Television programmes

The end of Wolf Hall. pretty awesome acting. blimey what a shower. the court was a scary place

That was the most chilling feeling I ever got from watching a frightened Anne Boleyn 'moment'   That was the 1st time I'd seen it portrayed like that, with the way the swords man acted etc, Sad. Im so glad I wasnt born in those  days !
Yet I believe there is more of Wolf Hall to come ?? If true, IL look forward to that !

The author is still writing the final book. But they hope to make it when she finishes.

And yeah, the way they did Anne's last moments was tough to watch- and a brilliant portrayal from Claire Foy.
I had read about the different techniques they had used for a clean cut back then, but was nicely done- I particularly like how he moves to one side of her, yells out in french so she turns her head that way and slightly up, then he quickly sidesteps to the opposite side and has a clean trget. You can see the sense in the procedure- horrible as the whole thing is if it has to happen to you better a pro and a clean single blow than some idiot hacking away with an axe for five minutes.
I also really liked how Cromwell checked it out before hand so she wouldn't have to suffer any more than had to be- she was in the way and had to go form his pov but as he said to her "Nothing here is personal."

Anyone watch the documentary that was on afterwards- I thought it was a good point that if you could just go back in time and tell Henry his daughter Elizabeth was going to go on to be considered one of, if not the, greatest monarch the country ever has- and instead of all the madness and bloodshed they should have been over the moon happy parents with their daughter- it was solely just the idea that a woman couldn't be monarch that led to absolutely everythng else that followed. And such a misplaced idea.

Oh, I've only seen the first four. Got to get around to this.

the last few minutes were chilling. she has already written the sequel, its called 'Bring out the Bodies'.

Going on the 'making of' that book is already covered- the tv version seems to adapt the key moments from the first two books. The approach seems to have been rather than try to squeeze it all in they took the key parts of the first two books and then simply strung them together with the caption at the start of every episode filling you in on where we are in the history.
From what they say the books go into way more detail between the events of the tv series, but one of the biggest things in adapting it was that most of the book is set inside Cromwells head, its very internal- hence needing an actor of that quality who can somehow convey what he is thinking with a look.
Also found it interesting the actor watched a load of great tv and film performances first to try to see what he great actors did on television (him being almost exclusively a stage actor) and that one of the performances which really inspired and impressed him was Brad Pitt- in the Jessie James film, and how little Pitt needed to do with his expressions to convey a lot of information.

Reminds me of Tennant and Smith talking about working with John Hurt- Smith "I often think, Oh man, he's just moving his eyes and I am literally climbing off the walls"

Tennant (laughing) Yeah, as I pull another face, and then I look round, and John's slightly, imperceptibly raised an eyebrow. But you know he's winning an Oscar right there."

That's some great insight from Tennant and Smith there.  Books sound interesting, maybe worth looking into too.

Maybe stage actors are better at their craft as they need to convey to an audience withOUT close ups & cameras ? digital this & that ?

I think its just a difference of scale.
On stage the people right at the back in the cheap seats (ie me) peering round the pillars to see ( ) still have to be able to read your expression, but on tv its all small, close up and intimate.
You don't need to project it, you can imply it and the audience will still see it.

Interesting piece from the BBC - a timeline of the real Cromwell-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zttdjxs

Certainly is, Im fond of history & there's something about the Tudors that draws you.

I got my mom into House of Cards after I saw the first season so we marathoned most of season three together this weekend. So far it's been an almost baffling step down in quality, and I say this as someone who was already less than thrilled by season two. Withholding final judgement until after I finish the season (probably tomorrow ), though.

Working my way through House of Cards season 3, as well. I liked the first episode, which was basically all from Stamper's POV. It was different.

I always feel like when they rely on current events and issues it kind of weakens the show/cheapens the writing a little for me (e.g. the whole Russia/gay issue/Pussy Riot).

I've got six episodes left, so we'll see where this goes.

Also want to add, in terms of the writers piggybacking off of current events/issues, there's the whole "Walmart worker food-stamps" issue.

To me it feels like the writers taking an easy out. "Oh, let's look in the NY Times for the latest issues." They're writers, they're creative people. Come up with your own issues. It makes me kind of zone out when I'm watching.

Edit: Oh, and I guess this hurricane is supposed to be hurricane Sandy?

The "ripped from the headlines" aspect just emphasizes how ridiculous the made-up parts of the show are.  The whole America Works program feels like it was thought up by a poli sci undergraduate who just learned what a massive percentage of the budget goes into social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  The fallout from it (or lack thereof) is even worse.  Just stick to "courtly" intrigue and halls-of-power drama as much as possible.  Don't trivialize real life issues through your depictions.

Also, the characters creaming themselves over how good the writing of other characters is (especially Yates) is made downright hilarious by how amateurish and hacky the writing is. Then we get gems like "You're an idiot for not liking this!"

Eldorion wrote:The whole America Works program feels like it was thought up by a poli sci undergraduate who just learned what a massive percentage of the budget goes into social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

This confused me when watching. Wouldn't the repubs love to strip the bedrock entitlements? Wouldn't they love "AmWorks" (lol) then? Or wouldn't their argument be more towards: "we don't believe it's the governments role to put jobs in the hands of people." Something that I haven't heard yet from the repubs on the show.

Also, wtf happened to Mendoza? Did they just lose the actor or something, because they just wrote him out like it was nothing.

Edit:

Just stick to "courtly" intrigue and halls-of-power drama as much as possible.  Don't trivialize real life issues through your depictions.

From what I recall, the BBC production did very little of this, and focused more on balance of power issues, and really focused on the conflict between FU and the king during the second series. The third series focused mostly on a foreign conflict, that I believe was fabricated (although I 'm not sure if it was based on real life events).

Jeez, now I don't even want to bother finishing this new season.

I gave up on the US version.

As someone recently pointed out the US version Urquart doesn't seem to have an ideology. Whats he doing it for beyond revenge?
In the UK original he is firmly a far right Tory from the embedded Upper Classes, old money and land owning. And the policies he does introduce are all just what you would expect- taking Thatchers already right of centre policies even further.

That both kept it topical at the time it was made but without having to use any actual real policies (the UK version being set several years in the future from when it was broadcast).

And besides Ian Richardsons Urquart is just, better in my view-

Yes, Richardson makes FU likable even though he's a huge scumbag!

Yeah and I think thats crucial to making the audience complicit in his actions, which the script plays on, you want to see him do more bad stuff. Afterall everyone wants a strong leader, its what we voted for.

Don't watch a ton of TV but have about 5 shows i watch, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Face Off, Grimm, and Constantine  those are pretty much it for me

edited to say 6 shows... Forgot Sleepy Hollow which has been decent not great but not horrid IMHO either

I agree with pretty much all of your points, bungo.  Especially the one about Mendoza.  They felt the need to explain his disappearance but they shoot all the episodes in one go so if there was a scheduling issue why not replace him from the first half of the season as well?  If you're going to lose the actor in the middle of filming either re-shoot his scenes or go the old soap opera route of having a voiceover announce "the role of Hector Mendoza is now being played by...".

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I gave up on the US version.

As someone recently pointed out the US version Urquart doesn't seem to have an ideology. Whats he doing it for beyond revenge?
In the UK original he is firmly a far right Tory from the embedded Upper Classes, old money and land owning. And the policies he does introduce are all just what you would expect- taking Thatchers already right of centre policies even further.

Underwood started out in a believable place as a Blue Dog Democrat who was nonetheless more preoccupied with power than ideology.  However, I agree that it makes his exploits less interesting because it strips out the layer of (very dark) satire.  But season three is where things take a turn for the truly bizarre because it feels like one of the writers decided to use Underwood to live out of his fantasy of "fixing everything that's wrong with politics" despite the fact that neither Underwood's actions nor those of his opponents make any political sense, much less bear any resemblance to a real world ideology or party platform.

Edit: they do have Underwood say that some sort of radical new program is the only way he can win the 2016 election, suggesting that he isn't pushing AmWorks because he believes it to be the morally correct choice, but he ends up having to sell it as such.  And it bugs me that the Congressional Democrats opposition to the plan is portrayed as being all about an inter-branch power struggle rather than because social security is massively popular and is a key element of the Democratic brand.

have about 5 shows i watch, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Face Off, Grimm, and Constantine- Sin

Constantine is an interesting one- its not as bad as I expected - its even quite good at times. I was a hug fan of the comics back when Grant Morrison was writing them, so I had some initial issues with moving the whole thing from the UK to the US, but at least they kept him northern English. But it doesn't seem to have the social or political commentary the comics had, which is my main gripe. Its entertaining and well done, but its not got the point it used to have.

anyone heard any more about American Gods?

House of Cards Season 3, Episode 11.

Three candidates in a pre-Iowa caucus debate? Extremely unlikely. And those talking heads trying to act! I thought John King did a pretty good job, but those commentators with George Stephanopoulos! Cringe!

Finished House of Cards S3 just now.  Will hold off on posting more detailed impressions until bungo finishes the season, but technically the show is great.  Good direction, creative use of sound; Netflix certainly spared no expense.  Storywise it leaves a lot to be desired but I did at least feel something by the end, which is more than I could say for most of this season.

I do like all the real life media personalities they get to appear on this show, although the jokes they wrote for Maher and Colbert were kinda mediocre.