Showing posts with label England. Show all posts
Showing posts with label England. Show all posts

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Of Weeping Angels and Weeping Chefs





















My two current televisual obsessions are Doctor Who (no surprise there) and Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (perhaps a little bit of a surprise?).

Of the latter, I go into it without delusions. I know what's going on. Every single frame of it is nothing more than a commercial for Gordon Ramsay, and I'm sure he wouldn't have it any other way. But its ostensible conceit -- the producers find restaurants that are on the verge of collapse, then bring Ramsay in to fix them over the course of four days, a process which usually involves fixing the owners as well -- is oddly compelling to me.

The foul-mouthed Ramsay generally finds disgusting food and even more disgusting kitchen conditions, on a level that make one think twice about setting foot in any restaurant, ever again. He also generally finds owners who are either apathetic, or deluded, or have lost their way in the daily grind. One, I would swear, was an undiagnosed Asperger's patient. He kept wandering around with a "deer in the headlights" look on his face, completely lost, while his father-in-law constantly berated and insulted him -- the opposite of a productive atmosphere. The show pays to have their kitchens cleaned and refurbished and the dining rooms redesigned, while Ramsay works over the menu, the chefs, and everyone else who gets in his way.

Except that sometimes he's been really nice. He seems to be a good judge of character, and a lot of what he does here is a combination of pyschotherapy and motivation. Sometimes the owners just need a good swift kick in the pants or a slap across the face, and he does not shy from delivering that. Other times they need support and a renewed sense of self-worth, and he delivers that as well, insofar as anyone could within the timespan allotted.

It doesn't always "take." Ramsay returned to a British Pub one year latter to find that the owner had reverted to his old ways and was alienating the staff and customers.

Regardless of the results, I can't seem to stop watching the damn thing. I keep seeing myself in the owners, and wishing that someone like Ramsay would come along and give me some motivation -- or a kick in the pants, or a sense of self-worth.

As for the Doctor, BBC America has been stripping the Russell T. Davies seasons at 5:00 PM weeknights, and I usually get home in time to catch most of it. It's a real mixed bag. Davies deserves kudos for getting the show back on the air, getting it a real budget, changing the format, transforming the show from a half-hour soap to a real prime-time contender. But also for hiring Stephen Moffat to write one story a season.

I don't like the Davies years well enough to spend $50 and up for the DVDs, but I have started going to Amazon, picking out the episodes that Moffat wrote and watching them full-screen on the new computer for just 98 cents a pop.

I've watched two of them now, and have been really blown away both times, actually applauding after last night's episode, "Blink." I'm sorry, but Davies isn't half the writer that Moffat is. I haven't seen writing this good on TV since the early days of Northern Exposure.

"The Girl in the Fireplace" is a virtual template for themes that Moffat would explore in greater depth when he took over the show. While checking out a seemingly abandoned spaceship, the doctor finds an 18th century fireplace that is actually a gateway into a little girl's bedroom. That little girl is being terrorized by clockwork automatons who scan her brain, declare that she's "not ready" and then leave. The automatons (and, now, The Doctor) reappear at various times throughout her life, and as the young girl grows to womanhood she finds herself falling in love with the curious stranger who reappears every time to protect her from the automatons. (and who never gets any older). As it turns out, she grows up to become France's Madame de Pompadour, and the automations want to use her adult brain to repair their ship. They've been building time portals into her life, and at last they've caught her at the ripe age. But if the Doctor closes down the time portals, he'll be stranded forever in 18th century France.

You see, it takes a long time to describe one of Moffat's plots.

If "The Girl in the Fireplace" is a thematic Statement of Principles, then "Blink" could well be the Pilot for Mofat's tenure on the show. It's remarkable in that the Doctor hardly appears at all. We're in the present day, while he's trapped in 1969 by  new series villains The Weeping Angels. This time, it's up to a girl from the present day who's never met the Doctor to get information to him in 1969 so that he -- get this -- can record a video that will one day be inserted as an easter egg onto 17 DVD titles; a video that will get information to the girl in the present day that will allow her to defeat The Weeping Angels and free up the Doctor's TARDIS.

Are you following this? Trust me, it doesn't even begin to cover all the wrinkles that Moffat gets into this story.

It is brilliant and clever and it takes the show to a whole new level. The original Doctor Who was not for everyone. It was cheaply made and eccentric and sometimes long-winded. I loved it without reserve in nearly all its incarnations, but could completely understand why lots of folks walked away.

This is different. If you've never seen the show, or if you've seen it in the old days and had enough, get your hands on a copy of "Blink" and start there. It's been many moons since I've seen something that made me want to grab people by the shoulders, push them into a chair and say, "Just sit down and Watch."

Blah-blah-blah, burble-burble-burble. Had enough? I don't blame you.

-- Freder.

Friday, March 18, 2011

A Whisper of Spring is Near. . .





















I wanted to post the theme to the BBC TV show Mulberry as a soundtrack to this post, but I couldn't find a source. Anyway, if you are familiar with the show, you are familiar with the song, and if you are not familiar with the show, I urge you to track it down. It's readily available on DVD, and it is sublime, transcendent, any other word meaning "really good" that you care to apply.

This afternoon when I got home from work -- gad, it was such a nice, springlike day that I decided to open the front door onto the porch, and to open most of the windows on the porch, and let some air in.

The quats were right there. They ventured out into this new space, and at first their whole body language said: "Whoa! This is scary! -- But, you know, kind of cool!"

Then the scary part faded away. Within minutes Patches had found a Favorite Spot. Whitey liked getting up on his back legs and looking through the door. Pandy settled on the ledge and watched the cars go by. Contentment and surprise at Something New was the order of the day.

It made me so happy.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Me and My SHADO





















As you can tell from the photo above, Gerry Anderson's completely wonky '70s SF series UFO had just about everything a fourteen-year-old boy could want.

By today's standards, the show is almost laughably sexist. Although women are shown in command positions, it's rarely a higher rank than lieutenant, it doesn't come without frequent harassment from the self-styled lady's man Col. Alec Freeman (George Sewell, and an unlikelier lady's man you never will see) -- and just look at the uniforms they have to wear!

'Way back at the end of November, with Farscape behind me, I decided to revisit UFO for my Monday night dose of SF. With one thing and another, I've only managed to get a few episodes into the run. Oddly enough, it's the futuristic fashions (by Sylvia Anderson) that have aged the most.


Gerry and Sylvia Anderson are better known for their "Super-Marionation" puppet shows, Fireball-XL5, Stingray, and others, but UFO is very much in the same line as those shows, only featuring "live" actors (I have to use quotations, because sometimes I think the puppets displayed a broader range of expression than the cast of UFO!). To the Anderson's credit, it doesn't try to model itself on Star Trek or Lost in Space; its conceit is that Earth is under attack by humanoid aliens who harvest human body parts for transplant. Our only line of protection from the invasion is SHADO, a super-secret special ops branch that has its headquarters under a film studio, and brings the latest, most advanced technology to bear in its defense of the planet. Under the sea, on land, in the air, and from its base on the moon, SHADO seeks 'em here, seeks 'em there, seeks those aliens everywhere -- but still they get through!


The show is full of gadgets and flying things, and many of the effects hold up to this day; some of you already know I'm a believer that model work is more effective than CGI at just about everything. The alien craft and Skydiver (a submarine that launches a jet into the stratosphere) are particularly good effects.


As Commander Straker, Ed Bishop (an American actor who turned up a lot in British films) makes William Shatner's Captain Kirk look easy-going and lax. Bishop's whole performance lies in looking as steely-eyed and determined as possible. The series gets off to a rocky start with an episode that was so violent that it needed to be re-cut for syndication, and two more episodes that merely stick the shtick, all machines, all the time. But within three episodes Col. Paul Foster (Michael Billington) is introduced, and the scripts get markedly better as Foster is allowed to become the single three-dimensional continuing character on the show.


It's nowhere near as good as Star Trek or Farscape at their best, but the Andersons never scrimp on style, and most of the episodes hold your attention. But it's also very much a period piece, and a modern viewer needs a mental ride in the Way-Back machine to stomach some of the styles and attitudes on display.


It helps that I still have the mind of a fourteen-year-old boy.


-- Freder.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Who watches The Watchmen? Not me -- at least, never again!


















Oh, my. After just three days I'm convinced that DirecTV is the handiwork of The Devil.

The installer came by late on Thursday and spent four hours setting me up. My first reaction was: Yippee! Teevee again! I am back in the land of the living! I can listen to the news and weather reports!

Then the installer started showing me some of what DirecTV delivers, and I think I said, out loud, "This is insane!"

For all of my life, I've had access to just eight or ten channels: all three networks (from two locations), a couple of PBS stations, and within the last couple of years, FOX. It used to take me maybe sixty seconds to go through all the channels, find out there was nothing on that I wanted to watch, and slot a DVD into the player.

Now it takes an hour!

Sports channels up the wazoo (of no interest to me)! Bible-thumping channels! Infomercial channels -- seemingly hundreds of those useless things! There's even soft-core porn (I've seen more simulated sex in the last three days than I care to think about). . .

I'm grateful that, as you flip through the channels, a description of the program that's currently airing pops up before the channel actually has time to load. This gratefulness stems from a couple of encounters with the premium movie channels (which, thankfully, will be going away in three months). I was thumbing the "channel up" button when I suddenly noticed the words: "HBO -- SAW IV."

I thought, "Yikes!! Saw IV!!?? I don't want to see a single frame of that thing! Get me outta here!!"

The exact same thought was repeated a few moments later when the title Zombieland came up. Ye Gods! Who watches this stuff? Its easy availability is actually disturbing to me. I've been a life-long proponant of free speech, but free speech doesn't give you the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and it doesn't give you the right to make and distribute torture porn and cannibalism movies, either.

Then I stumbled upon the much-talked-about film adaptation of Watchmen, the graphic novel by Allan Moore and Dave Gibbons. I decided to brave it. After all, it didn't cost anything (over and above what DirecTV costs, anyhow). So I wasn't directly giving them my money to watch it.

I expected the egregious lapses in taste, but what surprised me was that the egregious lapses in taste weren't the main reasons why I ended up giving this ugly movie a "thumbs down." The original graphic novel was many things: but it wasn't pretentious. This thing, with its over-use and abuse of slow motion, portentous empty-eyed, stone faced acting, not to mention its overwhelming sense of self-seriousness, self-importance and superiority (particularly notable for something that's really just a grotty little exercise in nose-wrinkling) embodies pretension to the nth degree.

It's been noted that the movie displays an almost slavish devotion to the book. I didn't see that. Admittedly, it's been years and years since I read the thing, but there were whole swaths of story material that I didn't remember and would swear were not in the book. The movie is also more gruesomely violent than the book. It replaces the book's many layers of complexity with layers of vulgarity. Its one improvement over the book lies in the ending, which for expediency's sake changes a fake alien invasion into a fake attack from one of the existing characters.

You feel exhausted when the thing is over, and a little bit dirty, and very much as if you have wasted your time.

Oh -- and don't even get me started about Universal's recent remake of The Wolfman.

Much more enjoyable (though still problematic) was BBC America's marathon showing of the new Doctor Who series. I'd never seen this incarnation of the show before. With its significantly larger budget and the abandoning of 20-minute "cliffhanger" episodes for hour-long self-contained stories, Who has gained much over the days of the original series -- but it's also lost something, too.

The first story I looked at was an epic-length two-parter starring the Good Doctor's most popular baddies, the Daleks. Because it's now shot on film and because they have access to computers, the producers can now make their Dalek Invasions quite spectacular: but with literally hundreds of Dalek spacecraft careering around shooting everything in sight, and literally thousands of Daleks hovering and swarming about, the emphasis has shifted away from story and onto spectacle. At its core, it was a fairly ordinary, by-the-numbers Dalek story, even when a four-way cliffhanger was tossed in at the end of the first hour.

The second part was worse: a mish-mash of technobable and confusion. It was complicated by the boatload of supporting characters who were being re-united for this story, all of whom the producers seemed more interested in than the Doctor! U.N.I.T -- the Torchwood crew -- Sarah Jane Smith. Too many characters and not much in the way of clever dialogue for the Doctor.

The second story that I watched -- "The Next Doctor" -- was much, much better, though still, in the end, over-reliant on computer-generated spectacle. The Doctor finally gets to be Doctorish, and the story was a clever one featuring the Cybermen. And -- was that Miranda Richardson guest starring? In Victorian London, the Doctor meets what he at first believes to be a future incarnation of himself. Meanwhile, the Cybermen are using child labour to build themselves a gigantic cyber tinkertoy with which to literally squash the British Empire.

I was grateful to catch up on what the beeb were doing with one of my favorite shows, but three hours was more than enough. By then I was just rested-up enough from a day of moving to manage dinner.

I'll continue to dip into DirecTV as time permits, but I suspect that I'll be returning to my DVDs soon. I can program better for me than some young suited dunderhead.

Oh -- and if you want proof positive that it's the work of the Devil? Check out something called Yo Gabba Gabba!

-- Freder.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Real, Original Rescuers



























I don't want to write about moving today, although it is much on my mind, a weight that never seems to get any lighter.

Instead I will write about Miss Bianca and Bernard the Brave. Not the Disneyfied version of the movies (although the first one was okay despite its departures), but the source material, the original books by British author Margery Sharp.

Regrettably, the Miss Bianca series is completely out of print. This is a crime. Although I cannot speak for the later books in the series (my family stopped at four for some strange reason, and until later years I never knew that more existed), the first three are among the books that I most fondly remember.

They are Gothic Victorian Romantic Adventure stories -- with mice. When Disney made their version, it was Americanized and transplanted to the Louisiana Bayou, but the books are ornately European and much richer in texture. As illustrated by the great Garth Williams, the books are filled with what Williams himself referred to as "a soft furry love."

But they are also filled with darkness and wonderful villains. In The Rescuers, a young girl is forced into servitude by The Grand Duchess, who with her faithful valet lives in a decaying old mansion attended by clockwork handmaidens.

I have to stop. I may revisit this post later on. I'm not doing it justice. Just too tired. Suffice to say that you should seek out The Rescuers, Miss Bianca and The Turret, and devour them by candlelight at night.

Monday, December 6, 2010

The Peter Pan Syndrome

Jason Isaacs as Hook in P.J. Hogan's delightful film version of Peter Pan


















There are rights and wrongs in art as in life. Here are two wrongs having to do with J.M. Barrie's Peter Pan, before I move on to the rights.

J.M. Barrie gave a remarkable gift. For nearly one hundred years, his royalties from Peter Pan have gone to benefit the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London.

Now that the copyright for Peter Pan has lapsed and the character is in the public domain, the moral right of the Great Ormond Street Hospital is under attack by none other than the Walt Disney Company. In a move that can only be described as a crass attempt to glom the copyright of Peter Pan for themselves, their book publishing arm Hyperion has issued several new novels about the character co-authored by the otherwise respectable Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson.

It seems strange to be working in a bookstore and to ask you all not to read or support a book, but that is exactly what I am doing. By publishing these unauthorized rogue “prequels” to Peter Pan, the Disney Company is literally stealing from sick children. So much for the vaunted “family values” of the suited corporate criminals hiding in the shadow of Mickey Mouse.

In an effort to hang onto their bequest, the Great Ormond Street Hospital has authorized an official sequel of their own, Peter Pan in Scarlet by Geraldine McCaughrean. If you must have new stories featuring Peter Pan, please support (and encourage your children to support) the official novel, which promises to take the Barrie bequest well into the new century.

*

And now, on to the travesty that is Hook. Anti-intellectual, wallowing in stupidity, this shocking rape of J.M. Barrie twists and contorts his play into a contemporary parable about finding one's "Inner Child." Despite Hoffman (who is fine), this is typical Spielberg soft-headed manipulation. Stay away -- stay away!

*
On the other hand, Finding Neverland is more of a right than a wrong. It's merely an incredibly efficient machine for making people cry. The audience I saw it with all blubbered unashamedly. For my part, I am entranced by the movie's portrayal of the original Victorian-era stage production of Peter Pan.

*
But the real reason I'm yammering at you today is to encourage everyone to check out P.J. Hogan's little-known and under-appreciated 2003 version of Peter Pan. This is, by far, the best, most faithful film adaptation of J.M. Barrie's play. Somehow it manages to balance a modern approach and very showy computer work with respect for the source material. A terrific cast all up and down the line is highlighted by Rachel Hurd Wood in her first-ever acting job as Wendy, and Jason Isaacs following in the tradition of the stage play by taking the roles of both Mr. Darling and Captain Jas. Hook, and doing a smashing job at both. The delightful Richard Briers co-stars as Smee, and, in a major milestone that finally allows some of the play's subtext to come to light, Peter himself is at last played by a boy, Jeremy Sumpter.
















This changes everything, and allows the play to breathe deeply. For the first time, Peter Pan becomes what it really was all along: a Romance. It's made quite clear that Wendy is on the verge of becoming a young woman, and her feelings for Peter are colored by frustration at his refusal to grow up with her. Meanwhile, Isaacs's Hook turns out to be something of an embittered Romantic, a Poe in Pirate Drag whose motivations in hating Peter go far deeper than just the loss of his hand. He's jealous, and choked with regrets so powerfully strong that he actually distills poison from his own tears (this is a detail right out of Barrie). In fact, he is able to manipulate Wendy because he understands her.
















The one real liberty that's taken with the play happens at the end, when Hook discovers the power of flight and the final swordfight between him and Peter takes spectacularly to the air. Happy thoughts, to him, involve murder and lawyers, so, with the requisite dose of Fairy Dust, he soars quite well -- until Peter, in a very nice twist, realizes Hook's dark secret and turns it, fatally, against him.

Friday, December 3, 2010

"Mrs. Peel -- We're Needed! -- Now More than Ever!"

















I spent a delightful evening the other night with John Steed and Mrs. Emma Peel in "The Town of No Return." It's been close to a decade since I've invited The (original) Avengers into my home, and y'know what? That's too long a time!

Steed and Mrs. Peel are old friends. It's a series I've watched many, many times -- yet somehow it's always fresh.

Diana Rigg is so assured as Mrs. Peel that it's easy to forget this was her debut episode -- and what a terrific introduction to the character it is. The chemistry between Rigg and Patrick Macnee is immediately apparent; and they're given a lot of time to warm up before the plot really starts to happen and things get dark indeed.

The last time I worked through the series, I wrote a piece on the show for my long-dead literary 'zine. Now seems like a good time to trot it out again. Some of the writing is immature and vulgar, but I stand by the sentiments.

------------

We’re happy whenever one of our favorite television shows from the 1960s is made into a godawful big-budget summer “spectacular” Major Motion Picture. Inevitably, this “blockbuster” is dismissed or forgotten, as it deserves to be, the producers lose buckets of money, as they deserve, and the original television series benefits from all the hype by re-emerging in syndication or on home video, often remastered and looking better than ever.

This is particularly the case with The Avengers. Any attempt at filming The Avengers without Pactrick Macnee in the pivotal role of John Steed is misguided from the get-go, and last year’s version featuring Ralph Fiennes as Steed and the ever-diminishing Uma Thurman as Mrs. Emma Peel was a miscalculation of jaw-dropping proportions, proving the arrogance of '90s film producers, who seem to believe only in what’s synthetic; or at the very least to believe that nothing lives or breathes which cannot be replicated artificially in a studio laboratory.

To look at the original and the replicant side by side is to look at difference between life and anti-life — yet in this case the living thing owes its continued existence (on video) thanks to the construct. In the thirty years since its original run, The Avengers has aired in North America only twice, usually with five minutes or more hacked out of the running time of each episode. Video releases have been spotty and of low quality. Thanks to A&E, and to Hollywood’s belief that nothing is sacred, a restored, uncut Avengers is available to us again — for the first time.

We doubt that this effect will alter the world of so-called entertainment — but it should. The Avengers was radical in the '60s — by rights it should seem tired and dated when compared to television programming in the '90s. It does not, which should frighten you down to the soles of your feet. As radical as The Avengers was thirty years ago, today it’s at least three times as radical, three times as fresh, three times as daring. In part, this has to do with the producer’s arrogance mentioned above, the belief that creative people are no longer needed in the production of film or television. But it also has much to do with the broader effect of that arrogance, which has been to create a culture that has taken two technological steps forward and three spiritual Giant Leaps backward.

The Avengers is everything '90s cultch is not: colorful, intelligent, charming, playful, dignified, exciting, stately, witty, powerful and just a little bit impudent. Try getting that from a cola nut — or from any Hollywood company actively producing new material for television, all of which seems hyper-serious, weighted by muddy, muted colors, a relentless pursuit of the relentless, dull pseudo-documentary style, posturing doctors, lawyers, bare-assed cops, all sweaty protagonists snarling at the camera as they draw arbitrary lines in the sand. The Avengers proves that we are not only dumbing ourselves down but losing our sense of humor and our flair for style. 

In this The Avengers owes not a little of its success to blind luck: the sort of blind luck that can only occur when creative people are given the power to make their own decisions. It is next to impossible for this kind of Happy Alchemy to occur at any level in the culture that has evolved over the past two decades. Why? Because all the components that could bring it about are missing. Principally, these are:

--> Producers who are creative people first, business people second — if at all. There have always been money men: people with no creative inclinations or ability who run the business end of things and reap the lion’s share of the rewards. We can’t kick about this, it’s more than a simple fact of life: it’s a darn good arrangement so long as the suits know their place. But the Reagan-Bush years were so kind to suits that vast numbers of them began to get uppity and think that they could handle creative work without the participation of creative people (nearly everyone notices the danger flags, but the balance of power has shifted so far to the right that “creatives” can’t do much more than lick their wounds). The Avengers profited from something almost unheard-of today: a couple of writers were more or less given complete control to produce the show their own way. When the suits stepped in and tried to take the reigns from Avengers producers Brian Clemens and Albert Fennell, as they did at the end of show’s fifth season, the show’s quality nose-dived so dramatically that Fennell and Clemens were finally brought back on board: too late to save the series from the corruptive cookie-cutter Suit Influence that had already set in. Let’s put this as simply as possible: people should stay away from things that they don’t understand. By definition, suits try to reduce everything to numbers: but drama doesn’t work that way. Even when the numbers are in place, suits lack the ability to make them add up to anything.

--> Production designers who aren’t afraid to dazzle the eye — in the service of the story. Visually, '90s television isn’t completely dull — only the programming falls into that category. In the days when color was new to television, it wasn’t just the sitcoms that were bright and visually exciting. Designers for shows like The Avengers, The Prisoner, Star Trek and The Wild, Wild West went out of their way to provide us with colors and images that were not merely exciting, but focused the eye and the brain delightfully on the story at hand. Especially in the case of The Avengers, the playfulness of the production designers actually enhanced the playfulness of the stars and the producers: this is a far cry from design for its own sake. In the early eighties, so-called “reality” shows like Hill Street Blues began to mute the color scale and provide us with faux noir imagery that would have had more dramatic impact if the shows had simply been filmed in black and white. Today, muted colors and dull images are the industry standard for dramatic programming — meanwhile, commercial designers have reacted to this mudslide by dazzling us on a scale beyond the wildest hallucinations of the hippie-culture '60s. But when all of our most interesting work is being done in the service of Madison Avenue, the value of creative design is flipped on its back — and culture begins to die a long, lingering death as it flails about helplessly trying to find the ground. 

--> Directors more interested in storytelling than dazzling the viewer. We believe that good storytelling is dazzling in itself, and that eye-catching visuals are the province of the designer. Thirty years ago, most television directors learned their craft working as assistants to Hollywood’s greatest storytellers: they knew how characters and the elements of plot worked because it was in their blood. Today, most directors have their training on MTV with high-gloss music videos whose object is in direct opposition to character, conflict, sustained tension or mood. This has damaged our culture in ways that are probably irreparable. Drama requires thought and development, whereas scenes in a music video are measured in the fractions of a second and images are forgotten in an eye-blink. By definition, a character can only work on one level in this kind of structure — sometimes these characters are literally flat, removed from any context of background and turned sideways until they vanish. At the surface level these short films are often very effective, which is why they have successfully weaned us away from things like depth, purpose, layers and commitment. But a music video lasts only a few minutes: feature film and hour-long TV drama require more, and modern directors are emotionally and intellectually unable to provide the necessary substance.

--> Actors more interested in acting than in becoming a “personality.” Being British was a distinct advantage for The Avengers — that advantage reached the pure definition of Happy Alchemy when Diana Rigg was cast opposite Macnee as the swashbuckling amateur, Mrs. Emma Peel. That’s M-Appeal, for Man Appeal. Rigg had that in spades, but she had something better: classical training, instinctive talent, and an affinity for working hand in glove with her co-star that we think is unmatched anywhere in the history of series television. Rigg was as interested in success as anyone (her stint as a Bond Girl in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service proves that) but she wasn’t about to let ambition keep her from doing the job at hand.

It’s pleasing to note that Macnee and Rigg put themselves forward by not putting themselves forward — by refusing to pose and pretend. There seems to have been a remarkable quality of genuineness and generosity on the sets of The Avengers. None of actors can be said to be sleep-walking through their work: indeed they seem to be challenging each other to be real within the context of the series unreality, and having a jolly good time in the process. 

Above all, a sense of drama — and especially melodrama — that does not take itself too seriously. The Avengers’s lightness of touch meant that an accelerated sense of fun could be applied to straight-forward, nearly realistic stories, while an aura of calculated dread and menace could be brought to bear on tales that would otherwise be too ridiculous for words.

Here again the British way of thinking comes to the rescue: because humor has been an essential element of British drama since the days of Shakespeare and Marlowe. There must be cycles of tension and relief, a sense that human drama is actually comedy underneath it all and that the gods — often represented by the audience — are having a good laugh at the expense of mere mortals. In High Art, the worst of Eugene O’Neil and Arthur Miller often collapses under its own weight because it offers us nothing to laugh at. This principle reaches its deadliest point when art is not a factor, in the biceps-flexing movies of Stallone and Willis, where smash-cut is piled on smash-cut and the audience is expected to swallow it all with nary a flicker of a smile. Danger and an onrushing sense of hyper-catastrophe — a sort of mandated super-seriousness that isn’t seriousness at all but mere straightfaced posing — is the tone of '90s drama... the empty embodiment of runaway self-importance, a culture that clings too tenaciously to the wrong things. The two faces of John Steed are the perfect example of this. In the original series Macnee’s Steed was always smiling: and it was a genuine smile, full of humor, even when he was about to punch some villain’s lights out. As Steed in the new big-screen Avengers, Ralph Fiennes can barely manage a pained wince. “Dignity,” he seems to be declaring. “Dignity for its own sake.” Macnee never had to ask for dignity. He didn’t give a rat’s ass for the stuff. He had plenty of it in store, which was why he could afford to be charming.

In that sense, The Avengers was a more realistic show than many more serious programmes then or now. It’s a living example that television is, or once was, capable of offering so much better when creative people are allowed to do their work without a Suit looking over their shoulder.

Why does The Avengers matter? Because people create culture and culture creates people. We become what we watch. Steed and Mrs. Peel, with their commitment to set things right while still taking the time to enjoy everything that life has to offer, are the best models that anyone could have.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...