British tv watched of late

[selenak]

The Devil's Whore: fails at history, and so far plays it pretty safe in terms of stereotypes, which is surprising coming from the writer of Our Friends in the North, but John Simm is reliably good.

Einstein and Eddington: This I loved. Early on, I was afraid they'd do the biopic thing of dissing first wives in order to make the genius husbands look better for their treatment of same (see also, most recently: Walk the Line), but no. Though the film doesn't go into depth about the end of Einstein's first marriage, which conflicts with the lovable genius image a lot - it's a pretty chilling story, worse than your avarage case of enstragement and divorce because Mileva Maric, the first wife in question, had been one of the first women to study physics and mathemathis, a brilliant student according to her teachers, and the debate about how much or little she was involved in Einstein's 1905 annus mirabilis rages to this day (in his letters to her while the marriage was good, there is a lot of talk of "our" theory of relativity). Of course, Mileva never had a career. After her divorce from Einstein, the rest of her life was spent taking care of their schizophrenic younger son. In 1914, shortly before the marriage broke down for good, the very year the film starts, Einstein drew up a list of demands she was supposed to agree on, which is kept among his papers and reads as follows:

A You are to take care of:

1) My clothes and laundry

2) My three meals a day, to be served properly

3) my bed room and office being cleaned up; only I have the right to work on the desk

B You will not expect any social relationship with me, especially not

1) Me sitting around at home with you

2) Me travelling or going out with you

C You will agree to the following terms of our interaction

1) You will not expect any tenderness from me, nor will you make any accusations

2) You will break off any sentence directed at me if I want you to

3) You will leave the room at once if I ask you to

D You will promise not to make me look bad in front of the children, neither through words nor actions.

Given all of this, you'll understand why I would have objected to the film, no matter how bad or good it was, if it had presented Mileva as the guilty party in the breakdown of the marriage, and when we got introduced to Einstein through a scene where he lovingly played with his sons while Mileva sat at home with a stiff back, I was afraid we'd go the "she has no sense of humour and just doesn't understand him" road, but no, as soon as they actually spoke to each other, it was clear we wouldn't. Mind you, the film doesn't give Einstein any lines resembling that horrible list (it would have been impossible to do so and keep him as a sympathetic protagonist, I guess, especially given that he simultanously had an affair with his cousin Elsa who later became the second Mrs. Einstein), but it makes it clear he's rejecting Mileva's attempts to save their marriage and quite at fault for its breakdown. It is, of course, a side issue, since the main subject of the film consists of two scientists working together (of sorts) while their countries are at war with each other, scientific curiosity and decency winning over war-induced hatred and scapegoating. It's deeply humane story, and though the protagonists never meet until the very last scene, it works. Andy Serkis is good at Einstein; David Tennant is fabulous as Eddington, and incidentally, the Eddington part of the story is, like the movie Capote two years ago, an example of a film having a homosexual protagonist without this being the theme of the film or being disguised in any way. Or, for that matter, the historical circumstances being ignored. The scene where Eddington tries to tell his friend William he loves him but finds himself unable to is absolutely heartbreaking, as are the later scenes when after William died at Ypres Eddington can't show anyone but his sister what this means to him. Eddington is also the character who has the emotional journey of the story, with his belief in Newton's certainties challenged by Einstein's theories and his response leading him to make that gesture across borders and later to prove Einstein's theory.

The film is being set during WWI for the most part, but due to the locations - Cambridge and the Berlin institutes - there are no battle scenes, or even scenes with wounded soldliers. But the horror of war is powerfully conveyed through scenes with both German and English characters grieving for the loss of their sons at different points, and the chilling scene where the use of chlorine, soon to be used on the battlefield by both sides, is first tested. (By Fritz Haber, played by Anton Lesser in this film, whose wife, also a chemist and opposed to his work on poison gas, committed suicide with his service revolver after Ypres.)

Lastly: I wasn't quite clear whether or not Serkis was going for a German accent because it seemed to me he switched at times. I always find it a bit silly if in English-speaking movies actors do this while portraying Germans/Swiss/Austrians speaking to other Germans/Swiss/Austrians, since presumably we're meant to assume they're talking in German. (Same, btw, goes for French characters talking English with French accents when talking to other French characters, Spanish characters, etc.)

Comments

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I really loved Einstein and Eddington. I do like how they did show that Einstein, brilliant as he was, was a pretty terrible husband (the very pointed way he tells Elsa that he doesn't want her to learn physics after he was clearly stonewalling his first wife on the same subject seemed very telling and really implied control issues)

David Tennant did such a lovely job as Eddington. He had me in tears several times.

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

Well I'm definitely gonna have to make time for this one this weekend so I can't really make any real comments yet.

I will comment on the accents though. I think the only show to ever do language accents well was 'allo 'allo . There was never any problem knowing the language any of the chaacters was speaking. And I espcially loved the British agent posing as a cop speaking very bad French by misprouncing so many words.

Okay, I'm done. Hopefully I'll find time to watch this movie this weekend...

[dalmeny]

There were also the accents in the dubs of Monkey and The Water Margin.

[greenpear.livejournal.com]

Not familiar with those two. I'll have to look into them...

[kathyh]

so far plays it pretty safe in terms of stereotypes, which is surprising coming from the writer of Our Friends in the North

I think I was more surprised at that than I was at the dodgy history! So far these characters haven't convinced me that they don't belong in the pages of a bad bodice ripper!

Einstein and Eddington: This I loved.

Terrific wasn't it. I thought they did an excellent job within the constraints imposed of providing a snapshot of both men, the times they were living in and some of the complexity of the science.

the first wife in question, had been one of the first women to study physics and mathemathis, a brilliant student according to her teachers

I knew nothing about this but the film managed to convey that she had shared in Einstein's work even without going into details. That list is chilling.

I wasn't quite clear whether or not Serkis was going for a German accent because it seemed to me he switched at times.

It sounded to me like he did too, and I'm very bad at noticing that!

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

The Devil's Whore: fails at history, and so far plays it pretty safe in terms of stereotypes, which is surprising coming from the writer of Our Friends in the North, but John Simm is reliably good.

I thought it was fun! Don't worry, though, I've already handed in my respectable historians membership card. If it goes on like this, I'm probably even going to enjoy The Tudors.

I'm looking forward to "Einstein and Eddington," which I haven't downloaded yet.

[12-12-12.livejournal.com]

Oh, I *must* watch Einstein and Eddington. Thank you for the rec!

Given that Einstein's productivity dropped off steeply after his first marriage ended...yes, I am a conspiracy theorist, why do you ask? *g* He, Feynman, and Jim Watson are three scientists whom I simply can't respect based on the merits of their work, because of their hideously sexist attitudes.

Favorite Eddington anecdote:

Reporter: Professor Eddington, I hear that you're one of only three men in the world who understands general relativity.
Eddington: *looks puzzled* Oh really? Who's the third?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Devil's Whore: oh, I wasn't bored, I was just expecting more from the scriptwriter. (Most glaring stuff at first glance and without checking in my books: women were actually expected to enjoy sex in the 17th century - we're way before Victorian times, and current belief then was that there would be no conception of babies sans orgasm -, ladies were expected to defend their manors - and many did during the Civil War - no nobleman would have been stupid enough to decline the help of his wife; Charles I., much like his grandmother Mary Stuart, was an incompetent monarch but not as stupid as to execute followers who had to surrender their manors, and while we're talking execution, a SHOOTING SQUAD? In a time when guns and pulver were horribly expensive still? Also, while the only Stuart I'm fond of is the second Charles (I much dislike that dynasty otherwise), his cousin Rupert actually had a reputation for being exceedingly polite, not for leering and being a dastardly cad.)

The problem with The Tudors isn't the historical nonsense, it's that they manage to make it boring. Except for Wolsey. I did love Wolsey. Not so much the rest. And making Tudor history boring takes some effort.

Have fun with E&E!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I do like how they did show that Einstein, brilliant as he was, was a pretty terrible husband (the very pointed way he tells Elsa that he doesn't want her to learn physics after he was clearly stonewalling his first wife on the same subject seemed very telling and really implied control issues

Yes, it does. My deepest fear was really they would demonize Mileva and idealize Einstein in regards to her, and I was so glad this wasn't the case. And on board with them not going into details - the marriage wasn't the main theme of the movie - we just got enough information on the subject to make it clear we're not dealing with Misunderstood!Albert here.

I think if I had never seen DT in anything before, I still would have been more than impressed by his Eddington.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I thought they did an excellent job within the constraints imposed of providing a snapshot of both men, the times they were living in and some of the complexity of the science.

Yes. I was reminded of Michael Frayn's play Copenhagen (about Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg), and that's a high compliment.

Good to know I'm not the only one unsure about Serkis' accent!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Aw, that's an adorable anecdote. And I promise you'll like the the movie!

Einstein: I have no problem with respect, but I can't like him as a person, because of this.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

On Devil's Whore: I understand that at a late stage in the writing they were suddenly told that instead of being a twelve-part series it would be a four-part series. Which might explain the shallowness.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

women were actually expected to enjoy sex in the 17th century - we're way before Victorian times, and current belief then was that there would be no conception of babies sans orgasm -, ladies were expected to defend their manors - and many did during the Civil War - no nobleman would have been stupid enough to decline the help of his wife

Honestly, Harry was drawn as such a repressed dweeb, I actually could have bought both of these things as being his own foolishness.

As for Rupert, maybe they can't imagine Harry Lloyd playing a nice guy? I hope they'll do the guy some justice, he had quite the fascinating biography, but I'm afraid they simply needed some sort of minor royal villain.

The problem with The Tudors isn't the historical nonsense, it's that they manage to make it boring. Except for Wolsey. I did love Wolsey. Not so much the rest. And making Tudor history boring takes some effort.

I've never even tried it - Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as the King was enough bizarre casting for me to pass it by. But yeah, boring the Tudors were not.

[dalmeny]

Monkey is a strange joy.

[cereswunderkind.livejournal.com]

What a deadly dull box-ticking exercise this was. Not a patch on Copenhagen.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It might. But how late was it?

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I'm going to be writing mine up in a bit. (Afternoon, early eveningish time here). I agree with you in general though: Andy Serkis was good, but Tennant was great and stole the picture.

[wolkendunst.livejournal.com]

I always find it a bit silly if in English-speaking movies actors do this while portraying Germans/Swiss/Austrians speaking to other Germans/Swiss/Austrians, since presumably we're meant to assume they're talking in German.

Brad Pitt in 'Seven Years in Tibet'. Auauauauaua

[vonnie-k.livejournal.com]

I've watched about half of Devil's Whore last night -- it was cracktastic fun, and I see that it's probably a good thing that I know little of British history of the particular era. Oh, dear.

Einstein and Eddington sounds marvellous. Thanks for the rec! I'll check to see if it's up in the usual places as soon as I have a chance. I didn't know about Einstein's marital troubles and my God, that list is completely horrifying. It paints a pretty dismal picture of the seemingly-benign and beloved iconic figure as a human being, huh? Yikes.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Yes, it does. My deepest fear was really they would demonize Mileva and idealize Einstein in regards to her, and I was so glad this wasn't the case. And on board with them not going into details - the marriage wasn't the main theme of the movie - we just got enough information on the subject to make it clear we're not dealing with Misunderstood!Albert here.

They made it very clear that he was a flawed man, not a paragon. And that was very much appreciated.

I think if I had never seen DT in anything before, I still would have been more than impressed by his Eddington.

Yes. He was quite brilliant in this. It's definitely performances like this that make me glad for him that he's going to be leaving Doctor Who, so that he'll get the chance to use his talent in a wider variety of roles.

[hence-the-name.livejournal.com]

the Eddington part of the story is, like the movie Capote two years ago, an example of a film having a homosexual protagonist without this being the theme of the film or being disguised in any way. Or, for that matter, the historical circumstances being ignored.

I didn't know that about Eddington, and I'm quite pleased to hear that it was portrayed in that way--without discounting it but also not making it central to the character. And it also sounds from your description like the writers also accounted for different understandings of sexuality at the time than we have today. I don't know much about the UK, but I'm working on a paper about queer sexualities in the US during the same period and understandings of who was identified as queer and what kinds of behavior were acceptable for non-queer-identified men were much different, and much more fluid.

I have E&E but haven't had a chance to watch it yet; I'm looking forward to it even more now. Thanks for the review!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*dies at appropriateness of icon*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You're welcome, and I hope you'll enjoy the film.

I'm working on a paper about queer sexualities in the US during the same period and understandings of who was identified as queer and what kinds of behavior were acceptable for non-queer-identified men were much different, and much more fluid.

Oh, that sounds like a fascinating subject. Re: in the UK, I think it's worth remembering that in 1914-1919, when the film takes place, Oscar Wilde's trial and prison sentence was something that wasn't history but something that had happened only twenty years earlier. And if you weren't a flamboyant personality quite secure that your connections would keep you out of prison, like, say, Lytton Strachey, you'd have been very aware of this.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh dear is right re: Devil's Whore & history. Mind you, this would not necessarily keep me from being glued to the screen - say, Rome, took some considerable liberties, but they also managed to capture the spirit of the era and come up with compelling storylines - but I'm really baffled that the scriptwriter, who wrote an awesome series called Our Friends in the North (about a group of characters with the background being the fate of the Labour Party from the late 70s till the early 90s; it stars Christopher Eccleston and Daniel Craig, among others), is so far sticking to stereotypes which could have come from every bodice ripper about the period.

I didn't know about Einstein's marital troubles and my God, that list is completely horrifying. It paints a pretty dismal picture of the seemingly-benign and beloved iconic figure as a human being, huh? Yikes.

It's not that the qualities he's revered for weren't there - aside from being a genius, he also was a non-nationalist where nationalism was the universal vice, did stick up for his opinions etc - but that conclusion the public usually draws ("cuddly lovable excentric uncle type") is dead wrong if you look at this part of his life.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*hurries over to your review*

The funny thing is, we appear to be in a minority. I mean, I've seen several people say that Einstein was the better role, which in terms of being larger than life it might have been, but in this case, quiet and repressed totally won over excentric and crazed.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Actually, I would agree: on paper, Einstein is the better role. (And what perfect casting in Serkis.) Just Tennant stole the show. I forgot to mention his amazing chemistry with his sister, played by Rebecca Hall, which went a long way to help. They were warm and engaging and it's nice to see an adult sibling relationship on television where both characters clearly love each other but have different lives.

(Oh good, I just IMDBed her and found out she'll be in Frost/Nixon. I hope she's got a good role in that.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And what perfect casting in Serkis.

Oh, absolutely, and this reminds me that I'm happy to see him get good roles - I think no one who saw the Two Towers extra where they intercut Serkis' on set performance as Gollum with the GCI one in the finished film can doubt what a terrific actor he is.

They were warm and engaging and it's nice to see an adult sibling relationship on television where both characters clearly love each other but have different lives.

True. Details like her decision to go to Berlin near the end contributed to this - she's not a Quaker because he is (or because they were raised that way), but because that's her own conviction, and she has her own way of going through the world and trying to make it better. There was also the obvious contrast in how Eddington treated Winnie versus how Einstein treated both Mileva and Elsa - stonewalling them on the science front, not wanting them to share what was going on with him, and by and large having his emotional crisises on his own, while Eddington didn't just open up about the science but about losing William.

Frost/Nixon, hm? Sounds good. I wanted to see this anyway, Peter Morgan being one of my favourite scriptwriters.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Especially as it seems the Tintin movie is not going to get made. (I just learned that Thomas Sangster departed the project. Depressing.)

There was also the obvious contrast in how Eddington treated Winnie versus how Einstein treated both Mileva and Elsa - stonewalling them on the science front, not wanting them to share what was going on with him, and by and large having his emotional crisises on his own, while Eddington didn't just open up about the science but about losing William.

See why I thought this was going somewhere? *g* Alas, missed opportunities.

Frost/Nixon, hm? Sounds good. I wanted to see this anyway, Peter Morgan being one of my favourite scriptwriters.

Looks good, yes? Right now I'm looking forward to Milk a touch more, as it appears that Sean Penn is going to give an amazing performance.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I kept thinking "But... but... what about Strafford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wentworth,_1st_Earl_of_Strafford)? However much time she's spent flouncing round the countryside, surely she's got to have noticed that Parliament's just forced the King to have his chief adviser executed for high treason?" It doesn't make Charles right, but it did mean I had every sympathy with his incredulity when she bounced on to her knees and said "Ooh, your Majesty! I think you could be friends with those nice Parliamentarians if you just talked to them!"

The problem with The Tudors isn't the historical nonsense, it's that they manage to make it boring.

That was my objection to Rome; as far as I was concerned, they took some of the most charismatic and interesting people in history and made them really really dull.

[hence-the-name.livejournal.com]

Ah, that sounds similar. More fluid understandings of sexuality were largely a working-class phenomenon; the American middle-class was embracing more rigid (and more rigidly homophobic) definitions of gender and sexuality in the first part of the century, which didn't really start to trickle down into the working class until the 1930s, when there was an uptick in policing of bars and clubs (ironically, after prohibition was repealed) and generally increased anxiety about gender roles because of the depression. There was definitely some overlap in attitudes, though, and the Wilde trial surely influenced the US, too.

There's a great book called Gay New York, by George Chauncey, covering the period from 1890-1940 if you're interested. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

You know we disagree on Rome, but then, you never watched beyond the middle of the first season.

Re: Strafford: at a guess, this show in general doesn't have much sympathy for the Royal cause, and anything that makes Charles' reaction to those nice Parliamentarians understandable will not be shown.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Flannery evidently isn't going for Friedrich Hebbel's line that "In a good play, everyone is right." Given that the British do tend to remember the 1066 and All That line about the Cavaliers being Wrong but Wromantic and the Roundheads Right but Repulsive, it's a good idea to restore some romance to the Republican side. But I'm not convinced that depicting Charles as an unstoppable tyrant in practice (rather than in his dreams) is the best way to go about it.

I'm hoping he'll be able to preserve some sympathy for Cromwell as the Parliamentarian coalition breaks down, and that a balance of sympathies will make it more interesting. That looked just about possible in last night's episode. But it's having the worrying effect of making me think back to Our Friends in the North and wonder whether that was quite as good as I thought, or whether some of their villains were a bit two-dimensional too.