- why Prince Rupert (that was Rupert, wasn't it?) ordered Sexby to mug a wedding guest for the garter and then went and put the bridegroom off his stroke?
Incomprehensible. Is it possible that some of this will be explained later on, if Prince Rupert reappears?
- why Angelica's announcement of her determination to stay and help Harry defend their house to the uttermost leads to its instant surrender?
I imagined that Harry wasn't able to send her away, but then didn't feel he could risk her life by fighting. But it's an elision too far, and I've simply made that up to fill the gap.
- why the King would shoot one of his loyal gentlemen for surrendering his home? (I mean, it's not exactly going to encourage the rest to stay loyal, is it?)
I suppose Charles means the execution to deter others from surrendering without putting up a decent fight, and if it is a counter-productive tactic it serves to show him as a fool as well as callous and unfeeling. But again, far too thin to actually work.
I think one of the main problems was that this has been overcooked; Peter Flannery has been writing this for
years. I suspect he developed it as a longer piece, had to cut it to fit the format and somehow over-elided everything. Being too close to the material, too familiar with it, I think he failed to realise that he'd cut out exposition, depth of character and, most importantly, time for the viewer to become familiar with the period, characters and relationships. That's why -
inter alia - so many of the characters feel so sketchy, why Saxby's portentous brooding seems rather daft posturing, why Angelica's relationship with Harry lacks the emotional intensity to give meaning to the twists and turns of the plot, why the politics are all but non-existent, why Charles is so one-dimensional (sinister and vacant). Not enough time for nuance; not enough time for complexity. And yet, the first episode was not much shorter than the standard "classic age" feature film, so something really did go rather wrong.
Call me Ishmael...
reply
share
theunderstudy1610
16 years ago
why the King would shoot one of his loyal gentlemen for surrendering his home? (I mean, it's not exactly going to encourage the rest to stay loyal, is it?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose Charles means the execution to deter others from surrendering without putting up a decent fight, and if it is a counter-productive tactic it serves to show him as a fool as well as callous and unfeeling. But again, far too thin to actually work.
Thing is, and I guess this goes to back to your point about how it had been "cut it to fit the format" I didn't get the impression that I was supposed to like her husband. So when it was time for his excecution, although I think it did fit with an interpretation of Charles' character as being "tactless and diffident" (Ralph Dutton) and I thought how casually he was told that he was to be excecuted was good dramatically, I didn't care. Because he was so one dimensional, we only saw him as the sexist, controlling husband I wasn't as upset as I would have been if we'd seen their relationship develop. However - I did think the excecution was very well acted.
Hmmmm...I seem to have rambled a bit there, did that make sense?
reply
share
austendw
16 years ago
I agree that the execution scene was well acted. Which shows that good acting simply isn't enough when the context has robbed it of real force.
Call me Ishmael...
reply
share
misbegotten
16 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Peter Flannery has been writing this for years. I suspect he developed it as a longer piece, had to cut it to fit the format and somehow over-elided everything. Being too close to the material, too familiar with it, I think he failed to realise that he'd cut out exposition, depth of character and, most importantly, time for the viewer to become familiar with the period, characters and relationships.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read that this was originally intended to be a twelve episode series, but the budget simply wasn't available, so it was condensed down into four episodes. You can imagine the amount of material that's been lost.
.
reply
share
austendw
16 years ago
Well that explains things. Shame, really, as I have little doubt that the intentions were to produce something far fuller and more nuanced.
I discovered this site: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554116/Channel-4-sexes-up-the- Puritans.html wrtten in June 2007, when the prospective (or just rumoured) cast was rather more high profile. Note how Flannery comments that the "Puritans have had a bad press. The idea that they were humourless and wanted to ban Christmas is just nonsense." Ironic, considering that a line in the first episode gives precisely the opposite impression. And actually I thought it was true; they did want to ban Christmas, didn't they? Or at least all the pagan trappings....
Call me Ishmael...
reply
share
theunderstudy1610
16 years ago
And actually I thought it was true; they did want to ban Christmas, didn't they? Or at least all the pagan trappings....
That's the impression I was under. I know that the Puritan view of christmas was that it was an excuse for over eating, over drinking and bad behaviour. They also saw Christmass, or Christ mass, as an unwanted memory of the Catholic Church.
They didn't ban chistmas as such, they banned the traditional celebrations. A parliamentry act of 1644 made Christmas Day a day of fasting and reflection. Shops and businesses were expected to stay open and I believe in Scotland Christmas entirely lost its status as a public holiday. There were clashes between the public and the people enforcing the new rules in several major cities.
So I sort of get what Flannery is saying, they didn't want to ban the whole idea of christmas, but they banned all its cultural associates, sprigs of holly decorations, mince pies etc. They wanted a different kind of Christmas.
reply
share