Skip to main content

The force was in the plates. It’s in us now. Isn’t it?

The Owl Service
Episode Five

While some have bemoaned the info-dump recaps, they repeatedly provide details that I’d either missed or Garner or Plummer (or both) intended to remain oblique. There’s something to be said for such an approach as the gist of the legend coming to life is repeatedly reinforced (and that’s the main thing). But, on occasions, Plummer’s choices prove distracting. The “Four days later” caption is designed to show that Alison was forced to snub Gwyn, but her subsequent panic over being at the time and place she agreed to meet him initially caught me off guard. The way Plummer stages the scene it at first appears to be about something else entirely and in this case I think the often fractured editing works against the storytelling.


The consequences of extending the serial from seven episodes to eight have become rather evident around the midpoint. Both Four and Five are treading water for much of the time, and not a whole lot happens. A significant portion of Five is devoted to Alison and Gwyn climbing the mountain. Unfortunately, this again reinforces Holden’s shortcomings as an actor; if he’s Garner’s stand-in, as the character who feels the tug between his background and the education that lifts him from it, Holden is unable to make Gwyn effectively sympathetic. Wallis’ performance is so much better that, despite Roger being an increasingly obnoxious prig, we’d rather see him. There’s a Billy Liar quality to a line like “I’ve got to get out of this place. There’s nothing here but sheep” but it’s designed to indicate the mounting claustrophobia the trio are feeling (Roger and Gwyn in particular) as they rehearse age-old roles.


The “soaking the Saxon” scene is amusing (Gwyn pulls the wool over Alison’s eyes with a tall story about sheep with one leg shorter than the other, and the stilts that are made for them), and Hills is as ever in a class above her young co-stars. But there isn’t much sizzle to Gwyn and Alison’s tryst as Holden’s too conscious of hitting his marks. We’re also treated to a bit of exposition that the ITV continuity announcer must have been relieved to finally hear (“The force was in the plates. It’s in us now. Isn’t it? Isn’t that why the pattern’s gone?”)


Garner works hard to parallel Gwyn and Roger; both are experiencing difficulties for different reasons, and as the latter part of the serial progresses they will mirror each other at different points in both the suffering and the unkindness that they show. Huw’s insecurity over his Welsh accent is commented upon (he has bought elocution records; “I’m a Taff, aren’t I?”) while Alison notes that Roger’s problems stem from the departure of his mother (she walked out on Roger and Clive, and Margaret nicknames her “The Birmingham Belle”). Each will use this knowledge as a stick to beat the other with (and Alison provides the fuel in both instances).


Roger is on the fringes of the episode, appropriately as when we see him he’s in a state of discomposure. At one point he is sat in the corner of the cellar, weeping uncontrollably. Wallis is a mannered performer but he makes the scene affecting, and there’s sufficient interior life that we understand why he has assumed the adversarial position in respect of the legend and the photos (“I changed my mind. I tore them up”); he’s been isolated by the canoodling between Gwyn and Alison so it’s only natural that he should choose to disagree with their premise. 



For whatever reason, any suggestion of Roger having a romantic attraction to Alison is soft-pedalled (it can’t be down to their step-relationship, can it?) As a result, the incarnated iconography of the legend is slightly undermined; he’s just got the hump. If anything, you wonder more at Clive’s doting over his new stepdaughter than countenance that Roger has any serious longings for her.


The main development is Gwyn making the connection between Uncle Bertram and Nancy. We also see Gwyn throwing a “spear” at the stable roof (is this the one he aims at Roger in an earlier episode?), in an echo of the tale. Which firmly identifies Huw as Llew. There’s a slight problem with the absence of any character signifiers of Roger as Gronw Pebr, aside from his “nobility”. Indeed, Huw’s tampering with Bertram’s brakes has more in common with the plot to kill Llew in the legend than justice served on the lord who has stolen his love; I guess it’s a pick-and-choose myth.  


The return of the scratching from the opening episodes accompanies the revelation of a locked stable door, from which the sounds emanate.  While the tone of the serial is consistently portentous, the supernatural in the novel felt much more persistent than it does in the TV version (I might reconsider that, should I revisit the book). Certainly, around this point, the TV series is a domestic drama with the hint of an occult backdrop, whereas the book was infused with the magical.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?