Links and a review
Aug. 12th, 2008 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThe rest of you might already have seen them, but in case you, like me, haven't: there are two shiny new promos for season two of The Sarah Connor Chronicles out there:
here and here. I'm so looking forward to it, and pleased that the promo puts such a strong focus on the female character (I liked Derek Reese as much as the next fangirl, but I would NOT want the show to become The Derek Woobie Chronicles); seems we'll get a new one as an antagonist, and there will also be more development and pay off for the high school girl of mystery.
Found more or less accidentally: Gene Hunt is not okay, a good post about media reactions to Gene and the difference to fannish reactions, as in, the fans seem to get that loving Gene Hunt as a character does not mean approval for his methods, while the media is more or less "ah, would that we had such policemen today!" I'm not really in either Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes fandom, just skimming on the edges, so I wouldn't know whether the assessment of the fans getting it is true or not, but the media sure doesn't. Mind you, in other fandoms the difference between character love and complete approval of said character's goals and methods often is blurred as well, and "I love X, so of course X is right in any given situation!" is quite dominant. It used to drive me crazy in Highlander fandom (the phenomenon probably could be summed up with "fluffy horseman Methos", tm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
honorh, I believe), it made me, after valiantly trying to stay out of the Spike Wars, at last made my point in fanfic back in in BTVS fandom, and while I mostly watched Harry Potter fandom from the outside (i.e. I enjoyed the books and the occasional fanfic and meta, but no more), the contortions people went through to deny that Severus Snape, while a fascinating character, really had a lot of negative traits one couldn't explain away by either blaming the Marauders or Dumbledore or both were amazing. Take the part where Snape really is a lousy teacher. I don't mean to Harry; you can always explain Harry away due to very special circumstances if you absolutely want to. But Neville gets the humiliation and sarcasm treatment, too, and by book III is so afraid of Snape that Snape is his worst fear (this in a boy whose parents were tortured into insanity). And of course, as a result there were theories and fanfics where Snape didn't really mean it and actually was fond of Neville and just wanted to toughen him up for the upcoming battle and what not, and any bullying was because Snape himself was bullied at school anyway, never mind that in no way was this Neville's (or any other current student's, including Harry) fault. I never got that. In every novel, I was looking forward to scenes Snape appeared in; he probably still is the character most interesting to me. But I never ever would wish him as a teacher on anyone. (And yes, I think it says something about Dumbledore that he kept Snape in that position, too, but that's another matter.) Gene Hunt? Highly entertaining character in both shows. Wonderfully played, for the most part well written. I would not want him policing my town, as the poster says.
Not completely unrelated: another acquisition of my recent trip to England was the miniseries Masada, hailing from 1981 and starring Peter O'Toole and Peter Strauss. As with Shogun, we non-Americans got a truncated version as a movie but got the full series as well some time later, and I remember liking it, so I bought the DVDs, which sadly come without any extras. It still was worth it. Masada is based on a novel called The Antagonists which I have read, and imo, this is one of the few times where the filmed version is ever so much better than the source material. Both deal with the siege and fall of Masada (obviously) in the first Jewish-Roman war, but the tv version does a better job of keeping the Romans ambiguous instead of making them the all-out villains, though the rightness of the Jewish cause is presented as a given.
There is also the treatment of the female characters; I like the solution found for Sheba in the tv version much better. Sheba's storyline - she's a pragmatic survivor who got out of being raped by five Roman soldiers by spotting their superior officer and offering herself to him instead, then after his death ends up in the possession of Flavius Silva, the commander and governor general, who starts to develop genuine emotions for her, while Sheba tries to keep it as a protection arrangement, not least because pragmatic as she may be, she identifies with her fellow Jews - is something very tricky to pull off without getting into sexist clichés, especially in a historical narrative that has to take the mentality of the time into account. In the novel, the author has Sheba committing suicide; in the tv version, when given the choice by Silva (who counts on her choosing him because she does have feelings for him), Sheba chooses to leave because said feelings don't change what she told him earlier about being owned and about owners wanting that last thing, love and approval for what they do as well. (It also makes Sheba the only Jewish character who doesn't kill herself or subjugates herself completely, but chooses a third way, and again, I really appreciated that.)
But the best thing about Masada, no question about it, are the stellar performances by the two leads. Peter Strauss makes what could be a dull role (heroic resistance fighter) very human and charismatic, and Peter O'Toole is more than fantastic as Flavius Silva, with all the weariness, wit, flaws and virtues that make Silva into an incredibly compelling character. The series, which was shot on location, gets some nifty historical details right (no stirrups for Romans when they ride) and others wrong, but tries to include some cultural background (the Essenes and the religous conflict with the Zealots on the Jewish side, the Flavians only just in power and by no means yet regarded as an established dynasty with the Romans), and makes what should be a dull story - months of a siege, followed by not a battle but the Romans finding a lot of dead bodies - fascinating, whether it's by psychological warfare or drawing you into Roman engineering. (Not kidding. This is the only tv show that made the construction of machines fascinating to me, and the battle engineer who comes up with the ramp and the ram, Rubrius Gallus, played by Anthony Quayle, is one of my favourite characters.)
Now, Masada inevitably ends with mass suicide. I strongly suspect that the opening and the ending of the series, showing the Israeli recruits being sworn in at the fortress of Masada today, is there because the producers didn't want to end on the harrowing note of the dead bodies and Silva's last words over the dead Eleazar, which among other things include "you lied to them" (his equally dead wife and son), that this should never have happened, and "we could have created something rational, something good, but you'll go on killing each other on this earth"). I don't think it's possible to feel other than ambiguous about the mass suicide at the end, though, present day Israeli recruits not withstanding. Yes, it takes away the Roman victory (and given that the Romans saw suicide as a very honorable way to die, was seen as heroic back then), but at which price? I also feel the narrative cheating a bit by ignoring that according to Josephus, there were two women and five children who hid from the others because they didn't want to die - and who were the witnesses reciting Eleazar's speeches etc. -, and presenting everyone stunned but quietly agreeing with Eleazar's reasoning that death by each other was better than either slavery or death by the Romans, ready to kill not just themselves but their wives and children as well. I'm not sure this ambiguity is intended by the narrative (it definitely wasn't by the novel, which got republished with the subtitle "a triumph of the human spirit"), but this is how it comes acrosss to this watcher.
Something else: definitely not intended in 1981, but a quick check at Amazon's shows that some of the new audience sees this story of a military superpower who can't understand why the local population, strengthened by religious fanatics, keeps on fighting and would rather kill not just them but each other than being governed For Their Own Good, this story where victory was declared a biiiiiit prematurely causing all sorts of embarassments for the ruler back home, and where brutal abuse of the natives is blamed on a "few rotten apples" but shown to be also the result of the basic occupation scenario to begin with, as having certain parallels. A lot.
here and here. I'm so looking forward to it, and pleased that the promo puts such a strong focus on the female character (I liked Derek Reese as much as the next fangirl, but I would NOT want the show to become The Derek Woobie Chronicles); seems we'll get a new one as an antagonist, and there will also be more development and pay off for the high school girl of mystery.
Found more or less accidentally: Gene Hunt is not okay, a good post about media reactions to Gene and the difference to fannish reactions, as in, the fans seem to get that loving Gene Hunt as a character does not mean approval for his methods, while the media is more or less "ah, would that we had such policemen today!" I'm not really in either Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes fandom, just skimming on the edges, so I wouldn't know whether the assessment of the fans getting it is true or not, but the media sure doesn't. Mind you, in other fandoms the difference between character love and complete approval of said character's goals and methods often is blurred as well, and "I love X, so of course X is right in any given situation!" is quite dominant. It used to drive me crazy in Highlander fandom (the phenomenon probably could be summed up with "fluffy horseman Methos", tm
honorh, I believe), it made me, after valiantly trying to stay out of the Spike Wars, at last made my point in fanfic back in in BTVS fandom, and while I mostly watched Harry Potter fandom from the outside (i.e. I enjoyed the books and the occasional fanfic and meta, but no more), the contortions people went through to deny that Severus Snape, while a fascinating character, really had a lot of negative traits one couldn't explain away by either blaming the Marauders or Dumbledore or both were amazing. Take the part where Snape really is a lousy teacher. I don't mean to Harry; you can always explain Harry away due to very special circumstances if you absolutely want to. But Neville gets the humiliation and sarcasm treatment, too, and by book III is so afraid of Snape that Snape is his worst fear (this in a boy whose parents were tortured into insanity). And of course, as a result there were theories and fanfics where Snape didn't really mean it and actually was fond of Neville and just wanted to toughen him up for the upcoming battle and what not, and any bullying was because Snape himself was bullied at school anyway, never mind that in no way was this Neville's (or any other current student's, including Harry) fault. I never got that. In every novel, I was looking forward to scenes Snape appeared in; he probably still is the character most interesting to me. But I never ever would wish him as a teacher on anyone. (And yes, I think it says something about Dumbledore that he kept Snape in that position, too, but that's another matter.) Gene Hunt? Highly entertaining character in both shows. Wonderfully played, for the most part well written. I would not want him policing my town, as the poster says. Not completely unrelated: another acquisition of my recent trip to England was the miniseries Masada, hailing from 1981 and starring Peter O'Toole and Peter Strauss. As with Shogun, we non-Americans got a truncated version as a movie but got the full series as well some time later, and I remember liking it, so I bought the DVDs, which sadly come without any extras. It still was worth it. Masada is based on a novel called The Antagonists which I have read, and imo, this is one of the few times where the filmed version is ever so much better than the source material. Both deal with the siege and fall of Masada (obviously) in the first Jewish-Roman war, but the tv version does a better job of keeping the Romans ambiguous instead of making them the all-out villains, though the rightness of the Jewish cause is presented as a given.
There is also the treatment of the female characters; I like the solution found for Sheba in the tv version much better. Sheba's storyline - she's a pragmatic survivor who got out of being raped by five Roman soldiers by spotting their superior officer and offering herself to him instead, then after his death ends up in the possession of Flavius Silva, the commander and governor general, who starts to develop genuine emotions for her, while Sheba tries to keep it as a protection arrangement, not least because pragmatic as she may be, she identifies with her fellow Jews - is something very tricky to pull off without getting into sexist clichés, especially in a historical narrative that has to take the mentality of the time into account. In the novel, the author has Sheba committing suicide; in the tv version, when given the choice by Silva (who counts on her choosing him because she does have feelings for him), Sheba chooses to leave because said feelings don't change what she told him earlier about being owned and about owners wanting that last thing, love and approval for what they do as well. (It also makes Sheba the only Jewish character who doesn't kill herself or subjugates herself completely, but chooses a third way, and again, I really appreciated that.)
But the best thing about Masada, no question about it, are the stellar performances by the two leads. Peter Strauss makes what could be a dull role (heroic resistance fighter) very human and charismatic, and Peter O'Toole is more than fantastic as Flavius Silva, with all the weariness, wit, flaws and virtues that make Silva into an incredibly compelling character. The series, which was shot on location, gets some nifty historical details right (no stirrups for Romans when they ride) and others wrong, but tries to include some cultural background (the Essenes and the religous conflict with the Zealots on the Jewish side, the Flavians only just in power and by no means yet regarded as an established dynasty with the Romans), and makes what should be a dull story - months of a siege, followed by not a battle but the Romans finding a lot of dead bodies - fascinating, whether it's by psychological warfare or drawing you into Roman engineering. (Not kidding. This is the only tv show that made the construction of machines fascinating to me, and the battle engineer who comes up with the ramp and the ram, Rubrius Gallus, played by Anthony Quayle, is one of my favourite characters.)
Now, Masada inevitably ends with mass suicide. I strongly suspect that the opening and the ending of the series, showing the Israeli recruits being sworn in at the fortress of Masada today, is there because the producers didn't want to end on the harrowing note of the dead bodies and Silva's last words over the dead Eleazar, which among other things include "you lied to them" (his equally dead wife and son), that this should never have happened, and "we could have created something rational, something good, but you'll go on killing each other on this earth"). I don't think it's possible to feel other than ambiguous about the mass suicide at the end, though, present day Israeli recruits not withstanding. Yes, it takes away the Roman victory (and given that the Romans saw suicide as a very honorable way to die, was seen as heroic back then), but at which price? I also feel the narrative cheating a bit by ignoring that according to Josephus, there were two women and five children who hid from the others because they didn't want to die - and who were the witnesses reciting Eleazar's speeches etc. -, and presenting everyone stunned but quietly agreeing with Eleazar's reasoning that death by each other was better than either slavery or death by the Romans, ready to kill not just themselves but their wives and children as well. I'm not sure this ambiguity is intended by the narrative (it definitely wasn't by the novel, which got republished with the subtitle "a triumph of the human spirit"), but this is how it comes acrosss to this watcher.
Something else: definitely not intended in 1981, but a quick check at Amazon's shows that some of the new audience sees this story of a military superpower who can't understand why the local population, strengthened by religious fanatics, keeps on fighting and would rather kill not just them but each other than being governed For Their Own Good, this story where victory was declared a biiiiiit prematurely causing all sorts of embarassments for the ruler back home, and where brutal abuse of the natives is blamed on a "few rotten apples" but shown to be also the result of the basic occupation scenario to begin with, as having certain parallels. A lot.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-13 08:08 am (UTC)I love the look of the SDCC Season 2. Yah for Derek Reese not becoming a major character. I have so many issues with all the Terminator sequels combined and Derek Reese was almost the deal-breaker for me with respect to the TV show. I’m happy that they’re fleshing out the high school plot. That loose string was really left dangling in the wind end of Season 1.