As readers of these pages know, I've been writing about the then-upcoming mini-series on BBC America based on the novel Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norell. Last night, Saturday, was the season finale. Without giving away any of the plot --for those who haven't yet watched the episode -- I'll offer a few thoughts.
I'd said at the time that it seemed a very difficult book to adapt, since it concerns magic in the "real world" of 19th century England, conjuring up such things as stampeding sand horses on the shores of the English Channel in a battle against Bonaparte. Also, much of the fun of the book is that it's written almost like a history book on magic of the era, complete with countless footnotes referencing many supposed existing books about magic at the time, complete with stories from them about "real" events. It's also long -- somewhat over 1,000 pages. Overall, I thought they did a strong job with the adaptation. A great deal had to be cut, even for a seven-part mini-series, so I had the sense that people who hadn't read the book might be a little lost in parts. The other day, I spoke with a friend who had been watching, and I asked if he was at all confused by things. He said that, in fact, he was -- though he still was enjoying it quite a lot. Just a bit bewildered by things...including not knowing enough about the main antagonist and being a bit uncertain about his background and who he quite was. Cinematically, it was all wonderfully done, and they handled the magic effects fluidly (which is no small thing) and extremely well. My one quibble was what I'll describe as -- so as not to give anything away -- "the darkness." It's a critical part of the story at one point, and impactfully written and sustained. In the mini-series, they set it up reasonably well...but don't really maintain it well, I didn't think. The performances were generally quite good and true to the book, lead by Bertie Carvel and Eddie Marsan (as Strange and Norell respectively). The one thing I didn't agree with was the portrayal for Mr. Norrell. He begins the book as the odd-ish hero, though his shy anti-social side and wariness about his student Jonathan Strange -- and his over-protectiveness about magic and its risks -- cause him to become somewhat of an adversary to Strange. I thought in the TV adaptation they emphasized Mr. Norell's ego and distrust of others too much, making him come across as more selfish to the point of almost seeming at times the story's antagonist, when he's really well-meaning in his concerns, but deeply misguided in too many of his actions. That's not the actor's fault, but clearly the direction the production chose to take. Overall, I think they did a commendable job for a difficult undertaking. It's interesting that they called this the "season final." The conclusion certainly does lend itself to a continuation -- but there's no second novel. The author Susannah Clarke is said to be working on one, but that was announced in 2004. There's no indication of when it might be finished, let alone published. And any adaptation and production would add a lot of time on to that. So, I wouldn't think a "Season Two" is at all imminent.
0 Comments
In this week's 3rd and Fairfax podcast from the WGA, we hear part two of my pal Jeff Melvoin's interview with Dr. Miranda Banks about her book on the history of the Writers Guild which she's written about in her book, The Writers: A History of American Screenwriters and their Guild. A good part of their conversation deals with the various strikes since 1960 and how those strikes reflected changes in society, most particularly technology changes. The podcast also features John Quaintance and David Feeney, show runners of the short-lived series Ben and Kate as well the screenwriters of the film Hot Pursuit interview each other in a very lively, entertaining interview.
Out of the archives, it was a quiet week back in January, 2013. A terrible flu hits Lake Wobegon, memories of ice skating and smoking in the warming house, storytelling around a bonfire on a frozen lake, and the Lutheran church ends the year with a surplus.
I have fairly old external speakers for my desktop computer, but they're fine for my needs. I tend not to listen to music all that much, mainly the Cubs games, and other manner of talking. So, high fidelity is a low concern.
The other day I was getting a bit of static, so I fumbled around with cord and got that to disappear, though there was a slight, low hum. It wasn't heard when sound was coming from the speakers, though a bit annoying when they were on but just sitting. No big deal turning the speakers on and off -- though it was more inconvenient than should be the case, and also the sound has been somewhat low lately. I figured that it might simply be the case of an old pair of speakers on their last round-up. Nonetheless, today I dove back under my desk to play around with the cords again, just in case I could fix things.. Thanks my technical expertise, I figured out the problem. When I had been futzing around with the cords a few days earlier the time before...I hadn't plugged the cord back in all the way. I have now done so. And all works well.. Which brings us to today's tech tip. "Make sure to insert your plugs in all the way." You're welcome. I tend to generally like Rachel Maddow's show. I also tend to record it so that I fast-forward through various parts. This include the often 8-10 minute openings at the beginning of the program when she gives history lessons. To be clear, I like that there's a news anchor who is willing to put news in perspective, especially with a younger viewing audience that might not know the background. It's just that sometimes she takes SO long to saying what the actual top news story is, and I don't want to play guessing games. I'm watching the news, for goodness sake. Tell me the top story and then put it in perspective. And sometimes I know the history just fine, so on a personal level I don't want to sit through 10 minutes of refreshing. Though on occasion I do find them interesting.
There are other things I fast-forward, but that's unimportant here. The point is, after all, that I generally do like the show, which is why I've seen it enough to know these quirks. And in the end, they're quirks. We all have them. But that brings us to a separate matter -- a jag she's been on for months that I don't agree with her about. And the fact that she's been on it for so long and with such almost-joyful repetition that I think it's worth noting. The issue in question concerns how "Fox News" is limiting the number of participants in the upcoming GOP presidential debate to the 10 top candidates in an average of five national polls. To be clear, I think Rachel Maddow is right to ridicule what a terrible policy this is, and how awful it is that a political party has seeded decisions for its presidential primaries to a TV network, and what a mess "Fox News" has made of things. So, that's all fine. But -- it's that she makes such a massive and repeated emphasis that by doing handling the debates this way, "Fox News" has essentially eliminated the candidates who don't get into this upcoming debate from having any chance of getting the nominations -- and that's where I think she's not only totally wrong, but repeatedly and unrelentingly wrong. First of all, I don’t think most people even watch primary debates. So, whoever is not in the debate is not going to be missed by most voters, any more than whoever IS in the debate is going to get all that much attention either. TV networks have traditionally put on reruns in the summer, because so many people are on vacation or turn their brains off, and so viewership is down. To think that these same people who can't be bothered to watch a sitcom in the summer are going to be so intensely riveted on instead watching a political primary debate in these same summer months is deeply misguided. I do think more people than usual are likely to watch this time around because they'll want to see if Donald Trump crashes the train, but -- a) "more people than usual" doesn't mean much because the "usual" is so paltry you can hear the crickets, and b) viewers will be watching for the circus effect, not which political candidates are worth their support. Second, it’s SO early, and what happens at a debate in August (half a year before the Iowa caucus) will be meaningless for most voters. So, whoever does, in fact, watch the debate isn't going to let it have much of an impact on them. There's far too much going on in their lives between August and the voting next year for it to matter much next month, if at all. Third, the reason the earliest primaries and caucuses are in Iowa and New Hampshire is precisely because they're small states, and that allows the candidates to get more personal contact and individual news coverage than most elsewhere. And also the cost of buying ad time on television is less, so all candidates -- including those not on the debate stage -- will be able to blanket the air more readily in these states than most place. And finally, fourth -- and this might even be the most important point of all -- there will actually be other debates before the voting and most of them won’t be handled by Fox! So, just because someone doesn't make the debate stage on "Fox News" in August, they might likely be on the stage in September. And October. Long before the voting months away next year in 2016. I do understand that it's important to get on the debate stage because you have a chance to say something, to say that one snappy line that gets on the news and is remembered, which helps push a candidate to prominence. But that's not only rare, the candidates will get all those other upcoming debates to get their bon mots in. Yes, it's a debate debacle that "Fox News" has created that is causing so much consternation within the Republican Party, and it's worthy of the attention and ridicule. But to think that this mess will specifically be the reason candidates are forced out of the race is just crushingly-wrong analysis. And it is my hope that, at some point, someone gets the point across to Rachel Maddow so she can get off it already. In fact, in her interview this week with Rick Santorum -- who has been a vocal critic of the Republican Party for ceding the rules to Fox and who himself is not likely to qualify for this first debate -- even he was unflustered by it all and dismissed its important when Ms. Maddow brought up how problematic for him not being in the debate must be to his candidacy. Now, in fairness, some of his dismissal of her point was because he couldn't show his campaign being hurt by anything, but mainly he was pretty calm in his unconcern of its impact. And explained his reasons -- the heart of which was "People won't remember what they hear in a debate in August." He didn't like the procedure because it's bad procedure, and he does, after all, want to be in the debate. But as for it crushing and ending his campaign not being on the debate stage in August...the impact, he said, was negligible. And it is. The Fox Debates are a mess and a joke. But they're a mess and a joke for how they were set up. Not for any great impact they'll likely have. And I do so hope that Rachel Maddow eventually gets that and focuses her ridicule on the aspects of the Fox-mangled debates where it's deserved. Okay, since I had a baseball story this morning, I figure I might as well post this tonight. It was sent to me by the inveterate Chris Dunn. And though it sits in the world of baseball, it really transcends the sport.
A brief background. After the All-Star Game, and before the "trade deadline" ends, it is not uncommon for teams that don't stand a chance of making the playoffs -- and who have a good player of value who's in the last year of his contract -- to trade that player so that they at least get something for him, before he becomes a free agent. Now, on to the story. For the Cleveland Indians, such a player as I just described above is Mike Aviles. He's playing under the last year of his contract, and would add a lot to another team that's in a playoff run. And by all rights, the Indians should be shopping him around and happily fielding all the offers that they have been getting. However, the team has let it be known that the will not trade Mike Aviles. So, quit calling and don't ask. Why not? Because Aviles' daughter sadly has recently been diagnosed with leukemia, and she's getting treatment at a clinic in Cleveland. So the team has said that they will do nothing that will not keep the family together. Moreover, they say this about a player they haven't been using much this year, since they've granted him several extended family leaves. Professional sports team aren't know for such actions. So, hat's off to the Cleveland Indians. Here's a much more detailed story about the situation. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|