MovieChat Forums > Apparitions (2008) Discussion > What Possessed The BBC To Make This Twad...

What Possessed The BBC To Make This Twaddle?

posted 16 years ago by poofta1970
34 replies | jump to latest

I love "The Exorcist", I loved "Ultraviolet" and I'm a big Martin Shaw fan so I'm a happy bunny right?

This first episode is a nasty piece of work but in all the wrong ways.

On just about every level this series opener had me foaming at the bit spitting profanities at the screen.

To start with, it's dull, anodyne and about as tense and compelling as the opening of a Horlicks jar but we have come to expect that sort of thing from the BBC after such shows as the execrable "Bone Kickers".

Where that show is just laughably silly this one is distasteful and dare I say it possibly dangerous.

Not punk rock daring dangerous but in a lazy morally rudderless way.

Enter a world where cured leper begger boys owe their health not to medical science, not even to a saintly miracle but to the devil himself.

Where a homosexual's first exploration of his natural inclinations is a doorway through which Satan can break through.

Pedophiles, oh they are possessed by devil's too as are atheists and the mental ill.

So not only are humans not responsible for evil acts like torture, murder and child rape, these acts exist on the same plane of parity as consensual sex between men, getting well suddenly, swearing at the telly during a football match and letting Richard Dawkins onto your bookshelf.

The Exorcist worked because at all points it went to great pains to dismiss a diagnosis of physical or mental illness, the demon in Regan McNeil was clearly a demon not just a troublesome overactive attention seeking tweenager. Karras was a well drawn character, full of doubts and pain who when he failed to see God acting stood up to the plate and did good himself.

In Ultraviolet the vampires were cruel and compelling but never a Halloween mask to stick on a scapegoat or fairy tale explanation for a complex social problem.

I will keep watching but only in the hope that this a first episode flutter or that it will redeem itself later.

But I worry that this series will unchecked demonise people who are either not doing anything wrong or desperately need medical help.

It's almost as if the age of enlightenment never happened.

[–] james1986london 16 years ago

I took the programme for what is was, a piece of fiction. I think the BBC should be free to broadcast programmes where Christianity isn't shown in a bad light and that the supernatural appears. I don't think all programmes should push a left-wing/atheist agenda either. I think your ideas are dangerous to free expression.

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"I think the BBC should be free to broadcast programmes where Christianity isn't shown in a bad light and that the supernatural appears. I don't think all programmes should push a left-wing/atheist agenda either. I think your ideas are dangerous to free expression."

Did you actually read my post?

I have no problem with showing Christianity in a good light (this doesn't), showing the supernatural (some of my favorite stories have a supernatural edge to them) and I wasn't advocating a left wing or an atheist agenda either.

My politics are some what left of what is laughably called centre these days but that doesn't stop me from enjoying stories which are counter to my views.

What made me squirm, in a "Love They Neighbour", "Curry And Chips" way as opposed to a "Till Death Do Us Part" or even Chris Morris style (I'm using comedic examples here because I can't remember a drama series...other than perhaps the equally odious "Messiah" series which so recklessly threw away it's moral compass) was the turning over of human responsiblity to the supernatural and the equating of mental and physical illness, unconventional sexual preference, atheism and poverty with child rape, torture, murder and demonic possession.

I gave an example of this sort of story being told well and an example the writer doing a good job in the same genre.

So what exactly is your point?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"Its just fiction, enjoyable at that. I completely understand if it was not to your taste, may I suggest then that you don't watch it?

The child rape suggestion was not the human instinct, it was the posession, the demon wanted to embody the daughter too. But the show didn't say 'ooh look all pederests are possessed' nor did it say homosexuality is wrong (it did however say that the catholic church view it unfavourably, though that comes as no surprise surely?)the notion that diseases are cured instantly is attributed to miracles and often throughout supernatural fiction equal powers have been given to 'demons' one need only look at Dennis Potter's excellent play for today (and the lesser movie version) Brimstone and Treacle for that; Shaw's character called the father mentally ill because that would be the only way the police and social services would get involved, it wasnt a slur against mental illness or again a claim that all mentally ill people are possessed. Therefore it's ludicrously OTT and a tad paranoid to think that there was some kind of ulterior message to the the show along such lines as which you suggest, sorry."

I'm not saying that the subtext is necessarily deliberate it could be down to unfortunate callousness on the part of the author.

But you had the father (who showed many symptoms associated with schizophrenia) about to rape and kill his daughter,
the gay priest (skinned alive and murdered at the point of indulging his uncoventional sexuality for the first time) and all this attributed to (not inspired by) demons.

The subject matter is to my taste it was the execution of it I found distasteful.

"Brimstone And Treacle" is a completely different kettle of fish (well the television version is) for one thing it was well written and had a valid point to make.

As did "The Exorcist" and even "The Exorcism Of Emily Rose" and "Requiem".

We all know that the Catholic Church doesn't approve of homosexuality so losing a potentially good priest to the secular world because of the church's policies and it's political in fighting would have been enough of a victory for the dark powers in the context of the story.

But his torture and murder at the point of his first step into exploring his sexuality sends out a dangerous message.

I will keep watching because I have enjoyed the work of this writer before (which was why I was looking forward to it) and it was just the first episode and too early to pass judgement on the whole series.
Also I want to keep abreast of where this series is going if I am to make any further comments about it (I'm not the type of person makes comments without viewing the material).

But even so, someone should have taken a good look at this at the script stage and given it a lot more consideration before making this particular episode.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"If you like the writer, then please have faith (no pun intended) in his work. Writing off said work so freely as you have, I quote your thread title, and your description of him as callous, then saying you will continue to give it a try saying 'it was just the first episode and too early to pass judgement on the whole series' is if I may say jarring when in the context of what you have already said."

The 'twaddle' of the post title is this episode, (from my perspective) not necessarily the whole series.

As for the word play get thee to an exorcist, you are clearly possessed by Punzuzu.

[–] is_dis_d_way2amarrillo 16 years ago

yeah, yet another sub standard rip off of THE EXORCIST. complete crap i thought.
one interesting bit of trivia; i was once kicked off a TV series by the asistant director on this who is a silly little twat named guy barker. your a *beep* barker!

"what do you think of him?"
"i think he's a *beep* peasant!"

see you at the movies baby...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

I saw this as a Christian and was very surprised to see a programme that demonised atheists. I daresay many atheists watching would end up spitting blood. But the atheist in that show was definitely demon possessed. So, nobody believes that all atheists are possessed by demons. (To put your mind at rest on one point at least).

[–] fudgefase 16 years ago

Actually I was a little surprised, and saddened, that homosexuality was seen something the demon could use against the young man, but in context, I suppose, to be gay would stand very firmly against the lad's choice of career, so it would have been a way in.
But, I was disappointed they did away with him, as he was a good character, well developed in a short space of time, well-acted and a smashing bit of eye candy to boot!

[–] tripmixx 16 years ago

My thought exactly, dangerous. Someone said in a post above that it's a fiction show and requires "suspense of realism" or something like that and that we shouldn't take it so seriously. Off course we know that, the dangerous people are the ones who believe this stuff (or use it to justify their beliefs), and many will. You see by believing what they do these people live inn a world of "suspense of realism" all the time, they say so themselves, blind faith.

[–] Charlie_1701 16 years ago

I think the dangerous people will twist anything so it is best to do the best you can, which I think the BBC have done here and entertain the general public.

No matter what you do, someone will be offended.

I enjoyed it and I will continue to watch it and I hope they make a full series of it and this is only after the first episode of which I am hooked.

I did not find it offensive and I actually welcomed a programme which was not only about drugs, sex and terrorism.

Had the programme been from another religious perspective I wonder if people would be so quick to criticise.
Say Jewish or Muslim?

Bean Girl: Charlie Darling
...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"Had the programme been from another religious perspective I wonder if people would be so quick to criticise.
Say Jewish or Muslim?"

Speaking for myself here, if the same events had been played in a different religious context I'd be posting exactly the same thing.

I was equally critical of that character from "Torchwood" using an alien date rape drug and it being portrayed as comical and the character made out to be ultimately a loveable rogue.

Saying it's just fiction is a lazy response.

If ITV commissioned a show where the hero (not an anti-hero) was a murderous racist or tortured animals for laughs, suspension of belief or not it would still be a tasteless mistake.

[–] Charlie_1701 16 years ago

Saying it's just fiction is a lazy response.

If ITV commissioned a show where the hero (not an anti-hero) was a murderous racist or tortured animals for laughs, suspension of belief or not it would still be a tasteless mistake.

I am confused, where in my response did I say this was just fiction?
That is your reply not mine.

Why can a murderous racist or torturer of animals not be a hero?

Herorism is about a selfless act not about the character of the person.
Have you ever seen the film Crash?
Matt Dillon was a racist, yet he was still heroic while the loveable liberal turned out to be a murdering racist.

Bean Girl: Charlie Darling
...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"I am confused, where in my response did I say this was just fiction?
That is your reply not mine."

I was directing that comment more at posts like this from markbc-2 :
"Its just fiction, enjoyable at that."

"Have you ever seen the film Crash?
Matt Dillon was a racist, yet he was still heroic while the loveable liberal turned out to be a murdering racist."

Yes, I have seen "Crash" (both of them) Matt Dillon was racist and and acted heroically but he wasn't a "murderous racist", he also saw the error of his previous acts and we saw where that action came from, the other character was a "murderous racist" and didn't act heroically.

I hope you see the distinction.

Besides giving the appearence of being a "loveable Liberal", isn't in of it's self an act of heroism.

Patrick Bateman in "American Psycho" frequently talked the talk in public while leading a very different lifestyle in private (and he wasn't portrayed as a hero either).

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] malcolm-smith 16 years ago

Why can a murderous racist or torturer of animals not be a hero?

Herorism is about a selfless act not about the character of the person.
Have you ever seen the film Crash?
Matt Dillon was a racist, yet he was still heroic while the loveable liberal turned out to be a murdering racist.

==================================================================

Quite. I would point who suggests otherwise in the direction of any Stephen Donaldson novels.

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"Why can a murderous racist or torturer of animals not be a hero?

Herorism is about a selfless act not about the character of the person."

A murderous racist or torturer of animals should never be a hero, they can be an anti-hero or they can be redeemed by acts of heroism and take on heroic aspects but never be a hero.

One or two acts of heroism doesn't make someone a hero either.

Adolf Hitler was twice decorated for bravery in WWI He received the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914 and Iron Cross, First Class, in 1918.

Was he a hero?

Should the BBC make a series showing him as such?

[–] malcolm-smith 16 years ago

Adolf Hitler was twice decorated for bravery in WWI He received the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914 and Iron Cross, First Class, in 1918.

Was he a hero?

----------------------------------------------------

I would say that, yes, he was once a hero - to millions of people.

Just because we no longer think of him as a hero doesn't mean that he was. As they say, the victorious side writes the history books.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"There are many fictional heroes who are themselves rotten. What of Highsmith's Ripley? Or Michael Caine's Carter?"

I'd class them in the same group as Hannibal Lecter, both are anti-heroes who perform heroic acts but are, in Ripley and Lecter's case they are still insane mass murdering sociopaths and in Carter's case a murdering thug.

In the worlds they operate in they are surrounded by people just as bad or much worse, so we revel in the heroic things they do and their unheroic acts are largely balanced by the villainy of the other characters but all of them do some things which are never balanced and are in no way heroic so none of them are heroes.

[–] Charlie_1701 16 years ago

All this talk of Hitler has staryed us off topic.

How can you compare Father Jacob to Hitler and how can you suggest that FAther Jacob is a murdering Racist.

Have I mis-understood your posts or are you watching a different version of Apparitions than I am?

What I saw was a Catholic priest called upon to perform an Exorcism on a man whose daughter claimed he was possessed.
For the sake of the daughter he suggested this to the father, with a lot of doubt initially but upon further investigation realised there may be some truth in what she claimed.

Along side this and interwoven ran the story of his under-study who was hiding his sexuality.

Father Jacob did not condemn the man but even went against his Bishop's wishes and was ready to fight the whole Catholic system for this man.

What is there to be offended by?
Even when the little girl suggested the crappy Richard Dawkins book and yes I have read it, what a rant, he said he had read it himself and it did not mean anything.

Again what is there to be offended by?

If you are offended by the fact that homosexuality is not accepted by the Catholic Church that is not the programmes fault.

Had they gone the other way, you would be shouting, how stupid, everyone knows Catholics are not allowed to practice openly.

Anyway in the Catholic religion everyone abstains which is what Father Jacob said when he asked if he had performed the act and Vimal had said no, so no sin was committed, I think he replied.
I do not think it was just aimed at his homosexuality but at sex itself which all Catholics within the priesthood have to abstain from, even Father Jacob.

As I said earlier, I am not a Catholic.

Bean Girl: Charlie Darling
...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

[–] poofta1970 16 years ago

"If you are offended by the fact that homosexuality is not accepted by the Catholic Church that is not the programmes fault.

Yes I am and no it's not.

"Had they gone the other way, you would be shouting, how stupid, everyone knows Catholics are not allowed to practice openly."

"What is there to be offended by?"

I've already covered this fully elsewhere in this thread and on this very sparse board.

With respect if you are going to comment on the views volunteered by postees on IMDB it would help if you read the views fully rather than just scan reading them.

As a side note I'm starting to actually enjoy the series, I still think for the reasons I laid out the construction of the first episode was badly judged but the series is developing into the sort of diverting froth that I was hoping for when the series was announced.

[–] Charlie_1701 16 years ago

The reason this board started so sparse and is only now being allowed to expend was due to the fact that the show had hardly started and people were already tearing it apart for no particular reason other than it featured Catholics and held Catholic views.

I am glad you are beginning to like the show, that you have given it time.

Also I have read this sparse board and every post written, which is why I felt I needed to ask a few questions.

Bean Girl: Charlie Darling
...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

[–] dysphasiak 16 years ago

Firstly I believe many people have misunderstood what is a very though provoking and un PC drama, thank goodness we can have this in our OTT culture terrified of offence.

Firstly the homosexuality issue, particularly the killing. The main Priest was not concerned by his friend's preferences.
The demon'd where concerned with tempting the young priest but it was not sexuality that was their connection to him but the miracle and his unsurness of faith.
However it was because he was important to Jacob that they attacked him so severly. They killed him in the end to hurt Jacob. The significance was that he was unsafe even if he left the priesthood. It was thus not to do with his sexuality at all.

As for the mental illness thing. Well it's an ongoing debate what exactly is mental illness and if the voices so people hear are real or imagined. As for phedophilia its so out of the normal decent behaviour that it is plausable to represent it as evil.

Maybe this is like marmite, you either love it or hate it. Who knows?
It works for me. One of the best things I've seen.

[–] Charlie_1701 16 years ago

I couldn't agree more.

Bean Girl: Charlie Darling
...The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few...

[–] tripmixx 16 years ago

As for the mental illness thing. Well it's an ongoing debate what exactly is mental illness and if the voices so people hear are real or imagined.

And they wonder why we think they're dangerous... And here I though the dark ages where over, how foolish of me.

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

Watch out tripmixx, it's always the scoffing atheists in shows like this that come a cropper when the bad sh *t starts going down.

Personally I know a priest who is a real-life exorcist so this is a fun show to watch to see if any of it is realistic. My priest friend hasn't watched the show so far but people keep recommending it to him apparently.

[–] tripmixx 16 years ago

I'm not an atheists. Atheists isn't even a real word as far as I'm concerned. It's a term that describes you not being something. If there where a different term for everything I'm not there would be a lot of terms to describe me. But fine, believe the voices inn your head are real all you want.

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

The voices in my head have started speaking in Italian accents, I think they're putting them on. It brings out my rage!

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

I ain't never seen "Crash" and it's on my "to watch" list and now I've read your post I have to try and erase my memory. If you look up "Markup enabled" there's a "spoiler alert" option you can put to hide your words if you're discussing the plot of a film. I suggest you avail yourself of this facility!

[–] The_Proprietor 16 years ago

I've quite enjoyed the series, for me the strongest one was the final episode, I especially liked what they did with Monsignor Vincenzo and how his final act was one of sacrifice. In my view, the approach that the series is some how making a damning verdict on homosexuality, atheism, mental illness ad infinitum seems to me rather myopic. I don't see the series making some comment or espousing a view, especially a religious one (given that the writer and creator Joe Aherne is a devout atheist), but merely providing good drama and perhaps casting a more scrutinous eye at the world we live in and even religion.

Here's some pertinent material :-

Interview with creator (or co-creator?) and writer Joe Aherne.

You tackle some difficult subjects in Apparitions – where does your inspiration come from?

Apparitions is first and foremost a drama series, but the inspiration comes from the Catholic Church itself, its theology and beliefs. Because many of those beliefs are out of place in a secular society like Britain and it creates great conflict which is the engine for drama. Where Apparitions becomes exciting is when those core beliefs are taken on board and interrogated. Not just the belief in hell and demons but here-and-now ethics and morality. The inspiration for the stories have largely come from Catholic history of the saints or recent situations like the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, Croatia.

Has researching subjects such as exorcism and possession forced you to challenge your belief system?

No I'm a devout atheist and endlessly fascinated with the issue of faith in the impossible. It's true I bought a cross when we were shooting in Rome and I'm still wearing it. And it's true some of the actors had unnerving stories to tell during the shoot. My unfaith remains unshaken however. I need big miracles to make me believe. So far I've just been teased by the paranormal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/10_october /31/apparitions4.shtml

I suppose at this juncture I ought to absolve myself from any religious connections. I don't belong to any faith other than my own, I have a certain belief but I do not conform to any religious dogma or edict. I do have a fascination with mythology, especially certain biblical ones with specific interest in angels, demons, spirits etc (hence why I enjoy films such as The Prophecy). I have a very keen interest in the paranormal but I maintain an open mind (albeit sceptical).

I'd like to add that since the BBC has 'done away' with programmes such as Strange and Sea of Souls, it is good to see programmes of a similar 'genre' being made once again. Ones that I find more enjoyable than myriad period costume dramas or Strictly Come Toe Nail Clipping (which I suspect which eventually befall us within the next decade).

If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?

[–] Potterreader35 16 years ago

I suppose at this juncture I ought to absolve myself from any religious connections.

Why? Have religious people got cooties or something??? Do you think those with religious views are not allowed to express an opinion? If so I missed that memo!

I'm amazed that Joe Ahearne is a devout atheist. He either had a faith in the past or he's researched this story with an amazingly open mind. I'm a Christian (yes, one of those terrible creatures who aren't allowed an opinion apparently) and I would have thought this series came from a Christian. So hats off to Joe Ahearne.

[–] tripmixx 15 years ago

Sorry I'm a little late, I just came by to deliver this memo...