proximoception (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
proximoception) wrote2015-01-16 01:30 am
proximoception) wrote2015-01-16 01:30 am
(no subject)
Broadchurch.
Okay, well, I'm glad it was up to SOMETHING. Past being a much more competent version of The Killing than The Killing, which can't be that hard.
Though what it was up to. Well, I mean, okay, sure. Given whose town it's Trojan-horsing I guess that's actually a helpful place to be coming from, practically speaking. Though unlike Shaw's Androcles and the Lion preface one gets the sense the writer's licking his own sugar spoon between dosings.
But Hardy? Wessex?
I guess they feel Shakespeare's theirs too, which is hilarious, but at least there there's no, like, notarized evidence to the contrary. Just every other kind.
So I wonder what the draw was. Tonal, I guess. The isolation, the doom? How no one is bad, just wrong?
Maybe a regional thing - people from the Wessex zone probably have a right to feel proprietary.
Though with the Jude reference and the "nothing" at the end you wonder if the argument's that in a hundred years it will all be different. How different? I hope for the writer's sake the plea's not overly personal. A lot of number pairs are thrown at us: 17, 15; 17, 15; 40, 15; 11, 11; 38, 11.
If there's nothing personal to the plea the show amounts to, and the chosen subject matter is there to illustrate a principle rather than be one, then okay. But if there is the Christianity gets sad. One thinks of the priest's alcoholism. And also one starts to wonder how much the broader principle is brought in to support the specific instance.
Ironically, given the show's m.o., I'm left very suspicious. Much more so than with, say, Nabokov, though I still haven't finished his.
Maybe absurdly so: to the adultery-explaining husband I find myself retrospectively saying, "Now, when you say 'new'..."
But does this bias, if it exists, matter, given what's being said, any more than the religious angle necessarily does? I liked how they handled "anyone can do it if the circumstances are right" (with the "it" of murder standing in for this other, to an uncomfirmable extent, but all sorts of other its too, especially when heredity's considered a possible circumstance, like with Nigel). The female lead finds this horrible, as it taints everyone; but we see that it instead saves everyone from pure monstrosity, enlarges the circle of campfire rather than putting it out.
But there, too, the Jesus! You can't have the Jesus without bringing monstrosity back. His help has to be conditional or he'd have given it already. (Liberal Christianity is my favorite flavor but it's still indigestible.) Even if you put the monster in every heart the ones it takes charge of more frequently or dramatically are open to the same sorts of attack. Maybe more so when you feel there's a choice switch, or even merely a help button with a cross on it. If God forgives us all then every theodicy crumbles. The world has no excuse unless it's a test. Or just a world.
The "keep hatch closed" one will be a tough issue, maybe forever. And one thing the show gets very right is that the less sure we are of where the lines should be the angrier we'll get. And not even that gestures toward solution, since the anger clock may have been wound in some sort of sync with the sexual one. Not that that clock is to be much trusted either.
Interesting how opposite it is to Top of the Lake, while being I guess technically compatible - even theologically.
Julie, irritated, said probably the only satisfying way to end these things was like how Lynch ended Twin Peaks. I hadn't realized she liked or even remembered that, to which she said it was hard to forget. I don't think I've broken the news yet about that show.
Okay, well, I'm glad it was up to SOMETHING. Past being a much more competent version of The Killing than The Killing, which can't be that hard.
Though what it was up to. Well, I mean, okay, sure. Given whose town it's Trojan-horsing I guess that's actually a helpful place to be coming from, practically speaking. Though unlike Shaw's Androcles and the Lion preface one gets the sense the writer's licking his own sugar spoon between dosings.
But Hardy? Wessex?
I guess they feel Shakespeare's theirs too, which is hilarious, but at least there there's no, like, notarized evidence to the contrary. Just every other kind.
So I wonder what the draw was. Tonal, I guess. The isolation, the doom? How no one is bad, just wrong?
Maybe a regional thing - people from the Wessex zone probably have a right to feel proprietary.
Though with the Jude reference and the "nothing" at the end you wonder if the argument's that in a hundred years it will all be different. How different? I hope for the writer's sake the plea's not overly personal. A lot of number pairs are thrown at us: 17, 15; 17, 15; 40, 15; 11, 11; 38, 11.
If there's nothing personal to the plea the show amounts to, and the chosen subject matter is there to illustrate a principle rather than be one, then okay. But if there is the Christianity gets sad. One thinks of the priest's alcoholism. And also one starts to wonder how much the broader principle is brought in to support the specific instance.
Ironically, given the show's m.o., I'm left very suspicious. Much more so than with, say, Nabokov, though I still haven't finished his.
Maybe absurdly so: to the adultery-explaining husband I find myself retrospectively saying, "Now, when you say 'new'..."
But does this bias, if it exists, matter, given what's being said, any more than the religious angle necessarily does? I liked how they handled "anyone can do it if the circumstances are right" (with the "it" of murder standing in for this other, to an uncomfirmable extent, but all sorts of other its too, especially when heredity's considered a possible circumstance, like with Nigel). The female lead finds this horrible, as it taints everyone; but we see that it instead saves everyone from pure monstrosity, enlarges the circle of campfire rather than putting it out.
But there, too, the Jesus! You can't have the Jesus without bringing monstrosity back. His help has to be conditional or he'd have given it already. (Liberal Christianity is my favorite flavor but it's still indigestible.) Even if you put the monster in every heart the ones it takes charge of more frequently or dramatically are open to the same sorts of attack. Maybe more so when you feel there's a choice switch, or even merely a help button with a cross on it. If God forgives us all then every theodicy crumbles. The world has no excuse unless it's a test. Or just a world.
The "keep hatch closed" one will be a tough issue, maybe forever. And one thing the show gets very right is that the less sure we are of where the lines should be the angrier we'll get. And not even that gestures toward solution, since the anger clock may have been wound in some sort of sync with the sexual one. Not that that clock is to be much trusted either.
Interesting how opposite it is to Top of the Lake, while being I guess technically compatible - even theologically.
Julie, irritated, said probably the only satisfying way to end these things was like how Lynch ended Twin Peaks. I hadn't realized she liked or even remembered that, to which she said it was hard to forget. I don't think I've broken the news yet about that show.