Richard Armitage is About to Hit the Big Time

Richard Armitage is about to hit the big time, and I feel the need to declare that "I knew him when." Celluloidily, of course.

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 The Hobbit is bound to catapult him into stratospheres of stardom.

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 The King's Speech. A feeling that something wonderful and precious has been released out into the bigger world. And a hope that the bigger world deserved it.)

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.

On the other hand, I am just so damn happy for the guy. He certainly deserves a shot at the big time.

So, good luck to you Richard.

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.

Richard Armitage Looks Like Hugh Jackman

This is something I should have said a long time ago, but let not another moment pass before saying it now: Richard Armitage and Hugh Jackman look alike.

 

That's it. Yes, a pathetically short blog post, but sometimes that's what you get. I will add this: that they are just a few years apart in age and that they look more alike from certain angles. The top two photos here are Hugh, the bottom two are Richard.

Why Should Knitting Remind Me of Robin Hood?

Knitting reminds me of Robin Hood.

I bet you didn't see that one coming.

As strange as it sounds, there's a real association for me. Knitting feels like a "winter sport" and last December I learned how. . . . OK, I'd known the basic stitch since I was a girl in scouts, but when all you can do is knit an unending rectangle, the options are fairly limited. So, when I took on purling, binding off, casting on, socks, hats, even sweaters, worlds opened up. (No, I wasn't knitting kelly green tights -- we're not to the Robin Hood association quite yet. Hang in there). So, I knit until about April when it was too hot and I set those needles down for a long hiatus, and hadn't thought about it much until I met up with my knitting-friend recently who wondered what project I was on.

Shame and guilt can be a great motivator. I realized it had been too long and got back to work. (I'm making a beautiful purple hemp light sweater. It is still 90 out after all). Immediately thoughts of Robin Hood came into my mind. (Why??? The long skinny needles reminiscent of arrows or something?)

Nah, last winter when I was a bit knit-obsessed, I was also a bit Robin-obsessed. I spent a great many evenings with Robin Hood in the dvd player and a project on my lap. Each seemed to bolster the other. And for some odd reason they went together well. Maybe because this Robin Hood series, which aired for 3 seasons and can sometimes be found on BBC America, is light enough on plot details that looking away from the screen fairly often didn't impact my ability to follow the story. Or maybe because knitting gave me a place to put my eyes whenever gory images needed to be avoided. I think creating clothing also seemed particularly apropos for a show in which the costumes were a rich, funny, creative and inspired part.

Beyond the costumes and the knitting pragmatics this series is enjoyable as a great quasi-modernized Robin Hood idea. It's not your typical take on the legend and is a bit uneven, but overall, funny, beautifully filmed, exciting, well-acted, and definitely worth watching if you enjoy period drama of the middle ages but aren't too concerned about the details.

There is the hilariously despicable Sheriff of Nottingham, played deliciously by Keith Allen. And speaking of delicious, Richard Armitage's voice alone is worth the price of admission; he is a wonderfully surly Guy of Gisborne usually dressed in a fair amount of leather.

The one problem I had with the show, is that I was always rooting for Marian and Guy -- who made a much better couple than that sappy Robin/Marian combo, but, alas, though willing to depart in great measure from traditional plot lines, the writers just wouldn't give me that.

Jonas Armstrong is a young, sweet sort of Robin and his band of merry men, which includes some merry women (yes, this is a modern take on the middle ages) is funny, especially delightful "Much", played by Sam Troughton.  I also enjoy spunky Marian who -- and I'm so thankful that British film and television cast such interesting women -- is beautiful, but not flawless and emaciated. She is so much more interesting for her curves and her style and her beautiful round eyes.

If you want to start with an excellent episode, "For England" (Season 2, Episode 6) is my favorite. It has an all around good plot with humor, surprises, powerful moments and some of the best Guy/Marian scenes.

I doubt anyone will ever displace Errol Flynn in my mind as the quintessential Robin in the perfect adaptation of the stories. But, to its credit, this production doesn't really try. It is striking its own ground as a quirky, funny, not at all faithful television series.

Happy Knitting.

MI-5's Lucas North, the Character that Pamela Ewing Dreamed.

 I have just finished watching the last episode of MI-5 (Spooks') Season 9 and I'm a bit ticked. (Please take care for the Spoilers that follow and - don't read if you haven't watched through Season 9).

I have no problem admitting that I'm often in over my head with some of the sophisticated and complex Spooks plots. Whenever one doesn't make sense, I always assume its me that can't figure it out and I really don't let it bother me. I have a rather healthy suspension of disbelief. But this time its not about me. This episode has huge plot-holes in it that are not my fault and due to nothing more complex than stretching a storyline too far.

Lucas North's (oh excuse me, John Bateman's) motivations and actions in this episode just don't and can't add up. While Vaughn was alive and blackmailing him, things made sense. The character-formerly-known-as-Lucas was walking a tightrope trying to keep things together --wishing to protect his job and reputation and trying to carve out a life with Maya. This is all fine. But after the threat of blackmail is gone (with the death of Vaughn) and after Harry knows (most of) the real story and Lucas knows his job and reputation are shot, his main motivation hinges on simply escaping somewhere with Maya.

Why in hell wouldn't Lucas have cut a deal with his own country rather than work with the Chinese to whom he has no particular allegiance and who are not providing him anything that others in power couldn't also provide? The Chinese entanglement was Vaughn's deal, not Lucas'; he is too smart to just keep working with them by default. Especially when all the spooks are offering to deal.  It doesn't make sense.

Once his last motivating factor, Maya, is dead, things become even more strange and strained. There is no reason why Lucas would become distraught to know that Albany wasn't a real threat. He was not invested in Albany and didn't even know what it was for much of the episode. His "mission" wasn't to deliver Albany to the Chinese. His mission was to get out of town. He could have been giving them chocolate. He didn't care. Why should he jump off a building when Albany turns out to be useless? It doesn't ring true.

Somebody defending the episode might say, well, he acted unpredictably because his mind was screwed up; he was confused; he wasn't acting out of rational motivations. Fair enough. But, while I think it makes sense for Lucas' options and strategy and even his state of mind to be messed up, there's no reason for his basic driving purpose as a character to be messed up.

And there is no reason for the writers to have changed everything about him that a viewer had the right to rely on. One of the best things about this show has always been its internal consistency with respect to character development. Rugs just don't go getting pulled out from under us. Here they are flying through the air.

...And, if he was so messed up, it just points to another plot flaw: there is no way, in that state of mind, he could have orchestrated (solo) all the sophisticated maneuvers he had going to get Albany from the spooks (the car pre-programmed with directions, the phone that calls only him, the suit of clothes for Harry to switch to, the scanner set-up, the IV drip for Ruth, and on and on). Its too much.

I'm not going to say that Season 9, Episode 8 isn't good TV. Its exciting and heart-thumping and heart-breaking and interesting. But it doesn't feel true to me. It has a flavor of Bobby Ewing showing up in the shower in Dallas rather than being dead. Yes, writers of fiction have wide license. If they want to all of a sudden make someone really alive after all!  they can do it. If they all of a sudden want to make someone really really bad after all!, then they can do that too. But there is no reason to have made Lucas so super duper ultra bad that he was willing to sell out his country for basically no reason... so really ultra bad that he was willing to kill a random stranger, let alone an attempt on a co-worker whom he cared about, trusted and respected. Not when he'd just spent years working his ass off as an agent dedicating his life to protecting his country and countrymen.

And I say all this as someone who is actually quite OK with some level -- a fair level -- of badness in Lucas. It makes sense. He is ambiguous. He has a strange flatness about him into which you can read a variety of things. So I don't mind the writers constructing a past for Lucas that torments him and causes him to become unstable. Its an interesting choice that enlivened this whole series, but by the last episode it was clear to me that they were straining to make it all work. They took a good idea to the wrong place and went too far.

By way of comparison, I enjoyed the way the departure of Tom was handled many many seasons ago . . . it was ever so slightly similar.  Devoted and caring agent just has one little bit more than he can take  and becomes rogue and unstable. There was a great ambiguous ending for him. I'm OK with rogue agents going a bit over the brink or being scarred by a difficult life. I mean, you don't generally go into this line of work if you are and have always been boring and squeaky clean.

The only thing that made the last episode of season 9 bearable was the phenomenal acting from Richard Armitage who almost managed to sell this ridiculous storyline. He reached deep and found a humanity for Lucas, despite these crazy plot twists. His scenes with Ruth, Harry and Maya are all powerful and touching. It was rich when he was advising Ruth to marry Harry. He has an incredible capacity to tap into Lucas' vulnerability.

I'm going to miss Lucas. And I don't see why they needed to blast him to bits before they ousted him. Even Connie got to redeem herself by disarming a nuclear bomb and saving millions of people before she was blasted away.

Spooks has always wooed me willingly along to wherever it wanted to go. And I've always been thrilled by the ride. But I feel jerked around by this ending to the Lucas story.

It might have been better if  Pamela Ewing had just dreamed it all, really.

"MI-5's Lusas North, the Character that Pamela Ewing Dreamed." LostinBritishTV

Higgins and Thornton of North & South -- One of the Best Male Relationships Ever.

Having nothing to do with how very handsome they both are, I have to say that Nicholas Higgins and John Thornton of North & South represent one of the best male relationships to develop on screen.

North & South is another one of these gorgeous English productions that many people are unaware of. This is not to be confused with the Kirstie Alley TV miniseries which came out in the 1980s and dealt with the American Civil War. I'm talking about the screen adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell's novel of the same name. For those who don't know Elizabeth Gaskell, she writes of an early industrial time in England that falls in between the Regency that Jane Austen fans know well and the Victorian age of authors such as Dickens and the Brontes. Her novels are notable for depicting this instrumental time in the infancy of industrialization as the backdrop to plots of intricate character and romance. Her style is earthier than Austen but not so gritty or grisly as Dickens. Yes, there's a fairly high death count in her books, but its usually from disease and old age and not so much from murder.  :)

The division between the north and south is found in the eyes of our heroine Margaret Hale, who leaves a pastoral country society of southern English gentility when her father, a vicar, has a crisis of faith that propels him to leave his church. He moves his family to the sooty dank northern mill town of Milton where Margaret flounders to find a place for herself amid an entirely different lifestyle than the one she knew. Her story, especially her relationship with John Thornton, who runs a cotton mill, is the driving plot of the book, but the book and the 2004 television adaption are enriched by many other fascinating relationships that are almost as striking as hers with Thornton, such as Thornton's relationship with his mother, Margaret's relationship with the working class Higgins family, and, my favorite, Higgins' and Thornton's relationship.

Thornton is a mill owner, Nicholas Higgins a union leader. They start out as enemies on either side of a strike - their relationship somewhere between hatred and misunderstanding. After the strike fails and events conspire to make Higgins really need a job, the men meet in this scene and work out a tentative agreement for Higgins to work in Thornton's mill.

Thornton has probably never walked down this street before and it inspires both disgust and compassion. Notice the look on Higgins' face as he ushers Thornton into his tiny home; how his glance sweeps the street wondering what the neighbors might think. They are mistrustful of each other and each is trying to assert who he is. ("Work is work. I'll come. And what's more I'll thank you for it and that's a good deal from me.") They want to work together for different reasons but both rooted in the idea that Margaret can see what is best in them and they want to rise to it.  They both care deeply about Margaret -- but in different ways.

A grudging respect begins to develop between the two strong men as Thornton realizes that Higgins is exactly the kind of man he admires; he works hard, supports his family and even another man's family. He is honest and fair as well as intelligent.

Meanwhile Higgins also realizes that Thornton has concerns that run deeper than simply keeping the worker down and turning a profit and the two begin to forge a relationship that is really touching.

In my favorite scene (which I can't find a short clip of), Thornton finds Higgins working late and starts to get angry with him, thinking he's up to something and wants overtime. But Higgins says he just wanted to finish the day's work, because if Thornton goes under Higgins wont have a job. By chatting, they together realize the need for workers and their families to have fit meals. When Thornton voices an opinion that workers should eat well, Higgins is amused. "Careful. Someone will report you to the masters union for that kind of talk."

But Thornton's dander is up. "If men eat well they work well. And that will please masters too unless they're idiots. Which some of 'em are."

The two begin to discuss how a meal program at the mill might work and Higgins starts spewing out ideas. Thornton is impressed.

"You did bring your brains with you to work today didn't you?"
"Well I try to keep them hidden but I can't do without them altogether."

They both have a tongue in check impishness with each other. They understand one another and realize that their goals are actually quite well aligned.

By the end of the film Higgins calls Thornton by his name, not "master" and also, so perceptively and slyly finds a way to reveal the truth about a key piece of information that is keeping Margaret and Thornton apart.

Some of this production does not follow the book. But North & South is a perfect illustration of how an excellent screen adaptation can depart from a book in plot point but follow it in spirit and enhance its story for the screen. Every single choice the screen writer and director make that depart from the book add to the story. That is a remarkable thing for an adaptation to accomplish.


Higgins and Thornton of North & South -- One of the Best Male Relationships Ever.  LostinBritishTV

A Lot of People in America Don't Know MI-5 (Spooks). They Should.

I wish more people in America knew about MI-5 (Spooks). It is simply phenomenal. Some of the best TV I have ever seen. And from me that is really saying something because I hate dark, gritty, thrilling programs. If this is good enough to make me fall in love with it, I can imagine few who wouldn't.

What makes Spooks so good is the acting, the tension, the style of filming, and the writing. Among other things :) And for me, the best character in Spooks is London itself; it is shot lovingly in that city giving meaningful glimpses into the British government and way of life that I think would be especially fun for Americans since we don't otherwise see that. Of course it scares the hell out of me. And sometimes is very disturbing. But the acting and writing make the characters come fully to life and it can be appreciated at different levels. These factors make everything worth it.

And its actually pretty easy to come by. You can get it on Netflix or Blockbuster through the rental of dvds or online streaming. I actually watch it on dvds that I check out from my library and my husband tells me it is also on TV late at night.  Just look for it.  The only caveat in the "looking for it" plan, is that you need to know that in Britain it is called "Spooks," in America it is packaged as "MI-5." Also, good to know that in Britain the term "series" means what we call a "season." I mention all this, because, armed with info there is simply no excuse not to start enjoying this show today.

I suppose it should go without saying to wait till the little ones are in bed though. It is seriously intense, sometimes graphic, and sometimes contains nudity and sexual situations. I did let my 12 year old watch one episode with me because it was just so good and one of the more appropriate ones (more of a PG-13 than an R). In fact it is the episode that I would recommend to anyone interested in the show.  If you watch only one episode of this show, let it be Episode 8 of Season 7.

These are the best spies I know. They are just sooooo cool. In case you don't know, the characters you see in that episode are: Harry, their leader (the guy with the tie, you know what I mean if you watched the clip), Lucas (the very sexy dark haired guy who knew they were speaking Russian), and Ros and Connie the other two who are on the run and getting shot at. They are all good guys. Except that Connie (Gemma Jones, who most Americans would know most readily as Bridget Jones' mum) was just discovered to be a "mole" for the enemy. (That's spy talk for someone who has infiltrated your organization). Ros is my favorite character of all time, but you just get glimpses of her in this clip. Still you can see how awesome she is just by how she walks and holds her phone. You also briefly get to see Malcolm and Jo (the good guys assisting with cool high tech stuff at good guy headquarters -- we in the know call that "the grid").

This show continues on with a great chase and confrontation under the street of London in defunct subway lines. I won't say more.

British TV in general and Spooks in particular just has a talent for fully developing amazingly rich characters while simultaneously entertaining you with great plot lines. Add some incredibly talented actors and you just can't miss.

Great show.


A Lot of People in America Don't Know MI-5 (Spooks). They Should. LostinBritishTV

Why Ros Reigns Supreme -- Ros Myers of MI-5 (Spooks).

I first tuned in to MI-5 (Spooks) in order to watch Richard Armitage. There it is, the truth. I loved him in North and South and wanted to see, ahem, more of him. Unfortunately, the things he had acted in were fairly obscure and hard to come by in America. So I watched North and South a few more times, then exhausted the British Robin Hood series, of course, and finally, against my better judgement (because I am complete wimp and was sure I wouldn't be able to handle it) checked out season 7 of MI-5 from my library.

Spy shows are not my thing. Romantic comedies. Yes. Period dramas. Yes. Spooks? Spies and intrigue and terror? No way. Still, I tentatively slid the dvd into the player and gave it a go. The first few minutes included a new father being violently seized by some thugs, then after the opening credits, a disturbing psychological flash-back montage that freaked me out. I turned it off thinking this was a big mistake. The soundtrack alone was giving me heart stress. But I persevered and a few nights later tried again.  And then it happened. I fell in LOVE. Only it wasn't Lucas North. It was Ros Myers.

The ultra cool sexy woman encountering a dead body completely unfazed; making a quiet phone call, refusing to abort her mission, saying "if its something worth killing for, its something worth knowing." In this  scene, calmly, while on the phone, Ros notices a reflection in the bottle on the table that alerts her to a bad guy skulking up behind her. She grabs that bottle and smashes it into his head. Then, with a table knife, finishes the job (off camera, thank God). Removing evidence from the (first) dead body and breezing through Moscow, Ros stole my heart. We just don't get to see this kinda thing very often.

In my limited experience with scary things, beautiful woman do not behave this way. Some of the things Ros didn't (and doesn't ever) do: (1) scream or look scared, (2) pout out her lips and breathe heavy so that her breasts heave up and down, (3) seek out a man or some other authority figure to rationalize, talk, justify, worry or cry, (4) make you worry about her and her safety when she is on screen. Watching her is calming because she is calm. She radiates a supreme sense of competence. You know she is perfectly willing to die, because that's her line of work. Its simple as that. She's smart, funny, beautiful, hot, cool, skilled and oh so good at beating people up. She rocks.

But then, last night, while watching an episode from series 3 and getting our first real introduction to Fiona, I wondered why Fiona isn't in the same league with Ros? She's tough. She doesn't cry. She's ruthless, dedicated and gorgeous. Why is it not at all the same??

The answer came to me at Trader Joe's this morning. I watched a mom come into the store with her two children who were quite young. The mom was speaking in a loud clear 'mom' voice to her children, directing them to look at certain things, share their thoughts, and encouraging proper behavior and assistance in selecting good vegetables. In every way this should have been appealing, yet she irritated the crap out of me. Every thing she did, seemed to encourage bystanders to look at her and her kids and notice what a lovely family they were. They were lovely. She had nicely cut and highlighted hair, she wore great long fitted shorts; her kids were crisp and clean. They all looked the part. But that was it. They were playing their part: the happy mom and kids on their shopping outing. She seemed to expect that people should notice and compliment her - in fact one older lady did - but coiffed mom wasn't fooling me. It was her gig.

You see, I've been complimented for being a good mom, too, while out shopping. But it took me entirely by surprise. I was just out with my kids and going about my business. I had to think about what I might have done or not done that could have caught the lady's attention and caused her to think I was a good mom. I know that on another day, she might have figured I was a horrible mom because I caved into the demands of a tired kid for candy. But I don't do my shopping to please bystanders. I just do what I do.

And that's the difference between Ros and Fiona. Ros doesn't see herself as 'hip spy out doing a mission'. She just is one. She doesn't have time for angst or introspection. She doesn't need reassurance. We don't know or care whether she puts on makeup or wears sexy underwear. She wears what she wears, looks how she looks, and does what she does just because it radiates naturally out of her. There is no self-consciousness about it. I think it is a combo of brilliant acting and writing that have led to her being the all time most awesome character on Spooks. And that is saying something as the show is saturated with phenomenally good characters and acting.

Check out Spooks ("MI-5" in America, "Spooks" in Britain) on the BBC


Why Ros Reigns Supreme -- Ros Myers of MI-5 (Spooks). LostinBritishTV