Television Thoughts
True detective notesThis show was well put together but not quite as original or intelligent as it seemed. The acting and directing put the story over but the writing definitely had a lot of bumps that could have been solved in its development.
I had problems with the following. 1. Plot- The plot was not as complicated as it seemed, nor very well-written, with the central characters were idiots or intelligent depending on plot needs. Some of the acting hid that on a moment to moment basis but stepping back at the end, there was a lot of problems in this area. Most of plot was solved halfway through save for the cliched scary guy in the woods as seen from many a schlocky horror movie. The reason to why this couldn't be investigated after the initial shoot-out were never made strong enough nor was the twist to get the characters back on track intriguing. There was not enough plot detailing to allow the characters to be legitmately lost within the story or to make genuine mistakes. There was a vagueness in all of the plot writing, as if the writer knew what was expected for the gene put couldn't do it properly. In the final section there was lots of supposed mysteries and conspiracies on why they couldn't get the final guy but these were never paid off and were indeed thrown away for a cliched horror ending. The plot kept repeating information from the first half of the story but never twisted it intriguingly. Damningly, the show attempted a Texas chainsaw meets Minatour and the labyrinth sequence, shot prettily, but there was no psychological pay-off. The final episode was a dull and cliched pay-off of many story threads. For a show named True Detective, there needed to be a mystery to live up to the title. There was not. 2. Derivative- Every show is influenced by something else, as any art form is. The influences should be transcended. These were not. The serial killer tropes have been worked for twenty years, and were very influenced by Thomas Harris. The TV show Hannibal, based on the Harris novels, had used many of the same images such as deer heads, backwoods murder pits, as True Detective a year earlier and had worked themes such as identity in a mad and godless world, the emotional needs in killers, self-delusion of hunters and of intelligence, in a far more intriguing way. So the subject of the detection felt second-hand. The detectives themselves were stronger in the story, and were the glue that held many of the shows problems together yet I could not help but see a Homicide influence, from the mixing of the intellectual and existential detective with the down-to-earth cop, the themes of what murder and any kind of belief in rationality means to the police or victims. This was a good model (and the even had a cop kill crook bit). But I never felt that it added anything to what had come before, and was actually simplistic in its conclusions. Themes are taken to a certain point then stepped back from, such as limits of belief or consequences of weakness, left to be a repeating cycle used for thematic point that isnt always dramatised in a way that develops the point. Instead it sits lazily. The acting and directing hides this a lot. 3. Backtracking on show in final few minutes- The show had a good start, with a lead character who talked about theories that for a TV show were unusual. He was blatantly an atheist in a religion-dominated area. This was one of the strongest parts of the show, in its look at how people are defined by and blinded by beliefs of any kind. Yet after all the horror the show back tracks from this theme, suggesting that this anti-religious character felt something supernatural in the final moments. It was meant to come across as a moment of epiphany but instead was a betrayal of an interesting theme, of how to live a moral life without supernatural belief. It betrayed the strongest parts of the character and made most of the previous story feel cheap. Adding that element should have been made earlier, to at least explore it. Instead here it felt like, oh I was wrong. Ignore everything I said. That's terrible and immature writing. To be fair the show was well written in the character scenes, and placed interesting emphasis on how time affects people. The show worked best when these elements were forefronted. This was where the interest was. But the cliches truly dragged it down from top-tier shows such as Breaking Bad or Deadwood. Despite its flaws I'm glad I watched it. I just wish its better elements weren't dragged down by conventional thinking and lack of ingenuity. The Thick Of ItThe Thick Of It completed its fourth series recently. This may be its finale. This 7 part series that had fairly mixed critical response, the suggestion put forward that the series had been sharper in the past, during the Labour era, that it had far too many new and less than interesting characters. There was also the suggestion that the show wasn't as funny as it had once been.
As we have now reached the end of the show, I would argue that its the strongest and most interesting comedy show from the UK in years, the best comedy since Brass Eye and probably the most likely to age well. Its ultimately superior to The Office, which has been the critical reference point in the past decade, in its range and dramatic depth, using the need for caricaturing effectively and to a point of what people do to one another, rather than using realism for the distortion of under-developed characters, to suggest depths that ultimately aren't delivered in the writing. This is truly the show that has people that can't leave the prisons they have made for themselves. The show has had moments where it has gotten a little broad. Series 3 & 4 both had first episodes that introduced important characters, and weren't as subtle in their interactions or as effective as the series can be. These moments are pared quickly, with the foundation of character interactions laid, the stories moved on quickly, balancing many smaller characterisations with the wilder styles. The Thick Of It is strong on suggesting realism without being limited by it. It uses the melodramtic elements to show weakness in character, using excessive swearing to show character impotence and frustration (for the most part), and uses plot as an illustration of continually self-destructive and delusional thinking. Its break from realism suggests the mental state of the characters. The greatest achievement of the show is how it shows how difficult it is to stay in its world. Characters brutally fight to stay within its institutions, are ill-equiped, show monstrous ego and delusion about their abilities. Most are ruined by taking on ill-advised positions or jobs or not knowing when to leave. The strongest episodes, from the early minister's second house episode, to in-fighting and positioning to change in party leadership, to the breakdown in government leading to a general election, to finally the mess in once again changing party leadership, suggests continual exhuastion and turmoil, of stress that no human can take long-term. The two characters who ultimately have become central to the story, Press Secretary Malcolm Tucker and Political Adviser Glenn Cullen, are finally ruined by not knowing that its time to leave power, when their party is defeated in a general election. They have an opportunity to move on at this point but can't. Neither are exactly sympathetic. Tucker is brutal in the extreme (although by the end its easy to see why, due to the people he ahs to deal with) Both have hypocrises and give in to dubious actions. They create their own downfall. The final series, while seemingly about the new government, and how it shall fail like the old one, is focused on their downfall, of people who can't get out due to their character, who have to be forced out by total failure. The need to stay within a dehumanising culture is a great theme for a comedy. The final epsiode is focused on their attempt to leave with dignity. It doesn't work well for either but the show resists being overtly cruel, showing how life can be cold and awful, then moving on, which gives it a proper balance. So its a great show, the UK's one show that competes with the top-level American output like Deadwood and The Wire. Well Well WellSo Dr Who series 5 part 1 is finished. Figured I'd watch them all before posting, as it was half a season really.
Essentially its four very good stories, one pretty good story and a dud. Not bad for Dr Who. At least the dud was a one-parter and was fairly painless. The best stories were fairly obvious. The three Moffat entries and The Gaiman story. The Moffat stories could be seen as maybe a little too fast on first viewings, beginning with the death of the Doctor and unravelling from there, into the story of the Silence and its invasion, the first moon landing, haunted houses, subliminal images, rage-filled rescues and horrible mistakes, leading up to the revelation of who River Song is, which, while not a suprise, at least is consistant and has excellent internal logic in regards to what has come before. The stories make more sense on re-watch, have a wonderful take of fantasy and humour, of odd, scary moments. They also have terrific side characters, like the Victorian era Silurian and her lesbian maid/lover, or the woman soldier who has been looking for the Doctor. The weakest parts are in the first half of "The Good Man Goes To War", which is a bit busy and could have been tightened a little but the pay-offs in this episode are terrific (even if I'm not writing what they are, as its not been shown in other countries as of yet). The Gaiman story, of the Doctor leaving the known universe, ending up confronted by the Tardis' soul in the body of a woman, was a simple fairystory idea that worked, as these ideas resonated, were properly worked out but kept visually simple, focused the pace but allowed for breathing room to get into the ideas. The story was directed upon the scary aspects of the ideas, of leaving the universe, of a graveyards of Tardis', of the Tardis being under the control of an alien, malignant creature, and of the Doctor confornting his oldest ally. It was a terrific story that also kept the resolutions affecting. As for the other two stories, the Matthew Graham ganger story, set in an old castle, may not have had the out of control buzz of the half-season highlights but was a genuinely solid old-school two-parter, with a strong set-up of clones becoming self-aware, had some fun moments of identity-crisis (in a b-movie way) with images of flesh against stone that was lovely, in a sick sci-fi way. It also had some good supporting character turns in Raquel Cassidy's sarcastic boss and Sarah Smart's crazy ganger, and of course had Matt Smith versus Matt Smith, as the Doctor being delighted by his clone. It's one of those stories that may be appreciated a bit better as time passes, as its pleasures were traditional. The dud was the pirate story. I don't have that much to write about it because it was so badly directed, making it difficult to judge anything else. The writing seemed decent if unexpectional in the mystery and conclusion but it had some momentum, with the black spot curses, the crazy creature coming from the sea, the mystery of the water/mirrors. It could have been at the level of the ganger story with a little added care, with a director with a feel for atmosphere and horror/sci-fi staging, or for modulation of scenes. Alas it was hobbled by this poor choice, which left the the story weakened to a point where interest failed no matter what was thrown at the audience in imagery or twists. On other things watched in recent weeks, there's Lost, which I'm up to Season 5 in (more on that later, once I get to the end) and a few movies of differing quality. There's Machete, a gleeful b-movie of many great guilty pleasures, the main one seeing a Danny Trejo starring-movie. This movie also has as highlights DeNiro as a supporting snivelling villain who gets more and more pathetic the further the film goes on (one of his better recent parts) and Jeff Fahey as a truly sleazy businessman (whose daughter is Lindsay Lohan- his interests in her are unhealthy to say the least, she ends up as a crack-addict, an on-line porn star and a nun) Best of all is a one-eyed Michelle Rodriguez leading a gang of illegal immigrant Mexicans to mow down some white racists with a wide range of weaponry. Stellar cheesy stuff. Then there's Green Hornet, which is the exact opposite of Machete. It's pretty much Michel Gondry's worst film (yep, I've seen and liked Human Nature). It's just so lazy. In the writing, in the acting, in the action, its just fairly dull. Basically no-one involved could be bothered to think up cool things for the chracters to do, have unique or unsual action, or to have a series of inter-connected plotted events that would give the film any momentum. Instead its a dull buddy movie where the buddies have no real chemistry, nor motivation, where the jokes aren't remotely funny, nor are the gadgets interesting or amusing. Gondry shoots the movie like its an 80's era TV show. You start to wonder where is David Hasselhoff and Jan-Michael Vincent. Its a Joel Schumacher Batman-era event I'm afraid. And the Green Hornet tune plays for like two seconds. Finally there the 5-hour cut of Until The End Of The World. I'll go into it in more detail probably in a serperate post but its one of those films, like Alien 3, where the longer cut feels shorter than the theatrical version. This is because the film is allowed to breathe, to have its pace dictated by the characters and atmosphere rather than thundering through with the plot (which isn't the film's strong point anyway). The female lead is still a little weak but the final half of the film in Australia, where the world may have ended, is fantastic, and a lot of the build-up now has a relaxed charm. Dr Who Series 5Its five episodes in and the new Dr Who series is looking very good. Funny, eccentric, with quite a bit of old-fashioned technology design. Its a terrific reworking of the show.
Earlier posts show that I was getting a bit annoyed with the increasingly tired specials but this series has gotten the series back on track. I don't think its had this type of purpose since the Ecclestone year, which was Russell T Davies' first year in charge and had a similar energy in set-ups and making an impression with the set-up.(I think the series got a bit too variable in quality following that first year). What's especially interesting is the a slight Avengers influence and the new show has a bit more of a fifties/sixties sci-fi movie feel (including the Peter Cushing movies), has a new team, and a surer feel to what its about in regard to its world. Matt Smith has energy and is pretty odd as the Doctor, the weirdness of the world working better in reaction to his strangeness, especially when talking to a giant eye, done intentionally as a 50's sci-fi giant eye, as if its normal. Its one of the interesting elements of casting and mood set-up. Get it right and everything clicks, as if the world is there and ready to be explored, (and allows for weaker plot elements) but get it wrong there is a widening gulf of interest in story that can't be successfully covered, as the internal pacing of all the small details of that world is all wrong. The first episode, The Eleventh Hour, had a terrific first half, as good as the show gets, then got a slightly obvious plot resolution, and a finale that brought it all together beautifully. But the charm and atmosphere carried everything, the out-there visuals bringing it all toghether. Best moments were Smith's Doctor talking to the little girl post-regeneration. Best joke is that for the entire epsiode Smith's Doctor has not seen what he now looks like but keeps on getting recognised due to a time travel twist, then an alien imitates him, which doesn't work on him because he still hasn't looked in a mirror, saying "That's rubbish, who's that!" The show truly kicked into high gear with the atmospheric The Beast Below, full of glasses of water, masks, crazy smilers and a joke about democracy, which had another one of the great early Smith moments "I'm going to stay out of trouble... badly." It also had a great moment with him revealing his past to his companion, done with power and precision within ten seconds. It's end may not have had a twist to rival its build but its ending worked and it's an excellent illustration on how to put together a story for a 45 minute running-time. Victory Of The Daleks was the weaklest of the bunch so far, being a little short, needing a little bit more at the front end of the story, had the fun idea of the Daleks playing nice (taken for an old lost story Power Of The Daleks) and annoying The Doctor, goading him to make a series of bad decisions. Into that we have a series of world war 2 moments that don't feel as interesting as the rest of the plot. There was also a Dalek win and a redesign of the daleks, which apparantly annoyed a lot of people by changing the daleks to colourful 60's style designs, which I of course loved. The Time Of Angels and Flesh And Stone were a weeping angels two-parter, probably the strongest story of the series so far, definately the most atmospheric, even if the dire circumstances meant less humour at times, although there are subtle jokes that might not be appreciated. (Priests being killed off by going into a giant white light.). The story was very interesting, paying up a wider story arc while keeping to the threat, playing up the terrific visual idea of people fighting for their lives in a tomb, priests fighting images of godhood and losing their lives and past existance because of it. It had a great openign gag, with Smith moving through a museum saying "Wrong!" to almost eveyrthing to keep score and also had a terrific cliff-hanger moment, with Smith facing off the angels with a great speech, and a funny resolution, that's hilarious because it buys them about ten seconds before the next attack. Three great dialogue moments: That's not the plan. There's a plan? I dunno yet - I haven't finished talking. Then there's- Bishop: "Doctor Song, I've lost three clerics today, you trust this man?" River: "I absolutely trust him." Bishop: "He's not some kind of mad man?" River: "... ... I absolutely trust him." and "Amy, listen to me; I am 907 years old. Do you know what that means?" "It's been a while." So its been great so far. Other terrific elements are Amy Pond, a companion who doesn't take any of the Doctor's rules as something to be followed in any way, a sense of excitement of the universe at large, and an emerging threat that wipes out events from history, that's tied to the companion in ways that are not yet obvious. So its a great new series. Other new series I've been watching are Ashes To Ashes, which is better than it has been during its run, now having a real threat, but still isn't up to the standard of Life On Mars, as it heads for the series end (I don't think the end will be that clever. It's red-herrings feel a little too clear). Also Burn Notice, a terrific, light spy series that keeps things fast-paced and has a solid set-up of a CIA forced out and now has to find out who set him up while making a living as a freelance problem solver. Finally I saw Iron Man 2. Its fun, pretty good, if a little slow at the start. I like the first one better. This one never manages the character/plot balance of something like The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens or Superman 2 but is still well worth a look. It has some funny character beats and situations, even if Mickey Rourke isn't used as much as he should. Nor is Downey Jnr's "I'm dying " dynamic worked as cleanly as it could have been. But can't complain as its good entertainment that sets up a wider world that could be interesting to see in future films. So there we go. Back to the batcave. Dr Who - first dull episode of the seriesIt started at a good pace. The first episode, The Hungry Earth was fun, had a good set-up and many nice character moments. It delivered efficiently, was not the best Dr Who but was enjoyable.
And then Cold Blood, well, people were captured, escaped, captured, escape, sit and talk for a while, are captured and escape. It just felt like a lot of running around for no real purpose. There is twenty minutes of running around at the start of the episode, everyone is where they would be if they hadn't done anything. Then there are lots of dull talky scenes where the direction of every conversation was obvious and telegraphed by the situation, without any real character work. Ultimately, there was not enough story here for two parts. The writer and producers never found a way for the narrative to kick up a gear for the second half. Victory of The Daleks needed that kind of space as it had too much story for one part. For capture and escape you need dread, surprise, ingenuity to get out of peril. Here people got out of trouble because the other side wasn't very good, or backed away, for no solid reason. Repeatedly. As this is something that hasn't happened this year under Steven Moffat's command then it felt like a cheat, as the show has been intelligent in the get-out-of-peril situation. So putting all the lazy escapes into one episode is angering. Worse was the dialogue, which felt in style like the Russell T Dvaies era, as if the story was written for Tennant. But not done very well. It felt like first draft, we'll write vague cover dialogue and then work out the real talk later. But then the filler was shot. As the first episode was good yet the second so dull, the reason for the extreme quality drop is confusing. The direction in this second story was pedestrian. The script never gave the director much room but all the camera moves and set-ups seemed samey, and the actors never were directed towards sharpness of intent. Everyone seemed to wander through the episode. So this was the duff one. There was some interesting moment about the over-all arc at the end and a companion died but the death should have had impact but didn't (odd, as the character was good). Next week looks moody and odd, so hopefully this is a one episode blip. To end, Steven Moffat's take on Dr Who is still going strong by the series mid-point. The last two episodes were high-level entertainment. Vampires In Venice was more of a romp while Amy's Choice was more psychological horror with fun monsters. Of the two I preferred Amy's Choice, although Vampires In Venice had a lot of entertainment value, with the Doctor's reactions to meeting vampires "Oh this is like Christmas!" to his showdown with the sympathetic villlainess, as well as being told that he looks like a nine-year old. And of course his library card with the picture of William Hartnell on it. Amy's Choice had fun villains, whether it be crazy old folk to an ice sun that the tardis is floating towards slowly (used two top-class villain ideas in one episode) but also had a bit more dramatic meat. Two realities, which one is real (turns out neither are), one representing the fears of the Doctor (his tardis slowly dies and gets cold, trapping him and his friends on board to perish) of that or Amy's boyfriend Rory (that his ideal village life goes insane, with all that he helps trying to kill him). Its good stuff, especially as we find that the antangonist is the Doctor's subconsious, so he's the villain. So the series is gearing up to be the best of the relaunch for me. Hope it keeps going this way. Vincent & The DoctorThis was an excellent comeback for the series after the quality dip of last week. It had a good monster, who was't what it seemed. It gave Matt Smith's Doctor weird gadgets for him to have fun with while running away from a monster, and some nice moments of Doctor boredom as he studies the painting of a masterpiece with palpable impatience. Best of all it had Van Gogh, a tortured genius who can see an invisible monster.
Tony Curran was terrific as Van Gogh, depressed but not over-doing it, still human and focused enough to be a credible painter. He played well off the leads and never begged for sympathy. The episode, like an earlier story The Unquiet Dead (with a dying Charles Dickens) gave enough monster moments for a Dr Who story but was primarily focused on character beats, a dying genius meeting an eccentric immortal time lord and his companion, then developing be the story of famous man who is losing his way. Now this can go wrong. The Tennant era, for all its good points, never got the famous character type of story right, only Moffat's The Girl In The Fireplace ever truly working, and that one wasn't quite as good as The Unquiet Dead or this one. When underplayed it can be a moving story. The people involved got the tone here perfectly. Of course it was the Richard Curtis script. Famous from Blackadder and comic relief, his script was a lot more dramatic than expected. What was good about it is that it played fair with the audience, keeping the story simple, on the people, had plot points that were developed properly and made sense, and had a wonderfully slight, short story feel. The Pandorica OpensWill go into detail more next week but "The Pandorica Opens" was a wonderful, twisted episode, with cybermen reassembling to kill, the companion getting killed by a clone of her dead love, the Tardis blowing up, and the Doctor always one step behind, ending up trapped by the box he was investigating (but was actually studying him).
What was terrific about the episode was the way that set things up. After a very fast intro, the story settled down, like many Moffat scripts do, to a base few locations and people talking and interacting over a tricky problem (be it Coupling or The Empty Child). Slowly the problem builds, with some nice horror bits in this story, leading to a gleeful monster barrage that would do Godzilla proud, played off against more intimate moments of horror for all characters (all leading to some sort of death), as the universe begins to explode around them. Great stuff. Can't wait for next week. The Big BangThe first Matt Smith/Steven Moffat Dr Who series comes to an end with a terrific, twisted romantic episode, where the Doctor jumps between different time zones with a fez and a mop, fights a stone dalek (not very well, he gets shot) dances horribly but somehow saves the universe.
Its a terrifically enjoyable story, the early parts a riot of time zones and fairy tale logic, with some lovely moments of a man protecting his lover for 2000 years, the idea of a man saving himself by turning himself into a fairy story idea given to his companion when she was young, the idea that the cracks seen were the Doctor watching his past as his life ran out, of the universe being rebooted by one person's memory, of a box collapsing into a burning sun to save the universe. The tone was wonderful throughout, was full of ideas that were given with a light touch. While all the actors were good, Matt Smith dominated as the Doctor, giving lots of energy, anger, absurdity, the fez making him look absurd and oddly grinch-like menacing. This has been a real high-quality level season for Dr Who. What's great is that not everything is answered, leaving mysteries for the future, such as who is River Song (the doctor's future wife?) and what is the silence, both of whom have fairy tale logic and feeling, which suggests a complicated resolution to come. The End Of TimeThe Russell T Davies-Dr Who era unfortunately ends with a whimper.
After seeing all of these specials I wish they hadn't bothered and finished at the end of the last season, which had a strong second half, and generally had a pleasing sense of purpose and most of Davies' strengths, with his pacing and character focus. The specials droned on, all of them having the feel of being second-hand ideas that should have stayed unused. All had a tired feel, like the fun was over and the hard work to tie the character energies to plot wasn't there, all of them killing time to the regeneration. A year off would have been better as these were damaging. The scripts flaws in keeping interest became apparant as each special dragged on. Also not interesting was Tennant, who was oddly blank on his way out. He seemed as bored as late-era Tom Baker, but without the jokes. The worst offender was the direction throughout the specials, which didn't have much pace, covering events but never really leading any emotions. It was a little shocking to see an exit where people aren't really delivering despite having a general set-up that should provide a platform a very emotive conclusion. The End Of Time had a better lead-up than conclusion, Part 1, while being messy and slow, at least had a point most of the time, with the regeneration build-up occuring as part of the mood, and John Simm being in a humorous rage. Part 2 basically ignored part 's build-up and implications with a few tricks, left Simm in a room with bad dialogue, having the Doctor and a few characters holed up in an old ship for half the episode before returning for a quick fight that covers what you wanted to see in a way too brief conversation, has a bit of shooting and things returns to what they once were. What they tell us about Gallifrey and the Time war, how the Master was used, is interesting but needed so much more time. Basically it needed interaction and there was none for the episode. Finally the Doctor makes a stupid sacrifice, leading to his regeneration. Its a neat twist on the he will knock four times to be his companion, and it not to be part of an evil plot, but the guy was 80, and they never sold the reason why he doctor would take his place. Its not sold in an intriguing way, is just a twist, which is damaging aftera year of build to this. Then you had the usual companion round-up, an unfortunately weak final line "I don't want to go.", which is whiney and annoying. Then Tennant regenerates and the story becomes fun for about a minute, as Matt Smith is one eccentric actor, having the license to go nuts. "I have legs! I have ears!", yelling Geronimo as his tardis crashes towards the earth. And in that minute you realise what the episode and the specials have been missing. Life. The lacklustre quality, when the Doctor shows no real backbone or fight, becomes apparant here. Davies did all of this far better in The Parting Of The Ways. That was actually a moving regeneration story, with intimidating villains who are defeated in a way which made sense within the frame-work of the story, and had a sacrifice that felt earned. It also had lead actors working well and a central actor going out at peak. Not to mention The Caves Of Andronzani, the Peter Davidson regeneration story and the best over-all, which was a fast-moving melodraama and had the threat of the regeneration running throughout. Tom Baker's Logopolis was also pretty intriguing, Baker almost a ghost walking to his own death, as the universe collapses around him, something I think The End Of Time attempted but it never worked. Its a shame Davies' era sputtered out a little at the end. I genuinely loved the first series with Eccleston and Series 3 with Tennant, also finding the second half of season 4, after a shaky start, to have wonderful moments. Which makes it annoying that he stayed a little too long. I'm sure it was with the best of intentions, to finish the Tennant era, but these stories just never caught fire and seemed trapped by the conventions already set-up, and they just dragged on. So he had a weak exit. It happens. It was still a confident era, with next series looking really odd and interesting. |
Dr Who Series 7It’s a shame that series 7 was split in two, as it created an artificial diversion in the through-story, which is about a man jumping between people and adventures nervously, not quite able to connect as much as he’d like, while the world has moved on around him. He is a character in these stories not wanting to have people with him for too long, nor get into scrapes with him, to be put into danger long-term by him, meaning that they’re not quite as interested in him as he’d like. It’s a fun metaphor for the character as a whole, done with a cheeky wink. This constant flux at the centre leads to a great gag in the finale where the universe unwinds and falls to darkness due to his fidgety travelling nature and the contradictions of him existing and not existing, winding back for centuries, of worlds failing and stars collapsing because of his emerging death over hundreds of occasions causing paradoxes and rips in time.
Of course there’s a lot of fun stories throughout, many of which in this series have an element of the character’s past. Its peak were with the Steven Moffat stories Asylum of the Daleks, The Angels Take Manhattan, The Snowmen and The Name of the Doctor, which were all tales interested in the history of characters and how that defines them, winding time paradoxes that trap the villains and protagonists, and lost love. (Moffat’s wi-fi story The Belles of Saint John was a bit of a miss despite good moments, being a shallow comedy bit that lacked an interesting final act). All of these stories had atmosphere, a fast pace, good character beats (marriage of and then farewell to Ponds, introduction of Clara and series villain, a companion focusing on the many faces of the doctor) and managed to be uncluttered and confident. The weakest episodes in the series attempted to replicate this mix but suffered from a lack of clever plotting and dialogue. The stronger episodes outside Moffat tended to be their own thing. Other highlights included the Mark Gatiss stories Cold War and The Crimson Horror, which were throwbacks to old Who, specifically to the Troughton and Tom Baker eras, the first story bringing back the terrific monster The Ice Warriors while Crimson Horror was a nod to the mid-70’s Robert Holmes stories, specifically The Talons of Weng Chiang. Also impressive were the under-rated fantasy orientated Neil Cross duo The Rings of Akhaten, which was a fairy story in sci-fi setting, and his ghost story Hide, which was Quatermass inspired but worked well as a story of a woman trapped in time, which echoed the series themes. Cross didn’t over-pack his tales and made them short-story-like in plot structure, avoiding silly over-plotting. A Town Called Mercy, Journey to the Centre of the Tardis and Gaiman’s Nightmare in Silver, had good ideas and some terrific moments (Doctor versus an intellectual killer who mirrors his own character, Clara wondering through odd rooms and avoiding zombie flash-forwards to a grisly possible fate, the cybermen and their upgrades and the doctor going mad scientist evil dead 2 fight against himself) but could have done with stronger, atmospheric direction, more defined support in the acting of certain parts, and final act rewrites (the final acts were a major flaw for series 7). These three tales never quite landed on consistent atmosphere but the ideas got them through. They were messy and minor but likable. The clunkers were the Chibnall duo Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and Power of Three, which despite promising elements (Dinosaurs, Doctor in real life trying to work out a seemingly mundane puzzle) threw away the charm for mechanical and fairly dull plotting. The plots felt exhausted and wheezing yet dominated the stories at the expense of the wonder the tales had potential for. They were terribly paced and Dinosaurs had the worst villain of the year (a grumpy old man with dumb robots) while Power Of Three had a final act where the writer essentially gave up and created a gibberish monster with no menace nor tie to the central threat. The series was as unique and as interesting as 5 or 6, yet was probably over-all the weakest of Moffat’s run in its no two-parter policy and playing down of its over-all arc left the series a little fragmented. Asylum of the Daleks, Cold War and Nightmare in Silver would have benefitted from longer running times. The idea of the Doctor dropping into lives, rarely staying with them between stories, played with the convention of the stories, was a funny and inventive idea, yet left the series feeling bitty at times. On the other hand series 7 had some of the character’s finest moments. Moffat gave the solution to the Clara mystery in the Dalek episode that introduced Clara (that she’s a voice and presence helping him escape difficult times), repeated it in the Snowmen and giving her a face to him, and then let the Doctor catch up to what was going on, as it’s a character felt but not seen throughout his life. The Great Intelligence, while not as overt as some series-long villains, was threatening enough to keep the story moving without dominating artificially, and worked as a mirror to the Doctor (as a character who dominates the lives of his companions/friends, but to a more fascist direction, while the Doctor is careful to let his friend’s escape from his influence and move on). The two Moffat-written Pond stories were terrific and atmospheric, with great moments such as the Daleks forgetting all knowledge of their greatest enemy and the Ponds trapped happily in America, with a time paradox separating them from the Doctor (the first hint of the final story in the series would be around time paradoxes). The return of the Ice Warriors was terrific and pared down, and was an old school triumph. Finally there were the images of the old Doctor’s in the Name of the Doctor, the sight of Hartnell stealing the Tardis and interacting with Clara (who points him on his way to the right Tardis to use) and finally the mysterious John Hurt incarnation of the character, which is a great cliff-hanger for the series. So despite flaws, this was a very worthwhile series of stories. Breaking Bad and Tron LegacyHave been watching Breaking Bad Season 2 and Tron legacy.
Breaking Bad has had a lot of praise and its wonderful. The writing is in character and plot is excellent and surprising, is always intrigued by its world, which is important for a TV show. The acting is terrific, especially in small details and looks that often propel the narrative, character weakness in these looks, in small narrative llose ends, always seeming to lead to bad ends. The fun of the show is watching the incremental details and blind spots that a person has will lead them to staggeringly awful decisions. The choice of a terminal cancer patient Walt saying to himself I'm doing this for a good reason, to give my family money when I die, even though creating pure crystal meth, starts off disturbing, and gets increasingly twisted, as the details of how to set yourself up as a supplier is far more work than imagined, leading to lies, death, a need to feel important. Walt's pride is horrific, as he refuses help that would have stopped the dealer sitution from occuring, or given him an early out, then increasingly pushes his dealer partner Jesse into darker dealer enforcment situations, which Walt refuses to get involved in directly, leading to many deaths and ruined lives. And so many lies. The irony of the characters keep coming up. Walt's wife, Skylar, who he lies to keep his business from, is as proud, annoying and as headstrong as he is, is a very funny take on the normal character. Watching these two fight is always fun as neither of them are capable of backing down, only beatign a tactical retreat, and they tend to be in action showing the weakness of the other. the weakness of both is rage that the world seemingly doesn't live up to their warped standards, adn that they both feel left behind by the world. Both always act as if they are the rational ones but neither truly are. Jessie, Walt's partner, begins to slowly become the sympathetic character of the show. He's a weak man, addicted to crystal meth, trying to survive, not that ambitious and initially annoying. But he is driven by Walt to succeed, being pushed into increasingly awful situations by the partnership until he's a shell of a man by the end of season 2. The show si terrific in all these details. And its has Danny Trejo's head but on top of a tortoise. I've also been watching Burn Notice. There's not much to say about that beyond its loads of fun. Well-written acted and engaging entertainment, with no pretensions. Tron Legacy is a fun, silly movie that's far better directed than it is written. It was written by two guys who wrote for Lost and shares with Lost the useless hero and the attitude of we don't need to answer many questions raised, if in fact any. The crippling aspect of the film is in its story beats, which rips off Matrix Revolutions consistently and badly (a virtual world under threat causing problems for the real world, machine evolution, everything ultimately is tied to duality of a soul and finding purpose from that). Tron Legacy takes place about 30 years after Tron and is about the mystery of the Jeff Bridges character disappearing from the world and his son trying to find him. After an appalling first few minutes of info dump to link Tron to its sequel, the story of the son searching for his father settles down to the the most solid aspect of the film, taking us from the real world, to the world of Tron, its battles, its power structures. All those elements, even if startlingly unoriginal in every plot point, are solid. Even as the film goes a bit crazy, after the son finds Jeff Bridges in Tron, this element remains solid. Not that its well written in character. The lead actor Garret Hedlund, who plays the son, struggles with some appalling character work inflicted upon him by the writers. His character is pouty, more than a bit dumb, never listens, never has any real plan, leading to a lack of direction for the film. Its a staggeringly awful peice of writing development scene to scene but the actor, while not able to make the character unique, manages to at least overcome the writing and make the character work within the film. But it leaves the film stranded in a set of sequences without any narative momentum or core, without an interesting goal. Jeff Bridges isn't given much interesting scenes to play either, as the mysterious lost father, who is found and who changes his mind about every ten minutes but being a terrific actor, hides it with eccentricity. So the lack of centre for the film is a major problem. That's the downside. Plus the plot of the virtual characters getting ready to come into the real world to kill us all. That's a dumb plot device that's difficult to overcome. And yet I like the film. The director Jospeh Kosinski has a good eye, is the main power behind keeping the film working. He seems to be aware of the flaws in script and tries to sell the concepts visually, to use images and cinematic technique to sell the simple idea of a magic techno world. Despite Tron being almost one-note in visual idea, a computer world always stays a computer world, he kept the visuals intereresting and varied by changing perspective, by revealing the Tron world and shadings slowly, knowing to use a strong series of images when there's a dodgy plot turn coming (such as the end and the army of Tron soldiers, which looks so good you forget the dumbness of the idea behind it). He sold the real world and the world of Tron as related to each other in interesting ways, liking architecture, the villains in almost CEO type glass guildings compared to dungeon-like dwellings of the creators of the technology in both worlds. The lack of directoon within the characters is made interesting by how he frames them, making their confusion seem more interesting within the world than it should be. Despite there being no real plot or character development in this area, the journey the lead character takes is sold beatifully by visual information, by the changes in location, pacing of scenes, styles of landscape. The idea of Jeff Bridges fighting another younger version of himself within Tron, of being a soul cut in half, is a non-event narratively, as not much time is spent with either Bridges character but Bridges and the way Kosinski shoots Bridges throughout suggests an intriguing connection and disaffection, a lack of centre to both characters. The finale to this beat works only visually, as the plot reasons seem dull but the idea of a person inegrating two parts of his soul are fascinating. Tron Legacy almost works as a silent movie. None of the dialogue is worth a damn but the visuals are always intriguing and suggest a more developed and fascinating world beyond the limits of the writers. Its best to view it the way you would view the theatrical cut of Fincher's Alien 3. (the Alien 3workprint cut solves many of these problems but elaboration and detail) Yes there are lots of problems, the narrative starts and stops but lok at how the director sets up shots, places people within landscape, is in love with the visual aspects. So I recommend it, but be aware that its more about the start of a promising director rather than a successful film on the whole. Lost & CapricaI've finished watching the final seasons to Lost and Caprica, finding that both could be fascinating and exasperating, and that they were effective in very different ways. The reason that I combine the shows in one post is that I saw their conclusion within a few days of each other and their respective success/failures interest me in response to one another. Do you want well-done character beats that mean little as it is a genre exercise ultimately or crazy idea-led stories with real-life ties.
In my experience its usually one or the other. The set-up of a complex series of characters tends to make development tricky, with a lack of idealisation in characters redemptions, actions multi-layered and difficult to take a side on, leading to what is in most cases is inertia. Pulp tends to pop along with bells and whistles, is fun. On Lost was that no matter how complex they tried to make the story it was ultimately safe and very unthreatening in ideas, being the hero's journey, which is a cop-out for ideas as its based on a sentimental lie that people rise to the occasion no matter what, rather than compromises and inertia leading to actions that can take on a positive or negative state. In Lost no-one was ever going to be confonted with anything too complicated. The characters could go dark but there was ultimately a mysterious reason, that could serve as a cop-out to some degree. It never quite got as ambitious in character or situation, or as feral as I would like. Caprica, like Battlestar Galactica, had a more complicated take to life, to fate, even to the great narrative cheat, divine intervention, where the divine is an ultimately psychotically destructive and disgusting, used when a society has broken down with no chance of escape, the intervention lead on from the insanity of the characters that lead to destruction. It was ambitious but with Caprica the drama was less than involving. A show like Deadwood or Caprica's sister show Battlestar Galactica can have stories of complex ideas and emotions, as well as defined characters that can be linked to genre, can be out of control, so the prinicpal drive is the chaos but the genre brakes are there but can be used carefully, as safe elements for the audience to hook onto, such as characters like Adama. The Sopranos and Mad Men have these safer elements. There are traditional elements in any long-running drama that are always fake, sentimental, that create a sense of life that is not entirely true, that make the more difficult elements easier to take, even if they can be subtly subverted, to tie into audience projections on a character. But characters are the glue to be worked from in television, and tend to be the thing that sinks a show, as the characters get to be too idealised and sentimental. Caprica never really mastered character involvement week to week. Lost lasted for six seasons, had advantage in being a complete series arc, as well as having stronger dramatic characters, while Caprica was complex, grown up, had superior ideas, and was linked to the story of Battlestar Galactica, a show that Lost never truly could compete with in quality. If I were to be honest, Lost was the more enjoyable show, but it could also be by far a worse show than Caprica ever managed. Lost started strong, sagged in the middle of season 2 to the later parts of season 3, recovered and was at its peak until the end of season 5 then had an interesting but very confused final season. It was a fantastical suspense show that wasn't always very good at suspense, as it relied heavily on idiot plot, where character have to be idiots for the plot to work. Its strength was in its fantasical set-up and some of its characters, its weakness was in it could be deeply unimaginative on plot solution, on variation of story beats, and had bad instincts on its central characters, making them dull in ways that sentimental deands on characters can be on TV shows. I'll start with the negatives because I'd like to end on the positives. The central character Jack was meant to be a hero but was a self-righteous moron, a surgeon with a severe impulse control problem. The writers at least recognised this about the character and did increasingly interesting things with it, expanding it around its weird contradictions. The female lead Kate was dumb, a self-destructive loser, was the world's worst fugitive, who was set up to be a kind person with a mysterious past, the ultimate TV cliche. Alas in plot she was always making things worse for herself with entirely useless actions, her reasons being a fugutive was selfish and unforgivable (and very stupid). the character was a disaster of smugness and bad writing and plot movements, working always on the wrong side of playing audience needs to play on underdogs. She only became reasonable halfway through season 5, when she became a little more selfless and self-aware of her own basic stupidity, like the Jack character. The actors playing these parts did a good job but they were acting the dregs when it came to characterisation, with pitiful attempts to play on genre expectations that always seemed to lack any real human tocuhes. The creators seemed to have a blind spot when it came to realising how much these characters were failing. The mysteries could also be annoying in that I ultimately it had the internal logic of an episode of The Magic Roundabout, and was under-cooked. The writers set things up and generally didn't know how to resolve them dramatically, so moved on to the next idea and explained it away as being mysterious. That's acceptable a few times on a show but occured about five times a season at best. There were many episode of Lost that felt like a how not-to write a TV show in regards to its mythology. The suspense beats could feel the same way. Again its flaws went back to basic takes on genre expectations done badly. On the other hand, much of the pleasure came from the wonderful situation, of the mysterious island, the Jules verne meets The Shining set-up, with eighties tech, creepy monsters, a thirst for killing off characters once they had served their purpose. It was an infallable set-up that the writers kept finding fun ways to add to, from the crash survivors investigating the island, the ghosts on the island, the hatch, the others, with flashbacks, flashforwards, time travel where the characters set-up some of their future, and even the sideway alternative universe. All of these were intriguing situations that had great moments of pulp character and suspense. As stories expanding from a genre base, the show made strong ties between the character's past, from before they ever met, which gave a feeling of further complexity. The show kept being inventive and atmospheric, having mysteries that worked for weeks or years as suspense tools, which is one of the main needs of a long-running show. The shame came in the reveals, such as in season three, where the others weren't as interesting as the two season set-up had promised. This type of weak ending to mystery is always a dissapointment and was a genuine repeating flaw of the show, suggesting a fatal lack of imagination in details beyond a genre-influenced point. But the show continually built well from its pulp origins, and did a lot around its flaws. The supporting characters really made the show work. There were many but these characters had very well developed growth, had stages, where the characters were always spiky and intriguing. Lost had some terrific points of interest week to week away from the leads, in Sawyer, Locke, Desmond, Ben Linus, and Hurley, all of whom had continually added complications, who created the sense of depth in the world, all of whom would have worked better as the leads and who were spared the hack-work by not having to be the sentimental projections to the intended audience. Sawyer started out as a con man, had a very good reading on people, could be guarranteed in early seasons to be sarcastic, selfish, offensive, then selfish some more. The character, who never got off the island until the ending, managed to have growth under constant duress to become the leader over the years, to overcome a horrifying back story with a great pay-off (which felt nasty and had a damaging effect on him, and always made the Kate story look whiney and annoying,), and had the most affecting love story of the series with Juliet, who along with Sun, was one of the few well done female characters. The nastiness of his character at the start allowed the rest of the story to play intriguingly. The writers of this show had trouble when you were meant to like a character instantly but give them a damaged character needing development, they worked wonders. Locke was a sad story, a man who ruined his life due to delusional behaviour, who had a blind spot when it came to how much he knew, a faithful believer who thought he was asking the right questions but who never understood people. He was a driven character, restless, always pushing ahead. The strength of this character was that it allowed the writers to get their awe of the situation of the island, to personalise it and to keep it to character, to allow it to develop in human touches, as well as to show failure and the darker side of faith and the magic. Even within the genre restraints of the show, Locke always gave hints of craziness, of a series ready to go interesting and beyond its limits. Desmond was an intriguing figure in that he started off a minor character that the writers obviously liked, who started to develop as a man tortured by the island, by his fate, being being able to see through time, when he wanted a simple life. It was actually a very simple short story planted in the middle of more complex arcs which made it always stand out, as a simple beat that could come in every so often to clarify. He was also the character that allowed the show to have complex plots within a flawed human figure, as Desmond was always a little weak but determined. It was good used of a character adding background detail without a lot of obvious effort. Ben Linus was a terrific villain in this story in that he was written as an all-out villain but was always human and vulnerable. He was the face of the island at the start, who was forced to do horrible things to protect it, who was always manipulative and dangerous to ftriends and enemies. But his arc, following the death of his daughter in season 4, become one of the more emotional beats in the story, far stronger than the central character dynamics, leading to a great episode where he confronts why he killed his own leader, the effects of his daughter's death, and the rage that followed that, as well as seeing what his life could have been like without the island. The finale gave him a few lovely scenes where he starts to come to terms with his past. It was a character that worked best on the idea of what fate or other influences make you do, and was a great example of a show working aginst the limitation of a genre base. Hurley was probably the least complex character in the series, in that he basically a decent guy given some very bad luck, but like Desmond, when placed against the other characters, he worked, and deepened with careful handling, year by year, so that the revelation that he was destined to become the Island's protector succeeded beautifully, as it kept the emotion simple. Essentially you gotta love a show where the studly hero's fate turns out to be cannon fodder for the fat guy. Again it was a genre base, the nice fat guy, but it was done with sensitivity as Hurley never had to carry the series. So Lost was a show that's base idea and supporting characters created a sense of complexity. It never was genuinely complex but gave the illusion of being so at times. But the entertainment was consistent. Like many a good TV series, the strengths of a show tend to make you overlook the weakness that it builds. Caprica was a crazy show that wasn't quite sure of itself at times, that wasn't always set-up well, could be paceless, that it had a couple of characters that it never had a clue what to do with who could drag the show down, but it had some wonderful moments with terrific sci-fi ideas, was starting to develop itself into a strong show, and started to push its stronger characters in interesting directions. The pilot is a very good set-up to a series, and highlights its best set-up, the father-daughter dynamic, using the idea of AI and robots as a way to play the frankenstein idea against real-life home tensions, by making the monsters an already living daughter who has died and been brought back to life. The Daniel and Zoe Graystone characters were where the story was strongest continually, in that it used technology to play around how parent-offspring relations can be difficult, emotional and twisted on both ends, in what both sides want, in how selfish both can be. In the first half of the series it was the dominant focus, then lost its way as other elements came into play before returning for its finale. Some characters who started a bit vague and could be not very bright who started to develop once the writers started moving the story forward so the flaws of the characters in the start-up of a series could be forgiven. Characters like Joseph Adama, a lawyer with mob connections who slowly becomes involved in the creations of the cylons (and is the father of the lead of Battlestar Galactica), Clarice, the head of the terrorists, who is vain, vicious but with emotions that get complicated, and Lacey, the best friend of Zoe who gets trapped into the machinations of the crazy religious terrorist cult were made interesting. Characters like Graystone's wife and an agent investigating the terrorists, depsite have decent actors playing them, never got interesting because the characters were not developed in detail and had little internal drive in character interaction beyond where the story placed them. These two characters tended to sink the show whenever they had focus. The show was frustrating. It never fully got going but had terrific moments of father-daughter consuion and dysfunction, some creepy highlighting of religious madness and myopia among seemingly rational people, and had some good mob stories. It was a show with everything there but it never quite came together. And yet its characters are more complicated than anyone in lost. its sitution is more intriguing than the games and overdone/kinda silly metaphors of Lost. The first half was too slow and was about ideas and a second half with better pacing that tended to have less emphasis on ideas. But despite all of this, its more unique than Lost. Both of these shows are recommended but have deep flaws. But what one is more worthy of your interest? |