa02TYn5rTCHzPijdM_LqX2CMXa9jJjXP/s200/henry+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
1999 - Alessandro Nivola is a lovely man no doubt. But his Henry Crawford is the emo version. He feels things deeply and appears quite earnest. But Henry should be a bit more stand-offish, a rake who keeps his true emotions hidden. He fools those around him, then begins to fall, in spite of his better plans and judgements, for Fanny Price. Nivola is too soft, appealing, and available to be a convincing Henry. B<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijs4inNXvZupyoWicXxWoYXs06EMAi8PsYOmVIuVoVDo-xd99n0FIx4iD_FfD2czdrp81thjF3AHIffoGk7BJ9P4zsLDdUz2Gas9mnGok7eczi1Zqb15oc0PSo4MPMSk-PdJ0PypiG1Pzp/s1600/henry+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1063" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijs4inNXvZupyoWicXxWoYXs06EMAi8PsYOmVIuVoVDo-xd99n0FIx4iD_FfD2czdrp81thjF3AHIffoGk7BJ9P4zsLDdUz2Gas9mnGok7eczi1Zqb15oc0PSo4MPMSk-PdJ0PypiG1Pzp/s200/henry+2007.jpg" width="132" /></a><br />
2007 - Joseph Beattie<br />
He plays a shaggy Crawford, less kempt than one might like to see. And he, like his sister, feels too modern, too relaxed, too self-aware. They both appear to be going in to Mansfield Park full of specific bad intent, rather than having their rakish and conniving tendencies slowly unfold as their undoing. It's an important distinction. Henry fails to excel here not really because of Beattie's performance so much as the production choices of the version he is in. He ends up being more detritus on the floor of this poor adaptation. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sir Thomas</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0_vAj7pnCHbcfO_QfFUHQeGEpy0P8bjUiD8a3OjeVe66cYsYa_7DKB6envOTc9ssc6FsKhNgdYSIFXdkctEaglCsxUXmyEDPuj9Jz3nC8JOAA2Jc1zQ2m9PFDpAH9-nF_1mZieM_gVpB5/s1600/sir+thomas+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0_vAj7pnCHbcfO_QfFUHQeGEpy0P8bjUiD8a3OjeVe66cYsYa_7DKB6envOTc9ssc6FsKhNgdYSIFXdkctEaglCsxUXmyEDPuj9Jz3nC8JOAA2Jc1zQ2m9PFDpAH9-nF_1mZieM_gVpB5/s200/sir+thomas+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>1983 - Bernard Hepton is the clear best. In fact he is the only one who I can stand watching. Where did these other productions get such a creepy take on Sir Thomas? I don't claim Hepton's Sir Thomas to be a marshmallow. He is a stern alpha male, clearly an authority figure with a great deal of austerity about him. He frightens Fanny and his daughters aren't attached to him. But this Sir Thomas is also caring toward his wife, forgiving of his sister-in-law, kind to fanny, (and even to Maria), he respects Edmund and shows reasonable frustration with Tom. He is a highlight of the production. A<br />
<br />
2007 - Douglas Hodge<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfJLDq8d_MGN921Ef6NYRmhdAic9fFgmkQmDK0fsERY29qHKH4TME2GyN62V560J-zEBTKiGkeFvNvBeAZp1R-Ax1KXSvr14J5ZNwGQpn99HFoNLomd7qW9BdOkq3MGclVvSXXseGmWb-T/s1600/sir+thomas+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="650" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfJLDq8d_MGN921Ef6NYRmhdAic9fFgmkQmDK0fsERY29qHKH4TME2GyN62V560J-zEBTKiGkeFvNvBeAZp1R-Ax1KXSvr14J5ZNwGQpn99HFoNLomd7qW9BdOkq3MGclVvSXXseGmWb-T/s200/sir+thomas+2007.jpg" width="200" /></a>I think the 2007 must have been heavily influenced by the 1999 movie's take on the sexuality and on the foulness of Sir Thomas. Hodge's Sir Thomas is not as creepy as Pinter's, but is still unsettling. There are overtones of inappropriateness in his interactions with his niece. He is just not an appropriate Sir Thomas. C+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTLYyLff6nBCLeC2apZ8YKp4k5OQ34KeSUjp3tBmgoYm1xhCNWl23Kk75czQnGJU7yTw2O-bNGA8X39WjzwbA-T-3MEerL7_vRDV_ei90gCo4bYU833bwGBTwQSmFa5wvO7WeyK7RUdwxX/s1600/sir+thomas+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="320" height="110" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTLYyLff6nBCLeC2apZ8YKp4k5OQ34KeSUjp3tBmgoYm1xhCNWl23Kk75czQnGJU7yTw2O-bNGA8X39WjzwbA-T-3MEerL7_vRDV_ei90gCo4bYU833bwGBTwQSmFa5wvO7WeyK7RUdwxX/s200/sir+thomas+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a>1999 - Harold Pinter<br />
Violent, scary, and god only knows what that guy is up to in Antigua. Alongside Fanny, Sir Thomas has to be one of the most generally misinterpreted characters in this book. I get that he may be hard to understand and appreciate, but the creative team behind this 1999 production reached well outside a reasonable interpretion of Austen's work to get this dark and disturbing take on the patriarch of the clan. C-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Mrs Norris</b><br />
<br />
1983 - Anna Massey<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0MgrGv77Ar8KET9qTZ7mcZ5ht4dwsVgKL1mziuKQC8-1UTaFf0em35sc0FzWmpU-2D_hbX-4TR_eujZtqnPxdVa3EV6JZz4K0bdWKK6qD05gxxGEGyyEOlRrVxFH3h3gHKaiPqusmTNz5/s1600/mrs+norris+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0MgrGv77Ar8KET9qTZ7mcZ5ht4dwsVgKL1mziuKQC8-1UTaFf0em35sc0FzWmpU-2D_hbX-4TR_eujZtqnPxdVa3EV6JZz4K0bdWKK6qD05gxxGEGyyEOlRrVxFH3h3gHKaiPqusmTNz5/s200/mrs+norris+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>According to IMDB, Massey was born in 1937, making her just 46 or so during this production. I would have argued that she was too old for Mrs. Norris, but in point of fact, the actress is probably a perfect age for the role. That she is played so stooped over may be why she seems older. I don't know if this is Massy's own posture? or an acting choice? In any case, other than my perception that she it a bit too old-seeming for the role, I think Massey's Norris is the gold standard. Very memorable. Irritable and oh so petty, she gives the right flavor of a controlling woman trying to keep life going in the direction it is "supposed" to. A-<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCgOp9CirpYxu3KyBoBXBH7AaxVGRh4z9JKa6KurMUTXzRk3Kx-dQXVaFHqan5ik1kqfYTQmoeIOO1Vqv_SYiIe7iU3aF7Jf0LMh30YQM9J2FOOI4ZzWkrWN0roGZUdy9x3T4QaAuOew0k/s1600/mrs+norris+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="236" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCgOp9CirpYxu3KyBoBXBH7AaxVGRh4z9JKa6KurMUTXzRk3Kx-dQXVaFHqan5ik1kqfYTQmoeIOO1Vqv_SYiIe7iU3aF7Jf0LMh30YQM9J2FOOI4ZzWkrWN0roGZUdy9x3T4QaAuOew0k/s200/mrs+norris+2007.jpg" width="133" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
2007 - Maggie O'Neill is also about 45 years old at the time of her performance here and she seems it. (As a good thing). She, and her sister Lady Bertram, in fact, both feel like a nice breath of fresh air. They have the right kind of energy. O'Neill seems a little more like a tough CEO than a frumpy aunt, but I like her acting choices. She does well with this role. It's just that I can see Massey in my head now when I read the book, not O'Neill. B+<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj7uIBiFmE50dK5-KF-e0Ozy2DVgT5q7J4TWidlKt4jolLr6qUpvtaM-YALKxXgQdQi9pjTNpE9qxeEsZUSRxi30qTSXyZXNnmoCWtcLtnZug5tY-XgYuNFVGyBHlyeuP7j_y3hT6n5QxQ/s1600/mrs+norris+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="320" height="110" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj7uIBiFmE50dK5-KF-e0Ozy2DVgT5q7J4TWidlKt4jolLr6qUpvtaM-YALKxXgQdQi9pjTNpE9qxeEsZUSRxi30qTSXyZXNnmoCWtcLtnZug5tY-XgYuNFVGyBHlyeuP7j_y3hT6n5QxQ/s200/mrs+norris+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a>1999 - Sheila Gish was about 57 years old at the time of this role. This is not the sole reason I have her in last place. I just felt I should mention her age, since I spoke about it for the others. In any case, I would claim that 57 is a bit too old for Mrs. Norris. Still, a larger problem here is that Gish's turn as Norris isn't very memorable. I have vague impressions of more anger and cruelty than is strictly appropriate to the role. I'll give her a B.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Lady Bertram</b><br />
<br />
1983 - Angela Pleasance<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnXjCyHaggzo8nTVDkWUj70zXqXxP8T8MYj29Q96Lz8_958qMQHE2t0lbm8ikOjWOsWqZJSfQx_pBVsxEfFx5vEfv7vgRshmdZG1u2a1eX_uYFw6hfVvaCV9ou93jT1QC5DaovbgIorwI/s1600/lady+bertram+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmnXjCyHaggzo8nTVDkWUj70zXqXxP8T8MYj29Q96Lz8_958qMQHE2t0lbm8ikOjWOsWqZJSfQx_pBVsxEfFx5vEfv7vgRshmdZG1u2a1eX_uYFw6hfVvaCV9ou93jT1QC5DaovbgIorwI/s200/lady+bertram+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>I seriously LOVE this languid, half-asleep take on Lady Bertram. The problem is it is just soooo overdone. Had Pleasance scaled back her approach, and spoken with a bit more clarity and coherence sometimes, she'd have been amazing. Had she not taken a great idea so over the top, she could have gotten my highest mark. As it is, I'll keep her in first place for the acting choices, her obsession with her pug, her quiet girl-like voice, but just ding her a bit for not knowing when to stop. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOZmQLYPxkEnMgd21DclpK1Y5ivnk18czyego4ry-jVRIzWueF3PfUpMNo5uIBZ4_uOzEMR_C6aRvbVmXydUb4ksw3yiLrmVkxEtnY-I5eHylr0aOL-uTr4tctNGUUk1J7OyiL2rnJqOdk/s1600/lady+bertram+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="245" data-original-width="195" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOZmQLYPxkEnMgd21DclpK1Y5ivnk18czyego4ry-jVRIzWueF3PfUpMNo5uIBZ4_uOzEMR_C6aRvbVmXydUb4ksw3yiLrmVkxEtnY-I5eHylr0aOL-uTr4tctNGUUk1J7OyiL2rnJqOdk/s200/lady+bertram+2007.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="159" /></a><br />
<br />
2007 - Jemma Redgrave is great. I really like her take on Lady Bertram. The problem is that this production has made her too purposeful, too aware. She is the one who engineers the over-the-top happy ending for Fanny and Edmund and -- although that can hardly be the actress' fault -- I can't like that choice of characterization. Had Jemma Redgrave had the good fortune to act in a MP with the ethos of the 1983 production, I'm sure she'd have knocked this out of the park. As it is, I'll give the portrayal of Lady Bertram in 2007 a B+<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7wSxHkJTWuvldRrckH1-j_MV6dpADZXfdnjZaWkhhhzT5ldovxq67QvDS9nlj6ZsMgWOjyCjrjQHb8GxBlth7UGF_9UbUTSyuSb-DrU1euDf9Y_SfELFDUrgO8LmZ8y0-ePqh3_vZdBSh/s1600/lady+bertram+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7wSxHkJTWuvldRrckH1-j_MV6dpADZXfdnjZaWkhhhzT5ldovxq67QvDS9nlj6ZsMgWOjyCjrjQHb8GxBlth7UGF_9UbUTSyuSb-DrU1euDf9Y_SfELFDUrgO8LmZ8y0-ePqh3_vZdBSh/s200/lady+bertram+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
1999 - Lindsay Duncan (and the crazy production she is in) has taken Lady Bertram from languid, relaxed, and cozily content to sloppy alcoholic. She is not ladylike. She is not sanguine. I feel bad giving the excellent actress Lindsay Duncan grief over this, as I'm sure she was directed and compelled toward this characterization by the production ethos driving this film But, I have to call it as I see it. The choices that went in to this portrayal of Lady Bertram are not good ones. B-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Thomas Bertram (eldest son)</b><br />
<br />
1983 - Christopher Villiers<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXcd_r2-65O02pgBgRZpmdzIdIaoHvdABdLrg7BPxAHz_UqgMegzq2qJeKiwsBclJX9k4KxFUXK5oRAnQlW3V3W0m0a1KMpEO0fKliqPUMYdX60oqvn9UAADfXmZyziI-oWoCmdOfxNC2E/s1600/tom+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXcd_r2-65O02pgBgRZpmdzIdIaoHvdABdLrg7BPxAHz_UqgMegzq2qJeKiwsBclJX9k4KxFUXK5oRAnQlW3V3W0m0a1KMpEO0fKliqPUMYdX60oqvn9UAADfXmZyziI-oWoCmdOfxNC2E/s200/tom+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoTzIzzosO4lG8YuE-roy2Tz-CgM1EuSYv1vGPUd51WWgN6VLGDBJW_eOF409xHhC-Deyl2ge9-usgblrx8P4rf_OcLO6cw8HB6EsNoIWGZArkEzecGnySSbkaNbgb4m81kbt9q_PNPD1i/s1600/tom+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="245" data-original-width="195" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoTzIzzosO4lG8YuE-roy2Tz-CgM1EuSYv1vGPUd51WWgN6VLGDBJW_eOF409xHhC-Deyl2ge9-usgblrx8P4rf_OcLO6cw8HB6EsNoIWGZArkEzecGnySSbkaNbgb4m81kbt9q_PNPD1i/s200/tom+2007.jpg" width="159" /></a>The 1983 production, I have mentioned time and again, has numerous actors that go overboard with self-aware caricatures of their roles. One of the few in the production who emotes normally with no identifiably irritating "shtick" is Christopher Villiers as Tom. He gets one of the funniest lines in the miniseries and delivers it perfectly. When he and Edmund are arguing about the play and Tom suggests that it will be a distraction for his mother's nerves in light of Sir Thomas' absence, they look over to her just as she gives a snort and has clearly been sleeping. Tom smirks: "well, I was unlucky there!" He is not a major presence, but is so refreshing when he is on screen for his easy, natural, unaffected, manner. A<br />
<br />
<br />
The other Toms are both forgettable. They look a bit alike as well, with these long pointy sideburns. So much so, that... this is embarrassing... I'm not entirely sure I have correct pictures here. I can at least remember D'Arcy, so I'll rank him next with a B.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUCOds9ofxAkSKmjjtCfjpEZm8PoZjgIWdwAsAUT_7f16V9pvqPaRxfEp56oZW-dRQ-VK3-9JQbUVju-NhIi2VFdgWiY7-h0L-viRCosCiw0Xu6JQwjIGDu3PCQ0ljZGLZG1qQ5OAbeVpD/s1600/tom+1999.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="496" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUCOds9ofxAkSKmjjtCfjpEZm8PoZjgIWdwAsAUT_7f16V9pvqPaRxfEp56oZW-dRQ-VK3-9JQbUVju-NhIi2VFdgWiY7-h0L-viRCosCiw0Xu6JQwjIGDu3PCQ0ljZGLZG1qQ5OAbeVpD/s200/tom+1999.jpeg" width="198" /></a><br />
<br />
Gosh this is unfair... even for me.<br />
<br />
2007 - James D'Arcy<br />
- fairly forgettable B<br />
<br />
1999 - James Purefoy. Entirely forgettable B-<br />
But that's the way it's going to be.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Maria Bertram</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
1983 - Samantha Bond<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjanhzea2ZwdUCQxQg3gJ4TklODOenyTMqHzZ0YlGZA1k31JArbSQtIO3_A1J0m1ogeOgXfFVo2b97RmgSWMzG4sVhK1kg014iKYi74KgAHjRPkySWrZ06RZ78PCzmG9kYKRlB9KJ_6VKY3/s1600/maria+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjanhzea2ZwdUCQxQg3gJ4TklODOenyTMqHzZ0YlGZA1k31JArbSQtIO3_A1J0m1ogeOgXfFVo2b97RmgSWMzG4sVhK1kg014iKYi74KgAHjRPkySWrZ06RZ78PCzmG9kYKRlB9KJ_6VKY3/s200/maria+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>Bond really manages Maria Bertram well. She has a refined attitude with enough of a twinkle to suggest that beneath the exterior, she is ... slightly wicked. She is cool. She is aware. She oozes a great mix of self-confidence and jealousy and a touch of naughtiness. And she does this with relish. Nice portrayal. A<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1999 - Victoria Hamilton<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGNt3hruDZKh-ASQoGpu3yEJQ1-t1eKXGt4Otz7pVabfWdbGtB0beejt0gUIB5ODTFwHGb1xpBVxQ53kULUOw3YS44osc2fUOrFsxBYbWEvi2JZcwSHJ6aZCS2FJkQT-pZYbAkBgh3KjXM/s1600/maria+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1036" data-original-width="950" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGNt3hruDZKh-ASQoGpu3yEJQ1-t1eKXGt4Otz7pVabfWdbGtB0beejt0gUIB5ODTFwHGb1xpBVxQ53kULUOw3YS44osc2fUOrFsxBYbWEvi2JZcwSHJ6aZCS2FJkQT-pZYbAkBgh3KjXM/s200/maria+1999.jpg" width="183" /></a>This is a brave actress to go <i>en flagrante</i> like this in an Austen adaptation. Her characterization of Maria is done pretty well, with a lot of heart. Despite the non-Regency handling of her attraction to Crawford, Hamilton infuses her Maria with a healthy dose of humanity. She has a yearning in her eyes. You can sense her lacking... and her longing ... and her sad (self-selected) fate of a life with a man she doesn't respect or love. You can find her foolish. You can hate her, but you understand her a bit better due to this nice performance. A-<br />
<br />
<br />
2007 - Michelle Ryan<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIKpOyp9ZaiYgWyUoEAvfdpTMk2YvxcyeEc2ncv112XUY-VjM4-eH92nkO5I5ONtDoU9oQ7uWJy0fuRllcey-0aS6SMPOXXJZB-buSOeOsXNw-50ScAGOrrc61E7MnJb1BGNoIT3-d9r22/s1600/maria+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="474" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIKpOyp9ZaiYgWyUoEAvfdpTMk2YvxcyeEc2ncv112XUY-VjM4-eH92nkO5I5ONtDoU9oQ7uWJy0fuRllcey-0aS6SMPOXXJZB-buSOeOsXNw-50ScAGOrrc61E7MnJb1BGNoIT3-d9r22/s200/maria+2007.jpg" width="126" /></a>This is a way over the top sexed-up take on Maria. She stares brazenly at Crawford and makes love to the camera. But in doing so, she gives a one-note performance. She is meant to be sexy as hell. She is sexy-as-hell. This is it. Maria is more. Whether we blame Ryan or (again) the creative forces behind the characterization, we come away with a performance that adds nothing to our understanding of Austen's character, though plenty of appreciation for her lovely face. B-<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /><br /></b>
<b>Julia Bertram</b><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiIq7zBm8RUo-2He0-w6JaPk9jMO6FzK9dEL5m6M14FB1vpfRD4uDcFI61ieTHUE9Rc7NL06bbKecLYLs8X17n3LO8WuZdcwZ4eSKuBGGxauh1anVZssjlVmw2yKufKUPN0XkzW_oXe-yf/s1600/julia+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1036" data-original-width="752" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiIq7zBm8RUo-2He0-w6JaPk9jMO6FzK9dEL5m6M14FB1vpfRD4uDcFI61ieTHUE9Rc7NL06bbKecLYLs8X17n3LO8WuZdcwZ4eSKuBGGxauh1anVZssjlVmw2yKufKUPN0XkzW_oXe-yf/s200/julia+1999.jpg" width="145" /></a><b><br /></b><br />
Julia is a fairly minor role and, in truth, I probably could have kept it out of this post. At one point I thought about ranking the sisters (Maria and Julia) as a set, but then I realized that I had different winners for each sister. So to be fair, I needed to split them up and grade them separately.<br />
<br />
1999 - Justine Waddell<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioLIFME9hfDMYz4ymGI7GeTQotjEzBv3Xi9NSL7FG0RB695e2sEdzDVY6F34Po-3K2imLe5rWuzIM67wLQhtHLs3VSwz9mOnOh-rmLSByTWpaPrPbYFQqzewhPOnb8vpu-i23D_HAHV8nS/s1600/julia+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioLIFME9hfDMYz4ymGI7GeTQotjEzBv3Xi9NSL7FG0RB695e2sEdzDVY6F34Po-3K2imLe5rWuzIM67wLQhtHLs3VSwz9mOnOh-rmLSByTWpaPrPbYFQqzewhPOnb8vpu-i23D_HAHV8nS/s200/julia+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a>There is something about Justine Waddell that needed to be rewarded. She is lovely, pleasant to look at; rather quiet, quite pretty, but somewhat benign. You see a sense of longing in her, and also a clear feeling that she is used to be in the background. Waddell has the right look for Julia and I think captures a really good younger sister vibe. Its not a big part, but the performance feels totally solid anyway. A<br />
<br />
<br />
1983 - Liz Crowthers<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvSmrfT1jUfR7mOb_ZPYtZ09hiqCxGBBh8DFrvB0N1s-BoLKBeHfmlkh4mnXahNsDo65056z9rjPPonH9QH9lf0mMK48eiDh6f-MrZsShm94PKWeC2fe7uPKKr424TiEyA3hZmlisRGByk/s1600/julia+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="245" data-original-width="195" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvSmrfT1jUfR7mOb_ZPYtZ09hiqCxGBBh8DFrvB0N1s-BoLKBeHfmlkh4mnXahNsDo65056z9rjPPonH9QH9lf0mMK48eiDh6f-MrZsShm94PKWeC2fe7uPKKr424TiEyA3hZmlisRGByk/s200/julia+2007.jpg" width="159" /></a>I find her a bit too snivelly for my taste. She is jealous more than confident. Pouty rather than lovely. She recedes into the background, though she appears in the adaptation that almost certainly gives Julia the most screen time. Crowthers is competent, just a bit of a disappointment B+<br />
<br />
<br />
2007 - Catherine Steadman<br />
I remember both the sisters in this productions primping, pouting, making goo goo eyes and sexing it up at least in the beginning. After that, I don't recall much of Julia's presence. Of course, part of Julia's role is to be a bit of background noise, but I'm not sure this portrayal of Julia contributes anything to our understanding, as Waddell's does. Steadman gets a B<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Mr Rushworth</b><br />
<br />
Rushworth strikes me as a pretty important character in this novel. He exists in a world where morality is the key variable. Fanny and Edmund standing for what is upright and moral, while others, particularly Maria, Mary and Henry push against what is right. There are splits between upright/proper traditional characters (Sir Thomas) and a more-relaxed style of living in the world (Fanny's mother and father, for instance.) A character like Rushworth is important because he falls outside of both of these dimension - neither as a paragon of morality or amorality, and not as a exemplar of what it means to hold up traditional values or those of fashionable society. He has a foot in a few different camps: he represents society, wealth, high-end living and also represents the insipidity of such factors being the standard upon which success is measured. Rushworth is great as comic relief and as a means by which almost every one gets to feel better about themselves.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR3pDfWdU-GJkjbrVWB0YTTbVC0K9QKZwuuD45-CTJUBNIIuPWz5pfTrNH2c1_rnxXxUvcSjOmeELgTVau8_65zGbGOEs5iRCyi9yfk1MdeegZw-k3W74bLI9xVegEY98E-xl3WGV6aEac/s1600/rushworth+1999.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR3pDfWdU-GJkjbrVWB0YTTbVC0K9QKZwuuD45-CTJUBNIIuPWz5pfTrNH2c1_rnxXxUvcSjOmeELgTVau8_65zGbGOEs5iRCyi9yfk1MdeegZw-k3W74bLI9xVegEY98E-xl3WGV6aEac/s200/rushworth+1999.jpg" width="200" /></a>1999 - Hugh Bonneville manages to convey the complexity of all this background with his posture and face alone. He looks like a man who has grown up expecting a certain respect; he holds himself with great decorum, yet, his face looks confused and a little silly. He looks like he doesn't quite know what he is doing or why he is there. This is perfect. I wish the character had more screen time in this version, but Bonneville makes his little bit count. A<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgcMyyNRy1DT-KCpWoZEWIb2QdVX13Te716_YKSv3P93ax-GmICd6wUoshHpRVu2nRP3yN_F6usEGFuBoTi9jvASJqnXzKjQQSZEfovlUaZmBjhi5k2DHcy6RdwH66Too87EIY3JX8RknO/s1600/rushworth+1983.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="608" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgcMyyNRy1DT-KCpWoZEWIb2QdVX13Te716_YKSv3P93ax-GmICd6wUoshHpRVu2nRP3yN_F6usEGFuBoTi9jvASJqnXzKjQQSZEfovlUaZmBjhi5k2DHcy6RdwH66Too87EIY3JX8RknO/s200/rushworth+1983.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
1983 - Jonathan Stephens is also very strong. He brings many of these same characteristics to the role, but brings a little something extra too: a slightly annoying over-the-top self-awareness. This, thankfully, is the last time I'll say it, but the 1983 production has no shortage of actors who over-emote. A little bit less can often be more. So, while Stephens' instincts on how to play this guy are spot-on, he hits us over the head with them. A-<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOpwmL_0lsVsgla-vYc7jryD_8IuZIq53zTvghQXefYFdgzONBBPlOiTfxkT0hkXr295SKZ77JQ2QMGVgFxiCbwNhVPGI49AeklOPVteCpkWoynGHIn4NsUMgi4O5vZKNPJF8S3yc5Cvd/s1600/rushworth+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOpwmL_0lsVsgla-vYc7jryD_8IuZIq53zTvghQXefYFdgzONBBPlOiTfxkT0hkXr295SKZ77JQ2QMGVgFxiCbwNhVPGI49AeklOPVteCpkWoynGHIn4NsUMgi4O5vZKNPJF8S3yc5Cvd/s200/rushworth+2007.jpg" width="133" /></a><br />
<br />
2007 - Rory Kinear<br />
Rushworth is a character these adaptations seem to have gotten the measure of pretty well. Kinear is good in this role; good enough an actor to make you long for more of his character. Unfortunately, you long in vain in this production, in which we are lucky to meet Rushworth at all. The way they sliced and diced through many of the less prominent roles, that is by no means a given. Kinear is appealing - dignified and a little silly. We just don't get nearly enough of him. A-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Whew! That's a lot of roles! Thats a lot of grades to assign! Let's get on with the calculation.<br />
<br />
Here are the point values for each grade:<br />
<br />
2007 1999 1983<br />
A = 4.0 1 3 3<br />
A- = 3.7 1 1 3<br />
B+ = 3.3 2 4<br />
B = 3.0 4 4 1<br />
B- = 2.7 2 2<br />
C+ = 2.3 1<br />
C = 2.0<br />
C- = 1.7 1<br />
<br />
34 34.8 39.3 casting points total<br />
3.09 3.16 3.57 casting points average<br />
<br />
The winner overall, and I guess there's no surprise here, is 1983 with a very strong CPA of 3.57! Congratulations! 2007 and 1999 lag far behind but are so close to each other, and both manage solid B performances overall! 1999 just edges out 2007 for second place, with 3.16 CPA compared to 3.09.<br />
<br />
<br />
Lots of things to note!<br />
<ul>
<li>each of the productions has at least one character who 'wins' the role. 2007 has the fewest wins with 1 -- just for Edmund. 1999 wins on 3 roles (Mary, Julia, and Mr. Rushworth) while 1983 wins the rest, 7 roles.</li>
<li>the only role that scored in the "C" range was Sir Thomas! With two performances (1999 and 2007) earning C range marks</li>
<li>1983, though it does come away the winner here, it is not so much on its own shinning strengths as much as the others weaknesses. 1983 has more "B+" grades than either A's or A-'s and its the lowest scoring role was the "B" Fanny herself earned</li>
<li>the best-acted role across all three productions was Mr. Rushwoth. All three adaptations turned in an "A"-range Rushworth</li>
<li>1999 has an interesting split. There are really good turns from Mary Crawford, Maria and Julia Bertram and Mr Rushworth in this version. It has as many A's (3) as the winning production (1983) does. But almost every other role in the 1999 version is in the B range, with the notable exception of Sir Thomas who is the worst characterization in the whole set</li>
<li>the most often awarded score was a solid "B." I gave out 9! B's. Compare this to 7 A's, 5 A-'s, 6 B+'s, 4 B-'s and, as mentioned above, 2 scores in the C range (a C+ and a C-)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-26979707555289385582018-01-23T21:27:00.000-07:002018-01-23T21:27:39.433-07:00Life on Mars : that lived reality where we aim for what we had and fight against what we have <i>Life on Mars</i> is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in mystery.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> And this a review with spoilers. Please beware.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
Having just finished watching this show - and only having seen it once (so far) - there is a lot I don't understand about what "really" happened in the series. While I may not have properly processed the meaning in full, there is one thing I know for sure: this is great TV.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiefsfjsdI1A59R_CgFACVMli_D0KVsxt0TFcAONSeiRSAPhB-ekj8kgNnLtrziNNFXZtVM9wvN0wYBpmROkARV0iDXlvGS-RDEIsxycOK28c3K4IIOsumA3m2wOzF6ZPgfJwsvB0FvRbB3/s1600/simm+crash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="830" data-original-width="471" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiefsfjsdI1A59R_CgFACVMli_D0KVsxt0TFcAONSeiRSAPhB-ekj8kgNnLtrziNNFXZtVM9wvN0wYBpmROkARV0iDXlvGS-RDEIsxycOK28c3K4IIOsumA3m2wOzF6ZPgfJwsvB0FvRbB3/s320/simm+crash.jpg" width="180" /></a>I have decided that its main contribution to the world is in giving us -- in profoundly transporting fashion -- a lesson on the importance of living the life that is in front of us as opposed to longing for what we think we're supposed to have. This is a universal human struggle. When things change, we spend our time wishing for what we had, ...trying to create what we had, trying to get back to it, instead of making the best of what we <i>have</i>. This is true when someone dies, or breaks up with us; when one of our children grows up and moves away... and especially when we are hit by a car and wake up in 1973.<br />
<br />
That the makers of <i>Life on Mars</i> are genius with selling this message is evidenced by my own reactions to the show - in the beginning and by the end. I'll explain in a minute.<br />
<br />
<br />
First a bit of back story.<br />
<br />
I knew this series existed. For years it was on my "to watch" list. But I got swept up in other things and never got around to looking for it back during a time when it actually might have been more available to me. By the time I sought it out to watch, I couldn't <i>find</i> it anywhere. I lived with the disappointment for a time and then watched the American version on accident thinking it was the British one. (That's actually kind of a funny story. . . .<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXaYsYD7_6FWn7p0851IRcPyfB5897YzeBsX5hwUUOmpEtTVwWBbJIFHPiSNwJCuNVPbwvbFYX14RuCN-R10Y0L2AAy2fXMbQ072b_8g-7INIGGR0okqRL9fpwxaHpNEee-3TnPV9IhHsH/s1600/usa+life+on+mars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="395" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXaYsYD7_6FWn7p0851IRcPyfB5897YzeBsX5hwUUOmpEtTVwWBbJIFHPiSNwJCuNVPbwvbFYX14RuCN-R10Y0L2AAy2fXMbQ072b_8g-7INIGGR0okqRL9fpwxaHpNEee-3TnPV9IhHsH/s320/usa+life+on+mars.jpg" width="320" /></a>You see, I learned that my library "finally" had this title on dvd and ran to check it out one day. I didn't really know much about the series, so was unconcerned with the cover, brought it home, popped it in the dvd player and started enjoying it. It seemed strange to me that it was set in New York. . . and that none of the actors had English accents . . ., but I got into it quickly and just kind of let it slide. Finally I googled and realized I was watching the American remake! haha. But, it was good and I was already hooked, so I watched that whole series. Another time I may blog about it in comparison to the British one. Truly, they are both very well made).<br />
<br />
But, back to the main narrative . . . I mean my main digression. I realized later that the only way I was going to get to see the BBC original series was by just biting the bullet and buying the dvds. I figured that there was almost no chance I'd hate the series and a very good one I'd want to own it, so that's what I did.<br />
<br />
I already knew the main characters, the storyline, the clever premise. What I was not expecting was how INSANELY transporting the UK Version of this show was going to be!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyURJAXOL_KrimdI9PtJt-c7Vm2_Us9bXjwmqM63TSIVYnPvVNTaeIfm0ET-foEwZwjUTPtHiOL8r_X2sqEpKQAgiSCfUc2x2RxFVND2h_HkoH0P8p1t_qzgFYLnekadF4wC5nJ_kgWgcO/s1600/life+mars+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="700" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyURJAXOL_KrimdI9PtJt-c7Vm2_Us9bXjwmqM63TSIVYnPvVNTaeIfm0ET-foEwZwjUTPtHiOL8r_X2sqEpKQAgiSCfUc2x2RxFVND2h_HkoH0P8p1t_qzgFYLnekadF4wC5nJ_kgWgcO/s400/life+mars+3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmnKI6uBhWwziKq94BwU0yjij_4FeKtgArf1nUHcJ5VLnWVxU-7t60f_yhF2xJ1vIDVFdsh_a591dEsTt9zIwu9zv_GG1rMQDpa_w-DYBnVmlRsAYNX3GfXSPt2raZJs0Qvh9abwvZMmcF/s1600/lom+clutter+2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="500" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmnKI6uBhWwziKq94BwU0yjij_4FeKtgArf1nUHcJ5VLnWVxU-7t60f_yhF2xJ1vIDVFdsh_a591dEsTt9zIwu9zv_GG1rMQDpa_w-DYBnVmlRsAYNX3GfXSPt2raZJs0Qvh9abwvZMmcF/s320/lom+clutter+2.gif" width="320" /></a>Truth is, in the first several episodes I was disturbed by 1973. The clutter of papers on all the desks, the staticky signal on the patchy police radio, the forms and the typing, the small boxy tv, the dusty dark earth tones everywhere. The total isolation and banality of small square spaces with no cell phones or internet to aid in the escape.<br />
<br />
But this was hardly the half of it. The open sexism, homophobia, lack of respect for civil rights. I'm not kidding. I felt horrified by this place that our modern hero had landed in. I couldn't wait to watch his progress and hoped along with Sam that he'd get home quickly.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6PIQIaI50eBNHVXibhvLNzQiQM1iERtyvnQ_QBxdHwjV-8u6WSwqszYpTvi-kz6F-yzzTaBeZeDgnIfdSxvY6KqvOn74Ljr60Dt115diEMBhQeslXZEOrjRdDvrGgFvXMi8VvzujS2K76/s1600/lom+clutter+3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6PIQIaI50eBNHVXibhvLNzQiQM1iERtyvnQ_QBxdHwjV-8u6WSwqszYpTvi-kz6F-yzzTaBeZeDgnIfdSxvY6KqvOn74Ljr60Dt115diEMBhQeslXZEOrjRdDvrGgFvXMi8VvzujS2K76/s1600/lom+clutter+3.jpeg" /></a>By the way, and I'd don't say this lightly, <i>Life on Mars</i> is one of the most impressive things I've ever watched for providing complete and utter immersion in another time period. While I was in the thick of watching, I had to stop myself <i>many</i> times from starting to describe to friends where I'd been (i.e. like, on vacation). I kept forgetting that I hadn't actually gone anywhere. It only felt like it.<br />
<br />
My response to 1973 was powerful, visceral, and very real. It was also very negative. In the beginning I found 1973 as repugnant as Sam Tyler did.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqW1FeJ9iRkBr6WKBwi5mAZIxxiRNkzcV9f6Wn6Bn9uT0yJHXBXCjj0B1vzoh4hEgRuDVywcEe95-5URY4euFXjkKsxDYZkd6-XclBAya7rT8FN2-wF0PRwW6pVmjlyMKO1LTk-9s6hyO8/s1600/lom+dusky+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqW1FeJ9iRkBr6WKBwi5mAZIxxiRNkzcV9f6Wn6Bn9uT0yJHXBXCjj0B1vzoh4hEgRuDVywcEe95-5URY4euFXjkKsxDYZkd6-XclBAya7rT8FN2-wF0PRwW6pVmjlyMKO1LTk-9s6hyO8/s640/lom+dusky+1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Part of my reaction should be seen as praise for the incredible production values of this show and part for the astonishing acting chops of John Simm. I think that, through his talent, I was able to time travel to this weird distant place and completely immerse myself in it, as a stunned, but sarcastically willing bystander.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdT8JUYVmvKjMq9qqyxPIn5wxct0sJ3n_Q8H4w5q3W6nGUVewQLBdJE9vPZV_yJg7Bc9DKL_P61rh3mcbidp7Rt3x4bhZIGGIUKZVYlWA04SLC52gRoxiGJbMetGSA-y80ONuEuXREgZfu/s1600/lom+nice+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="261" data-original-width="400" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdT8JUYVmvKjMq9qqyxPIn5wxct0sJ3n_Q8H4w5q3W6nGUVewQLBdJE9vPZV_yJg7Bc9DKL_P61rh3mcbidp7Rt3x4bhZIGGIUKZVYlWA04SLC52gRoxiGJbMetGSA-y80ONuEuXREgZfu/s400/lom+nice+2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Then slowly it happened. Bit by bit. The time frame started to assert its own weird beauty. Though it had initially seemed so depressing to see Sam sitting in a dull empty apartment with pretty much nothing to do, the clock dully ticking the endless minutes by . . . slowly, over many episodes, the lack of phones, computers, communications began to feel normal and the slower pace of life desirable. The more personal, direct connections were refreshing: people talking to each other face to face in a way that has almost ceased to feel possible in this modern "connected" cyberworld.<div>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihrAHylx_OmqHb1BVPuzXRssDgdBnlqyvjHStzTMK4xBTMCZMsFbPD0WRkLGLtmZ96Xm3Te1V5o98JU6qQN2XXWKNUuZdRsrIEBEkVOuwT8smdnRzDUfNrPRzkMPWTbW719aPInlaQ-aQM/s1600/lom+nice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihrAHylx_OmqHb1BVPuzXRssDgdBnlqyvjHStzTMK4xBTMCZMsFbPD0WRkLGLtmZ96Xm3Te1V5o98JU6qQN2XXWKNUuZdRsrIEBEkVOuwT8smdnRzDUfNrPRzkMPWTbW719aPInlaQ-aQM/s400/lom+nice.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
What's more, I began to gain the ability to look below the surface of the offensive and chaotic police work, and find complex people with understandable motivations who meant well and acted within the constraints of their time. In particular, Gene Hunt, the "Gov." The relationship between Sam and Gene is unforgettable.<br />
<br />
There is a great top-dog tension that plays out between these two, with Gene Hunt ostensibly -- and by any traditional, masculine measure -- being the one in charge, but Sam Tyler blowing in like a crazy wizard with so much charisma, naïveté and intelligence, that he simply cannot be ignored. Gene beautifully adapts to this strange presence and the two become one of the best male-bonding pairs I know.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinWri-txojTRm7RsV_z6nc2q5PxZZV3Guyrv5uQO5V6qK0BXiN6LxSB8k3xpdNKXpr9T6D73fsAuhOercjHJuLvgdZto1eJYaqoy9TBjOFJzBIkVl8YNkBlUO1Z4RG0QZGEsemoxdmEhTr/s1600/lom+nic+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="430" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinWri-txojTRm7RsV_z6nc2q5PxZZV3Guyrv5uQO5V6qK0BXiN6LxSB8k3xpdNKXpr9T6D73fsAuhOercjHJuLvgdZto1eJYaqoy9TBjOFJzBIkVl8YNkBlUO1Z4RG0QZGEsemoxdmEhTr/s400/lom+nic+4.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP63A_4YDMM63sEYmFFYICji187M4IR8kGMIbOMLBBZRgNeO1qfwdt02igz-mfQyIBBmvx6WDj_QlDWaKUkkJjhPk9NsvD2UxLSHYEprWYJlk8EFEuIzGT3Us8qJGQxhefPdTYsoKWrYhH/s1600/lom+nice+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="620" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP63A_4YDMM63sEYmFFYICji187M4IR8kGMIbOMLBBZRgNeO1qfwdt02igz-mfQyIBBmvx6WDj_QlDWaKUkkJjhPk9NsvD2UxLSHYEprWYJlk8EFEuIzGT3Us8qJGQxhefPdTYsoKWrYhH/s400/lom+nice+3.jpg" width="400" /></a>As 1973 normalized for me, the slow pace and the working class/simpler life, seemed to matter so much. By the last few episodes, I absolutely related to <i>this</i> time frame as the real one. The one that felt legitimate and correct. To hell with the shiny, fancy and technological 2000s! Talk about dulling and blurring your sense! </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And, fascinatingly, never once did I suspect that this is what they had in mind for me all along.<br /><br />
<br />
Yes, I admit. By the end I was putty in their hands. As the drama began to resolve and it became clear that Sam would/could go back home, I dreaded it horribly. I did not want this for him at all. I tried to feel resigned to where things naturally must lead. ... To do otherwise would be like not wanting Dorothy to wake up in her bed at the end. When that's what has to happen. You can't just stay in <i>Oz!</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Or can you? Well, I said there would be spoilers, so there's no need to be coy. Of course Sam does get to stay in Oz. 1973 IS our reality. And that horrifying bright, fast, metal world he'd left behind? It is not his truth. Now, I'm not going to attempt to describe what this all means. Because I hardly know myself-- thus my tag line about the enigma wrapped in the riddle and possibly some bacon. But I was never happier than when I saw Sam Tyler running off the roof and rejoining his friends. This is the way great TV should end.<br />
<br />
I saw later, on the dvd special features, (and, by the way, clearly, I did not regret my decision to purchase this television show, lol) that in fact, my reaction was the exact desired one the creative team was going for. They wanted people to say "no!" when he actually managed to get back to the present.<br />
<br />
We may fight what we have. Sometimes for a long time... maybe, say, 16 episodes, but it is so good when you can accept that what you have right in front of you is really all you need.<br />
<br />
Though now, maybe, I'm a bit at odds with my own message ... in that the impact of this show was to make me yearn for exactly what I cannot have: this simpler scaled back life of 1973! I mean, for the music alone!<br />
<br />
<br />
But before I digress myself into another post, let me just wrap up here. To say that this series lived up to my expectations and up to the ratings and the hype is an understatement.<br />
<br /></div>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-51649815071103413762017-10-06T09:01:00.003-07:002017-10-06T09:01:25.813-07:00Easy Virtue - Surprisingly BadI was hanging out on facebook the other night when a friend posted: "need a good period drama? Go watch <i>Easy Virtue</i>! It's on Netflix."<br />
<br />
Well, that was certainly enough for me ... I headed over. And I did watch, and I suppose I'm not too disappointed that I did, if for no other reason, then it gives me something to write about, but unfortunately what I have to say is that <i>Easy Virtue</i> is surprisingly bad.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOC_JaxDweeHUmOytV7-TWGM-t-fiCPLQMB9EDWgdKCOXbgrrfq2C2obPEnT5pSeiV2ARVNt1nmEnsdjpYd_ipVwG-O308vwi8l2DNO2etkInE3j1j81ZsJNQLati7Fo9uWdvCEmTRGHn0/s1600/easy_virtue30.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1072" data-original-width="1600" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOC_JaxDweeHUmOytV7-TWGM-t-fiCPLQMB9EDWgdKCOXbgrrfq2C2obPEnT5pSeiV2ARVNt1nmEnsdjpYd_ipVwG-O308vwi8l2DNO2etkInE3j1j81ZsJNQLati7Fo9uWdvCEmTRGHn0/s400/easy_virtue30.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiswxaA8o5kmVxJKNvof0H-H7dSVpYEagPnViSbt4IIFo3FwXhbaUnpbiyfqTESlP2cchnXeLnFe7My9OJqHE0grjc9IeM1Z9XGXfRZginP6ztOBOkk6MLv6hmTQPljmU9T4dfP61bxKSfN/s1600/colin+firth+easy+virtue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiswxaA8o5kmVxJKNvof0H-H7dSVpYEagPnViSbt4IIFo3FwXhbaUnpbiyfqTESlP2cchnXeLnFe7My9OJqHE0grjc9IeM1Z9XGXfRZginP6ztOBOkk6MLv6hmTQPljmU9T4dfP61bxKSfN/s200/colin+firth+easy+virtue.jpg" width="200" /></a>Here is a film that by rights should be perfect for me. It has it all: British actors, great houses and landscapes; period costumes, cars, and furnishings! A great time period at the cusp of the 1930s! Hell, it even has Colin Firth.<br />
<br />
How the heck did it still manage to be such a misfire?<br />
<br />
What this experience (coupled with the recently painful viewing of <i>Parade's End</i>) has taught me is that good acting -- and other sundry visual delights -- cannot save bad writing. And that story matters above all.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Having just accused this work of bad writing, I was stunned to look it up and learn that the film was based on a Noel Coward play. Obviously enough I have not read that play. I learned also, thank you Wikipedia, that the play was adapted to film before -- in 1928 -- and directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is getting crazy. I consider myself a silent film aficionado, yet I not only had not heard of the silent film version, but hadn't even realized that Hitchcock had been a director during the silent film era.<br />
<br />
Feeling like a bone-head right now.<br />
<br />
Maybe you should walk away slowly from this blog :)<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, I might be uninformed about a lot of things. But I'll tell you what I'm not wrong about: <i>Easy Virtue</i> (2008) is not great. In defense of my opinion I'll also share that the Wikipedia article goes on to state that "hardly any feature of the original play remains [in the 2008 adaptation] besides the main characters, and even they do not greatly resemble Coward's cast." lol.<br />
<br />
So maybe the Coward play was itself good. No idea. But this adaption is seriously flawed.<br />
<br />
<br />
The plot goes something like this: Larita, a beautiful and vivacious American race car driving star meets and falls in love with a classy young British dude while in France at a car racing event. They marry and then return to England to meet his family. The basic plot from this point on is "fish out of water" stuff, with the young sexy American clashing predictably with the boy's mother and sisters, but winning over the male folk such as the butler and the dad, the ever-gorgeous Colin Firth.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCY69Wd2OkxIKHePVeERMgrYccDyGs2mdOrKzcVQx5JHhbqRyKMTJwWUv-HLfqPYoF5Rs6AXAkZFfjWTi362YC-ZUob-Hd9RL3djazOgKl2AOX0e1LfwhsubxyhpH5c6Gzow7SFbLC302X/s1600/easy+virtue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="598" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCY69Wd2OkxIKHePVeERMgrYccDyGs2mdOrKzcVQx5JHhbqRyKMTJwWUv-HLfqPYoF5Rs6AXAkZFfjWTi362YC-ZUob-Hd9RL3djazOgKl2AOX0e1LfwhsubxyhpH5c6Gzow7SFbLC302X/s320/easy+virtue.jpg" width="320" /></a>The actors are top notch all around. In addition to Firth as dad, we have and Kristin Scott Thomas as mom; we have Kimberley Nixon and Katherine Parkinson (who I love so much in IT Crowd, but who is wasted here) as the sisters. I even recognized Kris Marshall as Furber the butler (who'd made such an amazing addition to <i>Love Actually</i> as Colin Frissel the guy who goes to Wisconsin to meet hot Americans). Was there a requirement that a certain portion of cast members have names beginning with K, I wonder?<br />
<br />
The tone of the film is supposed to be light hearted and witty I think. But it just isn't. Music tells us that we are to find some scenes funny... like the burying of a dog who is accidentally squished. We seem to be expected to find the accidental squishing funny too. But these moments aren't funny and the cast can't make them so. Everything is written in a pallid and flat manner and with ambiguous direction.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Az6vy4xBPyy94wUSQL4afF_kD3qiHfjr-KRGcrHf3gNTo8-yrL80_3rdJVCe8gjExzIu1PHcQe5kYBBfyA5gRf4FU1mdWjNL_XqCYdauSAu6yJdNJNaCvr46OyB41OjHp0Z2sO0HbTUU/s1600/kristin+scott+thomas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="236" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Az6vy4xBPyy94wUSQL4afF_kD3qiHfjr-KRGcrHf3gNTo8-yrL80_3rdJVCe8gjExzIu1PHcQe5kYBBfyA5gRf4FU1mdWjNL_XqCYdauSAu6yJdNJNaCvr46OyB41OjHp0Z2sO0HbTUU/s320/kristin+scott+thomas.jpg" width="213" /></a>There is no great chemistry between any of the characters; the closest is the connection that develops between Larita and her new father in law. The relationships between the other characters feel mostly strained and uninteresting - such as between Larita and her husband, the young husband and his sisters, the mom and dad, Larita and the butler; the list goes on. Although the engine driving the plot is the tension between Larita and her mother-in-law, their relationship feel so time-worn I just couldn't get in to it.<br />
<br />
In fact, this is what plagues much of the film - a feeling of having seen this all before. Husband coming home to a world he no longer knows after the war... Average looking girls overlooked in favor of flashy blonde... Girl next door with a heart of gold... Yappy foo foo overindulged dog.... cliche, cliche and cliche! And that's when you realize that the English countryside can only take you so far. There has to be a point. Some reason to care about these folks and their predicaments.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-zsyWS5Ugue_K3Xr65FcPwMj42pBl8FIb35i9ckqNuSuKqYNaP1zTwuHXKqYmyklqEpR1wcqZkemM3Qudf_AbnaT1fPiQS2SrhMcFJHcMRPj5XFU3uJOAlysGPdeVNMQQxcSrT98K0mwb/s1600/colin.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="549" data-original-width="976" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-zsyWS5Ugue_K3Xr65FcPwMj42pBl8FIb35i9ckqNuSuKqYNaP1zTwuHXKqYmyklqEpR1wcqZkemM3Qudf_AbnaT1fPiQS2SrhMcFJHcMRPj5XFU3uJOAlysGPdeVNMQQxcSrT98K0mwb/s320/colin.jpeg" width="320" /></a>Jessica Biel as Larita is gorgeous and I actually want to like her. Oddly even, I probably do like her character more than almost anyone else in the film, which is really saying something. Biel manages a performance that fits this awkward film. But she got the memo that this isn't real English drama, just a knock off to turn some quick cash -- and her flat, charming, American gumption seems to fit that ethos really well.<br />
<br />
Kristin Scott Thompson, on the other hand, is striving for something real and meaningful. But has little to work with and, despite her best attempts, the character of the mom (mother-in-law to Larita) ends up melodramatic, or just somehow too disproportionally deep for how stupid this film is. Though she is still such a treat to gaze at - what timeless beauty and class that woman has!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivR2hjMoxpsCmmspH3ktDryG9qymMnwT73C9ikQx6ZgmVA5uvcgvU4sgZPDkXXqhA2RF54pi0m5FTb3CCNDLtQP1smmW_8S3wsyPbP4Gl8PlbaHWd_uBUp4FEJRR9r7Cw9LYtYK9MQnrsp/s1600/easy_virtue37.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivR2hjMoxpsCmmspH3ktDryG9qymMnwT73C9ikQx6ZgmVA5uvcgvU4sgZPDkXXqhA2RF54pi0m5FTb3CCNDLtQP1smmW_8S3wsyPbP4Gl8PlbaHWd_uBUp4FEJRR9r7Cw9LYtYK9MQnrsp/s320/easy_virtue37.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
Colin Firth does his best to act the slightly curmudgeonly, wasted, but still debonair, older man. But we never get much sense of his motivations though, or any real backstory that could help flesh him out and let the viewer feel as if we know him. He just flits around the edges of the story seeming equal parts bitter, detached and classy. A too-strange mix. We can't really decide whether to like a guy who has so abdicated any role in his family -- when his family clearly needs some direction (...even though he is smoldering in a washed-up way, which, truly could be -- and often is -- enough.)<br />
<br />
The young British actors, such as Ben Barnes as the husband, his sisters, and the butler, all seem to be working in the a middle ground of earnest, uptight, but still fun young brits and at times they almost manage to make the viewer care about them. The problem is we are given little to care about because their motivations are unclear or at least uneven. I don't really know what they want.<br />
<br />
All in all, I would say that the film isn't horrid. It does have some amazing eye-candy in the form of gowns and period details that have been lovingly recreated. The cinematography is rich and evocative. If these things are enough for you, watch. I would not recommend it directly, but there are worse ways to spend an evening.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-24276438286766471162017-05-14T18:25:00.001-07:002017-05-14T21:11:39.929-07:00A Tale of Two SherlocksNo, I'm not comparing the CBS Program <i>Elementary</i> with BBC's <i>Sherlock</i> -- though I probably will someday, as I do like both (though I know you're not supposed to).<br />
<br />
I am talking about two Sherlocks that have probably NEVER been spoken of in the same breath by any human being before, but for each of which I've fallen.<br />
<br />
It dawned on me recently that it was due to their roles as Sherlock Holmes that I initially became interested in two wildly different actors that I now consider among my all time favorites: Benedict Cumberbatch (as Sherlock) and Buster Keaton (as Sherlock Jr.) There are some odd similarities between these two stars and these two productions that caught my attention when I started reflecting. The oddest by far is that I've never considered myself a particular fan of the Sherlock Holmes character.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoQoyuI6i650of6vzuuZzoXQrgkoBe3vGRsBcRxyb39fOACMlz5hZV1QkB5HH9j_JnDpq-Bz5XCwjgwMf4f0tL-p3Yv0p6ZAGlMFMDR8j-WnBD12iyopvyBd6LQiIfqqieJBo9rUTt5sRr/s1600/sherlock+a+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoQoyuI6i650of6vzuuZzoXQrgkoBe3vGRsBcRxyb39fOACMlz5hZV1QkB5HH9j_JnDpq-Bz5XCwjgwMf4f0tL-p3Yv0p6ZAGlMFMDR8j-WnBD12iyopvyBd6LQiIfqqieJBo9rUTt5sRr/s320/sherlock+a+1.jpg" width="228" /></a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj35fSESMwjPYR7hVmLuED9_2vVjuUivmOy_wWCdcbdfGVwEsdV5i4LbH3Bof90ePb0clZUEc0ASIFRypg0oXwCHQ3skYF4LXc0RqBD5RLcgLdQjhXKV0kL0c3u6sTE3f-CrB7aNbnxZXKO/s1600/sherlock+b+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj35fSESMwjPYR7hVmLuED9_2vVjuUivmOy_wWCdcbdfGVwEsdV5i4LbH3Bof90ePb0clZUEc0ASIFRypg0oXwCHQ3skYF4LXc0RqBD5RLcgLdQjhXKV0kL0c3u6sTE3f-CrB7aNbnxZXKO/s320/sherlock+b+3.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Don't worry, I'm not going to claim that these two are look-a-likes. I've taken some grief here on the blog for outlandish claims of look-a-likes in the past, so you know I'm not afraid to go out on a limb if warranted... but really I don't think even I would go there with Cumberbatch and Keaton. It's not so much that they look "alike", but I will argue for some shared characteristics.<br />
<br />
First, and I guess quite obviously, these two actors have extraordinary eyes. Not alike, no. Benedict's are very pale, almond shaped, and almost Asian-lidded. Whereas Buster's are dark, round and very deep set. (And as I wrote that, I realized they have another interesting commonality -- a vagueness as to color. Benedict's eyes apparently change color, so I don't know what color to call them; and Buster was filmed in B&W, so "we" don't really know what color eyes he had.) But for both of them, it was those eyes that got me. Incredible, wide-set, in a pale smooth-skinned face. After watching Sherlock Jr. (with no intent of thinking about Keaton as any sort of a sex symbol, in fact with no intent of caring about him in the slightest), I found myself the next day continually visualizing that wide space on his forehead - that large, open, wide-eyed look. It stuck with me, and I couldn't wait to rewatch the film just to look at him again. Benedict's Sherlock grabbed me in much the same way, though it took a bit longer. I realized after watching a couple episodes that whenever I thought about him, my thoughts focused on 'space' -- that wide countenance. Both of them have this quality. And its obviously a quality I like. That openness, I think, lends an air of intelligence and inscrutability with a touch of wonder that mixes well with Sherlock's dispassion.<br />
<br />
Another similarity for these two men is a thing that both Keaton and Cumberbatch are renowned for: their cheekbones. And that's a pretty odd parallel to be talking about considering I can't really think of another star I associate with <i>cheekbones</i>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL9N1vOndtbx435aHPwnTkPnfFC2G9J-RGk0OqcorlprNOrriMboTATqgsKJMEvoSZHH3I28E6CJ8169FSUowRGWPQFQNJaHVcNZ8QSY3J9fu7Mus4o0K1aDPt55kTKH-hevz1BBQI54Xc/s1600/Annex+-+Keaton%252C+Buster_NRFPT_34.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL9N1vOndtbx435aHPwnTkPnfFC2G9J-RGk0OqcorlprNOrriMboTATqgsKJMEvoSZHH3I28E6CJ8169FSUowRGWPQFQNJaHVcNZ8QSY3J9fu7Mus4o0K1aDPt55kTKH-hevz1BBQI54Xc/s320/Annex+-+Keaton%252C+Buster_NRFPT_34.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvGvuvq0IEJkelFuGfVhCnYymeOxaBA4RXtW6GzfjU8hg5KBoskQam1hj2h0_f2U0L5nNtfjOLOSqP4If3J-qah26HWmKi71DEUfujTD0eHA8vVdgLQ1t9iWMsf3kMM_F7VmO-LxkJYwIU/s1600/e43948f9f71f86ea0c2345b8dbaec3e6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvGvuvq0IEJkelFuGfVhCnYymeOxaBA4RXtW6GzfjU8hg5KBoskQam1hj2h0_f2U0L5nNtfjOLOSqP4If3J-qah26HWmKi71DEUfujTD0eHA8vVdgLQ1t9iWMsf3kMM_F7VmO-LxkJYwIU/s320/e43948f9f71f86ea0c2345b8dbaec3e6.jpg" width="223" /></a><br />
Their faces are quite different -- Buster's is more square-shaped, Benedict has a long face, but each has a deep chiseled profile that photographs stunningly. The profiles are manly and add greatly to the charm of these actors who are otherwise so smooth, open and white that there might almost be a hint of femininity about the features. Delicate in some ways, deeply rugged in another, these men share an appealing mix of qualities.<br />
<div>
<br />
Cheekbones and eyes, pale open faces. Check. I guess I could talk about the manes of rich brown shaggy hair these two seem to enjoy, but why even go there, as it is a feature shared by a great many actors. (Though it is certainly pretty to look at). What strikes me in my musings though, goes way beyond these actors' interesting physicality, and deep into the productions themselves.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
Consider the following:<br />
<br />
I'll start with something that might seem mundane, but I find it really cool. Production length. I have never known a TV show that lasts an hour and a half. That's a weird length. Longer than a typical TV show, shorter than a typical movie for its genre, the creative forces behind <i>Sherlock</i> have chosen a unique timespan to tell their story in. I have often thought about what a brilliant length <i>Sherlock</i> is, and felt proud of the team for being willing to make a strong and unique choice in support of story.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr97_idvyQB4yvPOI1H4nnuY0uIeT4MDxQuCPP7oAgmb0HUnEaSfMcBxtfZgPpNDiUHBrc2rnPtY_KAUEe8kvhtgZwiqd_MlrxTgLooPX2ZKTc2rpUbZg0bIrMz2rQLoCjJqTPRJslOQHV/s1600/sherlock+a+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr97_idvyQB4yvPOI1H4nnuY0uIeT4MDxQuCPP7oAgmb0HUnEaSfMcBxtfZgPpNDiUHBrc2rnPtY_KAUEe8kvhtgZwiqd_MlrxTgLooPX2ZKTc2rpUbZg0bIrMz2rQLoCjJqTPRJslOQHV/s320/sherlock+a+2.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSmbxskVzh21qg1Q1WjHpzBw0EOs_fDQfx1db4VnBEcTo8SSTpDJE3O1HLHDohJyiLSpiGJgBOPEhV9zOdXd4Nse7QKH0khK6yDLGRY6FpazZN4xl89QbrqFwPHzrP0MNfQTfeqakpL-Cj/s1600/sherlock+b+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSmbxskVzh21qg1Q1WjHpzBw0EOs_fDQfx1db4VnBEcTo8SSTpDJE3O1HLHDohJyiLSpiGJgBOPEhV9zOdXd4Nse7QKH0khK6yDLGRY6FpazZN4xl89QbrqFwPHzrP0MNfQTfeqakpL-Cj/s320/sherlock+b+1.png" width="286" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But then it dawned on me -- and here's what most people reading this wouldn't know -- Keaton's <i>Sherlock Jr</i>. <i>also</i> has an unusual length (relative to 1920s era productions). Longer than a 'short', and short for a 'feature' film, <i>Sherlock Jr</i> runs 45 minutes. I have often considered the length of that production to weigh heavily in its favor and have recommended it to people by expressly noting that the pace and length are perfect for the story. Again, it was a genius choice to support the story with a pacing that feels crisp and allows the plot to unfold perfectly.<br />
<br />
I think it takes a special kind of creative vision to say, "hey, here's what our story requires. We don't care if its an odd length. Make it work."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_jEPfzDEN9AdoSYIZUQCottsE-KTqRbemqyOMiBB8VroGXl5VL1ZbW7JZGdc2m8O2ev9D6gmkJzN5yemrpys-SFeHUyAXOBIIzh4uNEiITFX9NZBWchXYxZ68lmRUVULYEY0Gghu2BrCT/s1600/sherlock+a+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_jEPfzDEN9AdoSYIZUQCottsE-KTqRbemqyOMiBB8VroGXl5VL1ZbW7JZGdc2m8O2ev9D6gmkJzN5yemrpys-SFeHUyAXOBIIzh4uNEiITFX9NZBWchXYxZ68lmRUVULYEY0Gghu2BrCT/s320/sherlock+a+3.jpg" width="211" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtNdYVL0iVVN39nIj6suG1jTulpuL5ai0wwFh3yykiQHxDBcMKY_3O518B4kDvOpkAX2pXzELUPexIy34dgKOUAI_fV2yD3NXW7bIDibGahQC_9keNqaVICxwou-CXbXb1lXUYW3-fnyiw/s1600/sherlock+b+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtNdYVL0iVVN39nIj6suG1jTulpuL5ai0wwFh3yykiQHxDBcMKY_3O518B4kDvOpkAX2pXzELUPexIy34dgKOUAI_fV2yD3NXW7bIDibGahQC_9keNqaVICxwou-CXbXb1lXUYW3-fnyiw/s200/sherlock+b+2.jpg" width="200" /></a>But there are yet other features that the two productions share. Each has taken a unusual twist on the Sherlock concept. In the TV series, the events have been set in modern times, while otherwise respecting the characters and plot and just translating them to the current world.<br />
<br />
Buster Keaton's Sherlock Jr., made nearly 100 years ago, takes place in a "modern" world as well -- I mean, as opposed to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's. <i>Sherlock Jr. </i>is only very lightly based on Holmes at all, using the character as a fantasy contrast to the mundane and sometimes painful foibles of our hero's life. <br />
<br />
In nether production is there any attempt to go back in time and engage in period drama. Both simply roll some modern day sleuthing into a story of everyday life. In both these versions, the Sherlock character plays as someone very intellectual, in charge, and a bit distracted. Both have Sherlocks that feel very much a product of <i>their</i> times - rather than any <i>past</i> time. In Buster's version, his Sherlock plays pool, has explosives, engages in Vaudevillian tricks, rides around on a motorcycle and a boat, and cuts a stylish figure in dapper clothing. Its a very 20's-era piece. And Benedict's Sherlock is very 2010s production - with blogging, and cell phones, modern spying and forensic abilities.<br />
<br />
<br />
But that's still not all.<br />
<br />
Another thing these productions share: humor (blended with tension). Obviously, humor is what Buster Keaton is all about, but still, its pretty cool to see him working the spy genre for laughs. It may be more unique that the TV drama Sherlock is so unexpectedly hilarious. While Keaton's brand of humor is physical, the humor in the modern TV show is mostly verbal. That both productions are crazy-funny, is another similarity that marks these Sherlocks as unusual.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, and maybe the coolest connecting thread may be that each of these two productions represent cutting-edge work for their use of clever photographic approaches to tell the story.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfFgnJoLiQE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bfFgnJoLiQE?feature=player_embedded" style="clear: right; float: right;" width="320"></iframe>In <i>Sherlock</i> (the TV show), the production team uses very creative camerawork, special effects and editing, not just to impress us, but to directly move the story. A great Youtube video address this (How to Film Thought). The makers of this video are far more intelligent than I, but I am smart enough to know that what the Sherlock team manages all the time with extraordinary clever camerawork is part of what makes this series so very special. I highly recommend you clicking on the video here. Another trick that is used effectively throughout the TV series is thought-bubble-words to show what Sherlock is thinking when he is examining a crime scene or explaining his deductions. Rather than having to explain every last thing through dialog, the camera is used with great creative vision and a certain elegance that is integrated seamlessly into the artistic vision of the larger story.<br />
<br />
<br />
But again, guess what? It's something that Buster Keaton did 90 years ago in Sherlock Jr.! A bit of background would probably help. In this film, Keaton plays a young man who works for a movie theater but dreams of being a detective. He wants to propose to his girlfriend, but his rival gets there first and mucks things up for Keaton, stealing her dad's watch and then planting evidence to make it look like Buster did it. Buster attempts to ply his detective skills and catch the guy, but fails, so he goes back to the movie theater, puts on a movie and falls asleep. What happen next is extraordinary: Keaton falls asleep and them dreams himself into the movie, where he materializes as the great detective brought in to solve a very similar crime of the stolen pearls. The scenes where his ghostlike sleepwalking self splinters off and walks into the picture are phenomenal. Even by modern standards, they are evocative and clever. Next, a montage of camera cuts where the background keeps changing while Keaton tries to find a place, are integral to showing us he doesn't really belong in that movie; he's an outsider living a fantasy. This movie within a movie allows us to explore themes of fantasy and the role of cinema magic that was taking such an important hold of people at this time and which clearly persist to this day. The fantastic camerawork is not just a showcase of technology, it is seamlessly integrated into story in an elegant way.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxfkbtOlUCh81rPNYqEUou_GR43maMMnSnZO-U_IGA76JgJXjQdhGMIVgaX_u0xYiJRPgOxKfusMy9tKx27YA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyr0UHr1nmvXYYCXuR6uqdddDA5fKvgt4hDoxrcfN8dlgWOUFdAgDT5qVV4UrLAgXRsarquE-T_Oe94F3L41g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
So there it is! Two Sherlocks, separated by nearly a century, separated by genre, by format, by audience, by intent and yet united by two tremendously compelling leads, and some amazing creative visionaries, willing to make bold and non-traditional choices for their creations. Though maybe not typically thought of in the same breath, both deserve exalted positions in the rankings of entertainment history.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Happy Viewing.</div>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-33261154408658553602017-03-03T08:31:00.001-07:002017-03-03T08:31:13.561-07:00Parade's End ... the Cumberbinge continuesWow! I just did something I've never done before. I had this post all written and done, save for the final polishing. But somehow (well, I know how - a combination of a new computer and switching between Mac and PC keyboard commands) managed to highlight the whole and hit the delete key. Gone. For some reason I couldn't undo and of course, due to auto saving and the fact that I'm typing it online (dummy!), it was too late; the save was in, and the post was gone.<br />
<br />
<br />
Still.<br />
One to always imagine that things happen for a reason, I'm going to approach this event as more of an opportunity than a loss.<br />
<br />
You see, truth is, I wasn't really all that happy with my post. It was brilliant, of course, but probably a bit too scathing. I sometimes think about this after I skewer a production (which really isn't all that often). I mean, people do work hard on these things, and it must be a bummer that everyone's a critic.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9E6YPAhCHgUTx0XeDo0u86pPfz33Cj2SkVYByFgO59UiawlQYtHxg6UZ3DQJN_YPfEUvPKMUKd0j6xsTr2B0zQrnlY-XwdHbvS9DNK6yiVQRMdbq_m45eiSJELr39p4GSAGy0a79HyDpE/s1600/parades_end.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9E6YPAhCHgUTx0XeDo0u86pPfz33Cj2SkVYByFgO59UiawlQYtHxg6UZ3DQJN_YPfEUvPKMUKd0j6xsTr2B0zQrnlY-XwdHbvS9DNK6yiVQRMdbq_m45eiSJELr39p4GSAGy0a79HyDpE/s320/parades_end.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
My *poof, gone* post found a lot to hate and just a few things to like about <i>Parade's End.</i> To me it was a disappointment. I will stand by that. The gods may have given me another chance to think about what I say publicly, but I'm not going to re-evaluate my thoughts entirely. Maybe I'll just cut it a bit nicer.<br />
<br />
Here, in a nutshell, is what I said, far more eloquently, before:<br />
<br />
The best thing about the production, hands down, is the cinematography. Sumptuous. Second would be the period details, especially the clothing; everything, from cars and telephones, to furniture, manor houses and roads is just so transporting. The visuals give a rich distinct flavor of a highly engaging time.<br />
<br />
The rest? milquetoast at best. The plot, continuity, character arcs and (sigh) even acting were non-starters.<br />
<br />
My cruel hunch is that this work was probably only put into production in response to the smashing success of another (much better) Edwardian era drama - <i>Downton Abbey</i>. I think the latter's success must have had something to do with <i>Parade's End</i> finding an audience that cared enough to watch, and enthusiastic enough to reward it with an IMDB rating of a 7.7, when it probably deserves something more in the 6 to 7 range.<br />
<br />
<i>Parade's End</i> isn't terrible. (There, I guess this is a concession born of second chances). It's just not good drama. Good drama should have something to teach us; something to say. I really don't know what that is here. And I don't know wherein the fault lies. I never read the book. (Yes, there's a book. Oh I forgot the year and the author --- do I have to go look that up again? I think 1924 and the author was someone with 3 names where the first and third were the same. Like Forest Sawyer Forest. Yes, lets just go with that.)<br />
<br />
I understand that the man taxed with writing the screenplay for <i>Parade's End</i> is highly acclaimed, so we'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the novel was just mediocre. (I mean Mr. Forest probably died 60 some years ago, I don't think his feelings will be hurt if we assign blame there). And, honestly, that probably is where blame needs to go. There is just so much plot detail that doesn't make sense in this piece. There are so many characters that change direction (back and forth) too often and for too little reason. No real continuity.<br />
<br />
Oh! in the post I deleted you would have been delighted with my musings on Sylvia and her bizarre choices. How she changes motivating purpose at the drop of a hat and acts in a way distinctly at odds with what she claims she wants. But its not just Sylvia. Christopher's brother, played by Rupert Everett is another character who floats groundlessly along with the whim of whatever scene his is in at the moment. Is he hateful? Oh, no, loving. Whoops, hateful again. Makes no sense. And its not just the characters; but some plot developments are just way too convenient and/or over the top. I'm thinking about cancer, and the chopping down of trees, and relationships with commanding officers. The whole thing feels like a soap opera sometimes.<br />
<br />
To the extent there is a plot here, it seems to turn almost entirely on the idea of adultery. While I gladly admit that adultery can be quite interesting (think <i>English Patient</i>), here it seems most an excuse to seem daring or confrontational. Characters are always hissing words like "mistress" around like daggers. What is odd is that the effect of the dagger seems to change constantly.<br />
<br />
And although the ending is rather artistically done (from the standpoint of cinematography) we are denied a real moment of passion and resolution that we'd been waiting for while slogging though 5 hours of this. Unacceptable. Near the end, I kept anxiously watching the bar at the bottom of the screen for the remaining time and thinking: "come on now, we're running out of time! Get to a love scene! They managed to squeeze in the tiniest bit of resolution. But NOT satisfying.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOdaTQxqnN7wck7NY80-gw1BkNDAwSwmdx517Sa-L8OclyBPU6uTbekXQcoKYqZKa2EVcqcRrQk7FkyRyaJvVmN_SDhxKxjj1NC6OnKA_UCkZuby6bbpk-bGd8_vHH7JqbAB7grCia7Tck/s1600/parade%2527s+end+christopher.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOdaTQxqnN7wck7NY80-gw1BkNDAwSwmdx517Sa-L8OclyBPU6uTbekXQcoKYqZKa2EVcqcRrQk7FkyRyaJvVmN_SDhxKxjj1NC6OnKA_UCkZuby6bbpk-bGd8_vHH7JqbAB7grCia7Tck/s320/parade%2527s+end+christopher.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
And, oh, it pains me to say this but I can't think of any other period drama with such a lack of attractive male characters. Even dramas that are clearly geared toward men, like idk, Fury, still manage to have male characters that are appealing/sexy. Here -- and please know how much I love Benedict Cumberbatch -- all we really get is Christopher. Cumberbatch plays him with a weak chin, marbly mouth and doughy persona. It makes him a great actor. It does not make him a very appealing leading man.<br />
<br />
Christopher's older brother Mark played by Rupert Everett - another really sexy guy in real life - is covered in facial hair and exhibits no charm. There is really no one else even worth mentioning. Especially in a picture that seems ostensibly to be about lust, don't you think they could have sexed up the male roles a bit?<br />
<br />
<br />
Ultimately, it comes down to me not caring about these characters. Or at least not enough to invest 5 hours of my time on them. I would not recommed the production. The only reason I watched was that the Cumberbatch-itch needed to be scratched. And even though he was not particularly appealing here, you can't hide that charisma entirely away! There was enough of it peeking out to wait and see what happened. Now that I know what happens, it really wasn't worth it.<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-8440437722536227882017-02-18T23:05:00.002-07:002017-02-18T23:05:10.614-07:00I May Be Late to the Party, But I'm on a Raging Cumberbinge NowA Benedict Cumberbatch binge just to be clear. As another character cooed to him in the episode of <i>Sherlock</i> I recently watched, "smart is the new sexy." This guy proves it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUluB5dSV3Jv8pKoBreDr1Q0WxF4xURrO-2Qg6WAD51WhIeuyiuaWsX2-xFAF0Ye-YUZIMyUXy-_VDtuozAtBGM5fwY4K50jgtwzfhiWBAO4La5OIN9FNkcPpDNgCVQ19y5ytQ9ySEYzV/s1600/benedict-cumberbatch_625x300_41414581866.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAUluB5dSV3Jv8pKoBreDr1Q0WxF4xURrO-2Qg6WAD51WhIeuyiuaWsX2-xFAF0Ye-YUZIMyUXy-_VDtuozAtBGM5fwY4K50jgtwzfhiWBAO4La5OIN9FNkcPpDNgCVQ19y5ytQ9ySEYzV/s400/benedict-cumberbatch_625x300_41414581866.jpg" width="400" /></a>I've been on a dry spell for awhile. Blame the abysmal state of the political climate. Blame my work schedule. Hell, blame the weather, but I haven't had anything that's really put me in a bloggy sort of mood for some time. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Enter Sherlock Holmes.</div>
<br />
Obviously I've been aware of this program; it stares out at me as a 'suggested' title every time I go on Netflix; the algorithm that decides what's good for me seemed pretty sure about it. But I've always resisted.<br />
<br />
Hard to say why, exactly. I think it's just that murder (and mystery) is not really my thing. I'm rather squeamish when it comes to death and intrigue. Maybe that sounds outrageous given my past obsession with <i>Spooks</i>. I mean, if I could watch 10 seasons of that, how wimpy could I be? Still, whatever the reason, I've walked on by.<br />
<br />
<br />
So... hmmm, maybe we can blame this on Trump now too, but lately I've felt an extreme need to escape. After rewatching every Jane Austen adaptation available to me, I guess it was just a matter of time -- and a state of desperation -- before I finally crumbled and clicked on the first episode.<br />
<br />
<br />
And that was all it took. Thanks Benedict for that icy stare and that cool detached intellect that won me over; now I'm wondering where you've been all my life.<br />
<br />
Another masterpiece from across the pond that shows that you guys just really get how to do great TV. Here are two first-rate film actors acting in the lead roles -- not just Cumberbatch, but Martin Freeman alongside him. Here is a deeply talented and appealing supporting cast, including Rupert Graves, Una Stubbs, Jonathan Aris, and Louise Brealey to name just a few). Here is great writing full of subtle puns and tiny moments, as well as the over-the-top outlandishly clever deductions that must have taken some great minds to pack up and spill out. A moody Londony light permeates this whole production, making you feel as if -- though set in modern times -- the production is somehow tied to the turn of a prior century from whence the original book series issues. Its an etherial, quirky mix of things. The dialog as sharp as Benedict's cheekbones and beautiful cinematography make this show irresistible. I mean, once one has finally stopped resisting.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mostly, it is the way that the elements come together that makes the series work. I know that this is what makes for great drama, whether its about death, romance, or martians. Doesn't matter. Because this "works", the viewer has no trouble suspending credibility to believe in the plausibility of this crime-solving duo and all their escapades.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfhp2KGchmusIZPj4sa-aaCXAvLs0keNj69qzQXHToVhFxs120GJ6qeKwZeffWTBXad3tzu0b1UDj_YNN3FC7nkkO_S6WYRPRUIXR4eHrVvrqPY-K7-rlPH1DDaKD9pWcXnabtgWPYrHKC/s1600/sherlock+and+watson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfhp2KGchmusIZPj4sa-aaCXAvLs0keNj69qzQXHToVhFxs120GJ6qeKwZeffWTBXad3tzu0b1UDj_YNN3FC7nkkO_S6WYRPRUIXR4eHrVvrqPY-K7-rlPH1DDaKD9pWcXnabtgWPYrHKC/s400/sherlock+and+watson.jpg" width="400" /></a>As much as I appreciate the creative team, as always I am the biggest sucker for acting and actors. Hands down the element that sells this series is the incredible relationship between Cumberbatch and Freeman as Holmes and Watson. There aren't enough adjectives to throw at their chemistry and charm. This casting was simply inspired. And everyone around them -- including themselves -- knows it. Thus the success of the running joke of their being lovers, despite all their protestations to the contrary. Because, lovers or not, they form the central love story that keeps us wanting more, and more. This sexy and platonic bromance is on full display in the episode I just watched from season 3 ("The Sign of Three") where Watson is getting married and Holmes is the best man. This is some of the best television I've ever seen and I've rarely been more entertained. Deeply hilarious, poignant, tense and well-wrapped, this is television at its infinite finest. I'm as drunk on this show as Sherlock and Holmes were at their 'stag party'.<br />
<br />
Now I have only to regret that they haven't made more episodes, and to look forward to watching the few remaining (including season 4 which I haven't seen at all) and to re-watching the lot many times over and again.<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-88077835126697265322016-03-05T21:30:00.000-07:002017-05-27T04:39:26.241-07:00Revolutionary Television, Last Tango in HalifaxIt may sound funny to describe a show like <i>Last Tango in Halifax</i> -- a character-driven show featuring an older couple that finds romance again after 60 years -- as cutting edge tv, but in an era when violence, youth, loud music and flashy sex are so much the established norm, I think it is ground breaking to do something that goes so decidedly against the flow. This show is so unlike what feels typical on tv that it takes my breath away and surprises me constantly.<br />
<br />
I won't deny that my main purpose in tuning in was to see Nicola Walker, who I love, but for whom I still couldn't stomach the dark tension of <i>River</i> (another show on Netflix featuring Walker). But the reason I continued to watch had everything to do with everything<i> else</i> this show does extremely well. That would include the calm pacing; the deeply sympathetic if quirky characters; the gorgeous photography and locations; the treatment of middle-aged people as complex and interesting and worthy of sexual relationships that are also complex and interesting; the treatment of older people as intelligent and worthy of viable new romantic love; the treatment of teens as deep and nuanced, capable of being both thoughtful <i>and </i>self-centered; and the dialog which accentuates all these meaningful relationships.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw3tilm22LwY5XdRxtuyHZ5P1R6qbfNr1-jwoFNvVR2Jkm4D1687uELnup-pv9acVijrcFvBsUl3wZjn5C_MClVvnamTsXE55ZgQ1U7oOCaOkIys9U79vQB0lDIzaFNYwAhia_CsqYz-rl/s1600/image_915.jpg.resize.800x450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw3tilm22LwY5XdRxtuyHZ5P1R6qbfNr1-jwoFNvVR2Jkm4D1687uELnup-pv9acVijrcFvBsUl3wZjn5C_MClVvnamTsXE55ZgQ1U7oOCaOkIys9U79vQB0lDIzaFNYwAhia_CsqYz-rl/s320/image_915.jpg.resize.800x450.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Perhaps, best of all, is the uniformly outstanding acting. The show stars Derek Jacobi and Anne Reid as Alan and Celia the central pair whose reunion (after ages of life have passed between them) throws these two quite different but equally compelling families together in many odd ways. Both Reid and Jacobi are treasures and inhabit these folks with a depth fitting the situation. Yes, they do make lots of love-dove eyes at each other and fall quickly into a state of deep care and closeness, but their path is not perfect. They deal with decades of baggage, family woe and joy that do not always blend seamlessly.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Their 40-something year-old daughters, Gillian and Caroline, are played by Nicola Walker and Sarah Lancashire each with a poignancy that is palpable. One of my favorite scenes involving the adjustment to all that life is dealing them, comes when Gillian (Walker)'s dad has decided to move to the small guest quarters at Caroline's home, about an hour's drive away from Gillian's farm. Gillian of course wants what is best for her dad, but you can feel her pain and emptiness as he takes his company away from her daily endeavors. There is an enormous sense of the emptiness of life when change comes, despite everything happening the way it must and it should. Many such moments are handled extremely sensitively and again cause me to think: "revolutionary television is going on here!"<br />
<br />
The supporting characters are numerous and also exceptional, including several teenage-to-young adult boys, various ex-husbands, ex-lovers, friends and romantic partners including an extremely well-handled lesbian pairing that add plenty of comedy and charm along with the drama. Yes, the show dips deep into that drama at times, leaving the viewer on the occasional emotional roller coaster, but overall, the excellent qualities far outshine the weaknesses.<br />
<br />
The show does another remarkable thing in giving us closure and contentment at the end of each season. There is a lovely book-like finish that is extraordinary and appreciated. I can't speak to the fourth series, but only to the first three in this regard, but so far they have really given us an incredible expansive feeling of warmth to end out each story, that it feels worth all the jerking around we get in the interim.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-22967206750230855452016-01-22T09:46:00.002-07:002016-01-22T14:21:26.558-07:00A Revisionist Harry and Ruth: Deconstructed and Rebuilt to SatisfyDo you ever find yourself plunged into someone else's artistic vision? Spinning and falling and living in it, almost as if it transcends fiction and takes on life? This wonderful feeling of transport happens to me reasonably often as a connoisseur of great stories. And, as luck would have it, normally, if I love something enough to love it, I am happy to accept the creator's take on it and don't question the route it takes. But sometimes . . . well sometimes I am both engaged and appalled with a piece of work.<br />
<br />
And I guess there is no sense in being coy any longer: I'm talking now about the love story of Harry Pearce and Ruth Evershed in <i>Spooks (MI-5)</i>. The show has long since run its course and the relationship reached its final realization, so I guess it's written in stone, right? and must be accepted as final?<br />
<br />
Nah.... Why let a great but flawed story languish? It deserves to be picked up and re-knit into a more appropriate shape. Or, to continue the prior metaphor: someone must chisel the stone so it is re-framed for eternity in a better way... That is my not, as it turns out, insignificant goal.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b>
<b>Maybe this would be a good place to mention that this article is FULL OF SPOILERS! </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Please stop reading and walk quickly away if you don't want to know how <i>Spooks</i> treated its most important couple, not to mention myriad other details related to the entire run of the show that I will let fly without fanfare as necessary (oh, and I also spoil Josh and Donna in The West Wing and Stevens and Miss Kenton in Remains of the Day somewhere in here, so you might be on the lookout for that as well).</b></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
OK. It is no secret to anyone who's read my blog that I am mortified by how the relationship between Harry and Ruth, two passionately attracted people, concluded. But my frustration goes beyond that. I am troubled by the lost potential in the last 2 seasons, especially season 10, as the characters were forced to behave in a way that defied sense and desire while the show slowly dissipated their charisma and made them, particularly Ruth, somewhat pointless. <br />
<br />
Now, I am certainly no screen writer nor dramatist and I realize that it is the height of arrogance to claim that I could have done this better and yet, that is what I am claiming! I will not accomplish this through fanfic (because, honestly, I am not a fiction writer at all, even at that standard) but rather through a description of how it could have and should have gone, with a deep character analysis supporting why I think so.<br />
<br />
If that doesn't sound like fun, you should probably walk away now ;)<br />
<br />
Oh alright, I take it back, there's a little bit of fanfic, just a smidge. Look for (or avoid) the italicized portions, as the case may be, and please, be advised that to whatever extent it might be deemed necessary to disclaim interest, and as is probably obvious, I do not own the characters Harry and Ruth, nor any part of Spooks, which is/are the property of Kudos Entertainment and the BBC.<br />
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<br />
To anyone that is still left, this will probably be unnecessary, but just in case: <i>Spooks</i> follows the adventures of the team of British spies that work under Harry Pearce in Section D of MI-5. These folks include field agents that inject themselves into deeply disturbing and dangerous threats to the British people and work selflessly and tirelessly to thwart them. They live, eat, breathe, and sleep spy services. Most of them are somewhat flawed characters and all of them deserve deep respect for the kind of danger they are willing to accept in service of the free world. Harry is at the center of the force, providing a sometimes clear, sometimes cold and always nuanced vision for how to keep terrorism at bay. The staff that works for him may not always agree with him, and may at times get angry or irritated, but they always do his bidding. In addition to the field agents, a small cache of researchers, techies, and random support individuals populate the "grid," the control center where Harry has his office. Ruth is not an original character. She enters the team in its second year ("series" in England, "season" in America. I will try to stick with "season" here, so that I can refer to the show in its entirety as a "Series"). She transfers over on temporary assignment from GCHQ -- the branch of government primarily involved in tracking communications -- and quickly becomes ensconced in Section D. She fits in with the group and brings an earnest and highly intellectual 'Everyman' energy to it. She is not naive : ) but is most likely to be horrified when things are horrible; she is affected by the human costs of their missions.<br />
<br />
When she meets Harry, she catches his attention, maybe attraction, early on. For her part, at first, she seems to find Harry a bit off-putting, certainly formidable, and is perhaps more drawn to Tom, the team's first section chief. Soon, though, we see her start to admire Harry and get sucked in to his power aura. The early seasons did not have any coordinated plan for the two to be digging on each other, but the fine actors who play these roles (Peter Firth and Nicola Walker) had great chemistry and, according to all accounts, played up their spark any chance they got. The writers seized on the attraction and developed the story. Thus in the early days, the Harry/Ruth ("HR") relationship feels a bit chaotic as odd bursts of interest are followed by distinct indifference.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiES9FCsqXme4aUxJ9v44jz0zKE-NPcjZx2yLJyVAki6VGtuWXtWlQonwWJWJypDhYTRMr-ePJMqm9DebA4lCH_jXvIgPQ8I-PXmNtPt-w9-Wmwjbz1Q9pdei1iA1PmsgChVyz1rx8jg7IR/s1600/i+need+you.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiES9FCsqXme4aUxJ9v44jz0zKE-NPcjZx2yLJyVAki6VGtuWXtWlQonwWJWJypDhYTRMr-ePJMqm9DebA4lCH_jXvIgPQ8I-PXmNtPt-w9-Wmwjbz1Q9pdei1iA1PmsgChVyz1rx8jg7IR/s320/i+need+you.png" width="320" /></a>By the end of season 3, however, I think we can identify a deeper confidential working-relationship taking hold. By episode 3.9 when Harry asks for her help with an interview, we see that Ruth may have supplanted the other team members in being Harry's chief confidant. We feel that she is crushing on him a bit too and maybe that he doesn't really see it, or isn't that interested (such as when she tells him in 3.9 that he paces, "but only in a good way"... or in 4.6 when he asks her to "close the door" and she exudes willingness with the word: "Harry," but obvious disappointment when he only wants a file. There is no doubt, by the time of Danny's funeral (4.1), that there is some <i>personal</i> closeness as well as<i> professional</i>, yet, really no sense that they have any extracurricular time together. We plow along happily with closeness emerging and then fading and it is all pretty nice -- and of course drawn out, given that this is TV.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxEcyteUwGLmXgdWwoE47o8oHgF6zLvdtsKF7pKVhw0MRyuigqcDzVTymTf6zzndFTlO-rfrdfs3WIXfVZo' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
It is not until episode 4.9 that a misstep occurs and it is not until the final moments of this great "bus-scene" episode when it happens. Let's step in at that episode: Harry has been dismissed from his position due to having made an ostensibly bad choice to allow a man to walk despite the Americans wanting him extradited. We experience Harry in a light we don't often see -- a softer light. We see what his life might have looked like had he been just an ordinary middle-aged man: walking the dog, watching tv, visiting the corner store. Of course there is more going on under that surface, but the tone and his attitude in the episode are decidedly human/personal/non-supervisory.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFuJkIbaWpagJTHw6up9bq6JN7Ca0vUCjyBHPUIcfHyaZLHQ395s5IIQdRPFTVvURabmKZyNlZfg7Hr4CzWVsIH5VR-rI5-Xk_gjQWMbtLjxhIGk_NrNQGL4TO9nQYu9AyjFejvXds1IeK/s1600/bus+scene.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFuJkIbaWpagJTHw6up9bq6JN7Ca0vUCjyBHPUIcfHyaZLHQ395s5IIQdRPFTVvURabmKZyNlZfg7Hr4CzWVsIH5VR-rI5-Xk_gjQWMbtLjxhIGk_NrNQGL4TO9nQYu9AyjFejvXds1IeK/s320/bus+scene.png" width="320" /></a>
<br />
Midway through the show, when Ruth is riding home on the bus, we are treated to a dream-like diversion. Nothing but soft red tail-lights illuminate her lovely face, and the gentle jostling of the bus gives movement to the scene while she reads a novel. Harry slides quietly in behind her, wearing casual clothes, and they enjoy a civilian moment. Ruth wants to know how he knew she'd be there, and Harry admits to having seen her waiting for a bus once in the rain after work. He drove on by that night, he tells her, and is now both ashamed and full of regret for not having stopped. The viewer gladly basks in the image of a soaking wet Ruth in his car that past night, and can enjoy imagining what, exactly, he regrets not having done. Whether he considered then, (or is considering, now) propositioning her, he could not have used the word "regret" in such a way -- soft voice, romantic setting, on a night where they find themselves un-encumbered by employee/boss constraints -- without understanding it's force. He goes a bit beyond desire and into the world of hinting. (And anyone who's ever wrestled with the question: 'does he like me?', knows the importance of such a hint .) Yes, Harry backs off quickly and brings up a co-worker. (And yes, that abrupt change splashes water on the moment. She had been letting her arm linger over the back of the bus seat while handing him a memory card and her body language was quite welcoming. His bringing up work caused her to shrink. So, closeness is explored, work interjects, closeness is shattered.<br />
<br />
It's a good story and I don't blame the writers for not taking things further on this night. I love the bus scene and have no problem with its ebb/flow nature. But the show's ending missed the boat, er, the bus -, by shifting the tone too decidedly back to business as usual without Harry owning his actions and acknowledging the forward progress made. Just a tiny bit would have done. True, neither of the characters is "emotionally forthright", but they are not stupid. A soft and ambiguous line was, if not crossed, at least stepped on. So let's do this: <i>when Harry enters the dark grid at the end of his exile and spots Ruth sitting alone welcoming him back with a warm smile, he swallows hard, then slowly </i><i>walks up to her. </i><i>He gives her a momentary gaze, perhaps just a tiny diversion toward her mouth. Of course Peter Firth is up to the challenge of conveying regret that things aren't different, overwhelming contentment at being back in his job, and hesitancy about re-approaching her in such a personal manner as he had on the bus, given his re-installment. We don't need much more than that and then he can deliver his line about getting up to speed with the files, but do it to her face with more self-consciousness. Ruth truly doesn't expect more, and Nicola Walker's performance can stay essentially the same: a minuscule cocking of her head and a tiny lean forward, then a teasing reminder of their last encounter, saying she'll take the last bus. It just gets to Harry a bit more; he can be seen processing the tet-a-tet on the bus, squaring shoulders, and choosing work.</i><br />
<br />
At this part of the Series, Ruth's interest in Harry has now become palpable. She is in utter awe about this guy's job and his ability to do it. She doesn't approve of everything he does or fawn over him, but she has a profound reaction to his power and importance. (If you are the kind of woman who understands what I mean here, well, ... you understand what I mean.) Yes, she sees him as flawed and even irritating, and yes she desires him, but her main goal is to support him and she is just glad she gets to be in the umbra. She is, this night, probably highly available were he to reach out, but she doesn't expect it and probably isn't all that troubled when he doesn't. But she's not a machine. Her feelings <i>have</i> been engaged and then discarded and she feels it.<br />
<br />
The next episode, 4.10, is wonderful for them and can remain unchanged. Ruth has a certain cache of power because she has brought an intense crises under control (the one where Angela, a former spook has held them all hostage). Maybe Ruth's increased power turns him on? because Harry lets loose on her after he praises her work and she responds with sarcasm. He grabs her arm and pushes her against a wall, saying "you think I'm a limited man; you think I don't understand the emotional side." He is, ironically, inches from her face while declaring that "self-control, self-denial" are the things that keep him together -- getting as passionate with Ruth as he is ever allowed to do in the Series. Yet the message <i>is</i> chilling. Regardless of any regrets he may have in being emotionally unavailable to her, he means to stay in control of himself.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxSjkuNsP_zt9nhwyt-b7TpfKGaR7of956ASTb3Y3ZvxkPwQufB-Unf7xya3q0y3PzSQS8ZY9Qo_oS_s8VOSg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
That being the last episode of the season, when we come back, we are glad to see HR still looking close and companionable (for instance sitting neatly together on the couch after Colin's death (5.1). But the most important moment comes when Juliet probes the nature of their relationship by asking: "are you in love with Ruth, Harry?" When he doesn't answer, she tells him: "well, she's in love with you." The attraction is starting to feel obvious and natural to the other characters that populate the grid, so we shouldn't be surprised that Harry takes the next step, and asks Ruth out on a date, right? Wrong! That next step is an extraordinary break with what we had a right to expect.<br />
<br />
I can't -- I won't -- fault anything about the dinner invitation in 5.3 -- a truly perfect moment in TV. But, if we're being scrupulously honest here, it doesn't make sense for him to go from a passionate denial of the human side in 4.10, to a friendly, matter-of-course, dinner invite just a couple episodes later, with no apparent compunction for job entanglements or the need to stay emotionally pure that was his driving force just a moment ago. For this decision to have Truth we have to consider what changed. I think that when Juliet suggests to Harry that Ruth is "in love" with him, it acts on him in a powerful way. Their prior encounters -- the flirty bus scene and the passionate limited man scene -- point more toward feelings that are carnal in nature and, thus, of a character that a disciplined man like Harry can resist as inappropriate. He certainly has willpower to spare and can stay away from a dalliance if needed.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimTSFdqaRBhqMSWGYksRmn9pQ8YkkGFk0A-PK0PgC8hc1scIyyEUcBrV90IVJTVYhwkVXROpHLHfKzZlWkGQwExb8DtF2Sh0xZAIOPLQLsfPQakX12PKC9yLJqZEEqg-ffYagbTMSScZM9/s1600/diner+invite.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimTSFdqaRBhqMSWGYksRmn9pQ8YkkGFk0A-PK0PgC8hc1scIyyEUcBrV90IVJTVYhwkVXROpHLHfKzZlWkGQwExb8DtF2Sh0xZAIOPLQLsfPQakX12PKC9yLJqZEEqg-ffYagbTMSScZM9/s320/diner+invite.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
But now, well, now, it's been spoken of, out loud, in terms of "love." And that begins to change things. <i>Do I 'love' Ruth?</i> He wonders. The idea carries more force. And I guess that proves to be enough of a compelling notion to give him license to find out -- to explore his own sensations as well as enjoy those that Juliet tells him Ruth has. (While this explanation makes sense and may be the only one that does, it doesn't take place on screen at all, even subtly. I would have preferred to be treated to some fine acting from Firth that might lead us along through this maturation maze. But, lets just say that, stated or not, between 4.10 and 5.3, Harry has found feelings that won't be repressed, and despite his ?better judgement? plans to act on them even if it compromises the self-denial that keeps him together.<br />
<br />
The actual dinner date is somewhat stilted and awkward, fairly chaste. I never loved it very much, but on watching it again this week, am starting to find that it does have the right mix of interest, nerves, and self-awareness that would be appropriate on any first date, particularly one where the two already know each other extremely well. <i>Of course I'd have been suited by more emotion -- a move toward each other's hands, more breathing, more nervousness (along the lines of Ruth's fiddling with the tablecloth); or I'd have loved seeing them exiting the restaurant, maybe with Harry's hand on the small of her back or a door to a car being held open, anything that might put the viewer in mind of what else they might have done that night ... drinks? .... a walk along the river? ... lets help fantasy take free rein. </i><br />
<br />
As tempting as it would be to consummate the relationship after their date (on screen or implied), I don't think they do. Harry would not have pressed for it and Ruth is feeling too shy. They were willing to try this date, but the hesitancies that initially held Harry back are still in the subtext.<br />
<br />
Later on in this episode when she learns that others in the office know and are talking about their date, Ruth closes off and tells Harry she can't see him again because it "undermines" him and she "can't be talked about like that." Harry objects, but she persists. Its an odd mix of things that keep her at bay and I'm not sure it makes sense for someone as analytically astute as Ruth -- and as fine-tuned to personal relationships (for instance, I recall a scene in 3.5 where Ruth alone seems aware of how Danny's interest in Zoe would affect a mission) -- to have not previously considered that their small team of co-workers would be aware of their closeness. I think we can assume that a 'reasonable Ruth' would have known that others were aware of their attraction, and I think we can also assume that a 'reasonable Ruth' would have been fine with it, even enjoyed it a bit. In prior episodes, she is happy to assert her right to superior knowledge of Harry (for instance, in 4.9, reserving to herself the belief that she knows what Harry would do). It is a bit too strained a plot device for her to now be <i>sooo</i> concerned about what her office mates think, that she would refuse to see a man she is nuts about. Still, because we are building to a big finish, and soon, I can let this go without too much worry. But I do think the viewer has a right to our long-standing interpretation of Ruth and it goes like this: she is very interested in people, astute and highly aware of inter-office relationships; she has an almost proprietary belief that she is Harry's number 1; she has a huge crush on him and may love him; she is not used to doing things that indulge her own personal and prurient interests so, I'm sorry, she needs to get laid. This mix of things gave her no pause in accepting a dinner invite from Harry and looking like she enjoyed it a lot. And those deep feelings shouldn't go away when she finds herself embarrassed by others' talking of their date; a new thin layer of worry just forms on top of them.<br />
<br />
Being very clear about Ruth's "real" motives matters because it leads us to another change. In the following episode (5.4) when the team is conducting intensive operations at the Havensworth Hotel, Ruth doesn't behave the way a woman with such feelings would. I like the way this episode begins, with some awkwardness and emotional distance as Harry makes it clear that he's booked her "her own" room. But the scene later -- as sexy as it is -- could be more true to Ruth's real character and interests if she didn't dis him so decidedly. What happens as filmed, is that they each come out of their rooms late at night due to loud music from another guest, and encounter each other in the hallway. Harry advances looking rumpled and saying "looks like you weren't sleeping at all; nor was I". He is extremely appealing here, getting closer and closer to her. Ruth is not an automaton; the thin layer of fear and embarrassment that holds her back, sits atop a deep passionate crush that has been stewing for a while. So the fact that she is in a hotel room, alone, and he is in another room, alone, is a lot to resist. Ruth may be strong, and she may have motivation not to sleep with him tonight, but she has no motivation to freeze him out. The hotel scene, as filmed, is heart-wrenching, but it's not quite right.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX4eatkRSudWcT00PhHrTBi90skWFYWxNKrbAEhhjtPN9b-5a50ONxjeAB0LFWEXwVY0wmNqwLHKKeMa_KIcXlF6fMVlL_deuS2-Im2jl_uESUN7oVlltaUKfOQ6I5WEaR6mN1jSveL8HV/s1600/hotel+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX4eatkRSudWcT00PhHrTBi90skWFYWxNKrbAEhhjtPN9b-5a50ONxjeAB0LFWEXwVY0wmNqwLHKKeMa_KIcXlF6fMVlL_deuS2-Im2jl_uESUN7oVlltaUKfOQ6I5WEaR6mN1jSveL8HV/s200/hotel+1.jpg" width="200" /></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh86S4DwR6l42XPnAX6W_LmKspx0p08mqIf8eQGjwiriWhoEN02UQxNnZk8gw6CSUulOIJDn_tmb0RPSwAXT0tVbPtPYoJCBDyvR9YBlhkjF8lrUr2DqZoNwTLkuNRiOAbZEdDWHNii-p9b/s1600/hotel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh86S4DwR6l42XPnAX6W_LmKspx0p08mqIf8eQGjwiriWhoEN02UQxNnZk8gw6CSUulOIJDn_tmb0RPSwAXT0tVbPtPYoJCBDyvR9YBlhkjF8lrUr2DqZoNwTLkuNRiOAbZEdDWHNii-p9b/s200/hotel.jpg" width="200" /></a>I have given a lot of thought as to when the two of them should first get, er, physical. And this moment in the hotel is a top contender. It is extremely convenient and desirable. But, ultimately, I guess that's why it fails. It would make them too human, too subject to regular people failings to go at it just because they could... And it wouldn't work with Ruth's recently expressed fears, given that Malcolm, at that moment, has them both under surveillance. Maybe she is justified for returning to her room solitarily. But, first, we have to allow the hotel hallway scene a bit more payoff for each of them. <i>So, as Harry approaches her, looking rumpled, and sexy, Ruth stops in her tracks and allows herself a moment to drink him in; for her eyes to travel to his open shirt, for a reasonable breath, if not quite a sigh, to slip out. Give Nicola Walker that little bit more chance to convey with her eyes that she wants him desperately. Maybe they both lean in a bit or start to raise a hand, maybe they hold each other's gaze for a bit; certainly they linger in the hallway a bit longer. So instead of only frustration this night, these two get frustration plus a heaping dose of "almost." </i> (I do have to say that Nicola Walker's performance here as given is poignant and almost supplies what the writers didn't do). <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIzv_fP6tip_SUc6N2h5VO675jSZFvqnSHUk_gBSE5hwtWLIAgac60B3ihAJ5V9l06zXuBYiuWSI1iL9GI3WdBHml5RkWcepAvd8mbbSkqty6taEfbjCgi3znlf9yneblgq1LTpZAEiTz8/s1600/12065778-Scales-of-justice-and-gavel--Stock-Photo-balance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIzv_fP6tip_SUc6N2h5VO675jSZFvqnSHUk_gBSE5hwtWLIAgac60B3ihAJ5V9l06zXuBYiuWSI1iL9GI3WdBHml5RkWcepAvd8mbbSkqty6taEfbjCgi3znlf9yneblgq1LTpZAEiTz8/s200/12065778-Scales-of-justice-and-gavel--Stock-Photo-balance.jpg" width="200" /></a>Sorry, I have to digress again. It occurs to me that this is the right place to bring up the ethics of an employee/boss relationship while we talk about what is holding Ruth back. (That is, bring it up in order to dismiss it.) I do not want to speak to real-world rules, but to the constraints of the <i>Spooks</i> world as I understand them. First of all, Harry and Ruth <i>are</i> in unequal power positions, with Harry as her supervisor, but that does not necessarily make a pairing <i>de facto</i> unethical. Whether such a relationship would be harassment would turn in part on whether it was welcome. Since both Ruth and Harry desire the relationship, lets say any advances are welcome. Weighing in its favor also is the fact that Juliet, who holds a Cabinet position and seems to have some direct authority over Harry, approves of him asking Ruth out, specifically telling him not to let the opportunity pass him by. We have to assume that Juliet would be versed in institutional dating policy (and as an ex-lover, is <i>not</i> predisposed toward generous interpretations as apply to HR). So, if she thinks that this one is OK, it probably is. Also, as far as office mores go, we know that other pairings (Fiona and Adam) and crushes (Danny for Zoe) have been outwardly known and accepted. We have no significant legal/ethical/cultural impediment holding them back.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, back to our story. Truth be told, as much as I want them to get down to business in the hotel, it was the right choice not to at the time, for no other reason than it set the stage for a wonderful resolution in the next episode. It is only in hindsight that the Havensworth Hotel scene is so frustrating! Because there is so much chemistry and sex-appeal in this scene, it is horrifying to realize this is literally the only time the writers will give the two of them a real opportunity to make love. But don't worry, we'll fix it. They <i>will</i> get another chance.<br />
<br />
To sum up ... up till now, with just a few minor tweaks, the show is getting things right with a capital R for HR and is pregnant with potential for our leads ... if also pregnant with actual pregnancy for our leading actress, who will soon be leaving us. Obviously the writers knew this was coming and had to work out a plan for Ruth's departure -- and that's what we get in the very next episode.<br />
<br />
There are a few decisions in this relationship that the Series got unequivocally right. One is the perfect way Ruth got to exit out at the end of 5.5 -- heroic, open-ended, subject to options, fully explanatory of a need for absence while leaving the door ever so slightly ajar. And another was to bring Ruth back in such a way that a great deal of difficult ground would have to be traversed before any kind of resolution could be attempted. The opening to season 8 was simply brilliant at allowing for such purpose, showcasing the tremendous emotive potential of these two actors, and giving Ruth and Harry a place to build from personally while they became colleagues again.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwDoTEmXkl_qxyuZr7W6U3oH-YByKcAdza7fxAb7oW0RpWmVhNafaVh1gKQVURQO0SpsB6G-fK_HLOVPV4AFA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRgHtXzB5MU4tlPjdmXa44GXwJKWm2G-x1NCfJdL_jLDiEPHb9rjh8EX3lB_grvmV_i5buw9q2zdN-tdLtKwbp0e74T-ZTP22qyPMlVmaYjdD2G4s3ijdhWK9OaAs2Pn14ojjTwvgc4Zib/s1600/kiss.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRgHtXzB5MU4tlPjdmXa44GXwJKWm2G-x1NCfJdL_jLDiEPHb9rjh8EX3lB_grvmV_i5buw9q2zdN-tdLtKwbp0e74T-ZTP22qyPMlVmaYjdD2G4s3ijdhWK9OaAs2Pn14ojjTwvgc4Zib/s320/kiss.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
But just for fun, a quick recap of 5.5 in which, through a very complicated set of facts Ruth, then Harry, and then Ruth again, are fingered for a death and some intrigue that they did not cause. They each attempt to take a fall for the other, and the team desperately tries to come up with a solution that will allow Harry to stay in control of the grid during a sketchy power-grab. Ruth comes up with that scheme but it unfortunately involves the faking of her own death after taking the rap for the murder. Her professed reason is because Harry is essential in his job and he has to be kept there, but the intelligent viewer <i>must</i> frame this as the clear product of deep and unadulterated love for Harry. It is a huge sacrifice. She is giving up her life in England and will go deep underground assuming a new identity, so that he can keep working. The episode contains many love-proving moments from both of them and culminates in a passionate kiss.<br />
<br />
<br />
Sadly, the show goes on without Ruth for a couple of seasons and and we never really hear another thing about her. That is until . . .<br />
<br />
Fast forward to the 8th season of <i>Spooks,</i> when, under horrific circumstances, Ruth re-enters London. We find out in the course of episode 8.1 that she has been living in Italy and has a family: a man and his son. Her simple concerns are a straightforward clerical job, swimming, as well as enjoying the sun and delicious food. But she knows she is really never free from her past, because one day, when bad guys with an agenda come for her, she is ready. She flees with her husband and the child and goes back to London to get protection and information. What she finds there is that Harry has gone missing, has been kidnapped, and is in grave danger -- as is Ruth. It turns out that they are the only ones who know the location of a stash of weapons-grade uranium for making dirty bombs; the baddies want it and will stop at nothing to get it, including killing her husband and nearly killing the boy.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivD36Gtd1u6L2fjU8qC1ay44q_LvVZ9AE5mu5WkuhilJHuvkx2qKFDeGPEgPpmhP5QH9-IgnD1QRL3GxiXCbO5pMVWmY04xlrxXNyTxyRjhdf40Dtir4L0BvAPBEOHMdA09zlLluC8jNSm/s1600/i%2527m+trying.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivD36Gtd1u6L2fjU8qC1ay44q_LvVZ9AE5mu5WkuhilJHuvkx2qKFDeGPEgPpmhP5QH9-IgnD1QRL3GxiXCbO5pMVWmY04xlrxXNyTxyRjhdf40Dtir4L0BvAPBEOHMdA09zlLluC8jNSm/s320/i%2527m+trying.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
This, as I mentioned, was done astonishingly well. What a great way to orchestrate a return that allowed these two once-passionate friends a reunion that is horribly sour and painful. As the first few episodes of season 8 play out, we have Ruth angry and grieving at the death of her partner, which is easy to pin on Harry as, in her mind, he might have prevented it; her outrage that she gave up everything the last time we saw her, and, now, is without the life she managed to carve out underground. Jo helps her see that it wasn't really Harry's fault and that he did the best he could under "intolerable pressure" and Harry himself attempts to make amends.<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxc9PtB73tCrGVz87QYFSInhBNBXULDepCqfl0EQ3EBjfFDLjp9UiS51U2HLrYLajbk18Ydi2A0tp5cOVJuBA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwU4BmD28F39Q-1-1Obf8q1hLCSJBJW8Bsbn2ifTj_XEOyXlsypnBRow4r5xhfQhinU18DlOyF73zY-KuOuXQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
The handling of these emotions is perfect. It is only when the show tries to slip too easily back into its former style with them that things feel awkward. (Such as the exchange on her first day back: "I'm going to need you today, Ruth"/"Damn well hope so"). The transition back to the team <i>has</i> to be difficult when she is rusty and grieving. Because the Series is best when it allows Ruth to be a nuanced everywoman, she's in a perfect position to fill that role after her lengthy absence. A wonderful example -- and one of the best scenes in any <i>Spooks</i> episode -- comes in 8.7 when she is troubled by risking a young civilian's life. One by one, her teammates turn from her, unable to accept her position, and Harry, seeing her disturbed state, walks up. She says: "it's nothing; I'd forgotten what it's like here. People are just chess pieces." "It's not nothing, Ruth; and I'm glad you're here to remind us of that. To remind me," replies Harry softly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxItqsqpk0YthRB5dFmOQYSF1t1fn-qyG_hHe7AXFYs0FCqYbWNnQevtvbKL4KQrgbdD6moCqvtFcg95mEhyg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Their most poignant readjustment moment may be 8.4's park bench chat where Harry tells her "there'll always be something else, Ruth." Through these scenes, we see that despite distance (time and space) and now hurt and tragedy, there is a core of deep feeling between the two that has endured. Season 8 does a lot right with respect to Harry and Ruth. One notable exception comes when Ruth invites Harry out for a drink and Tariq pops in with a new crises at that very moment. (8.6). This is just the kind of roadblock I hate, because it is cheap and it serves no purpose other than audience frustration. There is no real reason to deny them this bit of forward momentum and every reason to allow it. I'm not sure I need to describe an alternate scene because it would have been so easy to just let them go, but how about: <i>when Harry says "yes, I think I do, Ruth," he gets up, puts on his jacket, walks slowly behind her, with a hand placed gently on her arm. Their heads tilt in, continuing to discuss work, but as he leads the way out, the conversation shifts to personal: their cats? A movie, song, travel destination? maybe we never learn. It is essential that they start to 'be' together a bit out of the office; and this is now a potentially imagination-rewarding moment for the patient fan. </i><br />
<br />
Allowing the drink to go forward respects the relationship-building that took place many years ago in seasons 4 and 5. It respects that they may not be a couple now but they are close. And best of all, she initiated it. Her doing so clears him of a bit of his guilt and we feel that they are moving in a single direction. It matters mostly because history allows us to know that Harry will propose any minute now (in 9.1). As much as I love his proposal, if some form of forward progress does not happen right now, it becomes absurdly old-fashioned for him to do this when they have not had sex, a kiss or even dated in several seasons.<br />
<br />
I guess this brings up an important point about to what extent HR have relationship activities that are not part of what we see on screen. I think we can assume they do -- if for no other reason then the backstory that emerges about a mission in Baghdad in episode 8.1 and comments made by Amish Mani, their captor, speculating about the nature of their relationship there. I don't believe that the Baghdad mission was ever mentioned before, nor were HR seen traveling together (in flashback or real time); so this is a reference to something the viewer was not a part of. But I do not think they logically could have been physically involved on that speculative mission, because it would have had to have taken place before episode 5.5 (the last time they saw each other) and the kiss in 5.5 is obviously a first kiss for them. By the way, I also note that time does not pass in the show at the same rate as real life "seasons" do. (For instance, just before their kiss, Harry tells Ruth that he should have told her something "years ago...;" but the length of their screen time to that point is only about 3 seasons and he didn't start liking her until the last couple.) Thus, while we can understand that what is seen on-screen may be only part of the story, I think solid principles of tv viewing demand that the viewer is owed all the major connections and turning points and, at minimum, can trust that nothing happens off-screen that would contradict what <i>we</i> experience.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_R3KSCScS2OuHBWSF4NpaXJm-CbRklCCeq8MAWOHMB7L3fSXB60jXc7_1_UWwQ7eTfD1Vl5OUrH2sEGkGn_nbxrb8M5Os9uamNsulh9ObM3cofaoQzzsqEMLx-tcFRIGiEwFJMReG1kjR/s1600/the+right+call.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_R3KSCScS2OuHBWSF4NpaXJm-CbRklCCeq8MAWOHMB7L3fSXB60jXc7_1_UWwQ7eTfD1Vl5OUrH2sEGkGn_nbxrb8M5Os9uamNsulh9ObM3cofaoQzzsqEMLx-tcFRIGiEwFJMReG1kjR/s200/the+right+call.jpg" width="200" /></a>So I am sure that HR did not have a sexual relationship <i>prior</i> to 8.1, and <i>since</i> that time, could only have had one if the viewer was not privy to it. Because the most we see on camera are gentle gazes, and light hand/arm/finger touches that are treated by the camera as moments of particular impact, I'm sticking with the idea that they are a celibate "couple" when he proposes. For Harry's sake, I'd like to believe he had some recent relationship cues that let him believe she would be receptive to marriage.... Or, heck, even just to going out with him ;) before baring his soul. But then, the show really starts to stumble with season 9 -- straining credulity both in terms of what Harry is doing proposing and what Ruth is talking about when she rejects him. To the extent that the actions of one of them make sense, the other one's don't. We have to walk a fine line to match season 9 with character truths, but I think I can just manage it.<br />
<br />
So on to the proposal.... What got recorded in the episode is Harry moving in after Ros' funeral and whispering that he wants something more in life - for himself, for Ruth. He wants her to marry him. For his proposal to make sense, we should grant that the two were getting warmer and closer; that Ruth was making advances of her own (the drink invite, the light tender touching) and expressing plenty of warmth. Harry's proposal makes sense because, as always seems to happen to him when his team members or friends die, he starts to take stock of his life. A funeral is a fitting time and place for <i>him</i> to be thinking 'big picture' and to be 'needing' Ruth. But Ruth won't have him. She criticizes his timing, saying "timing is everything" and rejects him saying that in "years gone by" there have been literally thousands of times he could have asked and she would have said yes "always," but concludes that "now, after the choices you've ... (her voice trailing off); I can't, Harry." She seems pretty adamant about rejecting him outright -- contrasting what she would have done in the past with what she must do now. But her position doesn't make sense. What choices did he make? Which times would she have said "yes"? When did she get to a point where she wouldn't even entertain the idea of being with him? The last we saw her, she was on a rooftop touching his arm tenderly; if he'd asked then, would that have done the trick? If not, when? What on earth did he do to her during the summer hiatus?<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcAaUwyzNfla_Uf8Tnr9UIKRqSEbl6cl5iaW2E3Uuw21ibGn1sOSd9cEArXKXXgP85036mNEkSX3Epz3kbzngh7TCZyRdVTHrTGx9YOO6mqpEjNsM6QLVSX4AY-JMYefvRk1b-h1qUHAiG/s1600/all+men+are+brothers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcAaUwyzNfla_Uf8Tnr9UIKRqSEbl6cl5iaW2E3Uuw21ibGn1sOSd9cEArXKXXgP85036mNEkSX3Epz3kbzngh7TCZyRdVTHrTGx9YOO6mqpEjNsM6QLVSX4AY-JMYefvRk1b-h1qUHAiG/s320/all+men+are+brothers.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
Prior to this moment, we have no reason to think Ruth is <i>actively</i> bearing ill will about things that happened since her return. She was on a clear trajectory of healing and forgiveness, and the two of them becoming closer and closer, though we assume she hasn't forgotten about George, that she still mourns and feels confused about being back on the grid. Had this proposal come in episode 8.3 when emotions were raw after George's death, her criticism of Harry's "decisions" might fit, but now, in 9.1, these words make no sense. Let me be clear. It's fine for her to put him off and not say "yes," right here and now, but her speech is all wrong. I think we can walk a fine line between a proposal response that allows Ruth to have some sensuality and passion -- some deep feeling for Harry (which we know she has) -- but still say "no" -- still hurt him enough to force them each to grow a bit before they can be together.<br />
<br />
So let's change that now...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyJgZ4OBls54G1qVgEpuD-K6wwzLDGSA6Req99UEgO6heQ58I8efPmI2K2VPJZv77UCtPE02Arx8MA2A5GBw6pB9_csLU4Kr61QNA4SkLtj8EKgy4PBzluItPG6mH23aR5krmAIGN8aQMk/s1600/proposal+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyJgZ4OBls54G1qVgEpuD-K6wwzLDGSA6Req99UEgO6heQ58I8efPmI2K2VPJZv77UCtPE02Arx8MA2A5GBw6pB9_csLU4Kr61QNA4SkLtj8EKgy4PBzluItPG6mH23aR5krmAIGN8aQMk/s320/proposal+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhenOBObt7_eTGRF8VO_BxtbRsTHC-Tqte2s4ZgmdNw6PPtWHpHtIC-HGWs3krxnCAvpFkM91WTSIzGven_ufyWQjF4M4Lur3E3PtZa3G0f8yO1iQfHRucBM-oVIoy1D4BPsv07F1xSSvJU/s1600/proposal+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhenOBObt7_eTGRF8VO_BxtbRsTHC-Tqte2s4ZgmdNw6PPtWHpHtIC-HGWs3krxnCAvpFkM91WTSIzGven_ufyWQjF4M4Lur3E3PtZa3G0f8yO1iQfHRucBM-oVIoy1D4BPsv07F1xSSvJU/s320/proposal+2.jpg" width="320" /></a><i>The funeral has concluded and Harry suggests a "turn around the grounds." They set off together, walking slowly until they come to a fence post. Harry has a gentle touch on Ruth's arm to lead her to this spot. They stop for just a moment before he begins to lean in close, breathing in the smell of her hair, so close to her ear he barely needs to whisper it: "marry me Ruth." His speech is earnest, delivered from his heart; she couldn't be more surprised by the declaration and finds herself unable to speak for a moment while he goes on. He doesn't take his face away from her ear. He's breathing hard and she is powerfully reminded of their kiss all those years ago. Worlds ago. Her mind is reeling under the sound of his breath. She can feel his lips so near her cheek, so inviting. On instinct alone, she turns her head almost imperceptibly, bringing his mouth to her cheek; she can hardly help inclining toward it and they begin to kiss. Slow, intense, burning overwhelming. Almost nothing can get through to her head while she falls into this moment. For a moment. But slowly, a 'no' inside her brain keeps trying to form. 'What is he doing? This is all wrong' she thinks. As many times as she imagined his form next to hers, recalled their goodbye kiss and imagined what ifs, she didn't ever expect this today. Today is about Ros. Ros' parents standing just there by the church. 'How can I think straight?' And Harry's hand pressing the small of her back, she imagines that he is beginning to move it and feels both electrified and repulsed by the idea. 'No' continues to swirl, gradually building up to a force, she pulls away long enough to steady herself. "Harry." But, he isn't understanding; too caught up in his own emotions, reaching for more of hers: "I need you Ruth". "Harry" ('you must look at me', she thinks) and she wills him to see her.... When he does, he shrinks back. Ruth's face is not what he'd expected, not one of passion, but one of pain and resolve. "Harry... I can't." Her hand is picking up his and placing it off her body. "I can't think about this. Harry, we're at a funeral." She can hardly bring her self to say it, he's looking stunned. Isn't that always the way. While she never expected him to notice her, or to love her, and was always amazed whenever it seemed he did, he always expected her to be there for him, only surprised when she wasn't. The thought strengthened her resolve in the same way that the hot breath on her cheek had diminished it. She became a little irritated; this is about him; his need. He doesn't know -</i><i> he wants escape, just a crazy idea of what marriage would be.... 'God, he's sexy' </i><i>comes the thought from the pit of her stomach </i><i>as he stands there looking stricken. "You don't ... even know what marriage is", she says dully. But as soon as she says it, she regrets it because he looks like he's been punched. He thinks she's comparing him to George, a real man. But she isn't thinking about George at all. She's thinking about the grid.; 'he knows only his own wishes' she thinks, but says only "I can't, Harry. It doesn't make sense." She tears her gaze from his and walks off toward the church shaking. It's not until later she remembers she needs to tell him about the Home Secretary. Dear God; how will she face him. She squares her shoulders and walks over to show him the file. They will get past this. Though right now, heaven knows how.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Oh yeah. That's much better :)<br />
<br />
Yes, and the nice thing is that it gives us, the viewers, another moment of passion to treasure! and yet preserves the complexity of rejection for Harry/irritation for Ruth -- misunderstanding and hurt that can fuel the HR drama for the rest of season 9. Although we'd need some adjustments in the details - softening of some expressions - I think we can keep the basic plan of working out some pain and confusion on the path to a complete understanding. In order to win Ruth, which is really all Harry wants now (I mean, that and the peace and stability of the free world), Harry must actually <i>deserve</i> her. Not just want her. He must want what is best for her, regardless of what is best for him. Ruth, for her part, needs some growth too. She can't decide to be with Harry, or anyone else, until she figures out whether she misses what she had in Italy or really belongs in the world of spies, and whether belonging to the world of spies means that she can't have love.<br />
<br />
Later in the proposal episode (9.1), when Ruth joins Harry on the rooftop, she makes some headway on this fundamental issue by clarifying the reason she said "no." And this time her reason -- though still ill-advised -- is in-line with character traits we can flesh out for a Ruth that makes sense. She says that it would be a lie for them to live tucked away peacefully in a cottage in Sussex; that they couldn't acknowledge and live with everything they know and they've done. That "they couldn't be more together than they already are." In saying so, she lets us know that she has a very limited idea of what a marriage must be... but we can also view it as the words of someone who is declaring herself to be fully integrated into the spy life -- immersed in secrecy, intrigue and danger. And we know this fits, not just because of what she says on the roof here, but also because throughout the rest of season 9 she acts very much as if she believes it. For instance, she echoes it in her explanation to Lucas of why she'd rejected Harry's proposal (9.8), telling him that they'd seen and done too much and couldn't begin to "unpick it," and by her speech in 9.7 where she makes it clear that she really is, "fine" and ready to return to work after a very traumatic episode. We also know it is true because she actually <i>had</i> that idyllic sort of life with George -- "simple and elegant" -- but when Harry asked her if she loved him, she'd hedged (8.1). And we cant help but notice that Ruth, throughout the remainder of the Series, makes no attempt to visit Nico, her stepson. He is a fragment from a life that isn't hers anymore. Though that life was taken away against her will, she makes no attempt to build a similar one in England. The reason? She doesn't really want it.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dytFigIiba6R2hD73tf59tmEDhnyBe3thZ4ZJ2VO8S-SDVPhUjkgfV-EI36N-5Dlj6susoE9WeMu2e3kAPDAQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Lets, then, accept that a "true Ruth" is a "spy Ruth." She belongs in this world. The mistake she is making, the character flaw she exhibits, is not in her embracing this choice of lifestyle, but in her imagining that doing so means she can't have love. Her mistake is in thinking that the fact that she doesn't want to live a kind of suburban/retired life means she can't live with Harry. Its absurd because we know that she knows that Adam and Fiona, for instance, were happily married, adding great joy to their short lives, and they lived every bit the grid-centric spooks life that Harry and Ruth do. Ruth has blinders on. It must be a willful sort of blindness, because she's not stupid. She doesn't want to see the path that is so easy. This is where her final character growth is going to come in.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
I have an explanation for why Ruth would do this to herself when someone like Fiona, for instance, or Zoe, would not. Ruth is denying herself a full personal life while on the grid, because she somehow believes it would make her soft and that she has to be above it. This may be so because she came in as an outsider, not a trained spy, from a research/office background in GCHQ. She does not enjoy the presumption of having ice-water in her veins that, say, Ros, Connie or Fiona do. Even though Harry and the other teammates treat her with respect, and Harry views her as a born spook, she may have an inferiority complex that makes her desperate not to be handled with kid gloves, coddled or protected. Harry, to his own great later detriment, fueled this perception by making speeches in earlier seasons (when Ruth was still so impressionable), about how there are no friends in this line of work (4.8) and that self-denial is necessary (4.10). Ruth has to be made to see that getting to love Harry doesn't make her weak. That being "married" doesn't necessarily entail such a thin, predictable course. Through the events I describe, she will come to see that she is not being coddled, that Harry loves her enough to sacrifice his career for her safety, and that this kind of love is worth living for.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dw7Rt72jyXG8agH4SH4oJradTJqgywPVqwE7ac35-op6WI45a2yiq3pgIjRI70HEBIsCSXN3_cpmpg98O4a-w' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
I hate to say this -- because it has plenty of other problems with respect to character and continuity (see <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/07/lusas-north-character-that-pamela-ewing.html" target="_blank">my post on Lucas North</a>) -- but season 9, by the last episode, actually provides a really nice tool for doing all of this. It gives Harry a chance to once and for all prove his love as a selfless act, while finally allowing her to see his adoration as a good thing. <br />
<br />
Up to that point, our leads are at cross-purposes, Harry thinking Ruth blames him for letting George die and also thinking she's upset that he is protecting Lucas, who is turning rogue, in a way that he would have failed to protect her (letting her die too if it had come to it). In fact, just the opposite is true -- she thinks Harry shouldn't be protecting her, or Lucas, or any other agents, because she sees this reality as the cruel nature of their job: that you can't be close, have love or real protection.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
When we get to that last episode of season 9, everything has come to a head. Lucas has gone crazy; we have all learned that he is actually an impostor and holds secrets of such magnitude that he is susceptible to blackmail by an old acquaintance named Vaughn; Vaughn is in league with Chinese agents to procure a weapons plan known as "Albany" and together they use Lucas to get it from Harry. Lucas kidnaps Ruth, because he knows she is Harry's Achilles Heel, and the extortion works. Harry <i>does</i> procure Albany and give it to Lucas to save Ruth's life. But Ruth, when she comes to, is not pleased. She feels that Harry had no business making such an exchange to secure her release -- because Albany is not just a weapons blueprint, it is a plan for an abysmally horrible genetic weapon that could be used to target and kill certain ethnic groups. So, Ruth, instead of feeling grateful, feels angry because he should have let her die rather than let this happen, that she is not more important than all the other agents who had died in the line of duty and it was wrong of him to love her -- it was her turn. At the very end of the episode, a distraught Lucas threatens to detonate a bomb unless Harry meets him on the rooftop. Harry goes to what he (and Ruth) believe will be Harry's certain death, but he tells her "it's my turn,"and she lets him go. There is one last shocking reveal when Harry gets there: he tells Lucas that the Albany plan doesn't work; it never did. Lucas realizes "it was all for nothing" and, distraught, forces Harry to turn around, away from him. "If you're going to shoot me, shoot me now," Harry breathes, but Lucas, instead, ends his own life by jumping off the roof. And back on the grid we watch Ruth's reaction to the news.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmtDQ_EXeX7VmuJhbDUmSSWPj1f7XpXwEVCoC_PLXtPMOZjHdNHaGr6EDAfPG52S2cNPAS9biia9MlehxyjFjdmEJqeonCowx1jPDJbjaieAvoz4giaHHPANQFBvNMA3pjZGqphC7BOeF_/s1600/reaction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmtDQ_EXeX7VmuJhbDUmSSWPj1f7XpXwEVCoC_PLXtPMOZjHdNHaGr6EDAfPG52S2cNPAS9biia9MlehxyjFjdmEJqeonCowx1jPDJbjaieAvoz4giaHHPANQFBvNMA3pjZGqphC7BOeF_/s200/reaction.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
This revelation (still unknown to anyone else) matters so much because it is a way for Harry to prove his love for Ruth without actually having to value her life more highly than the millions of other lives that would be at risk if the weapon were real. And that's good. Because Harry loving her that much would not make Ruth love him more. Instead, Harry got to give up something that might. Just. Something far more personal: his stability in his career. Because there is no way Harry should come away unblemished from this act. He will be responsible for great political and diplomatic fallout due to the knowledge he gave up - because everyone who knew of it believed it to be a dangerous blueprint for a sociopathic genetic weapon and that belief was itself a poker chip keeping various world power struggles in check. Harry will (in my universe anyway) experience significant pressure, disgrace, and discipline for this. But in his relationship, he has done something precious -- the equivalent to what Ruth did for him in 5.5 -- taking a huge personal fall to save the other. Once Ruth is made aware of Harry's powerful act, she will be moved.</div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
However, . . . before I get to my more perfect union . . . I have to take a moment to quarrel with season 10 and all the ways in which it failed to provide continuity and closure. I am aware that many consider season 10 to be excellent; and I am willing to concede that, viewed in a narrow light, it is an interesting and powerful sequence of shows. I will even go so far as to admit that <i>I</i> liked much of season 10 while I still remained in doubt about the way they would resolve these important characters. It wasn't until they didn't resolve them that I felt so terribly cheated. Kind of like when I was discussing the hotel scene (5.4) and suggested that it only became a problem once you realized that this was their last and best opportunity to be together, and they would never get another. Squandered. (There are a lot of things season 10 did not do right -- so many that I really don't want to even go there. Plus I already did <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/12/spooks-ending-real-life-fail.html" target="_blank">"go there" in another post, here</a> if you want to read it.)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitR782LRhV936l5ForInRiv2AVtvFMrjjEcKAXOpxx1l4u3WPcYxB4XuM2N3Ks8_N162Gib-_99J2rgzUhODsbPIkeqOQBIRsQGeeBvf4vJsuFFaTCwlHrXYBra1EBeQ0zLgOGO_WEGCkF/s1600/the-remains-of-the-day.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitR782LRhV936l5ForInRiv2AVtvFMrjjEcKAXOpxx1l4u3WPcYxB4XuM2N3Ks8_N162Gib-_99J2rgzUhODsbPIkeqOQBIRsQGeeBvf4vJsuFFaTCwlHrXYBra1EBeQ0zLgOGO_WEGCkF/s200/the-remains-of-the-day.jpg" width="200" /></a>I guess this as good a time as any to mention that not only did Harry and Ruth never achieve any romantic satisfaction in season 10, as filmed, but they actually killed her off at the end of the last episode. Now, I am not stupid enough to have failed to contemplate that Harry or Ruth or both might be axed at the end of the Series. Please understand that it is not so much her death, as the cheap and pointless way it unfolded that bothers me, and mostly, the fact that the show failed to provide truth and resolution for the couple, especially Ruth. A <i>Spooks</i> show doesn't have to have a happy ending and a <i>Spooks</i> character need not live a happy life, but I absolutely wanted a "satisfying" ending. A character as important as Ruth should have been given a life purpose and then either be allowed to progress in accord with it, or to tragically fight against it. Season 10 didn't do either of these things right. To illustrate, a perfect example of a "satisfying" though highly frustrating romance comes from <i>The Remains of the Day</i>. In the novel, and its faithful screen adaption, there is a similar feel of stilted, almost-romance between head butler, Stevens, and the housekeeper, Miss Kenton. In the screen adaptation, Stevens and Miss Kenton have incredible chemistry that is frustrating because it results in no physical relationship. And, sadly, by the end of the story, nothing physical ever gets to happen for these two. It's heart-breaking -- yet, still, I find it a satisfying story because it is artistically true to a vision that makes sense. Stevens is a tragically flawed man who denies himself a real-life passion and purpose due to a misguided sense of loyalty to a master and a way of life that don't really deserve it, and that serves no one's interests. Stevens' motivations are time- and place-specific; they make sense because they are tied to a powerful commentary on the system of servitude and its decline. There is no similar systematic denial of personal/carnal happiness for agents in <i>Spooks,</i> as many of them enjoy recreational and loving relationships. Even if you argue that Ruth<i> was</i> working on this type of character arc in season 9, season 10 took it away from her and muddied her story by changing her motivations and then killing her, just because it could.<br />
<br />
Here's how <i>Spooks</i> dismantled this, its best, story in its last season: for starters, the dramatic impact of the Albany file and the momentum gained by Harry's act of passion at the end of Season 9 was lost; the revelation was packed away, Harry given a slap on the wrist, and the show taken quickly in an entirely different direction, as a woman from Harry's past was introduced to incite jealousy. Ruth was then given alternate motivations of feeling cut out of decisions and stressed about where her career is going, then forced to make the unwarranted decision to quit the grid and start working on the Home Secretary's staff. These choices -- career angst and jealousy -- are wrong for Ruth. They are weak stories people tend to throw at women when they don't understand them. Ruth's motivation is not jealousy. Not that I don't think Ruth would feel jealousy, but because it has not entered into any part of her character's actions before now. Ruth knows Harry has a past. She knows he's a lot older and has been in the spy biz a long time. She knows he slept with Juliet, for instance, and we never get the slightest hint that she cared about it. Plus Ruth has the trump card, absolute unequivocal knowledge that Harry treasures and adores her, already in her pocket -- in the form of his actions in handing over the Albany secret. She's mad because he loves her <i>too much</i>, not worried that he likes someone better. Sadly, that's not all; season 10 also introduces a storyline of Ruth buying a house away from the city and the spy world in order to live a settled kind of life, placing her square at odds with the development that had been making so much sense for us. Of course the single worst thing the Series did was to then kill Ruth off without ever giving her and Harry real resolution, real love scenes. They were artificially held in limbo for years and then denied consummation.<br />
<br />
And now we get to an idea that I didn't really want to bring up as to why on earth the creative minds behind <i>Spooks</i> would have done such a thing (denied them passionate resolution), especially when as a Series it has a long history of allowing other agents to have sex lives. (For example: Zoe got a sexy photographer boyfriend with whom she (amazingly) was allowed to go underground and live; Tom had at least two sexual relationships; Danny got to sleep with Harry's daughter for heaven's sake!; Adam and Fiona had an actual marriage and Lucas had at least two passionate affairs.) Why not Harry and Ruth who had matchless chemistry? My unhappy idea is that<i> Spooks</i> may have been acting age-ist. There I said it. When the show entered its 10th season, I believe that the actors who play Harry and Ruth were about 57 and 40 years old, respectively. Is it possible they were viewed as too old to be sexy? I hate to accuse <i>Spooks</i> of this, but if the shoe fits....<br />
<div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDlJgMSdQ1NFGD_Fny0D0SWcaTYG7SpKys5z3ePAI75LiNFp9ldWYoqTlsi_wInHh7KK7kUbwnOT93dbS59ypJj3WXWY7VygHQXXz4P_fOxetaCaj2WAn1p3NOW9peLqcRrI34CNbcA7yI/s1600/josh+and+donna.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDlJgMSdQ1NFGD_Fny0D0SWcaTYG7SpKys5z3ePAI75LiNFp9ldWYoqTlsi_wInHh7KK7kUbwnOT93dbS59ypJj3WXWY7VygHQXXz4P_fOxetaCaj2WAn1p3NOW9peLqcRrI34CNbcA7yI/s200/josh+and+donna.png" width="200" /></a>This may not be a perfect correlate, but in terms of a similar, work-related, flirtatious and sexually charged relationship that dragged on un-consummated for years, consider Josh and Donna on the <i>West Wing</i>. Obviously, a very different show with an entirely different production team, but really with a key relationship that bears some striking parallels. Unlike <i>Spooks</i>, the <i>West Wing</i> did things right at the end for Josh and Donna, giving them the ability to express years of pent up passion in some wonderful scenes. Now, why would a couple like JD get to express their physical attraction before a long-running show draws to a close, while HR are relegated to one last fairly chaste kiss and some loving looks? I hate to say this out loud but I think it's possible that it's because Donna was younger, blonder, thinner, and looked fantastic in a push-up bra. Please understand I personally think Ruth is gorgeous and many of the viewers of <i>Spooks</i> would agree with me. And I find Harry very sexy, though realize he might not be to everyone's taste :) But whether or not they are gorgeous enough to get naked on screen isn't really my point; their passion deserved more of a physical expression committed to film -- clothes on, mouths shut, I don't care. But they needed to kiss from a place of desire. I expect the denial of older people's passion to occur on American tv, but I expected more from British. So shame on you <i>Spooks'</i> writers -- whether you are agist or just oblivious. You missed an opportunity.<br />
<br />
<br />
So here, finally, is what "really" happens after Lucas jumps off the roof:</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<i>Harry enters the grid distraught and sits down in his office. He pours a drink and buries his face in his hand. 'Lucas!' he thinks 'why wouldn't you let me help you'. Overwhelmed with his inability to turn this around - loved him like a son - 'Can't save him - ... any of them... -God, Ros... his shining star; she gave everything she had; never really got to live. Sighing, he pictures Ruth. Stubborn precious heartbreaking Ruth. He feels as miserable as he's ever felt, and taking his head out of his hand for a moment, he looks up and actually sees that Ruth is standing there at his door.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>He immediately recalls that the last time they were in in this office together she'd expressed anger with him for saving her life; mad that he'd treated her differently. What was he supposed to do! He looks at her now with a mixture of anguish and fear -- it must be the right combination, because she walks in and sits down. Damn. She never sits. 'I didn't even know I had a chair in here,' he thinks. In a dull voice she intones "Lucas. I can't believe he killed himself", and swallows hard. She had cared for him too. For a split second Harry wonders if she wishes it had been him instead. He searches her eyes for a glimmer of the care and kindness he always used to find there. But Ruth is impassive. She is remembering earlier conversations too: how cruel she'd been about Harry's attempt to fix things for Lucas. Yes, she was right, but how she wished she'd been wrong. And just when her heart is on the verge of softening toward Harry, she remembers with a terrible pang what he'd just given to the Chinese. Harry senses the shift and starts: "I have to explain something Ruth. It didn't work. -- the plan; the blueprint. It never did. It was worthless." She turns, confused, unbelieving. The words descend on her and she begins to process them. She is on her feet now pacing and confused "You-... what" Shaking her head. "No one else is in danger, Ruth" he says kindly, but on the verge of tears. Each word in its own breath, Ruth continues trying to process this overwhelming idea: "But - you knew? . . . you gave them? . . . worthless. That was a lie too? Everything you said . . . you told us we had to prevent it at any cost. And now Lucas --! oh Harry." Her face is inscrutable. 'Damn her sometimes!', he thinks. . . 'Doesn't she understand everything he has to juggle? How could he just let her die when it was so easy to give Lucas what he wanted.' Now Harry's on his feet too; he is roused; he wants to rage at her for being so hard to understand and so hard to win, but, instead, he crumples; pours another drink, downs it in one and walks to the corner of the room away from her. 'And now she's upset because I let Lucas die; before she was angry that I protected him!' Harry's mind is in torment. 'I can't do it all; can't make it all right.' </i><i>He expects her to just leave. He thinks "if you're going to leave me, just do it now.' But for the second time today, with his back turned against a horrible expectation, the opposite happens: instead of her leaving him, he feels her approach.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Harry," she says softly, looking at him with both confusion and some tenderness; she touches his shoulder, turns him around to face her and stands in front of him with her hands now on both his shoulders, squeezing him gently. The feeling of relief is profound. And after a moment of standing still together experiencing the same grief and loss they had felt a thousand times over the years, but this time together, he looks at her face and hazards with almost a smile: " you forgive me then?" It takes her aback . . . . "For saving my life? . . . " she almost smiles, and as bizarre as it sounds, she isn't sure. "Yes, well...." He bravely continues "Ruth I'd . . . do anything to make it ok ... for you,... for Lucas, he swallows a lump, Ros, Jo --" "But give up Albany?" she still can't quite see the full impact. "Ruth," he says slowly, "Albany was a red herring." </i><i>"Right" she nods, stepping away from him now. She hesitates. Something doesn't seem right. Harry still looks like he's been punched and she's sure she should feel better, but her thoughts are twisted, and Dimitri is standing at the door, so she walks away.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>[Insert some random Spooks spy plot details for a bit... ]</i>
<i><br /></i><br />
<br />
<i>A new scene opens to the sound of persistent knocking. We hear a rustling of bed covers as we discern Harry getting to his feet and shuffling toward a door. In a moment we see him in dim light wearing a rumpled robe while Ruth walks straight in to his entryway. She's thought it through. "Harry" she's tensely fiddling with her jacket. "Albany". "Ruth I told you, it's not a real threat." 'Why can't this woman drop it for god's sake.' "But Harry! Listen to me. What happens when the Chinese figure that out?" "Ruth, it's 1:00 in the morning." "Harry answer me" she says in a calm and knowing voice. 'Ah, she's there,' he thinks . . . "Well they'll be angry" he says slowly. "Harry, have you talked to the Home Secretary?" She is in damage-control mode. He gives no reply. "He'll want to figure this out," she says more insistently. But Harry is looking resigned and slowly shaking his head. "Harry, no, what are you saying. Harry, your job? - you're - I -". Her outrage is starting to work like balm; he starts to feel warm and a bit aroused with her here in his house and, apparently, feeling protective of him --something he wasn't sure he'd ever get to feel again. She manages to pull a few details out of him: he'll face an inquiry; it will be a miracle if he comes through unscathed; with each communication, she becomes more agitated and distressed. Her understanding is a tonic for him though and he grows visibly more relaxed as she takes it up -- the full force of him giving up his career - for her - . She looks at him with wonder, confusion, And slowly drops her purse on the floor, keys and phone splattering out. She steps toward him and in a very soft voice says "Harry, I don't understand. I can't believe you-- sacrif..." "He was going to kill you" is Harry's simple answer, his face full of one truth: adoration. It is irresistible to Ruth as she reaches out to touch that cheek, she just wants to pet him, to make him ok. Her hand reaches for his hair. "I couldn't let him kill you Ruth" he almost apologizes it while she strokes his face and they start to kiss, softly, at first, then insistently. "Harry, your career." 'A career is nothing to this feeling' he's thinking as her hands continue to stroke his face and he becomes very aware of the fact he is in just a bathrobe. He knows there is only one place for this to go if she stays another moment. Tearing himself away, he stops kissing her long enough to breathe. "Ruth, you'd better leave now." Her steady gaze is lowered as she says: "I'm not leaving." He breathes in, hungrily searching for her eyes, for confirmation, the dull blue light of the appliances casting an etherial glow about them both. He can hardly believe the moment is here. And now its his turn to take control. He reaches out to pull her coat off but the best he can do is shove it to the floor where it comes to rest next to the purse, while he seizes her and begins kissing her hard on the mouth, the full weight of years of frustration pressing her into the wall underneath him.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Your imagination can take it from here. But Harry is right, there is only one place this can go; and that's where it goes now.<br />
<br />
<br />
And now, with Harry and Ruth, I too have done. I am going to put them to bed, both literally and figuratively. Let them live together in whatever fashion they chose and let this new closure give them peace.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM_GwTrAZREbjd7emtMs4PBdGnxARxlvyhUh0isKVC8O-Vf8Zj9YSUuL-XUSEZezrsiyrFGkm7ohWZwKhb5S7ysOIbricU5bTf4uM0T56La_aIGxapNLi2td18Cc_sWDd8aZwaI-DzgSlz/s1600/nicola+peter.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM_GwTrAZREbjd7emtMs4PBdGnxARxlvyhUh0isKVC8O-Vf8Zj9YSUuL-XUSEZezrsiyrFGkm7ohWZwKhb5S7ysOIbricU5bTf4uM0T56La_aIGxapNLi2td18Cc_sWDd8aZwaI-DzgSlz/s320/nicola+peter.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-15527589241674266762016-01-15T09:44:00.000-07:002016-01-15T09:44:44.372-07:00What a Week<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcj7Ic8_PIHYMxMgrYST8XeNrQnA7EkYi6_0JCxWIdwbAcKqNUgru8tHpC3z0VK7ULW3jreZaShkQSVydo9mqoioIAmXnvM7AWZYu6tPQTnb4ockISuIS3ghxN5e6g0b5dQKtsYzATjvkY/s1600/alan+rickman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcj7Ic8_PIHYMxMgrYST8XeNrQnA7EkYi6_0JCxWIdwbAcKqNUgru8tHpC3z0VK7ULW3jreZaShkQSVydo9mqoioIAmXnvM7AWZYu6tPQTnb4ockISuIS3ghxN5e6g0b5dQKtsYzATjvkY/s1600/alan+rickman.jpg" style="cursor: move;" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpcBO6QvctaC7NjqByjnY2OeP5m6-2eJ1_afcOCOmaRQExHteEN8XbmeSwxtftXG5yK-CnRofY6RANcJoWTWH4bBdKJRIisnFDqiWPlA8_DyrM9kT1I6j8ieWhN13Pp7w4jxMkFCQiTD-t/s1600/alan-rickman+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpcBO6QvctaC7NjqByjnY2OeP5m6-2eJ1_afcOCOmaRQExHteEN8XbmeSwxtftXG5yK-CnRofY6RANcJoWTWH4bBdKJRIisnFDqiWPlA8_DyrM9kT1I6j8ieWhN13Pp7w4jxMkFCQiTD-t/s320/alan-rickman+2.jpg" width="320" /></a>I will add my small voice to the thousands of others paying tribute to Alan Rickman this week.<br />
<br />
<br />
He was an actor of profound talent, who inspired millions with his performances and will be sorely missed. <br />
<br />
<br />
Among his many other fine performances, I have particularly cherished him as the sexy and flawed Harry in <i>Love Actually, </i> as one of Jane Austen's most appealing leading men, Colonel Brandon, in <i>Sense and Sensibilty</i>, as the deliciously evil Sherif of Nottingham in <i>Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves</i>, and of course, as a magnificent and heart-rending Professor Snape in the <i>Harry Potter</i> films. But I realize that I have barely scratched the surface of his great catalog of performances. Up next for me will be <i>A Little Chaos</i>, his recent directorial effort that by many accounts was underrated and excellent, <i>Close My Eyes,</i> from 1991, which looks to be a squeemishingly interesting tale of incest, <i>Truly Madly Deeply</i>, a romantic fantasy that seems perfect for me and which I am not quite sure how I missed seeing before! and probably <i>Galaxy Quest</i>, haha - which I haven't seen in years and have a feeling I'll enjoy a lot right now.<br />
<br />
I am grateful for the talent this man graced our earth with, for a short time.<br />
<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-38484220716404368952015-08-04T21:37:00.000-07:002015-09-13T22:25:10.078-07:00Top Ten Harry Ruth Moments of all Time<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I'm back on the grid.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
With the Spooks I mean. It happened gradually and begrudgingly, but Harry and Ruth have stolen back my heart. I'm not even quite sure how I let them in. But 'in' they are. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Have you ever fallen in love with something odd? I mean, ... I have. I've fallen in love mostly I guess with living male humans that I know personally, . . . but when you stop to think of it, I'm not really limited to that. I've fallen head over heels for, well. . . books. . . long-dead movie actors . . . even buildings. So maybe it shouldn't be all that surprising that I now appear to be in love with a fictional television couple. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So much so, that I have been willing to re-watch all the "Harry and Ruth"-centric episodes of the show I thought I would stay mad at forever. Don't get me wrong, I am still quite angry at MI-5 (Spooks) and how it squandered its many gifts in its final seasons. In particular, how it took an incredibly compelling gem of a storyline that was handed to them on a platter by the charismatic charm of two amazing actors, and sucked the spark right out of it. I am still disturbed with the creative team's unsatisfying vision for how to do passion. In fact, the more I think about it -- and as well as they did violence -- Spooks visionaries had a major disability when it came to the ways of the heart. I can think of very few even marginally satisfying romances over the run of that show hmmm . . . I think I feel a future post coming on. But in the meantime...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
the point of this post is not to bitch, but rather . . . to love. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And though their romance may have been ultimately punishing to the viewer because it took place on an intense spy drama, there are still so many high points to cherish. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So in that light, I present to you the Top Ten Harry Pearce and Ruth Evershed moments of all time: Scenes from the pairing that deserve an adoring airing. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>[The clips here are all, obviously, not my own, but the property of the BBC and Spooks, for whose indulgence I would be grateful, as I extracted them for personal and illustrative purposes only and no commercial intent.] Oh, yes, and I suppose, just as obviously, watching these clips and reading my comments will SPOIL your viewing of this show. Please stop here if you don't want SPOILERS!</i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
10. "I'm fine." What a perfect description of personality this scene provides. You get Ruth's classic sarcasm along with her humanitarian moral understanding. She is PERFECT here and Harry almost mute, powerless to help or explain, but just standing there in rumpled clothes in which he has probably stayed, by her bedside all night. He can only listen to and love her. 9.7</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzer6B_2B4G_EgdP-buqmeyyArjk5s6HqFonNwCwIAdpM8jv8b5ps_TKxLWJ_-Ms_vYHM3qzRLe1BhQgui6Nw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
9. "You have to give a man a chance, Ruth." And here is Harry's counter point. His personality - headstrong, powerful, vulnerable and in love - is on full display and his deeper meaning is bitingly clear in this plea for her understanding. 9.3</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxSBwbpVGSdh5dov-O4LHrc7IVGBCe72ntcK5-SbrhG2iEDkIShmjUYlcv2xlcsWpwXlyjhW1lbw9Lph_z45g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
8. "I'm trying, with all my limitations" Their reunion moment that cuts to the heart. Unlike the episode that aired just prior to this one, where they have re-met after time apart, but under horrific circumstances that have left them hardly able to speak to each other, here they attempt it. It doesn't go well. Oddly, I love that. I love Ruth's bite and bitter sadness and Harry's abject inability to be or do anything she needs. Heart wrenching. 8.2</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxm8Wrt8YZxA0_fw2-dFRpPeaPFotjz7p0ROK-Sm4JStto7HXBsP5mIRPwDLEfCph_sfPGzAG02Np88ac7lfQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
7. "Hotel music." OK, this one is just plain sexy. I can't watch it without wondering what the hell she is thinking walking away from this man? Harry is extremely appealing here, but she won't have any of that. A frustrating moment . . . for both of them, as she makes clear later in the episode when she almost calls him as he sits drinking alone. 5.4</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxnVfzGndDZ4Bev9PgtbTIBRQ6C4EPdTfaX0f7CxdY0ySSVYmy5MmbnhObYvNSFeV5cxAlsK74M6aSvc2xtLQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
6. "Bus Scene." A beautifully filmed moment that is so warm and inviting. They get to act like people here away from the office and (somewhat) away from work. In the episode from which this comes, Harry has been temporarily removed from his position and the team is closing ranks to clear him. We see Ruth as someone who would be very amenable to any overture he might make. But he is too stupid to pursue it now; and Ruth is so beautiful in this light, it's hard to imagine what's keeping him from seeing it. . . . leaving the viewer to wonder exactly what he "regrets" having not done. 4.9</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyYcItQsbQjWXDS-4SD5bBdd3h5R7biqcLaVoIYK0nUi0JbalWzdZWMjJMZXGjz_kBK5UOmqPylAgDCrx8EWw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
5. "The proposal." I love the proposal, though Ruth does not. Just like the hotel scene, #7, above, Harry in hot pursuit is something she must have a mind of steel to resist. I could not. He gets deep into her personal space, breathing her in and whispering "marry me". Her excuse is hard to fathom and in some ways this marks the start of the series' writers' departure from a relationship that could have made sense, but I still love and treasure this moment of intense desire on the part of Harry and only wish the writes had had enough sense to let her say 'yes' . . . . or at least to let her sleep with him as consolation ;) 9.1</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxS9_z7WLs6x18WxGzvgutGPX5RHkj0UWs5lbAP6t3pVfONLr9jmhtmaM1VvKwTnS-_0cNyxGqMM56pLHqvXw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
4. Some may find it odd that I count such a moment among their best, but I find it powerful and telling. This scene takes place in the episode after the famous 'bus scene' in which Ruth has clearly hoped for a bit more personal contact from Harry than he is able to give. It excels by way of explanation. He is passionate. He does want her (as is obvious from the way he pushes her to the wall and gets in her face) but Harry lives in a perpetual state of self-denial. This may be their most carnal moment. And I dig it. Episode 4.10</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dydRor3hNIu3MgZBjv4sDWfb95NPSxn9SZrqcPdkiJDN0lBnwDoZOxhYLV-woSayy68_oZhMRfz830VwBWCnQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
3. "Would you like to have dinner?" When Harry first makes a romantic overture to Ruth, he does it in quintessential Harry style with weird timing, bravado mixed with self-effacing charm and an appeal to her superior information. This scene showcases their mutual attraction, nerves and excitement. Its charming from start to finish -- especially his face as she walks away -- and better than the actual dinner that follows. Episode 5.3</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dySD3dofurcy5Xo-0Or5s_-xno9sjeSlEv3cxD4NrEdco1yIKnzW5HvezSkAVZ8b4pmzW38Pv5xy01xosQd' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
2. "You can tell Adam." I LOVE this scene which includes not just the lovestruck dazed gaze of our completely absorbed leads, but some of the best dialog and delivery in any Spooks episode. Beyond endearing and absolutely sexy. Episode 5.5<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dywWL75sm6n1RRf2PMpv6pMB1sdr6ReXccOYjHNiYI6HZTK1eiTCMIwTFOQ1kTKtiXgLGB_QEC1HmTkK34_lw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
1. "The Kiss." Need I say more. This moment is not just Harry and Ruth gold, it is Spooks gold, having made it onto the "top 10 Spooks moments" countdown voted on by cast and crew, according to dvd special features for season 10. Special indeed. This goodbye captures their love and their passion, their spirits and their story almost perfectly. It is beautiful, sexy and heartbreaking. (In a good way...unlike other moments I have no interest in including in my list.) Episode 5.5<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyEX5vhqqB472FJl0ucL2JbdKJKdiGddGV5vXaKGBV7Zdzh_IDCUcFkh8xeWIrasL3tlC11H8tVnIRWKBMqLg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you don't agree with my choices, pipe up! I'd love to hear what you would add to the list. I myself have another dozen or so clips I'd have loved to include, but just as in Spooks, hard choices are necessary and we don't always get what we want. To get more of what you want though, you might check out my <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/08/ultimate-spooks-lovers-harry-and-ruth.html" target="_blank">exhaustive list of all the special Harry & Ruth Episodes.</a><br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-10015549779323911702015-07-10T22:58:00.000-07:002017-05-18T21:22:40.967-07:00One to Ponder: Picard or Pearce?I know I would like to make it so . . . And I'd be interested in hearing from anyone else on this matter. For romantic purposes, who would you pick: Jean-Luc Picard or Harry Pearce? I have been pondering this one all day and have been pleasantly, ahem, engaged.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media/images/200508/stewart02-2/320x240.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.startrek.com/legacy_media/images/200508/stewart02-2/320x240.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Here's the easy part. Both of em. Yum.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g291/Thingstoremember/HarryatConniespng-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g291/Thingstoremember/HarryatConniespng-1.jpg" height="275" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
To fully appreciate the dilemma maybe you have to be someone who admires 50-something men. As I fit square in the center of that group, I am up to the challenge. For the uninitiated reader, let me just briefly state that Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, is captain on the flagship of the futuristic planetary federation's space fleet in <i>Star Trek The Next Generation</i> which aired on American TV from 1987 through 1994.<br />
<br />
[And because there are so many people who are (extremely) so, I always feel compelled to announce that I am not a "real" trekkie and you simply must not hold me accountable for my failings to properly appreciate and index all the dimensions of that universe. What I will lay claim to is being a deep appreciator of Captain Picard. And who that knew him wouldn't be?]<br />
<br />
Anyway. . . to continue with the background . . . on the other side of the ring is Pearce, played by Peter Firth, the fictional head of British Security Services in the powerful television program <i>Spooks</i> from 2002 through 2011, (as well as in a recent feature film based on the series. Oh yes, I guess, then, that I should also mention that Picard was a film character as well. . . bla bla bla.)<br />
<br />
The point is: both characters are extremely sexy, and neither got nearly enough of the opportunity for romantic encounter that they deserved in their shows. . . . One must use imagination to fully develop ideas about a romantic partnering with either of these men . . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, excuse me. You're still here? Well, yes, um, lets get back to it.<br />
<br />
I guess we can start with the things Picard and Pearce have in common, beyond that they both start with 'P'. Both are played by men of roughly the same age (at the time of their respective series'). While Stewart, born in 1940, may be currently approaching old age, Captain Picard will be forever preserved at the height of his sex appeal and charm as fit, bald and 50-something, a powerful and intellectual captain. Meanwhile Firth, a dozen years younger than Stewart in real life, is likewise ensconced in our hearts as 50ish Harry Pearce at the peak of his pouty, intense, and slightly rogue powers.<br />
<br />
Both men are extraordinary leaders -- men who make you feel safe despite outrageous danger. On the down side, both are fundamentally married to their jobs. Which probably explains why neither got to have enough love affairs, although both did get to dabble in an almost-romance with a deeply appreciated and cared-for coworker; in each case, they remain single and alone -- probably in better position to do the difficult work the world needs done. And speaking of that: both tend to be a magnet for evil dudes and kidnappers (think Borg; think Russian spies) who want to change the way of the world our heroes are seeking to preserve. Both leaders are intense and enigmatic. Both have b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l voices and both are played by amazingly talented British actors.<br />
<br />
Wait. Isn't it time for another picture or two? <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmAp6sVuCYTPDrOaQ79PiP92gslv4xVLDKyBZLuGORq92t02fBpJsdUaQX2UWQVYy4NzqogSRI2FCIg-KrrD8PzBplyAZwcr2-nQFLa1yMBKtGeSwpEJCNkxXVZuxNuRADChnbvzK9_cMF/s1600/a1c531770ea7ec4dcb5c3cd5d6f10c6bc34b25df.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmAp6sVuCYTPDrOaQ79PiP92gslv4xVLDKyBZLuGORq92t02fBpJsdUaQX2UWQVYy4NzqogSRI2FCIg-KrrD8PzBplyAZwcr2-nQFLa1yMBKtGeSwpEJCNkxXVZuxNuRADChnbvzK9_cMF/s320/a1c531770ea7ec4dcb5c3cd5d6f10c6bc34b25df.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/3/i/1/6/0/p-large/Peter--Firth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img a="" afjabksjgal="" border="0" src="http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/8/7/3/i/1/6/0/p-large/Peter--Firth.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
These men are high up in their respective worlds, brushing shoulders with the biggest decision-makers and political leaders in their spheres, but, still able to (more or less) act on their own, with independent judgement, in most of their everyday encounters. Both lead teams of highly talented people whose respect they get to enjoy at an instant and deep level. And part of what makes them so appealing is that incredible authority they wield so well, handling stress and calling the shots with total facility and masculinity.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcN2j_YeC6s0XPCybS8DtP4n4BHjx2ACGHouQV5FtS2JsTQZ2lRTOHdGl03h-hZ-A6JrCyiPZmxtyzPNhsycjkpjHIEY1rKtDBiPuSuzaaiHcUhEfPvf-nQqiktU_8hI4_gMK2gKM61OII/s1600/harry+and+ruth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcN2j_YeC6s0XPCybS8DtP4n4BHjx2ACGHouQV5FtS2JsTQZ2lRTOHdGl03h-hZ-A6JrCyiPZmxtyzPNhsycjkpjHIEY1rKtDBiPuSuzaaiHcUhEfPvf-nQqiktU_8hI4_gMK2gKM61OII/s320/harry+and+ruth.jpg" width="320" /></a>In fact, both are honestly most appealing when they are just a bit ticked off, raising their voices, barking orders and scowling - which (luckily) they do quite often! and which only makes it that much sexier when they do find an opportunity to relax, smile or speak softly, as they (luckier still) sometimes do when flirting with their attractive favorite co-worker, who, interestingly enough, and sensibly enough, in each case, is a woman who is somewhat outside the rank and file officer norm, women of their own unique position and power.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/4/4c/Crusher_and_Picard_on_the_holodeck.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120501005201&path-prefix=en" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/4/4c/Crusher_and_Picard_on_the_holodeck.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120501005201&path-prefix=en" height="240" width="320" /></a>But which would I choose? Thats the point here and that is certainly the hard part.<br />
<br />
<br />
For looks, I'd have to give the nod to Picard who is perhaps the more conventionally 'hot' guy. He is certainly more fit - and has more classically handsome movie star features. It would be easy to spend time looking at him. But, to give Pearce his due, I'd say that he has such an open warmth about his face and such an amazing mouth, that I'd just as eagerly gaze at him for a few dozen years.<br />
<br />
And actually, I think that this is what this decision would come down to. In a word, I see Picard as sharper/colder man (yes, I know that is two words) and Pearce as a warmer and more open temperament. I choose Harry.<br />
<br />
Further, I see Harry as a bit more of a renegade, doing what he wants and not always following rules and protocols. This is more exciting than a stricter/military hierarchy that the Captain almost always adheres to and demands. And for icing on the cake, it also seems that Pearce is more over-the-top in love with Ruth than Picard ever was with Beverly, or any other woman. I see this as a good sign -- of someone who is capable of truly giving his heart, soul and body to a woman - even though he may not choose to do it or live in a world where he was ever allowed to. And maybe, lastly, the 'reality' of the backdrop is a little more stark in our everyday world of real threats found in <i>Spooks</i>, than it is in a high fantasy world set hundreds of years in the future and in space to boot.<br />
<br />
Not that this game needs to have any reality about it! but sometimes a fantasy that feels more 'possible' is a fantasy that feels more worthwhile.<br />
<br />
So I choose Harry Pearce and though the decision may have little impact on the fate of the free world or the flow of space, (nor even the power to effect my continued enjoyment in re-watching <i>The Next Generation</i>), I do have to say that is feels worthwhile to have this issue resolved for good.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-27880476360409592612014-11-27T06:58:00.000-07:002014-11-27T06:58:21.449-07:00A Triple Shot of PersuasionHaving recently watched and compared all three adaptations of Jane Austen's <i>Persuasion -- </i>2007 BBC TV Movie, 1995 feature film and 1971 miniseries -- I decided it would be an excellent plan to go role-by-role and pick the best performances in each. I<a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/07/emma-cubed-four-emma-adaptations-all.html" target="_blank"> did this a few years ago with <i>Emma</i> </a>and had a lot of fun, so why not!<br />
<br />
Although I grudgingly picked the 1995 version as my 'favorite' adaptation overall, all three were a bit disappointing and failed to deliver the truly satisfying experience that an excellent adaptation can supply. While 1995 has the overall best mix of a reasonably true and accurate plot, alongside a very dashing Captain Wentworth and a smooth flowing well-executed feel -- the others aren't far behind. <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2014/10/can-i-persuade-you-which-persuasion-is.html" target="_blank">All three have some significant strengths, but some significant weaknesses as well</a>. However, exceptionally fine performances are found in all. So, I'm wondering, how will the points come out and which adaptation will come out on top if I grade the actors? Lets see! By the way, my grades are obviously based on my own subjective enjoyment of the performances and are heavily biased toward what I feel is "true" to the characters as Austen wrote them.<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Anne Elliot:</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPib1cJxQn9nDTf0ynN5qU23-6OL4_CvT5DrsnIwZpj9hilMgXkWERomNrqVLSYpx-dJn821xs7bFtxp4hSQMf5YBdFc_At9Xhk-epXPiUS1eACyIE9c-LDtNVde7O_g0GvpCbjL1F3bj/s1600/Anne+Elliot+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPib1cJxQn9nDTf0ynN5qU23-6OL4_CvT5DrsnIwZpj9hilMgXkWERomNrqVLSYpx-dJn821xs7bFtxp4hSQMf5YBdFc_At9Xhk-epXPiUS1eACyIE9c-LDtNVde7O_g0GvpCbjL1F3bj/s1600/Anne+Elliot+2007.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a>1) Sally Hawkins (2007). I love her spunky charm and deep internal life. Because the adaptation she acts in is the most distant from the book, Hawkins does not have the opportunity to really inhabit the Anne Elliot of the book as the others do. However, I think she still comes closest to the essence of what makes Anne admirable - likable, trustworthy, solid, but still engaging, and full of a rich deeper inner life -- more so than those around her have much inkling of. Austen describes Anne as having an "elegance of mind and sweetness of temper" and I think Hawkins come closest to projecting these qualities. I can almost see her thinking things to herself with a quiet amusement. In her eyes there is a spark. The viewer -- just like the characters around Anne -- can either miss it and miss out on a lot, or catch it and be rewarded. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPewTEaCc1T4wSBkOmnxUQX-PG8ZYatxihjOL0xz9RPnaO70b-wOFHGzdIQUlIYqv4b5AF2gyvtqZ1OTKU8BgWzP6zT-AryIejfZ766zsJWhaMoVSaj0Cff1ea1Nc9xn-6AHVJfWhWHym7/s1600/Anne+Elliot+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPewTEaCc1T4wSBkOmnxUQX-PG8ZYatxihjOL0xz9RPnaO70b-wOFHGzdIQUlIYqv4b5AF2gyvtqZ1OTKU8BgWzP6zT-AryIejfZ766zsJWhaMoVSaj0Cff1ea1Nc9xn-6AHVJfWhWHym7/s1600/Anne+Elliot+1995.jpg" height="200" width="124" /></a>2) Amanda Root (1995). Though she is clearly an excellent actress, Root, and the production she acts in, have a take on Anne that feels a bit too timid and mousy for my taste. I greatly appreciate Root's emotive skill and think that she has created an inspiring and memorable persona; I just don't think that persona makes the best Anne Elliot. Amanda Root would have played an excellent Fanny Price (<i>Mansfield Park</i>) had she been given that chance instead. I do find her earnestness and quietness engaging, but I want Anne to be a character of lovelier inner poise and command. Amanda Root makes Anne frumpy, though she stirs with this performance anyway. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZOS03SjK8HGmIkQjgJkGRWsr0z3KPBLRmS-YzwxkZhD5SLt8wZVDo7c5gMcDjOoQsi2aTYwhfcEGsqSGa8XmMWMMW_cXMZSnLXQUZ6q38kNG057wbK_Bb9drSCZpCCsbV7D3YpmsSpGNN/s1600/Anne+Elliot+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZOS03SjK8HGmIkQjgJkGRWsr0z3KPBLRmS-YzwxkZhD5SLt8wZVDo7c5gMcDjOoQsi2aTYwhfcEGsqSGa8XmMWMMW_cXMZSnLXQUZ6q38kNG057wbK_Bb9drSCZpCCsbV7D3YpmsSpGNN/s1600/Anne+Elliot+1971.jpg" height="200" width="139" /></a>3) Ann Firbank (1971). Maybe partly because of the earlier era and partly due to Firbank's more demure look, she nails the part in one way that the others do not: she projects the elegant qualities of a once lovely woman of high class; she speaks in a very refined and quiet way and gives an appropriate aura of subtle, though diminished, grace. However, she is a bit too stayed and settled for my taste. She never quite gets a lighter and cheerful inner depth that I believe Anne Elliot possesses. The actress is about a decade older than Anne is in the book, and that may push the edge of an appropriate age. By the end of the film Anne should be appreciably more attractive and appealing -- not just physically, but charismatically, but Firbank just never quite gets there, though she does perk up a bit. Overall this is a rather dull take on the role. B+<br />
<br />
<u>A note on the look of Anne</u>: Somehow none of these actresses 'look' like Anne to me. Austen describes her heroine as having "delicate features and mild dark eyes" and notes that she had been a "very pretty girl" but is now "faded and thin" and "haggard." Later on, when noticed at Lyme by Mr. Elliot, Austen tells us that Anne has "very regular, very pretty features" and is looking remarkably well due to the bloom and freshness of youth having been restored by the sea air and the trip having animated her. Yet both modern (1995/2007) Anne Elliots have a more earthy look and neither are 'haggard' in the beginning nor delicate, really. The 1971 version gives us a very elegant and classic beauty in the lead role, thin and lanky with strong features, but she never seems to attain that freshness of youth. All three versions admirably liven Anne up as the production goes on; in particular, the 1995 version does an excellent job of very subtly beautifying Anne so that by the end she is much more attractive than she was in the beginning. Unfortunately, they never really get her to a place of striking beauty. I'm not sure exactly what I have for Anne in my mind, but I know these three actresses aren't quite it.<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Captain Wentworth</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrq4xvoX740cmIg-EddDmOyYXAfMneBt5tPH0rgUfhiT7JCMad8BVzIJ9zgJVIltOsUW_thrRig7KGzjc3EPbcoPQa9MVL2oxy_fLZUAaT0TUS6U5XYTvo7S4_RCMfohvpenO4y4gos-F2/s1600/Wentworth+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrq4xvoX740cmIg-EddDmOyYXAfMneBt5tPH0rgUfhiT7JCMad8BVzIJ9zgJVIltOsUW_thrRig7KGzjc3EPbcoPQa9MVL2oxy_fLZUAaT0TUS6U5XYTvo7S4_RCMfohvpenO4y4gos-F2/s1600/Wentworth+1995.jpg" height="121" width="200" /></a>1) Ciaran Hinds (1995). Some people complain that Ciaran Hinds doesn't look they way they expect Wentworth to look. I suppose they are right. Oddly, while the 'look' of Anne Elliot mattered very much to me, the look of Wentworth is a non-issue. Hinds is certainly a bit too old for Amanda Root (10 years her senior, when they should have been contemporaries); but, I can forgive it. I like that this Wentworth is not gorgeous. His appeal comes from his strong and direct manner, his forceful voice and his dramatic presence. His status as a leader -- one who has been around a bit and knows what's what -- is evident. Hinds is a charismatic and sexy Wentworth who conveys the strength and vulnerability of this character. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2evhQq7wEzZEAnLAmCQW6BW4PChpXzpGYYy-1awtnSdd0bVUDvRSLAUM8LSwLe3RXVXIb5yMZLiiNbXncZd0xsBUOPsK3FmYqbfSsrmpZCjHoTOjGtqHrtvQZaQBTcYOcu1MTLPIj1EGZ/s1600/Wentworth+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2evhQq7wEzZEAnLAmCQW6BW4PChpXzpGYYy-1awtnSdd0bVUDvRSLAUM8LSwLe3RXVXIb5yMZLiiNbXncZd0xsBUOPsK3FmYqbfSsrmpZCjHoTOjGtqHrtvQZaQBTcYOcu1MTLPIj1EGZ/s1600/Wentworth+2007.jpg" height="111" width="200" /></a>2) Rupert Penry-Jones (2007) is the handsomest of the Wentworths and looks the most age-appropriate (though he is actually a bit older than Bryan Marshall was in 1971). You get the full sense of what a great catch this man would have been when Penry-Jones plays him! He is also somewhat intense, and it's great that the production he is in allows him to express and convey deep desire for Anne, along with a smoldering gallant style. I really don't have too much negative to say about him other than that he falls a bit short of the mark set by Ciaran Hinds in exuding the full range of presence and strength of the character. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie3umGXNfpbncVS38MRdayHov2t02Jq0YcD0OYYI0DkdXRJ_AtcSsTRL0s_I-hnLaOpDwIK6Od4UKr32LNOWZy1y51Z09_1a8dY7zLNyM26TTp_EZzXShlE_S23cVAjigtyIKNzk2XI_wZ/s1600/Wentworth+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie3umGXNfpbncVS38MRdayHov2t02Jq0YcD0OYYI0DkdXRJ_AtcSsTRL0s_I-hnLaOpDwIK6Od4UKr32LNOWZy1y51Z09_1a8dY7zLNyM26TTp_EZzXShlE_S23cVAjigtyIKNzk2XI_wZ/s1600/Wentworth+1971.jpg" height="200" width="185" /></a><br />
3) Bryan Marshall (1971). I hate that I am troubled by things like Ann Firbank's fluffy '70s updo or Brian Marshall's thick sideburns and helmet hair. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't. It is odd and unfortunate that the look of both our <i>leads</i> in the 1971 production is so heavily a function of their own time as to be distracting when other more minor characters in that production look fairly timeless. In any case, Marshall is good but it may take the modern viewer a bit of time to get used to his style, or to ever come round to finding him sexy. Aside from his appearance, he plays the least engaging or dynamic leading man of the three. However, he does project a warm and appealing Captain Wentworth overall and, by the end of the production, is quite attractive and so very in love with Anne as to be really sympathetic. B+<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sir Walter Elliot</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEicgyxSZ88h9n7QpObna7Sak2m6dKjxDmnperlE710KnDTll02Xf3Fa6i3DTiRFq3T6u5Batn5j3PFLCaQorgislDTAX50oupKjyvXlgF3vGemCKaGT9u69JWZu3R9rEz_pIYQzkyu138/s1600/Sir+Walter+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEicgyxSZ88h9n7QpObna7Sak2m6dKjxDmnperlE710KnDTll02Xf3Fa6i3DTiRFq3T6u5Batn5j3PFLCaQorgislDTAX50oupKjyvXlgF3vGemCKaGT9u69JWZu3R9rEz_pIYQzkyu138/s1600/Sir+Walter+2007.jpg" height="200" width="143" /></a>1. Anthony Head (2007). We are told by Jane Austen that vanity is the beginning and end of Sir Walter. He had been remarkably handsome in his youth and still a very fine man at the age of 54. Sir Walter cares very much for his station in life and for the appearance of his dignity and his fine person. For all of these reasons he is absurd, but not hilarious. Of all the Sir Walters, my favorite is Anthony Head. I would watch the 2007 version again simply to sample his performance one more time; it took time to switch gears to Anthony Head's take on the role, but once I did, I was absolutely hooked. For starters he is a physically perfect choice; he almost certainly was an extremely handsome younger man and now looks dignified and still quite attractive. Head gets the little-ness and irritability of Sir Walter just right and allows Sir Walter to lighten up considerably once in Bath and away from the pesky financial troubles that plagued him before. A+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnFPUzGyrrOEhhRGYGjR5M264tqHfxzT0YJyiE102g0oFWntYXdc_cMtZWqgthPAyX8myXD74F6FSThAhMb2snJQ49lr-nmAaJHRgjiHdbt8wBUEfaYE2VeUMkDd4cIThkaJbWfKdg3IFe/s1600/Sir+Walter+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnFPUzGyrrOEhhRGYGjR5M264tqHfxzT0YJyiE102g0oFWntYXdc_cMtZWqgthPAyX8myXD74F6FSThAhMb2snJQ49lr-nmAaJHRgjiHdbt8wBUEfaYE2VeUMkDd4cIThkaJbWfKdg3IFe/s1600/Sir+Walter+1995.jpg" height="200" width="133" /></a><br />
2. Corin Redgrave (1995) gives a very fun performance here as Sir Walter. Yet, all in all, he is a bit too flamboyant, fussy and over-the-top for my taste. He also comes across as somewhat whiney and attention-seeking, which I just don't see as an attribute of the character Austen created. Redgrave's take may diverge from Austen's, but he does creates a very distinct impression and really eats up the scenery when he's on camera. He does this with his performance as well as his costumes -- which are beyond extreme. I mean, I can't help but admire all of this, but the production's take on Sir Walter is a bit too comic to get the top spot. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj267aUWnbxYtgQYA4V9k1qTAKg_AzL2ImwsS9xHm9GjKQlk72lV9ii200uyWy1Q8m5ezdNG_wiFUTYgZzD0xonJDMebvzfkmkpOhj_Ts2JoHQP2V_gE6r2ZohhyWhXuesPzBwgMec7G8pl/s1600/Sir+Walter+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj267aUWnbxYtgQYA4V9k1qTAKg_AzL2ImwsS9xHm9GjKQlk72lV9ii200uyWy1Q8m5ezdNG_wiFUTYgZzD0xonJDMebvzfkmkpOhj_Ts2JoHQP2V_gE6r2ZohhyWhXuesPzBwgMec7G8pl/s1600/Sir+Walter+1971.jpg" height="200" width="167" /></a>3. Basil Dignam (1971). Is a good actor; I don't know much about him, but I get the impression of a typical, strong-quality, BBC character actor. I find him a bit too old (at age 65ish) for the character, and also too average looking to really stand out as the absurdly vain and attractive Sir Walter. That said, I still like the solid, even style Dignam gives to Sir Walter, with his fussy and self-absorbed ways. There is some tough competition in this field and Dignam just can't quite stand up with the others. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Lady Russell</h4>
What an odd bunch of Lady Russells! ... from kindly friend, to ice-queen, to total doormat, we cover all interpretations of the role.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifAdHTn4Z8WbxQXkNwL_baYuLCW1ujU2VUSkJ8SvDmGR2M11dtg9rVE2et0gR9TvjqeGMz1fbbi-BSfz5df6J8nlxraJlQBI-WZWne0kzNsv6ovKwEWMpzRqMbPOJaTuKz3rcu8DX0NwpS/s1600/Lady+Russell+1995.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifAdHTn4Z8WbxQXkNwL_baYuLCW1ujU2VUSkJ8SvDmGR2M11dtg9rVE2et0gR9TvjqeGMz1fbbi-BSfz5df6J8nlxraJlQBI-WZWne0kzNsv6ovKwEWMpzRqMbPOJaTuKz3rcu8DX0NwpS/s1600/Lady+Russell+1995.jpeg" height="117" width="200" /></a>1. Susan Fleetwood (1995). Lady Russell is an odd character. She has been the means of separating Anne from Wentworth before the film even begins. Thus it makes sense to think of her as meddling or overreaching. Still, the novel makes it clear that she did this out of love for Anne and because she believed that Anne deserved better. She stands in place of a mother and is the character that loves and appreciates her the most. She counsels the family and has a strong position of power. Because she addresses all of these aspects, Susan Fleetwood gives a fantastic performance; she makes Lady Russell warm(ish) and motherly, but still unfriendly toward Wentworth and somewhat bossy from time to time. She is a friend-like counselor, both motherly and proud. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSaqzqCd8dfBS8tiSsF-eytK4_xzbG8fm_jPL3WUdDJyPiX_g1h_6kw-5W_7xtOg0teStpeZjWv8ReO0nax-LJGJ5B3pvzRtFQb4y7wG3YfSKLGJCLk9dUMVFZ8MT5iJZFCcS6PPesoFTP/s1600/Lady+Russell+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSaqzqCd8dfBS8tiSsF-eytK4_xzbG8fm_jPL3WUdDJyPiX_g1h_6kw-5W_7xtOg0teStpeZjWv8ReO0nax-LJGJ5B3pvzRtFQb4y7wG3YfSKLGJCLk9dUMVFZ8MT5iJZFCcS6PPesoFTP/s1600/Lady+Russell+2007.jpg" height="200" width="159" /></a><br />
2. Alice Krige (2007) plays Lady Russell a bit too heavy on the cold and directing side, and light on the motherly counselor side. She seems pinched and unfriendly to me and also looks rather stressed out much of the time. Rather than coming across as powerful, she seems troubled and either ineffective or icy. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjadwiPfvGXW9rdfKaaneIL8kLFq3duPYVB6iiwSTrpxOfVWzjFYi20ZIQUYRvyoeZSXQO9SRkoMIcM4V86ToQgibgRZhB_VI3lwx4GYcvAM6Gco5uV-fmZ0Kd8TjePiKQqOZGgVbh_hdEW/s1600/Lady+Russell+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjadwiPfvGXW9rdfKaaneIL8kLFq3duPYVB6iiwSTrpxOfVWzjFYi20ZIQUYRvyoeZSXQO9SRkoMIcM4V86ToQgibgRZhB_VI3lwx4GYcvAM6Gco5uV-fmZ0Kd8TjePiKQqOZGgVbh_hdEW/s1600/Lady+Russell+1971.jpg" height="200" width="195" /></a>3. Marian Spencer (1971) is my least favorite by far, mostly because I find her totally forgettable in this role. She plays Lady Russell as a milquetoast and fretful matron. She neither comes across as powerful and strong, nor particularly kind and helpful. She is bland. In fact, I can hardly remember her performance at all, and had to re-watch clips of it in order to have something to say here :) C<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Mary Musgrove</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj93LYbMK2aweRh_Jtrw_-MsQGl3oWpQLxF_2Xj9jHveb01C9Q7BvoZx0GqzxssvjQ6KWdy6k49QJnJNeQn9NqBkJTO4ZyDWdmm4-KVYoXayMclmpTiejSECcDjCoHKm12IWI1UM8WVXeBu/s1600/Mary+1971.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj93LYbMK2aweRh_Jtrw_-MsQGl3oWpQLxF_2Xj9jHveb01C9Q7BvoZx0GqzxssvjQ6KWdy6k49QJnJNeQn9NqBkJTO4ZyDWdmm4-KVYoXayMclmpTiejSECcDjCoHKm12IWI1UM8WVXeBu/s1600/Mary+1971.jpeg" height="158" width="200" /></a>1. Morag Hood (1971). Mary Musgrove, Sir Walter's youngest and whiniest daughter, is also an incredibly interesting character in the book. Perhaps it is just because 1971 Mary (Morag Hood) gets the most screen time and therefore the best opportunity to really explore the petty selfishness and imagined neglect of Mary, but I really like her performance the best. Hood is quite sexy, something I hadn't expected in a 1971 production or thought of as an attribute of Mary, but find actually works quite well for the role. She is not downright beautiful but is appealing enough that you can see why Charles chose to marry her. He may have started regretting it right away as it is clear that Mary is used to getting her way; but as a couple they capture an interesting and an unusual, but decently workable, relationship that I like. Morag Hood portrays the nuances that make up Mary and ends up being a highlight of the production. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlBtTOEMxWHJeCHw1wIthiTOHA2ibtQ7PxKgjdZqQ86I0wCx1xns7JksnslJzQVAk1-u6uFyflYvoPZXkaFx0vd1R1-fMFelBPfOvc4vZ-hYpSG-Y6Xn5ouoJKDxDataYEN6WR0fwgyGdX/s1600/Mary+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlBtTOEMxWHJeCHw1wIthiTOHA2ibtQ7PxKgjdZqQ86I0wCx1xns7JksnslJzQVAk1-u6uFyflYvoPZXkaFx0vd1R1-fMFelBPfOvc4vZ-hYpSG-Y6Xn5ouoJKDxDataYEN6WR0fwgyGdX/s1600/Mary+2007.jpg" height="200" width="159" /></a>
<br />
2. Amanda Hale (2007) gives a quite nice, but odd and quirky take on Mary that I like. She portrays Mary as a bit snooty, a bit stupid, and fairly unpleasant, but harmless enough. Preoccupied with her own little needs. Hale uses a twitchy, jerky sort of walk and does a great job of demonstrating the benign but irritating style of this character. She, like her sister Elizabeth in this production, engages in a bit too much posturing; both play their roles for laughs and for attention rather than just playing them straight; this is not my preference for any Austen adaption, because I like the humor and irony to come straight out of the dialog. Still a very good Mary. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNYot_ShZKx5HOtFLGx2cd44oeHU6FWmwEfARss6kyvrdXsFRlYZosasU_mmzjGItadFXgJBZBURakFynQkgXwg6H3qIdhmr3pJRaHARZ-MjUP52N4o9DcQ-p-isjTNmb5luqEYpOVH5Q4/s1600/Mary+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNYot_ShZKx5HOtFLGx2cd44oeHU6FWmwEfARss6kyvrdXsFRlYZosasU_mmzjGItadFXgJBZBURakFynQkgXwg6H3qIdhmr3pJRaHARZ-MjUP52N4o9DcQ-p-isjTNmb5luqEYpOVH5Q4/s1600/Mary+1995.jpg" height="200" width="101" /></a>3. Sophie Thompson (1995). It seems sacrilegious to have Sophie Thompson at the bottom of any acting list, yet, I just didn't care for her Mary. She is whiney red-nosed and rather low-brow. It is hard to imagine this Mary as the dignified daughter of a baron and impossible to imagine Sir Walter would have ever put up with a child such as this. Sophie Thomspon is always great at creating memorable characters and this one is no exception; she is memorable, but I'm not sure its in a good way. She takes Mary to a place I don't think Austen wrote for her (a whiney, low-class place). B-<br />
<br />
<h4>
Admiral (with Mrs.) Croft</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKbvhEm86Ssxbx7crklSwBlk8xGAeXeGWUt3OWjs0G9Va7R-PKo3ii2X_wx_D5YugaL2RZ621Ek-OJY8ayd5jbl0RBlRzrOI_J9FY3nIdeC2x0Ldiy1gmIZrcDpQY1bztneYrLGrVJJ5q/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+%3F.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifKbvhEm86Ssxbx7crklSwBlk8xGAeXeGWUt3OWjs0G9Va7R-PKo3ii2X_wx_D5YugaL2RZ621Ek-OJY8ayd5jbl0RBlRzrOI_J9FY3nIdeC2x0Ldiy1gmIZrcDpQY1bztneYrLGrVJJ5q/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+%3F.jpeg" height="104" width="200" /></a></div>
1. Peter Wight (2007) has a gregarious warmth and style that suits this character. He seems to be about the right age and energy for the role and he comes across as a good natured man who is slightly out of his element but comfortable enough with himself that he really doesn't care. I like Admiral Croft, as played by Wight, but think of him as window dressing to his wife's more important role. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5nLLx0V26e7zY_QjIZKjOuu4d_AizZZzFjkDcS-ezFBZx03q0WDu6zx5KCUQ10A0DARLVEVFvNGd2IyFaCS2epWRiGGoRlJnjTokYFx6tC9HJ5UoTEh8qRycVX4Vr6TrM6-nhraIXD2j/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ5nLLx0V26e7zY_QjIZKjOuu4d_AizZZzFjkDcS-ezFBZx03q0WDu6zx5KCUQ10A0DARLVEVFvNGd2IyFaCS2epWRiGGoRlJnjTokYFx6tC9HJ5UoTEh8qRycVX4Vr6TrM6-nhraIXD2j/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1971.jpg" height="183" width="200" /></a>2. Richard Vernon (1971) Although only in his mid-40s here, Richard Vernon appears 20 years older! But he still manages the joyful, preoccupied air of a sailor on land. He is completely comfortable with his position and lot in life, and therefore expects that everything will just go along as it should. Although, physically, he is far cry from Peter Wight, both men have a similar airhead energy to their Admiral Crofts; they project the kind of man you would be happy to chat with but would probably never get to know all that well. A-<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSDjAxiUKcG2wngKLRle6pRWGSNwPFACxe-d9qitqSsS9TuLdvypD2jKoj8oOBEiakzXWIzt2DjWBzkTOR-0lVzjDQvHsEpFUa06H0D9CWvVlF084Zu2LqGEO1Tp3ctsL3fU_OsvXsWug1/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1995.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSDjAxiUKcG2wngKLRle6pRWGSNwPFACxe-d9qitqSsS9TuLdvypD2jKoj8oOBEiakzXWIzt2DjWBzkTOR-0lVzjDQvHsEpFUa06H0D9CWvVlF084Zu2LqGEO1Tp3ctsL3fU_OsvXsWug1/s200/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1995.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
3. John Woodvine (1995) makes a jovial enough Admiral, kind toward children and pleasant to have at a dinner party. But somehow his performance doesn't suit my undertanding of the character as well as the other two. This is an odd criticism, but to me, Woodvine seems to be a bit too sharp and strong, too 'present'; I'm not sure why that seems wrong for a sea captain, but I like the more distracted, fanciful and self-absorbed take of the other two Admirals a bit better. B+<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Mrs. Croft (with her husband)</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4VAsofjZV_DuJc5rxjAw8U31f7pV8F5Eb7g2N0TVP6B8nvU79OWWJuV8kMeAO3T40lxF45bWoFUCvYvQKhC-HvusvrGcx92QXjU9p6ZMnKCTXHlb4c4MW5HvKX1lbZEHKQRaVlUHUkFBq/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1995.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4VAsofjZV_DuJc5rxjAw8U31f7pV8F5Eb7g2N0TVP6B8nvU79OWWJuV8kMeAO3T40lxF45bWoFUCvYvQKhC-HvusvrGcx92QXjU9p6ZMnKCTXHlb4c4MW5HvKX1lbZEHKQRaVlUHUkFBq/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1995.jpeg" height="185" width="200" /></a>1. Fiona Shaw (1995). Its funny that my least favorite Admiral Croft is teamed up with my most favorite Mrs. Croft. I love Fiona Shaw's fantastic portrayal as the latter. Shaw has the right age, the right look, the right earnestness and the right intelligence. She just gets this character. She sees Mrs. Croft as a salt-of-the earth type of woman who is unflappable and independent, yet very happy to be married to her husband. She is warm and kind and also very powerful. She is honestly the only Mrs. Croft I can even remember and, because I love this character, that is quite important! A+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhemtVnbhaYtzv0FMw6XSBqnCeFtvbstasBASB3V_fhMwclcXSFp2VKugb7pKoBJB5MEPDZDoW46gjx0kivDmYLT_roUo9WeXs30xONwlmV0C6oUR1ojMlCMIwtbAqn6T8PNI7P3ZmyPija/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+%3F.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhemtVnbhaYtzv0FMw6XSBqnCeFtvbstasBASB3V_fhMwclcXSFp2VKugb7pKoBJB5MEPDZDoW46gjx0kivDmYLT_roUo9WeXs30xONwlmV0C6oUR1ojMlCMIwtbAqn6T8PNI7P3ZmyPija/s200/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+%3F.jpeg" width="200" /></a>2. Marion Bailey 2007 is too old for this role -- at around age 55. This is compounded by being much too old a choice to play the sister of Rupert Penry Jones' (who looks 28). She might have swung Ciaran Hinds' sister, had she been in the 1995 film (as he was, and looked, around 42). But, in any case, Bailey is not just too old but too non-descript. She plays a typical Austen matron -- and does it well enough, but, overall, her performance falls short for this interesting and pivotal role. B<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsFjztmudVoh6ea_AfUemNlmuN7WzuFnV094TSdyS_5P_Ye2v7p6sAGiHNb8wzgTvqMSro3yeE1vAvD3VIrXyrPBtNYrqAZ-FkmVvTf14gTL8P00kMeMe_RFtnT1rmoXc1qScHbsCs1HZy/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsFjztmudVoh6ea_AfUemNlmuN7WzuFnV094TSdyS_5P_Ye2v7p6sAGiHNb8wzgTvqMSro3yeE1vAvD3VIrXyrPBtNYrqAZ-FkmVvTf14gTL8P00kMeMe_RFtnT1rmoXc1qScHbsCs1HZy/s1600/Admiral+and+Mrs+Croft+1971.jpg" height="183" width="200" /></a>3. Georgine Anderson (1971). As with Marion Bailey (2007), Georgine Anderson comes across as too old for this role. And as with Richard Vernon, her on-screen husband, she is actually much younger than she looks. She is 'only' 43 years old here (which is still probably too old), but appears 55. In any case, the 1971 version has a reasonable but not particularly moving take on the Crofts. Anderson is pleasant enough and competent enough, but doesn't provide any special spark to really sell the role; and this is a special disappointment because Mrs. Croft is one of my favorite characters. B<br />
<br />
<h4>
Charles Musgrove</h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BjxkJjCVo4mUpEvIx4VTYSxjLfaW9mONSVtPIQwxnLgWJNSr1xJhZuAFlL1M6lVQ48akQiQLWbCapg_OuPj8WJ1l3aIL60tyBpA5Sv0gz4KA-t9-LHRkMOJrCGct6r8XkWBfJsw5D-k-/s1600/charles+musgrove+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3BjxkJjCVo4mUpEvIx4VTYSxjLfaW9mONSVtPIQwxnLgWJNSr1xJhZuAFlL1M6lVQ48akQiQLWbCapg_OuPj8WJ1l3aIL60tyBpA5Sv0gz4KA-t9-LHRkMOJrCGct6r8XkWBfJsw5D-k-/s1600/charles+musgrove+1971.jpg" height="200" width="156" /></a>1. Rowland Davies (1971) managed to turn in the unbeatable Charles Musgrove performance over 40 years ago. The other actors should have just looked at this film and gone home. Everything about his Charles rings true. I love the scene where the group is taking their walk and Charles is miffed at his wife for having refused to accompany him down to his cousin's home. Charles is holding both arms out for Anne and Mary but keeps dropping the Mary arm to swat at things with a stick. He does this perfectly with just the right attitude of boyishness and irritability. I also think of the scene where they are all in Bath and he is speaking to his mother about his theater tickets, saying "aren't I a good boy?" Davies gets the spoiled, but still good-natured and sensible style of Charles to a T. Love him. A+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3YK2q7vwP2nMrd7o94dllJOPtTwIzqYSMFKT09Fipd-6TqjgTHRHTStv3_0ls7V5Saqd055r_37EanHiim29DQ0iNOWgWvBOipVsultPCfPmAy-PdLr6g31oCD4r6jFs2BHeGqs64A51n/s1600/charles+musgrove+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3YK2q7vwP2nMrd7o94dllJOPtTwIzqYSMFKT09Fipd-6TqjgTHRHTStv3_0ls7V5Saqd055r_37EanHiim29DQ0iNOWgWvBOipVsultPCfPmAy-PdLr6g31oCD4r6jFs2BHeGqs64A51n/s1600/charles+musgrove+1995.jpg" height="152" width="200" /></a><br />
2. Simon Russel Beale (1995) plays Charles a lot like Rowland Davies did; so I like him too. He also has a similar ruddy-face and look. But somehow his portrayal does not have quite the charm of Davies'. Maybe this has something to do with his relationship with his wife seeming a bit more unpleasant and strained than the couple in 1971 managed to pull off. In any case, he comes in second. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXV2y4O9-1iMCbz0jpA2oZNFRK0y1QF0qS-z3V0dH5flhnzalNNl_WH7zVVwFAH-oEyvAp8OKqt5BgaiLUaK3cnlZTo2ULrOxqD7QBxzUSWubQlKO7bl3gDDxlvfs-_rd4EaLbeIutfpC-/s1600/charles+musgrove+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXV2y4O9-1iMCbz0jpA2oZNFRK0y1QF0qS-z3V0dH5flhnzalNNl_WH7zVVwFAH-oEyvAp8OKqt5BgaiLUaK3cnlZTo2ULrOxqD7QBxzUSWubQlKO7bl3gDDxlvfs-_rd4EaLbeIutfpC-/s1600/charles+musgrove+2007.jpg" height="200" width="159" /></a>3. Sam Hazeldine (2007) plays Charles capably enough, but he is a bit bewildered and wiry and maybe at tad too frustrated or angry for my taste. I see Charles as a basically good-natured and simple fellow who cares mostly for sport, basic propriety and the comforts of his happy life. He is relatively easy to please, and even when irked by his sometimes inappropriate wife, gets over it and steps up to the next pleasure. Hazeldine is a fine actor but just doesn't grab these nuances and run with them; his Charles is a bit too angry/irritable, serious, and flat. B<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQZxkgtK7H03Qs5zqPigFww5ZMrchM41uaaqkPNPbwpnbdHzVaVMpYX4QRb2zaaL2YfUF1nIDYCClsvU7e9a8k_miZUYaNran7RFCr1VurJblTAjVMu_cFcLGtaEzVXU7tAnXiurciFw61/s1600/Elizabeth+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQZxkgtK7H03Qs5zqPigFww5ZMrchM41uaaqkPNPbwpnbdHzVaVMpYX4QRb2zaaL2YfUF1nIDYCClsvU7e9a8k_miZUYaNran7RFCr1VurJblTAjVMu_cFcLGtaEzVXU7tAnXiurciFw61/s200/Elizabeth+1971.jpg" width="196" /></a>
Elizabeth Elliot</h4>
1. Valerie Gearon (1971) reminds me very much of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara in her take on this role. She is really quite beautiful and I think Elizabeth needs to be. She is older than Anne, yet has remained fresh and elegant (like her father). That said, Elizabeth is not a kind, good person, and I like the way Gearon makes Elizabeth feel impeccable on the surface, but acidic just below it. Elizabeth, as Austen wrote her, possesses the same fierce Elliot pride as her father and like her father, her bearing should therefore be refined; Gearon's is. She should have an outward appearance of dignity and perfection and under the surface be petty and cruel. Again, Gearon delivers. A<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6y8O1r73vL8AtEhu2-BgEyNYH8fkLV2ph2TkP4uxpJkNP0GEz0Yc3cyRcJtppKbQrHplxomhnVjhq6OS0TtqS63bBw9wzsjI4qlVDehPbR7wcllZLAmwaST6prJO0rY4dYAwn4XJT0I1Q/s1600/Elizabeth+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6y8O1r73vL8AtEhu2-BgEyNYH8fkLV2ph2TkP4uxpJkNP0GEz0Yc3cyRcJtppKbQrHplxomhnVjhq6OS0TtqS63bBw9wzsjI4qlVDehPbR7wcllZLAmwaST6prJO0rY4dYAwn4XJT0I1Q/s200/Elizabeth+2007.jpg" width="159" /></a><br />
2. Julia Davis (2007) is quite amusing, but she does here what Corin Redgrave does in 1995, and just plays the role a bit too comically; she pulls out what is absurd about Elizabeth and plays it to the hilt. That makes her performance interesting and funny, but not particularly true to the book. As with younger sister Mary in 2007, Elizabeth here is played over the top for laughs or attention. I prefer Valerie Gearon's straight take. I do appreciate the high-style costumes and hairstyles that this Elizabeth is given here, by the way. I think that really suits the extravagance and self-importance of Sir Walter's oldest daughter and mistress of the house to have excessive fashion taste. A-<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs4AK3FzGmmtgojia7Z7Iyia-5Ow0PbCN6XRAn0eOhp9C7j_6JwEe3XCn7e-K7p2DUpRAHOfyXs4VSwxCL5FBgfuMmvvRppff-iyPJhBZDbjwxJzzrjlfpp9msu7PY4lR27XE7trJQ2i9n/s1600/Elizabeth+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs4AK3FzGmmtgojia7Z7Iyia-5Ow0PbCN6XRAn0eOhp9C7j_6JwEe3XCn7e-K7p2DUpRAHOfyXs4VSwxCL5FBgfuMmvvRppff-iyPJhBZDbjwxJzzrjlfpp9msu7PY4lR27XE7trJQ2i9n/s1600/Elizabeth+1995.jpg" height="200" width="130" /></a>3. Phoebe Nichols (1995) is quite irritable as Elizabeth. I don't see Elizabeth acting this way. She should be fairly content with her position, outwardly diginified and excessively proud -- though certainly self-absorbed and neglectful of her sister as well. She should act with decorum and at least some restraint. But this Elizabeth is pissed! and really seems to hate Anne; she is the opposite of dignified most of the time. It is just too much. Overall, the 1995 production has a take on Anne's sisters (and to some extent their father) that is too vulgar. B-<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZLCjRyo9iKg-Te53sb4mVs1Bf9u9ATGyPGsDXqrMEteJTIvAGeBgnmfNW0Fo8iPhnH7ytWrfhICu0rR3iFaWSaG5G-viFR4xx0Wdwxm7jAdmMBEz8gdoqfqP2p3W3k4bFkfRn7X7ngxXZ/s1600/Mr+Elliot+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZLCjRyo9iKg-Te53sb4mVs1Bf9u9ATGyPGsDXqrMEteJTIvAGeBgnmfNW0Fo8iPhnH7ytWrfhICu0rR3iFaWSaG5G-viFR4xx0Wdwxm7jAdmMBEz8gdoqfqP2p3W3k4bFkfRn7X7ngxXZ/s1600/Mr+Elliot+2007.jpg" height="200" width="159" /></a>
Mr. Elliot</h4>
1. Tobias Menzies (2007) is an excellent Mr. Elliot. He is glib and charming; he conveys a smooth politic style. I did not picture someone who looks like Tobias Menzies when I read the book, but I certainly do now. He gives a great impression of ambiguity. We don't quite know what to think. Just as Anne Elliot does, the viewer likes and admires him, but can't quite trust what he is up to. He is cut from the same cloth as Mr. Wickham in <i>Pride and Prejudice</i> or Willoughby in <i>Sense and Sensibility</i>; Mr Elliot is the perfect, sexy, Regency cad, and Menzies' performance is spot on. Come to think of it, I'd love to see him play either of those roles please :) A+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXRMy4VaB7M5wRkKgl26tmz08TIuETQUBFSTyFblU-8CQr7Pv6jWNVnQwgnudZjd3DHerYLGJKYAwGi3XQnGjB4mA2p0IwQr0oaV9yN_J9f8MtI19Z4q4dgrW1ZWqhvRxrYDjG3sFg_tKA/s1600/Mr+Elliot+1995.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXRMy4VaB7M5wRkKgl26tmz08TIuETQUBFSTyFblU-8CQr7Pv6jWNVnQwgnudZjd3DHerYLGJKYAwGi3XQnGjB4mA2p0IwQr0oaV9yN_J9f8MtI19Z4q4dgrW1ZWqhvRxrYDjG3sFg_tKA/s1600/Mr+Elliot+1995.JPG" height="123" width="200" /></a>2. Samuel West (1995) is a very young and pretty Mr Elliot. Although he certainly makes Mr. Elliot an appealing man, he does not begin to grasp the nuance of the character in the way Tobias Menzies does. I keep picturing him as Frank Churchill (<i>Emma</i>) which is rather odd. I think he reminds me a bit of Ewan McGregor who played Frank in the Gwyneth Paltow Emma from around this time (1996). And I honestly didn't care for McGregor in that role either. They both suffer from flat and uninspired pretty boy-itis. B+<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzXj_jqsc0XpWx4J2IDy5aZ9NfGVUslpbZ_DIQl5YddK5NwAMkdMs9bwf4uG8m5QbISUz23xBDWRfh3DRUc31K_nq0EMDaTA0LTvOi86eKEnlf8cvLBFsmxttrI2Oi_d7iIXmFmUYRCGmj/s1600/Mr+elliot+1971.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzXj_jqsc0XpWx4J2IDy5aZ9NfGVUslpbZ_DIQl5YddK5NwAMkdMs9bwf4uG8m5QbISUz23xBDWRfh3DRUc31K_nq0EMDaTA0LTvOi86eKEnlf8cvLBFsmxttrI2Oi_d7iIXmFmUYRCGmj/s1600/Mr+elliot+1971.jpg" height="200" width="197" /></a><br />
3. David Savile (1971) plays a Mr. Elliot who seems a bit more middle-aged and has a look that reminds me more of an Austen vicor. The more mature age is probably suitable, given that Austen never really suggests his age and we know he is a widower; but the somewhat dull and uninspired characterization does not. B<br />
<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
THE GRADES!</h4>
<div>
Lets do some summing up and get to our winners.</div>
<div>
For starters, let me note that all three productions had first place winners. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2007 -- Anne Elliot, Sir Walter, Admiral Croft and Mr. Elliot</div>
<div>
1995 -- Captain Wentworth, Lady Russell, and Mrs. Croft</div>
<div>
1971 -- Mary Musgrove, Charles Musgrove, Elizabeth Elliot</div>
<div>
This is nicely balanced indeed!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And there were very few A+s handed out. The only actors/productions to get that top nod are:</div>
<div>
Sir Walter Elliot (Anthony Head) 2007</div>
<div>
Mrs. Croft (Fiona Shaw) 1995</div>
<div>
Charles Musgrove (Rowland Davies) 1971</div>
<div>
Mr. Elliot (Tobias Menzies) 2007</div>
<div>
Again, pretty balanced, with each production scoring an A+, and 2007 getting 2.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the final say will go to grades. In order to be precise, I'll assign a point value to each letter grade -- just like in school. By counting up total grade points and diving by the number of performances (ten characters here), I can determine an overall CPA (casting points average!) for each picture. This is getting exciting.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2007 1995 1971</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A+ 4.3 2 1 1</div>
<div>
A 4.0 2 3 2</div>
<div>
A- 3.7 3 2 1</div>
<div>
B+ 3.3 2 2</div>
<div>
B 3.0 3 3</div>
<div>
B- 2.7 2 </div>
<div>
C 2.0 1</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
gpa 3.67 3.57 3.36</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Its an upset! Although 1996 had squeaked by as my favorite overall adaptation, 2007 wins it on actors by a nose. All three adaptations came in very close to each other -- in the B+ to A- range -- which is especially an impressive feat for 1971, given its age and dated feel. It still managed to turn out such generally good performances so as to give the 'modern' ones a run for their money. <br />
<br />
All three productions deserve appreciation for the things they do well. Now, I have just to wait, because in another 10 years or so, someone is bound to see the need to re-adapt Persuasion. Lets hope they hit it out of the park!</div>
<h4>
</h4>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-74442488726431643442014-10-24T21:49:00.000-07:002014-11-10T20:01:06.502-07:00Can I Persuade You -- Which Persuasion is Best?My book club faced it's monthly dilemma: what to read next. This time around, we were going to pick from among the Classics. So I faced my sometimes dilemma of whether to suggest a Jane Austen work. As odd as it may seem -- and though I've been with this group for almost 10 years -- we've <i>never</i> read anything by Austen and I'd <i>never</i> even suggested one until now. In the past, I was hesitant to float an Austen title because I wasn't keen to have my serious and intellectual friends trash the the work of my favorite author. I just wasn't sure I wanted to go there. <br />
<br />
But I guess I've gotten older or more secure . . . or just have enough good company in my corner that I really think I can withstand hearing 6 people's derision if it comes down to that.<br />
<br />
Anyway. . . I was a bit surprised when I made the suggestion and everyone said 'yes'! I decided to recommend <i>Persuasion</i> because I thought its more mature heroine and slightly more serious tone might play well in the club.<br />
<br />
We shall see. We haven't actually met to discuss it yet.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBV-Ll7HN0xVbeiM904TCM0CQFmgLvKWUMxYwFjec8_9EofcXHn646HxQJKB_Z7QQUeKPawRelomnsyM7o_0aQO337TmVXDVHHDtt-6wQqTji_g5vplE0jgryAVdOeKTk5IGCJ3pzblQGs/s1600/persuasion+1995.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBV-Ll7HN0xVbeiM904TCM0CQFmgLvKWUMxYwFjec8_9EofcXHn646HxQJKB_Z7QQUeKPawRelomnsyM7o_0aQO337TmVXDVHHDtt-6wQqTji_g5vplE0jgryAVdOeKTk5IGCJ3pzblQGs/s1600/persuasion+1995.jpg" height="195" width="320" /></a>I, of course, am blasting my way through the book and mostly just trying to slow down. In aid of that, I ended up turning to film to assuage the Austen interest but distract me from reading.<br />
<br />
Having now watched both modern adaptations -- the 1995 cinematic release starring Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds and the 2007 BBC television movie staring Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones -- I am ready to render my opinion as to which is the best.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7lagM-GRknrS3e6ex5G_-tM-C6b4lRfGMnuWC0aUOduj7hf7y16l0isPA0QXbtTIev64t2EdRxZi06GShgohyphenhyphenj6g40fJi8DR0WQ3TDQiC9Gbmowt_p931JHxO2NvtXzXNCB5DACD53G-j/s1600/Persuasion+2007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7lagM-GRknrS3e6ex5G_-tM-C6b4lRfGMnuWC0aUOduj7hf7y16l0isPA0QXbtTIev64t2EdRxZi06GShgohyphenhyphenj6g40fJi8DR0WQ3TDQiC9Gbmowt_p931JHxO2NvtXzXNCB5DACD53G-j/s1600/Persuasion+2007.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
The 1995 version wins. But just barely.<br />
<br />
The strange thing is that, almost across the board, I preferred the actors, characterizations and performances of the 2007 version to the earlier one; but I found its screenplay weaker overall. Enough so that I would give the nod to the 1995 version.<br />
<br />
The fact that 2007 departed more from the book was not in itself the problem for me, but rather that some of the changes made were significantly worse than what was written and worse yet, rather hard to understand the motivation behind. Immediately springing to mind is the odd ending with Anne running through the streets of Bath searching for Wentworth, while her friend chases after calling out plot details (in order to at least give the impression that loose ends are wrapping up). This ending was honestly absurd and uncalled for.<br />
<br />
However, 2007 did make some non-traditional decisions that I thought played extremely well, including a sexier and warmer approach to the love story, for instance by allowing Wentworth to make his friend, Captain Harville, a confidant; or in allowing Wentworth and Anne to have a more passionate relationship, a more drawn-out meeting of the minds, and some nice moments of gazing. But, ultimately, although these scenes are cool, and passion is certainly a draw for the modern viewer, I felt that the change did not suit the real purpose, and that large sections of the story were underplayed to give more screen time to the romance. It was an interesting try; It just didn't work.<br />
<br />
The worst decision of the 2007 version was to take the key moment in the plot, indeed the climax of the book, and throw it away. I am referring to, of course, when Wentworth overhears Anne speaking to Harville about romantic love and constancy of feeling and is so moved by her words that he writes his reaction to her in a letter. Unfortunately, all of the power of this moment of revelation is lost in 2007 as this dialog unfolds with Anne speaking to a different character at a dinner party, much earlier in the story and Wentworth isn't even aware of it. Later, because it is not tied to that moment of truth, Wentworth's letter to Anne at the end floats adrift in a senseless ending that leaves the viewer confused.<br />
<br />
Had it not been for the screenplay issues, I would have had an extremely difficult time picking a favorite as between these two. I might have gone for 2007 out of its newer, more sparkly and fresh cinematography and generally better acting, because the truth is the 1995 version is really no standout either.<br />
<br />
<br />
The 1995 version is solid and good. It doesn't strike new territory or come across as massively entertaining, but it does a good job of dramatizing the book in the short time frame of a feature film. The best thing about the 1995 version is the incredible performance of Ciaran Hinds who makes a wonderfully compelling Wentworth.<br />
<br />
Just as with <i>Emma, </i>where there are several quality adaptations to choose from and it might seem that the overall quality and choice should feel like a positive, but I feel mostly disappointed that no one has yet really covered this ground the way it needs to be covered. (And that includes the 1971 BBC miniseries version that is simply now so dated -- though far truer to the full extent of the story -- to feel satisfying.)<br />
<br />
And, thinking about how much fun I had <a href="http://lostinbritishtv.blogspot.com/2011/07/emma-cubed-four-emma-adaptations-all.html" target="_blank">doing this with Emma a couple of years ago</a>, I do believe it is time for an across-the-board actor-by-actor comparison of how the versions stack up. Look for that coming soon :)<br />
<br />
<u>End Note</u> (added 11/11/14):<br />
In preparation for the role-by-role and picking of favorite performances, and in order to really rip into the world of adapting Anne, I now have also (re-)watched the 1971 BBC miniseries.<br />
<br />
It is exceptionally hard to compare adaptations that sit nearly 25-35 years apart years apart. The 1971 version compared to the modern ones discussed above just feels outdated in production standards and style, and, as I am human, that manages to distract me. In particular it is the film quality and filming choices where the adaptation's age really shows. It does not have the movement and vibrancy of the more modern versions, and its flat bright sets cast an entirely different mood from what modern filming on location can accomplish. That shortcoming is not properly addressed even when this production steps outdoors; instead we simply encounter a different set of challenges such as poor picture quality, that is fuzzy and faded, and imprecision of sound. An example is when the party is walking on the beach at a location shoot at Lyme; unfortunately the sound of feet strolling along the crunchy, shelly beach nearly drowned out the dialog. However, this being said, any viewer who can make her way past these distractions will be well-rewarded with the 1971 entry. The casting, the acting and the performance choices are overwhelmingly good and some are fantastic. And there is the added benefit that, being a miniseries, this version has time on its side and can afford to be truest to the book. Although it does not serve up the best Sir Walter or Captain Wentworth, it does presents the best trio of sisters as a whole (Elizabeth, Anne and Mary) and surprises with a perfect Charles Musgrove.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-71892672503890418532014-05-17T08:20:00.000-07:002014-05-17T08:20:06.759-07:00Jonathan Strange is Coming!Excited enough about this news to drag my sorry butt over the computer and give it a blog post, I am happy to report that Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell will soon be coming to your sets as an adaptation! If you don't know the 2004 novel by Susanna Clark, you should. It is rich and beautifully written and incredibly long (1008 pages), combining a feel of scholarly exposition, with a deeply creative idea -- a Regency-era England, set at the Napoleonic wars, in which magic is possible, but in need of some restoration.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVZ6yxH3YSs3uAQTAtO0YyZ1aWSkqysWw5WfcbwZbkEANh1C0RP9Ax5byjULkyWZuqyWRbeQWHSBg9XIoBLv9jmxyfF9hMiwsnsJjWI63Gbq2t4aVejQkMgvWfGB6hLt0kMFlTxk_NJA-g/s1600/jsmn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVZ6yxH3YSs3uAQTAtO0YyZ1aWSkqysWw5WfcbwZbkEANh1C0RP9Ax5byjULkyWZuqyWRbeQWHSBg9XIoBLv9jmxyfF9hMiwsnsJjWI63Gbq2t4aVejQkMgvWfGB6hLt0kMFlTxk_NJA-g/s1600/jsmn.jpg" height="260" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The production, which is said to be a 7 part tv miniseries, is currently filming in England, starring Bertie Carvel as Strage and Eddie Marsan as Norrell.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/2892966.jpg?type=articleLandscape" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/resources/images/2892966.jpg?type=articleLandscape" height="206" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Its been a few years since I read the book, so I see that I now have some summer reading to do to get in shape for the airing! I suggest you do the same. Despite my best efforts, I cannot seem to lock down a planned air date either in the UK or America but which should be sometime this year (2014) on BBC or BBC America.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-54974484724248518222013-07-26T21:59:00.003-07:002018-12-10T12:42:11.842-07:00Thanks for the Tip, Brad Pitt and Robert Redford do Look Alike!Besides simply being astonishingly handsome men, Brad and Bob are look-alikes. There's a subtle similarity that may not hit you over the head, but can be seen all over their faces. The foreheads are equally high and square, with a similar hairline. Their eyebrows are alike in their straight heaviness.<br />
<br />
And their eyes -- see how they both have a sort of squintiness to their lower lids. Sure, the noses are a bit different, but they both have the same a strong square jaw with barely there dimples and a similar shape to the mouth and teeth.<br />
<br />
Way to go guys. You know just how to be gorgeous!<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/p/i/e/pieds-nus-dans-le-parc-1967-02-g.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/p/i/e/pieds-nus-dans-le-parc-1967-02-g.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/P/Brad-Pitt-9441989-3-402.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhskXqz8JlrKJU1po54IXax-has5rz1nb2-4vyX0chqsZ8llBC9P4V2thOZB18zk3aheXoXyNVd2dp0rrRxwuUaSSAc_KrzB6Xa_toKQ5m44IC7ka7NxC3eYYUPtAQscGa11AxmXvGg5bRH/s1600/brad+pitt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhskXqz8JlrKJU1po54IXax-has5rz1nb2-4vyX0chqsZ8llBC9P4V2thOZB18zk3aheXoXyNVd2dp0rrRxwuUaSSAc_KrzB6Xa_toKQ5m44IC7ka7NxC3eYYUPtAQscGa11AxmXvGg5bRH/s1600/brad+pitt.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://i752.photobucket.com/albums/xx165/scwillman/RobertRedford.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://i752.photobucket.com/albums/xx165/scwillman/RobertRedford.jpg" height="320" width="240"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://celebcenter.us/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/6976/bradpitt4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://celebcenter.us/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/6976/bradpitt4.jpg" height="320" width="240"></a></div>
<a href="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/LRG/37/3706/BICAF00Z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://cache2.artprintimages.com/LRG/37/3706/BICAF00Z.jpg" height="320" width="240"></a>Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-18762682815336724942013-06-13T17:47:00.002-07:002017-05-18T21:25:49.586-07:00More Crazy Look Alikes: Jimmy Stewart and Nicolas CageHas anyone else noticed this? Truth is, I didn't. My son recognized the similarity and tells me they look so much alike that he could hardly tell them apart, if it weren't for their different-era clothing. I think they do look alike, but the real similarity is in some aspects of movement and gesture which are harder to see in stills. But take a look at these and see if you agree:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHOzXLcAeBtZuPHxwrP0D_Osf-vU8mDuYNnFr2ZJOXuIe8z6rr0S9htMTqcxstzpOstIik6UhYNL3ja1ZodzfiPKFivV_1qe9EkbjPdMjttHzQwezAj5tE5efNYgLssRkU4nPh89PO2eCc/s1600/stewartjimmybio.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHOzXLcAeBtZuPHxwrP0D_Osf-vU8mDuYNnFr2ZJOXuIe8z6rr0S9htMTqcxstzpOstIik6UhYNL3ja1ZodzfiPKFivV_1qe9EkbjPdMjttHzQwezAj5tE5efNYgLssRkU4nPh89PO2eCc/s1600/stewartjimmybio.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cvo4jwbe8wE/SwOM8Vt2eRI/AAAAAAAADJo/by2TEwFDLSI/s1600/nic+headshot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Cvo4jwbe8wE/SwOM8Vt2eRI/AAAAAAAADJo/by2TEwFDLSI/s320/nic+headshot.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And look at this great earnest expression they share: </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.poptower.com/pic-23417/nicolas-cage.jpg?d=1024" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.poptower.com/pic-23417/nicolas-cage.jpg?d=1024" height="196" width="320" /></a><a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKVAbIEyZJq1Fc3BbSma81bIJNCZWA41_xvl6W2aWbmT6Dm5bkTw" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="204" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKVAbIEyZJq1Fc3BbSma81bIJNCZWA41_xvl6W2aWbmT6Dm5bkTw" width="320" /></a></div>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-68748573991808382902013-01-28T20:29:00.002-07:002013-01-28T20:29:58.545-07:00Pride and Prejudice's BirthdayI understand that today is the 200th birthday of Pride and Prejudice, but unfortunately have been burning the candle at both ends and have absolutely no time or brain cells to come up with any pithy clever thoughts, top ten lists, charts of favorite characters or anything else remotely worthy of the occasion.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2Nd8i-fKuuL3j2AbOtm0UgqIoUUl-D6Ab4eLxUBJcsuv7ggxMcGuX5CVWrVB6d9qT5u6VPG8okK4kP86zT_0udv4N4lIAi_z2fQ0qYbNMA7KHmagWBuFi8kfsSlUnBF-QBKtG2s2-IpU/s1600/pride-and-prejudice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2Nd8i-fKuuL3j2AbOtm0UgqIoUUl-D6Ab4eLxUBJcsuv7ggxMcGuX5CVWrVB6d9qT5u6VPG8okK4kP86zT_0udv4N4lIAi_z2fQ0qYbNMA7KHmagWBuFi8kfsSlUnBF-QBKtG2s2-IpU/s320/pride-and-prejudice.jpg" width="194" /></a><br />
Yet I just could not consider myself a proper fan (which I really and truly am) if I didn't at least half-heartedly attempt to mark the date with a post.<br />
<br />
This is that post.<br />
<br />
Sorry to have wasted your time<br />
;)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-91851003394624308842013-01-14T22:17:00.000-07:002014-05-24T07:33:47.160-07:00What do Bob Hope, Gene Kelly, Jack Lemmon and James Cagney have in Common? They are look alikes!Oh wow. Sometimes I just astound myself.<br />
<br />
Having nowhere else to really "put" revelations like this one, Lost in British TV gets them. Lucky it.<br />
<br />
I recently discovered that Gene Kelly, Jack Lemmon, James Cagney and Bob Hope look alike. Bear with me. Pictures in a minute.<br />
<br />
Here's how this came about. We watched <i>Yankee Doodle Dandy</i> recently, which stars James Cagney in a singing and dancing role. His style and general body build kept reminding me of Gene Kelly. So there's one connection.<br />
<br />
Then, a week ago, we watched <i>Mister Roberts</i>. This film has the advantage of starring both James Cagney and Jack Lemmon and seeing both in the same film cemented the idea that when he gets older, Lemmon is going to look just like Cagney looks in <i>Mister Roberts</i>. (By extension, I guess that means Lemmon looks like Kelly, too, since he looks like Cagney!)<br />
<br />
Finally, the other day, my son noticed (while watching one of his <i>Road</i> pictures) that Bob Hope looks like Jack Lemmon (or was it Gene Kelly?) I don't know. It doesn't matter, because I agreed. And so now, by extension, they must all look alike.<br />
<br />
Don't give me that look. I'm prepared to prove it.<br />
<br />
First, they all have a similar broad-faced, open countenance, with long horizontal mouths and squarish heads. Although Hope's is the most prominent in this way, they all have a similar long straight nose, with a strong tip. And its not just their faces. They all have a similar body type: not exactly stocky, but a solid compact frame. None of them were slender, lithe men. Cagney was the shortest at 5'5", Kelly, 5'7"; Lemmon was 5'9" Hope was the tallest at 5'10" -- not short, but certainly no giant. Obviously, Cagney and Kelly had the very fit dancers bodies, which I'm sure Hope and Lemmon would be pleased to be compared to, but though they were in different states of fitness, the underlying body type is cut from the same mold.<br />
<br />
Now, what you've been waiting for, the photographic proof!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNTY2MzA1MjU3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMzkxMDM2._V1._SY314_CR12,0,214,314_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwSO0Os2aVgV_hiKQG__2-plDO0bIicdV7rG11_u_2gkzsrHQMDNmKTeSAgXI9sNvyWt3WTHl0zNOqk0_3FE3fPkxtQ58IdhYy0MLKZfkuaOA5ny9jyVhJl0NsoKxjkyjWvg6aL1iivks/s1600/gene-kelly.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwSO0Os2aVgV_hiKQG__2-plDO0bIicdV7rG11_u_2gkzsrHQMDNmKTeSAgXI9sNvyWt3WTHl0zNOqk0_3FE3fPkxtQ58IdhYy0MLKZfkuaOA5ny9jyVhJl0NsoKxjkyjWvg6aL1iivks/s320/gene-kelly.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoSwW6F0LZjeNiRHNmMEkfn3hTSvpqwz8nBava7EhN1jyExyqbkmV1Ju5OwiM7umSCrpr_RPRBOtFSvNgWIYJaTm9TWt4HExU5UCJShVyRb3TRAIhlZFAEhthZGSbemRbQ9ePCjHHV7Ema/s1600/bob+hope.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoSwW6F0LZjeNiRHNmMEkfn3hTSvpqwz8nBava7EhN1jyExyqbkmV1Ju5OwiM7umSCrpr_RPRBOtFSvNgWIYJaTm9TWt4HExU5UCJShVyRb3TRAIhlZFAEhthZGSbemRbQ9ePCjHHV7Ema/s1600/bob+hope.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScGG3CfAk9Cr97Swc0zu1TP1nSH92atX-gSZrL1AvHoSLExkqYkw" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcScGG3CfAk9Cr97Swc0zu1TP1nSH92atX-gSZrL1AvHoSLExkqYkw" width="278" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ0AIxky9slva4UFhqAauOc4Zy2ii8jmY8yQjRtO3Gxnb0IVtjw2hyQ6ozh7iZvjbMhMOCDpK2jL1ObYRyhLVECrPKIkZ7H2QmXdOnaWHtQKKPDTWaXKmgnwTU23YpmnFJAEiAxPMqLsQX/s1600/james+cagney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ0AIxky9slva4UFhqAauOc4Zy2ii8jmY8yQjRtO3Gxnb0IVtjw2hyQ6ozh7iZvjbMhMOCDpK2jL1ObYRyhLVECrPKIkZ7H2QmXdOnaWHtQKKPDTWaXKmgnwTU23YpmnFJAEiAxPMqLsQX/s1600/james+cagney.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwSO0Os2aVgV_hiKQG__2-plDO0bIicdV7rG11_u_2gkzsrHQMDNmKTeSAgXI9sNvyWt3WTHl0zNOqk0_3FE3fPkxtQ58IdhYy0MLKZfkuaOA5ny9jyVhJl0NsoKxjkyjWvg6aL1iivks/s1600/gene-kelly.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Gene_Kelly_American_in_Paris.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Gene_Kelly_American_in_Paris.jpg" height="320" width="230" /></a><a href="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCiUpQerIRWHlLRTgf1bE2mIWcjlxI3hAXSACK49txFIPpqNGeXxV-MPuopg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCiUpQerIRWHlLRTgf1bE2mIWcjlxI3hAXSACK49txFIPpqNGeXxV-MPuopg" height="194" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwD9nshGiljnetg8GNkWWV9SuLx64hXRyY-TI79jOX-KdNpdKXVBa9eq5yRVSWhwK0jYCdMV3p3UMiO1vw6fqko0IlRUHext6BXaGttLljeEtTBG2cGSDBcv8tOchYtLosBlvuyHCH4GEQ/s400/YankeeCagney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwD9nshGiljnetg8GNkWWV9SuLx64hXRyY-TI79jOX-KdNpdKXVBa9eq5yRVSWhwK0jYCdMV3p3UMiO1vw6fqko0IlRUHext6BXaGttLljeEtTBG2cGSDBcv8tOchYtLosBlvuyHCH4GEQ/s320/YankeeCagney.jpg" height="320" width="284" /></a><a href="http://www.mishalov.net/korea_bob_hope_68/bobhope100.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.mishalov.net/korea_bob_hope_68/bobhope100.jpg" height="320" width="207" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwSO0Os2aVgV_hiKQG__2-plDO0bIicdV7rG11_u_2gkzsrHQMDNmKTeSAgXI9sNvyWt3WTHl0zNOqk0_3FE3fPkxtQ58IdhYy0MLKZfkuaOA5ny9jyVhJl0NsoKxjkyjWvg6aL1iivks/s1600/gene-kelly.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-81090524874664258272013-01-06T21:32:00.001-07:002013-01-07T21:43:07.148-07:00Ten Reasons why Downton Abbey is a Hard Show to Stay Mad AtI can't lie. Being an Anglophilic enough American, I have already watched all of season 3 of Downton Abbey. Through extraordinary means, I found a way to see the show last fall when it aired in Great Britain. <br />
<br />
But have no fear, there are no spoilers in this post. I have no intention of giving away any details of the current season other than to say that throughout the season I grew unhappy with the show. Particular things became bothersome and I began to feel that the show had drifted from its most excellent roots. I was even planning to write a post giving vent to my frustrations.<br />
<br />
And was NOT going to watch tonight's American premiere.<br />
<br />
But, then I turned on the TV because there's been so much hype here about the show that even my husband wanted to watch. I thought I'd just sit with him for a few minutes to explain any backstory he might need and then wander off to do my own thing.<br />
<br />
But now, he sits sleeping in front of the TV and I have been watching, rapt, for the last hour.<br />
<br />
I see that even though I'm mad at the show, I'm still addicted. The addiction is fed by the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
1. the clothes</div>
<div>
<div>
2. the cars</div>
<div>
3. Maggie Smith</div>
<div>
<div>
4. the snappy one-liners</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
5. the fascinating insight into class distinctions</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
6. exposure to the details and social intricacies of living in high society</div>
<div>
7. exposure to the details and intricacies of living in the servant class<br />
<div>
8. the rich period details of wallpapers, decor, and kitchen implements</div>
<div>
9. an insane hope that, at some point, Mrs. Hughes and Mr. Carson will discover they have the hots for one another</div>
<div>
10. the incredibly beautiful and colorful English countryside, exquisitely filmed<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With all these things working against me, I don't stand a chance, really.</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-78098823056114695512012-12-31T10:33:00.000-07:002014-05-24T08:22:24.324-07:00I must be one of the few people nerdy enough to watch The Artist who isn't gushing about it.It pains me to say it -- you have no idea how much -- beacause <i>I</i> should be the ultimate perfect audience for the film, but the <i>The Artist</i> was a disappointment. It is a film that came so close to celebrating silence but instead just sells us talkies (again).<br />
<br />
First some background: I am a recent convert to silent movies. In the last year I have watched many dozens of them -- comedies, dramas, melodramas, adventure films, you name it, and I <i>adore</i> this style of filmmaking. Silent film is great in a way sound film isn't, and can't be. It is its <i>own</i> kind of great. I have come to feel a fierce advocacy for silent film as a worthy art form that stands on its own and that is not necessarily and automatically "less than" sound film.<br />
<br />
<i>Silent</i> film is to <i>sound</i> film as <i>books </i>are to <i>movies</i>. Silent film doesn't suffer from the lack of sound any more than books suffer from the lack of actors. Great silent film has the advantage of being gentler on the senses and relies on a more active user experience and brain power to do some of the work -- filling in gaps with that marvelous tool known as imagination. I have also come to a deeper appreciation of the beauty of well-shot black and white cinematography. There is nothing like the expert telling of a visual story through shades of dark and contrast.<br />
<br />
So, when I heard that someone had made a silent film this year, and shot it in black and white no less!, not to mention set it in the 1920s, I was excited. After viewing <i>The Artist</i> I am now devastated to say that (despite its near universal acclaim and awards) it missed its mark and left me feeling sad and let down. <i>The Artist</i> is neither expert black and white cinematography nor is it great silent film.<br />
<br />
I applaud Michel Hazanavicius's desire to make this film! I am so proud that someone did it. I just wish that someone had had a better understanding of how and why silent film is special and attention worthy.<br />
<br />
I fear that the very mechanics of how to make a movie without dialog are now lost to modern people. We just don't have that skill anymore. From the start of <i>The Artist</i> I felt its silence as deafening noise. I kept accidentally straining my ears for words or absentmindedly turning up the volume. That is something I have never once before done while watching silent films of the silent era. And it is because characters in <i>The Artist</i> move around in modern ways, speaking to each other, laughing and making noise that THEY could hear but the viewer can't. You see them moving their lips, speaking, but the camera doesn't know how to tell us what they are saying! It both pays too much and too little attention to their mouthed words, leaving the viewer in a fuzz. It feels as though it is filmed according to modern principles and then made "silent" by removing the sound track. (This, by the way, is the same flaw that strikes the cinematography. It looks as if it were simply filmed as per usual, and then had the colors removed. There is no sparkling, gorgeous contrast; no luminousness. No true understanding of the nuances of black and white as its own art form.)<br />
<br />
OK, this is probably a subtle point for modern audiences, but I'm going to try and make it anyway: silent film is not the same as sound film with the sound turned down. It is<i> seamlessly</i> and inherently silent. In real silent-era films (and I've seen a lot) I have never once felt<i> deprived</i> of sound! I have simply never missed it. I missed it constantly in <i>The Artist</i>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
It's not that silent-era film actors never spoke to one another while film was rolling -- in fact you can often see them saying things, and its fun to do some lip reading -- but that is never a large part of what's going on. (If it is intended that we read an actors lips, the camera and the acting make it crystal clear that that is what we need to do). Far too many times in <i>The Artist</i> characters are filmed having conversations with each other, conveying their meaning through words the viewer can't hear. In real silent films, characters do not enter rooms flapping their jaws; they "announce" their intentions by how they walk, what their shoulders are doing, what their facial expressions are. The camera tells us who has power and what motivates the characters by how long it lingers on faces or on backs; the camera implies conversation by how it takes in the others in the room.<br />
<br />
Consider this: silent filmmakers weren't preoccupied with the absence of sound; they did not work around it as a limitation -- it was just the innate nature of what they were doing. Maybe a good analogy is the way modern filmmakers work in 2-dimensions. They don't think about how the surface of the screen is "flat" (unlike reality), they just go with it. Film is flat. No big deal. Filmmakers don't feel disadvantaged to have to work without that third dimension of reality; they just shoot films. In the silent era, the lack of words and sound effects would have been like that. No big deal. Film was visual. Period. <i>Everything </i>about how a story played out understood that innately. Where and how the camera panned, who or what it focused on, how the actors moved, and used eye contact, clothing, props, action shots. Its hard to describe with words, but if you watch a silent movie (maybe <i>The It Girl</i> for a similar light and romantic drama) you'll see what I mean.<br />
<br />
Modern movie makers may have lost the ability to make a story sing and move forward without the use of language. I feel devastated that <i>The Artist</i> had a chance to prove <i>we</i> could still do this, and failed.<br />
<br />
I just watched <i>The Last Laugh</i> a 1924 masterpiece from German director F.R. Murnau. It is reported that he used no title cards in that entire film. (I wouldn't know. I didn't notice.) He may be the exception as someone who could shoot a whole film with absolutely no need to supplement though verbal explanation what was going on, but I read somewhere that Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton had a friendly competition to see who could make a film with the fewest title cards. When you tell great visual stories (as they both clearly could) you not only don't need dialog, you don't even need written words.<br />
<br />
Although I seem to be trashing <i>The Artist</i>, in fact, I liked it. I just didn't love it and felt disappointed by it. It has plenty of good points. Its period details are wonderful. Beautiful. I can't imagine where they found all these 1920s-era buildings and cars. The costumes, too, are almost always spot on. The leads are incredible and full of personality and charm. Also, there are many lovely "art shots" where photography is used well to showcase something beautiful or striking. And in a few places, it<i> </i>has some flashes of excellent visual storytelling. For instance, the pantomime Peppy does at the beginning with George's coat is fantastic. And the best scene in the film is the one when George's dog runs down the street to get a policeman when there is a fire. But the scenes with that kind of spark (forgive me) are few and far between.<br />
<br />
The film, like others before it (<i>Singin' in the Rain</i>, <i>Sunset Blvd</i>.) lines up to make the point that those adhering to silence after sound became available were misguided dinosaurs who couldn't see the writing on the wall. But I detest that point of view. People who wanted to cling to silent film were <i>not</i> just foolish old timers. They included people who could sense that something important and special was about to be gone for good. (Imagine how you would feel if they stopped making books). These films (<i>Sunset Blvd</i>, <i>Singin' in the Rain</i>, and now, <i>The Artist</i>) oversimplify the silent to sound-era transition. In fact, at the time of this transition (the late 20s), silent films were significantly better, artistically speaking, than the sound of the time. Most sound films of this transition-era are garbage by today's standards, whereas some of its silent works still hold up incredibly well. It took many many years before sound films were as good and well-made as the ones Peppy (in The Artist) was seen to be making. While good silent film continued to be made and enjoyed for years after <i>The Jazz Singer</i>. It was not a hard line immediate switch.<br />
<br />
One of the best moments of <i>The Artist's</i> silent storytelling comes at the end of the film when Peppy and George are dancing together in the director's office. Its wonderful. But just as the film has finally managed to speak successfully to the viewer without dialog, they yell "cut" and the film switches to sound. It is the moment that cements the lack of opportunity as it become just another film lauding the triumph of sound over silence.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/7290/981742122.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/7290/981742122.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-31296527949791752632012-11-28T23:03:00.002-07:002012-11-28T23:05:04.315-07:00Richard Armitage is About to Hit the Big TimeRichard Armitage is about to hit the big time, and I feel the need to declare that "I knew him when." Celluloidily, of course.<br />
<br />
Having never been part of the Armitage Army of ravenous fans that sprang up in response to his gorgeousness and talent, I have nonetheless been an admirer and fan of his for some time. And I find it odd that I'm now feeling a mixture of pride and sadness in knowing that his appearance in <i>The Hobbit</i> is bound to catapult him into stratospheres of stardom. <br />
<br />
Because most of the actors that I follow are loved by a smallish audience, it confers a sense of intimacy, ownership, or pride in their careers. An almost motherly feeling that I am loathe to lose when everyone in the world starts noticing what "we" used to have to ourselves. (This is similar to how I felt after Colin Firth hit it big in <i>The King's Speech</i>. A feeling that something wonderful and precious has been released out into the bigger world. And a hope that the bigger world deserved it.)<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmJv8_EICu0lHSecJtYaZdX5VtRkM25MKgLzOLylKfytxeqvio7gfRdGK1syi1RICjfDlfhtuyob8a-gZWlopNL85m6OoxmFX98Fjhrh09IzR3ERPZsl1oiqT55BCaCJyJvqu4Ypv836fX/s1600/thornton.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmJv8_EICu0lHSecJtYaZdX5VtRkM25MKgLzOLylKfytxeqvio7gfRdGK1syi1RICjfDlfhtuyob8a-gZWlopNL85m6OoxmFX98Fjhrh09IzR3ERPZsl1oiqT55BCaCJyJvqu4Ypv836fX/s320/thornton.jpeg" width="320" /></a>While Richard Armitage is certainly one of the bigger names to appear on my blog, he is still a relative unknown in that great huge grinding world of massive pop culture celebrity. And I kind of like it that way.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I am just so damn happy for the guy. He certainly deserves a shot at the big time.<br />
<br />
So, good luck to you Richard.<br />
<br />
Those of us who knew you as Guy of Gisborne, as Lucas North, or as Mr. Thornton, and who watched and waited patiently for each and every role you took on, are behind you all the way. Probably staring at your butt.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-18888282745517936422012-11-18T09:13:00.001-07:002013-01-07T21:43:43.522-07:00A Case for Silence<br />
Visiting Hollywood with a few ten thousand others was not just far too colorful an experience, it was far too loud. But then I've observed that calm and peace do not seem to be things that many others seek.<br />
<br />
After walking the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and though we dipped into just one attraction, my head was buzzing and my eyes were popping. By the time we drove away, I craved a real piece of history, not to mention a real piece of peace -- just some simple remembrances of the sleepy dusty town where people from an entirely different world used to peddle their craft.<br />
<br />
A surprising note to our family's LA film history tour was the futile search for historical and cultural resources devoted to Hollywood's distant past. We realize that this is not a hot attraction for most people in the Entertainment Capital of the World, but with the billion or so people living on this stretch of coast, I admit I was hoping for a fairly large exhibit somewhere of early filmmaking memorabilia and resources.<br />
<br />
If such a treasure trove is there, I never found it. I do understand that Los Angeles Natural History Museum has a small exhibit dedicated to early film pioneers but we didn't get there; we did try The Hollywood Museum, an oddity that bills itself as the place for early movie fans. Although they claim 10,000 artifacts, I'm pretty sure most of those are photographs. Worse still, desperate to compete for the least common denominator that flocks down Hollywood Blvd, they've taken a kitschy, cram-packed approach to old Hollywood that brought to mind the seedier aspects of the business - the focus on lifestyle, the desire to be more attractive at any cost, and the desperate search for fame.<br />
<br />
However there is one place, just up the road from the big time, that contained a piece of what I sought and that we were lucky enough to find. Feeling a bit raggedy and exhausted as we left Hollywood Blvd, it's lucky enough that we didn't get into an accident on the way home--profoundly luckier still that we stumbled right past a wonderful little barn called the Hollywood Heritage Museum. The only fault with the place is that it wasn't bigger. They are on just the right track of preserving and discussing the history of the industry that came to California and took it over 100 years ago. Chatting with the well informed and pleasant staff, using indoor voices and dressed in reasonable clothes no less, I realized that there really are others like me -- probably dozens -- and that we should stage the comeback of silent pictures.<br />
<br />
As the docent and I chatted, I thought about how the biggest stumbling block to people enjoying silence is a simple unfamiliarity with this style. But telling a story without audible words is not necessarily and absolutely a worse choice than telling it with. I mentioned <i>The General</i> as an example, he mentioned <i>The Canadian</i>, we both found that after watching these films and recollecting them later we couldn't quite remember their silence. They were simply so good that we didn't notice they didn't have dialog. We almost could have sworn there was sound because it was going on inside our imaginations. Hmmm... eerily reminiscent of the power of books, isn't it?<br />
<br />
Silent film is no less a perfect form of storytelling, compared to sound movies, than reading books is compared to watching moving pictures.<br />
<br />
The amazing thing is, I'm sure we're not the only ones who feel this way. Silence may never attract the masses again, but the internet is buzzing with people who love the art form -- connecting people who still harbor a blazing interest in the types of pictures so soundly drummed out of Hollywood when pictures started talking.<br />
<br />
Although I'm willing to concede that in the late 1920s the technology of "sound on film" was a big advance, and an inevitable one at that with possibilities far beyond what film with only visuals could do, it is sad that it so obliterated what silent film could do well. Silent film isn't about the lack of sound. It is about fully filling the space in a film with story elements that are suited to a visual medium. It is not a less-than approach. It is a complete approach of its own. The acting is different. The camera movements are different. The way characters and scenes move is something that supplies direction to the story. After watching well-made silent films, I simply never have been known to say to myself: "that was great. I sure wish it could have had sound."<br />
<br />
In an interview done in 1958 and accessible through Columbia University's Oral History Project, Buster Keaton talked about making visual comedies at the beginnings of the sound era:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I'm always going to find places in my story where dialogue is not called for.... You get those stretches in your picture of six, seven, eight, nine minutes where there isn't a word of dialogue. In those, we did our old routines. Then, when it was natural to talk, you talked. You didn't avoid it. But you lay out your material that way, it don't call for dialogue.... The minute sound came in, it was everybody talking their head off and going for dialogue laughs. All your writers did the same thing. Once that started, it took years to ever get anybody even to even touch that type of material again.... I tried every so often.</blockquote>
His words are profoundly true and sadly still not often hailed. This irrepressibly reminds me of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard saying: "There was a time in this business when they had the eyes of the whole world. But that wasn't good enough for them. Oh no. They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk talk talk!"<br />
<br />
Filmmakers could be making the best of the media work for them now with slow moving, more visual stories that talk when its natural to talk, but they rarely do. Keaton continues in this interview to discuss how some of his movies were remade using sound by people who mistakingly thought that good material can be made better by throwing noise into it. Here, he speaks of Red Skelton's version of <i>The General</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
They started that off with a battle scene, cavalry plowing over the hill towards the camera, guns going, flags waving, heavy music -- very heavy music. Everything. The minute that picture started, it come on with a fanfare and a blast, from the time the lion roared on the screen - this is an MGM picture - the blast was on. Now, we would go out of our way to see how quiet we could start a motion picture. In other words, I wanted an audience to sit back in their seats at the start and get comfortable. Not bring em up on the edge of their seats with the title and the opening scenes of the picture, but put them back in their seats. . . . while we planted the plot and the characters. Then we let that come. To this day, I can't talk a modern producer into seeing it from that angle.</blockquote>
And if Buster were still around I wonder if he'd still be futilely trying? Maybe the pendulum would have started swinging sooner, but it seems to me that it is slowly swinging now. Do you ever feel that you are on the verge, the cutting edge of a movement about to happen? A resurgence of silence seems almost possible. I've been reading a lot about Buster Keaton on the internet lately and I notice people say things like: "do you remember a couple of years ago when no one was talking about Keaton?" Now, go on to tumblr and type "Buster Keaton" in the search box and see how many pages come up.<br />
<br />
Young people are starting to fight about who was better, Chaplin or Keaton. Silent film festivals are popping up all over the country. New dvds and blurays are getting issued all the time. And people are starting to talk about, er, not talking. For instance, Martin Scorsese's celebrated 2011 film <i>Hugo</i> presents a unique kind of story with an homage to silent film. A wonderful short, <i>silent</i> film, <i>La Luna,</i> got mass exposure playing before Disney's <i>Brave </i>in theaters last summer. And maybe even more exciting, for the time since 1929, and for only the second time ever, a silent picture (<i>The Artist</i>) won an Academy Award this year.<br />
<br />
These films celebrate early cinema or practice a different, more subtle type of storytelling. I can only hope that more people will start paying attention to the beauty and peace of telling a story that isn't designed to bombard our senses and smash our intellects into submission. Films that are slower, more intelligent, that make you work just a bit harder and that make you feel proud to have viewed might not appeal to everyone. That's OK. I don't need them to take over the world. Just one tiny little corner of it again would be nice.<br />
<br />
"Wonderful isn't it. And no dialog. We didn't need dialog. We had faces."<br />
-Norma DesmondAmyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-40209287133585357452012-10-14T14:00:00.003-07:002014-05-24T08:31:37.437-07:00Susannah Harker as JaneI love the 1995 <i>Pride and Prejudice</i> adaptation. This is not an earth-shattering revelation. Many others do too. And I, like many others, watch it, oh, say, once or even twice a year. -- whenever I am getting in the mood for fall. . . or looking for a way to unwind after being really busy . . . or snuggled in by a fire at Christmas. . . there are many excellent excuses to re-watch.<br />
<br />
So re-watch I did. Again. For the umpteenth time and, as I often do, I reflected upon Susannah Harker as Jane. When I first saw this series, many many years ago, I remember that I was just ever so slightly disappointed with Jane, thinking, as others have done before me, that she is just not quite breathtaking enough for the role. But each time I watch I see more and more of her beauty. You just have to look with the right eyes.<br />
<br />
The problem is not Harker at all; it is her hair.<br />
<br />
Now, this <i>Pride and Prejudice</i> was an authentic period piece, so I understand that they were constrained to Regency-era styles. Of course that would present some strictures as to what would be appropriate for Jane; but, it's just no excuse for her hair not to suit her face better. Other women in the production have hairstyles that really fit both the actress and what her character needed to convey. Especially Lizzy. Jennifer Ehle looks just as Lizzy ought to, and in some scenes, her hair adds immeasureably to her charms - for example, the Netherfield Ball 'do.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6pr91ES-0ymRSGbJeQy1CD6Z-GeQNunqwS7HWi5LjxtlvG6osSHVY4-pZIGNVSmQg9hMvmgGirn0acVrayiYlbwrLnGcQFJtJwb-mijd0tLxpFnw6s9dm4TCSursvNDxTMp1ItORQkLi8/s1600/Elizabeth-Bennet-elizabeth-bennet-31632202-283-424.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6pr91ES-0ymRSGbJeQy1CD6Z-GeQNunqwS7HWi5LjxtlvG6osSHVY4-pZIGNVSmQg9hMvmgGirn0acVrayiYlbwrLnGcQFJtJwb-mijd0tLxpFnw6s9dm4TCSursvNDxTMp1ItORQkLi8/s320/Elizabeth-Bennet-elizabeth-bennet-31632202-283-424.jpg" height="320" width="213" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4dmJbcqXMq235pRTLk0f13i_SvDayZo6okz2TfkNmSIveV6siMTxOrjvRd8-FYu5SK3r26zfb_HLf5HPMxpHEtL6dFREvEEQv_nOJM_vBAvZMt89BsNp9iuIwTu8cBauzp_uiICBDt8Y/s400/lizclose.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4dmJbcqXMq235pRTLk0f13i_SvDayZo6okz2TfkNmSIveV6siMTxOrjvRd8-FYu5SK3r26zfb_HLf5HPMxpHEtL6dFREvEEQv_nOJM_vBAvZMt89BsNp9iuIwTu8cBauzp_uiICBDt8Y/s400/lizclose.jpg" /></a><a href="http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/31600000/Elizabeth-Bennet-elizabeth-bennet-31632202-283-424.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
But poor Susanna Harker gets horns coming out of her temples. When she's casual, she gets to look long and stringy (with horns) and when she's dressed up, she gets to look too pulled back and severe (with horns.) The problem wouldn't amount to much except that Jane is supposed to be undeniably the most beautiful woman around and she comes off looking a bit unpleasant. This is unfair, because on viewing photos of the actress not as Jane, I can see that she is very very lovely.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnHpqCuw0IT3xNgJO-Na6g4Bxl1h1YvKp_yyTvqxSCpQ8GQy0HV57Se4LiPq5kwq3Z2kUUH49YjUKInJU540U5FvNPDZ6CbgB_IC9PyJLoRS73X9lZ55n-5K6FGztXr-rhbqiC0OonrWQj/s1600/susanna+harker.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnHpqCuw0IT3xNgJO-Na6g4Bxl1h1YvKp_yyTvqxSCpQ8GQy0HV57Se4LiPq5kwq3Z2kUUH49YjUKInJU540U5FvNPDZ6CbgB_IC9PyJLoRS73X9lZ55n-5K6FGztXr-rhbqiC0OonrWQj/s1600/susanna+harker.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.jimandellen.org/ellen/95PPJaneHurt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.jimandellen.org/ellen/95PPJaneHurt.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Here is how good Harker can look when she isn't becoming Jane:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.star-clips.com/list/s/susannahHarker/susannah%20Harker.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.star-clips.com/list/s/susannahHarker/susannah%20Harker.gif" height="320" width="211" /></a><a href="http://www.leninimports.com/susannah_harker_gallery_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.leninimports.com/susannah_harker_gallery_4.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
She is very beautiful!<br />
<br />
She has an excellent Greek nose, translucent skin and a lovely turn of the neck! While I admit that sometimes the production managed to showcase these characteristics well, for the most part, it failed to. The inability capitalize on and showcase the beauty of the character who was supposed to delight our eyes is one of the very few weak points in the production.Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-4392909349700711952012-07-13T16:02:00.001-07:002013-01-07T21:44:32.153-07:00The Accessable Man & Life Changing Event that is Buster KeatonIts no big secret that Buster Keaton is my newest obsession. I don't wish to hide it. The only thing I'm sheepish about is using my blog about British television to express it.<br />
<br />
However, the other night I saw a wonderful BBC documentary from 2006, "Silent Clowns," hosted by Paul Merton. Nice. A link I can hang my hat on.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/iIkxLneBs2I?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
This program does not just beautifully highlight Keaton's career and comedy, but speaks to the joy of silent film as an art form. Watching it, I began to see that silent film is significantly more cross-cultural an experience than movies made since the advent of sound. Silent movies, especially silent comedies, speak a universal visual language.<br />
<br />
Because his work has the capacity for such broad popular appeal, Keaton belongs to all of us. Notably, at a time when his career was hitting the skids in America, Keaton kept working in Europe and Mexico. Late in his career he enjoyed a resurgence of fame and was treated like a returning hero during stage performances in France. And the discovery and restoration of his films is also a global story -- one that stretches from L.A. to Czechoslovakia.<br />
<br />
While reading everything I can about the man who fascinates me as much for his life story as for his brilliance, I find that certain themes begin to emerge. Commentators (such as Paul Merton, Richard Lewis, Edward McPherson, author of "Tempest in a Flat Hat") all want to talk about the circumstances under which they first encountered Buster. Like remembering where we were when the Twin Towers were hit, personal stories abound with respect to Keaton. Exposure to him seems to be a life changing moment for many people.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/MhmJM9p-wRU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>This wonderful clip is Richard Lewis' tribute to Keaton</i></div>
<br />
Part of the reason Keaton makes such a big impact is not just that he is so talented, but that he is so <i>unexpected</i>. Modern people, in our self-importance, can hardly believe that films of this era could have been so well made and that anyone back then could have been so acrobatic, so surreal and so smart a comedian. <br />
<br />
Beyond the theme of simply wanting to<i> share</i> our first encounters with the man lies a common desire to find links between him and ourselves. You often hear commentators speaking of the ways in which Buster influenced us or in which we are "like" him. People want somehow to recognize a bit of themselves in what we so value in him.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0y2pbX7ge1qbrdf3o1_500.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0y2pbX7ge1qbrdf3o1_500.png" width="320" /></a></div>
That desire to find ourselves in Keaton touches on a theme I've expressed in my blog before: that of reality fantasy. Keaton is an everyman. We experience him as one of us. We feel like him and we want to be like him, and best of all, we somehow believe that we could. He is fundamentally accessible.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimTTEHUl8HPwnm3dai4d4uj4-K2txsIK0OoWZAL8ZcctK5bYkQ7QJ9kEYiwefPCTZVr0Kvuj7dCTL9GFoJLLOLJ3cbYisb5LkIdenJFWc75L5nBjC6e1Neu_3KWWLz6nVjUgM7b9LHeH4/s1600/buster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimTTEHUl8HPwnm3dai4d4uj4-K2txsIK0OoWZAL8ZcctK5bYkQ7QJ9kEYiwefPCTZVr0Kvuj7dCTL9GFoJLLOLJ3cbYisb5LkIdenJFWc75L5nBjC6e1Neu_3KWWLz6nVjUgM7b9LHeH4/s320/buster.jpg" width="265" /></a>These feelings are remarkable given that he was not a regular guy at all. Keaton was extraordinarily beautiful. Although he was not generally filmed with an eye toward glamor, he had the most phenomenal look - full lips, enormous expressive eyes, high cheekbones, and thick dark hair -- yet somehow he isn't seen as a sex symbol. When people talk about his face they call it the "great stone face" and speak of its impassivity. He often portrayed down on his luck guys on the edge of wimpiness, yet he was supremely in control. He had a beautiful physique with which he could do astonishing feats of skill that most of us couldn't even dream of... or imagine.<br />
<br />
But he could. He could dream it -imagine it -do it and film it, with nuance.<br />
<br />
And despite his awesomeness, despite his extraordinary talent and skill -- he still, somehow, never feels out of reach to us. His genius is in allowing us all to share the emboldening effect of his movies.<br />
<br />Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7319951361865255810.post-91055437161158527372012-07-12T06:43:00.000-07:002012-07-12T06:43:20.749-07:00Here's one you may not have heard of: SpySomewhere across the Atlantic a talented group of people is preparing to air the second season of a show that is obscure, strange and hard to find anything out about. Its likely to always remain strange but please, I hope, is on the road to the big time.<br />
<br />
The show is "Spy," a deliciously smart and funny concoction, the brainchild of a really clever guy called Simeon Goulden who describes his idea for the show as follows: "well I think its about a nasty child and his single father. And I think the father maybe joins MI-5 by mistake."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://aka.media.entertainment.sky.com/image/unscaled/2011/09/07/SpySpecial05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="http://aka.media.entertainment.sky.com/image/unscaled/2011/09/07/SpySpecial05.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The primer:<br />
Tim Eliot is the main character, played by Darren Boyd. He is damn funny, dry and bumbling, yet with underlying intelligence and normalcy that makes you root for him in the crazy mixed-up life he's found himself in. Marcus his extremely irritating son. Marcus is supposed to be irritating, so I shouldn't find fault with him for that reason.<br />
<br />
The high-tech spy stuff is a source of humor, such as when Tim enters headquarters and the recognition security doors never know who he is (mistaking him for women or inanimate objects) but letting him in anyway.<br />
<br />
The spy boss, deliciously played by Robert Lyndsay (an ever-so-slight parody of Harry Pearce from Spooks?) is a hard-drinking, slightly out of touch man, in love with his power, a bit insane and generally inappropriate. He also is completely taken with Tim, though TIm disagrees with everything he says.<br />
<br />
The rest of the cast is fabulously comedic and the writing top-notch, so that lines like these are not just funny but delivered with perfect timing:<br />
<br />
Tim, trying to impress his coworker by acting very cool and walking in a cool way.<br />
"Have you soiled yourself?"<br />
"No. That's how men walk."<br />
"Incontinent men, maybe."<br />
<br />
Exchange between TIm and his co-worker Caitlyn upon whom he has a slight crush, when he finds himself at her place in a sketching class:<br />
"Its a funny thing. When you were talking earlier about there being some nudity, I - I thought you meant . . ."<br />
"Me?"<br />
"You."<br />
"Naked!? Get out a here What bit of what I said made you think that!"<br />
"...uh, the words."<br />
<br />
<br />
I can't wait for more like this. Though I'm sure I'll have to. I don't know when (nor if) the episodes will show up on Hulu. But I can tell you that last year's 6 episodes are all there for free and should be watched by lovers of great comedy. For those lucky enough to live somewhere that British shows are accessible in real time, you could watch the return of Spy tomorrow night (Friday the 13th. You don't think they did that on purpose do you?)Amyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05257485838861137689noreply@blogger.com0