Murder on a Summer's Day is the fifth book in the Kate Shackleton mystery series that I so adore (the previous four have all been reviewed on this blog). Set in the 1920s in Yorkshire, this series follows a private investigator and, in this novel, Brody brings a touch of India to the Yorkshire countryside.
Kate is asked by her cousin to travel to Bolton Abbey to help find Maharajah Narayan, a distinguished visitor who disappeared while hunting. When she arrives at the scene Kate finds puzzle after puzzle blocking her path and it soon transpires she's involved in yet another murder case. Superstitious locals believe shooting a white doe was the reason Narayan died but there's a missing diamond and an unsuitable local girlfriend waiting in the wings. Kate keeps coming up against brick walls, despite the aid of her partner Jim Sykes and housekeeper Mrs Sudgen and the mystery builds gently as the book progresses.
I thoroughly enjoyed the layering of Indian culture on the Yorkshire setting. It added a new dimension to Brody's books, which are already uniquely enjoyable (for me) because of the three key ingredients of a female detective, period setting and the base in Yorkshire. The mystery itself ties together the English and the Indian aspects of plot with plenty of twists and turns along the way and some completely believable characters. There are a couple of especially memorable scenes, specifically one involving a snake and another involving a fire, both of which have lingered with me since I finished reading.
In fairness, I don't think Frances Brody could write a Kate Shackleton novel that I didn't enjoy but that doesn't mean this one isn't worth reading. Once again, Brody refrains from neat conclusions and, beyond that, I seriously hope the question she posed in the last line of this book is answered in the next. It's a frivolous fangirly question but I still care nonetheless.
This book was read as part of the 'Women' reading challenge, details here.
Showing posts with label female characters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label female characters. Show all posts
Monday, 21 September 2015
Monday, 15 September 2014
Book Review: Dying in the Wool by Frances Brody
Last summer, when I read A Woman Unknown (reviewed here), I vowed to go back and discover the Kate Shackleton mysteries from the beginning. Dying in the Wool is the first in the series, serving as a good introduction to Kate as well as being a very intriguing mystery that kept me guessing.
Kate has done some investigative work in the past, for families who want conclusive answers on why their men didn't come back from the Great War. The job offered to her by old friend Tabitha Braithwaite is the first where she accepts remuneration for her work and takes on an ex-policeman, Jim Sykes as her partner. Tabitha wants to know whether her father, who disappeared in 1916, is alive or dead as she's getting married and wants him to be present. Kate begins her investigations, finding most of the people she needs to talk to quietly uncooperative, but there are a few chinks in the village's armour and, as she finds them, the situation begins to unravel, though not without a few casualties along the way.
There's a little bit of scene-setting towards the beginning of the book, introducing Kate's father, housekeeper and general background. For the most part, it slots well into the narrative of Tabitha's request and, if this is indeed the first Kate Shackleton mystery you've read, then it's very useful information. I liked the characterisation of Kate in this first book, especially the way her investigative abilities and love of photography intersect and occasionally collide.
The pace of this works quite well. It's a cosy mystery with a few grisly moments and some sharp writing. I liked the fact that not everything was neatly tied up in a bow at the end and appreciated the characterisation of a few of the more odious villagers. They came across as distinctive, always a difficulty in this type of novel. There was also a delicious scene where Kate meets up with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I'll leave you with one of her thoughts about him:
'I needed to divert Sir Arthur from his other-world views if there was to be an earthly chance of his talking sense.'
Kate has done some investigative work in the past, for families who want conclusive answers on why their men didn't come back from the Great War. The job offered to her by old friend Tabitha Braithwaite is the first where she accepts remuneration for her work and takes on an ex-policeman, Jim Sykes as her partner. Tabitha wants to know whether her father, who disappeared in 1916, is alive or dead as she's getting married and wants him to be present. Kate begins her investigations, finding most of the people she needs to talk to quietly uncooperative, but there are a few chinks in the village's armour and, as she finds them, the situation begins to unravel, though not without a few casualties along the way.
There's a little bit of scene-setting towards the beginning of the book, introducing Kate's father, housekeeper and general background. For the most part, it slots well into the narrative of Tabitha's request and, if this is indeed the first Kate Shackleton mystery you've read, then it's very useful information. I liked the characterisation of Kate in this first book, especially the way her investigative abilities and love of photography intersect and occasionally collide.
The pace of this works quite well. It's a cosy mystery with a few grisly moments and some sharp writing. I liked the fact that not everything was neatly tied up in a bow at the end and appreciated the characterisation of a few of the more odious villagers. They came across as distinctive, always a difficulty in this type of novel. There was also a delicious scene where Kate meets up with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I'll leave you with one of her thoughts about him:
'I needed to divert Sir Arthur from his other-world views if there was to be an earthly chance of his talking sense.'
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
Characters Waiting to Flourish
Being more of a 'pantser' than a 'planner' does have its upsides. It means that I get first drafts done, however terrible, without stopping to second-guess myself halfway through. Knowing I can fix something later is a huge weight off my mind and I rather like spewing rubbish onto the page - gets it out of my head anyway. Then I can move on.
However, that word vomit isn't the only reason I enjoy plunging into a story and seeing what happens, as I learned this month when I ran off the first draft of a play. It's an idea that's been floating around for a while but I had neither time nor desire to start a new project at the moment. Then, in the midst of my academic conference schedule this summer, I just decided to go for it, reasoning that I needed a welcome distraction to giving papers and trying to be a normal human being for long periods of time.
With this idea, I had an end point, some brief character sketches and progression notes but no meat on the bone, so to speak. During this (brief) planning stage, I realised that I needed another character if my two main 'events' were going to occur, otherwise my distraught heroine would be talking to herself, a drunkard and a schemer. Entertaining, perhaps, but not ideal for moving the story forward. So I came up with another character, practically at random. And you know what? She easily became my favourite.
The thing about not having many preconceptions about your characters in a first draft is that you can just let them go where they want and let them speak. This is particularly relevant in a play draft, of course, where the vast bulk is just dialogue. What came out of this was that the character I'd thought so little about took charge in a way I hadn't been expecting. She became a substitute leader with frailties she doesn't like to acknowledge and one gaping hole in her armour. Her scenes took precedence over all the others, including the sisterly relationship that's supposed to operate at the heart of the play.
I suppose this gives me food for thought when I write the second draft. There's a lot of character work to be done and the whole thing needs rewriting into something akin to coherence. No idea when that'll be with my PhD work plus the novels I'm trying to force myself to rewrite. But at least I got the draft down - and discovered a brilliant character in the process. Not bad for a few illicit weekends in July.
However, that word vomit isn't the only reason I enjoy plunging into a story and seeing what happens, as I learned this month when I ran off the first draft of a play. It's an idea that's been floating around for a while but I had neither time nor desire to start a new project at the moment. Then, in the midst of my academic conference schedule this summer, I just decided to go for it, reasoning that I needed a welcome distraction to giving papers and trying to be a normal human being for long periods of time.
With this idea, I had an end point, some brief character sketches and progression notes but no meat on the bone, so to speak. During this (brief) planning stage, I realised that I needed another character if my two main 'events' were going to occur, otherwise my distraught heroine would be talking to herself, a drunkard and a schemer. Entertaining, perhaps, but not ideal for moving the story forward. So I came up with another character, practically at random. And you know what? She easily became my favourite.
The thing about not having many preconceptions about your characters in a first draft is that you can just let them go where they want and let them speak. This is particularly relevant in a play draft, of course, where the vast bulk is just dialogue. What came out of this was that the character I'd thought so little about took charge in a way I hadn't been expecting. She became a substitute leader with frailties she doesn't like to acknowledge and one gaping hole in her armour. Her scenes took precedence over all the others, including the sisterly relationship that's supposed to operate at the heart of the play.
I suppose this gives me food for thought when I write the second draft. There's a lot of character work to be done and the whole thing needs rewriting into something akin to coherence. No idea when that'll be with my PhD work plus the novels I'm trying to force myself to rewrite. But at least I got the draft down - and discovered a brilliant character in the process. Not bad for a few illicit weekends in July.
Wednesday, 16 July 2014
Book Review: The Odd Women by George Gissing
The Odd Women is my third Gissing of the year, following earlier reviews of New Grub Street and The Emancipated. Chronologically, this one comes later and it draws on the themes of The Emancipated but in a much more coherent and pleasurable style. It tells the story of a group of 'odd women', that is women who have no hope of finding a husband because of the surplus and those who are actually 'strange'. It's a commentary on the marriage and employment markets for women and the rigid attitudes, both external and internal, which prevent women doing what they would like.
A number of women are introduced throughout the book. The main characters are Rhoda Nunn, Mary Barfoot and the three Madden sisters - Alice, Virginia and Monica. Rhoda and Mary run a secretarial school and the elder Madden sisters push Monica into bettering her prospects by learning these skills instead of working in a shop. However, Monica has been accosted by a strange, and fairly well-off, man, and chooses to marry him instead. Much of the novel documents her irritation with her husband's desperation for their isolation and her temptation by another man.
The other main strand of the novel is Rhoda's relationship with Mary's cousin Everard. This is the more fascinating strand, though the two do collide at different points. After first meeting Rhoda, Everard wants to see if he can make her fall in love with him and therefore test her opposition to love and marriage. He eventually falls for her but the struggle between them occupies a central part of the book. Misunderstandings and personality differences combine to impede any chance of a marriage between them.
With Gissing, I'm learning that not only will I be disconcerted throughout the reading of a book but I will also be a little miffed by the ending. The Odd Women is on a par with New Grub Street in this respect, leaving the reader pondering the other permutations the book could've left them with. In this sense, it was certainly a book that lingered with me for a few days.
Rhoda is an excellent character, full of contradictions that she's aware of and tries to reconcile with each other. The last picture of her in the narrative is a powerful one. On the other side of the coin, Monica is irritating, though she does mature a little as the book goes on. The contrast between the woman who doesn't need a husband and the one who wants the security of one could be heavy-handed but Gissing portrays Rhoda's struggles and Monica's realisations effectively. For me, one of the best scenes of the novel is the final encounter between Rhoda and Monica.
There are many incidental characters who tended to get confused in my head. Of the other more prominent characters, though, it's Virginia with her concealed alcoholism who stands out. It's half-funny, half-tragic and I do like the fact that both she and Alice get a reasonable due at the end of the novel.
Overall, I enjoyed The Odd Women. It didn't take as long to get going as The Emancipated and had a similar, strong female character at the heart of it who captured my attention. Definitely a book I'd like to re-read in the future.
A number of women are introduced throughout the book. The main characters are Rhoda Nunn, Mary Barfoot and the three Madden sisters - Alice, Virginia and Monica. Rhoda and Mary run a secretarial school and the elder Madden sisters push Monica into bettering her prospects by learning these skills instead of working in a shop. However, Monica has been accosted by a strange, and fairly well-off, man, and chooses to marry him instead. Much of the novel documents her irritation with her husband's desperation for their isolation and her temptation by another man.
The other main strand of the novel is Rhoda's relationship with Mary's cousin Everard. This is the more fascinating strand, though the two do collide at different points. After first meeting Rhoda, Everard wants to see if he can make her fall in love with him and therefore test her opposition to love and marriage. He eventually falls for her but the struggle between them occupies a central part of the book. Misunderstandings and personality differences combine to impede any chance of a marriage between them.
With Gissing, I'm learning that not only will I be disconcerted throughout the reading of a book but I will also be a little miffed by the ending. The Odd Women is on a par with New Grub Street in this respect, leaving the reader pondering the other permutations the book could've left them with. In this sense, it was certainly a book that lingered with me for a few days.
Rhoda is an excellent character, full of contradictions that she's aware of and tries to reconcile with each other. The last picture of her in the narrative is a powerful one. On the other side of the coin, Monica is irritating, though she does mature a little as the book goes on. The contrast between the woman who doesn't need a husband and the one who wants the security of one could be heavy-handed but Gissing portrays Rhoda's struggles and Monica's realisations effectively. For me, one of the best scenes of the novel is the final encounter between Rhoda and Monica.
There are many incidental characters who tended to get confused in my head. Of the other more prominent characters, though, it's Virginia with her concealed alcoholism who stands out. It's half-funny, half-tragic and I do like the fact that both she and Alice get a reasonable due at the end of the novel.
Overall, I enjoyed The Odd Women. It didn't take as long to get going as The Emancipated and had a similar, strong female character at the heart of it who captured my attention. Definitely a book I'd like to re-read in the future.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Classic Film Review: Penguin Pool Murder (1932)
Penguin Pool Murder stars Edna May Oliver as Miss Hildegard Withers, a schoolteacher sleuth who happens to be visiting the aquarium on the day a body tumbles into the penguin tank. This body belongs to unscrupulous stockbroker Gerald Parker (Guy Usher) who has just discovered his wife Gwen (Mae Clark) meeting with former flame Philip Seymour (Donald Cook). Suspicion naturally falls on those two with passing lawyer Barry Costello (Robert Armstrong) taking on defence of Gwen Parker. But Miss Withers throws herself into solving the case herself, much to the disgruntlement of Inspector Piper (James Gleason).
I adored this film. The case was intriguing enough, though I had my suspicions from the off about who the killer was, but the real delight comes from Miss Withers herself. She is a fantastic creation with the turn of phrase of Miss Gulch from The Wizard of Oz and the sleuthing skills of Jessica Fletcher of Murder, She Wrote, of course. An intelligent, sarcastic woman who refuses to take 'no' for an answer, she persists in showing Inspector Piper where he's going wrong. Eventually, he learns to defer to her authority and they form a nice little tag-team.
The rest of the cast is adequate enough. Once Piper accepts Miss Withers, the character comes into his own - think of it in terms of Sheriff Metzger in Murder, She Wrote but with a nice little twist at the end. I found Mae Clark as Gwen a little difficult but the majority of the male cast was acceptable. However, this was always Miss Withers's film and it shows. The mystery is good but the interplay is better - and there's a wonderful penguin involved too.
This is the first of three Miss Withers stories Oliver and Gleason made together. After this, the role was taken over by Zasu Pitts, who I didn't really enjoy in Sing and Like It (1934, reviewed here) and I can't see in the role of Miss Withers. However, Eve Arden did make a one-off appearance in the role in a television special in 1972 - given my love of Eve, I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for that one.
Ultimately, I loved this film because of Edna May Oliver - she's a character I'd love to be any day.
I adored this film. The case was intriguing enough, though I had my suspicions from the off about who the killer was, but the real delight comes from Miss Withers herself. She is a fantastic creation with the turn of phrase of Miss Gulch from The Wizard of Oz and the sleuthing skills of Jessica Fletcher of Murder, She Wrote, of course. An intelligent, sarcastic woman who refuses to take 'no' for an answer, she persists in showing Inspector Piper where he's going wrong. Eventually, he learns to defer to her authority and they form a nice little tag-team.
The rest of the cast is adequate enough. Once Piper accepts Miss Withers, the character comes into his own - think of it in terms of Sheriff Metzger in Murder, She Wrote but with a nice little twist at the end. I found Mae Clark as Gwen a little difficult but the majority of the male cast was acceptable. However, this was always Miss Withers's film and it shows. The mystery is good but the interplay is better - and there's a wonderful penguin involved too.
This is the first of three Miss Withers stories Oliver and Gleason made together. After this, the role was taken over by Zasu Pitts, who I didn't really enjoy in Sing and Like It (1934, reviewed here) and I can't see in the role of Miss Withers. However, Eve Arden did make a one-off appearance in the role in a television special in 1972 - given my love of Eve, I'm definitely going to keep an eye out for that one.
Ultimately, I loved this film because of Edna May Oliver - she's a character I'd love to be any day.
Tuesday, 18 June 2013
Book Review: A Woman Unknown by Frances Brody
This is another book I was drawn to because of the cover. I bought it not knowing it was the fourth in a series or that it was set in Yorkshire. I therefore got a very pleasant surprise when I opened the front cover. Finding good period mysteries set outside the capital is rather difficult but A Woman Unknown introduced me to a new series that specialises in it. I have to admit to getting very excited when the heroine hopped on a train to Wakefield Opera House and wandered a little around my home town in 1923.
So - the story! Kate Shackleton is a private investigator who is approached by Cyril Fitzpatrick because his wife, Deirdre, is acting strangely. He's chosen Kate because her partner, Sykes, caught Deirdre shoplifting previously and let her off. But Deirdre's 'secret' is that she is spending (non-sexual) nights in hotels with married men who are providing their wives with grounds for divorce. Unfortunately, on one occasion Deirdre wakes up next to a dead man and flees.
Everett Runcie isn't short of enemies. His wife, Philippa, is divorcing him and moving back to America; his long-term mistress, Caroline, may be put out when she doesn't feature in his plans and he's not proving the best asset to the family firm either. But who killed him? From investigating a person acting strangely, Kate suddenly finds herself searching for a missing woman while skirting around the edges of a murder investigation chaired by her ex-boyfriend.
With some mysteries I like to guess ahead but with this one I just allowed the tale to take me. The fluid, readable style of Brody made for an enjoyable ride. And I was relieved to discover that, although there are references to previous books, it's not necessary to have read them in order to understand and enjoy this one. Of course, I did have a few criticisms, primarily that the narrator switches at different chapters with no discernible pattern. It can be a little disorientating at times but, really, that's a gripe. The book was very enjoyable and I will certainly be going back to learn about Kate Shackleton from the very beginning.
So - the story! Kate Shackleton is a private investigator who is approached by Cyril Fitzpatrick because his wife, Deirdre, is acting strangely. He's chosen Kate because her partner, Sykes, caught Deirdre shoplifting previously and let her off. But Deirdre's 'secret' is that she is spending (non-sexual) nights in hotels with married men who are providing their wives with grounds for divorce. Unfortunately, on one occasion Deirdre wakes up next to a dead man and flees.
Everett Runcie isn't short of enemies. His wife, Philippa, is divorcing him and moving back to America; his long-term mistress, Caroline, may be put out when she doesn't feature in his plans and he's not proving the best asset to the family firm either. But who killed him? From investigating a person acting strangely, Kate suddenly finds herself searching for a missing woman while skirting around the edges of a murder investigation chaired by her ex-boyfriend.
With some mysteries I like to guess ahead but with this one I just allowed the tale to take me. The fluid, readable style of Brody made for an enjoyable ride. And I was relieved to discover that, although there are references to previous books, it's not necessary to have read them in order to understand and enjoy this one. Of course, I did have a few criticisms, primarily that the narrator switches at different chapters with no discernible pattern. It can be a little disorientating at times but, really, that's a gripe. The book was very enjoyable and I will certainly be going back to learn about Kate Shackleton from the very beginning.
Friday, 24 May 2013
Television Review: Scott & Bailey S3
The third series of the crime drama focused once more on the friendship between DC Rachel Bailey (Suranne Jones) and DC Janet Scott (Lesley Sharp). Amelia Bullmore is back as no-nonsense DCI Gill Murray, we get liberal sprinklings of Pippa Haywood as DSI Julie Dodson while Danny Miller joins the cast as DS Rob Waddington. However, the stand-out addition to the cast is guest star Nicola Walker. She's a recurring theme within this series and, unfortunately, that caused some chronology problems, despite how fantastic the storyline was.
The first episode opens with DCI Murray being strangled from behind in her car and threatened with a knife. Then we flash back to eight months earlier. The first case that the team deal with involve the corpse of Eunice Bevan whose decapitated body was found on the staircase of her home while her bedridden husband awaits rescue upstairs. The couple's daughter Helen Bartlett (Walker) is immediately a suspect and those viewers paying attention recognise her voice as the one who took Gill hostage, setting up the season-long strand. Fair enough.
However, to complicate the series chronology, episode two is rightly an episode that belonged either at the end of series two or right at the beginning of series three. Rachel is experiencing difficulties in her new marriage so we go back a few more months to see the circumstances surrounding their wedding and the accusation that Rachel incited her brother to murder. It was a storyline that needed this conclusion, yes, but not at that point. I completely understand why the decisions for the series chronology were made: they wanted a hook for the series, they wanted to establish Helen Bartlett's character as a recurring and important one. They actually trailed the series with Helen being delivered up to Gill by Rachel and Janet. It was the right decision for the storyline but possibly not for the series.
Now - episode content. I actually really enjoyed every individual episode, even though I did have issues with the overall structure. Nicola Walker's outstanding first outing as Helen Bartlett prompted a rather gushy adoration post from me but she kept up that momentum in the four episodes she appeared in, especially as things became more grisly. Another episode that was particularly affecting was episode six which focused on abuse and murder in a care home.
The relationship between Rachel and Janet fractures this series when Rachel goes into self-destruct mode once too often. This provided a nice backdrop to the final episodes. One thing I also appreciated was the remembrance of little details that are brought up throughout the series, both related to personal and professional lives. It was rewarding for long-term fans and added authenticity to the series.
Finally, some of the guest stars were fantastic. Pippa Haywood's returning character, DSI Dodson, was both intimidating and funny. There's a wonderful moment between her and Amelia Bullmore in the middle of a very gruesome crime scene that made me laugh out loud. In addition, Tracie Bennett (who I saw a few years ago in End of the Rainbow) arrives as Rachel's mother, not a character you can like but one who certainly makes your skin crawl. I'm not sure of the point of Danny Miller's arrival as the new DS. For such a good actor the part seems too small but, then again, this is a show centred on the women. Maybe he'll evolve if a fourth series is commissioned.
The niggles I have about chronology didn't detract from my enjoyment of this series. It remained the programme I looked forward to week after week and I'll keep my fingers crossed that the ratings were high enough to secure a renewal. Oh, and ITV? Don't use the ratings for the last episode to judge - that was on a Thursday instead of a Wednesday and you didn't trail it enough to be irritated by any loss in ratings.
The first episode opens with DCI Murray being strangled from behind in her car and threatened with a knife. Then we flash back to eight months earlier. The first case that the team deal with involve the corpse of Eunice Bevan whose decapitated body was found on the staircase of her home while her bedridden husband awaits rescue upstairs. The couple's daughter Helen Bartlett (Walker) is immediately a suspect and those viewers paying attention recognise her voice as the one who took Gill hostage, setting up the season-long strand. Fair enough.
However, to complicate the series chronology, episode two is rightly an episode that belonged either at the end of series two or right at the beginning of series three. Rachel is experiencing difficulties in her new marriage so we go back a few more months to see the circumstances surrounding their wedding and the accusation that Rachel incited her brother to murder. It was a storyline that needed this conclusion, yes, but not at that point. I completely understand why the decisions for the series chronology were made: they wanted a hook for the series, they wanted to establish Helen Bartlett's character as a recurring and important one. They actually trailed the series with Helen being delivered up to Gill by Rachel and Janet. It was the right decision for the storyline but possibly not for the series.
Now - episode content. I actually really enjoyed every individual episode, even though I did have issues with the overall structure. Nicola Walker's outstanding first outing as Helen Bartlett prompted a rather gushy adoration post from me but she kept up that momentum in the four episodes she appeared in, especially as things became more grisly. Another episode that was particularly affecting was episode six which focused on abuse and murder in a care home.
The relationship between Rachel and Janet fractures this series when Rachel goes into self-destruct mode once too often. This provided a nice backdrop to the final episodes. One thing I also appreciated was the remembrance of little details that are brought up throughout the series, both related to personal and professional lives. It was rewarding for long-term fans and added authenticity to the series.
Finally, some of the guest stars were fantastic. Pippa Haywood's returning character, DSI Dodson, was both intimidating and funny. There's a wonderful moment between her and Amelia Bullmore in the middle of a very gruesome crime scene that made me laugh out loud. In addition, Tracie Bennett (who I saw a few years ago in End of the Rainbow) arrives as Rachel's mother, not a character you can like but one who certainly makes your skin crawl. I'm not sure of the point of Danny Miller's arrival as the new DS. For such a good actor the part seems too small but, then again, this is a show centred on the women. Maybe he'll evolve if a fourth series is commissioned.
The niggles I have about chronology didn't detract from my enjoyment of this series. It remained the programme I looked forward to week after week and I'll keep my fingers crossed that the ratings were high enough to secure a renewal. Oh, and ITV? Don't use the ratings for the last episode to judge - that was on a Thursday instead of a Wednesday and you didn't trail it enough to be irritated by any loss in ratings.
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Television Review: Murder on the Home Front
Murder on the Home Front follows Molly Cooper (Tamzin Merchant) as she joins pathologist Dr Lennox Collins (Patrick Kennedy) in his investigation of a serial killer in war-torn London. The police think they've got their man but Collins is determined to use forensics to prove them wrong but the chase for the killer soon becomes dangerous for Molly. The cast also includes Emerald Fennell as photographer Issy Quennell, James Fleet as Professor Stephens and Richard Bremmer as mortuary assistant Charlie Maxton.
This is based loosely on the memoirs of Molly Lefebure, which explains where the rather odd concept came from. Molly Cooper is headstrong, amusing and a little bit stubborn but there still seems to be something lacking about the character. Stepping into a real person's shoes has that effect on some actors in this kind of role. I liked Molly but I didn't love her. Dr Collins, however, is likely to become a favourite character of mine. His approach to pathology is very modern in a time that wasn't really ready for it and his clashes with Professor Stephens are a good demonstration of that. I also adore Issy, who seems like much more of a real person than Molly does.
The plot of this was reasonably good and I certainly didn't work out the truth before the protagonists. However, my enjoyment was tempered by the unnecessary CGI and gore that looked frankly juvenile. There was no need to have ridiculous bomb effects in the background every time Collins stood in his flat with his curtains open. They looked unreal and added nothing to the overall story. If they'd spent more time making the close-up shots of bomb effects and damage appear realistic, I would've been a lot happier. Instead of focusing on character and plot, they decided to make it 'look spectacular' and, when you try that hard, you invariably fail. I personally got fair more pleasure from Charlie's occasional comments than the London aerial views that were supposed to make me gape. Equally, the excessive comic-book type gore that was used in certain scenes was irritating. I got the feeling that the series didn't quite know what it wanted to be and who its audience was.
All that said, I think this series has potential. The central characters have a good rapport and the concept is a good one. If they cut out the unnecessary CGI and focus on characters and plot then they could have a hit on their hands. I will certainly watch if they make more episodes.
This is based loosely on the memoirs of Molly Lefebure, which explains where the rather odd concept came from. Molly Cooper is headstrong, amusing and a little bit stubborn but there still seems to be something lacking about the character. Stepping into a real person's shoes has that effect on some actors in this kind of role. I liked Molly but I didn't love her. Dr Collins, however, is likely to become a favourite character of mine. His approach to pathology is very modern in a time that wasn't really ready for it and his clashes with Professor Stephens are a good demonstration of that. I also adore Issy, who seems like much more of a real person than Molly does.
The plot of this was reasonably good and I certainly didn't work out the truth before the protagonists. However, my enjoyment was tempered by the unnecessary CGI and gore that looked frankly juvenile. There was no need to have ridiculous bomb effects in the background every time Collins stood in his flat with his curtains open. They looked unreal and added nothing to the overall story. If they'd spent more time making the close-up shots of bomb effects and damage appear realistic, I would've been a lot happier. Instead of focusing on character and plot, they decided to make it 'look spectacular' and, when you try that hard, you invariably fail. I personally got fair more pleasure from Charlie's occasional comments than the London aerial views that were supposed to make me gape. Equally, the excessive comic-book type gore that was used in certain scenes was irritating. I got the feeling that the series didn't quite know what it wanted to be and who its audience was.
All that said, I think this series has potential. The central characters have a good rapport and the concept is a good one. If they cut out the unnecessary CGI and focus on characters and plot then they could have a hit on their hands. I will certainly watch if they make more episodes.
Friday, 17 May 2013
Book Review: The Newlyweds by Nell Freudenberger
The Newlyweds is a truly modern romance. It tells the story of Amina, a Bangladeshi who has met an American online and moved abroad to marry him. George is a decent man, everything she and her parents have been hoping for and Amina's intention is for her parents to finally come and live with them after she has passed her citizenship test. However, she finds it difficult to acclimatise herself to America and she discovers that George has been keeping something fairly important from her. However, she hasn't been entirely honest with him, as she realises when she returns to Bangladesh.
On one level, this book is difficult to read because of all the time it spends meandering back and forth between Amina's life now in America and her youth in Bangladesh. However, because the two locations are so different, it's easy to follow. Amina's recollections usually have a basis in what she's going through at the time so, in that sense, it's a perfectly logical book.
The descriptions of Bangladesh are one of the most outstanding aspects of the book. The humidity and the community seep from the page, making it both interesting and oddly stifling, even for the reader. Amina's location in-between cultures means that she is able to note the bizarre in both Bangladesh and America, understanding the differences and criticising them both fairly equally.
The Newlyweds certainly contains humour but I found that after reading it was the more serious scenes that lingered with me, including one - ridiculously - that we find was made up by another character. Freudenberger deals with the issues facing couples the world over including the recession, family divisions and the complexity of married life. Amina's ethnicity is thrown into this mix, creating new obstacles that aren't immediately discernible but eventually make their presence known. One of the events which make up the finale is beautifully foreshadowed throughout the novel and it is the scenes stemming from this horrible event which impacted me most forcefully.
Amina is an excellent character to follow, particularly during her return to Bangladesh. In addition, Freudenberger throws in some clever red herrings throughout meaning that the actual progression of the plot remained a mystery to me. It was a pleasure to read a book that surprised me but still made sense in terms of characterisation. If I had one criticism it was that I wanted more from these characters. I feel like she stopped as one story was ending, yes, but as a whole other one was beginning. I suppose that's the mark of a good book - one that leaves you wishing there was more.
On one level, this book is difficult to read because of all the time it spends meandering back and forth between Amina's life now in America and her youth in Bangladesh. However, because the two locations are so different, it's easy to follow. Amina's recollections usually have a basis in what she's going through at the time so, in that sense, it's a perfectly logical book.
The descriptions of Bangladesh are one of the most outstanding aspects of the book. The humidity and the community seep from the page, making it both interesting and oddly stifling, even for the reader. Amina's location in-between cultures means that she is able to note the bizarre in both Bangladesh and America, understanding the differences and criticising them both fairly equally.
The Newlyweds certainly contains humour but I found that after reading it was the more serious scenes that lingered with me, including one - ridiculously - that we find was made up by another character. Freudenberger deals with the issues facing couples the world over including the recession, family divisions and the complexity of married life. Amina's ethnicity is thrown into this mix, creating new obstacles that aren't immediately discernible but eventually make their presence known. One of the events which make up the finale is beautifully foreshadowed throughout the novel and it is the scenes stemming from this horrible event which impacted me most forcefully.
Amina is an excellent character to follow, particularly during her return to Bangladesh. In addition, Freudenberger throws in some clever red herrings throughout meaning that the actual progression of the plot remained a mystery to me. It was a pleasure to read a book that surprised me but still made sense in terms of characterisation. If I had one criticism it was that I wanted more from these characters. I feel like she stopped as one story was ending, yes, but as a whole other one was beginning. I suppose that's the mark of a good book - one that leaves you wishing there was more.
Thursday, 2 May 2013
Bomb Girls Cancellation (Spoilers)
Bear with me. I don't usually get militant when shows I love are cancelled but, having watched the Bomb Girls S2 finale, in the knowledge that it may be the last time I see those characters, I bypassed upset and got angry. For those unfamiliar with the show, it tells the story of a group of women in a munitions factory in Toronto during World War II. It concluded its second series this week but last week it was announced that it's been cancelled. They have said there'll be a two-hour television movie next year to wrap up loose ends but, one, fans don't entirely believe them and, two, this deserves another series and not a tie-up movie.
I wrote in my email to Global as soon as I learned about the prospect of cancellation: Bomb Girls has a global appeal. It's a well-written show centred around women, and some very interesting women at that. It's sad that in 2013 this should still feel like a novelty but it does! To encounter four leading characters as different as Betty, Kate, Gladys and Lorna was wonderful for me and all credit to the writing team and the actors for that. I stand by those words. But not only is it a programme about strong women, it's about an important aspect of the war that hasn't been delved into properly. It's gold and that's why fans have come out fighting to save it.
I have to admit, like many fans there is one particular character I'm eager to save: Betty McRae. Like all of them, she is complex and brilliantly acted but her storyline over the two series has undoubtedly appealed to - and probably helped - lots of women all around the globe. Ali Liebert has been outstanding in every scene, but she shone especially in the finale. And all I can think at the moment is that it can't end like that. I mean, they've left Betty languishing in prison covering for the woman she loves. Yes, I predicted such a thing happening but that's only because I know these characters and I love these characters.
I've chuckled with these characters, I've been haunted by them. There's an industrial accident in series one that was one of the most traumatic scenes I've ever watched and I still think about it. Nor did the writers shy away from showing the repercussions of that accident in some of the most touching scenes I've seen on television in years. That's another thing I love about this team - they don't forget a thing because they know the viewer won't. Betty McRae fans found that out the hard way in the finale.
There are suggestions that the television network didn't treat the show right, budging it around the schedules in an effort to lower the ratings. And, some cynics have said, that the reason they have promised a movie is so that no other Canadian network picks the show up. THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO TREAT YOUR AUDIENCES.
Bomb Girls still has potential. It has an outstanding cast and an outstanding production team. It's been nominated for awards and, as this fan backlash has demonstrated, it is intensely popular where people have heard of it. Below is the petition and some further reading. Signing the petition will only take a moment and there is a precedent in Canada for these type of campaigns working. So, please, donate a minute of your time and you'll have my eternal gratitude.
Gladys and Lorna quoted Churchill on El Alamein in the final moments of the series finale: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Every Bomb Girls fan is hoping this proves prophetic.
Petition
Toronto Standard Article
The Globe and Mail Article
Huffington Post Article
I wrote in my email to Global as soon as I learned about the prospect of cancellation: Bomb Girls has a global appeal. It's a well-written show centred around women, and some very interesting women at that. It's sad that in 2013 this should still feel like a novelty but it does! To encounter four leading characters as different as Betty, Kate, Gladys and Lorna was wonderful for me and all credit to the writing team and the actors for that. I stand by those words. But not only is it a programme about strong women, it's about an important aspect of the war that hasn't been delved into properly. It's gold and that's why fans have come out fighting to save it.
I have to admit, like many fans there is one particular character I'm eager to save: Betty McRae. Like all of them, she is complex and brilliantly acted but her storyline over the two series has undoubtedly appealed to - and probably helped - lots of women all around the globe. Ali Liebert has been outstanding in every scene, but she shone especially in the finale. And all I can think at the moment is that it can't end like that. I mean, they've left Betty languishing in prison covering for the woman she loves. Yes, I predicted such a thing happening but that's only because I know these characters and I love these characters.
I've chuckled with these characters, I've been haunted by them. There's an industrial accident in series one that was one of the most traumatic scenes I've ever watched and I still think about it. Nor did the writers shy away from showing the repercussions of that accident in some of the most touching scenes I've seen on television in years. That's another thing I love about this team - they don't forget a thing because they know the viewer won't. Betty McRae fans found that out the hard way in the finale.
There are suggestions that the television network didn't treat the show right, budging it around the schedules in an effort to lower the ratings. And, some cynics have said, that the reason they have promised a movie is so that no other Canadian network picks the show up. THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO TREAT YOUR AUDIENCES.
Bomb Girls still has potential. It has an outstanding cast and an outstanding production team. It's been nominated for awards and, as this fan backlash has demonstrated, it is intensely popular where people have heard of it. Below is the petition and some further reading. Signing the petition will only take a moment and there is a precedent in Canada for these type of campaigns working. So, please, donate a minute of your time and you'll have my eternal gratitude.
Gladys and Lorna quoted Churchill on El Alamein in the final moments of the series finale: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." Every Bomb Girls fan is hoping this proves prophetic.
Petition
Toronto Standard Article
The Globe and Mail Article
Huffington Post Article
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Classic Film Review: For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943)
Based on Ernest Hemingway's novel, For Whom the Bell Tolls tells the story of American Robert Jordan (Gary Cooper) who has joined the side of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War and has been tasked to blow up a bridge at a crucial moment in time. He is sent into the mountains to hide in a cave with some allies until the correct moment. These allies are led by Pablo (Akim Tamiroff), a self-serving man whose interest in blowing the bridge for the Republicans is only piqued by the idea of it having some benefit to himself. However, the real leader in this place is Pilar (Katina Paxinou), a formidable woman who is far more intelligent and brave than Pablo. Also in the cave is Maria (Ingrid Bergman), taken in by Pilar after she was rescued from a train. Jordan is instantly taken by the short-haired Maria but tries to keep his mind on the task ahead as obstacles are thrown in his way.
While Cooper and Bergman are excellent in their roles, I was captivated by Katina Paxinou as Pilar. From her first scenes she is intriguing and fascinating to watch, stealing the limelight from the two leads. It's no wonder that she won the film's only Oscar for her role, as well as scooping the Golden Globe for best supporting actress. She is phenomenal and, actually, the character I cared most about as the film progressed. Not to say that Jordan and Maria are weak characters. Jordan is shadowy, almost unfathomable, and Maria's past has shaped her, both physically and mentally. There are some excellent moments between them, although I wasn't as taken with their final scene as I perhaps should have been.
This film is eventful, yes, but it trades as much on the potential duplicity of Pablo as it does the objective of blowing up the bridge. This undercurrent, along with Pilar's attitude, is the main strength of the film for me. While there are a few dramatic scenes - the gunfight on the hill, the bridge attempt - most of the tension comes within the cave and the difficult relationships enclosed within it.
Jordan as a hero is credible and Cooper plays his part perfectly. Equally, Bergman's performance is extremely good, especially when she relates what happened to her when her town was captured. Ultimately, Cooper, Bergman and the rest of the cast are thoroughly believable. I never get the sense of acting from any of them and that's due to a combination of an excellent script, empathetic direction and the skill of the actors themselves. It leaves you thinking about war, yes, but primarily about human beings - a profound topic for any film to tackle.
While Cooper and Bergman are excellent in their roles, I was captivated by Katina Paxinou as Pilar. From her first scenes she is intriguing and fascinating to watch, stealing the limelight from the two leads. It's no wonder that she won the film's only Oscar for her role, as well as scooping the Golden Globe for best supporting actress. She is phenomenal and, actually, the character I cared most about as the film progressed. Not to say that Jordan and Maria are weak characters. Jordan is shadowy, almost unfathomable, and Maria's past has shaped her, both physically and mentally. There are some excellent moments between them, although I wasn't as taken with their final scene as I perhaps should have been.
This film is eventful, yes, but it trades as much on the potential duplicity of Pablo as it does the objective of blowing up the bridge. This undercurrent, along with Pilar's attitude, is the main strength of the film for me. While there are a few dramatic scenes - the gunfight on the hill, the bridge attempt - most of the tension comes within the cave and the difficult relationships enclosed within it.
Jordan as a hero is credible and Cooper plays his part perfectly. Equally, Bergman's performance is extremely good, especially when she relates what happened to her when her town was captured. Ultimately, Cooper, Bergman and the rest of the cast are thoroughly believable. I never get the sense of acting from any of them and that's due to a combination of an excellent script, empathetic direction and the skill of the actors themselves. It leaves you thinking about war, yes, but primarily about human beings - a profound topic for any film to tackle.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Television Review: Homefront
This six-part series tells the story of four women with connections to the army who struggle with the realities of this harsh life while trying to hold things together at home. Claire Marshbrook (Claire Skinner) is about to marry Major Pete Bartham (Greg Wise) but is finding it difficult to adjust to life as potential stepmother to a teenage girl with her own mind and her own son is causing problems as he tries to fit in. Louise Mancetta (Nicola Stephenson) finds out that her husband Corporal Joe Mancetta (Warren Brown) has been seeing someone else whilst away on tour and is faced with the decision of whether to try and salvage their marriage for the sake of their two daughters or to cut her losses. Tasha Raveley (Antonia Thomas) faces her worst nightmare in episode one when her husband is killed in Afghanistan, leaving her with a young son to bring up. Rounding off the quartet is Tasha's mother-in-law, Paula Raveley (Clare Higgins), an ex-army wife herself who now has to deal with the loss of her youngest son.
There's no denying that Homefront stands up as a piece of drama. It has all the ingredients - death, extra marital affairs, family meltdown - and a top-notch cast who make their characters utterly believable. I think a special mention has to go to George Costigan as Howard Raveley, Paula's husband and the dead soldier's father. He portrayed a grieving yet stoical father perfectly and his scenes throughout the series were some of the most touching. I have to say, though, that I found some of the storyline progressions predictable. I'm not sure if this was a product of lax writing in some respects or whether the signposts were just too clear. Knowing what's coming is not always a bad thing but surprise is also pivotal in a drama like this, and there was only one utterly unpredictable moment through the six episodes which had me genuinely uncertain which way it would go and that was a Joe/Louise moment in episode five. A drama should have more suspense than that.
Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable series. However, the nature of the programme means that if there's a second series there will have to be some potentially irritating character reversals. If there isn't another series then I think it was rounded off rather nicely.
There's no denying that Homefront stands up as a piece of drama. It has all the ingredients - death, extra marital affairs, family meltdown - and a top-notch cast who make their characters utterly believable. I think a special mention has to go to George Costigan as Howard Raveley, Paula's husband and the dead soldier's father. He portrayed a grieving yet stoical father perfectly and his scenes throughout the series were some of the most touching. I have to say, though, that I found some of the storyline progressions predictable. I'm not sure if this was a product of lax writing in some respects or whether the signposts were just too clear. Knowing what's coming is not always a bad thing but surprise is also pivotal in a drama like this, and there was only one utterly unpredictable moment through the six episodes which had me genuinely uncertain which way it would go and that was a Joe/Louise moment in episode five. A drama should have more suspense than that.
Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable series. However, the nature of the programme means that if there's a second series there will have to be some potentially irritating character reversals. If there isn't another series then I think it was rounded off rather nicely.
Wednesday, 11 July 2012
Classic Film Review: I Know Where I'm Going! (1945)
Perhaps the most irritating thing about this film is the flippant title! I Know Where I'm Going! tells the story of a middle-class woman travelling to a remote Scottish island to marry a rich man. The title hinges on the fact that she has, amazingly, always known where she was going and the film sets out to change her perceptions of her future, however much she fights the change. I think the title obscures a good film, betraying too little of the story.
Joan Webster (Wendy Hiller) travels to Scotland during wartime by various different means but finds herself stranded just out of reach of her island destination. Alongside her is Torquil MacNeil (Roger Livesey), a Navy man who also happens to own the property her future husband is renting. As the days go by, she realises that her plan for life may be falling apart as she develops feelings for the Scot and she'll stop at nothing to get to the island she's to be married on.
There are numerous wonderful things about this film. The Scottish scenery, for starters, is beautifully shot and adds atmosphere to every scene. First the fog and then the wind put paid to Joan's hopes of getting across to the island, making the mountainous terrain as much of a character as Joan herself. Equally, the supporting characters each have their own little role to play, however small that may seem. One of my favourites was a young Petula Clark, who beguiled me the few minutes she was on the screen. Hiller portrayed Joan's various difficulties very neatly and the whirlpool scenes towards the end of the film were remarkable for 1945. The use of a curse to frame parts of the story was perhaps a little contrived but everything - including an eagle named after Torquil - played its part in the film. Most events felt completely incidental, perfect for a film about things not working out as expected.
My one bugbear about the film was, I'm sorry to say, the leading man. Livesey, although he portrayed the Scot well enough, didn't exude the kind of presence necessary for the role. Joan's struggles about where her life was going would've been more poignant with a different co-star, I feel. In his interactions with other characters, the character of Torquil worked very well but I just didn't buy his affection for Joan.
That said, this is an excellent film for other reasons. The plot is one thing but the life it depicts is quite another. Worth a watch, if only for the special effects.
Joan Webster (Wendy Hiller) travels to Scotland during wartime by various different means but finds herself stranded just out of reach of her island destination. Alongside her is Torquil MacNeil (Roger Livesey), a Navy man who also happens to own the property her future husband is renting. As the days go by, she realises that her plan for life may be falling apart as she develops feelings for the Scot and she'll stop at nothing to get to the island she's to be married on.
There are numerous wonderful things about this film. The Scottish scenery, for starters, is beautifully shot and adds atmosphere to every scene. First the fog and then the wind put paid to Joan's hopes of getting across to the island, making the mountainous terrain as much of a character as Joan herself. Equally, the supporting characters each have their own little role to play, however small that may seem. One of my favourites was a young Petula Clark, who beguiled me the few minutes she was on the screen. Hiller portrayed Joan's various difficulties very neatly and the whirlpool scenes towards the end of the film were remarkable for 1945. The use of a curse to frame parts of the story was perhaps a little contrived but everything - including an eagle named after Torquil - played its part in the film. Most events felt completely incidental, perfect for a film about things not working out as expected.
My one bugbear about the film was, I'm sorry to say, the leading man. Livesey, although he portrayed the Scot well enough, didn't exude the kind of presence necessary for the role. Joan's struggles about where her life was going would've been more poignant with a different co-star, I feel. In his interactions with other characters, the character of Torquil worked very well but I just didn't buy his affection for Joan.
That said, this is an excellent film for other reasons. The plot is one thing but the life it depicts is quite another. Worth a watch, if only for the special effects.
Monday, 11 June 2012
Wakefield Drama Festival 2012
I should note that while this year was billed as the 'Jubilee Drama Festival' it's pretty much by chance the two coincided. Aside from standing at the national anthem, there was no Jubilee-related activity. That's why I've billed this as the 'Wakefield Drama Festival 2012'. This is the second year I've attended, thoroughly enjoying 2011 after a shaky start. I think this year felt a little more gruelling than last year but it did have some heavier productions on, adding to the overall atmosphere. I do know that attendance dropped this year - that may have been a consequence of people not wanting to buy seven night passes that interfered with the Jubilee celebrations or they might have been put off by this delightful rain we've been experiencing but, nevertheless, I'd urge people to attend next year if they can. The standard of some productions this year was phenomenal.
Sunday - Terra Nova
This felt like a grim one to start the week on - a dramatisation of the final days of Captain Scott's expedition to the South Pole. Heavy subject matter indeed but relieved slightly by occasional touches of humour and some manipulation of reality. Throughout the play, we follow Scott's wandering mind as he recalls his wife and engages in fantastical conversations with his South Pole adversary, Roald Amundsen, as he tries to keep his team alive. It was at times difficult to watch a story that we know the tragic ending of but Simon J. Vardakis as Captain Scott put in a wonderfully believable performance of a man struggling with his responsibilities and making errors of judgement along the way. The rest of the cast were equally as believable, coping with the time and reality shifts with remarkable dexterity.
Technically, the stage was well-assembled and it won 'Best Stage Presentation' at the end of the week. It even looked cold, covered in white sheeting with two raised sections which allowed Scott's conversations with his wife and Amundsen to be separated from the action. I couldn't fault the script nor, really, anything. The final scenes were so harrowing that I was close to tears, something that's never happened to me in a theatre before. All in all, this was another exceptional production from the company that provided the overall winner last year.
Monday - The 39 Steps
An adaptation of the Hitchcock film with only four actors played to the ultimate comedic effect - what could be finer? Well, not much. The key to this play is for the actors to connect with the audience and they managed it beautifully, particularly the two 'clowns' who had to play dozens of roles between them and jointly took home the 'Best Actor' prize at the end of the week.
There were some ingenious uses of staging to get laughs, including an iconic door that was pushed repeatedly around the stage to hilarious effect. In addition, a wonderful screen at the back of the stage depicted scenes too difficult to construct on stage - a plane crash, the escape across a loch (Nessie made an appearance at this point). Occasionally, however, the tension slipped a bit and a few sections became repetitive and slow. There are only so many times you can laugh at the same thing. There were, though, some fantastic character-switches for the clowns which the audience certainly appreciated. I think the finale set in the London Palladium was well-orchestrated, although the last scene of the piece felt as though it overstayed its welcome. Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable evening with some good performances.
Tuesday - Outside Edge
I think the first thing to say about this production is that there seemed to be a catastrophe pre-curtain. An ambulance at the rear entrance twenty minutes before the performance is never a good thing and I think it may have been the director who was taken off. That probably explains some of the issues I had with the play.
There was a fair bit of line-fluffing, including one incidence of the prompter having to dive in. That threw me off a bit but, to give credit to the cast, they recovered well every time there was an issue. Some of the characters were over-played but I suspect they were written that way. The play itself (written in 1979) felt a little dated from time to time but the interplay of the characters and the fundamental natures of the people involved shone through. My favourite performance came from Debby Pickering as Miriam, the long-suffering wife of cricketing captain Roger. She played the nattering, obedient wife to perfection in the first act then, as things began to fall apart as she realised her husband's lies, she morphs into a brittle, sarcastic woman struggling to hold it all in. The action takes place at a cricket club as the players compete against another team amidst failing relationships and injury. Another few honourable mention for acting must go to Helen Binns as Maggie and Chris Harrison as Kevin, both of whom were endearing and funny. A few actors seemed to struggle with the horrible natures of their characters - Ginny and Dennis being two examples - and the play could've done with the nudge from more tension in this respect. However, I liked the building up of Miriam's suspicions throughout. This play is running for a few days at the end of June and it's certainly worth a chance, especially if the cast have taken on board some of the adjudicator's opinions.
Wednesday - Someone Who'll Watch Over Me
This play is based on the real-life experiences of a hostage in the Lebanon. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting this to be one of the highlights of the week: a static set, three characters imprisoned, pain and suffering didn't assist in making me look forward to it. How wrong I was.
I can only remember once being so torn apart by a play and that was when I ventured to London to see Tracie Bennett in End of the Rainbow. Someone Who'll Watch Over Me was claustrophobic, heart-breaking yet the tension was broken by moments of light-relief as the three prisoners tried to forget the horrific situation they were in. The 'tennis match' between Michael (Derek Smith) and Edward (Simon Reece) was hilarious and the actors should be commended for their ability to switch from despair to humour in the blink of an eye. All in all, I'd imagine the actors were thoroughly exhausted at the end of it but they performed remarkably throughout - there wasn't a slip that I could discern. Something the adjudicator remarked on at the end of the play was that the audience didn't feel as though they were watching a play and that was certainly true - there was no artificiality at all and the actors really became the characters. There was a good use of music throughout, starting with 'Someone To Watch Over Me' (of course) sung by Ella Fitzgerald. However, the most heartbreaking incidence of music came from Alistair Cheetham as Adam, singing 'Amazing Grace' and bringing the curtain down on act one. There are no words to describe the effect that had on the audience. When the lights came back on no one wanted to move. As you can probably tell, I don't have a bad word to say about this production.
Thursday - Charley's Aunt
For me, there's a distinct difference between playing a production written in the Victorian era where the Victorians take the mickey out of themselves and playing it as a contemporary company taking the mickey out of the Victorian era. I realise I have a rather deep interest in this as a student of Victorian literature and it well may be that the flaws that presented themselves to me in this production were invisible to everyone else. Nonetheless, I was disappointed by something I hoped to enjoy.
The play tells the farcical tale of Jack and Charley, two young men hoping to propose to Kitty and Amy respectively before the girls leave for Scotland. Charley's aunt, whom he's never met, is supposed to be coming for lunch and that strikes the boys as the perfect opportunity to speak to the girls. At the last minute the aunt writes that she won't be attending, leaving poor Fancourt Banbury in a predicament as his friends force him to dress up and pretend to be Charley's aunt. Unfortunately, the 'aunt' soon finds herself with two suitors and things take another turn for the worse when the real aunt arrives. I suppose another one of my problems with this one was the over-acting present, especially in act one. Yes, it's a farce but the best farces stem from the dialogue and characterisation and, while the script was good enough, the actors seemed compelled to over-play it instead of letting the script speak for itself. I think the younger actors were guiltier of this than the older ones. There was an over-reliance on exaggerated facial expressions which didn't fit with the moment and, while it picked up a little towards the end, the first half dragged immeasurably. One other thing that irritated me - there was a second interval to allow a set change. Given the sparsity of the set, I rather think that could've been accomplished in a black-out with some music playing.
There were some good performances though, particularly J.E. de Tute as Banbury and K.T. Lowe as the butler, Brassett. They at least seemed to embrace their parts without mocking them from a contemporary standpoint and I was delighted when Lowe took home the 'Best Supporting Actor' award at the end of the week. However, I expected to enjoy this one much more than I did, I'm afraid.
Friday - The Glass Menagerie
At around two and a half hours long (plus interval) this one was the lengthiest play of the week and, while I understand why it was put on Friday night, by this stage I think the audience was perhaps too tired for such an intellectual offering. That said, it gripped me throughout, though I do have criticisms of my own.
The staging seemed to be tricky if you were anywhere apart from dead centre stalls. There was a curtain across which revealed a table but, thanks to some props to the left, it impaired the view for some of the audience. I spent scenes watching two people with a third frustratingly out of sight. Nonetheless, the set felt authentic and uncluttered at the front. The production's use of music was excellent, but voices didn't always carry far enough - something which one man loudly commented on during the best scene, only to be shushed by everyone around him. Negatives aside, the actors were fantastic. Clare Foster as Laura Wingfield was remarkable, especially in the romance scene opposite Jack Cotton as Jim. I was enthralled during that scene, literally leaning forward in my seat as the tension between the pair rose and fell. One thing this production did exceptionally well was build an atmosphere. The adjudicator remarked that the atmosphere was too level and gloomy and that Amanda's (Margaret Leigh) moments of hysteria could've been used to alter the pace and, although he did have a point, I don't think it caused too much of a problem for me personally. The four members of the cast worked brilliantly together and I came out of this one touched by the performances. Clare Foster took home the 'Best Actress' award for her efforts, something very much deserved.
Saturday - One Big Blow
This isn't the play to go to if you're looking for realism! Six actors playing lots of different roles between them, it's ostensibly the story of a brass band preparing for a competition but, really, the competition isn't the thing that grabs the audience. The a cappella singing in lieu of an actual band seemed like a bad idea in concept but worked exceptionally well in practice. The additional songs the cast sang were both funny and fitting and the physical performances put in by the cast felt exhausting to the audience. It was a difficult one to keep up with at times, with all the character-switching, but it really didn't matter in the end. This one was an hilarious romp with some ingenious uses of bodies instead of props and some brilliant asides to the audience - one character commenting that he couldn't do anything because he was being a lamp in that scene to name but one. Taking the mickey out of theatrical symbolism whilst also incorporating the audience into the production was brilliant and this was an excellent one to finish the week on - light and frothy after something of a heavy week.
Conclusion
I found this year tougher than last but that may have been due in part to the weather. However, the standard of the drama this year was exceptionally high and it was no surprise to me that Someone Who'll Watch Over Me took both first prize from the adjudicator and the audience award (it was certainly my choice!). Terra Nova was given second prize - thoroughly deserved - while One Big Blow took third. My opinion tailed with the adjudicator's on four awards, which isn't bad going. I can only imagine how difficult the 'Best Actor' award was for the adjudicator given the standard of male acting throughout the week. One thing he mentioned in his summing up, though, was that was there was a distinct lack of important female characters this year. I don't know if I appreciated the male dominance as much as he seemed to in all honesty. However, it did mean that when I came across an outstanding female performance such as Debby Pickering in Outside Edge and Clare Foster in The Glass Menagerie it felt like a special moment.
Sunday - Terra Nova
This felt like a grim one to start the week on - a dramatisation of the final days of Captain Scott's expedition to the South Pole. Heavy subject matter indeed but relieved slightly by occasional touches of humour and some manipulation of reality. Throughout the play, we follow Scott's wandering mind as he recalls his wife and engages in fantastical conversations with his South Pole adversary, Roald Amundsen, as he tries to keep his team alive. It was at times difficult to watch a story that we know the tragic ending of but Simon J. Vardakis as Captain Scott put in a wonderfully believable performance of a man struggling with his responsibilities and making errors of judgement along the way. The rest of the cast were equally as believable, coping with the time and reality shifts with remarkable dexterity.
Technically, the stage was well-assembled and it won 'Best Stage Presentation' at the end of the week. It even looked cold, covered in white sheeting with two raised sections which allowed Scott's conversations with his wife and Amundsen to be separated from the action. I couldn't fault the script nor, really, anything. The final scenes were so harrowing that I was close to tears, something that's never happened to me in a theatre before. All in all, this was another exceptional production from the company that provided the overall winner last year.
Monday - The 39 Steps
An adaptation of the Hitchcock film with only four actors played to the ultimate comedic effect - what could be finer? Well, not much. The key to this play is for the actors to connect with the audience and they managed it beautifully, particularly the two 'clowns' who had to play dozens of roles between them and jointly took home the 'Best Actor' prize at the end of the week.
There were some ingenious uses of staging to get laughs, including an iconic door that was pushed repeatedly around the stage to hilarious effect. In addition, a wonderful screen at the back of the stage depicted scenes too difficult to construct on stage - a plane crash, the escape across a loch (Nessie made an appearance at this point). Occasionally, however, the tension slipped a bit and a few sections became repetitive and slow. There are only so many times you can laugh at the same thing. There were, though, some fantastic character-switches for the clowns which the audience certainly appreciated. I think the finale set in the London Palladium was well-orchestrated, although the last scene of the piece felt as though it overstayed its welcome. Nevertheless, this was an enjoyable evening with some good performances.
Tuesday - Outside Edge
I think the first thing to say about this production is that there seemed to be a catastrophe pre-curtain. An ambulance at the rear entrance twenty minutes before the performance is never a good thing and I think it may have been the director who was taken off. That probably explains some of the issues I had with the play.
There was a fair bit of line-fluffing, including one incidence of the prompter having to dive in. That threw me off a bit but, to give credit to the cast, they recovered well every time there was an issue. Some of the characters were over-played but I suspect they were written that way. The play itself (written in 1979) felt a little dated from time to time but the interplay of the characters and the fundamental natures of the people involved shone through. My favourite performance came from Debby Pickering as Miriam, the long-suffering wife of cricketing captain Roger. She played the nattering, obedient wife to perfection in the first act then, as things began to fall apart as she realised her husband's lies, she morphs into a brittle, sarcastic woman struggling to hold it all in. The action takes place at a cricket club as the players compete against another team amidst failing relationships and injury. Another few honourable mention for acting must go to Helen Binns as Maggie and Chris Harrison as Kevin, both of whom were endearing and funny. A few actors seemed to struggle with the horrible natures of their characters - Ginny and Dennis being two examples - and the play could've done with the nudge from more tension in this respect. However, I liked the building up of Miriam's suspicions throughout. This play is running for a few days at the end of June and it's certainly worth a chance, especially if the cast have taken on board some of the adjudicator's opinions.
Wednesday - Someone Who'll Watch Over Me
This play is based on the real-life experiences of a hostage in the Lebanon. In all honesty, I wasn't expecting this to be one of the highlights of the week: a static set, three characters imprisoned, pain and suffering didn't assist in making me look forward to it. How wrong I was.
I can only remember once being so torn apart by a play and that was when I ventured to London to see Tracie Bennett in End of the Rainbow. Someone Who'll Watch Over Me was claustrophobic, heart-breaking yet the tension was broken by moments of light-relief as the three prisoners tried to forget the horrific situation they were in. The 'tennis match' between Michael (Derek Smith) and Edward (Simon Reece) was hilarious and the actors should be commended for their ability to switch from despair to humour in the blink of an eye. All in all, I'd imagine the actors were thoroughly exhausted at the end of it but they performed remarkably throughout - there wasn't a slip that I could discern. Something the adjudicator remarked on at the end of the play was that the audience didn't feel as though they were watching a play and that was certainly true - there was no artificiality at all and the actors really became the characters. There was a good use of music throughout, starting with 'Someone To Watch Over Me' (of course) sung by Ella Fitzgerald. However, the most heartbreaking incidence of music came from Alistair Cheetham as Adam, singing 'Amazing Grace' and bringing the curtain down on act one. There are no words to describe the effect that had on the audience. When the lights came back on no one wanted to move. As you can probably tell, I don't have a bad word to say about this production.
Thursday - Charley's Aunt
For me, there's a distinct difference between playing a production written in the Victorian era where the Victorians take the mickey out of themselves and playing it as a contemporary company taking the mickey out of the Victorian era. I realise I have a rather deep interest in this as a student of Victorian literature and it well may be that the flaws that presented themselves to me in this production were invisible to everyone else. Nonetheless, I was disappointed by something I hoped to enjoy.
The play tells the farcical tale of Jack and Charley, two young men hoping to propose to Kitty and Amy respectively before the girls leave for Scotland. Charley's aunt, whom he's never met, is supposed to be coming for lunch and that strikes the boys as the perfect opportunity to speak to the girls. At the last minute the aunt writes that she won't be attending, leaving poor Fancourt Banbury in a predicament as his friends force him to dress up and pretend to be Charley's aunt. Unfortunately, the 'aunt' soon finds herself with two suitors and things take another turn for the worse when the real aunt arrives. I suppose another one of my problems with this one was the over-acting present, especially in act one. Yes, it's a farce but the best farces stem from the dialogue and characterisation and, while the script was good enough, the actors seemed compelled to over-play it instead of letting the script speak for itself. I think the younger actors were guiltier of this than the older ones. There was an over-reliance on exaggerated facial expressions which didn't fit with the moment and, while it picked up a little towards the end, the first half dragged immeasurably. One other thing that irritated me - there was a second interval to allow a set change. Given the sparsity of the set, I rather think that could've been accomplished in a black-out with some music playing.
There were some good performances though, particularly J.E. de Tute as Banbury and K.T. Lowe as the butler, Brassett. They at least seemed to embrace their parts without mocking them from a contemporary standpoint and I was delighted when Lowe took home the 'Best Supporting Actor' award at the end of the week. However, I expected to enjoy this one much more than I did, I'm afraid.
Friday - The Glass Menagerie
At around two and a half hours long (plus interval) this one was the lengthiest play of the week and, while I understand why it was put on Friday night, by this stage I think the audience was perhaps too tired for such an intellectual offering. That said, it gripped me throughout, though I do have criticisms of my own.
The staging seemed to be tricky if you were anywhere apart from dead centre stalls. There was a curtain across which revealed a table but, thanks to some props to the left, it impaired the view for some of the audience. I spent scenes watching two people with a third frustratingly out of sight. Nonetheless, the set felt authentic and uncluttered at the front. The production's use of music was excellent, but voices didn't always carry far enough - something which one man loudly commented on during the best scene, only to be shushed by everyone around him. Negatives aside, the actors were fantastic. Clare Foster as Laura Wingfield was remarkable, especially in the romance scene opposite Jack Cotton as Jim. I was enthralled during that scene, literally leaning forward in my seat as the tension between the pair rose and fell. One thing this production did exceptionally well was build an atmosphere. The adjudicator remarked that the atmosphere was too level and gloomy and that Amanda's (Margaret Leigh) moments of hysteria could've been used to alter the pace and, although he did have a point, I don't think it caused too much of a problem for me personally. The four members of the cast worked brilliantly together and I came out of this one touched by the performances. Clare Foster took home the 'Best Actress' award for her efforts, something very much deserved.
Saturday - One Big Blow
This isn't the play to go to if you're looking for realism! Six actors playing lots of different roles between them, it's ostensibly the story of a brass band preparing for a competition but, really, the competition isn't the thing that grabs the audience. The a cappella singing in lieu of an actual band seemed like a bad idea in concept but worked exceptionally well in practice. The additional songs the cast sang were both funny and fitting and the physical performances put in by the cast felt exhausting to the audience. It was a difficult one to keep up with at times, with all the character-switching, but it really didn't matter in the end. This one was an hilarious romp with some ingenious uses of bodies instead of props and some brilliant asides to the audience - one character commenting that he couldn't do anything because he was being a lamp in that scene to name but one. Taking the mickey out of theatrical symbolism whilst also incorporating the audience into the production was brilliant and this was an excellent one to finish the week on - light and frothy after something of a heavy week.
Conclusion
I found this year tougher than last but that may have been due in part to the weather. However, the standard of the drama this year was exceptionally high and it was no surprise to me that Someone Who'll Watch Over Me took both first prize from the adjudicator and the audience award (it was certainly my choice!). Terra Nova was given second prize - thoroughly deserved - while One Big Blow took third. My opinion tailed with the adjudicator's on four awards, which isn't bad going. I can only imagine how difficult the 'Best Actor' award was for the adjudicator given the standard of male acting throughout the week. One thing he mentioned in his summing up, though, was that was there was a distinct lack of important female characters this year. I don't know if I appreciated the male dominance as much as he seemed to in all honesty. However, it did mean that when I came across an outstanding female performance such as Debby Pickering in Outside Edge and Clare Foster in The Glass Menagerie it felt like a special moment.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Television Review: Lip Service S2
A few weeks ago I blogged about Lip Service and the almighty shock it had just served up in the second episode of series two. I said then that killing off Cat (Laura Fraser) would leave a gap in the form of a group linchpin and the rest of the series seemed to prove that really.
Jay (Emun Elliott), not my favourite character I admit, disappeared after dropping a line at Cat's funeral saying that he was thinking about moving to London because he couldn't stand work without her. Very admirable, yes, but I would've liked to have seen more of his grief. It was a golden opportunity to see another side of a character we'd grown used to but it was wasted in order to get him off the scene quickly. Frankie (Ruta Gedmintas), who provided much of the action (in all senses of the word) in series one disappeared soon after Cat's death. Understandable, yes, given her flight tendencies but it meant we lost three characters who had been at the heart of series one in the space of two episodes. It's very tricky to come back from that. When I think about series one of Lip Service the storylines that immediate spring to mind are Cat and Frankie's love affair and Frankie's struggle to discover her parentage - both of these obviously featured Cat and Frankie heavily but Jay was also involved. Characters who made up the bulk of the first series were suddenly gone and I personally struggled with that.
What about the ones we had left? Well, I was very happy we managed to keep Ed (James Anthony Pearson), despite the death of his sister. Ed's friendship with Tess (Fiona Button) was about the one continuing aspect from series one and it was good to see that back on an even keel after his ill-advised declaration of love. It was also great to see him growing in confidence after selling his book, even if his choice of girlfriend in Nora (Sinead Keenan) was even more ill-advised than his crush on Tess. However, the scene where he broke up with Nora showed a stronger Ed than I was previously used to, and I think that all kicked off at Cat's funeral when he realised he was going to have to do without his big sister in his life.
And what about Tess herself? I still love her. Her rehearsal scenes with Nora and Hugh (Stuart McQuarrie) were gold most of the time. The perfect touch of comedy in a series that was inevitably bogged down with other things. I was a little disgruntled by the fact that her love affair at the end of series one with Fin (Lorraine Burroughs) was cut off so abruptly, though the reasoning behind their break-up was perhaps sound. However, it felt a little contrived, simply so that Tess could fall for new flatmate Lexy (Anna Skellern) and get her heart broken all over again. I doubt I'm alone in just wanting Tess to be happy. She's by far my favourite character because she's so human and, honestly, just let her find a good woman she loves please.
Sadie (Natasha O'Keeffe) was a surprise returnee from series one. I thought we'd seen the last of her when she split up with Frankie but she slotted nicely into the new flat-share with Tess and Lexy. She took over from Frankie by indulging in some antics that rivalled those of Frankie in series one - there's one scene involving the kitchen counter I can't erase from my mind however hard I try. Her position as the other woman in her relationship with Lauren (Neve McIntosh) worked better than I expected and it was good to see her barriers come down once again - although she was hurt again! Sadie certainly added something to the series and it was good to see evolving friendships between her and flatmates Tess and Lexy.
And now we come to Lexy... It's difficult to say why she failed to make the impression on me I suspect she was designed to. Her 'stalker' storyline was far too tame and much more could've been made from it. I don't think her original attraction to bereaved Sam (Heather Peace) helped me warm to her. Her discussions with Declan (Adam Sinclair), essentially 'the gay Jay', about Sam didn't make the situation any easier. In addition to which, I didn't get a spark between Lexy and Sam at all. Turning them into the couple the viewer was supposed to root for didn't work as far as I'm concerned - it just came across as way of pulling Sam back into a love affair when she was still deeply traumatised by Cat's death and the issues surrounding it. Lip Service always seems to be about sex more than anything else but the best portrayals of sex came when something deeper was involved - think Cat and Sam/Cat and Frankie in series one. What was missing from much of this series, until Sadie began to fall for Lauren, was meaningful sex.
As you can probably tell, I had mixed feelings about this series. I got the sense that it was fragmented; there were no real group scenes to draw everyone together because the group (in the form of Cat, Frankie and Jay) was no longer there. A lot was left unresolved from series one and I feel rather irritated that we spent an entire series riding Frankie's emotional rollercoaster only for her to disappear so abruptly. Equally, while the writers obviously made an effort to show Sam's grief at Cat's death (and I have no issues whatsoever with Heather Peace's excellent portrayal), the scenes at the police station also seemed to be slotted in as and when. For example, the drug deal in the final episode that the police burst in on that goes badly wrong would've been more traumatic if we'd followed the information-gathering for a few weeks and got a sense of the stakes rising. While we knew about Sam's anxiety attacks, the actual breakdown at that point could've been better planned. As with Lexy's hospital scenes, Sam's work life seemed to be a conscious effort to recapture the success of Cat's partnership with Jay and couldn't work simply because the group was so fragmented. It all comes back to that for me. It ceased to be a show about a group of friends and just became a collection of a few pairs.
All that said, I don't want to see it go. I believe that it can be steered away from this blip as Cat's death becomes more and more distant. But I will say one thing: if it is renewed then can the writers trust the characters we've come to know and love? Don't push them into square relationships when they're a circular kind of gal. Mix the indulgent sex with the other kind and don't introduce too many new characters at one point while decimating half the cast. I hope BBC3 renews it, though, and I will be watching if it does. For Tess.
Jay (Emun Elliott), not my favourite character I admit, disappeared after dropping a line at Cat's funeral saying that he was thinking about moving to London because he couldn't stand work without her. Very admirable, yes, but I would've liked to have seen more of his grief. It was a golden opportunity to see another side of a character we'd grown used to but it was wasted in order to get him off the scene quickly. Frankie (Ruta Gedmintas), who provided much of the action (in all senses of the word) in series one disappeared soon after Cat's death. Understandable, yes, given her flight tendencies but it meant we lost three characters who had been at the heart of series one in the space of two episodes. It's very tricky to come back from that. When I think about series one of Lip Service the storylines that immediate spring to mind are Cat and Frankie's love affair and Frankie's struggle to discover her parentage - both of these obviously featured Cat and Frankie heavily but Jay was also involved. Characters who made up the bulk of the first series were suddenly gone and I personally struggled with that.
What about the ones we had left? Well, I was very happy we managed to keep Ed (James Anthony Pearson), despite the death of his sister. Ed's friendship with Tess (Fiona Button) was about the one continuing aspect from series one and it was good to see that back on an even keel after his ill-advised declaration of love. It was also great to see him growing in confidence after selling his book, even if his choice of girlfriend in Nora (Sinead Keenan) was even more ill-advised than his crush on Tess. However, the scene where he broke up with Nora showed a stronger Ed than I was previously used to, and I think that all kicked off at Cat's funeral when he realised he was going to have to do without his big sister in his life.
And what about Tess herself? I still love her. Her rehearsal scenes with Nora and Hugh (Stuart McQuarrie) were gold most of the time. The perfect touch of comedy in a series that was inevitably bogged down with other things. I was a little disgruntled by the fact that her love affair at the end of series one with Fin (Lorraine Burroughs) was cut off so abruptly, though the reasoning behind their break-up was perhaps sound. However, it felt a little contrived, simply so that Tess could fall for new flatmate Lexy (Anna Skellern) and get her heart broken all over again. I doubt I'm alone in just wanting Tess to be happy. She's by far my favourite character because she's so human and, honestly, just let her find a good woman she loves please.
Sadie (Natasha O'Keeffe) was a surprise returnee from series one. I thought we'd seen the last of her when she split up with Frankie but she slotted nicely into the new flat-share with Tess and Lexy. She took over from Frankie by indulging in some antics that rivalled those of Frankie in series one - there's one scene involving the kitchen counter I can't erase from my mind however hard I try. Her position as the other woman in her relationship with Lauren (Neve McIntosh) worked better than I expected and it was good to see her barriers come down once again - although she was hurt again! Sadie certainly added something to the series and it was good to see evolving friendships between her and flatmates Tess and Lexy.
And now we come to Lexy... It's difficult to say why she failed to make the impression on me I suspect she was designed to. Her 'stalker' storyline was far too tame and much more could've been made from it. I don't think her original attraction to bereaved Sam (Heather Peace) helped me warm to her. Her discussions with Declan (Adam Sinclair), essentially 'the gay Jay', about Sam didn't make the situation any easier. In addition to which, I didn't get a spark between Lexy and Sam at all. Turning them into the couple the viewer was supposed to root for didn't work as far as I'm concerned - it just came across as way of pulling Sam back into a love affair when she was still deeply traumatised by Cat's death and the issues surrounding it. Lip Service always seems to be about sex more than anything else but the best portrayals of sex came when something deeper was involved - think Cat and Sam/Cat and Frankie in series one. What was missing from much of this series, until Sadie began to fall for Lauren, was meaningful sex.
As you can probably tell, I had mixed feelings about this series. I got the sense that it was fragmented; there were no real group scenes to draw everyone together because the group (in the form of Cat, Frankie and Jay) was no longer there. A lot was left unresolved from series one and I feel rather irritated that we spent an entire series riding Frankie's emotional rollercoaster only for her to disappear so abruptly. Equally, while the writers obviously made an effort to show Sam's grief at Cat's death (and I have no issues whatsoever with Heather Peace's excellent portrayal), the scenes at the police station also seemed to be slotted in as and when. For example, the drug deal in the final episode that the police burst in on that goes badly wrong would've been more traumatic if we'd followed the information-gathering for a few weeks and got a sense of the stakes rising. While we knew about Sam's anxiety attacks, the actual breakdown at that point could've been better planned. As with Lexy's hospital scenes, Sam's work life seemed to be a conscious effort to recapture the success of Cat's partnership with Jay and couldn't work simply because the group was so fragmented. It all comes back to that for me. It ceased to be a show about a group of friends and just became a collection of a few pairs.
All that said, I don't want to see it go. I believe that it can be steered away from this blip as Cat's death becomes more and more distant. But I will say one thing: if it is renewed then can the writers trust the characters we've come to know and love? Don't push them into square relationships when they're a circular kind of gal. Mix the indulgent sex with the other kind and don't introduce too many new characters at one point while decimating half the cast. I hope BBC3 renews it, though, and I will be watching if it does. For Tess.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
The Cull of Male Detectives
I've just read this article about the BBC. In a nutshell, it says that BBC One controller, Danny Cohen, aims to limit the number of male detectives on television and, possibly, the number of crime dramas full-stop. Zen (something I admit I haven't watched) was axed due to this new policy. Apparently there are enough male detectives on television already.
I'm all for female-led drama. I covet it. I think it's true to say that I would be more inclined to give a programme a shot if it had a prominent female character BUT if I hear good things about something I don't avoid it simply because it has a male lead. There are so few good returning dramas around these days that I cling on to a good script or an innovative idea like a child clutching a prized toy. Zen attracted 5.7 million viewers on average for its three-episode run. In the current climate that is pretty damn good. Why should it be axed merely for some political correctness stunt which the BBC should be above?
Their remit is to be a public service. Yes, they have a duty to offer equal opportunities and to portray as many sides to our society as possible. But to axe a popular programme because it's another show with a man in it? Can you imagine if that was the other way round? David Cameron's 'calm down, dear' would be lost in the amount of mud Westminster would be slinging at the BBC.
Of course we need more female-led programmes on television. But, as with most things, if you try and force something into a box it just doesn't work. I don't know if the BBC are running around telling scriptwriters they must work on female characters but, if they are, they're shooting themselves in the foot. I hate television by numbers. I hate the inclusion of a token gay character or a disabled character or anything that reeks of people wanting to tick a box. As soon as you start doing that you lose the organic element of a narrative, the thing that popped into your head the moment you started playing 'what if'. I can tell you something; if a character pops into your head and he's fully formed with a family you can identify, flaws you can exploit and a firm story you can tell, it's not just a case of swirling him around, popping a bra on him and having the character be a woman instead. That works the other way too: characters cannot and should not be manipulated for the sake of political correctness.
So, my wish for the BBC? I'd like to see the main channels take a gamble on some of those fantastic programmes relegated to BBC3 and 4 where you have to be clairvoyant to find them. I'd like to see better scripts, tighter drama and riveting television. I'd like see fantastically-acted characters, male AND female. I don't want to see apparently good dramas tossed into the rubbish bin because they don't fit a perceived image.
That's what I want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)