Some Useless Analysis - See if You Agree

I think he can be a genius, like the portions of Blackadder he wrote, but needs to learn to restrain his sentimentality a bit - particularly if he's thinking of doing more issue-driven dramas.





"Where do these interviews GO?!"

Thanks for reading. I feel I should defend points 1 and 2 after being charged with contradicting observations. (I'm writing on the fly so this is a long messy rant.)

The second point refers more to the style of the drama, and how characters are written nowadays. For instance 'the nice girl' role in Christina Applegate's Samantha Who?, despite on relative terms being the character we're supposed to root for, is still in real world terms, a smart mouthed, comeback-ready, overly quirky character that only exists in the parallel universe of Hollywood television. Desperate Housewives is also a prime example of this. Here, in stark contrast, we see two fairly ordinary people trying to do good, not being self-obsessed, and talking awkwardly to one another in the way people really do. That's not something that's portrayed very well in TV, particularly in the States.

However, while I like the manner in which the characters talk to each other (or don't talk to each other in that way British drama has a knack for capturing repression and simmering tension), and their good intentions, I confess that I don't buy the sequence of eventual actions of the characters, that keeps the drama going, and that was the gist of the first point. So while I like the idea that Kelly MacDonald would strike up a conversation with this man in the way she does, and that Bill Nighy in turn would be attracted to her, in real life neither person would have the guts to pursue the opportunity. She wouldn't leave on a whim, she wouldn't try to win him over, and in my estimation if she did do those two things, she wouldn't forgive his angry overreaction. Similarly he wouldn't endanger such an important job. I will concede though that the first point is slightly facetious and misanthropic, in that I was implying that Kelly MacDonald's is very easy to fall in love with and that such a good hearted woman would be hard to find. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but the reason I go along with it is because of the strength of the performances and the unusually idealistic view of people in the writing - even extended to the political sphere with the Gordon Brown/Ken Stott character who, anywhere else would be less sympathetic - but not because I necessarily buy that they come up dime a dozen in your local cafe.

In summation, it's a nice uplifting, somewhat optimistic fantasy set in the real world. Though the fantastical elements are more subtle than most television writing, it is still a fantasy nonetheless because relationships and politics don't work like this. But hey, Richard Curtis' political naivety is as charming and moving, like John Lennon's Imagine.






"This is the opposite of shallow. This is emotionally magnificent."

1. I'd argue she is just as awkward as him. She isn't a traditional beauty (although I think she is very lovely looking) and is probably fairly insecure as most women (even attract or maybe especially attractive ones) seem to be. Her looks kind of tower over Lawrence because A) he is older, and B) he is a bit socially challenged, but in reality she is simply a very lovely unique person, and I happen to know lots of girls similar to her who are single (although anytime you view a character through the power of the movie lens it always seems to turn quirks charming where in real life they seem to so often drift towards mildly annoying).


3 & 4. These are interesting thoughts, and the question always comes back to, how rich does a person need to be. If you were walking down the road and saw a person trip, would you stop to help them up? I think most mature adults would (kids might laugh, but as I said, mature adults). So, extrapolate that example. If you are a single male, like myself, living in America, and you make between 40 and 60k a year, would you be willing to make between 30 and 50k a year and let that extra money go towards helping children who are starving and dying in the world? Once again, I think every human being would likely answer yes to this question. Obviously, the world makes it more complex. We say, well there are starving children in MY OWN country, shouldn't I help them first? Or, how EXACTLY is my money being spent? Is it being used effectively, etc. So now it isn't just a matter of writing a check, it involves doing a little homework on A) the charities you might be donating to AND B) holding the politicians you vote for (with your vote AND your pocket book if you donate to campaigns) ACCOUNTABLE for their actions.

She poses a "philosophical" question at the end of the film (the main girl, sorry I forget her name, I just watched this movie for the first time today) when she asks "does it matter?" Meaning, if the child is yours or a child you will never meet, shouldn't you still help? Well the obvious answer to that is it doesn't matter, but the more challenging question is, if it is my child's life vs. another child?

And to that most would answer, my own child, and one could understand why. But now I ask, what if it was your child's life vs. 2 other children's lives? Or your child vs. 10, or 100? So now it is more complex. And now we ask, well would you trade your child's Harvard education for a state school and use the money saved to help 10,000 starving children?

In a lot of ways capitalism mirrors the human spirit, a need to compete, the opportunity to achieve, the chance to thrive as an individual...but the question is, what about the chance to thrive as a society. Unchecked capitalism does not seem to allow for another crucial part of the human spirit to thrive, which is the sense of a shared community. I could climb the highest mountain in the world, but without a friend or another person to share it with, the experience feels like it is missing something. You are defined by what you do in life, but deep happiness comes from being able to share those experiences with others. And that part seems to be ignored by capitalism in its purest (unchecked) form, which as a by product leads us to these debates of, can we help these starving children or is it more important to discuss the fluctuating oil prices, etc.

One final note, these are complex matters, and I felt bad for the guy in the film the girl kept calling out. Lawrence's boss. Because to me, it felt like he really really was trying to work in the system. Her point simply was, the system is flawed, time to blow it up by doing something huge and great. It may ultimately have been necessary but it really felt like he was absorbing the brunt of her criticism when he was legitimately trying to make a difference.