Reading 'Emma' by Jane Austen

As she was writing 'Emma' Austen may have had little idea that this would be the last novel published in her lifetime, but she was certain about one thing: "I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like." She undeniably succeeded - the best thing about Emma is that she is such a caricature. She feels she has a right to interfere with people's lives and is always right. Even when she is shown the catastrophic consequences of her actions, she still doesn't learn. Unfortunately this means when Austen gives her a happy ending, it feels both anti-climatic and, in want of a better word, undeserving. She is not deliberately mean and she clearly has the best intentions, but Austen's biased favour for her character does mean Emma is intolerable at times.

However the overall tone is one of frivolity, well for the 19th Century anyway, which allows for some forgiveness for the melodramatic aspects of the novel. The characters are all lively and make many humorous quips. Indeed, it is in the dialogue that Austen is at her finest. Each character has a distinct way of speaking, which writers often find difficult to achieve. Miss Bates' babble in particular stands out, often filling a whole page on absolutely nothing; by far my favourite character. This is probably because all the rest are generally snobs, albeit entertaining ones. There are many of them, and almost all of them have their own sub-story. As such this means that it is sometimes difficult to keep track of the more minor characters, but they are usually not very involved in the plot. And there is the major fault I have - the plot.

I have already expressed my disappointment with the ending, but actually it doesn't feel like an ending. The whole story is just a series of events, based around the social occassions of the village. As such if you have no investment in the characters, the novel will become unbearable. As with any social occassion, there is much organisation required and Austen spends far too much time explaining the meticulous preparations. Even though the events themselves are of some interest, like when you know the secrets to a trick, they lose the initial impact. The romances between the characters are also drawn out a bit too much, which is a shame: particularly as when the characters discuss these relationships, Austen's flair for dialogue provides some biting commentary and luscious imagery,

To Austen's credit, she doesn't openly state, as narrator, 'Aren't these characters ridiculous?'; she simply shows us their attitudes and behavior, and allow us to draw our own conclusions. Personally, I enjoyed it's light touch and lack of overarching drama. As my first Austen, it wasn't too overwhelming but I did feel that because of when it was written (1816), it's lightness feels excessive nowadays and uses more words than perhaps seems necessary to tell the story.

Watching and Reading 'Jane Eyre'

Novels with a classic status which were written in the 19th century are assumed to be of a high quality and worthy literature. The undeniable difference of writing style can jar with a modern audience, as they will be more aware of the ideas and themes that the novel created. So the concept of the unreliable narrator and the mad woman in the attic (pretty much the only thing that made me want to read the novel) cause less of a shock then when originally published. So is 'Jane Eyre' still worth reading, and what impact has the recent film adaption made on it's popularity?

 

 Jane is a child who is constantly mistreated and misunderstood by adults. Then at 18, she enters the household of Mr Rochester and encounters a very different kind of gentleman. Despite being a very simple story, the novel is not an easy read and does take a long time to get through. But as with all these period novels the length is justified by creating well-rounded characters. They all have a distinct personality that prevents confusion, and as such easily allows the reader to either loathe them (such as Jane's adopted family as a child or John Rivers, a later guardian) or love them (her aid Mrs. Fairfax and Jane's childhood friend Helen). However it is clear from their first meeting that the focus of the story and our emotional involvement is with Jane and Mr. Rochester.

By having Jane narrate the story, we are allowed an insight into two seemingly impenetrable characters. Apart from with Mr. Rochester, her relationships with the other characters rarely allow her to release her emotions and thoughts, due to her low social status. They do not expect great things from her or any sense of humanity; she is just a governess, a servant, a woman. But neither does she appreciate being patronised or insulted; she has a strong personality and force of will, which only the reader and Mr Rochester are aware of. On the other hand, Mr Rochester is impenetrable because everyone wants to know and understand him but he chooses not to - except for 'plain' Jane.

It is very difficult not to be enraptured by their blossoming romance, especially if like me you are a sucker for that type of thing. It is possible to take a completely different reading and claim that their relationship is mostly based on tension, particularly with the mood swings and secrets of Mr Rochester. However this tension is often read as merely the romance being left unstated by the characters, which you wouldn't know was there if Jane didn't suggest it in her narration.

 While this is relatively unclear in the novel, the recent film adaption captured it perfectly. Like the book, by far the best thing about the film is the performances by Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender in the lead roles. For some peculiar reason, I had never imagined Jane with a Yorkshire accent, but Wasikowska was so fluent that it seemed natural and makes perfect sense, emphasising her separation to the rigid higher members of society. Throughout you are completely devoted to her character's plight, especially as we are introduced to her fleeing from the house of Rochester - a brave move but very effectively allows the story to feel fresh to those who already know the story, and provides a dramatic start for new comers.

Initially I became worried that the depth of the character would not be explored. It's innovative structure means it glosses over, perhaps too quickly, her school days. While the focus on the major set-pieces are captivating (the death of a friend, her punishment by her 'headmaster') we gain no sense of how important this environment was to her development, making her departure seem rushed and unmotivated. Nevertheless this approach pays off when the story ups a notch with the introduction of Rochester in a breathtaking Gothic sequence. By focusing on the major set pieces of the novel, with character development in between, the film provides the story with brevity that hopefully will pique the audience's interest in the novel, which provides a more detailed exploration of the characters.

The real highlights though are when the themes of the book are visualised on screen. They both explore the idea of humanity in nature, and how Jane in particular cannot resist what feels natural to her, rather than what is expected from her. While this is referenced in the book through Jane's inner conflict, the film actually places her in the middle of wilderness and moors - the images naturally recalling those depicted in 'Wuthering Heights by Charlotte's sister, Emily.

I could spend far more time describing the similarities between those two novels, but it's all been done before. Even though I prefer 'Heights' for it's unashamed Gothic darkness and ferocity, I did enjoy 'Jane Eyre' despite it's relatively lighter tone. It is well worth reading and deserve it's classic status purely through producing two captivating characters involved in a timeless and enduring romantic relationship.

Watching 'Hidden' - Episode 1. Thursday 6th October

In rcent years, it has struck me that the mystery/spy genre has undergone a transformation. Partly this is because I have only in the last few years taken a interest in it, but these were relatively straightforward mystery stories such as Jonathan Creek and Agatha Christie's novels. While these are both terrific, recent examples on TV and film I've seen have made much more of an effort to provide style with the substance. Both 'Case Histories', starring (Hello to) Jason Issacs as Jackson Brodie, and 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' (which I will discuss in more detail sometime soon) had gripping plots fantastically intertwined with interesting characters and dynamic direction. It is with some earnest that 'Hidden' tries to achieve a similar outcome.

Phillip Glenister stars as Harry Venn, a detective / private eye sort of character, who is trying to move on from the tragic death of his brother some years ago. Only for a mysterious figure or two suggesting a different outcome, but this information requires some legwork from Venn, guaranteed to get him into trouble. And this is only scratching the surface. There has been some sort of unspoken revolution recently, where the audience is expected to have some intelligence and are more willing to watch programmes that don't necessarily follow a linear style, and the fragmented style has produced some remarkable productions.

Unfortunately not in this case. I found this a mess of ideas, which are all interesting in their own right. The mystery story runs parallel with an attempt at social commentary, with a coalition on the point of collapse as London is filled with rioters. I have no problem with having different stories playing out along side each other, but neither kept me gripped. By trying to do too much, it ends up doing very little of anything. The detective story is riddled with cliches and even Harry's personal background failed to strike new ground - having a relationship with his ex-wife while failing to control his son. This should be dramatic but fails to rise above mediocre. 'Case Histories' was also susceptible to a stereotypical dysfunctioning family, but the conviction of the performances and strength of the writing there made them intriguing. Compare the two put-upon receptionists: CH's was sarcastic and lively woman who actually challenges Jackson's authority, while in 'Hidden' he is a bland and annoying caricature who leaves little impression on the viewer.

Phillip Glenister succeeds in shrugging off the overbearing Gene Hunt from 'Life on Mars' and 'Ashes to Ashes' that made him memorable. He is clearly playing a different character, but a far less interesting one. Try as he might, he aroused no interest in me and I found myself caring litle about his difficult encounters. And then there's the political subplot that seems like it's come from a completely different show. I was very dissapointed with this as the mystery is still of some interest, if badly under developed. No matter how inventive the direction and visuals, if the story isn't up to scratch, I'm not interested.

16th October: In addition I attempted to watch episode 2 earlier and found that it was much the same as before, with little development that was of any interest. It says a lot when even David Suchet cannot tempt me to continue.

Nebulous Series 1

 

1. Night of the Vegetarians                                  2. The Loverly Invasion

3. The Dust Has Landed                        4. Madness is A Strange Colour

5. The Coincidence Machine              6. The Man Who Polished The Sun

There is always something about Mark Gatiss' work that feels old-fashioned, whether it is pastiche (Crooked House, his take on M. R. James-like stories) or tribute (A History of Horror, a fascinating exploration of his favourite eras of horror films). As such it is not surprising that in his Doctor Who stories, there is a definite feel that he is attempting to recapture the 'classic' magic the show had - where storytelling and scares was the main focus rather than the spectacle now deemed necessary in modern television. Gatiss' loving fan loyalty to the show has been well documented within his numerous Who books, audios and television stories to such an extent that even he parodies his near-obsessiveness in this terrifying but hilarious sketch.

Nevertheless, Gatiss got involved with one more Who-related project, which ended up as Nebulous. A blatant parody of many aspects of the old series of Doctor Who, it is occasionally difficult to try and judge it on it's own terms. So that is what I hav tried to do and unfortunately it means that it's not as fun as it could and, perhaps, should have been.

First of all, it is very silly. Really silly. But knowingly so, which makes all the difference. Not only does the script constantly laugh at it's own plot, the cast give very exaggerated performances, with Rosie Cavaliero and writer Graham Duff terrifically and successfully fulfilling the sterotypical love interest and smart-arse involvingly. Gatiss in the starring role is brilliantly deadpan, refusing to camp up too much the technobabble and ridiculous observations ("I refused to listen to my brain or my eyes or the facts") The numerous guest apperances also get the tone spot on with David Warner being his usual brilliant self in unsual circumstances, as well as the three aliens in 'The Loverly Invasion' including a subdued Nicholas Briggs - a rare sight much appreciated.

So on a performance level it succeeds, so why the dissapointment? It's so determined to parody the science-fiction that nothing else is really that involving. There are very good jokes within and I laughed enough to leave me happy when it finished. yet ask me the plots and I'd struggle. They aren't complicated but they're just not that interesting. It is primarily a comedy rather than science fiction, which doesn't stop it adressing interesting ideas such as the titular 'The Coincidence Machine' But when it's strength is in jokes about the rubbish side of old sci-fi, attempts at comedy about the ridiculous characters' relationships don't really work.

This was the first series of three and while I will listen to the other series if they are broadcast, this is not a series I am desperate to hear again. Truly a show to listen to if your ready for a silly, light-hearted half hour or more, but not a lot else.

Reading 'Our Country's Good' by Timberlake Wertenbaker (The Importance of Appearances)

The most remarkable thing about the play is not just that it was purely created from a workshop of actors, using research and their talents to form a brilliant play. It is how this doesn't matter; if you did not know it's origins, you would assume this was just a standard play. Because of it's origins, it gains a unique style. While multi-roling is not uncommon in theatre, the play is about theatre and uses multi-roling in a very specific way. If you look at the original cast list, it is worth noting which actor played each role. For example, concited Wisehammer and  Governor Arthur Phillip, both played by Ron Cook, are arguably the most thoughtful characters in the play even though one is a convict and the other in charge of the colony. Lesley Sharp as , Reverend Johnson, and convicts Meg Long and Mary Brenham is able to explore three different views of sex and, in the case of Mary, how love can change someone. With this technique, the similarites and contrasts provoke interesting viewing

When reading the play though, it is not necessary to imagine multi-roling actors; having them as indivdual characters does not lessen the message that theatre can be a form of redemption. Neither does it remove the shock of the opening scene of convicts being flogged and missing home. It is clear from the start then, who we are meant to feel sympathetic for. The play continues in this blatant way, with simplistic plot and characterisation -  set in the 1780s, a group of convicts sent to Australia try to stage a play, despite some reluctance from officers and themselves. The class differences between the officers and the convicts is so clear, that it easily allows the reader to see the different attitudes towards the treatment of criminals; re-education or punishment? This is not as clear cut an argument as you might suppose, even if Wertenbaker is clearly in favour of the former. Neither argument is completely disproved, but the bias is obvious and so we are inclined to agree with the author, and rightly so.

 The officers may be mainly caricatures, of which many are present in Act One, Scene 6 (The Authorities Discuss the Merits of Theatre) but as such work brilliantly as a contrast to the more developed prisoners. By

The Methuen Drama: Student Edition
that contains
eyeopening revelations
about the origins of the play

having the officers sound so similar, all speaking with formal and complex vocabulary, allows the numerous and different voices of the convicts to become more distinctive especially when they talk to each other:

Phillip: Why wouldn't you say any of this before?
....
Liz: Because it wouldn't have mattered.
Phillip: Speaking the truth?
Liz: Speaking

This is a crucial moment on many levels, most notably because we realise that what Liz says is true. When we see the convicts at their best i.e. as decent human beings, it is when they are interacting with each other and rehearsing 'The Recruiting Officer' The fact that they are willing to perform in the play shows that they clearly have some confidence. Yet as Berkoff said "Naturalism is what you do when you don't know anything else" So perhaps it is not surprising that they soon improve their acting ability as they continue to rehearse. They also act as great moments to see character arcs and developments. As they spend more time on the play their true self comes out, as they realise how pretending to be someone else shows you who you really are - Liz is less judgemental, Wisehammer becomes more impressed by the power of words and Mary is more willing to embrace her love for Ralph.

Ralph, a lowly officer, is the protagonist of the play and so is by far the most believable and complex character. His first scene is dully observing the flogging of a convict but by the end of the play is passionately encouraging his new-found actors to give it their all on opening night. This intially sounds like a positive change in character, and yet in the period this would be seen as a lowly official sinking even lower in social status, hence the comment from the bigoted Major Ross of the second lieutenant: "He wants to be promoted to convict." This is a peculiar juxtaposition, but considering the prejudiced attitude of the officers and the more liberal convicts, this statement is not as fatuous as it first appears.

"And we, this colony of a few hundred will be watching this together, for a few hours we will no longer be despised prisoners and hated gaolers" (p. 20)

We, the audience, meet the demands expected from the officers when they become the audience for the convicts' play - we forget that they are criminals and become interested in their character and personality. Their actions and reasons for being at the colony is not important to us (only in terms of the plot) it is what they do with the time given to them. As we witness the prejudicial and arrogant attitudes of the officers, and the brutality this brings, we support their attempts at rebellion and suffer with them as they are duly punished, especially at the dramatic ending to Act 2 Scene 5. It is not unlikely that Wertenbaker herself shared this emotion when she went to see a play run by prisoners within their environment, an experience that has a clear impact upon the themes and general plot of the play, which are also referenced from the various letters she received from some of the performing prisoners.

A simple play which is very easy to read and well worth trying to see a performance of. I saw a college production of it and was very impressed by the complex issues discussed within this straightforward story. As a drama student, I perhaps appreciated the message about the benefits of theatre more than most. Nevertheless the historical context and the fact that it is based on a true event and real people is more than enough to keep the reader engaged.

My Laziest Post Yet

I would review the latest series of Torchwood but 1) I can't remember most of it because it all took so long (What actually happened in Episode 2 that mattered at all?) and 2) it was so disappointing I don't feel it even merits a well thoguht-out review.

All I'll say is that after the incredible Children of Earth, I really wanted to like this and despite some fantastic ideas, plot twists and characterisation, it was all swamped by far too much padding. This would have made a cracking 5 parter (as CoE was) but presumably the thought process went "Well if it's double the length, we'll get double the quality" A theory very easily proven wrong. While I forgave the first episode's slowness for being desgined to set-up the ongoing plot threads, the plot's dragging of feet became increasingly irksome, so even when the plot finally kicked into gear in the final two episodes, it was too little too late. Oh and I hated Rex as well.

However my ranting has been more eloquently explained in this terrific article, that basically says everything that I felt when watching the show. It isn't often when your exact thoughts are captured by another in finer prose than I have, so here you go:

A better review than the one you've just read

Nineteen Ninety-Four (An Orwellian sitcom)

1. Work is Freedom                     2. Freedom is Choice

3. Choice is Progress                     4. Progress is Power

5. Power is Happiness                     6. Happiness is Work

I love 1984. One of my all time favourite books, it never fails to shock me and make me see the world in a completely different way. Nevertheless, the domineering bureaucracy of the Party is ripe for parody and has been numerous times in the past. However, nobody does cynicism like the British and certainly the best of them are involved in this radio show. Stephen Fry, Emma Thompson and Hugh Laurie form part of the ensemble with the splendid Robert Lindsey taking the lead role of Edward Wilson.

Interestingly enough, the show is far more Orwellian than it is a sitcom. The bewildering situations Edward finds himself in are largely played for laughs but there is a definite dark undercurrent, particularly in 'Power is Happiness' as Edward's lucky break causes him to become disturbingly psychotic. The blase reactions of the population to their clear mistreatment is also just as worrying - when radical changes occur, reactions range from "Oh well" to "Hasn't it always been like that?" (I am of course paraphrasing, the scriptwriters are far more witty)

Despite the gloomy setting and storyline, the cast clearly have great fun playing literal caricatures, people who only seem to care about themselves. As a consequence, except for Edward, I don't really care about the characters. They are entertaining in their own ridiculous way but their fate in this world is of little interest. There is much investment to be made, though, in Edward's plight. The most human character in the show, Lindsey does very well with a character who is often bewildered or boldly pretending to know what he's doing. His exasperations are simultaneously amusing and pitiful, with his screams of "I want to go home" towards the end of 'Freedom is Choice' being suitably dramatic and upsetting.

Just as 1984 did, 'Nineteen Ninety-Four' makes some unintentional predictions - video calls, statistics used as fact no matter how ludicrous and the absolute dominance of commercialism. Indeed, the world of both the novel and the radio programme do bear striking similarities and their protagonists follow similar journeys. Even the classic ending of 1984 is replicated although not to such a devastating effect; there's even a suggestion of a happy ending. Comparisons though are generally unnecessary between the hard-hitting novel and the flawed sitcom. The plot isn't quite as clear as it could've been and it's best moments are when it focuses on the sheer absurdity of this world. The cast show great diversity in their vocal range, making each character unique although there are too many of them and the various substories don't always work. Yet there are plenty of good one-liners and surreal uses of futuristic technology (serving machines have their own personalities and their own guidance councillors) that helps define the show as basically what 1984 would have been like had Orwell decided to write it as a comedy. But not as good as Terry Gillaim's Brazil.