Skip to main content

He’s a yobbo. A clever yobbo.

The Owl Service
Episode Six

The helpful recap establishes that Nancy was gifted the plates by Bertram (if this was stated earlier, I missed it). Should the adult themes of the serial have failed induce parental qualms over its suitability, then the strong language of this episode probably decided the case. Gwyn tells Nancy, “Drop dead, you miserable cow!” to which she replies “Is that what they teach you at the grammar?” Later he’s even more disrespectful, referring to Alison’s mother as a “Dirty minded bitch!” It’s enough to make you choke on your Rich Tea! This might be construed as evidence enough that he is the “yob” Roger now refers to him as. 



The threats of an existence behind the counter at the Co-op are ever present as Nancy’s now had her fill and given 48 hours notice (due to Clive harping on about the locked stable door). To be honest, and I know it’s a central theme, the class stuff does get a bit repetitive. At times a show not tell approach might be more effective; there’s an awful lot of telling going on, right down to Gwyn’s attempt to flee the valley at the climax, scrambling up a slate hill with “I told you, he’s a yob” echoing through his mind.


Much of this episode’s impact comes from Roger being a frightful stinker to Gwyn. His disgust at the latter crying on the stairs is another moment where Wallis successfully carries across the emotions of the previous episode. He refers to Gwyn’s public display as “absolutely embarrassing”. Because no one saw him blubbing the previous week, he’s able to lie to Alison that he hasn’t shed tears since he was a child. Their argument effectively character assassinates each other’s parent. She snobbily notes his “rough diamond dad” and he lays into her “bank book mum”. 



Roger has now retreated so much from the unexplained phenomena theory that he refers to earlier events as a “put-up job”. And, like any teenager on the defensive, he picks on Gwyn’s most painful insecurity and launches an offensive; his class. He’s learnt to be a horrible snob from his father, of course, and with the lines now drawn he’s free (after tentatively showing friendship for Gwyn in the early episodes) to mock him.


RogerHe’s not one of us. He never will be. He’s a yobbo. A clever yobbo.

He considers that the house will be better without “those two weirdos” and dismisses Gwyn’s future life with “He’ll become a teacher or something equally wet”. But again, these are his own insecurities coming out; he has a job lined up in the family firm that serves no vocational purpose. As Alison says, he should become a photographer (but he has a thousand and one reasons why he would fail at it). Later, he brings up the elocution lessons, which Alison mentioned sympathetically, to ridicule Gwyn (“How now, brown cow”). 



And there he is again, framed between Alison and Gwyn. The problem is, as I’ve mentioned before, that Wallis is a much better cad than Holden is a wayward hero. Cruel as Roger is, Gwyn comes off with so little nuance that we don’t really feel for him; or not nearly enough. And the streak of wit Wallis lends Roger occasionally lights up the screen. He does a great comedy accent, and his “Or is it the very nerve centre of the illicit Welsh whisky trade look you” is very funny, whatever Alison says to the contrary.


Alison is found blowing in the wind (“I’m one person for mummy and another with you. I can’t argue”) but in spite of generally coming across as more sympathetic (less judgemental) than Roger and Gwyn her shallowness is highlighted when she admits why she stopped meeting Gwyn (the threat of leaving the choir and the tennis club).


Plummer pulls some interesting visual choices in the scene where Gwyn comes across Alison sketching. Her reaction is from his point of view, lending the proceedings a threatening quality. Later he pulls a reverse of this, with Alison putting her hand in front of her (the camera’s) face when she asks Gwyn to “stop looking at me like that!


After the meandering narrative of the last two episodes, this one is blessed with meaty dramatic fireworks. The fantasy element remains subdued, even though Huw has a more substantial role. He continues to preside over the re-enactment of the legend, distracting Clive from discovering Gwyn and Alison (“Do you like my bonny-fire?”), leading Clive to reminisce over his working class roots (baking potatoes over an open fire).

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.