Skip to main content

What made you think they could be anything else?

The Owl Service
Episode Eight

The recap notes that Roger’s mind is full of Margaret’s “minor sarcasms about the Birmingham Belle” but this is another instance where the specifics of his malaise passed me by, if they were identified. It makes more sense that the main reason for his disturbance is the role-playing he has been caught in.


Behind the stable door Roger discovers a stuffed owl in a glass jar (“Bubo Bubo Bubo”), a collection of paper owls “tea party” made by Nancy and Bertram’s motorbike. One might question why Nancy left all this “evidence” behind if it so unnerves her. As with the plates, why didn’t she just destroy them; perhaps this is addressed in the novel. The line up of paper owls brings to mind the aliens from Quatermass and the Pit, which is perhaps appropriate (strange, ancient mysteries).


Nancy’s crazed entrance, sending feathers flying everywhere as she smashes the owl case and evicting Roger (“What do you want?”), sets the tone for the dramatics that follow. She comes on like Mrs Danvers from Rebecca, bewitched by the earlier tragedy that played out around the house.


Where Huw previously came across as a cracked sage, now a decidedly less benign bent is apparent. He sees it as his duty to ensure the legend is reenacted and goes to the lengths of having village kids chop down a telegraph pole. Nancy cannot call a taxi to leave, and by implication Gwyn is also marooned in the village with her. But he’s already decided to stay with his dad. For all Nancy’s hyperbolic ranting, she shows the most acute understanding of the imminent dangers. Her sin is in keeping it all (or most of it) to herself; the last we see of her is heading out of the village on foot.


Huw finds Alison, again dressed in red (I wonder if Nic Roeg saw this prior to making Don’t Look Now?), and she shelters from the storm in his rundown living quarters. Again, the divergent values of the rich and poor are highlighted, but Huw sees himself as rich; he has all the valley to keep things in. 



When he gives her the owl pendant, Alison succumbs to a teatime version of The Exorcist possession. This is strong stuff; the claw marks that appear on her face and the writhing of her bare legs. And Huw, the puppet master, demands that Roger “Go fetch the boy”. Wallis proves a master of stunt acrobatics as he careers from the shack and cascades around in the mud.


I was surprised by how the climax unfolds. Roger is offered redemption and maturity while Gwyn sinks into the same morass that did for Huw. Arriving at Huw’s hovel, he refuses the call to aid Alison (“Help her!” pleads Roger). Instead, he unleashes the same immature barracking that Roger resorted two episodes previously; in his own way he is as gripped by the legend as Alison. And, in response, Roger shows pity (“You poor devil”). 



One might argue that the solution is all too simple, but it resonates for that very reason; the pattern on the plates that began her slide represents both owls and flowers, and Alison, the “silly gubbins” is told she’s never been anything else but flowers; “What made you think they could be anything else?” Most significant is the surprise registered by Huw (apparently the novel also identifies Huw with Gwydion or, at least, that’s how Huw thinks of himself); it shouldn’t have been Roger. The legend has failed to win out this time.


What’s one to make of the subtext of this? That Garner is implicitly confirming one can’t escape one’s upbringing? Gwyn is trapped by his heritage and turns inward. Garner has said that it wasn’t until he reached his forties that he came to terms with his issues over the education that set him apart from his background and family. In Gwyn’s case he is presumably unable to move on. Maybe he doesn’t end up working at the Co-op, since he has rejected his mother, but his father’s influence is unlikely to be any more affirmative. 



After all, if the reenactment of the legend carries on down through the bloodlines, it may well be one of Gwyn’s children we see approaching the stone in the coda. It will all happen again, as it has always done.



Overall:


Perhaps not as iconic as Children of the Stones (another series that suggests a circular loop of intersecting past and present), but The Owl Service remains a potent tapestry of myth and mundanity. It is also strikingly untempered family fare. You can see why the DVD earned a 12 certificate. If the serial falters during the midsection, there’s no doubt that it rallies for a potent ending. Peter Plummer’s directorial choices aren’t always successful, but it’s his distinctive approach that makes the adaptation so memorable. And, if Michael Holden is the weak link, his fellow cast members make up for this; in particular Gillian Hills and Raymond Llewellyn. I’ve not seen the ‘90s adaptation of Elidor but Alan Garner, like John Christopher, is a “children’s” author long overdue for rediscovery through film and television. 

Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un