![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentI never really got into Spooks (tagline: 'MI5, not 9 to 5'), despite regular endorsements from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ajp, tomburnell, iainjclark and others. I saw the episode featuring Anthony Stewart Head, and one or two others, and for whatever reason it failed to grab me. Then, over the weekend, I saw the first episode of season three, and it--particularly the hard-nosed ending--impressed me enough to make me watch the second episode (especially since my download of the Farscape Peacekeeper War miniseries is being slow).
The plot, in brief: MI5 set up an entrapment operation to flush out terrorist organisations trying to get hold of red mercury by activating a sleeper agent, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist played bythe Emperor Ian McDiarmid (you wouldn't believe how long it took me to recognise him). Harry Pearce, the head of the counter-terrorism unit at MI5, is the man who contacts Professor Roberts.
The episode is a fairly tough-minded examination of Harry's last statement--of the emotional and psychological cost of being a spy. Professor Roberts is by turns uninterested, scared, curious, and by the end of his tenure as a temp-spook he's actually starting to enjoy himself; meanwhile Tom, recently cleared of treason but in charge of this operation, starts out over-zealous, openly blackmailing the Professor, but eventually veers towards a complete breakdown. He has what one of his colleagues calls a conscience explosion ('I've seen this before. Three field agents ende up dead'), and tries to sabotage the operation. He fails, of course, and at the end of the episode is decomissioned, and out of the service.
I think the script missed a beat here and there--the confrontation between Tom and his colleagues was over-obvious, and the reunion phone call between the Professor and his wife was rushed--but more often than not it was spot on. I liked the use of real newsreaders as scene-setting, and I liked the moral ambiguity of it all. The cynic in me assumes the episode came about because the actor playing Tom wanted out of the series, rather than it being a strictly artistic decision, but such is the way of TV; and in this case, boy did they take that opportunity and run with it. The final conversation between Harry and Tom was excellent.
...although looking at that, it was as much in the acting as the writing. But in short: I like. And I think I'm in for the rest of the season.
In other news, I'm more than a bit disappointed that The Line of Beauty beat Cloud Atlas to the Booker Prize.korovyov_x, you have my permission to say you told me so. Me, I'm going to have another Thornton's chocolate-coated almond marzipan bar to cheer myself up.
ajp, tomburnell, iainjclark and others. I saw the episode featuring Anthony Stewart Head, and one or two others, and for whatever reason it failed to grab me. Then, over the weekend, I saw the first episode of season three, and it--particularly the hard-nosed ending--impressed me enough to make me watch the second episode (especially since my download of the Farscape Peacekeeper War miniseries is being slow).The plot, in brief: MI5 set up an entrapment operation to flush out terrorist organisations trying to get hold of red mercury by activating a sleeper agent, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist played by
HARRY: That was the agreement. We'd help you to become an expert in your field, and if we ever wanted to call on your expertise, we would.
PROFESSOR ROBERTS: What am I? Faust? Sold my soul to the devil for my success?
HARRY: You sold your soul to your country. What's wrong with that?
The episode is a fairly tough-minded examination of Harry's last statement--of the emotional and psychological cost of being a spy. Professor Roberts is by turns uninterested, scared, curious, and by the end of his tenure as a temp-spook he's actually starting to enjoy himself; meanwhile Tom, recently cleared of treason but in charge of this operation, starts out over-zealous, openly blackmailing the Professor, but eventually veers towards a complete breakdown. He has what one of his colleagues calls a conscience explosion ('I've seen this before. Three field agents ende up dead'), and tries to sabotage the operation. He fails, of course, and at the end of the episode is decomissioned, and out of the service.
I think the script missed a beat here and there--the confrontation between Tom and his colleagues was over-obvious, and the reunion phone call between the Professor and his wife was rushed--but more often than not it was spot on. I liked the use of real newsreaders as scene-setting, and I liked the moral ambiguity of it all. The cynic in me assumes the episode came about because the actor playing Tom wanted out of the series, rather than it being a strictly artistic decision, but such is the way of TV; and in this case, boy did they take that opportunity and run with it. The final conversation between Harry and Tom was excellent.
TOM: Everybody safe? Fred's family? What about Laurence Sayle, you get him? [laughs, slightly]--of course, you can't tell me. I'm a member of the public now.
HARRY: You are. I envy you.
TOM: I doubt that.
HARRY: No, I mean ... if this thing is really ... leaving you, then ...
TOM: The spy thing? [nods] The urge to be secret. To give a false name, lead a false life.
HARRY: You'll get the really very generous special pension.
TOM: The payoff. For rogue officers. Yeah.
HARRY: You won't be disciplined, Tom.
TOM: Thanks for that.
HARRY: And of course you realise we'll never meet again.
TOM: [beat] Yeah.
HARRY: Good luck in the real world.
...although looking at that, it was as much in the acting as the writing. But in short: I like. And I think I'm in for the rest of the season.
In other news, I'm more than a bit disappointed that The Line of Beauty beat Cloud Atlas to the Booker Prize.
korovyov_x, you have my permission to say you told me so. Me, I'm going to have another Thornton's chocolate-coated almond marzipan bar to cheer myself up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 03:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 03:40 pm (UTC)I saw, yes. I thought he was good, but I actually was more interested in Harry, possibly because there's less backstory to know--maybe it was easier to get a handle on the character.
(the one with suicide bomber if that means anything)
No, I don't think I saw that.
Do they have episode titles? A bit irritating if they don't!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 04:37 pm (UTC)2x05 IIRC (I've watched S2 DVDs these past few weeks - I can lend to you if you'd like?).
episode titles
Yes.
And no. Much like they don't have credits (although my BBC3 download for 3x02 DID have credits - pah!), episode titles aren't 'official' as in tagged on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/spooks/spooksexpert_questions_10.shtml#4 for more
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 12:15 am (UTC)And S2 DVDs would be lovely. You realise this means you're definitely coming to Andrew's party, right? ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:34 am (UTC)And still not sure. It's this weekend, isn't it? Crap.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:45 am (UTC)The party isn't this saturday, it's next saturday. And you will be there.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 03:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 03:56 pm (UTC)Certain things still leave me cold - the set design is, for me, utterly unconvincing and constantly jolts me out of belief-suspension; the cinematography can sometimes be excellent but can also be dull-dull-dull; and one of the big annoyances for me is the incredibly unimaginative choreography of some of the in-office scenes - The West Wing it very definitely is not. (One good example of the bad choreography came in that last episode: one girl exclaims "I've found him!" when she finds the grad-student's ID photo; a beat later the other four or five key cast members all arrive, in unison, in a disgustingly contrived huddle behind her computer terminal, all perfectly in the frame, all gawping, all looking like they're members of some uber-dopey MI-Famous Five.)
Anyway, the reason that stuff so annoys me is because it reminds me that I'm watching middling BBC Drama and not slickly produced US drama...
But, as someone has said, the performances are sometimes very good, even if the script is often "pants".
And I didn't realise he was "Da Emperor" until you mentioned it. But he did look familiar. I'm not very quick with that sort of face-recognition.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 01:31 am (UTC)I have no idea whether it's realistic, but as you say, it's certainly watchable.
the cinematography can sometimes be excellent but can also be dull-dull-dull
I think they have a habit of unnecessary closeups (when Tom's walking out of Thames House at the end of the episode, for instance, we go from long shot--closeup--long shot--CCTV. I think skipping the closeup would have been more effective). I haven't really noticed the office choreography, though.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 03:03 am (UTC)Another stock scene of theirs that annoys me is the "briefing room scene" - I don't know quite what it is, but they always look the same and always look very dull. It seems to come off looking quite badly when contrasted with the likes of 24 or The West Wing, shows where the choreography of quite mundane activities (conversations in corridors, conversations by computers, etc.) is done with a certain amount of flair to ensure the drama itself doesn't appear mundane...
And the scene where the "bad guy student" leaves the lecture hall - the two MI5 agents are visible through the doorway, as though they're sitting outside with a glass to the door! The only reason to put them in shot at that point is to clunkily illustrate that they are "there"; but it seems as though the programme-makers at no point thought about the implications of placing those characters so close to an foreign spy - their faces, heaven forbid, might be on file, or they could have been spotted during the survelliance... They were in tha shot, I felt, for lazy reasons, rather than for good, solid story-led reasons.
Lots of stuff like that - just feels a bit clunky somtimes. Waking the Dead had the same problems - interesting cast and interesting characters; but not enough thought put into the nitty-gritty of how it looks on screen, whether in terms of choreography, cinematography, or set design.
Which season?
So, my review, spoilers and all, was sufficient to convince you to download Peacekeeper Wars eh?
Re: Which season?
Date: 2004-10-20 12:13 am (UTC)'fraid not; I averted my eyes to read as little of your review as possible. It's just that a Farscape miniseries is an auto-watch, whether it's good or bad. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 05:03 pm (UTC)And about time, too. :-D
The cynic in me assumes the episode came about because the actor playing Tom wanted out of the series, rather than it being a strictly artistic decision,
Well, duh. I think it being on BBC America really helped boost his profile.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 02:44 am (UTC)I'm sure Tom leaving is an actor-led thing, but what's nice about it is that it plays on one of the core themes of the series, visited over and over again, which is the impossibility of leading a normal life while working for MI5, and the kind of desperate, schizophrenic longing for normality which all the regulars have experienced at some point.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 03:41 am (UTC)and the kind of desperate, schizophrenic longing for normality which all the regulars have experienced at some point.
Exactly.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 03:53 am (UTC)Plus they renamed the show to MI5.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 04:06 am (UTC)Not even that; it's 'MI-5', which makes it look like a Mission Impossible franchise...
That reminds me of a time in the SFMOMA
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 11:32 am (UTC)