1,120 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Feb 20, 2021 19:29:13 GMT
The Isle of Wight scenes were filmed on the Welsh coast, I believe.
|
|
1,861 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Feb 20, 2021 20:06:27 GMT
A difficult watch as expected.
As sad as the Ritchie scenes were it was the moments when Jill sat with the ones abandoned by their loved ones that had the greatest impact on me only equalled by the ending of the Inheritance Pt1.
As a contemporary of this period it amazes me that this pandemic was more or less invisible to me, the adverts had an impact but the true depths of the issue were kept out of the public domain, as a heterosexual engineering graduate with a passion for metal it was a world that passed me by, there were gay pubs in Nottingham but my life was spent in the rock pubs and rock discos which were ironically male dominated but as far from hedonism as you could get.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Feb 20, 2021 20:53:45 GMT
The Thatcher scene was just a bit of comic relief to provide some contrast. Was it credible? No. Given how poor mass catering coffee was at that time, would anyone have noticed? Probably not! Yeah I get what it was supposed to be. I just didn't believe it. It felt crude and intended to provoke a 'Wooh! You show her, girl!' kind of reaction from me. RTD does that quite a bit in his writing, and those moments just never work for me personally. Even the repetition of 'La' as a catchphrase made me cringe a bit. But I get that most people don't feel that way! The 'La' was apparently something he and his friend group did in real life and I think having in-jokes between friends like that add to the realism. I understand your issue with the more outlandish stuff, I can easily imagine that not gelling with everyone.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 24, 2021 12:47:39 GMT
It’s been interesting watching American reactions to the series. I’ve seen the odd eye-rolling one (‘this series doesn’t cover the American AIDS experience!’) and the odd one that seemed to think it was meant to be a survey of the entire AIDS crisis rather than a drama about one group of friends going through it (‘it doesn’t cover the trans, straight women, or sub-Saharan African experience!’) which I guess is to be expected because there’s so few TV shows on the topic that the ones that exist are expected to represent everything.
(On a side note: I saw RTD asked about the lack of diversity in Queer As Folk in an interview recently, and he absolutely held up his hand and said it was lacking and that he has strived to do better ever since. Which is the right thing to do. But then the interviewer followed up with ‘it was based on your experience of gay life - did you actually have friends from diverse backgrounds at the time?’’ and he said well, err, no, he went from Wales to Oxford University to a job in TV....)
Listened to the Vanity Fair ‘Still Watching’ podcast on the show this morning and was quite surprised about their comments on the theme of shame. Basically one of the hosts was really rejecting the idea that the characters in the show displayed any shame because of the amount of fun and sex they are shown to be having, and disputed that shame and closeting was shown to have any effect on their behaviour. They really didn’t like that big Jill speech about the effect of shame.
I don’t know if this is an American-British cultural divide or an age thing (I checked and he’s my age, so he would have been under 10 in 1991 when the series ended), or if it’s just a personal resistance to the idea of shame being part of the gay experience. Maybe you had to live through the effect of Section 28 and the tabloid press monstering gay people and AIDS victims to understand the shaming culture and how it affected people?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Feb 24, 2021 13:41:42 GMT
tbh, by 1990-91 pretty well everyone was carried away on a crest of E. Tabloids were more interested in chasing down M25 raves.
I remember apartment blocks in Manhattan being devastated - tenanted studios, etc, on a scale I wasn't aware of in London. There was a period when the public as a whole was wary of renting after an AIDS suffered had gone. I had a part-time girlfried in NYC then and she got her place after property that would never usually even make it to the market was advertised, and and affordable prices. A short period and in very concentrated neighbourhoods.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 24, 2021 14:06:02 GMT
tbh, by 1990-91 pretty well everyone was carried away on a crest of E. I recall the lead-up to Freddie Mercury dying in 1991 creating a huge amount of shaming tabloid coverage. It was an absolute feeding frenzy. It was formative for me because I was old enough at that point to get myself out of bed, pick the newspaper off the doormat in the morning and read it with my breakfast, before my parents were up. I was in secondary school at the time Section 28 was in force, and I'm pretty sure we were all aware of it as a thing.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on Feb 24, 2021 14:21:08 GMT
It was a thing. Diane was a thing. The first Gulf war was a thing. The IRA attack on Downing street was a thing. Riots in London were a thing.
|
|
2,370 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 24, 2021 14:47:37 GMT
There's a good Q and A with Russell Tovey and the cast here:
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 24, 2021 14:49:32 GMT
There was one US review that complained that none of the characters of colour were given a tearjerking death.
I am almost certain that if those same characters has been killed off the critic would have complained about those characters only existed to be victims.
Yes there is a difference between US and UK attitudes regarding issues surrounding race. But here we had a TV series where 3 out the 5 central characters being played by actors of colour, it is surely something to acknowledge if not celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Feb 24, 2021 15:13:59 GMT
I Listened to the Vanity Fair ‘Still Watching’ podcast on the show this morning and was quite surprised about their comments on the theme of shame. Basically one of the hosts was really rejecting the idea that the characters in the show displayed any shame because of the amount of fun and sex they are shown to be having, and disputed that shame and closeting was shown to have any effect on their behaviour. They really didn’t like that big Jill speech about the effect of shame. I don’t know if this is an American-British cultural divide or an age thing (I checked and he’s my age, so he would have been under 10 in 1991 when the series ended), or if it’s just a personal resistance to the idea of shame being part of the gay experience. Maybe you had to live through the effect of Section 28 and the tabloid press monstering gay people and AIDS victims to understand the shaming culture and how it affected people? Thoughts? I completely don't understand their viewpoint. Just because Ritchie had a lot of sex and fun doesn't mean he didn't feel shame - he literally killed people because he was too ashamed to find out his HIV status or tell people he was positive once he did know. And I think the amount of sex was sort of a result of the shaming he and so many are made to feel and why gay culture is so associated with hook-up culture even now - because gay people are so ashamed and in the closet throughout their teens, many don't go through the normal adolescent, experimental period when it comes to sex and dating a lot of the time so it all kind of happens at once in their late teens/early twenties when they're finally free from their home lives in which they were so repressed.
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Feb 24, 2021 16:08:58 GMT
Although not my favourite character, I was good to see how Roscoe's storyline got tied up and him making peace with his father and family. That speech in the hospital was pretty powerful, eh? Did that actor have a (physically) wandering eye? Then there was Ollie's parents; weren't the both wonderfully acted? Keeley Hawes was sensational! Processing all of the information handed to her, playing out on her face- the shock of finding out that her son was in the infectious disease ward, that he was so seriously ill, that he was gay and had AIDS. Some interesting camera angels following her down the hallway, and how in the blink of an eye she went from shock, anger, rage, stoic and upset. Also the confrontation with the woman in the kitchen making the squash. Isn't interesting that despite coming from a place of love, how a person like that does what she believes to be the right thing, and so focused that they're correct, that they can't see the damage they're causing. Really can't see the forest for the trees. We used to know a family like that. Sometimes they need to realise in time the error of their ways. And that final confrontation between the mother and Jill. I guess things had to be said..... Yes. Keeley's character was really interesting. Casting her kind-of gave the game away that she'd be involved in some powerful scenes at some point, but she and Dooley did a great job. It would be so easy to over-act. They'd made so many mistakes, and weren't presented as particularly sympathetic, but that doesn't mean that they didn't love their son. I'm too young to know whether or not it was reasonable for her not to have realised her son was gay in 1970s Isle of Wight. The school friend guessed, but once I made it to uni in the 90s and first got to know real life out gay people, we used to joke that there were no gay people in *insert hometown here*. There were the odd rumours (and not very nice jokes) about certain teachers, but I didn't know for sure that one of my friends was gay until I found them Facebook about ten years ago. I wasn't surprised by then, but at the time I took him at face value when he said he liked girls. Jill's big speech about shame was an interesting one. I think the content was fair, but pinning it all on the parents was a bit cruel, and felt like the speech was written long before they worked out how to include it in the story. The point about not being able to represent all AIDS stories is fair, but I thought the bit with Roscoe and his dad was a good way to allude to AIDS being a big problem in Africa too, and how the demographics of who was infected were different. This wasn't just about London and New York.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 24, 2021 16:47:02 GMT
Jill's speech was fully justified in that moment. She had been robbed of saying goodbye to her closest friend by a woman who was being spiteful.
Of course Jill wanted to lash out and hurt. Anyone in that situation would feel the same.
Of course this is a drama and so it was heightened for effect. But the central point about shame driving people to act against their own best interests and the interests of those around them was (and still is) a valid one. Not for everyone but for some.
Some people behave recklessly because they don't feel they deserve better. So they put themselves at risk because they feel worthless. Or they don't feel strong enough to stand up for themselves and agree to things they would not do if they had more self worth.
Jill was trying to hurt Valerie. And the reason it cut so deep is because there was a lot of truth to it.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 24, 2021 20:39:21 GMT
I watched a Literary Salon event with RTD recently and he alluded to the fact that some feminist writers have not liked the shame speech or the representation of ‘mothers’ in the series, and he made the point that the character of a Ritchie’s mum is meant to represent society generally and not just herself/women/mothers in that moment.
Though interestingly he did also say that if the series had been longer we’d have found out more about Ritchie’s family and why they are so dysfunctional (Aha! I knew there was something up with that family dynamic) and kind of implied that he had imagined some sexual abuse had gone on (by the grandfather mentioned as a terrible man? By the father who is so preoccupied with his son having sex?) but as he only had 5 episodes he never got that past the idea stage.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 24, 2021 20:44:04 GMT
There was one US review that complained that none of the characters of colour were given a tearjerking death. I am almost certain that if those same characters has been killed off the critic would have complained about those characters only existed to be victims. Yes there is a difference between US and UK attitudes regarding issues surrounding race. But here we had a TV series where 3 out the 5 central characters being played by actors of colour, it is surely something to acknowledge if not celebrate. It’s funny that none of the people I have seen complain have actually engaged meaningfully with the Roscoe or Ash characters in their criticism. Very little discussion of the Nigerian family dynamic shown - and Roscoe ends up being much closer to his family than Ritchie is, despite his initial dramatic exit.
|
|
1,481 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Feb 24, 2021 21:17:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 24, 2021 21:28:29 GMT
I think it works well enough as it was broadcast. That 10 year period worked as strong framework for the action.
Perhaps there is a case for a one off episode at some point to catch up with the characters in later life. But I don't feel the need. It isn't a perfect piece of work but it is good enough not to need further elaboration.
|
|
4,153 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 24, 2021 21:57:20 GMT
I’m mixed on this - I do feel like there’s an episode ‘missing’, in that I think it lacks what would normally be the resolution of a character arc. I did want to know what happened to Jill and Ash and Roscoe as time passed. I feel like there’s a stopping short.
But then again, I think that exact lack of resolution, that sense of it being cut short, is also really effective and powerful. After all lives being cut short prematurely is what the show is about! I think giving it a neat ‘happy’ ending in modern day would reduce its impact on the viewer.
So I think the ending works perfectly as it is and yet at the same time I would have liked more.
|
|
4,171 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Feb 27, 2021 7:38:15 GMT
Did anyone see the reaction to the final episode on Gogglebox last night? Most of them watching were in tears.
It's worth watching the last 10 on Catch-up just to see it.
|
|
4,955 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Mar 1, 2021 8:23:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dontdreamit on Mar 20, 2021 19:59:41 GMT
Just bumping this in case anyone is interested 🙂
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Apr 2, 2021 16:11:51 GMT
I finally got around to watching this and I have to say, it was absolutely brilliant. Really tugged at the heartstrings. Perhaps I am alone though in finding the lead character completely unsympathetic. **SPOILERS** **SPOILERS** **SPOILERS** When it is revealed that he knowingly infected others with the virus, and showed little to no sympathy for his actions, it really put the willies up me. Here is a character that is, potentially, a murderer. At best a dangerous criminal. (Real life precedent: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-43807662) If it was spun differently, i.e. without having gotten to know the character as a loveable scamp, the story would actually be a seriously damning indictment of gay society in general, with dire implications. It would be the story about a serial killer - aided and abetted by friends, who did nothing to stop his spree.
|
|
|
Post by hannechalk on Apr 3, 2021 11:06:36 GMT
If it was spun differently, i.e. without having gotten to know the character as a loveable scamp, the story would actually be a seriously damning indictment of gay society in general, with dire implications. It would be the story about a serial killer - aided and abetted by friends, who did nothing to stop his spree. His friends didn't know he was HIV+ until he told them - they didn't aid and abet. After he accepted it, he didn't carry on infecting others, if he had infected anyone at all. Your link to a news article didn't work for me, so I'm not sure how old it is, but there is a distinct difference between the start of people becoming aware of HIV and AIDS, and more recent cases where someone puts others knowingly at/in danger, with the knowledge there is about it now. Ritchie contemplated drinking battery acid, because he heard it might prevent/cure HIV, there is a whole section where he tries or contemplates allsorts of weird stuff. I'm not saying he was right, but he didn't understand what he was dealing with exactly in that era. They even said to each other at the start something along the lines of 'It's only in LA, it won't get here.'.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Apr 8, 2021 17:51:30 GMT
Just bumping this in case anyone is interested 🙂 Still have to watch this. And in a similar vein S2 of POSE - they're just released a trailer for the final season.
|
|
2,370 posts
|
Post by theatreian on May 12, 2021 13:21:44 GMT
For those who didn't see the Brit's attached is Elton and Olly singing It's A Sin.
It can be downloaded for Elton's Charity too.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 12, 2021 13:29:13 GMT
I blubbed throughout that performance. Even thinking about it is bringing tears to my eyes.
An iconic moment
|
|