The Imitation Game (2014)

 "You just defeated Nazism with a crossword puzzle..."

I've been waiting to see this film for years. It's very good: Alan Turing deserved a biopic, amd he needed to wait until an age where homophobia, if not cured, is at least disapproved of by the law. If only we could say the same of transphobia.

Benedict Cumberbatch is extraordinary. Keira Knighlley is good. Allen Leach is subtly superb as John Cairncross, a Soviet spy and one of the Cambridge Five. Bloody traitor, and blackmailer to boot. His development is very clever indeed. Mark Strong is perfect casting as Stewart Menzies, or C.

This ois a fairly standard film, not brilliant by any means, The script and plot are pedestrian. Yet the themes are huge: the appaling treatment, of gay men in the '40s and '50s; the fat that those who persecuted this war hero were traitors; and, most clearly, autism.

Turing's life was tragic. Deeply so. Cumberbatch shows this so well. Yet his genius shines through here, with allusions to the Turing Test. And, as important as the injustice dine to this British hero because of his sexuality may be, he is portrayed here quite explicitly as autistic. And that may well describe the man. But we should not assume either way. Whether autistic or living with metaphor-loving allistic behaviour like myself, we all owe a huge debt to the real Alan Turing. For our computing, and for our freedom. 

The film is... ok. But Cumberbatch is superb.

The Sandman: Sleep of the Just

 "We begin in the waking world, which humanity insists on calling the real world..."

For once I manage to blog the first episode of a hot new streaming serial on the day of its release- yay me. Even better, it's Sandman. I haven't read all of the sixty-odd issues of Neil Gaiman's late '80s masterpiece, thick with meaning, literary allusion and proper '80s goth aesthetic, but I've read enough of the early issues to cover all of this first season which, I understand, covers the first two arcs. And it does so magnificently. Gaiman has a previous triumph under his belt in terms of transferring a print masterpiece to screen magnigicently with Good Omens. He's only bloody gone and done it again.

This first episode looks sumptuous, and the casting is triumphant. Tom Sturridge seems born to play Dream, helmet perfectly realised. Charles Dance as the Magus is a captivating villain, for Dream literally so. I'm not sure the chronology quite works (Dream is captured in 1916 when young Alex is a child, but Alex and his partner Paul are both still alive when Dream is (quite magnificently) freed after "more than a century" of captivity?), but the epic tale of Dream's capture and eventual escape is gripping telly, not only because of the concepts but the very real characters and their nicely drawn relationships- Rodericks cruelty to second son Alex after his first son dies at Gallipolli, or Ethel's fury towards the man who dares presume to decide whether or not she will keep her baby.

The Corinthian is a deeply disturbing villain, an escaped nightmare who seems to take the eyes of his victims, but many of these characters we shall see grow and grow in this questlike, epic and- yes- dreamlike piece of brilliance.

The Crown: Season 4, Episode 1- Gold Stick

 "Two women running the show...?"

This is a real first- I'm blogging the first episode of a season on Netflix on the very day of it's release. That won't last, of course; I'll soon be back behind the curve, as usual.

This is a sumptouosly shot, perfectly well-executed season opener that introduces a new status quo (and new primer minister, a new love interest for Charles, a shocking (unless you're spoled by general knowledge) murder, and that does all the nuts and bolts of storytelling very well. It's very clever narratively, as The Crown always is.This is a splendid piece of telly. It's just that, the odd scene aside, this episode hasn't quite caught fire. It's very good, not great. But these are early days.

The opening scenes are our first bit of cleverness, with visuals of royal pomp and ceremony being overlaid with the voice of an IRA spokesman threatening destrucion to the British Crown- and, of course, foreshadowing Dickie's murder, alongside two young lads. For maximum drama, he does so shortly after an unusually harsh conversation with Charles, who is still having an adulterous affair with Camilla, and for good meaaure leaves Charles a parting letter expressing his disappointment with the now thirtysomething prince, whose amorous pleasure-seeking evokes Edward VIII- a comparison which we keep seeing in The Crown; are we perhaps to see a long arc where he begins to change his ways? And Dickie's death leads to an extraordinary scene, the finest in the episode as well as a superb performance from Tobias Menzies, where Philip expresses resentment at Dickie- his own father figure- transferring his fatherly affections to Charles, who already has a father. This is good stuff.

There's also Thatcher, and Gillian Anderson impresses as the tone deaf and arrogant premier, whose personal awkwardness with the Queen is awkwardly done. I love the concept of Elizabeth's Cabinet guessing game, but Thatcher famously had no real sense of fun. And her comment that "I have found women in general tend not to be suited to high office" in as extraordinary as Philip's snobbery not only about her grocer's daughter origins but about her being a chemistry graduate.

And, of course, there's Diana. Interesting, both we and Charles are first introduced to her as a playfully innocent faerie-type figure. That's an interesting choice. But she seems very innocent, and she's still a teenager, which is a bit icky.

I suppose the episode has a lot to do, and there are certainly excellent parts within it. But there's a certain complacent cosiness of style here too. Let's hope that isn't here to stay.

The Crown: Season 3, Episode 9- Imbroglio

 "I wasn't supposed to fall in love with you..."

If one is, in time, to become a king, one must first become a pawn. This quietly devastating episode shows one again that to be royal is to spend life in prison- a luxurious prison, yes, but one with little hope of parole.

We begin with David's funeral, which clearly points to where things are going, as Wallis warns Charles never to abanon true love... and that his family cannot be trusted. We have already been made to see parallels between Charles and David, and this is where they play out.

Charles is in love with Camilla. And yet it was all supposed to be a bit of fun, arranged by the Queen Mum and Lord Mountbatten, so he can have a bit of fun and "sow hs oats" while undergoing naval training. Both of them are pawns and even Camilla, who is doing this because she was told to, and supposedly still "obsessed" with Andrew Parker-Bowles, is confused about her feelings. The Queen is not exactly pleased at the actions of her mother and Dickie, but there's only one thing for it- Camilla and Parker-Bowles are to marry. By royal fiat. Just like that. This is life in the British upper echelons, in the 1970s.

What's particularly clever here is how the events of the time are allowed to function as contrast and metaphor. Much of the B plot consists of the mutually stubborn battle over the coal strikes between Ted Heath and Arthur Scargill, both of whom are from very working class backgrounds which have shaped them very differently- we even get a flashback to Heath's childhood. But it's hard not to see the power cuts, the candles and the three day week, explicitlt referred to as heralding a potential collapse of law and order, as a parallel to and metaphor of how things are panning out for Charles. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with a national crisis being used to illustrate the finer feelings of our betters, but it's all very impressively done. And it's niceto see how seamlessly we've moved to focus on the new generation.

Plus we get to see Princess Anne, ny new favourte character, singing along to David Bowie's "Starman". This is awesome.

The Crown: Season 3, Episode 8- Dangling Man

 "One doesn't often get a chance to visit a former king. Former kings are usually dead."

An interesting episode here, one that simultaneously looks back to the legacy of the dying Edward VIII and forward to the expected reign of Charles, not less than fifty years in the future as this episode, alongside the new decade, begins. David will not see much of the 1970s.

It is an easy, yet valid criticism here that David's seemingly treasonous behaviour during the War is downplayed. But one cannot criticise the emotional beats, not the performance of Derek Jacobi which is outstanding as ever, as we chronicle the last couple of years of the self-indulgent old fool.

But David is not so much the focus of the episode as awarning of a possible future for Charles, who shows worrying signs of admiration for his great-uncle as well as similar tendencies to meddle, be opinionated, and fail to see the constitutional necessity of suppressing one's opinions- although we should again note that, should Charles not like the requirements of the job, he can always just not do it.

It's fascinating to see the, er, love square between Charles, Anne, and the recently split Camilla Shand and Andrew Parker-Bowles. Anne is delightful here in her chasing and, well, shagging of Parker-Bowles, wittily wrongfooting him into bed and adopting a traditionally male role in bedding a man she rather fancies. Charles, meanwhile, comes across as rather immature at this date with Camilla, at first appearing rather deep with his discussion of Saul Bellow and his line about the state of Prince of Wales being a "predicament" appearing to quote from Alan Bennett's not-yet-written The Madness of King George... only fr this all to be set up to a silly practical joke, That's clever writing, telling us a lot about the character. Josh O'Connor is excellent, and we are again left nervous about our future king.

Elsewhere, Ted Heath is now PM and he's determined to take us into the Eurpean Economic Community: happier times, times of hope, times when Britain looked outward with ambition rather than inwards with a smirk. Yet then, as now, the heir to the throne is a worry. This s good, thoughtful telly.

The Crown: Season 3, Episode 6- Tywysog Cymru

 "Fancy being the heir?"

"Not if it means going to Wales..."

This is yet another outstanding episode, our first to focus on Charles as a young man rather than a child- Josh O'Connor plays him with aplomb, safely negotiating a path between acting and impersonation. But the script (with James Graham co-writing) is magnificent.

It's horrifying to see Charles at 20, clearly having been denied much of a childhood, being denied a youth too. It's awful so see him trying to reach out to a room of fellow students in Aberystwyth but have the door slammed on him by youths with hair and clothes appropriate for students in 1969, while he stands there in his ever-present suit. He can never belong, and even his family (though his rapport with Anne is lovely) are very cold fishes, as we shall see.

For much of the episode it seems as though the theme is going to be Welsh nationalism, Certainly we, through Charles, learn much of the Welsh viewpoint and it's interesting to see Charles relationship evolve with his republican, nationalist tutor Edward Millward (not a very Welsh name!) from insulting ignorance to true mutual respect as he slips some sympathetic sentiments into his speech which, well, may not have actually been said in his real investiture as Prince of Wales, but are a nice bit of artistic licence.

But all this is undermined at the end, after the warm parting with Millward and his "You did well". The Queen finally receives a translation of the speech and immediately sees through it... his sentiment about Wales being ignored, not listened to, are all about himself. He's exploited the Welsh no less than many of his forebears. And we end with an argument about how a monarch can never be seen to express an opinion lest the whole edifice collapse. At the same time, this is an impossible thing to expect of someone. I 'm sure this theme will recur.

The solution, of course, if one is not a republican (and I, remember, am St Augustine's republican- "Lord, grant me a republic, but not yet"), is that it's only right to allow senior royals to decline the succession and retire into private life if they find this an overly onerous requirement. The gilded cage of royalty must carry the hope of parole. The lack of this sensible reform will, I suspect, lead to much further angst in future episodes...

The Crown: Season 3, Episode 5- Coup

 "I am protecting the Prime Minister. I am protecting the Constitution. I am protecting Democracy."

We have another fine episode here, again mixing excellent character stuff with thought-provoking constitutional issues. I suspect, due to the largely political subject matter, this episode won't be quite as popular as others this season, but to devote space to the supposed coup against Wilson is probably the right thing to do.

It is, of course, not necessarily a hard fact that any such coup was planned, despite decades of rumours. Sources (Hugh Cudlipp, the highly questionable Peter Wright) give some indication that Lord Mountbatten was approached, but it's not widely believed that things went any further. Dramatic licence aside, however, the events are well dramatised here, with Mountbatten's presentation to Cecil King and co on the practicalities of a coup are like something out of a Frederick Forsyth novel. Charles Dance, recast as a necessarily harder-edged Mountbatten, is outstanding as the charismatic old military leader looking for purpose in retirement. His speech to the Burma veterans, including the full recital of Kipling's "Road to Mandalay", is dripping with charisma. Mountbatten comes across as complex here, and not unsympathetic, quite an achievement,

Cecil King is odd, though. Proprietor of the Daily Mirror, friend of Hugh Cudlipp, yet fomenting a right-wing coup against a fairly standard Labour government?

Regardless, the Queen gives all this short shrift here. If she did, in reality, do this, she deserves much praise for doing the most important job of a modern constitutional monarch in defending democracy, for being Juan Carlos in 1981 rather than Vittorio Emmanuele in 1922. Interestingly, this episode contrasts this by showing the Queen spending weeks on end travelling to pursue her horse racing hobby, at the expense of her job. One can hardly begrudge her a holiday, however; Trump and his golf this ain't. And there's a superbly written moment between her and old friend Porchey as she discusses how she would have much preferred the life of a racing horse owner to that of a monarch. These few weeks are a poignant glimpse into the life she could have had, if her Uncle David hadn't forced her, and her reluctant monarch, into the life she now leads.

We end on a note of hope, as the duly chastened Mountbatten reconnects with his sister Princess Alice, reminding us of the complexities of the family trees of the royal houses of Europe. "We Battenbergs have no country" says the old and relaxed Alice to her patriotic brother, both scions of a universal monarchical class floating over the various nations of Europe which at some point borrowed some German princeling to be their king.

We alo have a nice scene with Elizabeth and Philip at the end. The personal stuff, the characterisation, is always perfectly written and performed, and seems to mesh seamlessly with the more phiosophical stuff. This is bloody good telly.

Alien³ (1992)

“You’re gonna die too…”

Well, I suppose they can’t all be good. The first two films in this franchise are both superb, but this one… isn’t. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. For one thing, the other two films were both shot by A-list directors, but I’d never heard of David Fincher until I Googled him just now. I certainly should have done, I grant you, but he's no Ridley Scott or James Cameron.

Having said that, though, the film is serviceable. It isn’t awful. It’s just that it’s totally lacking in suspense and moments which make you jump, and has absolutely no sense of the unity of style and content which made the first two films so slickly gorgeous in their very different ways.

There isn’t the same sense of threat, either. After a film with hordes of the buggers we’re now back to just one Alien, which just doesn’t seem as nasty as the one in the first film. Without the constant emphasis on its toughness and its acid blood it’s suddenly a lot closer to being just another monster, albeit a rather cool looking one. And killing Newt and Hicks before the start of the film, while showing us how nasty the alien is, gives us a rather alienating sense of discontinuity. And why do we have to be told that it’s “Ellen” Ripley? First names have no place in this franchise! It might be nitpicky, but I don’t like the fact that Bishop is referred to as a “droid”, either.

It’s a bit jolting, and inconsistent with what’s gone before, that such a large proportion of the supporting cast should be British (complete with phrases like “rubbish tip” and even the pronunciation of “lieutenant”, which really surprised me!). It’s always a joy to see the great Brian Glover, possibly the world’s greatest Yorkshireman, but even Charles Dance can’t hide the fact that Clemens is such a deeply dull character who really drags the film down by taking up so much screen time. Even the revelation of his supposedly great secret is such a massive anti-climax that you’re quite relieved to see him being immediately impaled and killed by the alien.

Charles S. Dutton is magnificent, mind- such charisma. It’s just that he looks out-of-place among such a bunch of wide boys. And the whole concept- a bunch of scum-of-the-Earth criminals who have found fundamentalist religion- is a bit random, to say the least. Nothing much is done with this concept, so why have it at all?

Even the foreshadowing of Ripley’s death is not handled well. There’s a certain neatness in Bishop asking to be killed early on, just as Ripley will later, and the scene of the Alien next to Ripley is nicely iconic. But the inevitability of Ripley’s dying soon, one way or another, actually takes away tension rather than adding to it, and there’s precious little of it to start with.

Lack of tension aside, the general look of the film is certainly competent. But there’s no flair or sense of ownership of the film’s aesthetic. Everything just looks like generic, contemporary science fiction. The aesthetics of the first two films were so much more than that.

Just one Alien film to go, then. I hope it’s better than this one.