Critique: Vigil (Series Two)

A weapons system, developed as part of the UK-Wudyan military agreement, is tested in Scotland. When it goes wrong, the investigation leads Detective Chief Inspector Amy Silva to go to Al-Shawka Air Base in Wudyan. Meanwhile, Amy pregnant partner Detective Inspector Kirsten Longacre leads investigations on British soil.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Many aspects of the story were managed phenomenally.

In the first series, Amy was enclosed in a submarine, creating Vigil’s unique atmosphere. This clearly couldn’t be replicated so I wasn’t expecting a second series. The tug-and-pull conflict between police and military was similar, as was Amy’s isolation from her loved ones/team. These dynamics replicate some of the uniqueness and that was an achievement.

As Wudyan is an antigay country and Amy is gay, I was expecting this to cause some sort of conflict. Amy was careful with this so it’s not a surprise that the information didn’t get out. Then it turns out two of the soldiers were gay, but all those who know don’t let it get out. The careful secrecy is a huge part of being gay in antigay countries, as is the constant fear/anticipation of the information slipping. So the lack of conflict with the Wudyani authorities over this was an accurate depiction.

The series ended with a witness statement in court: “Your arm sales will fund your schools and hospitals, whilst hospitals on the Wudyan border will fill up with schoolchildren.” A clever, impactful statement.

 

Poppy, Amy’s daughter, doesn’t have a big part to play in the plot yet she is necessary for believability. Characters like this often appear like unwanted baggage although the writers in Vigil make good use of her.

Poppy is living with Amy now, after years of not doing so. We don’t get to see this dynamic, see if there is any resentment or anything over Amy’s prolonged absence in her life, because Amy leaves. Although this would have been nice to see, its value would be lower than the existing scenes it would have replaced.

Kirsten and Poppy’s relationship seemed pretty good. Although there was one awkward moment when a crying Kirsten asked Poppy for a hug. Either that showed Poppy didn’t like Kirsten enough for physical affection or it was general teenage-adult-emotion awkwardness.

Whilst Amy was away in Wudyan, she rung Poppy once. For a mother that didn’t have access to her daughter for years, you would expect her to make more of an effort. Amy was always using her phone and she said that Poppy was always on hers, so availability and opportunity were both high.

 

There are, however, two things that were disappointing.

Wudyan is a made-up country. The creators clearly didn’t make-up Russia for Series One, so why invent a country for Series Two? UK-Russian relations aren’t good whereas UK-Middle East relations are good (and also necessary, both because of military cooperation and oil). Russia’s retribution was thus be of little importance whereas offending a Middle Eastern country could lead to massive problems. This may be true, but would a tv series really cause any actual problems? I’m not convinced.

At one point, Amy does a roll to avoid a gun shot. The thing is, she’s a police officer and the shooter was highly trained. So that would have stretched believability. Plus the roll itself was awkward, shattering all credibility.

 

Discovering the culprit was an impressive journey.

As the show goes on, both Amy and Kirsten have several potential suspects. Considering they aren’t the culprits of the crime being investigated and are thus distractions, I suppose they’d be classified as ‘red herrings’. However, I’m not sure this is accurate because, whilst being dead-ends, they provided essential info for the crime to be actually solved.

Several of the military people acted in ways that were distracting or deflecting. This could have been perceived as a cover-up but could also be them wanting to get back to normal. Acting Squadron Leader Eliza Russell and Air Vice Marshall Marcus Grainger are the biggest distractors and deflectors: considering they’re in charge and they’re who Amy interacts with most, it makes sense that the audience would see them behaving this way. Between this and the ‘red herrings’ taking the focus, Eliza and Marcus beings the culprits is a surprise and yet their behaviour throughout makes their involvement very believable.

 

An engrossing watch with only two issues in six hours of film, Vigil (Series Two) was a stunning piece of television.

Critique: The Handmaid’s Tail (Margaret Atwood)

Religious fanatics overrun the USA and rename it Gilead. It’s a world where fertility is low so Gilead forces Handmaids to breed with Commanders (Gilead’s leaders). This story, unsurprisingly, follows the tale of the Handmaid Offred as she lives in Gilead and exposes the horrors therein.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The situation of the Handmaids is horrific.

To be denied enjoyment, to be regularly raped, is the tip of the iceberg. Handmaids are denied a name, being instead referred to by the name of their current Commander. Their monthly rape is called ‘the Ceremony’, hence giving it a religious function, purpose and seal of approval.

Not to mention Handmaids are made implicit with Gilead’s punishments. They have to hold the ropes of the hanged, to show they consent to death (when in reality, not holding the rope leads to their own deaths, so not holding the rope is them consenting to their own death). Plus there’s the Particicution, when Handmaids can do any physical harm to the accused within a set time limit.

Finally, their rooms lack glass and anything rope-like. Both are to prevent self-harm and suicide. So society knows what being a Handmaid does to people yet the Commanders keep enforcing it. The cruelty is astounding.

 

Most religious Americans are pro-fossil fuels and anti-environmentalism. Yet it’s interesting to note that the fanatics of Gilead are pro-environmentalism.

 

 

Punctuation

 

Punctuation wasn’t the best.

            For example, there isn’t a closing bracket when the book talks about a virus experiment. Sure, it’s easy to miss out when you write it, but that’s basic punctuation that editors should be all over.

            Another peculiarity is that, for the most part, speech isn’t within speech marks. Amazingly, this is never a problem: it’s always clear when someone’s speaking and when someone is not. So that was impressive.

            Yet at certain points, we get speech marks. It’s not clear why these parts have speech marks whereas others do not. Is it an inconsistency or is there a pattern that’s not immediately obvious? To be left guessing over punctuation rather than plot is disappointing.

 

 

Problems

 

Goodness gracious me, there were a lot of problems. Some could be explained away by the fact a traumatised woman is the protagonist. That interferes with perception and memory. But others just don’t sit right.

Offred says that sometimes she bakes bread with Rita. In the next paragraph, Offred says Rita wouldn’t allow it. So which is it?

She says that people who don’t fall in love are ‘mutants… from outer space.’ I hope this is the perspective of the character rather than of the author, a real-life individual. Not everyone falls in love. Some, like aromantic individuals, just don’t feel romantic attraction. Others aren’t lucky enough to meet someone they could fell in love with. The lack of falling in love doesn’t make them lesser individuals, people with less worth than someone who does fall in love.

Offred takes off her underwear to put a dress on. In a conservative society where women are expected to dress ‘properly/modesty’, you’d expect going commando to be considered inappropriate if not outright immoral. Now, if going without underwear was for the Ceremony, it would make sense.

Another handmaid, Ofglen, dies instead of ratting on Offred. Ofglen died so Offred could live. In response, Offred mentally submits to Gilead’s rules rather than just following them: Ofglen dying scared Offred into submission. Yet Ofglen died resisting Gilead so the reader expects Offred to do so, too.

Nick comes for Offred and says he’s part of May Day. Offred wonders how he knew about May Day. But Offred says she told him about Ofglen: what else was there to talk about Ofglen other than May Day?

Lydia tells the Handmaids that they all know the rules of the Particicution. Yet just before this, Offred said she’d only ever heard rumours about the Particicution. How can these two be reconciled?

At the end of the book is a symposium from 2195 looking back at Gilead. Someone claims that there are Krishna and Kali elements in early Gilead religion. As someone who’s academic career focuses on Hinduism, I can say that there are no such elements. Krishna is about love and lively devotion: Gilead is about punishment. Kali is about not conforming to society and female dominance: Gilead is the exact opposite.

The USA is part of (/runs) NATO. If a NATO member is attacked, all other members are legally obliged to view it as an attack on all NATO nations. This Article is the main deterrent of NATO. So the fact that no NATO nation tried to help the USA against Gilead astounds me.

 

 

Good Parts

 

This book has a great premise and does a fantastic job at detailing how Handmaids, and the nation of Gilead at large, have to live. Aside from this, there are many good points.

Offred prays to get into Canada. She thinks, ‘What I thought I could do for whoever was listening… I’ll never know.’ People always try to bargain with a higher power, to do something for the deity in exchange for a favour. What can a mere human do in exchange for an all-powerful deity?

She says that she’s ‘a refugee from the past.’ I love that.

Playing on the philosophical staple of ‘I think, therefore I am’, Offred thinks, ‘I tell, therefore you are.’ By telling her story, she will the reader into existence.

‘Waste not want not. I am not being wasted. Why do I want?’ It’s a clever play on words. It’s life she’s trying to justify that what she has in enough, that wanting her lot to change is ungrateful.

 

 

This was a fascinating read. It’s scary to think what would happen if extremists took power, especially in a country that’s (at least nominally) all about democracy. The author accurately portrayed the fear factor. The flashes into Offred’s past to contrast with her present were well executed. Without the TV series, I never would have known about this book. For that, I am grateful.

 

Critique: Invisible City (Series One)

Eric, an environmental police officer, gets back to work after his wife dies in a forest fire. He investigates the death of a river dolphin and gets entangled in a world of Brazilian mythical creatures (known as ‘entities’ in the show). These are ruled by Ines, the cuca. Other important characters include Luna, Eric’s daughter, and Camila, an iara (siren).

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

 

Positives

 

There are many things to celebrate.

The opening credits were spectacular. Whilst the duration was longer than I typically like, each moment was used wisely. The length was thus the correct choice.

The actors of Eric and Camila were amazing, showing great skill.

The body of the dead river dolphin transforms into the shape of a human. Ines made blue butterflies swarm over the it and then they fly off, the body disappearing into a cloud of even more butterflies. This was beautiful to watch. Not only visually but the purpose behind it: Ines wanted to protect the entities from humanity’s curiosity and fear.

We see a piglet eating a bowl of fruit and it’s adorable. But then the piglet puts a hoof into the bowl and this was a cuteness overload. It’s still chewing as it’s picked up and that could have killed me with happiness. How much of this was planned and how much was accidental I don’t know. I’m just happy it happened.

 

 

Problems

 

At one point, Luna wakes up. She alternates between screaming, breathing heavily, and shouting for her grandma. I found this a weird combo. A scream as she woke up would have been fine, but to intersperse a few in the middle was too weird and unnatural.

 

Curupira going back into the forest caused most of the issues.

He starts writhing around, making all these weird body movements and weird screams. His facial expression throughout the show have been utterly bizarre so this fits with the characterisation, but why this weird characterisation was included I don’t know. It seems unnecessary because it doesn’t add anything to the show.

These screams weren’t in pain or in fear. Eric follows animals calls which lead to Curupira. But Curupira’s screams are definitely human. So why he was screaming I don’t know.

 

 

Questions

 

Some things were problematic but there could be something to explain them away. I say ‘could’ because they’re not immediately present and I’m just grasping at straws.

There is occasional use of the word ‘fuck’. That’s fine. But no other swear words are used in the show. Usually stronger swears are accompanied by weaker ones because going straight in with one of the strongest is off. Maybe this is a translation error. Maybe in Portuguese, their equivalent of ‘fuck’ isn’t considered as harsh a swearword as it is in English.

Isac starts talking about Curupira drinking too much alcohol but halfway through saying ‘alcohol’, he changes this to ‘coffee’. Um, what? Is talking to kids about alcohol in Brazilian culture bad? I can’t think of any other explanation for this weird behaviour.

Throughout the show, the butterflies land on people’s faces and the eyes on the wings are positioned over the eyes on the face. This is a nice touch. Although the butterflies are blue on top and brown-with-eyes below: when they land and spread their wings, it should be the upside (the blue) showing, not the underneath (the brown). But these are magical butterflies which are the result of the shapeshifting cuca, so shifting their shape to flip the wing patterns isn’t unplausible.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

All-in-all, this was an enjoyable show. The animation and the acting were done well, as were the clothing designs. It’s clear that a lot of effort went into producing it. It kept me intrigued the whole way through.

Critique: Domina (Series Two)

It’s been so long since the first series was out that I wasn’t expected a follow-up. So when the tv advertised that all episodes of Series Two were available on demand, it was a bit of a shock.

            It captured the essence of the first series whilst having its own identity. Much of the plot centres on Livia’s promise to restore the Republic. I.e. going directly against the empire her husband Ceasar established.

            There wasn’t as much scheming in this series compared to the previous one. Or rather the schemes unfolded at a slower pace so that they were easier to follow. This allowed more space for the main story line. In fact, it took so long for any scheming to happen that I was worried none would happen! (To be fair, the scheming was introduced at the right time in the plot so the wait was a good decision.)

 

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

 

Emotional

 

There were many moments that were heavy hitters on the emotions front.

As Tyko leaves, he tells his daughter, “Don’t forget me.” That was heartbreaking.

Agrippa said the happiest he’d ever been was as a child and now, surrounded by his three kids with a fourth on its way. That was really sweet. So him dying when he was at his happiest was extremely touching.

Piso says, “You left me to die,” and Livia, seemingly without a care in the world, says, “So?” Her apparent heartlessness or even lack of care is always funny but, in this situation, when we know how false it was, made it even funnier.

As Drusus lay dying, he said he did everything he wanted. “I drank, gambled, fornicated.” All to be expected from him. But then he followed this with, “I loved. Gave my wife children.” From any character, these words would have been meaningful but from fun-loving Drusus they seemed far deeper.

 

 

Problems

 

There were a few problematic things, things that were wrong or otherwise just not right. None ruin the story but I do wonder how they managed to creep past the editorial team.

Julia is pregnant in episode three. Episode four starts with ‘One year later’ where she is still pregnant and soon gives birth. Unless she lost her baby from episode three then got pregnant pretty quickly after that, this timing doesn’t work.

When Piso learns that Dimitius is becoming the Governor of Africa, Piso completely loses his shit. This was out of character. Yes he was panicking but he’s never shown a hint of losing control like this.

I don’t know how Ceasar convinced Visidius to kill himself. I don’t recall Ceasar having any dirt on him so what mechanism did the ruler have to achieve this?

 

 

Humour

 

Obviously this is a political, scheming show, but the humour is solid.

Talking about inherited positions, Livia proclaims, “It has to be talent, not the first thing that falls out your daughter’s vagina.” This had me laughing. But also her whole personality is based on her father and being one of the founding families of Rome.

Vipsania shouts into the forest, “Gods, goddesses, give me health and sandals,” sandals being a hilarious request of a deity, “and in return I’ll never tell anyone you don’t exist.” This whole sentence and its concepts are gold.

 

 

Positive Choices

 

These things were done well, or explained things in a particularly good way.

Julia gives birth on the road. Her guards looked so awkward and uncomfortable. These actors did a really good job portraying this.

When Julia gets married, there are loads of social fires to put out. Without Livia there, the wives of the boys are in a panic but they manage to handle the situation. This character growth was good to see.

We saw what Tiberius’ father shouted at him as a child. It’s no wonder he turned into such a disturbed individual.

Vipsania, Tiberius’ wife, is portrayed as not-sane (different from insane). This helped her get away with being a woman who was also very philosophical and also socially liberal.

 

 

Shock

 

Some events surprised me to the core. Not because they were unbelievable but because I never would have thought they’d happen.

A German priest cut off a guy’s penis to ensure the German princess had a son. That was an uncomfortable scene!

Livia starts using Antigone’s daughter to work in her underhanded schemes. She’s a child, leave her be! Using a child like this is disturbing but it fits in with Livia’s character.

Ceasar said he wasn’t mad that Livia killed Marcellus but because she got caught. That’s your nephew! The son of your sister who you should feel at least some sympathy towards.

 

 

Concluding Remarks

 

In the years between Series One and Two, the character Antigone died. Antigone was my favourite character so this was a bit of a blow.

But why did the creators make this decision? Was it a story decision, so that Livia lost her biggest supporter and confidant? Maybe the director didn’t like the actress? Perhaps she wasn’t available or just wasn’t interested in the role anymore?

Clearly they can’t explain real-world decisions within the show. Maybe this was discussed in an interview (things to which I never pay attention). But still, to expect your favourite character and then not get your favourite character is a bit disheartening.

 

Overall, the creators did a good job.

The younger actors have grown in regards to their skills. There were very few problems and all could be expunged with simple answers.

Caesar almost catches them out at the end and Livia saves them by the skin of her teeth. Maybe. We’ll see what the next series brings!

Critique: Caging Skies (Christine Leunons)

This story relates Jo, a young Austrian growing up during World War Two. We see how badly-adjusted youths can become whilst growing up during war. The characters in this book wind me up so much. It’s in a realistic way but it does mean I have to brace myself whilst reading this story.

 

The paragraphs tend to be long yet they are the perfect size. For an author to manage this is no mean feat.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Being a translated text certainly doesn’t help but that’s what editors are for: to fix bad writing.

For example, one sentence was fourteen lines long. That’s simply too much. Also, they wrote ‘we were making it grew intolerable’. No, what’s intolerable here is the bad grammar. The ‘grew’ should be ‘grow’.

In it, the referendum on Austria being annexed by Germany being annexed. But how can it be annexed if it’s agreed? I’ll put this down to a problem in translation because I don’t know if this was the intended meaning.

The book says that lefties have to pull the pen across the page and righties have to push. But it’s the opposite way around when using Latin script (which Austrian does). Even if this is a translation error, it’s a massive oversight.

 

 

Badly-adjusted Jo

 

The war screwed Jo up. It screwed up his interactions and perceptions.

The children in Austria were indoctrinated. Young children are impressionable so this is hardly difficult. As schools got to them first, their parents’ views were side-lined. Indeed, ‘my father… wasn’t at all grateful for my willingness to teach him important facts.’ Then he complained that his mother was the gullible one, not realising what she was ‘was just propaganda’. People never consider themselves as afflicted by propaganda, do they? Just others.

Jo is possessive Elsa, thinking he owns her and getting jealous over Nathan and the cat, the other beings to which Elsa shows attachment. Jo is petty, punishing her for these affections. He feeds her so much because ‘her loss of beauty gave me self-confidence’. ‘I was trapped in my lie as much as she was.’ Elsa says love is free and liberating, not possessive. Jo enraged when Elsa lied. Hypocrite. Elsa says need a few lies to live how she does, otherwise would fly away. Then says ‘keep the truth to yourself if you care to keep me’. Elsa eventually leaves once she finds out the truth. Jo equated winning or losing the war with winning or losing Elsa. So Jo first lies about the war being over and then that Germany won.

It’s scary to think how one man’s wants lead to so much death, destruction and mental/emotional scaring.

 

 

Good Parts

 

There were many good examples of writing that deserve praise.

The opening paragraph of this novel is the best opening paragraph I’ve ever read. It was beautiful in description and deep in thought.

Jo thinks of Elsa so hard that ‘[i]t was a wonder no one could see her sitting on my lap.’

I loved the description of Elsa’s eyebrows being so uneven that they make each eye look as if they feel different things.

Buds on trees open like child’s hand waking up.

‘Why is Austria so strong? Because it makes the world believe Beethoven was Austrian and Hitler German.’

Jo describes starving people as ‘[s]keletons wearing nothing but loose skin’ which is such a vivid image.

My favourite line was, ‘If God provides her with so much light, I didn’t see why she needed me to pay high electric bills.’ Just to think, there’s an energy crisis whilst I’m writing this! That makes this line relatable rather than simply funny.

Jo and his dad had a fantastic theological debate. God only exists as part of man, Jo argues. God doesn’t exist, unlike a painting that people can touch. So his father replies that you can’t touch love but love still exists. This is a shortened version but it makes a complex theological debate accessible to the everyday reader.

 

 

Nonsense

 

Some things were written that utterly stumped me. Not because they were confusing but because they simply made no sense. Arbitrary nonsense, the lot of it.

Once his mother dies, Jo has to do all the cooking, shopping and cleaning. But Jo’s been stuck at home for years. What on Earth has he been doing with all that time?

Jo asks whose fault it is that Elsa is isolated from the real world, ‘hers or mine?’ Um, yours.

Jo puts a decomposing bird in Elsa’s bird cage. He fetched it from the ruins of Frau Veidler’s home. Yet her birds died years ago so they should have fully decomposed by now.

Jo describes Elsa’s face, now with a double chin, as ‘whorish’. I’ve never heard anyone equate obesity with prostitution before. Is that an Austrian thing or a Jo thing?

Then there’s this. ‘I think the genuineness of my love, however, can be seen through the empty white bars between the lines like a sad primate at the zoo.’ The comparison of between the lines being like between the bars is clever. But seeing the love between the lines? I don’t. What Jo has to Elsa is obsession, not love, and even that’s not between the lines.

 

All-in-all this was a worthwhile read. The progression of propaganda, and the escalation of lies, were handled with extreme talent. But the problems with the translations followed by these arbitrary, nonsense statements easily throw the reader off. I’ve read this book twice and that was too many times.