Critique: Rise of the Guardians (2/2)

*****SPOILERS*****

 

 

Negative

 

The lights representing children went out all over the world, including cultures that don’t do tooth money or Easter or Christmas.

How can ruining these events effect children who have nothing to do with these specific events? It was clear that even though the nightmares were the catalyst, it was the loss of tooth money and Easter that made children miserable enough to not believe.

Sure, this could be alternate Earth where everywhere celebrates these things. But if that were the case they should have demonstrated this with where they went and what kind of children they saw.

 

 

Questions

 

Adults don’t believe in the Guardians anymore. How, then, do they explain all the presents, Easter eggs and tooth money that their children got that they themselves didn’t give their kids? Sure, I imagine they bought a few presents and Easter eggs, but surely they’d notice the discrepancy in quantity? But the film clearly shows the kids found no Easter eggs and they woke up Christmas morning without any presents and the kids weren’t getting tooth money. Maybe the Guardians alter the parents’ memories? If they’re the guardians of children, maybe they have no moral qualms altering adult memories if it benefits the children?

 

We never find out why Jack didn’t know his past. I have a guess: if he knew his past, he’d feel guilty for nearly causing his sister’s death. Who could be fun after that? Especially as fun (ice-skating) was what put his sister in danger.

 

People can’t touch or interact with the Guardians unless they believe. Everything else that’s physical (trees, wind, animals) can interact with the Guardians. So maybe it’s that adults choose to not believe in the Guardians, and hence the Guardians’ magic responds to that?

 

How did Baby Tooth not know there were mice in the European Division? Surely all divisions bring teeth back to Tooth Palace? Unless there is a different palace for each division? Would that mean all divisions had their own leader, of which the Tooth Fairy is the overall leader because she’s the Guardian of Memories? Being a Guardian of Memories couldn’t be decoupled from leading the tooth collectors because the very reason teeth are collected is for their memories.

 

The Easter Bunny says about Easter, “There will be spring on every continent.” Considering the southern hemisphere continents are in autumn when they celebrate Easter, the Easter Bunny’s comment seems off. Considering he’s the one that places the Easter eggs, he more than anyone should know this difference. Or perhaps their version of Earth doesn’t have tilted axis, so the seasons wouldn’t be different. Although the tilt is why there are seasons, so there would have to be a different reason. There are two possibilities. One: magic. Two: no orbit is perfectly circular, so perhaps this Earth’s orbit is closest in summer and furthest in winter.

 

Pitch Black’s lair is under a broken bed. Considering Pitch is identified as the Bogey Man and Bogey Men live under the bed, this is a nice detail. But where is the house (houses are more durable than beds)? Maybe the bed is magical. Also, the bed looks European and Pitch was said to be banished in the Dark Ages; Jack Frost is in America when he finds the bed and Europeans hadn’t reached the Americas by the medieval period. I suppose if Jack’s clothes can change over time, so can the entrance to Pitch’s lair.

 

 

Positives

 

Few things are a joy every time, though this film fits the bill.

There were so much positivity brimming from the film. Jack’s laugh was just the perfect embodiment of joy.

I can’t help but mention the animation. Simply fantastic! In particular, I liked how the ice and snow branched out from centre outwards, seemingly unfolding from itself and mimicking how snowflakes and ice form in real life. Not to mention the sand granules shifting and flowing together as one yet clearly being composed of individual grains.

 

This film balances seriousness and humour so well. Quite often, productions attempting this results in something that feels disjointed, almost like two versions of the same film were forced together. Yet this film flowed well.

When caught eating a cookie, the elf just spits it back onto the plate. Sandy rings a bell to get everyone’s attention, only it’s connected to a poor, shook elf.

Jamie’s mum says Jack Frost is “just an expression” when Jack Frost is standing right there. That must’ve hurt.

The yeti is finishing painting the last robot blue, only to be told they should be red. Frustrating for him yet funny to us. Later he’s finishing painting the last egg red, only to be told they should be blue. He changed his behaviour, only for the same frustration to happen to him anyway!

The Guardians get coins from the laundrette. Any adults watching the CCTV must have been so confused: the lights are turned on without customers, coins drop into the collection area without the machine having been activated, and then the coins would have floated into the air before disappearing.

Father Christmas: “We’re busy bring joy to children. We don’t have time… for children.”

 

This remains an underrated film.

It was released at a time when the world wasn’t quite so bonkers. If it had been released in a time when hope was needed, I think it would have done a lot better.

But after all the work that went into it, the creators clearly couldn’t lock it away for the perfect time. That only risks the file getting corrupted or going missing (not to mention they need to make money to pay people).

Critique: Rise of the Guardians (1/2)

Each rewatching is as engaging as the first.

It’s about loveable childhood characters being the Guardians of children, each having their own remit: the Tooth Fairy (Memories), Sand Man (Dreams), the Easter Bunny (Hope), and Father Christmas* (Wonder). Pitch Black, a being of fear, tries to ruin everything and Jack Frost helps the Guardians combat the threat.

*(Yes, I know in the film he’s called ‘Santa’ but I can’t bring myself to call him that.)

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Thought-provoking Points

 

The nationalities of the Easter Bunny (Australian) and Father Christmas (Russian) were a little detail that amused me which in turn led me to deeper thoughts than I was expecting.

            Easter is more important to Eastern Christians (i.e. Eastern Orthodox) than Christmas, which is more important to Western Christians (i.e. Protestant and Roman Catholic). So with the Easter Bunny being from a Western Christian country and Father Christmas from an Eastern Christian country, the fact that they represented the other’s most major celebration tickled me.

            The film has no religious overtones, though: these celebrations being very much in the secular sense rather than religious sense, so this miss-match isn’t a problem. Even if they were in the religious sense, Russia does have some Protestants/Catholics and Australia does have some who follow Eastern Orthodoxy. There’s no reason why someone from a minority can’t be eligible to become a Guardian. 

 

The Guardianship of Fun was an interesting idea. Jack being the Guardian of Fun makes sense in regards to his characterisation, both personality and behaviour. So that was appropriate.

When Jack realised he was the Guardian of Fun, it’s a lovely realisation. No-one valued his contributions, making out they weren’t as important as those of the four other Guardians. Yet it turned out to be the very thing to save them all. That was nice: people should value fun more. What the point of life if it’s not enjoyed?

I was expecting Father Christmas to be the Guardian of Fun. That’s what Christmas was about for me. When he said, ‘Wonder’, I was doubtful. Wonder has never been something I felt at Christmas. Wonder’s what you feel when something’s visually or thoughtfully blows your mind. Presents don’t do this, no matter how lovely and amazing they are.

My personal perception of Jack Frost wouldn’t have led to fun. The natural phenomena Jack Frost is blamed for is pretty, and if by some miracle it resulted in a day off school (three times in my life!) it was more a feeling of sheer relief rather than an opportunity for fun. Being the Guardian of Pretty or Sheer Relief would’ve been a bit rubbish.

 

Jack looked up at the Moon and said in a morose tone, “If there’s something I’m doing wrong, please tell me.” This was absolutely heartbreaking. But then we did see him freeze someone’s laundry and make someone’s papers fly away. Perhaps don’t ask if you’ve done anything wrong after you have done something wrong? But it does make the audience to be sympathetic to his loneliness, wondering how he’s managed with being lonely precisely because he’s among people. Being unnoticed feels worse than being isolated.

 

 

Clever Details

 

First, the clever details pertaining to Jack Frost.

Jack’s staff of power was the stick he used to save his sister. That’s so wholesome. Especially when considering Jack used the stick as part of a game to save his sister: Jack used fun to save his sister, and he is the Guardian of Fun.

There are many parallels between Jack Frost and Jamie. They both had messy brown hair. They both have younger sisters. They are both full of boy, with both bouncing on the spot when excited (most characters don’t bounce when excited, meaning their shared behaviour is intentional). Seeing as Jamie’s the first human to see Jack Frost, these parallels are neat. (As a side note, could Jamie be descended from Jack’s sister?)

 

There are smart details associated with the Tooth Fairy, too.

The Tooth Fairy’s eyelashes are shaped like feathers. Considering she’s a feathery fairy, this is very appropriate.

The mice being part of the European Division was a nice detail, considering tooth fairies on mainland Europe are mostly mice.

Memories being held in teeth was ingenious. At first, it’s more than bizarre: memories are solidly within the confines of the brain. But milk teeth start to fall out as a child grows older and ages into a teenager, literally growing out of childhood. It explains why the Tooth Fairy finds them so precious and wants to protect them.

 

Pitch Black has intelligent details, also.

            Pitch Black’s weapon is a pick axe. It has the same phonemes in the same order: Pi(tch) (Bl)ack and pi(c) ac(s). If this was intentional, it was incredibly clever.

Pitch using Sandy’s sand to turn dreams into nightmares was a nice detail. Nightmares are often the worst, most powerful source of fear in a child’s life. For Pitch, the being of fear, to start with Sandy was a good start to his plan.

Pitch’s nightmares are visualised as horses and female horses are mares. The etymology of ‘nightmare’ comes from the Germanic mythical night demon called a mare, taking the form of a hag to sit on the victim’s chest, causing difficulty breathing and bad dreams. Even though nightmares and horse mares aren’t actually linked, this homophonic reference is nonetheless a nice detail.

 

Some final clever details are as follows.

When the dinosaur dreams started walking around, the music sounded just like the original Jurassic Park’s music.

Father Christmas’ portals look flat when face on but, when seen from the side, they are shaped like a funnel. This is exactly how a wormhole would appear. As wormholes are the proposed way portal-like travel is hypothesised to function in real-life, this visual symmetry matching the function symmetry was a great decision.

When Pitch’s nightmare horses touch Jamie, they have no effect: if a dream isn’t scary, it isn’t a nightmare. With all these nightmares turning into dreams, Sandy was returned and he could turn more nightmares into dreams. Clearly this would rid sleepers of bad dreams, and maybe it could rid children awake being haunted by nightmares. This mass burst of happiness and hope could be what gave all the Guardians their power back.

Critique: My Fair Lady

This is a musical romantic-comedy. The main characters are Eliza Doolittle (a common, Cockney flower girl), Mr Higgins (a noble phonetics scholar) and Mr Pickering (a well-to-do linguist of Indian languages). Higgins and Pickering have a wager: can Higgins coach Eliza pass her off as a noblewoman at a ball?

 

*****SPOILERS****

 

Funny

 

This musical delivers humour from the start and until the very end (indeed, the last line is there for humour rather than plot).

            When Eliza first moves in with Higgins, he tells his housekeeper to clean Eliza with sandpaper. When the housekeeper objects to him hurting Eliza’s feelings, Higgins dismisses them by saying that Eliza has no feelings that they have to worry about. These two lines delivered in quick succession are funny precisely because they are so outrageous.

            At one point, Eliza storms out but is lured back in with chocolate. Later, it isn’t the threat of going without food or comforts that gets her to do as she’s told but the threat of no chocolate. To see an adult so swayed by one object is amusing; to see this objects is chocolate is relatable.

Eliza’s songs about Higgins are brilliant. One is a whole song about killing Higgins: considering when the film was filmed, one would have though such sentiment would be against the audience’s sensibilities, making the song far funnier. Another is how unnecessary Higgins is in her life and to the world in general. This one she sings directly to him so it’s a burn.

They have an argument in which they’re just shouting vowels at each other in their own accents. At another point, Higgins forces Eliza to speak with a mouth full of marbles (something inherently funny).

The races bring out funny reactions from the Higgins family. When we first see Higgins interacting with her son, it’s to say, “What a disagreeable surprise.” Perfect! Later, Higgins balances his saucer and teacup on top of his hat then walks away. Who knew gentlemen walked around with portable tables?

At the races, Eliza speaks in the same accent as everyone else. When he horse isn’t doing to well, she reverts back to Cockney to shout, “Move your bloody arse!” In a prim and proper place! (That’ll teach Higgins for only teaching accent and not dialect!)

After the ball, Eliza had been passed off as a highborn lady. Higgins and Pickering crow about their success and then the whole staff join in the song, too. All of this was ludicrous, considering Eliza was the one that did the actual work. (Although seeing how dejected Eliza looks isn’t funny at all.)

Higgins makes a big deal about not needing Eliza then stops dead in his tracks with the realisation, “Damn, I’ve grown accustomed to her face.” The least romantic romance in the history of the world right there.

 

Other

 

This film had many moments that left an impression on me. Not only that, but many of its songs had already made an impression on me years ago when hearing them as part of popular culture.

Higgins is nasty and manipulative. This is well established by the time the audience sees his beautiful library. So my firs thought? ‘He doesn’t deserve his library.’

Eliza’s dress and fascinator for the racing were perfect and she looked perfect in them. (Although, to be honest, I didn’t expect her to be able to sit down in it.) I’d never seen such a large fascinator before, which is good because I always want them to be bigger than they are.

Higgins says, “All women do is fix their hair. Why don’t they straighten up the mess that’s inside?” That’s a rich thought coming from a man from the time when men weren’t allowed to be emotional and hence men couldn’t straighten up what’s inside.

Eliza says one thing that really stuck with me. “The difference between a lady and a common flower girl isn’t how they behave but how they are treated.”  We know this to be true (in regards to this film) because neither Higgins nor Pickering change their behaviour towards Eliza.

Eliza tells Higgins to listen to the recordings of her when he missed her. Then she walks in on him as he does just that. That was a beautiful moment.

 

Problems

 

Higgins has two main complaints when it comes to language. One: that dialects/accent sustain the class divide. Two: that people can’t speak English anymore.

            So One. Higgins is judging people for how they speak. Classism is the reason behind judging accents (classism judges people based on their social station and hence everything they do). This means Higgins is making classism stereotypes. If he doesn’t think accents/dialects should divide the classes then he needs to first needs to change his classist attitudes.

            Now Two. The accent Higgins thinks is correct is Received Pronunciation. To say ‘anymore’ implies that accents diverged from RP. However, RP was artificially created: it didn’t emerge naturally like other accents. In fact, the accents Higgins despises have been around longer than RP, so an argument that’s based on ‘anymore’ should prefer these older accents?

 

Goodness, so many problems!

Pickering and Higgins are discussing Indian dialects. Higgins asks how many there are and Pickering replies that there are ‘147 Indian languages.’ They’re using dialect and language synonymously when they aren’t synonymous at all: languages are made up of dialects. Calling a dialect a language is like calling a finger a hand. As linguists, Pickering and Higgins of all people shouldn’t be making this mistake. When the film is about linguistics and basic linguistic concepts are presented incorrectly, that is a problem.

Eliza is offered gold and diamonds. She declines them because she says she’s ‘a good girl’. Eliza had been using ‘I’m a good girl’ to say she’s a respectable woman. What has being a respectable woman got to do with not wanting gold and diamonds (especially when ‘respectable women’ are the ones that can afford gold and diamonds)? I can’t reason out her thinking at all.

Higgins and Pickering have awful signing voices. So why were they cast in a musical, in leading roles no less? That’s like knowingly hiring an awful chef to lead a kitchen. At the very least, people with good singing voices couldn’t have been hired to do the singing, if the producers really wanted those actors.

At the end of the film, Eliza had changed the way she spoke and behaved, even though neither of those things were harming anymore. Meanwhile, Higgins hadn’t changed the way he spoke or behaved, even though they were objectively nasty. A woman shouldn’t have to change herself to suite the needs of a horrid man.

Nearing the end of the film, Eliza was making a fuss about doing as she was told in regard to household tasks. However, the audience doesn’t see her tasked with household tasks until she reveals it annoyed her. Yet the audience needs this information to understand why Eliza left and her later argument with Higgins. To have something so crucial to the plot just tacked on was bad writing! (Yes, the condition to her staying with Higgins was her doing as she was told, but that was presented as her language lessons, not household stuff.)

 

 

The film is clearly intended as a comedy. As with any comedy, taking it apart and analysing things too closely can be counterproductive. Plus, the problems don’t distract from the film being enjoyed. In that regard, the film was a successful comedy, no matter how astounding the problems.

Critique: Invisible City (Series Two)

Luna and Ines are looking for Eric. He’s awakened and is immediately entangled in the dirty business of a mining company.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Non-Problems

 

There were many events which seemed like huge mistakes when watching. However, when thought about, they were the sensible choices.

At first I was gobsmacked that Ines was looking for Eric, considering she took him away at the end of Series One. Surely she’d know where she left him? Later we learn that the ocean took him away. So how, then, did he emerge from a pool that’s not connected to another water source? Maybe he was brought there by floods, or by underground tunnels connected ponds to the ocean that are known to occur in the Americas.

The judge Clarice is the Mule, represented as a horse with fire replacing its head. In her animal form she is clearly a horse. Maybe trained horses are easier to find or to work with than trained mules. Maybe it’s a bad translation, like how the Cemetery Mule of the Berber people is also a horse.

In Series One, the name Ines was pronounced ‘in-Az’. In Series Two, it was ‘in-ez’. Even the voice actor of Eric (the same in both series!) changed his pronunciation. Maybe this was the dub being corrected?

Why was Ines looking after Luna? The siren Camila was more involved with Luna in Series One so she would have been my initial choice as guardian. Also, Ines ruled and protected the entities, so why would she go on an expedition and leave them? Maybe that’s the answer: Luna is an entity and Ines takes all entities under her wing.

 

 

Problems

 

Sadly, there were many mistakes that lowered the overall quality.

With the two years between the two series (both in-story and in-life), it’s unsurprising that Luna looks older. Luna says she’s thirteen, making her eleven in Series One. However, by her looks and behaviour in the first series, I would have aged her at eight. So when I first saw her in the second series, I thought her makeup and clothes had aged her too dramatically.

Castro’s general demeanour to Debora was like that of a romantic partner. But then he took her shoes off, called her a romantic name, then lay down on the same bed with her. This confirmed to me that they were romantic partners. But then we saw him be romantic with Clarice who turned out to be his wife. So maybe Debora is his mistress? No, Debora is his sister. So his behaviour was inappropriate.

Clarice, in her capacity as a judge, had dismissed all the cases against her husband’s mining company. How had no one in the judicial administration taken account of the conflict of interests?

Eric was told not to increase his heat because Debora, as a viper, would see this and then know Eric was still alive. But Debora can see everyone when they’re cold, including Eric, so why would getting hot matter? Unless Eric’s heat is unique, this doesn’t make sense, but considering Debora hadn’t seen Eric at all, how would she recognise his unique heat? To top it all off, how is Eric supposed to control his heat? This whole thing was a mess.

The auction guests are to hide their gold. Then Lazzo’s wheeled in and points at a lady who unhides her gold. Everyone’s surprised Lazzo knew where treasure was. But Lazzo pointed at a clearly rich lady at an auction for clearly rich people, so it’s unsurprising that she has gold. Thus this demonstration shouldn’t have proven that Lazzo could find hidden treasure.

Clarice and priest are on a balcony and the priest said what they did was wrong. This was presented as a flashback, even though the sex was presented as a current event. When the husband mentions the cheating, the priest said it was a long time ago. If the sex was a long time ago, it should have been presented as a flashback. Further, the sex seemed like a response to modern events. So the timeline was disorientating.

Matinta Perera, a shaman who can take many forms including that of an owl, tells Eric that love isn’t selfish. She then says that Eric only thinks about his self (i.e. is selfish). Yet all Eric thinks about was getting Luna back… because they loved each other. She knows too much to be oblivious to that apparent fact. So Matinta Perera didn’t make sense.

Matinta Perera states that Eric has made many bad choices and that they would lead to environmental destruction. She made out that Eric’s made loads of bad choices but I don’t see how. Yes he took Lazzo and Bento’s powers without their permission, but considering they viewed the powers as a curse this isn’t awful. Debora was controlling and killing people so taking her powers protected Luna and also others. Taking Ines’ powers without her consent when she was doing nothing wrong is bad, clearly. Obviously, her dying due to this is also bad. But how does any of this lead to environmental disaster?

Castro, the husband of Clarice, tells his men to leave Debora alone because she’s worthless. Yet one of his men goes after her anyway? This doesn’t have any bearing on the plot but it is odd all the same.

 

 

Positives

 

Really good choices were made.

Eric’s handcuffed to a bed. Bento bites the chain part. I thought it would make more sense to bite the actual cuff so that no one would know Eric had escaped, thus making his getaway less suspicious. But when Eric absorbed Bento’s powers, he used them to bite off the cuff. This was a good decision because it demonstrated Eric’s new powers without having to talk about it.

Castro made trotting noises at his wife whilst holding his shoes. This was nice foreshadowing that she was a horse entity.

Series Two has fewer changes of clothing and less animation. However, there was much more drama and suspense. It was a matter of plot over visuals.

Matinta Perera warned Ines that Eric would take her powers, making Ines a human and thus killing her (because Ines has lived longer than a human lifespan). Ines replied that she trusted Eric. Matinta Perera makes Eric watch this memory straight after he took Ines’ powers. That was cruel but an excellent piece of writing.

 

 

Questions

 

These things aren’t problems because they could be described away as legitimate choices. However, failing a descent explanation they are problematic to the extreme.

Eric was naked when he emerged from the pool. We saw that when Ines took him to heal in the sea that he was clothed, so how did he get naked? Can the ocean currents rip off clothes? That doesn’t sound likely to me.

Matinta Perera brought Eric back to life… only for him to go back into the pool and back to death. Maybe releasing him was the only was to unleash the events leading to Debora rejoining her people and to Castro ceasing to destroy native land? Matinta Perera said that Luna owed her a favour for bringing her dad back alive but she never collects on it. Unless her telling Luna to let her father go was the price? Maybe ‘back to consciousness’ would be better because his dead wife at the end of Series One told him he still had stuff to do and said he wasn’t dead. But then he could have died in the two years between the series.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, this series wasn’t satisfying. There were too many problems. There are too many events that need a brilliant explanation in justification. Yet there were many excellent choices. So the phrase ‘missed in translation’ comes to mind. Considering I don’t know Portuguese, I can’t check the original. This does not, however, excuse the disappointment. Especially when the first series demonstrated how well it could be done.

Critique: Mary and George (TV Series)

This show follows Mary’s efforts to give her family a better quality of life and social standing. Her method? Make her son George the king’s lover.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Clever

 

There were many intelligent moments.

Mary tells George to believe his lies and, when he asks if she’s ever told one, she says, “None, ever.” If you perceive it to be truthful, it can’t be false, so it can’t be a lie.

Mary says, “Leave my fucking boy alone,” the ‘fucking’ being used to emphasise her meaning. Bacon replies, “That fucking boy,” here using ‘fucking’ as a verb, thus making the meaning into ‘a boy used for fucking’. The same two words used in the same order yet meaning completely different things.

Sir Edward says, “from thence.” Considering ‘thence’ means ‘from there’, saying ‘from thence’ is clearly not grammatically correct. However, the fact that most people don’t speak according to the strict rules of written language, it makes characters more realistic.

George set Sir Francis Bacon up for treason but makes Bacon believe it was Mary’s fault. In retaliation, Bacon had Sandie (Mary’s lover) killed in revenge against Mary. George kept on making use of the opportunities afforded to him.

The show starts with Mary controlling George completely so that they can control the king completely. By Episode Seven, their agendas no longer align. The king pin-pongs between their suggestions, with Mary’s advice to the king unintentionally leads to the king sentencing George to death. Doing something (control the king) for a purpose (make her family’s lives better), when it leads the opposite (George’s death would make her family’s lives worse) is unfortunate.

George wiped away his tear after killing the king (who’d just sentenced George to death). I don’t think he’s crying over the loss of his lover but for the loss of his power: it’s easier to get a lover to do something than your lover’s child, especially when that lover has neglected that child in favour of that lover.

 

Problems

 

There were a few things that were off.

George really went to town licking his fingers to prep the king for sex. If the king was watching, it would make sense. But he wasn’t. So George’s display was a little much.

At the end of a meeting, Geroge pushes his chair under the table. Like some kind of servant. Someone in his station at his time period would not have done that.

The blood squirting from cutting Riley’s head off was entirely unnecessary. There was no other moment in the entire show that had any amount of blood, so this amount was wildly out of place.

Full frontal nudity tapered out as episodes went on. To be dramatically brazen one moment then completely absent the next was bizarre and extreme. Dichotomies like these can be fine as long as they’re making a point: this one was not. To stop this pointless dichotomy, the nudity in the beginning should have been toned down.

In Episode Six, George is all of a sudden conniving and participating in bribery. In the previous five episodes, George had shown none of the tendencies or any thought processes associated with these actions. So it seems like it’s come out of the blue. As has his sudden ego and arrogance. For such major changes to happen, a turning point needs to be shown on screen, or at least mentioned. Otherwise behavioural and attitude changes don’t make sense. It goes to such an extreme as George saying, “I am the power. I am the king. I am England.” Steady on!

 

Humour

 

This show had a lot of dark humour (exactly my style) so I was definitely more receptive to the jokes than some others.

The series opens with George hanging himself. Mary cuts him down then says, “Good morning, George,” with no inflection or concern in her voice. Either she’s heartless or this is a common occurrence. Whichever it is, for a mother to lack seriousness over something so serious smashes expectations, hence the humour.

Mary’s daughter says, “Why does he get to stay?” and Mary replies, “Because he’s my favourite.” Brutal.

George takes Mary’s knife from her bedside draw (leaving it open) then fleeing to the woods. Mary follows, sees George miming cutting horizontally, and then directs the knife vertically, saying that’s how you do it properly.

Goerge goes to confront Somerset and his wife, the latter saying of George, “She’s even sweating, the poor bitch.”

After a meeting, George justifies annoying the king by saying, “I was trying to be fair,” to which the king replied, “I said seen to be fair!”

Listening to his mother drone on, Geroge asks, “Is there a point?” to which Mary responds, “Of course there is, I’m speaking.”

George asked, “Are you trying to insult me?” to which the Spanish guy responds, “No, your words and actions do that for you.” That’s some of the politest sass I’ve ever seen.

 

Other

 

There are a few other details I wish to mention.

George’s attempts to use suicidal behaviour to get attention from his mother is problematic. Both suicidal people and gay people are already accused of being dramatic, so, on reflection, it wasn’t good to see both stereotypes reinforced (even if they were reinforced in a very funny way). Obviously gay people and suicidal people can be dramatic (just like anyone else) so I can’t condemn this decision.

On his visit to France, George sees his host order George’s recorder snapped. This was heartbreaking because it was a present from his mentally challenged brother John. Especially because when George stopped playing it, John asked, “Will you make the music happen again?” So the recorder’s sentimental value was immense. It was snapped for no reason so it was just cruel. Yes, the French host was harsh on George, but those instances were to make him better at the task at hand: they had a purpose. Snapping the recorder didn’t match this pattern. Considering Mary told the French host all about George and what made him tick, I doubt the French host didn’t know the recorder was from John, and there was no way he didn’t know John was mentally challenged. So yes, snapping the recorder was cruel rather than harsh. Harsh people often slip into cruelty so this is consistent with the character.

In the penultimate scene, George lies motionless on the floor, bleeding out after being stabbed. One presumes he dies, in which case there can’t be a second series of ‘Mary and George’ because, obviously, he’s dead. But maybe they can have a second series, with one of two possibilities: one, George gets medical help and is miraculously saved; two, the second series is named ‘Mary and X’, replacing George’s name with another’s character. Who that might be, I don’t know.

 

 

To conclude, this was one of the most dynamic period dramas I’ve ever watched. It brought a sense of humour that’s hardly seen in this genre whilst weaving in intelligent thoughts and details. It was refreshing because there were no fighting scenes, just court intrigue. It was nice to be truly entertained.

How Prison Insults the Justice System

The justice system is there to ensure people don’t break the law, to keep the public safe. Yet not only does prison (our go-to punishment) increase the quantity of crimes but also their severity. This means prison, a punishment given by the justice system, has the opposite effect than it intended.

 

This isn’t about abolishing prison.

Far from it: some people need to be locked up for the public’s safety. But most prisoners don’t fit this category. Not when they first enter, at least.

With access to worse criminals, they leave jail and escalate their crimes into more serious offences. These originally safe criminals leave a danger to society.

Also, people who’ve been to prison find it hard to find employment and education. People without these opportunities are often the ones who turn to crime.

This means prison doesn’t keep the public safe but it does increase crime rates, thus making a mockery of the justice system.

 

The solution is simple: if people aren’t punished with jail, they don’t have access to worse criminals and thus won’t escalate their crimes.

 

Rehabilitated criminals are far less likely to reoffend in the future.

It gives people the skills they need to take advantage of life’s opportunities. Rehabilitation prevents future crimes, keeping the public safe and thus achieving the justice system’s purpose.

(This is why disadvantaged groups have higher rates of criminality, because they start with fewer options in life.)

 

Despite all this, prison is a preferred punishment.

Whatever the logical discussions are, people still equate justice with revenge. Punishing criminals is their priority. But should punishing someone really count for more than preventing future crimes?

Prison achieves the exact opposite of what the justice system is set out to do. So why should prison be used in any situation other than when it’s truly necessary?

 

Critique: The Time Keeper (Mitch Albom)

This book came highly recommended and, because I’ve enjoyed Mitch Albom titles in the past, I was more than ready to give this one a go. It’s about Father Time (Dor), a human from the ancient past who first measured time, combined with the stories of dying Victor and young Sarah.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

There were two main premises. Not only are they individually nonsense but the second one can’t co-exist with the first.

One: there wasn’t a concept of time until Dor measured it. But you can’t measure something unless you know what you’re measuring. Also, people instinctively know about the passing of time because they remember the past, live in the present, and can accurately predict aspects, and make plans for, the future.

Two: as soon as people could measure time, they didn’t value it. This attitude was just stated like it was obvious fact. But it was never demonstrated. It was never justified. Also, why would measuring something be the thing that makes it non-valuable? When measuring sticks were invented, nobody said, “Distance doesn’t matter anymore.” Surely measuring something inherently means it’s valued, otherwise why make the effort to devise a way to measure it?

The premises can’t coexist. To value something, someone needs the concept of what that something is. People didn’t value time once it was measured (two) but they didn’t have the concept of time until it was measured (one). So people couldn’t value time until it was measured. Yet time being measured was when time was no longer valued.

The application of the second premise is also problematic. Victor wants to stay alive whilst Sarah wants to die. Victor wants to increase his time and Sarah wants to reduce hers. Both of them stop living their lives to the fullest in pursuit of their goals. So maybe it could be argued they don’t value the time they have left to live. Though it’s portrayed that they don’t value time itself: being the wrong premise, it makes the whole plot and message shaky.

 

The length of the chapters was problematic.

They were overly short. A few of these short chapters would have been fine. But for all of them to be so minimal sort of felt like I kept on stopping and starting, like a stalling car.

Each chapter jumped between viewpoints. This isn’t ordinarily advisable because it breaks the flow and can confuse the reader (especially if they’re a bit sleepy). But considering how short the chapters were, this only compounded the issues of the jumpy perspective: there wasn’t enough time to settle into the new perspective.

 

Dor, Father Time, has been kept alive for thousands of years for Victor and Sarah.

We know this because he literally couldn’t help anyone before them. But plenty of people wanted cryogenics (like Victor) and plenty of people wanted suicide (like Sarah).

Neither Victor nor Sarah was particularly special. Then why was Dor kept alive for six thousand years to help them specifically? One would think there’d be a justification for such an action.

 

The start of the book was like the start of the race. There isn’t much going on but you expect something exciting to happen soon. Well, expect anything to happen soon. But this story never got off the starting line. I spent the whole book waiting which was frustrating.

 

I think it’s clear that my final verdict is negative. Reading this was disappointing. So I’m glad the book was as short as it was: I didn’t have to waste so much time on it.

Critique: Fall of Radiance (Blake Arthur Peel)

This book series focuses on the ranger Owen and the mage Zara. They live in Tarsynium, a country under the Arc of Radiance that keeps demons out. But demons are starting to get in.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

 

There were positives that were simply spectacular.

            Two events were so unfair and so unjust that I had to stop reading for a few days because I was fuming. (The pair were exiled to keep the peace; Owen potentially being executed for ‘abandoning his post’.) To have such a visceral reaction was a great achievement, but for it to change my behaviour? That took real talents on the author’s part.

            I usually dislike reading war scenes being as they can be repetitive. Physical fight scenes also fall victim to this. But each fight/war scene was engaging and not boring. Hats off to the author.

            In the end, everyone knew Owen and Zara were going off to their death. This happens a lot in fiction and it’s accompanied by the characters staying alive by some twist. It’s what’s expected. So when this doesn’t happen with Owen and Zara, when they don’t survive in order to save everyone else, it hits hard. To have both main characters die is bad enough, but to die when you explicitly expect them both to live? That was an unexpected twist that was a stroke of genius.

            Owen and Zara’s interactions are initially frosty. They warm up in a steady, well-managed progression. So whilst not ‘spectacular’, this is another indication of the author’s talent.

 

The mages and rangers have a rivalry and a lack of trust between them. Mages advance learning and society whilst rangers protect the country’s borders. Their roles are neither the same, nor do their roles contradict each other. Thus there seems to be no reason to be rivals or to lack trust. This concept is only touched upon in the first book (and even then only lightly). So between the no reason and the barely there nature, it was so bizarre to include this rivalry.

 

The way the author wrote wasn’t all that great.

Books being in first person sometimes brings advantages over doing so in third person. This series was not one of these instances. Being in the character’s head (rather than just watching them) should bring more insight and information. Yet in this series, all the information the readers got wasn’t deeper than what third person would allow. So being written in first person didn’t add anything to the story.

Later in the series, we get chapters from the perspectives of Elias and Talon. But these are written in third person! From a literary perspective, they were better than the first person perspectives from Owen and Zara. But to have both first and third person perspectives in the same book is utter madness! Sometimes it’s fine (think a frame story, where the frame is third person but then the stories within are in first person because that’s how a person tells a story of themselves to others.) But this certainly wasn’t the case here.

They were written in the present tense! I was honestly baffled by this. I suppose one could argue the present tense makes the reader feel more in the moment, but it’s hard to be in the moment when each verb threw me for being a different tense than expected. Even though there’s nothing wrong with writing in the present tense per se, it definitely negatively impacted my quality of reading.

Often, when the author looks back at a few days, they talk about it having been weeks. The same thing happens with extending weeks to months. The activities that happen don’t match up period of times given to them at a later date.

 

The mages only used fire for their attacks (bar particular exceptions in particular situations).

This got repetitive, especially with Zara. Maybe it was just her signature move? But mage fire was how all the mages fought. Some extra creativity would have been positive from two angles: enjoyment and consistency. As a reader, it would have been more enjoyable to see more creativity.

The consistency element is more important from the perspective of a critique. The reader is reminded often that mages spent a lot of time studying, which means a mage should have a wide variety of knowledge, including attacks. A lack of variety goes in the face of, and is inconsistent with, all that studying.

 

The behaviour was sometimes off.

A few of the female characters had outbursts. They fit with neither the characters nor the situations. They were so out of place that their reasoning can’t be fathomed. (Well, the reasoning for the plot is clear, but as characters are the vectors of the plot then plot points need to fit their characters. Which these outbursts did not.) So this is bad enough. But to give this weird behaviour to the female characters only? Was this just unlucky or is this the result of a negative bias towards women?

In the second book, a Warden decides to put Owen on trial for abandoning his post. Now, she knew he’d just been to a secret meeting of mages. That’s a pretty big deal. Considering Owen’s post is to protect Tarsynium, the mages would’ve only invited him to their meeting if it was about Tarsynium’s meeting, hence going to the meeting fulfils his post and thus cannot be him abandoning his post.

 

Zara learns the language of the wastelanders, the people that live outside the Arc of Radiance. This was problematic.

She complains about the complexities of several bits of grammar. She gives the same exact lecture in her head at least twice. If the lecture doesn’t change in substance (what’s complained about) or situation (who gets complained to), then how the information’s repeated shouldn’t be repeated in the exact same way. It would have been easy enough for the essence of the complaint can be repeated without actually repeating what’s been written already.

Zara says that the wastelander’s language must have diverged from hers. This is a rather large assumption without a shred of evidence. Yes, being next to Tarsynium would imply the people of the wastelands and Tarsynium are from the stock and, as such, so is their language. But many languages of different origins can easily coexist in the same place. Plus it’s been a thousand years since the Arc of Radiance went up: this is plenty of time from migration so these wastelanders (and their language) may be from a different part of the planet.

Finally, let’s consider the possibility that Zara’s language and the wastelanders’ language does originate from a recent common ancestor. Now, languages are always evolving. Yet a thousand years isn’t enough time for diverged languages to have no recognition between them. (Although a bit difficult at first, we can understand English written a thousand years ago.) Within this time, they’d still be some mutual intelligibility (understood by one another). Zara having no recognition of the wastelander’s language conclusively proves they’re not from the same language.

 

This review was a bit different from the ones I usually do.

When I read something, the first time is always for entertainment. I won’t even entertain the concept of reviewing a book on the first time around because it ruins the experience.

This book series, however, had me in a bit of a bind. I had stuff I wanted to say but I didn’t want to read it again. (It was a slog.) So I didn’t note down any incorrect grammar or punctuation. I didn’t note down any of the beautiful descriptions.

Yet clearly this series made an impression on me. Definitely worth my while.