If you were wondering what to do on Sunday nights now that Emma has finished its run, the good news for UK viewers is that BBC1 is immediately following it with another historical drama. (Not sure when you will get this series in other countries.) Starting this weekend is Garrow’s Law, a four-part series based on the life and work of William Garrow, a pioneering 18th-century barrister at the Old Bailey who, from what I’ve read about this series, introduced the concept of cross-examination and was the first lawyer really to fight cases for the defence.

Andrew Buchan and Alun Armstrong

Andrew Buchan, who played Jem Hearne in Cranford and St John Rivers in the most recent Jane Eyre, takes the title role as William Garrow, with Alun Armstrong and Rupert Graves also starring. The writer is Tony Marchant, who has mainly scripted contemporary dramas but has done adaptations of Dickens’ Great Expectations and Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment in the past.

I thought I’d pass on links to a few sites for people interested in knowing more. The BBC has a site with a lot of information, and there is also an independent fansite, similar to those set up for some other recent costume dramas. The legal and historical consultant on the show, Mark Pallis, has set up a blog at WordPress giving background on the cases featured in the show, and Clive Anderson wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph about Garrow’s place in legal history.

I’m going to watch the show, but am hoping I find it easier to follow than Channel 4’s 18th-century legal drama City of Vice, where I found myself getting hopelessly lost every week…

Hi,

If you enjoy Episode One of Garrow’s Law on Sunday and want to find out more, you can come and catch me giving a lecture on William Garrow at the Legal Biography Project of the London School of Economics on 3rd November from 1800h – 1930h . For more details:  http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/projects/legalbiog/lbp.htm

Hope to see you there!  Mark

In this category of blogs, I am going to set out what happened from the moment a crime was committed right up until the person was sentenced.  But I won’t tell the story myself, I’ll leave it to the people who actually experienced it ….

A common way for crimes to be detected is that a Night Watchman would hear or see something.  Have a look at the case of Henry Morgan 15 September 1784, we hear from a Watchman examined by Garrow in the Old Bailey.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t17840915-1&div=t17840915-1&terms=stop|theif|garrow#highlight

Tomorrow, we’ll see how Victims could also bring cases ….

Mark Pallis

Garrow’s law is set in London at the end of the 1700s.  It was quite a time to be alive:  the American Revolutionary War had just ended, leaving thousands of disgruntled British soldiers looking for work; the had been a revolution in France, and back in England there winds of change were starting to blow.  People were starting to talk about rights, and about democracy. The movement to end slavery was getting going, women, like Mary Wollstonecraft, were asserting themselves and talking about the rights of women.  And reform was in the air, people were getting frustrated with the corruption in parliament and were hungry for change.

And all this was being played out in a new public arena.  There had been an explosion of newspapers and journals:

• In 1770, London has 5 daily papers;
• In the 1780s, it had 9 dailies, 8 tri-weeklys and 9 weeklys;
• In the 1790s, it had 14 dailies, 7 tri-weeklys and 2 weeklys.

But whilst there was change on one side, on the other the ruling classes were battening down the hatches and steeling themselves.  They were quite with things as they were thank you very much!

Mark Pallis

V for Vendetta is a film made by Americans about London. I mean, I can see how it’s all right, given it’s a big budget nonsense blockbuster, but there’s something so incredibly lame in the last scene of the film–I’m going to ruin it for you–the dead people, those murdered by the evil British state, are all united with the living people as the events of the film lead them into some glorious new future. Or some nonsense.

It’s obvious and lame. The scene could have been shot so it wouldn’t have been noticeable, possibly even have been subtle… instead, it’s like the end of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang but without the joke.

There’s a lot of okay stuff about the film. Natalie Portman isn’t terrible. She isn’t any good, but she isn’t terrible. Rose Byrne would have done a great job (a rewrite would have helped too). Stephen Rea and Stephen Fry are both fantastic. John Hurt is fine. Rupert Graves is good. I’m not sure why Hugo Weaving got the part of the titular character, since it’d have been a stuntman for most of it and there’s a mask and no performance, but whatever. His voice acting is clearly dubbed in, regardless of whether he had to wear a stifling outfit.

The script’s got some awful moments–as a police procedural starring Rea in the lead, it would have been great. McTeigue’s occasionally okay. The visual style is all flash, no substance.

It’s really quite bad.

CREDITS

Directed by James McTeigue; written by Andy and Larry Wachowski, based on the comic book by Alan Moore and David Lloyd; director of photography, Adrian Biddle; edited by Martin Walsh; music by Dario Marianelli; production designer, Owen Paterson; produced by Joel Silver, Grant Hill and Andy and Larry Wachowski; released by Warner Bros.

Starring Natalie Portman (Evey), Hugo Weaving (V), Stephen Rea (Inspector Finch), Stephen Fry (Deitrich), John Hurt (Adam Sutler), Tim Pigott-Smith (Creedy), Rupert Graves (Dominic), Roger Allam (Lewis Prothero), Ben Miles (Dascomb), Sinéad Cusack (Delia Surridge), Natasha Wightman (Valerie), John Standing (Lilliman) and Eddie Marsan (Etheridge).

V de Vingança

Alan Moore é um gênio … uma das melhores séries de quadrinhos (Graphic novel) de todos os tempos chegou aos cinemas através das mãos dos irmãos roteiristas Andy e Larry Wachowski (Matrix) e sob a direção de James McTeigue que atualizaram e adaptaram a trama com referências para os dias atuais, mas sempre preservando os temas e a integridade do original. Lançada no final da década de 80, mais precisamente em 1989, “V de Vingança” (DC/Vertigo) é ambientada em uma Inglaterra vigiada e controlada por um governo facista que caça os direitos civis, censura e pune qualquer tentativa de oposição reprimindo a liberdade de expressão em nome de uma falsa segurança (algo como vemos hoje nos EUA depois do 11 de setembro).

O governo, na pessoa do Chanceler Adam Sutler (John Hurt), interroga, tortura e mata todos os que não são adequados à nova ordem, mantendo-os em presídios que são transformados em verdadeiros campos de concentração.

Porém, sempre há sobreviventes, e no auge deste regime uma voz por trás de uma máscara de Guy Fawkes¹, vitima de um destes “campos de concentração” uma alma conhecida apenas por “V” (Hugo Weaving) torna-se o estandarte de uma revolta civil em nome de uma anarquia pura, sem regras e leis arbitrarias, em que a liberdade e as individualidades sejam respeitadas e valorizadas, onde existe a necessidade de se destruir o atual para se construir o novo. Mais que um mártir, um herói ou um revolucionário, “V” aos poucos se mostra ser mais do que uma pessoa sofrida e movida por uma vingança cega, ele na verdade representa um conceito, uma idéia, que prima pela ausência de domínio e pelo direito individual.

Além de John Hurt e Hugo Weaving, fazem parte do elenco Natalie Portman como Evey Hammond e Stephen Rea como o inspetor-chefe Finch, além de Stephen Fry, Tim Pigott-Smith, Rupert Graves, Roger Allam, Ben Miles, Sinéad Cusack e Billie Cook.

“Lembrai … Lembrai cinco de novembro … A pólvora, a traição, o ardil … Por isso, não vejo por que esquecer … Uma traição de pólvora tão vil.” (Guy Fawkes)

¹ Em 05 de novembro de 1605, Guy Fawkes um dos 13 membros católicos do “Plano da Dinamite” contra a tirania do rei James I, foi encontrado em um túnel sob o Parlamento Britânico com 36 bananas de dinamite. Fawkes e os outros membros do Plano foram enforcados, arrastados e esquartejados, sem jamais terem concretizado o seu plano (história que é rapidamente mostrada no inicio do filme).

Cena de V de Vingança

Este review foi originalmente publicado por mim em 11 de abril de 2006 no meu Multiply como pode ser conferido no link: http://rodrigopivni.multiply.com/reviews/item/1 . A versão atual foi revisada e pode apresentar pequenas atualizaçÕes em relação ao original.

Trailer do filme “V de Vingança”

El humor inglés cada vez me gusta más.  Es una mezcla maravillosa de lo sutil con lo delirante, casi sin entrar en lo grotesco… casi lo contrario al cine actual de Hollywood.

Esta película, cuyo título original es Death at a funeral, me la recomendó mi hermana muy encarecidamente.  Y no se equivocó para nada.  Incluso Naxto, tan exigente en estas cuestiones, la evaluó muy positivamente con un “Me encantó”.

Tiene un reparto de caras bien conocidas, como son las de Matthew Macfadyen, Ewen Bremner, Daisy Donovan, Peter Vaughan, Rupert Graves, y Alan Tudyk, en un papel delirante que se roba la película.

Más allá de todo lo que puede salir mal en un velorio, esta historia, corta, se ve condimentada y potenciada con lo que parecen ser pastillas tranquilizantes, más un secreto por demás incómodo que deriva en un chantaje.

Muy buena.  El Bastardo la tiene.

En otro orden de cosas, en días recientes también vi la película You don’t mess with the Zohan, con Adam Sandler.  Pretende ser una comedia sobre un súper agente judío que deja Israel para irse a USA donde quiere dedicarse a su verdadera vocación: ser peluquero estilista.  Un mamarracho y un canto al mal gusto.  En su momento más brillante, apenas te roba una sonrisa…

Humor burdo y groseramente barato.

It is the rallying cry of atheists and a familiar challenge to the faithful. If there is a God, why does he allow such terrible suffering? The BBC’s single episode drama, God on Trial, written by Frank Cottrell Boyce, grapples compellingly for 85 minutes with this question. Many of us will spend a lifetime wondering, and – not to spoil it – you won’t necessarily get an answer here. But that doesn’t mean the question isn’t worth asking.

Set in an Auschwitz blockhouse, a group of Jews – half of whom know they will die the next day – decide God should be interrogated. By allowing the Holocaust, has God broken the Covenant He made to protect and care for His people?

Approximating a Rabbinical court in the space between bunks, the prisoners attempt order: witnesses are called, judges ruminate and the accused, obviously, remains infuriatingly silent.

This is incredibly cerebral stuff for TV, dialogue-heavy and almost entirely set in one claustrophobic space. I wondered whether Boyce could pull it off. He does, mainly because he is such a good writer who has so obviously interrogated his own faith and that of the characters in the film in order to write the script. He’s also great with one-liners: “Do you know what a God who’s not personal is? It’s weather”, one character points out, in a very rare moment of humour.

An outstanding cast is the other reason the drama works so well. Rupert Graves, Anthony Sher, Stellan Skarsgard, Stephen Dillane and the ubiquitous Dominic Cooper demand our attention and our immediate, overwhelming empathy.

There are many witnesses, each unravelling an onion skin to get to the question – who is God? What is man? There is despair, and hope. A Professor Schmidt, trying hard to comfort his fellow inmates, suggests, “What if those who survived this will be a holy remnant and will live in an age of wisdom, understanding and knowledge?” It’s a poignant line to hear in our own age, the age of Darfur and Iraq and mass rape in the Congo.

At some point the question of free will is raised. Judaism and Christianity maintain that God allows humans the freedom to make choices in their lives; by definition that means some humans will make destructive decisions that will cause suffering. This argument is simply inadequate for many of the inmates; the injustice of being on the receiving end of someone else’s free will is too real: “That officer had a choice, not me”, says one. “Where was my free will?”

The drama is not perfect. The prisoners’ one guard is occasionally weakly scripted. Cottrell Boyce seems – whether knowingly or not – to have borrowed from other sources – Sophie’s Choice and the graphic novel Maus, in particular. But this can be forgiven in a script that is so brave, so adventurous, in confronting the true mysteries of our existence.

And although the prisoners end by finding God guilty, they also recognize that in some way the debate itself, the trial, is a kind of prayer. As Bottrell points out in a fascinating article for The Guardian, there is

a long Jewish tradition of wrangling with God, going right back to Abraham bargaining with him over the destruction of Sodom, and forward to Elie Weisel’s famous declaration that God was hanged on the gallows in Auschwitz. Here were people talking to God on a frequency that wasn’t on my dial. The trial of God would not have been some blasphemous aberration, but something in the tradition of the psalms, the Book of Job and even Christ’s terrible accusing cry from the cross: “Why have you forsaken me?”

God on Trial is available on the BBC i-player here until Wednesday 10th of September.

Only knowing the Frank Cottrell Boyce of the funny children’s books, the play on BBC2 on Wednesday night was a little different, but equally good. No, actually, equally excellent.

God On Trial was about God being put on trial, in Auschwitz, by a group of prisoners. I have no idea of how true it might be, but it felt quite plausible. We have had a little debate within the witch family, as to whether this really was a drama written for television, or if it was intended for the stage. It would do well on the stage, I’d say. Especially with a bunch of good actors like these.

Even if Frank’s name hadn’t been enough to tempt me (but it was), the mention of Jack Shepherd would have done it. If I’d also known Stellan Skarsgård was going to turn up, I’d have been keener still. I was beginning to wonder why they had got Anthony Sher in, if all he was going to do was sit there in silence, but the last 15 minutes proved why they’d asked him. And Dominic Cooper is in everything these days, so there’s no avoiding him, even if I try.

It’s a very sad subject, but an interesting one. Frank either knows an awful lot, or is good at research, because I feel I’ve learnt quite a bit from this play.

The story continues (See: The Forsyte Saga (Series One), May 26). Irene is now married to Jolyon Forsyte and they have a son, Jon. Soames Forsyte married a French woman with whom he has a daughter, Fleur.

After a brief meeting as children, Fleur and Jon meet again, by chance, as young adults. It is love at first sight (well, second, really). The gorgeous Fleur turns out to be very much like her father, head-strong and possessive. She decides they should keep their relationship a secret and that they should elope to Scotland.

When Irene and Soames find out about the love between their children, they do everything to prevent a relationship. Jolyon dies and everything changes. Jon sides with his mother, whereas Fleur wants to stick to the original plan.

It is really great to watch the second series, because you already know the characters and the story of their lives so well. Four heartbreaking episodes. If it is possible, the second series is even more beautiful than the first.

The story of the Forsyte family is entwined in six episodes. Marriages, break-ups (even divorce!), love, hate, despair, all the good stuff! As my dear friend says, hours and hours of Victorian fun. Based on the book by John Galsworthy.

Soames Forsyte (Damian Lewis) falls in love with Irene Herron (Gina McKee). Here the drama starts. Irene is not in love with Soames, but marries him against her better judgement (for he is rich and she is poor).

After a few years she falls in love with someone else (a rather handsome fellow by the name of Phillip Bosinney). Obviously she has to steal him away from an engagement with her best friend (and cousin via marriage) June. Unfortunately their life together is ended by a rather inconvenient accident before it can even begin. This leaves Irene homeless (for she has already left her husband) and Soames son-less. As luck will have it there is the other side of the family, where several generations of Jolyon Forsyte’s (one of them played by the great Rupert Graves), can look after the beautiful Irene, although Soames’ obsession with her does not make her life easy.

This series is a must for those who like to lose themselves in a costume drama with intrigues, betrayal and love affairs (such as me!).

]]> http://range.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/midnight-man-s01e01-itv/ Sun, 25 May 2008 13:09:40 +0000 range http://range.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/midnight-man-s01e01-itv/

Midnight Man is a British TV serial on ITV. It stars James Nesbitt as Max Raban, a journalist gone wrong with a strange phobia and a gift for seeing conspiracies everywhere.

After having named a source and being disgraced as a journalist, Max Raban is left going through people’s rubbish in order to find new stories. Since that time, he also developed a strange phobia of daylight. It’s also broken up his marriage for the time being.

Raban investigates and finds government death squads and other strange incidents in the UK. I thought that this was an interesting episode. The main character Raban has totally gone bonkers. In his mind, he needs to salvage some part of himself before he can fully go back to his family. Things go terribly wrong when he investigates the wrong types of people.

Warning: spoilers ahead.

* * * * *

A cab driver gets his fare. A man is watching them leave. He goes and steals the trash.

A boy comes home from a football match and is kidnapped. The masked men take him into a van. Before he knows what hits him, the young man is shot in the head. The masked men take of their masks and are pissed. How will they get the bullet out of his head?

Max goes through the trash. He’s got a lead on something. He calls his editor. He found out that an aging rocker named Robson is involved in kiddie porn. Max wants his old job back. The editor says that he can’t. Max cost way too much to the paper. People have long memories. They won’t take him back. Max has got some problem with sunlight. He can’t be in sunlight.

The Defense Secretary is having an affair with a Slovenian dancer. He needs Max to investigate. He wakes up at 5:55PM. He’s got the Secretary’s place staked out. He sees the dancer throwing out the trash in a Mercedes. It gets dumped down the road. Max is after it. He finds a fax with the title “Headless Man – Pugnus Dei”. He also finds a pregnancy test.

Max goes to the club where the girl dances. He asks for a dancer. He knows her. He brings her a sandwich. She doesn’t know anything. She’s from Albania. He wants her to tell the Slovenian girl that it will be worth her while. He leaves abruptly when he sees the time.

He goes to see his daughter at his ex-wife’s house. He just wants to see her sleeping. The wife says that his daughter wants her dad back. She needs her husband back. Max has (-)phobia. He says that he’ll be back on the weekend to see his daughter. She agrees as long as he goes to see his therapist.

Before leaving, Max saw an article about a headless torso that was found.

So Max’s condition is psychosomatic. The next night, he examines the fax again. It’s written in some form of code. He goes to see the nick where the body was taken to. The sergeant says that it looks like some kind of honour killing. Max eyes the trash being taken out. He ransacks it again. While he’s doing that, he sees two grieving parents leaving. He follows them. He manages to get into the door.

The father is told that his son Majid was decapitated. Majid was a very ambitious boy. He was into football and girls. They are from Iran. Majid was born here. The sister doesn’t want her dad to speak to Max anymore. He’s already written his story. He leaves and phones his editor. He tells Max to continue to get some dirt on the minister, not the Majid story. On his way back, he sees someone parked outside his flat.

A bunch of young hoodlums attack him. He pulls a gun and they run away. Max goes to see the boys. He tells them that he will give them 50 quid for the man’s wallet and the phone. The man is an anti terrorist officer.

Pugnus Dei = God’s fist. The man had a lot of calls from Daniel Cosgrave who works for Defence Concern. He takes the fax and hides it.

The next day, he calls Cosgrave and asks about Majid. Cosgrave rapidly hangs up and leaves his meeting. Max is about to head out into the day. He’s nervous. He manages to get to Defence Concern. He asks the woman who greets him about Majid and the headless corpse. He also wants to know why they are talking to anti-terrorist officers. She says that their only contact is with the diplomatic branch. Defence Concern is a special interest group. A defence lobbying group.

The woman investigates Max Raban. He is a journalist who was involved in a political bribe scandal. He revealed his source, Helen McVay. The woman is involved with Cosgrave. She briefs him on Raban. McVay hung herself after the scandal with the Deputy PM. Cosgrave tells her that he won’t be able to see her later tonight. Cosgrave is married. She is his mistress.

Max goes to see his editor. He briefs him on what he has learned on the Slovenian girl. Max tells him that she might be preggers.

Max talks about the JFK conspiracy with his little daughter. His ex wants him to see Trevor his psychologist and get himself sorted out.

He drops by to see Trevor. His phobia with daylight started when McVay killed herself.

On the way back, Max is followed by a van. They fishtail him and take him out. They tell him to stop sniffing around. He comes home and finds his own place ransacked. His laptop and electronic equipment is missing. They also got the fax.

Raban goes to see Reza, Majid’s cousin whom he replaced at the soccer match. He tells him that there is a list of people they want to disappear. So they kill them. He’s talking about some kind of death squad. Someone approached him with a video of his cousin’s death. The killers taped it as a trophy. Reza says to meet him here on Thursday morning.

Cosgrave is touchy about a memory stick. His mistress notices this as he stashes it in a locked drawer. They are at Hagan’s presentation. He’s the head of a Christian investment group that specializes in defence.

Max meets up with Cosgrave’s mistress. He tells her about her company’s involvement with Majid and the ransacking of his flat. He leaves.

Reza is absent from his meeting with Max. Max investigates and finds that he’s been murdered. Actually, a suicide is suspected, but he was most likely thrown off the building.

Cosgrave’s mistress hears the news of Reza’s apparent suicide. Her suspicions are almost confirmed. She tries to go after the hidden memory stick. She gets it.

Max breaks into Reza’s flat. He wants to find the video. The editor phones him. All of the computers are gone. He finds a hidden wall detailing the people killed by the death squad.

Cosgrave’s mistress copies the files onto her computer. She quickly places it back, but Cosgrave comes back quickly. She isn’t very good at sleight-of-hand.

Max briefs his editor. He says that the anti-terrorist card was a fake. The death squad is after a bunch of people whose views are against the party line of the government. The editor dismisses his concerns. Max watches on as he joins his colleagues for a birthday party.

Max gets a visit from Blake from anti-terror. He tells him to forget about Majid. He mocks his efforts. Max thinks that they went after the wrong cousin and murdered him. Blake is the one that was involved in Majid’s killing. He dials someone on his mobile and says to kill her. He walks away. Max doesn’t understand.

His ex-wife opens the door and gets assassinated.

O que se pode acontecer em poucas horas? Ainda mais prestando uma última homenagem ao finado pai? Nesse velório, acontece lances inusitados. E para nós, divertidíssimos!

Um dos dois filhos, casado, que mora na casa paterna cuida dos últimos preparativos. Para que saia tudo a tempo e a hora. E sua esposa, a lembrar-lhe que precisa fazer o depósito do novo apartamento. Eis que o corpo chega na casa e… E tem início as situações que não estavam nos planos dele para o funeral do pai.

O outro irmão, um escritor famoso, que mora em Nova Iorque. Chega. Esse, bem extrovertido. Mas recusa a dizer as últimas palavras ao pai. Passando a vez para o irmão. O que gera reações dos convidados.

No caminho para o funeral… um para pegar o velho tio. Outra, que vai buscar o irmão para o velório do tio. Mas o namorado, nervoso… Bem, não é um calmante que ele ingeriu na casa do cunhado.

Não parando por aí, um desconhecido chega exigindo dinheiro para não revelar um segredo do falecido. E está armado o circo. Ops! Irmãos e primos na tentativa de encontrar uma saída… acabam armando mais confusão.

Pessoal! O filme é muito engraçado! Os atores são ótimos! O roteiro é dez! Contar mais, é tirar de vocês a diversão. Eu adorei!

Por: Valéria Miguez.

Morte no Funeral (Death at a Funeral). 2007. Inglaterra. Direção: Frank Oz. Elenco: Mathew Macfadyen, Rupert Graves, Keeley Hawes, Andy Nyman, Ewen Bremner, Daisy Donovan, Alan Tudyk, Jane Asher, Kris Marshall, Peter Vaughan, Thomas Wheatley, Peter Egan, Peter Dinklage. Gênero: Comédia. Duração: 90. Classificação: 14 anos.