Thoughts on the Homeland Finale

Spoiler alert: Read no further if you haven’t seen the final episode of Homeland, or indeed any of the middle ones; I have a rave in me that needs to get out!

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

Last night’s Homeland finale was everything I wanted it to be and more.
Brilliant acting on the part of all my favourite characters. Brody was as ambiguous as ever, but this episode at least gave us a lot more of a look inside his mind, and at his conflicted nature. I can't recall any show recently that managed to evoke as much intensity as the suspenseful moment when Brody was preparing himself to flick the switch.

As the episode progressed I was swinging back and forth regarding my feelings toward Brody the character; about what I thought he was going to do, if he would survive, and then when the big moment came, how he would get out. My wife suffers the brunt of this as I voice my every concern, theory and hope as the show goes on, just in case I end up being right later (I like to have confirmation). Though in this respect Lizzie is far better at predicting shows than I.

Fuck this shit indeed

Carrie was really going crazy in this episode, and Claire Danes' acting had you believing the fine line she was walking on between driven passion and downright insanity. The best thing about this show is that you don’t really know what is going on, and that at any point it seems like it could go either way.
We finally now have insight into Brody and who he is, though it was left ambiguous most of the season. The best part is we know his whole story, and what he was prepared to do, but then were surprised by his last minute reversal, so now we just have to ponder what he will do next.
Conversely we have the opposite situation with Carrie now, as everyone else looks at her tipping between reality and insanity, whereas we know she is one of the few characters with a definite road she is traveling on (she knows the truth, or at least suspects it; but everyone else doubts her).

Who wouldn't trust that face?

My favourite character in this show has to be Saul however, and in this episode he truly shone. We learned early on in the series that he was willing to do a bit of blackmail on the side if it lead to apprehending the bad guys, and this episode brought that side back to bear. However unlike the other duplicitous characters in the show you actually believe that Saul is working for the greater good. He is willing to blackmail to get around some hurdles in the beginning, but now he is blackmailing one of the ‘bad guys’ to try and get to the truth. A truth he uncovers, and then has to agonise over whether or not to make public.
On the other hand you have the Vice President and the other ‘conspirators’ who take to heart the fact that they are working for the greater good, and seem all the more blinded by this assurance, and thus willing to commit atrocities that they feel are fully justified. Hell, the Vice President even seeks to remove himself completely from blame after bombing children! You really see why Brody would despise these people so much (if not for the unfortunate fact that he doesn’t know how truly complicit they were in Issa’s death).
But Saul, I have to commend him and the actor Mandy Patinkin. His character has gone through a lot, and still manages to stick by those in need. Sure he set the bodyguards on Carrie when he thought she was nuts, but it seemed to be more of a compassionate move than a mere dismissal of her part in his life. This is all the more evident by the fact that he continued Carrie’s quest in her absence.

The great moment where he realised the extent of Carrie's problems

Mandy really brings this character to life, albeit in a quiet and brooding manner. You get the feeling that Saul is always deeply in-tune with whatever he is dealing with, to the detriment of his own personal life.
Oh, and what was the deal with the lie detector thing halfway through the series? Was he responsible for the blade? I really don’t want him to be the mole, unless the shows writers can do an equally good job of explaining these motivations as they did with Brody's; which I think would be damn near impossible.
Speaking of the mole, I like how nothing was revealed here yet. There is going to be a second series, and though this really does feel like a nice ending, it only appears thus if you know there will be further resolution; otherwise you would just feel jilted.
Another character I was happy with in last nights show was the daughter Dana. I remember earlier in the series liking the way she was portrayed. There was something different about her, true she had the standard teenage girl lines and motivations, but it was less two dimensional than most other teenage offerings in dramas. After all you can expect a level of stereotype with these things, as teenagers as a group generally do have defining qualities. But too often a show will rely only on these quirks, and leave true characterisation for the grown ups.
To watch Dana dealing with her fathers suspicious behaviour in the previous episode, and couple them with her discovery of Brody in the midst of a late night Muslim prayer, really made me want her to do more as the finale progressed. And I was not disappointed!
She knew something was up, but didn’t quite know what. She was worried about her dad, and suspicious of what was going on, but wasn’t willing to believe the worst about him. I don’t know how much we are supposed to believe that she truly knew her dads motivations that day, but the way she handled the phone call; forcing her dad to connect, and to promise things without merely pushing her questions aside with platitudes, was actually quite brilliant.
Then there were the characters I didn't like, but that nevertheless formed a part of the show. There were those you weren't meant to like, and those that I think I just didn't like.
I will start with the purposefully dislikable.
The Vice president. What a douche.
I remember thinking this early on, that he seems like a douche, and a bit of a prick. But as this episode went on, I just started to dislike him more and more to the point where part of me was actively wanting Brody to blow the fucker sky high! He had shown in previous episodes how self-centred he was, and how willingly he put his needs before others, and their safety behind his own machinations for power. He was willing to circumvent proper protocols by effectively bribing Estes with promised future promotions.
Then as the icing on the ‘hate cake’, we are privy to a discussion in some clandestine war room where the VP orders a school to be bombed, regardless of the inevitable human casualties.
What a prickhole.

Must be odd to be an actor that can play smarmy so well..

Speaking of Estes, he is purposely unlikable character number two. We discovered in this episode that not only does he thwart Carrie's investigation because of personal feelings toward her, and seek to further his career at the expense of doing his current job. But he was also instrumental in the reason for Abu Nazir's current plot, and withheld useful information to save his and the Vice Presidents futures. It was a pleasure to see Saul rip into him in the end, but he slimed his way out yet again, and no doubt will annoy me next season too.

Just look at him, and his grey suit.

Now, the characters I found unlikable, but that weren't necessarily meant to be.
The wife. I was glad that her character didn't have much to do in this episode, as I really haven’t grown to like her that much. Though at the end of the last episode I was feeling for her, if only for the fact that I thought Brody would most likely be leaving them again soon, though on a much more permanent level.
And then there is Walker. The boring robot sniper terrorist Walker. He was too evil, too snarly, and in this episode I found him speaking with a bit too much of a ‘street dawg’ accent. I was glad when Brody put a bullet in his head, because his character had no real sufficient motivation, which given the whole ‘American soldier turned into a terrorist’ storyline, is something you really need.

"I'm a terrorist because............ Grrrrr America and such" - Generic bad guy

But as great as the finale was, my favourite line still comes from episode #10?#, and was delivered by the Saudi diplomat the CIA was hoping to blackmail onto their side via the threat of exposing his homosexuality to the world. What was that line? Only this bit of unexpected brilliance:

“Thats right, I suck cock; and I love it. Yummy, yummy, yummy!”

Delivered with flair, realism, and humour.

Needless to say I am eager for the next season to start, and have a while to wait till it does. Luckily a new Game of Thrones is around the corner.......

Junk Food, Kids and Junk TV

I read an article at Lifehacker recently about a Cancer Council website which ranks the shows on television using a 'junk meter' that purports to categorise how much junk food is advertised in association with these shows.
Here is a screengrab of the worst contenders:

I don't know the methodology behind the 'Junk Rating', but surely they could have gone up to ten?

I must say I am not surprised at the way this looks. I asked my wife to have a guess at what the worst ones were, and she guessed correctly that reality shows would make a decent showing on the list, along with sports. Its not really shocking to note that kids movies also fare about the same (Kung Fu Panda and The Simpsons Movie are the ones mentioned up there^).
One thing that did surprise me a little (or at least would have if I wasn't already suspicious of their motivations), was Sunrise's inclusion in the worst offenders group. Sunrise which so often positions itself as a respectful commenter on such issues as childhood obesity, or undesirable things happening in our society. David Koch and Melissa Doyle like to hold themselves up pretty high as crusaders against the more nefarious and undesirable things out there at work against their idea of a more wholesome lifestyle. Yet here we see that given their prominent placing in the time-slot likely to catch kids on their way to school, they are far from living up to this ideal.
One would also think that the kids watching Sunrise are also a somewhat begrudging audience, having to put up with this at the imposition of their parents. I too remember similar forced news consumption as a kid; but at least back then it was news, and not whatever it is you call these morning shows.
Anyhow, that mini-rant aside, I actually like the idea behind this site; to help raise awareness of junk food advertising is I think a good thing. But I worry that doing so justifies the view that junk food advertising is one of the main problems associated with childhood obesity, when surely the parents letting their kids have junk food should be cited as a major contributing factor. At the end of the day, you are responsible for what your kid eats.

I was going to add an amusing picture of an obese child here, until I realised that I couldn't find such a thing, only tragic ones.

The site for instance says that if junk food advertising wasn't bombarding our kids during their favourite shows then "A trip to the supermarket wouldn’t be a battle between parents and kids who want the latest snack or the free toy that was advertised during their favourite show". And then there is this slightly dubious claim; "Parents have the right to know what TV is feeding their kids so that they can make the best decisions for their family". I mean I get it, but this kind of a tool would only really be useful for the kind of parent who lets their children be the primary provider of their own sustenance. And lets face it, if you cant override your child in the supermarket, then what choice do you have overriding them in what television shows they watch?

Though if the did do their own shopping, it would be pretty cute...

Then purpose of the guide is given as: "So you can [...] find out what your kids are consuming on TV and make healthier viewing choices". Again, I can see good intentions, and benefits in the site, but I think it is being presented in the wrong manner. You shouldn't use this information to just make people watch a different show, but in order to affect changes in the programming more directly, whether it be through government regulation or some other (nicer) means. But to just try and get your kids to watch different shows, when you cant even stop them from haranguing you at the supermarket, seems a bit futile.

That website again was: http://www.fatfreetv.com.au/

Rant On Offensive Words

Earlier in the week I wrote about offensive language in a blog post regarding an Australian man found guilty of offending the wrong people in Saudi Arabia, and was subsequently lashed for his actions. Today I want to look at the somewhat curious example of offensive words, as opposed to offensive language.

There is I think, an important distinction between these concepts worth noting. Offensive language doesn’t necessarily infer the use of offensive words. I could write a wildly offensive sentence aimed at Christians or people of a specific race, without having to employ a single unsavoury word. Instead you would have to listen to what I am saying beyond the use of single words, to understand what the crux of my theoretical diatribe was.

There are however people who balk at the very mention of what they believe to be offensive words, regardless of how they are employed.

South Park dealt with the seemingly magical power some people believe curse words have in this episode. Yet Trey Parker and Matt Stone clearly understand the mundane nature of such words, and that as our languages evolve and change, these things inevitable lose their power (unlike those in their show, who retain their cursed nature, to disastrous effect).

Indeed the dulling down of offensive words over time seems to be the norm, with the graveyard of former swears being populated by such innocuous words as leg (they preferred limb in the old days, pants ("Thats pants!" was the exclamation) and even occupy, which had sexual connotations that make the Occupy Movement of last year all the more confusing. Then there are the other swears which have just been blunted, but still retain their core meaning; like crap, damn, bloody and bugger.

But the reason I have brought this up today isn't just so i can start listing curse words (though that would be fun), it is due to this story that popped up in the news a couple of days ago.

Here we have an 18 year old American called McKay Hatch upset over the fact that a toddler in a TV show says what appears to be the word ‘fuck’. The episode is titled Little Bo Bleep, and apparently handles this situation quite delicately, and presents it in a most benign way.

In actuality the young actress says fudge (so Mr Hatch can at least take solace that her mind has not been poisoned by her having to utter this four letter word) and in the show her mouth is pixilated, and the word bleeped out. I always do find it amusing that we bleep out the word, but generally allow the consonants to remain intact.

Nevertheless  Hatch  takes exception to this. As a founding member of the 'No Cussing Club', he believes that 'cussing' not only degrades people lives, but hurts the world around you, and in swearing (using the oath giving meaning of the word here) to give up 'cussing', you can improve the lives of the people around you..

Representatives of the show explained their rationale for this episode, which seems perfectly reasonable:

"We thought it was a very natural story since, as parents, we've all been through this,"
This reminds me of a proud moment as a parent when our son first used a swear word, and did so in perfect context. It was upon pulling up at a petrol station, only to find the bowser out of action (and after explaining this to Harrison), that our son disappointingly exclaimed “Not working? Oh shit”. Brilliant!

Not this Bowser obviously.

In a sense I respect those who are offended by the concepts behind statements more than those who are offended by the mere words being used. Though as I mentioned in my previous post, you still need to be able to elucidate in a rational manner why it is you are offended, and why such offence should be taken seriously.

Concepts can be offensive, but it is rare that I would think a word in itself, devoid of any meaning, should be considered offensive. And make no mistake; that is what some people believe.

Fuck is one of the greatest words around, there have been books written about it, studies done into its psychological benefits, and praise levelled on it as being the second greatest gift that the British Empire bestowed upon the world (the first of which, if you are wondering, is the great game of soccer). Such a versatile word is not in of itself offensive, I think its fucking great; and I’m not alone.

However as with most hastily thought of rules, there are exceptions. In this case I think words that may warrant a further analysis regarding their intrinsically offensive nature are those specifically designed for more nefarious means. This would include things like racial epithets, discriminatory language, and other such derogatory terms. An obvious example of this, and perhaps the most powerful in today’s society, is the word nigger.

Nigger can be seen as offensive in almost any circumstance (and I'm going to ignore the whole 'nigga' to take back the word argument for simplicity's sake), because it brings along with it the implicit assumption of a stereotype originally directly linked to the word. A nigger was less than human; a nigger was property. And to say this word to someone these days is generally an attempt to remind them of this.

Yet even in this regard, people can take it too far. While reading an article on the word nigger by the late great Christopher Hitchens the other day, I was interested and rather amused to read this passage relating his introduction to the taboo surrounding it in American society:

“I found this out myself recently, when I went on Hardball With Chris Matthews. It was just after John Kerry had (I thought unintentionally) given the impression that young people joining the armed forces were stupid. Chris asked me where liberals got the idea that conservatives were dumb. I said that it all went back to John Stuart Mill referring to the Tories as "the stupid party." After a while, the Tories themselves began to use this expression to describe themselves. I added that the word Tory was originally an insult—it means something like brigand in Gaelic—and it had also been adopted, by those at whom it was directed, as a badge of pride. In this respect, I went on to say, it anticipated other such appropriations—impressionist, suffragette—by which the target group inverted the taunt thrown at it and, by a kind of verbal jujitsu, turned it back on its originators. In more recent times, I finished with what I thought was a flourish, the words nigger and queer (and I may have added faggot) had undergone some of the same transmutation.
Very suddenly, we went to a break, and the studio filled with unsmiling people who detached my microphone and announced that the segment was extremely over. My protests were futile. Should I have remembered to cover myself and say "the N-word" instead? It would have seemed somehow inauthentic. Did MSNBC think that anything I had uttered was inflected with the smallest tinge of bigotry? Presumably not. So, what we now have is a taboo, which is something quite different from an agreement on etiquette.”

I apologise for the long citation here, but Hitchens is a man whose prose I find it hard to prune.

But even this shunning of the objective use of the word nigger in the United States pales in comparison to stories such as the Washington D.C. official who was forced to resign after using the world 'niggardly' in a conversation with some co-workers about funding. Niggardly meaning 'not generous' or 'stingy', and having no racial overtones; just sounding a bit reminiscent of another word was enough to cause offense.

There are even those who believe that simply changing the word you are saying in these instances, yet keeping the overall tone and gist of your message, is somehow preferable; particularly if you substitute gibberish, or foreign words, for your expletive. Penn and Teller featured an American lady who believed in just such things on their awesomely named show Bullshit!. She advocated using the word ‘santa vaca’ rather than any English swears, even though this is in itself a swear in a foreign language (it means 'Holy Cow' in spanish, though not that much of a swear). She even created a hand gesture called the ‘whole turkey’ to use in the place of the much more efficient middle finger, when one wants to show others just how they feel (as in her view the 'whole turkey' is better than just 'flipping the bird', as Americans like to call it). This to me is a prime example of someone missing the point. It isn’t the gestures or the words themselves that are offensive, but rather the way they are employed, or the meaning they seek to evoke.

Penn put it very succinctly at the end of the episode whilst frightening a dog all too reminiscent of my own:

Now this post has gone on far longer than i had planned, but I can hardly finish a post on offensive language without including some words from the eminent lover of language, Stephen Fry.

“The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is just a fucking lunatic.” – Stephen Fry

So that's it for yet another language rant, of which there appear to be a lot popping up on here. I hope it was enjoyable, but I cant be fucked writing any more.

MM

Holy Flying Circus.

To those of you who are fans of Monty Python, or perhaps of British broadcasting history, or the Life of Brian, or even just interesting comedies; I would highly recommend Holy Flying Circus, a BBC offering that tells the story of the Pythons tribulations as they sought to release the Life of Brian in the United Kingdom, and a resulting televised debate that two members of the comedy troupe, Michael Palin and John Cleese, took part in.

The show is presented in an interesting fashion, as it tries to represent not only the facts and how these events took place, but also goes tongue in cheek as it pays homage to both the Pythons, and their style of comedy.

For instance, throughout the show you will note that any of the main characters who are women, are played in true Python form by a man (specifically by Rufus Jones who fittingly also plays the role of Terry Jones).

Not to mention the smattering of current reference thrown into the decidedly late seventies setting. There is a great scene where John Cleese is walking down the street and gets into a verbal altercation with a newspaper salesman who accuses them (Monty Python) of being too afraid to joke about Muslims. To which John rants and raves about how it isn’t really appropriate given that it is the seventies, and Islam’s place in England isn’t really worth lampooning for such a small segment of the population.

There are also some jibes at the pythons future roles, with Eric Idle showing interest in making money with a musical as one of the other characters suggest all you have to do is rehash some old jokes and put it to music. Spamalot anyone?

Adding to the surreal nature of the show are a couple of public service style announcements by the John Cleese character, a few animated segues in the style of Terry Gilliam, as well as the odd splintering off from reality to indulge in a supremely entertaining buraku-style dual between the Cleese character, and the nicest man in the world; Michael Palin.

And even though there are these frequent breaks from reality, the show nonetheless presents itself in a coherent nature, and does a great job of telling the story it set out to tell.

Then, as always, there are the actors.

I was surprised at how well they managed to get actors that not only fit the roles in terms of acting style and ability, but were also able to look and sound so much like their source material. The Michael Palin guy looks and sounds like Michael Palin. The John Cleese character sounds amazingly like, and is quite reminiscent of, John Cleese (or is it Basil Fawlty). The Eric Idle character bears more than a passing resemblance to Eric Idle. And so on, and so on.

Oh, and I can’t forget to mention that the always amazing Stephen Fry makes a befitting appearance as God, who chastises his son Jesus for turning their beer into water, and converses in the epilogue with one of the Pythons; brilliant!

It really was thoroughly entertaining watch, the more I think about it, the more I remember enjoying it.

James Nesbitt Is The Man To Watch

James Nesbitt is just plain gold. Put him in a show, and that show is instantly great.

A couple of years back I discovered his dramatic chops in Jekyll, the modern extension of Robert Louis Stevenson's Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. A six part BBC thing which brings the tale forward into the modern era, complete with some sci-fi style genetic mumbo jumbo thrown in to boot.
Nesbitt did a great job playing the titular characters, changing deftly between the everyday Doctor Tom Jackman and his maniacal counterpart Hyde.

Just check out that wicked grin!

Then a year back I watched the three part three part drama serial, again by the BBC, Occupation. Set during the beginning of the 2003 Iraq war, it deals with the lives of three soldiers during the wear, and then how they adapt to life afterwards. Again Nesbitt shines as he deals with his family obligations, amid his tours of Iraq, and the realisation that he has fallen in love with an Iraqi doctor.
If you haven't seen this show, it is well worth your time, and has one of the best, most emotional, and most devastating endings of any show i have seen. And i loved it!

And yes, that is Tommy from Snatch on the left.

So when I saw an add for another upcoming British drama with the Irish actor (ITV this time, not BBC), I was pretty excited. The show was Monroe.
Monroe deals with the neurosurgeon Gabriel Monroe, played by Nesbitt, his work life, and how he deals with the goings on in his family. Think of this as a British version of House, except with less focus on the solving of a medical mystery (these are generally straight forward procedures), and more focus on personal relationships. Now that I think about it, it isn't that much like House at all.... There are similarities; he has a sidekick a la Wilson, and a rocky relationship with a female doctor at work. There are the doting younger doctors, one of whom is a smarmy self assured jerk, and so forth. This might simply be a case of the way such professions work (with the old and wise mentoring the young and cocksure), but either way it works well and there is a dynamic in the show that allows more relationships, and an opportunity for students to explain things in simpler terms for us laypeople in the audience.

Plus he has an Irish accent, and that's just tops.

But one thing that Monroe has which House lacks is a heart. Monroe is the empathetic voice in the hospital, whereas his female counterpart, the heart surgeon Brennan, plays his cold and methodical foil.
The show switches nicely between his private and personal lives. However as is the case with most shows like this, there is still the amazing coincidence that each week a patient comes in with just the right problem to parallel something happening in his life. Dealing with a patients parents who have split up as he deals with his wife leaving him, and so forth.
Nevertheless, i highly recommend getting on to this show while the gettings good; go on to iView, and check it out for free(ish).


So that is my little rant on James Nesbitt. 


Oh, and while I am geeking out about Mr. Nesbitt, check out this production photo of him in his Hobbit gear as Bofur the dwarf. Awesome: