Ripper Sweet

 (Ripper Street Review By Neamo)

The show reeks of quality I had thought lost to British productions. I don't mean that in an offensive manner, but the fact is British television by and large has stagnated and festered in the wake of it's rapidly moving American counterparts, and we've become accustomed to an air of accepted mediocrity in productions and values within. I could argue, rightly, that as a general whole it may be due to the budgetary constraints as England has a lesser purse and by the same means tighter drawstrings, but that often doesn't seem to be the case. There is something of a renaissance appearing within American television, where concepts are being pushed and boundaries of old are being bowled over, as seen by the success of the before unmarketable Game of Thrones, the dark drug addled depths of Breaking Bad or the deep postulations of True Detective. There's a revival of the small screen values that otherwise had been lambasted to the wayside as fit for queasy soap opera's and paltry dramatics, and it's exciting and vibrant. It's not an entire change, and for the most part those sloppy sitcoms and tired staples of television hold their heads high, but increasingly so, we're seeing shows appear that take risks. Playing with formula and paying for results, it's a bold and daring thing I have admired and expected fully to remain out of British grasp, but here I am, talking of a BBC production, a studio long since mired in it's own filth, in an astoundingly positive manner. The BBC have since cancelled this show of course.

• Acting : The acting of Ripper Street is by far it's strongest suit. Boasting actors that have been lamented for their prior performances, it would take far too long to mention the episodic extra's that waft in from various productions, notably Game of Thrones. Instead I'll focus on the core cast. Matthew Macfadyen provides a believable and grounded detective inspector, playing the part of the haunted Edmund Reid with a finesse rarely seen. Curt without callousness, his sincere and stern demeanor perfectly portray the gentile of Victorian society, astute and knowledgeable but with a healthy dose of skepticism, wrapped neatly within the persona of a man damaged and emotionally crippled. His awkwardness at times lends itself beautifully to the character without making him an English stereotype. Jerome Flynn is a man I can't get enough of on television, from his early days in Soldier Solider to his rousing performance as Bronn in Game of Thrones, and in this show he portrays the reliable muscle that is the Detective Sergeant Bennet Drake. Strong, merciless with a brutal edge, he is also a large part of the comic relief with little about him providing the suave sophistication of the other two leads. The thug, but also the innocent, he remains unencumbered with the dark brooding and instead serves as the righteous force that otherwise helps ground the show. It would be unflattering to call him a Watson, as he seemingly wants no part of that life, more the layman that can be identified with, he provides the show's brutal moral core. The final addition to the team is the mystical American doctor played by Adam Rothenberg, a man by the name of Captain Homer Jackson. With aliases to boot and the troubled past of being a gun man but also a surgeon, he provides an often large centerpiece for strife, but also some of the most startling wisdom of any of the characters. Functioning much like a magical hobo, doling out life experience and knowledge disproportionate to his years, Homer Jackson appears to have knowledge about chemistry, smells and scents, geography, insect migration- If there is a subject, he has something profound and case aiding to add. It might seem like I'm being facetious, and if I'm honest I am a little, but his acting prowess allows the suspension of disbelief, keeping him relevant and fresh. Relatable and funny, he remains a suave if morally bankrupt character.

•  Writing : The writing of this show is superb. While there are plot devices that I would otherwise disagree with, for instance, the uneasy introduction of John Merrick in the second season, the writing and the dialogue within remain faultless. Easy to watch and easy to listen to, it retains a Victorian candor without sounding false and forced, and each sentence or quip mingles pleasantly to the ear. The plot threads themselves each have impact with every episode adding to the background or changing the view of the characters episode for episode leading to a steady progression. There are no fillers here, and likewise it is not a show where events have no impact upon the characters. Instead through joyous writing, the likes of which I had long thought lost to the BBC with their love of Moffat and his dull scribblings, we see progression and change that ultimately leaves much to be questioned but little to be complained of. Detective Reid on surface appears fairly well held together, haunted by the loss of his child but with a fixed moral center and dedication toward justice. Over the course of two seasons we see this pillar of the community gradually slip into the darkness, with the ending of season two providing a moral ambiguity that frankly remains jarring. Showing that the best of us can crumble, it's but one of many clever devices employed by skillful writers. Writers now unemployed thanks to the BBC discontinuing the show. Thanks BBC.

•  General Positives : The positives to this show are many. For one it is set after the Jack the ripper killings, an idea that otherwise hadn't been fronted as it was a time of fear, of public skepticism in the law and in others but also of utter darkness. Our detectives likewise were unable to catch the ripper and in ways see the fulfillment of their duty as a form of atonement. It's clever, and it provides alarming depth to a subject otherwise glossed over for the romanticized idea of the mysterious serial killer. I also like the tastefulness with which certain subjects are handled. This was an era where prostitution was common place and brothels held information for the good detectives. While we do see flesh, it pales in the light of other current shows, and remains ever tasteful. You won't see a dwarf fondling tits here for shock value. I also very much like the main theme, which evokes memories of Firefly. That was probably why it was cancelled in retrospect.

•  Gripes : As mentioned earlier it is a little off setting that the resident surgeon seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of any subject presented, but I can't call that a genuine gripe as I admire that it defies stereotype. What do I mean by this? When you introduce an American gunslinger to an English Victorian, odds are fairly good that they will be written off as a toothless drunk, with barely a thought in their head. These are stereotypes long standing, and it's reversal actually provides an area of distinct fascination. I was not thrilled with the portrayal of John Merrick as I felt it unnecessary, but at the same time it provided nothing that was overtly offensive. You are starting to see my problem. I can list faults, but nothing sticks to mind as being wrong or out of place. I'm not sure whether it's a willingness to defend or a string of weak criticisms, but I can't tout them with real conviction. Well, in saying that, I suppose I could call upon one criticism. That being that a series of idiot executives cancelled it. Yes, that is my gripe.

 
So in summary, it's truly good television, the likes of which the BBC had never seen and now will never see again undoubtedly. I strongly advise you give it a try.

A Post Of Thrones

(Game Of Thrones Critique By Neamo)

The time is nigh for many of us to dig out our banners of fealty, and once more swear allegiance to the houses of Westeros. While many stalwarts have fallen to the wayside in events I won't spoil for those tardy few, the summer light wanes in the breaking of winter winds, and winter is coming. I will here and now declare Game of Thrones to be one of my favorite series, both literary and televised. It captures something that has long been missing, a raw edge to the heart rending fantasy that is glossed over or glibly misplaced in the seasoned art of pandering to a control group. A Song of Ice and Fire did not suffer from this of course, as is made famous by George RR Martin's quote, "I want my readers to be afraid.", and while this notion isn't unique to book but surely is a rarity, the idea of systematically destroying your protagonist, it is a sentiment unheard of in television. We've seen the rare unhappy ending, certainly, but in a show where the vile not only survive but thrive, and good is measured only by the shades of grey, such an idea can be considered a revolution to the format.

However, something I see repeatedly, in fact, more so than any other burgeoning topic on the show itself, is the announced statement that this is the greatest show of all time. Now, being an enormous fan of the Game of Thrones world set before me, and I do mean enormous, proclamations of grandeur aren't things I on the whole feel the need to argue with as when all else is boiled away, it certainly is awe inspiring. The idea however that it is the greatest show of all time gnaws at me for a variety of reasons, and so in my own contrite manner, I'm going to explain why I believe it isn't the greatest show of all time, but why in that same vein it has the potential to be.

• It's ongoing ; That's pretty self explanatory, but the fact of the matter is we've none of us far sight, and not one among us can claim to be a green seer. There is an ENORMOUS margin for error with this show and the way it's written, and as mentioned in interviews, the show is going to take a divergent path from the book in order to retain it's built fluidity. What does that mean? Well throughout the show we've seen subtle changes from the books, little odds and ends that otherwise would make for nothing too harrowing but in the same stance are not as they should be. Arya's hit list is somewhat different, certain characters seem more integral than they would in the source material and new characters have fanned in like the prostitute Roz in order to add some familiarizing warmth, until it is extinguished of course. With a greater divergence likely spurred on by the show's gallant sprint toward the casually meandering book releases, we'll find differences that could easily be acceptable, even laudable, the dialogue between Arya and Tywin for instance being one of the many highlights of the show, or we could see this taking a Walking Dead plunge from grace. Search your heart, you know it to be true Corrl.

•  It's characters and cast change frequently ; This is a statement I'm not entirely sure people will get a great handle on, so I'll expand in depth. This is a show that prides itself on the ideal that no one is safe, and that is for the most part entirely factual. There are a few instances of characters with plot armor, we know for instance that Daenerys will survive as without the mother of dragons hamming up her ancestry, things would become rather dour across the narrow sea. There are other characters afforded this 'plot armor', and we'll see that, but as a general rule of thumb no one is beneath the books. As such, when I tell you that of the scant handful of familiar faces we have currently more shall fall and fresh faces anew shall join, it should worry you. You'd be a fool not to be. These are actors frankly who have proven their salt and made us care for them, so in each of their deaths a lingering hole remains that must quickly be plugged by a new and tender face. Thus far the show has been fairly adequate at plugging gaps and shuffling, but the fact of the matter is it won't be too long before entire segments and episodes of the show are dedicated to these newly emergent faces, and we might see the acting prowess slope when some of our more esteemed and established stalwarts fall. I realize this is prospective, but if you are telling me that this is the greatest of all, you must settle for this conjecture until the product is finished.

 

• It relies too heavily on shock ;  I know I'm going to get some flak for this if anyone is to read it, primarily because that is the central draw of the show itself. Knaves! Swords! Nudity! Bastards! All wrapped up within a delicious plot of sparse magic and winged reptiles. It's the moniker of Game of Thrones and a large mark of it's success, and I can't fault the ideal behind it as the books themselves revel in these topics, but even the gore soaked texts don't amount to the Caligula like mounds of flesh that we find ourselves immersed in. It seems facile to say back in my day, but certainly in a time not too long past to see a dwarf fondling tits, you had to have joined the darker of the gentlemen's clubs, and lurked in their seedy waters. That might seem offensive to say, but it's entirely factual. There are concepts expanded upon in this show that ordinarily couldn't be televised, not to mention the conceptual incest plowing, bare bodied lesbian grinding and other acts of debauchery previously locked within the pornographer's cellar. That's not to say the smut of the show is it's downfall, although frankly it would be a fine thing for the director to learn that when it comes to breasts more is less, no, it also ties in to the entire premise of the show at large. Main characters dieing is part and parcel of the format, we know what we're in for. Without spoiling the events of the previous series for anyone yet to catch up, we've just bolted a hurdle that will be pretty hard to top, and another approaches rapidly in succession. With the passing of the coming events, the pace will ultimately slow once more in the calm before the storm and it will be interesting to see how fans react to the slowing roller coaster that is the plot after this. Without the shock, what will the show be? Will the producers have to dip more heavily from one excess into another? It begs the question, what is left when we've become numb to the offerings?

• It's characters don't develop within the story ; "NOW HOLD ON!" I hear you cry, "That's an opinion that has no warrant! Look at the funny guy Tyrion and... And..." And thus my problem begins. The characters certainly do grow a little and the show is very good at portraying duality, but we switch attention from post to post too quickly to see a great deal of systematic growth. I'm not saying they are two dimensional constructs, though let's face it, most are drawn from well known stereotypes, I'm instead saying the events and their progressions while doing something to mark and mar the perceptions leave no deeper scars. We're left with the same characters as erst they were, no huge bounds of sanity, no crumbling morals or climbs of redemption, sans Lannister. It feels strange for me to say that there is a polarized effect, but when you can sort out who is an asshole by their family name we've entered the dark and sticky realm of character trait rolls, and in many ways it does feel like we're in the hands of a seasoned dungeon master watching the rolls play out. What would I say has good character development by example? Well Breaking Bad had some of the best, if not the very best character development of perhaps any recent series to date, and certainly the ideals and nature of man are expressed in fantastic depth in True Detective. Perhaps watching those would give you a better idea of meaning to the phrase. In any such case, for all the cleverness and beauty, there is little growth on either side. Revelations? Certainly. Acts of scant redemption? Why yes. Growth? I'm afraid we're a half man short.

So! When all is said, what are we left with, to surmise? It's certainly a show of terrific standards, and it rises above many others quite literally in draconian strides. Does it sit upon the televisual throne however? No, perhaps not, but it could given time. I shall be watching with delight, in any such case.