bbakerb: (holmes)
[personal profile] bbakerb
So I was going to be sneaky and not mention that I did a pinch-hit for [ profile] holmestice until the reveal, but what the hell, someone who is JUST WONDERFUL has made me a thank-you fic, Not-Quite Mother Of Mine, and a wallpaper - for ME! for my VERY OWN! I really wasn't expecting anything, it must have been terrible short notice - and the fic is about MRS HUDSON! and is a DELIGHT! - and the wallpaper is beauteous! I am filled with happy. I feel like I've WON Holmestice, I know that's not the point. THANK YOU KIND PERSON.

I'll say now that if you by some strange chance happened to guess what story I wrote in either of the anon fic exchanges I've taken part in - [ profile] yuletide  and [ profile] holmestice  - or certain *key factors* in my [ profile] sherlockmas  assignment - you probably deserve some sort of prize.

Also: do you want to read an excitingly lengthy discussion between me and [ profile] strangeumbrella  about so many things, but most importantly The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, the film, the marvellous melancholy film? and some other Holmes stuff, and Merlin, etc - well then, go to the comments to this post here, marvel at our disregard for comment limits, I am amazed by the length of them.

So: now I talk about Misfits! In an attempt to avoid making like three entries in a row. Oh you crazy mixed-up show that you are, Misfits, light of my life, fire of my loins. There are three whole episodes to talk about, what happened? The passage of time happened, that's what.

THE ONE WITH THE MURDEROUS DAD: I liked this! I liked that of course the superhero costumes we saw in the future were fancy dress. Being apparently very very slow I did not get that the dad was the culprit until we literally saw him with, what was it, glowing red eyes and heavy breathing.

I think Misfits is proof that when you have very very strong characterisation you don't particularly mind if the plot goes somewhere you don't really like for a bit. The reveal that Bruno was a gorilla made me go 'ohhhh god, what have you done, stupid show' - but this went away, totally 100%, thirty seconds later, the awful feeling of ridiculousness got FIXED - Kelly said something incredibly Kellyish, Nathan said something Nathan-y, and bam! It's still Misfits-y. Misfits fairly frequently lurches towards ridiculousness and then suddenly it all pulls back together.

THE ONE WITH THE MURDEROUS LACTOSE BOY: I think this one was pretty effective, actually - you feel throughout the episode that things are getting wronger and wronger - the fame etc, the sponsorship, Nathan blowing his brains out live on TV - and then it turns out it is another example of Misfits teasing you with the conventional idea of what happens when people turn up with superpowers, and then saying 'well actually that's not going to happen, SO HA', which is one of the things I enjoy most about the show - you spent a good portion of this episode thinking, 'what, really, is this really where we're going with the story? public superpowers, commercial gain, etc?' and you resist and resist believing that they're going to go with this, while the show is saying 'no look, see, we mean it' and then it turns around and says 'haha, fooled you! OBVIOUSLY we're not going there, what do you take us for!'

What I like about Misfits is the sense that the overall plot is moving on but very, very slowly. It doesn't return to the same place at the end of the episode, it doesn't leap ahead - it feels wrong whenever they seem to move on too far, I am always glad when it is not the case. It is, basically, to do with the main five being so resistant to the superpower thing - they're being dragged into it, not seeking it out; if they think about it at all, they want to ignore it.

THE CHRISTMAS ONE: okay so for the first ten or fifteen minutes I was not not not impressed. I thought, oh god, the Misfits writers have finally bought their own hype, they've written something self-indulgent and annoying and pointless. It picked up when they got to the actual storyline, and yes, good, hurrah, the writers are up to something there, yay cliffhanger.

also: hurrah Edward Hogg hurrah! He was Ariel in a production of The Tempest I saw at the Globe, years ago - Mark Rylance was Prospero. I was sick to death of the play (knew it inside out because it was a set text), but this production it hit just about every button I had. Most reviews weren't too good - it was incredibly difficult to follow if you hadn't just spent a term learning it inside out for AS-levels; three actors sharing out all the parts between them. But this review at the Independent is comparatively good. Edward Hogg I remember sliding between being Miranda and being Ariel, sometimes being both at the same time - it was QUITE WONDERFUL. (The programme had Mark Rylance going on about Jungian archetypes and 'it all makes sense if you accept that the entire play takes place IN PROSPERO'S OWN MIND!' which seemed to my youthful unformed mind totally mad and unhelpful to actually enjoying the production) - I mean, I'm sure he's done other stuff too! people who act tend to - but Ariel-Miranda is what I remember him from.

So Misfits, that was what I meant to talk about. Is it a plot hole that Simon is leaping about and dating Alisha even though Alisha telling Simon he was super!hoodie got erased due to Curtis rewinding time. I did feel a little cheated, I suppose we are meant to assume that they had that conversation anyway? Ugh, it annoyed me, it might just be the clumsiness of the way it was explained - Nathan saying for no real reason 'oh you with your GIRLFRIEND and flat etc' - that skated over quite a lot that's clearly happened in these three months.

Misfits! You can't all of a sudden pretend things happen offscreen. Offscreen things aren't for you to decide! That's what fanfic is for. (Speaking of which, three month window for fic writers to have shenanigans ensue! WHY HELLO.)

(Have realised that I keep talking about 'Misfits writers' when it is of course just Howard Overman. Who wrote two of the absolute absolute best Merlin episodes there've been - 'Sins of the Father' (Sins of the Father!) and 'The Labyrinth of Gedref'. (UNICORNS.) - and also a couple I found annoying, shhh. Maybe this explains the weird lurching Misfits does!)

YEAH SO, okay, I was ultimately won over by the Christmas episode - I get the feeling quite a few people were unhappy with it? IDK, really, have been avoiding spoilers. I still wasn't too into: Nathan and the pregnant girl. Yet more Simon-and-Alisha-having-sex - so much sex! they have had more sex than just about anyone else on this show. 

I actually laughed HYSTERICALLY (does this count as a pun) at the afterbirth scene. Oh god what. Sometimes I think they have Nathan say/do awful things just for the sake of it - what I like is when Nathan does something ridiculous/awful that's not intentionally awful, like here, where he genuinely thought the poor girl's placenta might be some alien creature.

lastly: I have a account now. Basically everybody show me your last fms so I can add you.

Date: 2010-12-26 04:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
OH HEY. I meant to reply to this ages ago and then Christmas very much happened. Happy Christmas, by the way! Anyway I have two main sections to put in this comment and the first one is

So yeah! I really enjoyed the last couple of episodes of the series proper, like I enjoyed the entire series, really, particularly the lactose boy because, idk, I just liked everything about the plot? Like remember on Heroes where that woman could just hear really loudly and everyone was like '...what an incredibly shit power' and so here they found something EVEN MORE specific and useless except worked out how actually it could be made VERY DANGEROUS and just. lol milk. And Curtis is lactose intolerant. Basically it was all great, congrats Misfits.

As for the Christmas episode! I think I was a bit disappointed in this, there were lots of things that I assumed would be resolved and just - weren't. That discrepancy with Simon knowing that he's the hoodie guy, for one, but also, for example, all the way through I thought there was going to be some kind of reveal about Nathan and the pregnant girl, like she/someone else was using some kind of power to make him unusually clingy. Because otherwise Nathan's actions seem bafflingly out of character? I'm not saying Nathan is incapable of wanting to do a good thing, of wanting to take care of a girl or a baby, but I am saying I think he's incapable of deciding to do that on the day he meets her. I thought Marnie was lovely and I thought her and Nathan were really sweet together, actually, didn't make sense within one episode? Like, it would take him at least a series to form that sort of emotional connection. Surely. Like the slow burn with him and Kelly. Does this make sense, do you know what I mean. I think as a long-term storyline, that could have been really interesting, but within that short time frame, I just couldn't believe it.

ALSO generally just, cliches all over the shop, she gives birth and inexplicably an ambulance can't come and also she's in labour for like half an hour instead of HOURS/DAYS, and I was going "but it's so unrealistic" and my brother was saying "'re saying this about a show where that guy is immortal". But the thing is, yeah, that is true, but I like that other than the obviou departures from the real world, Misfits is generally very good about realism? I was slightly annoyed by the idea that somehow because this was a Christmas episode, we could handwave things that were ooc or weird or, or even the bit where they all sang a carol and looked at the baby. Why was that even there? It's not some kind of dream sequence so it presumably actually happened and I know it was immediately undercut by them all being like "this is uncool", but still.

anyway it is a while since I watched it and it wasn't like I hated it, I still enjoyed it, I was just puzzled by there being all these issues the show had never really had before. Get back on track for the next series, hmm?? And I quite like the idea of them having new powers, an interesting way to take next series, ALTHOUGH I am worried about the loss of the 'forced upon them' element, which was an important part of how they dealt with their powers, that they certainly hadn't ASKED for them and now they have. Also speaking of that, surely Alisha getting rid of her power in the future is not an explanation for why future-Simon could touch her in the past while she still had it? Either that is not good enough or actually it isn't the reason and that'll be explained at some point in the future.

Date: 2010-12-26 04:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
okay shorter section two

holy shit I started reading it, I'm about halfway through the collection of the first stories, can't deal with how gay it is? Literally can't deal with that?? We've started doing a quiz now and in a minute I have to go and eat a meal so I don't have time to think of all the things I was going to say but HOW IS IT THIS GAY. Like he goes to the cricket all the time and then Raffles stops playing for a bit and he's like "yeah cricket's really boring, I only come here to watch Raffles, I'm not interesting in the game", HOW IS THAT A THING. Also when they do the first crime and when Bunny realises what's happening he's not upset because they're committing a crime but because Raffles didn't trust him enough to tell him. So much about their trust issues all the time. IT'S ALL TOO MUCH okay we have to have gammon now

Date: 2010-12-29 07:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
HEY THERE I think on the 26th we were in fact gammon twins, ironically I and my family had spent the day walking around the East End on a walking tour of Historical Jewish East London, and were as we ate the pig listening to klezmer in an attempt to continue this theme. (we do LONG WALKS on boxing day, often they are THEMED)

Regarding Nathan and Marnie in Misfits: this is more clearly stated what I sort of had in the back of my mind, i.e. why is this happening so fast, why is this happening AT ALL, is it only because Nathan is the only one who has not had sex all over the place this series. (am not actually sure if this is true) Also: why must they try to shoehorn in a pregnant girl into the christmas episode. why. I hooooope something will go on with the baby next series? that would be the only justification for it. BUT YEAH. Too fast. And what annoyed me was that the scene where they met was CLEARLY aware that they were trying to squish far too much in, that whole 'well normally we'd do this and this and this but wait no we'll just have sex' theme of the conversation. They KNEW they were trying to convince us of something difficult/unlikely.

AND OKAY your point about realism - yes. What I said about Misfits managing to rescue itself from weird moments - I like that - but I would rather not have the weird moments, obvs, and i do think looking back on what I wrote (SO LONG AGO) they're pushing it a bit far in that regard? the carol singing, like you say - why have that at ALL - BUT BUT BUT maybe that's another effect of Marnie's secret superpower! her making people clingy like you said! it affected the other Misfits too and made them burst into song! (Have we just fixed that episode, I THINK MAYBE, Marnie's superpower is inciting sentimentality, yes yes)

and the loose strands of story - I actually didn't want too much to get sorted out? Simon's not superhoodie yet - and regarding Alisha - perhaps there is a superpower floating around which is 'not being affected by superpowers'? - it seems clear you can buy more than one. About the 'not being forced on them' thing - HAD NOT THOUGHT OF THIS and now am worried, what is the point if they WANT what they are saddled with.

RAFFLES RAFFLES GLORIOUS RAFFLES, according to cicak Hornung was friends with Oscar Wilde and named his son after him (Arthur Oscar Hornung, the Arthur after ACD, HOW PRESH), and immoralilly said she wrote an essay at uni about how Raffles and Bunny were based on Wilde and Bosie??? Bunny=Bosie? is what she told me. I cannot see it myself, wasn't Bosie the glam one always off being 'idc about you, not really', and Wilde had that quip about 'I don't play cricket, it makes you assume indecent postures'. So I do not agree with that, am sticking with George Ives.

but basically: it MAY BE that it is THIS GAY semi-deliberately? there's a book called Strangers by Graham Robb, about 19th century homosexuality, I read two chapters and foolishly did not take it out from the library before it shut for Christmas and now can't get it til the 4th - but there's a totally tangential chapter at the end about Holmes and detectives and 'decadence', the guy argues (slightly hilariously? but quite appealingly) that all detectives are written as gay or gay-adjacent, he seems to include Bunny and Raffles in this.

Date: 2010-12-29 07:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
AND FURTHERMORE I looked up the Peter Cook/Dudley Moore Holmes on youtube, it really doesn't seem so bad? Like, it supposedly killed their partnership, whenever anyone mentions it in relation to Cook or Moore it's all 'oh well THAT was awful', but no one appears to have actually SEEN it, you can't get it on dvd etc etc - and it's not EXCELLENT, but there are fun bits? The main annoyance is various sketches of theirs getting recycled (pretty awkwardly) into scenes in the film, that's not fun, their sketches aren't even very Holmesy. And I suppose I was hoping it would be more like this:


Date: 2011-01-02 11:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Hello! Sorry it inexplicably takes actual days for me to get round to replying to a comment at the moment, but you know it is coming eventually. And here it is now. Re-reading your comments on Raffles and Wilde and Bosie (the naming after Wilde and Conan Doyle is the LOVELIEST THING btw oh man, BEST NAMED CHILD) are particularly relevant to me today, for today I have actually returned to that big wilde/holmes homoessay I'm supposed to be doing, and have discovered that I'd already written about 1,000 words more of it that I thought I had. Which is a lovely surprise. On the other hand, I have SO MUCH to say that I'm never going to fit in, oh noooo. Re-reading my lovingly extensive notes I found a massive paragraph I copied out of a book that was a very convincing argument for Holmes's deductive process being inextricably mixed up in sadism (and by that token, some kind of sexual sado-masochistic connection). All this stuff about him chasing people's shocked and distressed reactions by uncovering things they think are private, and actively enjoying those reactions, and how the readers get to experience "Watsonian masochism" and I mean I could have done a whole essay on THAT but I don't think there'll be space. le sigh.

Anyway so right now my mind is entirely taken up by a combination of turn of the century homos and mid-20th century comedians! Because SPEAKING OF that second clip, as we weren't but are now, did you see Eric and Ernie last night? IT WAS JUST EVERYTHING I WANTED also I really like Bryan Dick and it was so nice to see him but EVERYTHING ABOUT IT WAS PERFECT. uhhhh morcambe and wise.

I was also going to say, Hound of the Baskervilles, is the whole thing on youtube? I think we might have had this conversation already but nonetheless, I genuinely do like that film! Which is maybe because I saw it as a kid and so it's just associated with me enjoying it then, and because at the time I had little other experience of both Holmes and Pete and Dud, so I don't know if I'd be less impressed if I saw it now for the first time. But even without that, I wouldn't have thought it was so bad? Also I don't understand how we have it on DVD, maybe I should ask my dad where he got it, did he just create it from magic and determination? Who knows.

Okay I started writing this comment like four hours ago and then I had tea and watched some stuff and did some work and I can't remember what important things I was supposed to say. What I am going to do is continue with the mid-century comedian theme and say, in your Yuletide travels, have you come across this? If not, you know what, I'm not even going to say anything, I think you should just be let loose on it to see what happens. please let me know if you have read it or if you haven't, let me know when you do because I need to talk about it ALL THE TIME.

Date: 2011-01-03 11:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I would like to say: that thing about holmes's deductions and sadism? and WATSONIAN MASOCHISM? that is AMAZING, that is kind of totally amazing. There are endless requests on the sherlock fic meme about sadism/masochism, D/s, etc, which I have to say I never really bought, because I assumed it was just what people ask for by default on kink memes, am now thinking it could be done, you know, properly, with WATSONIAN MASOCHISM, that it could make emotional sense and be not just porn, you must know I am in favour of porn! but it's got to be in character porn

HOTB! ok so I am not sure where my belief that it wasn't on dvd came from? wait amazon has it, only second-hand, but obviously this means it was manufactured by someone at some point, I think maybe doesn't have it? that is how I judge whether things exist these days - ok on lovefilm it says you can 'reserve' it, which usually means sthng isn't on dvd yet, have therefore discovered that it also means 'lovefilm cannot be bothered to have this in stock'. haha what that was an entire stream of consciousness paragraph about the availability of a dvd sorry

There was on youtube what appeared to be a good deal of it? and then it stopped, and then there were a couple of random bits that were there one week but not the next, anyway I am pretty sure I have not seen all of it, but I can conCLUSively say mostly for my own benefit it is ok. there are worse films. they didn't break up their traumatic lifemateyness because of it, it was, you know, actual personality conflicts, Peter Cook being a dick, also an alcoholic, Dudley Moore getting sick of it, wanting something different out of life, etc, etc. (there was an article by one of their ex girlfriends that was about them sharing prostitutes and/or also her? why is this not an angsty fanfic yet? whyyyy also jonathan miller thought Peter Cook wasn't sure whether he was gay or not, as a result of going to public school, ditto angsty fanfic) (Letters to Juliet! THAT is an awful film. I was pressganged into seeing it with my entIRE family, my grandmother who LOVED it, my grandad who did not quite process that it was supposed to be happening in Italy despite every cliche of ITALIA! being flung onto the screen, he said 'but you didn't see them getting on a plane, or a boat - I thought they must be in Mexico')

ERIC AND ERNIE, I DID NOT SEE IT, I have seen NOTHING on tv augh since... the Doctor Who christmas special actually. (WHICH I LIKED) but lol what it is now a week later, no more than that

argh and in my YULETIDE TRAVELS, I DID COME ACROSS THAT, I came across it a couple of times because it got recced, and also it was something I bookmarked as RELEVANT TO MY INTERESTS but I haven't actually READ the thing yet, I keep waiting for the *perfect time*, maybe that time should be now oh shit there are things I have to click

Date: 2011-01-03 11:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

resonant has just posted a Sherlock story

this is literally quite exciting

have not read it yet but here is the link

Date: 2011-01-04 01:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Haha I don't know who or what resonant is but I am super willing to take this rec! I have just opened it and shall attend to it once I have written this comment. Hoorayyy (ps: the person who wrote the Python fic also wrote a super Sherlock one too, not on yuletide but on their journal, just sayin')

Anyway! Yeah that s/m thing is genuinely interesting and, and correct, like obvs it's not the only reading of the way Holmes acts but when I read the argument I was like, yes. That makes absolute sense. In terms of Sherlock and the kink meme and s/m or d/s or whatever, I'd previously only really bought things where it was Sherlock who was submissive or masochistic, I think there is a lot of interesting stuff there, especially with John as he is played in this version. BUT actually in light of that sadism-deduction argument I'm like, actually, okay, interesting to see that the other way round. And Watsonian masochism in terms of John's problems and disagreements with Sherlock, which are more of a thing in the series than in canon, I reckon, and his continued association/friendship with Sherlock nonetheless. Basically: that it pisses him off that Sherlock assumes he will do whatever he wants, and that he generally does it anyway. Does that make sense? Anyway I had all of those thoughts and then completely conicidentally I also came across this on the meme which I think shows how Watsonian masochism (or submission, really, in this case) can work. Also it was hot so probably that helped.

Right anyway yes I'm going to read your rec now, but yep, I MASSSSSSIVELY recommend Eric and Ernie, best thing I've seen over this holiday, I reckon. (I also recommend Toast, the adaptation of Nigel Slater's autobiography that was on the bbc the other day, idk I am weirdly attached to Nigel Slater anyway and the whole thing was genuinely really good. Also Dirk Gently? Did you see that? lots of good tv recently basically) (also I agree, Doctor Who was cracking. I LOVE YOU ELEVEN)


bbakerb: (Default)

April 2011

     1 2
345 6789

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 05:53 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios