bookgazing (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bookgazing) wrote2011-07-28 04:00 pm
bookgazing) wrote2011-07-28 04:00 pm
Entry tags:
Crime - Everybody's Doing It!
I'll be back on books soon everyone (and I need to tell you about meeting another book blogger in person) but for now I have some catch up impressions to offer about television (sadly not about the new series of Torchwood, we will not be speaking of that here). Do you remember I mentioned that to recover from my recent brush with the ‘ugh’ I was watching a LOT of crime drama? Apparently all UK tv providers had some huge crime drama budgets this spring and were determined to spend them, before someone reassigned the money to the department of truly weak comedies. Here’s what that budget bought us all:
‘Scott and Bailey’
I really, really wanted to like this, but in the end I didn’t get on with the first episode and ended up just watching the first and last part of this series. This is, what, the first show focused around a female police partnership since Cagney and Lacey (I am so unoriginal in my comparisons) but what’s that in the first episode? Why it’s Detective Bailey, abusing her police powers to avenge herself after a failed romantic relationship. GOOD LORD NO. Is it possible that you could revenge yourself without abusing police knowledge in order to do so? No? Well, if you absolutely have to use that knowledge, could you at least wait a couple of episodes so we can see that in general you are a decent, professional type? Or, if you want to go a different way you could abuse your police knowledge for other reasons as well, so that it’s clear that vaguely rule bendy copper is part of your core personality, not just something that rears up when a man has done you wrong. So many possibilities, why chose the most annoying one makers of drama? Oh and also the crime plot was a bit dull.
The last episode was...not totally better, but less annoying and more smart about the ladies. We got to see a lot of Scott and Bailey’s female boss, played by Amelia Bullmore (the more I see her, the more I like her) who sounds fascinating whenever she gets to speak. She used to be in profiling and in this episode she spends a lot of time being animated about her job, praised by a young profiler and enthusiastically missing the profiling department. Oooo. We get a better idea of Bailey’s competencies (she’s very smart and she notices everything, earning her respect and the name Sherlock), to go alongside that early picture of her abuse of power. And there’s a cracking cliff hanger ending.
Still, the villain of the over arching series plot is easily guessable and you can work out exactly what’s going on between everyone without needing to watch the rest of the series...Not exactly a recommendation, but I’ve watched a lot worse television than this last episode and enjoyed it.
‘Injustice’
I like Anthony Horowitz’s television work. It’s not fancy, or loud and although he refuses to help viewers solve crimes on their own (gah, please, I probably won’t work it out from your clues anyway, I just want a chance), his dramas do tend to contain detailed, human relationships. I got hooked during the first episode of this five part series, because it was rather slow to build and made the viewer get to know characters. These characters then changed over the five parts, into people who are not exactly sympathetic (a killer is revealed, a police man turns out to be emotionally abusive to his wife and a criminal turns out to be a scared victim). I mean if you’re going to make viewers ask ‘What are the morals of this situation?’ you need them really engaged with the characters, otherwise well who cares if you killed someone to make the world a better place soulless, featureless character?
It got good, it got a bit dull, and it got good again. Horowitz chucked in some espionage because that’s what he does (spies, EVERYWHERE) and all was disturbingly ambiguous. It didn’t really need to be on five straight nights. It didn’t have that big cliff hanger appeal and I could have done with some time to mull over how I felt about the character’s actions. Otherwise very polished.
‘Case Histories’
Jason Issacs runs. Jason Issacs takes off his shirt. Jason Issacs smokes sexily. Most of the other characters are women, so there’s no real male competition to distract from Jason Issacs. Jason Isaacs!
Some reviews I’ve read concentrated on the large collection of strong women surrounding Jason Isaac’s character. Having so many female characters around making up the support and the background to the world is great (the sisters’ relationship in the first two parter is especially touching) and needed. At the same time the first two episodes of ‘Case Histories’ are clearly the Jason Isaacs/Jackson Brodie vehicle, where all eyes should be aimed at JI at all times, so it’s hard to get too excited about there being so many women. The women don’t get really active, present parts; instead they die, talk to JI, or recount their past (his daughter and the sisters’ parts are exceptions to this). Even when they’re murderers all their action takes place off camera. You can sort of tell they’re busy having active lives away from JI and the cameras, but is that enough? Tricky. I end up seeing the first two episodes as good subversions of lots of common female presentation, filled with that oh so unusual female gaze, but I’m still not totally satisfied with them.
Some of the female actresses talk about the amount of strong female characters in the series, at the BBC website. Unfortunately this section is titled ‘Jackson’s Women’ a title which maybe signposts that my problems may not all be in my head.
The third episode is much more YES ABOUT THE LADIES, as Jason Isaccs is joined by plucky, odd teenage side kick played by Gwyneth Keyworth (such a cool young actress) who gets to go around with him solving the mystery of her employers disappearance (and has all kinds of agency besides that).
Maybe if he hadn’t made that joke about his little daughter dressing like a prostitute I’d be happier with this show. Or maybe I’m just difficult and should read the books first. Drama wise I enjoyed it. It had good actors, stories and believable relationships between characters. I just wasn’t sold on the female representation.
‘The Shadow Line’
But then compared to something like ‘The Shadow Line’, ‘Case Histories’ female representation is so much wider and better, so maybe that’s what I should judge it against rather than some misty eyed ideal (eh I do not like this idea).
Not awesome:
Making the name of the one female police officer Honey
Being another crime program where women go to die, or act as plot devises to spur their men into action
Some gay representation that is questionable in the grand scheme of gay representation
Awesome:
Pretty much every actor and actresses performances, but especially the ooooohhh Christopher Eccleston, Rafe Spall and Lesley Sharp
Characters like Jay Wratten and Gatehouse, creeping you out all episode long
Tension
Storylines with so much plot weaving, honestly BBC I had no idea you could plot this well, why do you not do so more often
Love of chucking in a completely unbelievable but awesome fight sequence every three episodes
The ending which put ‘The Departed’ on notice for not being ruthless enough.
‘Vera’
I found the crimes slightly dull and unnecessarily complicated. None of the episodes needed a two hour slot except for the final one, which shows some of the complexities of police officers necessarily leaving behind unsolved cases. However, very interesting personal relationships and character backgrounds popped up (Joe’s wife’s post natal depression, Vera’s awkwardness). And I can’t be totally against a show featuring an older, non nonsense female detective. Vera’s character is really interesting, as she goes along being brusque, smart and thoughtful. So, another show where the characters trump the plot for me.
‘The Mentalist’
Another show where I’m less interested in the crimes and more into the characters relationships. When I last talked about this program someone pointed out that the crimes investigated show a remarkably lack of diversity (overwhelmingly rich, white, straight people seemed to be involved as victims or criminals) to which I’d just like to say, wow, on the money, thanks for lifting the lids off my eyes. TV lands so neatly on the default sometimes and I don’t even notice.
The over arching narratives that carry through the seasons are more compelling than each random crime, which Jane will no doubt solve at the beginning of the episode just like Columbo in a flashier suit. I’m more interested in whether Rigsby and Van pelt get back together; whether Lisbeth and Jane are really just meant to be good colleagues and friends; whether Cho will ever get a romantic partner... I was impressed by the resolution to the Red John serial killer story line in the finale. So surprised (in a good way) by who they got to play Red John and glad I guessed this series’ police accomplice (because it suggests a Rigsby/Van pelt reunion which I want desperately). There are enough lose ends for another series, but the last episode would make for a reasonably satisfying end if this should be the last series.
So, that’s the tv I watched to unwind. Did anyone else dip into everything offered by the recent crime drama bonanza? Any theories on why so much original crime drama was shown all around the same time. And has anyone seen the new series of 'Luther', which was the one big crime work I missed?
‘Scott and Bailey’
I really, really wanted to like this, but in the end I didn’t get on with the first episode and ended up just watching the first and last part of this series. This is, what, the first show focused around a female police partnership since Cagney and Lacey (I am so unoriginal in my comparisons) but what’s that in the first episode? Why it’s Detective Bailey, abusing her police powers to avenge herself after a failed romantic relationship. GOOD LORD NO. Is it possible that you could revenge yourself without abusing police knowledge in order to do so? No? Well, if you absolutely have to use that knowledge, could you at least wait a couple of episodes so we can see that in general you are a decent, professional type? Or, if you want to go a different way you could abuse your police knowledge for other reasons as well, so that it’s clear that vaguely rule bendy copper is part of your core personality, not just something that rears up when a man has done you wrong. So many possibilities, why chose the most annoying one makers of drama? Oh and also the crime plot was a bit dull.
The last episode was...not totally better, but less annoying and more smart about the ladies. We got to see a lot of Scott and Bailey’s female boss, played by Amelia Bullmore (the more I see her, the more I like her) who sounds fascinating whenever she gets to speak. She used to be in profiling and in this episode she spends a lot of time being animated about her job, praised by a young profiler and enthusiastically missing the profiling department. Oooo. We get a better idea of Bailey’s competencies (she’s very smart and she notices everything, earning her respect and the name Sherlock), to go alongside that early picture of her abuse of power. And there’s a cracking cliff hanger ending.
Still, the villain of the over arching series plot is easily guessable and you can work out exactly what’s going on between everyone without needing to watch the rest of the series...Not exactly a recommendation, but I’ve watched a lot worse television than this last episode and enjoyed it.
‘Injustice’
I like Anthony Horowitz’s television work. It’s not fancy, or loud and although he refuses to help viewers solve crimes on their own (gah, please, I probably won’t work it out from your clues anyway, I just want a chance), his dramas do tend to contain detailed, human relationships. I got hooked during the first episode of this five part series, because it was rather slow to build and made the viewer get to know characters. These characters then changed over the five parts, into people who are not exactly sympathetic (a killer is revealed, a police man turns out to be emotionally abusive to his wife and a criminal turns out to be a scared victim). I mean if you’re going to make viewers ask ‘What are the morals of this situation?’ you need them really engaged with the characters, otherwise well who cares if you killed someone to make the world a better place soulless, featureless character?
It got good, it got a bit dull, and it got good again. Horowitz chucked in some espionage because that’s what he does (spies, EVERYWHERE) and all was disturbingly ambiguous. It didn’t really need to be on five straight nights. It didn’t have that big cliff hanger appeal and I could have done with some time to mull over how I felt about the character’s actions. Otherwise very polished.
‘Case Histories’
Jason Issacs runs. Jason Issacs takes off his shirt. Jason Issacs smokes sexily. Most of the other characters are women, so there’s no real male competition to distract from Jason Issacs. Jason Isaacs!
Some reviews I’ve read concentrated on the large collection of strong women surrounding Jason Isaac’s character. Having so many female characters around making up the support and the background to the world is great (the sisters’ relationship in the first two parter is especially touching) and needed. At the same time the first two episodes of ‘Case Histories’ are clearly the Jason Isaacs/Jackson Brodie vehicle, where all eyes should be aimed at JI at all times, so it’s hard to get too excited about there being so many women. The women don’t get really active, present parts; instead they die, talk to JI, or recount their past (his daughter and the sisters’ parts are exceptions to this). Even when they’re murderers all their action takes place off camera. You can sort of tell they’re busy having active lives away from JI and the cameras, but is that enough? Tricky. I end up seeing the first two episodes as good subversions of lots of common female presentation, filled with that oh so unusual female gaze, but I’m still not totally satisfied with them.
Some of the female actresses talk about the amount of strong female characters in the series, at the BBC website. Unfortunately this section is titled ‘Jackson’s Women’ a title which maybe signposts that my problems may not all be in my head.
The third episode is much more YES ABOUT THE LADIES, as Jason Isaccs is joined by plucky, odd teenage side kick played by Gwyneth Keyworth (such a cool young actress) who gets to go around with him solving the mystery of her employers disappearance (and has all kinds of agency besides that).
Maybe if he hadn’t made that joke about his little daughter dressing like a prostitute I’d be happier with this show. Or maybe I’m just difficult and should read the books first. Drama wise I enjoyed it. It had good actors, stories and believable relationships between characters. I just wasn’t sold on the female representation.
‘The Shadow Line’
But then compared to something like ‘The Shadow Line’, ‘Case Histories’ female representation is so much wider and better, so maybe that’s what I should judge it against rather than some misty eyed ideal (eh I do not like this idea).
Not awesome:
Making the name of the one female police officer Honey
Being another crime program where women go to die, or act as plot devises to spur their men into action
Some gay representation that is questionable in the grand scheme of gay representation
Awesome:
Pretty much every actor and actresses performances, but especially the ooooohhh Christopher Eccleston, Rafe Spall and Lesley Sharp
Characters like Jay Wratten and Gatehouse, creeping you out all episode long
Tension
Storylines with so much plot weaving, honestly BBC I had no idea you could plot this well, why do you not do so more often
Love of chucking in a completely unbelievable but awesome fight sequence every three episodes
The ending which put ‘The Departed’ on notice for not being ruthless enough.
‘Vera’
I found the crimes slightly dull and unnecessarily complicated. None of the episodes needed a two hour slot except for the final one, which shows some of the complexities of police officers necessarily leaving behind unsolved cases. However, very interesting personal relationships and character backgrounds popped up (Joe’s wife’s post natal depression, Vera’s awkwardness). And I can’t be totally against a show featuring an older, non nonsense female detective. Vera’s character is really interesting, as she goes along being brusque, smart and thoughtful. So, another show where the characters trump the plot for me.
‘The Mentalist’
Another show where I’m less interested in the crimes and more into the characters relationships. When I last talked about this program someone pointed out that the crimes investigated show a remarkably lack of diversity (overwhelmingly rich, white, straight people seemed to be involved as victims or criminals) to which I’d just like to say, wow, on the money, thanks for lifting the lids off my eyes. TV lands so neatly on the default sometimes and I don’t even notice.
The over arching narratives that carry through the seasons are more compelling than each random crime, which Jane will no doubt solve at the beginning of the episode just like Columbo in a flashier suit. I’m more interested in whether Rigsby and Van pelt get back together; whether Lisbeth and Jane are really just meant to be good colleagues and friends; whether Cho will ever get a romantic partner... I was impressed by the resolution to the Red John serial killer story line in the finale. So surprised (in a good way) by who they got to play Red John and glad I guessed this series’ police accomplice (because it suggests a Rigsby/Van pelt reunion which I want desperately). There are enough lose ends for another series, but the last episode would make for a reasonably satisfying end if this should be the last series.
So, that’s the tv I watched to unwind. Did anyone else dip into everything offered by the recent crime drama bonanza? Any theories on why so much original crime drama was shown all around the same time. And has anyone seen the new series of 'Luther', which was the one big crime work I missed?