How I spent my summer vacation
Sep. 2nd, 2007 03:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ocelotyBack from vacation -- actually a while ago, but, as is my nature, much time lag between actual events and posting. Not terribly exciting but I finally had the chance to catch up on sleep, family, TV, and books. (Not necessarily in that order.)
Random impressions on Doctor Who, Life on Mars, The Revenger's Tragedy, Elizabeth, and the historical fiction of Sharpn K. Penman:
1. Doctor Who (new series):
The first thing I watched, even before I was actually on vacation. As previously discussed, the old series had great aspects but almost great flaws, not least of which was being cancelled for actual decades. The new series is just a good damn show, with two strong, if very different, leads in Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. The showrunner, Russell Davies, definitely brings Joss Whedon to mind. Tiny blonde with the attitude, check. Storyarcs and massive angst -- check. CGI monsters not so scary as humanity at its worst -- check. Still this is a every different show, and what really keeps me watching is the underlying message of hope: that the Doctor can learn to live again and humanity might fall down ten times but get up eleven. And on our good days, we might even amaze you.
Season One: great, great casting -- I think Eccleston and Piper really make the season. The scripts and direction are variable -- some good episodes, a couple of so-so ones, and some that just blew my socks off. First few were decent, but I think the season really found its feet in the second half, when the camp became more tongue in cheek and the drama ramped up to massive proportions. My favorite ep has to be the Empty Child/Doctor dances two-parter, which has great lines ("Don't drop the banana! [...] Good source of potassium!"), great atmosphere, and a happy ending that's well and truly earned. Piper is amazing. Eccleston is beyond amazing. Fantastic even.
Season Two: Uneven, but not without its moments. Tennant makes a good, if more conventional, Doctor but could have used more backup from the scripts, of which are, shall we say, uninspired. The writers certainly dialed up the angst for the finale, but the season-long arc was less tightly written and the final parting didn't quite feel earned. Oddly, my favorite characters of the season were Jackie and Mickey, who finally escaped the confines of dumb overbroad comic relief to emerge as the voice of humanity: familiarly fallible, possessed of both failings and virtues, ultimately grown up into someone to admire.
Season Three: Compared to season 2, Tennant seemed more settled in, and the writing much tighter (except for the Dalek two-parter which badly needed to be an episode shorter and several bad ideas lighter). I loved, loved Martha but the unrequited love storyline just didn't work for me -- either it needed more advancement or less restating but the middle ground didn't do it any favors. Highlight: the Master. Making him an explicit mirror of the Doctor was a masterstroke (no pun intended!) which added so much depth to the characters and themes. John Simm rocked my world; I just wish the Master and Doctor had gotten more screentime together. And I can't get over the idea that Derek Jacobi was on Doctor Who!
2. Life on Mars:
The second thing I watched (probably obvious by the #2). I ended up loving this series way more than I should have. The concept of a 21st century police detective in the 1970's is great -- sort of secretly sci-fi, as if the creator had been asked to come up with yet another police procedural but a funny thing happened on the way to the franchise. The cast really impressed me, as if I needed yet another reason to bemoan the fact the British actors are, apparently, born to amaze me. Philip Glennister steals the show, but I think it's really John Simm who makes or breaks it. Somehow he makes Sam simultaneously heroic, sympathetically, and terminally sanctimonious. Sam Tyler is the viewers' entree into the world of the show, and Simm conveys Sam's dislocation in a way that creates the emotional core of the whole show.
The writing wasn't quite up to the same amazing level -- most of the individual episodes were servicable but didn't quite live up to their potential, with plots that could have used a little more convoluting and a little less winking at 1970's discrimination and corruption. I think the writers did a good job making the coma/time travel/insanity question the emotional foundation of show, but not as good of one actually making a throughline out of their series mythology. I suspect they liked writing a 70's cop show too much to drag the show back into 2007 for a significant time (which, IMO, is what really would have been needed to give the mythology enough development).
3. Revengers' Tragedy:
I was not terribly taken with this play back in school, but this movie adaptation is amazing. Adaptations that change settings are risky but here this pays off well. Re-setting the movie in a sci-fi-ish future gives depth to the setting and works well with the formality of the dialogue, and the futuristic setting adds a great sort of frenzied energy to a play that I originally found (sorry) boring. The effect is the classic kind of sci-fi world building married to some killer dialogue, and consequently I found myself thinking about the nature of revenge in unexpected ways. Our society tends to see revenge as a primal, ultimately destructive force. It's certainly portrayed this was in the film, but also as, perhaps, the instrument of change in rotten societies. What happens when evil men are make the laws and virtuous men are the vengeful ones? Food for thought. Christopher Eccleston brings great depth to the lead role, Derek Jacobi surprised me again by appearing, and Eddie Izzard, of all people, was completely and unexpectedly quite good.
4. Elizabeth
Had seen about 5 minutes of this movie on a plane years ago and finally got to see it in its entirety. I believe this came out around the time of Shakespeare in Love and am not surprised I saw that instead, as SIL has a certain charming energy and zestiness missing here. Still, they actually made a movie about a historical woman! Cate Blanchett is excellent as Elizabeth and Geoffrey Rush as her scheming advisor. Alas, historical accuracy seems to take a backseat with the priority, apparently, being to trot out all the same tired old historical movie plot devices. Eh. Christopher Eccleston did some very interesting things with what could have been a very two dimensional role as the Duke of Norfolk. I would have loved to see him switch roles with Joseph Fiennes -- the latter has yet to impress me, and Eccleston and Blanchett had nice chemistry. Plus he would have been a far foil for Rush -- oh well. Maybe this is why I seem to be trending towards TV.
5. The Sunne in Splendour
Not TV (shocking, I know) but a historical novel by Sharon Penman about the rise of Richard III during the War of the Roses. I've always been a sucker for authors who bring historical figures to life through fiction (loved, for example, Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy. This particular book does a good job making sense of the complicated politics and personalities that shaped one of England's more anarchical periods. Certainly, this ain't Shakespeare's Richard III; Penman does a fine job separating historical fact and fiction to portray him as a sympathetic, flawed human being to whom history has done a disservice.
I also read three other novels by the same author dealing with English and Welsh politics (much more interesting than it sounds) slightly later. Penman has a knack for this kind of storytelling but these weren't quite as tight as TSIS. I did come away with a lot of sympathy for the medieval commoners, who don't get much attention in these books but clearly had a very hard time of it while the nobles squabbled for centuries over the right to exploit them.
In other news, I have signed up for Netflix. Beware!
Random impressions on Doctor Who, Life on Mars, The Revenger's Tragedy, Elizabeth, and the historical fiction of Sharpn K. Penman:
1. Doctor Who (new series):
The first thing I watched, even before I was actually on vacation. As previously discussed, the old series had great aspects but almost great flaws, not least of which was being cancelled for actual decades. The new series is just a good damn show, with two strong, if very different, leads in Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. The showrunner, Russell Davies, definitely brings Joss Whedon to mind. Tiny blonde with the attitude, check. Storyarcs and massive angst -- check. CGI monsters not so scary as humanity at its worst -- check. Still this is a every different show, and what really keeps me watching is the underlying message of hope: that the Doctor can learn to live again and humanity might fall down ten times but get up eleven. And on our good days, we might even amaze you.
Season One: great, great casting -- I think Eccleston and Piper really make the season. The scripts and direction are variable -- some good episodes, a couple of so-so ones, and some that just blew my socks off. First few were decent, but I think the season really found its feet in the second half, when the camp became more tongue in cheek and the drama ramped up to massive proportions. My favorite ep has to be the Empty Child/Doctor dances two-parter, which has great lines ("Don't drop the banana! [...] Good source of potassium!"), great atmosphere, and a happy ending that's well and truly earned. Piper is amazing. Eccleston is beyond amazing. Fantastic even.
Season Two: Uneven, but not without its moments. Tennant makes a good, if more conventional, Doctor but could have used more backup from the scripts, of which are, shall we say, uninspired. The writers certainly dialed up the angst for the finale, but the season-long arc was less tightly written and the final parting didn't quite feel earned. Oddly, my favorite characters of the season were Jackie and Mickey, who finally escaped the confines of dumb overbroad comic relief to emerge as the voice of humanity: familiarly fallible, possessed of both failings and virtues, ultimately grown up into someone to admire.
Season Three: Compared to season 2, Tennant seemed more settled in, and the writing much tighter (except for the Dalek two-parter which badly needed to be an episode shorter and several bad ideas lighter). I loved, loved Martha but the unrequited love storyline just didn't work for me -- either it needed more advancement or less restating but the middle ground didn't do it any favors. Highlight: the Master. Making him an explicit mirror of the Doctor was a masterstroke (no pun intended!) which added so much depth to the characters and themes. John Simm rocked my world; I just wish the Master and Doctor had gotten more screentime together. And I can't get over the idea that Derek Jacobi was on Doctor Who!
2. Life on Mars:
The second thing I watched (probably obvious by the #2). I ended up loving this series way more than I should have. The concept of a 21st century police detective in the 1970's is great -- sort of secretly sci-fi, as if the creator had been asked to come up with yet another police procedural but a funny thing happened on the way to the franchise. The cast really impressed me, as if I needed yet another reason to bemoan the fact the British actors are, apparently, born to amaze me. Philip Glennister steals the show, but I think it's really John Simm who makes or breaks it. Somehow he makes Sam simultaneously heroic, sympathetically, and terminally sanctimonious. Sam Tyler is the viewers' entree into the world of the show, and Simm conveys Sam's dislocation in a way that creates the emotional core of the whole show.
The writing wasn't quite up to the same amazing level -- most of the individual episodes were servicable but didn't quite live up to their potential, with plots that could have used a little more convoluting and a little less winking at 1970's discrimination and corruption. I think the writers did a good job making the coma/time travel/insanity question the emotional foundation of show, but not as good of one actually making a throughline out of their series mythology. I suspect they liked writing a 70's cop show too much to drag the show back into 2007 for a significant time (which, IMO, is what really would have been needed to give the mythology enough development).
3. Revengers' Tragedy:
I was not terribly taken with this play back in school, but this movie adaptation is amazing. Adaptations that change settings are risky but here this pays off well. Re-setting the movie in a sci-fi-ish future gives depth to the setting and works well with the formality of the dialogue, and the futuristic setting adds a great sort of frenzied energy to a play that I originally found (sorry) boring. The effect is the classic kind of sci-fi world building married to some killer dialogue, and consequently I found myself thinking about the nature of revenge in unexpected ways. Our society tends to see revenge as a primal, ultimately destructive force. It's certainly portrayed this was in the film, but also as, perhaps, the instrument of change in rotten societies. What happens when evil men are make the laws and virtuous men are the vengeful ones? Food for thought. Christopher Eccleston brings great depth to the lead role, Derek Jacobi surprised me again by appearing, and Eddie Izzard, of all people, was completely and unexpectedly quite good.
4. Elizabeth
Had seen about 5 minutes of this movie on a plane years ago and finally got to see it in its entirety. I believe this came out around the time of Shakespeare in Love and am not surprised I saw that instead, as SIL has a certain charming energy and zestiness missing here. Still, they actually made a movie about a historical woman! Cate Blanchett is excellent as Elizabeth and Geoffrey Rush as her scheming advisor. Alas, historical accuracy seems to take a backseat with the priority, apparently, being to trot out all the same tired old historical movie plot devices. Eh. Christopher Eccleston did some very interesting things with what could have been a very two dimensional role as the Duke of Norfolk. I would have loved to see him switch roles with Joseph Fiennes -- the latter has yet to impress me, and Eccleston and Blanchett had nice chemistry. Plus he would have been a far foil for Rush -- oh well. Maybe this is why I seem to be trending towards TV.
5. The Sunne in Splendour
Not TV (shocking, I know) but a historical novel by Sharon Penman about the rise of Richard III during the War of the Roses. I've always been a sucker for authors who bring historical figures to life through fiction (loved, for example, Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy. This particular book does a good job making sense of the complicated politics and personalities that shaped one of England's more anarchical periods. Certainly, this ain't Shakespeare's Richard III; Penman does a fine job separating historical fact and fiction to portray him as a sympathetic, flawed human being to whom history has done a disservice.
I also read three other novels by the same author dealing with English and Welsh politics (much more interesting than it sounds) slightly later. Penman has a knack for this kind of storytelling but these weren't quite as tight as TSIS. I did come away with a lot of sympathy for the medieval commoners, who don't get much attention in these books but clearly had a very hard time of it while the nobles squabbled for centuries over the right to exploit them.
In other news, I have signed up for Netflix. Beware!
