I’m currently on a one week trip with very little internet access, hence no reviews concerning tv; however, even with little access I saw that this week, we’ve lost two actors who gave me so much in fannish terms. Chekov not withstanding, I will always associate the non-sci fi writing Alfred Bester on Babylon 5 with Walter Koenig, first and foremost. He was fantastic in the part, which was a happy illustration of actor/writer collaboration - JMS wrote not one but two roles specifically for him. (And while we can’t know what a Koenig played Knight 2 would have been, I think the heart attack that prevented Walter Koenig from playing the first of the two parts JMS wrote for him was a blessing in disguise, because the P-12 he ended up playing instead simply felt more interesting from the get to. But Bester could have remained a one off villain, and that he wasn’t, that JMS kept bringing him back, that he gained dimension without losing his ruthlessness, that the last episode on B5 was one from the Psi Corps pov and that of the three media tie-ins, novels referred to as the Psi Corps trilogy, two are about Al Bester, is all a tribute to his performance. The way he delivered the witty dialogue as well as the menace. And the occasional vulnerability. He was believable in all these dimensions, and while I am eternally in the Centauri and Narn corner of the B5 universe, Bester became my favourite human character because of how he played him.

And then we lost Patrick Stewart. I was lucky enough to see him on stage four times, in four very different parts - as King Claudius to David Tennant’s Hamlet, as Antony to Harriet Walter’s Cleopatra, as Ibsen’s Master Builder and as Prospero in The Tempest - and he was amazing in each, see also my reviews at the time. Technically the first character I ever saw him play was Sejanus, one of the supporting villains in tv’s I, Claudius, but when I first watched the show it was dubbed and on German tv, so it actually later took a while before I realised the guy from the Tiberius reign episodes back when I was still in school was the same actor who later became Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise (-D). (Not that he hadn’t been good as Sejanus, but the dubbing lost the terrific Stewart voice, and so in my teenage mind he was overshadowed by the even in dubbing incredible presence of John Hurt’s Caligula in villainy.) Because of course, as it was for many people, it was Picard who made me a devoted fan.

With so many Trek shows out there now, and so many other sci fi works, not a few of which consciously marketed themselves as “The Anti-Trek”, it’s for anyone who wasn’t around and watching at the time TNG first came on screen how hardcore the “there shall be no Trek but TOS with the TOS crew” dogma seemed to be ingrained in the fandom. And let’s face it, the first TNG season wasn’t very good. But back then tv shows (backed by the ST label and some money) were given the time to develop, and how lucky we were that this was so, not just speaking as an ST fan (who doubts there would have been a DS9 without a TNG first, speaking as someone who loves both), because Patrick Stewart’s performance as Picard sparked something in the writing staff, and thus from s2 onwards we got episodes like Sarek which didn’t just trade on the wonderful Mark Lenard and Trek nostalgia but very much relied on Patrick Stewart’s ability as an actor to convey Picard channelling Sarek’s raw emotions along with his own via mind melding in the episode’s standout scene that was the first to wow me.
Mind you, this and later scenes like the climax of Family where Picard breaks down would not have been nearly as powerful if Picard’s default mode had not been stoic, and if Patrick Stewart hadn’t managed to make that stoicism just as compelling, usually just hinting at what was going on beneath. (For a case where he does this and where the narrative focus is on the other actor (who is also excellent), see Picard’s encounter with Sisko in the DS9 pilot episode. The last time Sisko had seen this man, it had been as Locutus (of Borg). And the scene doesn’t “steal” the weight from how this makes Sisko feel, nor should it. But you can tell Picard knows, and knows there is nothing he can possibly say, so he keeps it professional, but the guilt, as always in post Locutus scenes that bring up the Borg, is simmering beneath.

The other big franchise role he played was Charles Xavier. Which he did very well indeed - and his chemistry with Ian McKellen in what few scenes they shared in the first three X-Men movies brought new fans like yours truly to that particular relationship. - , but never more heartbreakingly than in Logan, in what feels like it should have been his farewell performance (much like you think of The Tempest as Shakespeare’s farewell to the stage, despite the fact he contributed to several plays thereafter) - a Xavier in his 90s, afflicted by dementia and yet still himself, wavering between despair and hope. You can both tell how hard it must be for the titular Logan to live with him, and why he’s so fond of him regardless. I know Patrick Stewart returned to Xavier later - including in the upcoming Doomsday, but like I said, the performance in Logan in its incredible humanity is the one that will remain with me.

This is a week of tears.

In which the show about diplomatic shenanigans and can't be with, can't be without marriages is back, and asks: how to we reflect what's going on in the real world, just, you know, with everyone in power being intelligent? What if we still had professionals in the US public service and everything wasn't a cresspit of corruption and malignant stupidity? The result, btw, is still a world which could be heading towards WW3, but, you know: at least no one voted for the orange menace and his equivalents in European parties. Also: this is still the best show since The Americans to make long term m/f relationships absolutely fascinating instead of relying on the will they/won't they came.

( Spoilers also love the cast, now joined by Jodi Whitaker, as much as ever and would still prefer living in that reality, dangerous as it is )

On a very different note: since a few days, the internet has decided it needs a rerun of the crazy behaviour back before The Odyssee was released and where there was endless fighting just based on two trailers. The latest cause, it seems, is the trailer for Gerta Gerwig's next movie, an adaptation of The Magician's Nephew, one of C.S. Lewis' later Narnia novels which is simultanously a prequel to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Now, I never read the Narnia novels as a child, I read them as an adult woman, and therefore have no childhood memories to hold sacred, or, conversely, to feel betrayed by. I liked them well enough when I did read them without considering them the non plus ultra of children's novels. Or fantasy. Or religious allegory, come to that. I thus lack either protectiveness or seething resentment (looking at you, Philip Pulllman). But much as the estimable Ms Gerwig is an interesting director, I was and am curious what she'll make of Narnia, and think it already a very good decision NOT to go for one of the first three novels which were adapted in recent viewer memory. The trailer looks like this:



Which had me go from mild interest to "this looks good, now I'm really looking forward to watching it!" Naturally, if you look at social media, you'd think Gerwig is Salman Rushdie just after he's published The Satanic Verses, only in an US evangelical context. Seriously, you'd think she had adapted the bible and this was some alternate Universe where Jesus Christ Superstar never happened, given some of the objections to the music used in the trailer. There will be undoubtedly much more of this until the movie is released, God (and Aslan) help us. In the meantime: the girl playing Polly is adorable in the trailer, and OMG, is that Daniel Craig as Uncle Andrew? It is. Given he also starred in the not very good Golden Compass (as Lord Asriel) in the early 2000s, this makes him the first actor to have starred in both a Narnia and a His Dark Material adaptation. Cheers!

In which we catch up with a lot of the late Tony Stark's AI and ask existential questions. Also: James Spader has great fun chewing the scenery!

( Spoilers would like to point out Theseus wasn't yet King when he fought the Minotaur, just for the record )

Mostly a smart and movingly updated adaptation, with two caveats, one that's true for any Carrie adaptation so far, one that's true only for tihs one. Caveat 1: Mike Flanagan didn't cast an actress that actually fits Stephen King's physical description of Carrie White any more than his predecessors did. Why does this matter? Because it implies that being less than slender and having acne still apparantly is the one thing preventing audiences from empathizing with a female lead. Even if it is textually a big reason why said character gets bullied to begin with in the source material. Sigh. Caveat 2, and this is my own personal opinion, ymwv, etc,: he didn't stick the landing in the final episode. Despite these two caveats, I would still call this an inspired adaptation of a young Stephen King's first novel that has put a lot of thought and feeling into their creative choices and has a lot to say about our present instead of going for a nostalgia well for the 70s or 80s, thereby justifying its existence thoroughly.

( Spoilers are very aware that human viciousness was never so celebrated as it is now )

Another solidly researched historical novel by Robert Harris I failed to emotionally connect with, despite being the target audience. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa has more than deserved his own novel, and Harris with his background knowledge not just of the era but of political machinations, and with his interest in engineering as evidenced by his first historical novel, Pompeij, was practically predestined to deliver on this. (In addition to being Octavian/Augustus' primary military man, Agrippa was also responsible for renovating or just plain building a lot of civic infrastructure of the Augustan age, from the Cloaka Maxima to various aecqueducts to the Pantheon.) I think my failure to be more than interested, and the sense of being vaguely dissatisfied with the overall result, is mostly me, but at least a little bit also him.

( The structual problem any complete take on Agrippa's life runs into and what Harris does about it )

( On Robert Harris making a weird naming choice for one of Agrippa's daughters )

( My girl Julia as presented in this novel )

So much about my problems with the novel. Now about the good and the "hm, don't know whether I'm for or against" stuff. In a podcast where Mary Beard and Charlotte Higgins interviewed Robert Harris, they did confront him with their impression that his versions of Agrippa, Octavian and Maecenas were at least party inspired by Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, he copped to it. While for the life of me I cannot see Augustus as Tony Blair or vice versa, the Gordon Brownesque Agrippa works amazingly well, work ethic, dour yet determined nature and unglamorous yet quintessential contribution to the system and all. (Mandelson as Maecenas is perhaps a bit unkind to Maecenas, but hey.) Harris has also a lot of fun with some Roman in jokes like Agrippa being a guest ad Maecenas' one time and being bored by the poet going on about the joys of the countryside (i.e. V'irgil), and a hilariously inspired idea to account for the contrast between the physical description of young Octavian as provided by the sources and the young Adonis depicted in the famous statues - in the later stages of the Civil War, at one of many points Occtavian was sick yet again yet it was quintessential that he showed himself to the public, so Maecenas had the brianwave of just drafting a good looking young bloke to pose as Octavian (since in that time and age, no one who didn't personally know him would have known what he looked like), and far from minding this, a recovering Octavian later decided this was a great idea and kept emplyoying this handsome doppelganger for public occasions and for his marble portraits.

Another great strength of this novel is that it comes across how truly brutal the Civil War was. Young Agrippa joins (Gaius Julius) Caesar for his last campaign in Spain, and those battles are absolutely terrifying and chilling to read. It really helps selling why later the Romans were so ready to accept the Principate - because there finally was an end to the Roman-against-Roman versions of these wars. And the novel is equally good at selling the reader on how unlikely the success of Octavian and Agrippa versus Antony and (both before and after) versus Brutus, Cassius & Co. originally was: essentially two adolescents armed with little more than the prestige Caesar's name by adoption gave Octavian and (some) of his cash versus men who had far more political and military experience and who were thus far more likely to win. The combination of young Octavian's innate strategic talent (political strategy, that is) which enabled him to sell himself as the better alternative (to Antony) to Cicero and the ruthlessness that enabled him to ditch Cicero the moment he didn't need him anymore combined with Agrippa's military and organisational greatness, and the way they get underestimated right until it's too late by practically everyone comes across brilliantly. (Extra kudos for the novel including Fulvia who is a villainess in Harris' Cicero trilogy as not a very sympathetic but a formidable power player in her own right here in the early sections. F'ulvia has had bad luck in most historical fiction, being treated as little more than a footnote pre Cleopatra and/or as simply an evil bitch matreating dead Cicero's head, if she shows up at all, with the sole exception I can think of being Steven Saylor's Roma Sub Rosa novels, where she's introduced in the novel dealing with her first husband's Clodius' death as a formidable power player and remains on the scene in the background in subsequent books.)

As to the "I don't know about this" part, that one is extremely spoilery for Harris' version only: ( Spoilers waver between Did we need that? and Okay, but if you make it this way, why then do you weasel out of the logical follow up? )

In conclusion: entertaiining, well researched, but not the novel I have been hoping for about Agrippa.

Because I had to cross the Atlantic twice within a week, I watched a lot of movies in the flight-friendly format. To wit:

( Hamnet, or: Parental Grief in Elizabethan Costume… )

( Wuthering Heights, or: If D.H. Lawrence had written Bronte fanfiction )

( Fatherland: Mann family drama meets post war German devastation )

Short version: I liked it a lot, though I didn't love it the way I did/do Spinning Silver (with which it shares an fantasy!Eastern European setting and fairy tale motives) . But it's an excellent novel with great characters, genuine horror (the creepiest fairy tale wood I ever encountered in fantasy) and for the most part very satisfying solutions.

( Spoilery version )

Short version, unspoilery: hugely enjoyable. I learned after watching it that the director is the same guy responsible for the excellent Wonder-Man series this year and years ago the Shang-Chi movie, and retrospectively, I can see that - this film manages a great balance of doing important character stuff for its protagonist while also giving each of the other characters appearing their due (there is no cameo that felt gratitious for me), and it deals with the legacy from the previous movies in an intelligent way. Oh, and if you haven't watched those and are afraid the movie is like the comics storyline of the same name: it's not. There is just one thing about the set up they have in common, and I'd say Spider-Man: No Way Home, the previous movie, arrived there in a far better, in -character way.

( Longer, spoilery version - and there is one massive spoiler which the marketing had been at pains to avoid even in the various trailers... )

A thoughtful review by gelliaclodiana

A poetic one by fresne

The Return vs The Odyssee : a great compare and contrast by someone who like me liked both

And lastly, an absolutely hilarious vid about which Muppet should play whom in a Muppet version of The Illiad :

In which the hopefully first season ends, which was excellent, and only the fact this is a spin-off of an AU show on Apple + makes me fear for its future. Seriously though, I hadn't been quite sure what to expect going in - the only pitch I'd heard were variations of "the Soviet perspective on the "For All Mankind" story - but it really turned out so much more and indeed not "same story, different perspective". I mean, if you want to get technical: This season of "Star City" takes place simultanous to the first three or four episodes of the first season of "For All Mankind", and other than footage of the premise of both shows - the Soviets making it to the moon first - and a short news excerpt of Colm Feore as Wernher von Braun (watched scornfully by the Chief Designer in the pilot - there are no identical scenes. There are some thematic parallels and contrasts going on, and of course two of the characters are younger versions of characters the FaM viewers will know as their older selves, but the great thing about this show is that it manages what so few spin-offs do: it works both completely as its own thing, no knowledge of the first show necessary, and simutanously you can regard both shows as complimenting each other, as this great review points out, which calls Star City the optimistic dystopia to For all Mankinds technological utopia (with flaws).

Most importantly, for any narrative: Star City develops its own characters and makes this particular viewer care deeply for them, instead of just relying on carry-over affection from FaM, and it finds a diifferent way of telling its story appropriate to its different setting instead of just copying what worked before. The acting, music, and use of filmic means are all superb, and while not every single scene works for me (including one in the finale, more about this beneath the spoiler cut), what doesn't work for me is so much in the minority that it never takes from my overall fascination. Basically: go watch, if you can, whether or not you're familiar with the mother show.

Now, on to my actual review.

( Spoilers will always have Venus )