Iain Coleman wrote:<
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jenny Kaye wrote:
Iain Coleman wrote:
Alison Page wrote:
Where is > >truth held?
In the text.
What does 'truth' mean when we are talking about a work of > >fiction?
In the text.
This seems terribly naive. (c.f. 'The UNIT Dating Problem' in Dr
Who.)
Bollocks to the unit dating problem. B7 series one was written by and scriptedited by the same two people. The UNIT dating problem came
about
because Super Fan Ian Levine, who was acting as unofficial historian at the
time
for
Dr Who, didn't know his arse from his elbow.
It is the most glaring example of the kind of problems that inevitably arise in this context.
That's true. But Doctor Who ran for 26 years, with a whole load of different producers and script editors. B7 only for 4 years, with 2 producers and 1 script editor. So there's less margin for error.
Actually, there are three main problems:
- Self-consistency. With the best will in the world, it is
near-impossible to create an entirely self-consistent TV drama series. Even in what might seem the ideal case, where one guy is in charge of the entire production, problems crop up.
That's true. Problems do crop up. See series two of B7 for a good example.
These can be due to constraints of
time and budget, the contributions of directors, actors, and FX
designers,
Public climate on violence as well.
or simply the writer deciding to change the direction of the show after
it
has begun.
That happens a few times on B7 as well.
Even 'Babylon 5' has elements which are extremely difficult to
reconcile
A programme inspired by The Prisoner and B7.
-- why should it be surprising that the same is true of the less
intensively-planned, more hastily-written 'Blake's 7'?
Less intensively-planned? Don't you believe it.
Hastily-written? Don't confuse haste with sloppiness.
- The nature of performed text. Even if we manage an entirely
unproblematic text, what the audience has access to is the _performed_ text. All performance of a text is an act of textual interpretation (Hornby, 'Text into Performance').
To a degree. There are limits. If Darrow one day turned up and said, "I want to play the scene where I kill Pella in the style of an Indian bus conductor." He would be told politely to "sod off". Why? Because it would not fit with the rest of the episode, or the series for that matter.
It would be extremely strange to assume
that all directors and all actors are going to come up with the same interpretations.
They aren't, look at Brian Croucher and Stephen Greif.
Inevitably, inconsistencies will arise between episodes,
either because different directors and actors are involved, or because their interpretations change as the series goes on.
That's true. But the original author's intention will still be there on some level.
- Multiple valid interpretations. As a rule of thumb, the better the
text, the more valid interpretations it can sustain.
Within logical bounds.
The history of
Shakespeare in performance is an excellent illustration of this point. To pick an example which I was discussing with Rob of this very list:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Now, this piece can be performed infinitely many ways, with radically different interpretations. No one is definitive, all illuminate some aspect of the central, inexpressible human truth that Shakespeare has placed at the crisis point of his play.
That's true. Shakespeare was a genius. It can be interpreted many ways because it is meant to be. But any interpretation will have to fit with the rest of the play, and it will have to be a "truthful" interpretation. If I were to say that in the above text extract the character is talking about a banana, you would quite rightly say, "What the bloody hell is she talking about?" Well, that's what's happening to B7.
None of these problems mean we must simply throw up our hands and admit defeat.
That's true.
Some interpretations are better than others,
That's true.
and the best
interpretations have an 'aha!' quality that comes from pulling previously disconnected elements together into a coherent whole.
That's true. But what if it is not a case of disconnected elements, but an overlooked pattern?
However,
there is still room for honest and good-natured disagreement about interpretations.
That's true, but as good as B7 can be, it isn't Shakespeare.
Consider, for example, the vast literature on the
motivation of Iago -- all of it noticeably civilised in tone.
Iago is an immensely fascinating character. But if I told you that in my fanon, Iago was a tree, you'd say I was mad. You have to understand a text before you can send it up, or comment on it, or lampoon it. Most people on this Lyst know nothing about B7 at all. Oh, they can quote the lines and remember the episode titles. But actually understand it? I see very little proof of that.
You're the guy who pointed out that "the death of Anna" scene in ROD
could
have been done a lot more realistically, aren't you? You're a smart
guy,
but
you've missed something. The reason it was done that way, was because
the
story was going out before the nine o'clock watershed. If you are
going
to
have a story which ends with a man brutally gunning down his ex-
girlfriend
in that timeslot, then you are going to have to tone it down somewhat,
or
risk Mary Whitehouse blocking the switchboards again.
I think you are quite radically misunderstanding my point.
You think so?
It was shit acting, simple as that.
Oh dear, a rational email has now descended into name calling. A pity.
(I could discuss the technical problem with the
performance more deeply, but I'm sure I've done so in previous posts).
The
emotional realism so lacking in that scene is present in other scenes in 'Blake's 7', and even in 'Dr Who': the timeslot is not the problem.
It has everything to do with that time slot. The emotional realism is toned down, because if it were played for real it would frighten its audience half to death. Darrow is a fairly mannered actor anyway. He plays the scene in a very stylised and mannered way. Both of them do. But if the director didn't want them to do that, she wouldn't have let it through. You do say that emotional realism is not an unusual thing in B7 so why is this scene an exception? Why wasn't Darrow getting direction?
Another example. Look at Darrow's studio fight with Bayban. Not very good, is it? Now look at Darrow's fight with the Sarrans on that beach. Much better. You know why? They had more time and a stuntman was involved. Don't slag an actor off just because he's doing what he's been told to do.
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Jenny Kaye wrote:
Iain Coleman wrote:<
Actually, there are three main problems:
- Self-consistency. With the best will in the world, it is
near-impossible to create an entirely self-consistent TV drama series. Even in what might seem the ideal case, where one guy is in charge of the entire production, problems crop up.
That's true. Problems do crop up. See series two of B7 for a good example.
These can be due to constraints of
time and budget, the contributions of directors, actors, and FX
designers,
Public climate on violence as well.
or simply the writer deciding to change the direction of the show after
it
has begun.
That happens a few times on B7 as well.
Even 'Babylon 5' has elements which are extremely difficult to
reconcile
A programme inspired by The Prisoner and B7.
-- why should it be surprising that the same is true of the less
intensively-planned, more hastily-written 'Blake's 7'?
Less intensively-planned? Don't you believe it.
Umm... actually, I do believe it.
It's not a criticism, though. In fact, one of the things that draws me to B7 is that -- due to time/budget constraints -- it often comes closer to improvisation than to carefully-considered drama. This is the source of much of the show's character and energy, and is why I find it more interesting than, say, 'Babylon 5'.
Hastily-written? Don't confuse haste with sloppiness.
- The nature of performed text. Even if we manage an entirely
unproblematic text, what the audience has access to is the _performed_ text. All performance of a text is an act of textual interpretation (Hornby, 'Text into Performance').
To a degree. There are limits. If Darrow one day turned up and said, "I want to play the scene where I kill Pella in the style of an Indian bus conductor." He would be told politely to "sod off". Why? Because it would not fit with the rest of the episode, or the series for that matter.
I don't know. It might have been an improvement. It would certainly have added a bit of colour to the 'Was Avon Mad?' debate.
It would be extremely strange to assume
that all directors and all actors are going to come up with the same interpretations.
They aren't, look at Brian Croucher and Stephen Greif.
Inevitably, inconsistencies will arise between episodes,
either because different directors and actors are involved, or because their interpretations change as the series goes on.
That's true. But the original author's intention will still be there on some level.
- Multiple valid interpretations. As a rule of thumb, the better the
text, the more valid interpretations it can sustain.
Within logical bounds.
The history of
Shakespeare in performance is an excellent illustration of this point. To pick an example which I was discussing with Rob of this very list:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
Now, this piece can be performed infinitely many ways, with radically different interpretations. No one is definitive, all illuminate some aspect of the central, inexpressible human truth that Shakespeare has placed at the crisis point of his play.
That's true. Shakespeare was a genius. It can be interpreted many ways because it is meant to be. But any interpretation will have to fit with the rest of the play, and it will have to be a "truthful" interpretation. If I were to say that in the above text extract the character is talking about a banana, you would quite rightly say, "What the bloody hell is she talking about?" Well, that's what's happening to B7.
As it happens, I'll be rehearsing 'Macbeth' tomorrow in a house which generally has a ready supply of bananas. If I get a chance, I'll try doing that soliloquy as though it was about a banana. I suspect it might work better than you imagine.
None of these problems mean we must simply throw up our hands and admit defeat.
That's true.
Some interpretations are better than others,
That's true.
and the best
interpretations have an 'aha!' quality that comes from pulling previously disconnected elements together into a coherent whole.
That's true. But what if it is not a case of disconnected elements, but an overlooked pattern?
I think we're using different words to mean the same thing.
However,
there is still room for honest and good-natured disagreement about interpretations.
That's true, but as good as B7 can be, it isn't Shakespeare.
Consider, for example, the vast literature on the
motivation of Iago -- all of it noticeably civilised in tone.
Iago is an immensely fascinating character. But if I told you that in my fanon, Iago was a tree, you'd say I was mad. You have to understand a text before you can send it up, or comment on it, or lampoon it. Most people on this Lyst know nothing about B7 at all. Oh, they can quote the lines and remember the episode titles. But actually understand it? I see very little proof of that.
Oh dear, a rational email has now descended into name calling. A pity.
I think you are quite radically misunderstanding my point.
You think so?
Yup. I guess you could always provide your summary of what you thought my point was, if you were interested in demonstrating that you had in fact understood it all along.
It was shit acting, simple as that.
Oh dear, a rational email has now descended into name calling. A pity.
(I could discuss the technical problem with the
performance more deeply, but I'm sure I've done so in previous posts).
The
emotional realism so lacking in that scene is present in other scenes in 'Blake's 7', and even in 'Dr Who': the timeslot is not the problem.
It has everything to do with that time slot. The emotional realism is toned down, because if it were played for real it would frighten its audience half to death.
If it had been played with the reality that Gareth brings to the last scene of 'Blake', that Michael Sheard brings to his death scene in 'Pyramids of Mars', or that Peter Davison brings to his whole four tormented episodes of 'Caves of Androzani', it would have been great.
Darrow is a fairly mannered actor anyway. He plays the scene
in a very stylised and mannered way. Both of them do. But if the director didn't want them to do that, she wouldn't have let it through. You do say that emotional realism is not an unusual thing in B7 so why is this scene an exception? Why wasn't Darrow getting direction?
First, a small point: while emotional realism is not unusual in B7, it is strongly correlated with particular performers.
To answer your main point: I don't know for sure, not having been on the studio floor for that day's shooting. It's easy to come up with possibilities: perhaps it was filmed last thing at night, perhaps the director was having to spend all her time getting the lighting right and couldn't spend much time on the actors... one could go on and on. For what it's worth, though, I think prevailing cultural attitudes at the BBC had a lot to do with it.
Another example. Look at Darrow's studio fight with Bayban. Not very good, is it? Now look at Darrow's fight with the Sarrans on that beach. Much better. You know why? They had more time and a stuntman was involved. Don't slag an actor off just because he's doing what he's been told to do.
Is it all right with you if I criticise the actors' performance of a scene when I've seen it done vastly better by two totally miscast, entirely unprepared actors with no theatrical training?
Iain
From: Jenny Kaye jennycat55@hotmail.com
These can be due to constraints of time and budget, the contributions of directors, actors, and FX designers,
Public climate on violence as well.
Also the composition of the audience. I believe (albeit only on the basis of a few anecdotal snippets) that it was established by the end of the first season that B7 had a sizable following amongst young children, the programme going out early enough in the evening for them to watch it. Earlier even than Survivors, in which Nation first ran his rape/murder scenario with a suitably unsympathetic character ultimately revealed to be responsible. Gan, on the other hand, was recognised as a member of the crew, one of the Good Guys. Since recent discussion on this Lyst has shown how the foreshadowing of the revelation of his true nature has largely eluded the majority of fans over a span of more than two decades, it would be unreasonable to expect the general viewing audience at the time to have picked up much in the way of hints.
It's one thing to shock an adult audience, indeed doing so can be a laudable exercise. But confusing the hell out of young children is something else altogether. If Blake had indeed been forced to kill Gan, as would seem to have been Nation's original intention, he - Nation, not Blake - would have sent a legion of bewildered kids crying all the way to bed. Not exactly something to be proud of. He'd have done less damage mugging them for their Smarties.
Neil
"But Dad, he's got a metal thing in his head."
-
Iain Coleman -
Jenny Kaye -
Neil Faulkner