Skip to main content

I believe I shall be very happy here.

Children of the Stones
7: Full Circle


And so, the finale. This flip-flopping of characters in order to provide sufficient exposition is occasionally a little too evident (Matthew feels the need to reaffirm that cycles are repeating themselves to his father, who is well aware of this, or was the previous episode) but there’s a nice line in philosophical clarification during the opening section.


Earlier I noted how pagan beliefs were seemingly cast in a negative light, in favour of Christianity as a bastion that wards off such spells. Now, the balance is redressed. The goings-on in Milbury are cast as an aberration. It may be something of a token gesture, since any kid watching will think “Ohh scary nasty pagans” but it’s an important distinction to make (interesting too that, like Mr. Magister in The Daemons, Hendrick sets up operations of evil in the basement of the local church; the corruption of all that is on the surface sacrosanct).


AdamPerhaps it had some sort of benign power. But then, when the supernova became a black hole, the power was reversed.

It’s the sort of thing John Carpenter, with his anti-god of Prince of Darkness, would love. There are some curiously Christian riffing lines too. “In the beginning was the star… and the star was some sort of God” recalls “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”; by its nature the echoing suggests a corruption of purity, which has occurred in the form of the black hole.


Adam also qualifies the possible takes on Hendrick and the priest; that when the power of the implosion was harnessed, he perhaps thought the process was for the villagers’ own good (yet Hendrick absolves himself from the conditioning undergone by the people). Hendrick’s concept of evil, we are led to believe, is “the capacity to do wrong”. He refers to the ritual as a method of “purging the community of sin” (one might see the happy day zombies as a metaphor for “Born Again” Christians), and Adam again accuses him of assuming the role of a priest

HendrickYour sin is my sin. Your guilt is my guilt. You are free. Happy day indeed. My flock is cleansed, my task is done.


A mention of the day-for-night filming we’ve seen throughout. Often I’ve found such a device distracting but I think it works in this serial, adding to the pervading sense of the uncanny.


Adam’s plan to set the clocks five minutes fast is simple but effective; there’s a tension to their work, with the constant background chanting heard outside. And the decision to set them fast rather than slow turns out to have the added bonus of ensnaring Hendrick, who is still at the table when the alignment with the Great Bear (Ursa Major) occurs. When the beam captures Hendrick, we see him as the ancient seer he once was.


Prior to this, Adam does his best to disparage the airs and graces of Hendrick’s room, referring to it as “exactly the sort of thing I would have expected of a man of your conceit to have chosen”. Presumably the piercing beam of light is partially subjective, as even with his chair turned Hendrick would notice that no such impact occurred this time round. 



LinkMaster! They are still impure! The circle is broken. Your protection is gone!

Link’s words are all we really need to explain what takes place. I mean, why exactly the villagers turn to stone is not clarified (only calcified). A realisation of the ages this has played out over? If the number of stones represent the number of people, it nevertheless cannot mean they are one and the same, as these people turn to stone (additional stones). Then again, presumably these new stones vanish with the reset?


The escape is especially dramatic, with shades of Lot’s wife, as Adam instructs Margaret “Don’t look back”. It isn’t just adults who succumb; we see young Bob stonified. So, as with the painting, villagers are turning to stone as two travellers flee the site to the safety of the sanctuary.


As noted, the specifics of the reset that occur remain elusive. Dai is not only reconstituted, but when Adam and Matthew awake his sanctuary is redressed; now it appears that he is a sharpener of knives and of a disgruntled disposition, uttering that he is no friend to Adam. Yet the telltale bones in the shape of a serpent that Dai cast some days earlier are still there. 



The villagers are back to normal, and unlike Dai they recognise Adam and Matthew. The distinction in this process is unclear, although it allows for a suggestion of unrequited potential between Adam and Margaret.


MargaretAre you still determined to leave?
AdamIf we can.
MargaretI’m glad we’ve got such a hold on you. It’s been nice.
AdamFor me too.

Aw, that’s quite sad. Still, I’m sure they’ll meet again…


MatthewDid it happen, or didn’t it?
AdamI don’t know, Matt. I just don’t know.
MatthewPerhaps there was another circle besides the stones. Time. Perhaps that’s circular too.
AdamYou mean. It might all happen again one day.
MatthewIt may already be happening. To the people inside the time trap.


And as if on cue, a car goes past containing Iain Cuthbertson, this time with slicked back hair and sporting a bow tie. He drives up to the manor and is greeted by Link; there is “For Sale” sign outside (that was… quick), and we are told that he, Sir Joshua Lytton, is retiring here from London (“I believe I shall be very happy here”). Link now has a moustache.


It’s unclear, if this is an instant reset, how many times has this happened over thousands of years. And did Joshua Litten just wink fully formed into existence? Should Margaret and Sandra have been reconstituted in the village (the time trap) since they arrived as outsiders? While Litten’s arrival works for dramatic purposes, and we see similar resets with Dai and Link, it resists being nailed down. After all, if Litten is there to begin his work all over again, won’t Adam and Matthew have to return to defeat him once more? Which won’t really work if they know in advance what they must do. Perhaps the outsiders incarnate differently each time? Or perhaps Litten is not set to achieve the things that Hendrick did. Maybe such cycles of achievement are sporadic, within longer ones that remain dormant (what happened during the cycle before Hendrick arrived)?


Overall:


Children of the Stones isn’t a serial that really demands such extensive probing; it’s success is in immediate impact and whispered remembrance, so it is all the more rewarding that it withstands repeat viewings. And let’s face it, time travel/loop stories never tie things up in a wholly consistent way; the holes are intrinsic to the construction. The effects of the passage of time on the show have been mainly cosmetic. It still fires the imagination and should continue to inspire generations to come.


Wikipedia provides a useful guide to the different time periods explored in the series.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.