Grantchester (2013)

     Grantchester (2013) Series 1, 6 episodes. [D: James Norton, Robson Green, Morven Christie] The Rev. Sidney Chambers (Norton), like Father Brown, stumbles into investigations of murder. His police partner and opponent, Detective Geordie Keating (Green), becomes his friend. His love interest, Amanda Kendall (Christie), marries another man for social (and economic) reasons. The cases are morally ambiguous, but both Chambers and Keating value truth and justice and realise that the law may hinder both.
     The scripts, based on a series of novels by James Runcie, are well written, high on ambiguity, irony, and psychological complexity, but with a clear narrative arc. The mood varies, the photography is excellent, the acting shows us people conflicted in ways they don’t fully understand. Good and evil are implicated in each other; no one is perfect. This is one of the very few narratives that understands sin. It’s the only series that I’ve kept on the PVR. ****

To Murder and Create (D. I. Jericho part 3, 2005)

     To Murder and Create [D: Diarmuid Lawrence. Robert Lindsay et al.] Two men die from garroting, a lonely hearts club links them, and at first it looks like one of the women looking for a man has done the murders. But things are nor what they seem (are they ever, in a murder mystery?), and D.I. Jericho very nearly dies from garroting himself.

Well done British police procedural, with tangled personal lives and office politics messing up the story. The 1940s/50s atmosphere is well done, for once there’s believable grunge as I recall it from that time. The post-war period lasted into the early 1960s. The characters are for the most part at least 2½ dimensional, we care enough about them to recognise the long-lasting effects of the crimes. ‘Tain’t pretty, life. **½

Pride and Prejudice (1979) (TV review)

   Pride and Prejudice (1979) BBC TV. [D: Cyril Coke. Elizabeth Garvie, David Rintoul. Script by Fay Weldon] The date of this series is not clear. The VHS copy released by CBS is dated 1987; the wrapper gives 1985 as the BBC date; but the end credits give 1979. So that’s the one I go with.
     I bought this copy at a yard sale for a dollar, and as such it was an excellent investment. At almost four hours, that’s 25 cents an hour. As for its quality, I recall seeing it on TV (PBS? TVO?) way back when, and thinking that it was much better than the Greer Garson/Laurence Olivier film, which took, um, liberties with the plot. It also dithered between farce (Mrs Bennet, Katy, Lydia, Mr Collins) and comedy (Lizzie, Mr Darcy).
     This TV series has a consistent tone of semi-comic romance, the effect of Fay Weldon’s script. Weldon also takes some liberties, but all are based on clues in the text, so they work. For example, Charlotte and Lizzie share a laugh over Mr Collins. Unlike the 1995 series with Ehle and Firth, it sticks close to the book, and the general effect is, oddly, that of a filmed stage play. Again, I think it’s the effect of Weldon’s script, which relies more on words than on images to show the shifting moods and self-doubts of the main characters.
      There’s also a curious lack of dramatic tension, especially in the pivotal scene of Darcy’s first, insulting proposal of marriage. I think the text makes it clear that Darcy is crazy with love; hence his inability to frame his proposal in any but self-regarding words. The poor sod can’t believe that he’s besotted with Miss Elizabeth Bennett, a lady with low connections and an appalling mother. His proposal is both a genuine offer, and a self-reproach that he can’t control himself. Guaranteed to arouse Lizzie’s anger, in other words, which it does.
     Lizzie has already noticed Darcy’s “regard” during the visits to Rosings, and has begun to experience doubts about her feelings towards him. In addition, her contempt for Collins’ fawning on Lady de Burgh has roused her contrary mischievousness; she might have accepted Darcy’s courtship as much to annoy Collins and assert independence as for an opportunity to discover her true feelings about Darcy. But his proposal (temporarily) hardens her heart. If he had offered courtship before marriage, she might have accepted his advances, but then the story would have veered off in a quite different direction. Weldon cuts both Darcy’s and Lizzie’s speeches, and so removes the opportunity for showing the violently mixed emotions. So this scene doesn’t work as it should, it doesn’t show us that both protagonists must change in some fundamental way before they can marry, which is of course their destiny.
     I think that the theme of Pride and Prejudice is marriage: the proper grounds for it, the proper relationship between husband and wife, the possibilities of happiness or various degrees of misery. The obvious contrast is between Charlotte and Lizzie. Charlotte settles for a fool whom she will manipulate, but who has an assured income sufficient for her to live comfortably and enjoy her children and the respectable status in the parish. She will make an independent life for herself within the constraints of her marriage and her place in society. For her, marriage is a means to financial security and hence, paradoxically, the only personal independence she can have. The alternative would be spinsterhood, which was for her time and class a sad fate.
     Lizzie wants a man who is her equal. She’s her father’s favourite because she has independence of mind and spirit; she wants a man who like her father respects these qualities. She won’t settle for anything less; spinsterhood would be preferable to marriage such as Charlotte’s. Her irritation with Darcy arises as much from his initial blindness to her qualities as from his disrespect for her family.
     But there are several other examples of good and bad marriages. Austen does no more than hint at the cause of the Bennett’s failed relationship. She’s caustic about the odds of Lydia and Wickham’s happiness. She indicates that Jane and Bingley are perfectly suited. She shows an example of a good marriage in the Gardiners. And of course Lizzie and Darcy will have an ideal marriage. Romances are fairy tales, after all. The video follows Austen, but doesn’t expand on the hints nor follow the clues.
     Overall, this adaptation works, and Austen fans will forgive its shortcomings. But the later version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth works much better. The similarities between the two versions are the characters; there is little difference between Rintoul’s and Firth’s Darcys, and Garvie’s and Ehle’s Lizzies. The main difference lies in the visuals. For example, in this version several times we see Darcy and Lizzie from a vast distance, tiny figures walking through the huge parks surrounding the houses. Why? The interior scenes often look like stage sets, even when filmed in real rooms. Odd.
     Bottom line: I enjoyed this video, but I fear it is of historical interest only. Austen fans should see it, but for most people I recommend the 1995 production. Disclosaure: I think Pride and Prejudice is the essential love romance, the book that defined the genre. **½

Foyle's War (TV Series)

     Foyle’s War (2009+) Michael Kitchen plays Det Inspector Foyle, a widower who has been firmly kept in his place as a policeman, despite his willingness to serve more directly in the war effort. The series follows the war, beginning in 1939, when the wartime economy began, and regulations about the treatment of foreign nationals were enforced, sometimes cruelly. The look and feel of the period is captured quite well, except that the effect of coal fires on the colours of brick and stone is absent. I suppose it’s difficult to persuade property owners that a layer of sooty grunge should be applied to their carefully maintained houses. I think it’s more the characters, the dialogue, and the clothes that create a satisfying illusion of wartime Britain.
     Foyle investigates murders, the black market, fraud, and so on. He is a man with a strong sense of duty, and a strong moral sense. These occasionally collide, especially when considerations of national security intersect with crime. He respects authority in the sense that he respects the roles of the hierarchy, but he respects the law even more. He is methodical, quiet, observant, reticent, laconic, with simple tastes, and strong feelings, which he rarely shows. He may feel pity for the perpetrators, but he wants justice above all, which may make him appear ruthless. Kitchen’s style of acting, his skill in conveying emotion and thought by minute changes in expression and tone of voice, is perfect for this character. The other characters, equally well drawn, and dialogue replete with casual remarks that reveal the back stories, create the sense of a community.
     The back stories develop slowly. Each episode deals with at least two plot threads. The occasional characters are given a context that not only provides the clues and red herrings, but also grounds them firmly in their own lives. They don’t feel created just to fit the plot; the psychology of their choices feels real. Most importantly, the effects of evil on the innocent bystander is a constant theme.
     This is the second time we are watching the series. We missed several episodes the first time, but even the ones we’ve seen before seem fresh and new. Knowing that plot allows us to focus on characters and their choices. The writers deserve high praise. ****

Lost in Austen (Mini-series)

Lost in Austen (2008) [Written by Guy Andrews. Amanda Rooper, Elliot Cowan, Hugh Bonneville]
     Amanda Price, fan of Pride & Prejudice enters the fictional world through a door in her bathroom, exchanging places with Elizabeth Bennett. Plot summary of the series here.
  Question is, does this pastiche work? I think so. Andrews has rewritten Austen’s romance as a novel: the characters are more complex, they have back-stories, they react rather more like real people than genre characters. There is a consistent theme: all these people are playing parts assigned to them by social constraints and rules. Amanda upsets this, primarily by insisting that the characters behave as prescribed in Austen’s novel. But she too is trying to play a part: the observer. But she’s actually a participant, and in her unwillingness to accept this messes things up, but good. People seek her advice, which she frames in terms of Austen’s book, not in terms of character and personality. “Destiny” is her buzzword, but she’s blind to the changes in destiny created by her entry into a fictional world. (Or is it fictional? Andrews leaves that question hanging.)
     Almost all the characters reveal their true selves at different times. Caroline Bingley admits she is a lesbian, but will endure marriage for propriety’s sake. Lady Catherine reveals herself as conforming to rules and roles prescribed by her status; but she knows that Amanda is not what she seems, and so is not bound by status. She has seen that Amanda is afraid of what she really wants; and her last remark to Amanda is she wishes Amanda were her daughter. Wickham acts the cad but is really a deeply honourable man: he’d rather be hated by Darcy than betray Georgiana’s adolescent crush. Bingley eventually acts on the love he really feels for Jane instead of following Darcy’s advice to preserve his social status.
     Mrs Bennett finally revolts against the socially submissive role her status assigns, and instead of kowtowing to Lady Catherine, throws her out of the house. This reminds Mr Bennett that she is his wife, and his admiration for her long-suppressed spunk, as well as the realisation that he has dodged his duties as husband and father, move him to offer to sleep in the marital bed again, an offer that Mrs Bennett is delighted to accept. And of course Darcy will follow his heart rather than his social pride, and Amanda will accept her destiny.
     We spent four pleasant evenings watching this series on TVO. It is not the best Austen pastiche I’ve come across, but it’s still well above average. ***

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (video review)

The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (1981) The BBC video series. Based on clips and previews of the 2005 movie, I think this video is still the best realisation of Douglas Adams’ vision. I’d use the word “definitive” if it hadn’t been used by too many critics before me.
     I’ve seen this video at least half a dozen times, and  each time I enjoy it just as much as when I first saw it on TVO many years ago. The simple computer animations displayed by the Book may seem endearingly old-fashioned, but considering how much information it must include, it represents a brilliant solution to the problem of maximising data and minimising storage. Douglas Adams’ wit sounds fresh despite repetition. As any serious (as opposed to solemn) philosopher knows, comedy and satire can express truth and wisdom more economically than any other mode. That’s why philosophers and preachers hate comedians, and do their best to make us think that gloomy mien and furrowed brow are the only true signs of deep thought.
     By this time “42" as The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is so well known that the number alone serves as a signal. That the Earth is a computer is not merely Douglas Adams’ joke: that the Universe is a computer is a metaphysical theory taken seriously by a surprising number of mathematicians. I prefer to think of the Universe as a hologram, however. ****

Shock and Awe (TV)

Shock and Awe (2010) [TVO] A BBC series about the discovery, exploitation, and eventual understanding of electricity. Well done, with many re-creations of crucial experiments. One comes away with a renewed respect for the scientists and engineers who worked out the way electricity does its many things, and an appreciation for the fact that we don’t really know anything else about electricity except just that: how it works. The equations describe what happens, and thereby enable us to control what happens, and that’s all.
     Those who want to know what electricity “really is” will be disappointed. But to ask what a thing “really is” is to ask for more than we can know of it. Reality is what we can know and understand. There may be more, but since we cannot know or understand it, it’s pointless to ask what it is. It is of course not pointless ask whether we can know more than we know now, but that’s not a paradox. We each of us have limitations, and we each have the ability (albeit limited) to transcend those limitations when we share what we know. Conversation is a liberator.
     One thing that’s missing from these series is the dead ends of mistaken theories and false starts. Science progresses as much from discovering what ain’t so as from discovering what is. As with all documentaries, some prior knowledge will provide the personal context needed for understanding and pleasure. In this case, a middle or high school knowledge of electricity is enough. ***

Fawlty Towers (TV series review)

 Fawlty Towers (1975-1979) Basil Fawlty (John Cleese) and his wife Sybil (Prunella Scales) run a small hotel in Torquay. Basil wants to raise the tone of the place, and repeatedly fails to do so. He fawns on guests he believes are socially acceptable, and is rude to those who don’t measure up his snobbish standards. The humour comes from his desperate attempts to rescue situations in which he’s made mistakes, his venomous wit, and the contrast between his self-esteem and his horrified self-loathing when he recognises he has, once again, messed up. We watched all 12 episodes. I think some of the humour went over Jonathon’s head.
     I was again struck by the near-perfect plotting (I say near-perfect only because I’m sure there are some flaws somewhere that I didn’t spot), the comic timing, the writing, the characterisation, and Cleese’s amazing ability as a physical actor. The rest of the cast meet the same high standards. A pleasure to watch.  Not to everyone’s taste, but highly recommended all the same. ****

Zen (TV series)

Zen (2011) Based on a crime series by Michael Dibden. We saw Cabal and Ratking. In both, corruption at all levels of Italian society interfere with Zen’s quest for the truth and his goal of achieving some kind of justice. Complicated twists, multiple layers of knowledge and ignorance, double crosses, and intersecting motives: That’s about all there is to say about this series plotwise.
     The character is well done in the current fashion of the enigmatic wounded knight in thrall to various belles dames sans merci, wandering through the murk of evil. The movie making is in the same style, with jump cuts, multiple plot threads, brief glimpses of crucial but unexplained figures in the background, scraps of backstory, cool cars and great clothes, clever (and almost always apt) use of contrasts between dark and light, elegant and grungy locations, deliberate lack of transition shots, and minimal use of music. The tone is also in the current fashion, world weary and elegiac. The titles look like animated pages from Wired, now much imitated by the fashion magazines. All in all, well done entertainment. I’m sorry we missed the first episode. I’ll read one of Dibden’s books, if it happens to cross my path. **-½

Ancient Worlds 5: Republic of Virtue (TV Series Review)

 

 Ancient Worlds 5: Republic of Virtue (Rome) (2010) This episode clarified, corrected, organised, added to, and reminded me of the Roman history I learned in grade 6 or 7 in Austria. It also demonstrated why we should not rely on what we learned in grade school. I had a muddled recall, with events transposed, characters poorly understood or mistaken for each other, politics not grasped. Popular history, as conveyed by Shakespeare or Robert Graves, and as confirmed in middle school history texts, makes no sense if one doesn’t have at least a timeline of the events portrayed. Yet popular history is all that most of us have. No wonder we fall for demagogues that invoke tradition and pop-culture stereotypes of our glorious past.

      This series is worth watching more than once, preferably with a reference book at hand. Marie recently found a book about the great (i.e., history-changing) battles: it helped to have this to look at during or after the episodes.
      The previous episode described Alexander’s career, which belongs in the story only because he spread his ideas of Hellenic civilisation into North Africa and northwestern India. But it was clearer than ever that he was a psychopath: his extreme narcissism, his brutality, and his ability to mesmerise his followers are typical of a psychopath. One of the speakers in this episode said he’d concluded that Caesar was a psychopath. I’d go further: I think one has to be a psychopath to want and strive for absolute political and military power. In the short run, psychopathy is a survival trait, which no doubt explains why it has never disappeared from the human gene pool, even though it is in the long run lethal to to the psychopath, and to any civilisation that rewards psychopaths.
     Rating for the series: ***