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. 

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.