Shocking and Hilarious

Can a movie, or a TV series, be shocking and hilarious at the same time? For me Yes but does that make me weird?

On that point, I'll be blogging about Squid Game in a few days.

Meanwhile I've watched a couple of feature length Netflix sports-related documentaries in a series called Untold. Last night was Untold: Crime & Penalties and tells the story of the Danbury Trashers ice hockey team. The previous episode Breaking Point I watched was about the tennis rivalry and friendship between Mardy Fish and Andy Roddick and, ultimately, Fish's anxiety and mental health problems. There's an episode about Caitlyn Jenner who, as Bruce Jenner, won Olympic gold for the decathlon, one about an 'infamous' (I'd never heard of it, so relatively infamous) NBA brawl, another about female boxer Christy Martin.

In each case the central structure features a defining moment, which we see at the beginning, an examination of why this happened and finally an assessment of the outcomes.

The Danbury Trashers came about as a result of mob boss (if he was one of the ubiquitous Dragons' Den dragons, he'd be "trash disposal mogul") Jimmy Galante, who bought his 17 year old son A.J. a UHL [United Hockey League, a minor league one level below the NHL] ice hockey franchise, making A.J. President with carte blanche to hire whomever he wanted to play in the team. What could possibly go wrong? In true Dirty Dozen style, he recruits a bunch of the best and the worst - the best players with the worst (most violent) temperaments, setting them the goal of terrifying their opponents into submission. I am not really familiar with ice hockey but it has always seemed to me a sport flirting on the edge of violence, so none of this is surprising. The central moment occurs when one of the team's players has his leg broken by an opponent - and you can easily imagine what follows.

There's a subplot with the FBI investigating, and eventually indicting, Jimmy. He is acclaimed as a hero for creating this sporting monster, with the Danbury locals fully in tune with the macho  approach of the team. The players give extended interviews and the director makes a good stab at humanising them. To the extent that there are definitely hilarious moments to go alongside the gut-wrenching barbarity of it all, yes, my central premise is proven.

Breaking Point is set around Mardy Fish's sudden withdrawal before a match against Roger Federer, using this to probe his life of intense pressure to succeed from a very young age, a breakdown, recovery and his final decision to retire as a player and subsequently, amongst other things, his being open about his well-being issues and his campaign for awareness of mental health issues for sports stars. An extended interview with Fish himself frames the documentary and, as with Crime & Penalties, there are interviews with key people - particularly Andy Roddick in this case. It's neither shocking nor hilarious but a worthwhile and sensitive examination of a familiar sporting issue. I'm looking forward to seeing the remaining three in the series.

The Sinner

I was brought up in an evangelical Christian household and spent my formative years in membership of the Salvation Army. The SA was founded in the east end of London in the middle of the 19th century, where the alleviation of poverty as its central social mission was fuelled by a deep hatred of alcoholism and other vices of the poor. So I had an instinctive understanding of the concept of Sin - the sins of drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco and much more were a fundamental part of the organisation's message and of the prohibitions of membership.

You can imagine the temptations this brought to an inquisitive and intelligent teenager; they were probably the origins of the rebel I became and arguably continue to be.

I pondered this when I started watching the Netflix series The Sinner. It's a psychological  drama covering four seasons, each of eight episodes. The central character, Harry Ambrose, is a detective who appears in all four seasons although the rest of the cast of characters changes for each season. In each case there is a murder and we know the perpetrator straight away. But Ambrose looks beneath the plain facts and seeks to understand the murderer's motivations, believing that there may be ameliorating circumstances which could affect the justice system's treatment of the case. With the perpetrator he acts as therapist as much as investigator.

As the seasons follow, the scenarios grow darker. Season one features a - on the face of it - perfectly normal wife and mother who unaccountably stabs someone to death on the beach. Season two gives us a glimpse into an ugly cult through the eyes of a young boy who poisons two of the cult members.

As things progress, we learn about Ambrose's own background and understand more of why he relates to these abused people whom he sees as victims (of their pasts) rather than offenders. It seems to me that he is the eponymous Sinner.

Season three for me just got too dark. A teacher, husband and father is involved in the death of someone whom he knew and was very close to. As we are shown flashbacks to their relationship we come to see that person as someone very destructive indeed. He came across to me as almost the personification of evil and I simply felt - halfway through episode four - that it was disturbing me too much and I should stop.

So I did.

I spent some time debating whether I should post this. But, if I'm going to describe movies and TV shows which I enjoy and think you might too, I felt a responsibility to mention those which I would dissuade anyone whose sensibilities are similar to mine from watching. It's fair to say that there has been a degree of critical acclaim for The Sinner and it has many good points. It's just that, for me, it went too far into the dark side.

The Power of the Dog

This movie, a dramatisation of a novel by Thomas Savage, is already receiving a number of award nominations. For me it's an art film, by which I mean that it's more than just a visual narrative; it embraces various art forms. From amazing Montana landscapes to a modernistic score performed by what seems to be a string quartet with occasional piano, with authentic 1930s paraphernalia such as motor cars, clearly numbered acts and a very wide screen, the movie begins with an impressive cattle drive which defines the central location of the story.

The title is taken from Psalm 22:20: “Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog.” Director Jane Campion (of Top of the Lake) has said "The power of the dog is all those urges, all those deep, uncontrollable urges that can come and destroy us". It also felt to me to have a sense of the "black dog" of depression.

I mulled over how much to tell of the whole story or to avoid spoilers for you. I have tried to follow a middle path, to tell enough to encourage you to watch the movie but not to make it a fruitless exercise. I might not succeed so you may want to watch it before reading further.

Phil and George Burbank own a ranch and the film centres on their relationship. They are shown as very different siblings; Phil is the practical, physical rancher and George the manager. They don't really much like each other. Both are lonely but deal with that differently: Phil relishes being on his own whereas George seeks to alleviate his loneliness by marrying local inn owner Rose, whom Phil takes an instant dislike to and calls a "suicide widow". There's a scene where George says to Rose "how nice it is not to be alone". Rose has a son Peter who is mocked by Phil and the ranch hands for his effeminate ways.

These are the four characters whose journeys we follow. There are hidden depths to Phil and Peter; eventually Phil comes to see great worth in the young boy and helps him develop ranchers' skills, particularly when he discovers that Peter saw his father hang himself and now his mother is deteriorating into alcoholism. Peter responds, growing surprisingly self confident and determined.

George and Rose are frankly less interesting and become peripheral to the narrative.

Phil himself has hidden depths. In one scene the Governor, visiting the ranch, reveals Phil was "Phi Beta Kappa in Classics at Yale". This is my main reservation about the film: none of Phil's background is explored or explained - how did this educated and cultured man end up as a cattle herder? - and I wanted there to be more to this character, less of it hidden. He helps Peter to grow but doesn't do so himself.

In Top of the Lake, Campion has a clear feminine focus, so strong that "men are bad, women good" pretty much sums up the theme. Here she hints at effeminate male sexuality with some homoerotic scenes and suggestions - but no more than that, it's subtle suggestion, nothing more. I'm not sure it adds anything to the film but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a second reservation for me.

My final issue is that the strong, wide visuals and excellent musical score really mean that I wished I had seen it in the cinema to get the full experience. This may be a reservation about my TV rather than the film. Overall I believe this a worthwhile film, it's pace is near perfect, the acting is excellent and the characters well-defined and well contrasted. If you watch it, let me know whether your thoughts are different from mine.

More Movie Notes

The Trial of the Chicago 7 is an entertaining dramatisation of the events surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Protesters attempted to storm the convention centre to protest the Vietnam War and, in particular, Hubert Humphrey's apparent support for - or at least non-opposition to - the war. Those on trial in September 1969 were prominent activists and, although they were all accused of conspiracy, they were mostly unconnected and just met in the protests. There were originally eight defendants but one, Bobby Seale the co-leader of the Black Panthers, was eventually separated from the others - in the movie by a declaration of mistrial after several highly amusing altercations between Seale and the judge.

Aaron Sorkin paints each of the defendants in bright dramatic colours: Sasha Baron Cohen is a highly intelligent but crazy Abbie Hoffman, Jeremy Strong (aka Kendall Roy in Succession) is Jerry Rubin; they are founding members of the Youth International Party, known as Yippies, dedicated to revolution. They engage in student level stunts, constantly disrupting the trial and arguing that it's a political trial. In contrast Eddie Redmayne is the straight man of the group, a teacher and co-founder of Students for a Democratic Society, who argues for a non-violent, non-confrontational presentation of their defence, a stance which lessens as Frank Langella's Judge Hoffman behaves increasingly erratically and antagonistically towards them.

Mark Rylance does his droll thing as their lawyer and the film is well worth a watch, particularly for fans of Sorkin's writing. The energy never fades and there is a typical Sorkin set piece speech to round it all off.

Inside Man is a heist movie from 2006, mostly straightforward in its use of a hostage negotiator (Denzil Washington) and his interaction with the leader of the robbers (Clive Owen). There's a sub-plot involving Jodie Foster and Christoper Plummer which feels contrived but turns out to be a  crucial part of the plot. So far so ordinary. What intrigued me, however, were the tactical devices used by the robbers.

There is a clever robber leader, who has thought of all possibilities and tactics, one of which is to have the hostages wear clothing and face masks identical to those of the robbers, so as to allow the robbers to escape by exiting with the hostages. Sound familiar? If you've seen Money Heist, it will be. No Dali masks here but otherwise it's a rip-off. Feels like obvious plagiarism which, given this film is from 2006 and Money Heist from 2017, makes me a little less enthralled by the latter. There's even a common musical device: We know that Money Heist uses Bella Ciao as a kind of leitmotif; Inside Man does a similar thing with the Bollywood love song Chaiyya Chaiyya, the latter making no sense whereas Bella Ciao at least represents anti-capitalist protest. Putting aside the disturbing plagiarism, I would class this movie as a mildly entertaining and undemanding couple of hours' watch. 

Fracture pits Anthony Hopkins against Ryan Gosling in a courtroom drama. I guess you couldn't find two actors more unalike in terms of their usual roles. Hopkins, in Hannibal Lecter mood, is some kind of super-genius engineer who discovers his wife is having an affair with a police detective. He's clever enough to plot out the perfect crime, shoots her and confesses. Gosling plays a laconic, smug La La Land Assistant District Attorney who is plotting a lucrative move to the private sector but has time before that happens to take on this final "open and shut" case, given the confession. Things don't turn out quite like that, as you may guess, and he is eventually intrigued by the challenge of taking down his clever antagonist.

There's a strong musical element in the film. On occasions - particularly in the opening seven minute sequence with no dialogue - it feels like a symphonic exposition. Sometimes a bit distracting. There are clever references to the movie's title in the opening titles  

but it's not at all clear to me what Fracture means in the context of the plot. Overall it's the kind of film which depends on excellent chemistry between the two leads and they provide that. A good thriller.

Above Suspicion is a crime thriller set in a run-down Kentucky town and based on a true story. The dark local culture contrasts with the arrival of a clean cut rookie FBI agent and he recruits a local young unmarried mother, desperate to escape her past and present circumstances, as an informer. It is fairly mundane but does have Emilia Clarke (aka the Mother of Dragons) in a gritty role.

Four movies in four days? I know, but there was a distinct lack of TV football. 

Movie Nights

I used to enjoy the lead ups to the Oscars and other movie award announcements. In the days when cinemas could be visited and the only dangers were teenagers flicking popcorn at each other and fellow oldies sniffling and coughing their way through winter colds and spreading their flu germs. Ah the good old days. Nowadays it's Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ in our sterile homes. Life is a constant stream of movie nights. I posted previously about Oscar-winning films but here is this year's update.

Last night I watched one and a quarter movies. Starting with The Lost Daughter starring Olivia Colman, whom I have liked only once in a film - as Queen Anne in The Favourite. It is billed as a psychological thriller but in the half hour before I gave up there were no thrills and many long sequences of Colman practising her range of facial expressions. I like my films to have either a narrative or a point - where is this movie going and why has it been made? For me it was dreary in the extreme and, to the extent there was any dramatic motivation, a disturbing and discombobulating focus on unhappy childhood scenes and memories. A thinking person's film. Not for me.

In contrast, Don't Look Up is a riotous, crazy, satirical film about a comet going to crash into the earth. And inept politicians. And greedy capitalists. A non-thinking person's film. A cast of Hollywood A listers led by Meryl Streep, Leonardo di Caprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Jonah Hill and Cate Blanchett seem to all have been told by the Director "here's your role; just over-act as if your life depends on it" - i.e. the comet is going to kill you all - is backed by impressive cameos by in particular Mark Rylance and Ariana Grande. And a Muppet. Streep is a (way OTT) President, Hill her son and Chief of Staff who calls Lawrence's grad student "dragon tattoo boy", Leo the Professor Nerd who goes bonkers with Blanchett's chat show host (you'll have to check it out to get my meanings). Grande provides some musical class; Rylance is the world domination tech guy with more than a touch of Dr. Strangelove.

It's pantomime. Not to mention the most glorious, Laugh Out Loud post credit moment you will ever see (I've learned my lesson). Oh, and once you've seen that, there's an endless (well five minutes' worth) list of boom operators, set decorators, casting directors' second assistants, matte artists, dolly grip thingies and whatnot - and finally ... another post credit scene (not such a good one though). Enjoy!

Bella Ciao

Bella Ciao is a folk song originating in World War II resistance movements in Italy. It continues to be a part of anti-fascist protests throughout the world. I came across it in the wonderful TV series Money Heist, which glorifies anti-establishment themes and in which Bella Ciao occurs as a leitmotif to characterise the robbers' anti-authoritarian instincts. Freedom for the people! Of course, they also set out to steal billions of euros' worth of currency and gold bars. The song provides moments of joyous celebration when things go well - which they don't always. Absolutely no spoilers, though, because you'll want to watch this.

You can sing along:

One morning I awakened,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao!
One morning I awakened
And I found the invader.

Oh partisan carry me away,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao
oh partisan carry me away
Because I feel death approaching.

And if I die as a partisan,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao
and if I die as a partisan
then you must bury me.

Bury me up in the mountain,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao
bury me up in the mountain
under the shade of a beautiful flower.

And all those who shall pass,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao
and all those who shall pass
will tell me "what a beautiful flower."

This is the flower of the partisan,
oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao
this is the flower of the partisan
who died for freedom

Stockholm Syndrome

Netflix perhaps focuses on quantity above quality. Looking for a new TV series to watch, you have to wade your way through a great deal of dross before you come across a gem. Often you don't know that it's dross until somewhere in episode three and by then you may be so into the plot that you feel the need to find out how it finishes. You're hooked.

But then you come across a diamond, all sparkly, multifaceted and pure. I found one recently - Fauda - which I posted about before.

Now I have another, even better, even purer. Gold. An apt description because the plot of Money Heist is ... well, you can guess. A robbery, but not just a formulaic steal: a skillfully plotted plan where every detail, every setback is anticipated and avoided or dealt with. How do you steal 2 billion Euros from the Royal Mint of Spain? And stay alive so that you can spend it? 

This TV series is un-put-down-able. An excellent ensemble cast, great production values and a brilliant soundtrack. The episodes are grouped into five 'parts', which I suppose means overall we have a drama in five acts - even that has been plotted as a whole, an approach which is holistic and therefore satisfying. Season 1 had 15 episodes in two parts; season 2 16 episodes, parts 3 and 4. Season 3 is not yet complete but appears to comprise the final part of 10 episodes (currently 5 available; the remainder in December). It's a modern Ring Cycle.

I therefore can't tell you how it ends and I wouldn't want to anyway. Everything is cleverly done, the characters are richly developed with their back stories gradually unfolding using (easily recognisable and comprehensible) flashbacks and the tensions within the heist team and between them and their hostages (of course there are hostages) are thoughtful and rewarding. The inevitable Stockholm Syndrome has its place but is just one aspect of those relationships.

It's a Spanish production and presented with dubbing, which is done as well as can be.The show has won numerous awards. There's a strong element of post financial crisis rebellion against capitalism and subversive populism.

Want to see a hundred million Euros raining down on the citizens of Madrid from a couple of blimps? Want to know how empty the robbers feel, with too much money to spend and struggling to cope with a lack of action in their lives? Check it out.

Fauda

Fauda is a Hebrew transliteration of an Arabic word meaning chaos. It is the title of an Israeli-produced thriller TV series streamed on Netflix. There are three seasons and I recently binge watched them. Written by Lior Raz and Avi Issacharoff, who had been undercover operators in the Israel Defence Force, it chronicles the undercover counter-terrorist activities of a Mista'arvim unit, led by Doron, the lead character played by Raz. Season 1 focuses on actions against Hamas in the West Bank, season 2 portrays ISIS infiltration of Hamas and thus the IDF and Hamas having a common enemy and season 3 takes place in Gaza. It's gritty, hard and often violent.

I enjoyed the series very much but in my mind I questioned how authentic it is in portraying everyday life and in particular the relative depictions of Israelis and Palestinians. Obviously I have no first hand knowledge on which to draw.

When starting a new TV series or watching a movie for the first time I avoid reviews; not so much for spoilers but to make up my own mind about it. Once finished I will often read those reviews, to see how the thoughts and opinions of others chime with mine but sometimes to figure out what went on in a particular scene or perhaps the ending. (I watched a movie Captive State last night and after nearly two hours I genuinely had no idea what had happened or whether I had assessed the ending correctly. It's such a flawed, rambling film that I can't recommend it.)

Many of the reviews of Fauda focussed on whether, as an Israeli-made programme, it gave a biased, even racist, view of events. There was no consensus and, as you might expect, a huge gap in interpretations. As far as I could see, I (as a totally independent observer) could not detect any bias. It follows the activities of Israeli soldiers and therefore shows Palestinians (at least as represented by Hamas) as the enemy, but that's inevitable in an Israeli production. The reasons for Palestinian hatred of the Jews/Zionists [their terminology] are clearly portrayed. The show certainly doesn't shy away from disastrous mistakes by the soldiers. Luna Mansour, one of the leading Palestinian actors in the show said of criticism she had received for taking part "Marwa and Samir [her character’s husband, who is portrayed by Amir Khoury] are so unique. They don’t care about revenge, they don’t care about bombs, terrorism, Israelis, Palestinians. All they care about is having each other, having a chance to live their life, having the chance to raise their baby together.”

The only thing I'd say is that I am no nearer understanding the extent to which Hamas is representative of the views of "ordinary" Palestinians; if anything, I'd say the impression given is that it is. My overall impression is, as the title suggests, of chaos; of an interminable conflict that makes the everyday lives of Palestinians in particular depressing at best, almost unlivable at worst.

I'm satisfied that I haven't been co-opted by this Israeli series into taking a pro-Israeli view of conflict in the Middle East. It's a well produced and well acted show that grips the viewer. The English version has subtitles for the Arabic dialogue and dubbing for the Hebrew. As with most dubbing, it's not great but there's nothing to be done about that. There is a fourth season planned and I don't think it's reached its sell by date yet, so I look forward to that. I recommend it.

As it happens I recently watched the movie Oslo, a film version of a stage play in which a Norwegian diplomat and her husband, who works for a humanitarian organisation, bring together representatives of the Israeli government and Palestinian officials in secret, in an attempt to broker a peace deal. It is based on the real life story leading to the Oslo Accords of 1993. As someone who was aware of the process at the time, it evoked memories and so was an enjoyable revisit. If you didn't know it was originally a stage play, you would guess it early on, as the characters stand still and make speeches to each other in a rather stiff manner. Having said that, it's a worthwhile two hour watch with plenty of drama. And Ruth Wilson.

Page Eight

What do you do when you start watching a movie and, early on, you are pretty sure you have seen it before?

I had that experience last night with a film called Page Eight. I had thought it was a new one but it turns out it's a 2011 film. Although it has the feeling of the 1980s.

It's an all British affair, written and directed by David Hare. If you think of classic British - particularly English - male actors, who do you think of? Bill Nighy - yep, he's here. Michael Gambon - yep, he's here too. Also Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Felicity Jones, Saskia Reeves, Holly Aird. I suppose not quite Brit A listers by a good B+ team.

It's described by Mr Wiki as a "thriller" but that's just wrong. There are no thrills. It's about espionage and politics and how they interact but it proceeds at a comfortable pace, Bill Nighy in the lead doing his bumbling, stumbling, flawed but loveable Englishman and a direction style of a series of set piece episodes as though in a stage play. Which, considering Hare's career, isn't surprising. At one point he seems not to have got the hang of television: in a meeting, Nighy says "have you read page eight?" and it's obvious the others haven't, so the camera pans to the printed page and someone's finger follows the words along. Maybe it's an attempt at self-deprecating cinematic humour that I missed.

The film moves through a sequence of espionage memes such as American black sites, Israeli West Bank atrocities, thoughtful spy doesn't trust his political masters so goes rogue, spy steals classified documents and threatens to leak them to the press; none of them treated in any detail - perhaps because this isn't a ten episode TV series. It's very undemanding with a just about plausible plot - it's clear from about the fifth minute who are the bad guys - and no action of the kind you would expect in an espionage thriller; no guns, no confrontations. It's John La Carré without the depth, done and dusted in less than two hours.

I'm not really selling this well, am I? But the thing is, despite my sneering pomposity, I enjoyed the company of the people in this film and the facile and relaxed style. I subsequently discovered it's the first of a series called The Worricker Trilogy [Johnny Worricker is Nighy's character]. I have put the follow up films Turks & Caicos and Salting the Battlefield onto my Netflix watch list.

If you want a warm, cuddly movie to watch for an hour and three quarters, on the couch with your loved one, some wine and popcorn, and you don't want to have to think too hard or follow a complicated plot, this could be for you!

Oh and did it turn out I had seen it before? I'm not actually sure but I think not; that feeling was triggered by one scene where Bill Nighy and Rachel Weisz meet. Looking back, it's a scene you could see in any Bill Nighy film, so probably not.

Designated survivor: final take

In my previous post about the Netflix series Designated Survivor, I noted that it was "a pretty good TV series". A "mixture of The West Wing - daily travails of a President and his team; Homeland - a Congressman comes back from the dead as an unexpected survivor whom a female agent suspects of being a traitor - and 24, with its throbbing dramatic soundtrack."

I don't recall how many episodes I had watched at that stage but pretty sure it was early in season 1, which ultimately had 22 episodes. So did season 2; finally season 3 had just 10. Frankly I think it had simply run out of steam by then so was cancelled, apparently because of issues with actors' contracts, although how that can happen mid way through a season I don't know.

I've now ploughed my way through them all. Season 1 was perfectly reasonable, in that it had a purposeful and credible narrative where the Housing Secretary in the US government becomes President because he is the designated survivor when a terrorist attack destroys the Capitol and everyone in it during the State of the Union. Last man standing. The new President has to build a government and the season is that story, as well as that of the FBI agent tasked with unearthing the terrorists. There is a congressman who mysteriously survives the attack, despite attending the speech; is he genuine? See Brody in Homeland.

Season 1 is complete in itself; all the narratives are brought to some kind of satisfactory conclusion. It could easily have stood on its own. But no, TV production companies have to get their money's worth, so season 2 followed. But needed a reason to exist and to my mind never came up with one. It reverted to The West Wing, for want of any better idea. The daily travails of a President and his senior staff. The problem is that it's impossible to compete with The West Wing, in my view, because that show established a very high bar for realism, writing, characterisations and acting.

In The West Wing, the President's senior staffers are substantial characters who know what they are doing. They are strongly written and acted and form a capable ensemble. In Designated Survivor, they are weak. Is this because they are weak actors or because the characters are weak? Or both? Who knows? What I do know is that the ensemble is disjointed and unfocussed. I suppose you could argue that this is the essence of the underlying theme of a President thrown into the job and necessarily floundering along the way, with his team no better. But that is no basis for a strong TV series - or at least for the second season.

And that brings me to the President himself. Martin Sheen's Josiah Bartlet in The West Wing was calm, dignified and experienced. In contrast Kiefer Sutherland's Tom Kirkman is indecisive, inexperienced and, overwhelmed by this job to which he is unsuited, prone to sudden rages, verging on manic-depressive. The showrunners might say that it's interesting to see how this works on a personal level and how the character develops. No it's not; it's a TV show, not a work of art.

And so to season 3, which at least had a plausible narrative of the President standing for re-election (this term is used throughout, even though he was never elected in the first place). There are new staffers and some from season 2 (including Zoe McLellan's White House Counsel, whom I thought the best of a moderate bunch) didn't return. I wonder what is behind this unusually high turnover of actors. Anyway, after ten episodes the show ends.

I've missed out some significant plot details of all three seasons so as not to provide spoilers.

One of my main tests of a TV series is: can I empathise with any of the characters? Sadly, this show falls short on that, with the exception of Maggie Q's FBI (later CIA) agent Hannah Wells.  Obviously this taints my views on the whole series, so is very personal and shouldn't put anyone off. Particularly those of you whose empathies are likely to be different to mine. By the way, part of my connection with the Hannah Wells character is that she isn't Homeland's Carrie Mathison, whose craziness in the end made me shout at the TV in the way that I do during football matches.

It's not uncommon for me to give up on TV series before the end; I even gave up on Homeland because it seemed to me to lose its purpose - once Brody died - much as this series did after season 1. I think my son in Australia, and my daughter in law, said that they gave up half way through season 2. I get that. However, despite my clear reservations, I watched it through to the end. Now it's quite possible this was a result of lockdown fatigue but I did want to see how it ended. If you want something to occupy the long evenings, I wouldn't discourage you from watching Designated Survivor. If you do, tell me what you think!

Designated Survivor

Discovery of the week: an entertaining Netflix series Designated Survivor, in which Kiefer Sutherland does his tight-lipped, ultra aggressive Jack Bauer characterisation as a US Housing Secretary who becomes President as the Designated Survivor when the Capitol is bombed and destroyed during the State of the Union address. It's a mixture of The West Wing - daily travails of a President and his team; Homeland - a Congressman comes back from the dead as an unexpected survivor whom a female agent suspects of being a traitor - and 24, with its throbbing dramatic soundtrack.

I thought this idea of a Cabinet member designated by the President as being the one person not to attend the State of the Union and to take over if a catastrophe happens, to be a neat but implausible plot line. But it turns out to be real!

Apparently the idea of someone not attending the State of the Union or a Presidential Inauguration, and being sequestered in a safe and a secure location, began in the Cold War amid the threat of nuclear war in the 1960s. It's not just any old person, it has to be a person in the formal line of succession to the President, which effectively means a member of the Cabinet. In recent years Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture and Commerce have been designated. On 20 September 2001, nine days after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney sat out President  George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress. The designated survivor is chosen by the President and has to qualify as President, i.e. be at least 35, US natural-born and a US resident for at least 14 years.

I'm not sure but I think that, at the time, the designated survivor's name is not publicised but subsequent perusal of the list of attendees at events such as the Presidential inauguration can reveal a realistic guess. So who was not at President Biden's inauguration? Well, that would be none other than Donald J. Trump, of whom you may have heard. Was that the plan all along?

So it sounds like a sensible idea and I wonder whether other nations have similar protocols.

I could find no instances of that. For instance in the UK, what if the State Opening of Parliament was occurring when the Houses of Parliament were bombed into oblivion? The Queen is Head of State and there is a long  line of succession, so that seems OK, although I don't know whether a senior member of the Royal Family is sequestered in a secure location just in case. The monarch invites someone to form a government, i.e. become Prime Minister, so that seems OK too. No problem, we Brits have it sorted.

Anyway, it's a pretty good TV series. Enjoy!

Call My Agent!

This is easily the funniest TV show in a long time. Generally I'm not a Laugh Out Loud person but this show does exactly that for me.

If you need cheering up, this is the show for you. If you want to wake up in the morning happy, this is your dream. If you want to sleep well at night, watch an episode before bedtime. If you're down, watch another episode.

It's a French TV series - with subtitles obviously, the original title is Dix Pour Cent - with an ensemble cast centred around the workings of a Paris talent agency. It's on Netflix and there have been four seasons.

It's basically a French farce, with excellent dialogue and acting. Each episode stars a well known French actor - I've just watched Juliette Binoche in S2 E6.

Thank you Giles Coren of the Times for referencing this and adding joy to my life! 

Spotify

I often wonder whether I'm getting good value from my £9.99 pm Spotify subscription. I listen to so little music but I do so, like everything else, in fits and starts.

Maybe I should have symphonic nights as well as my movie nights.

I am a fan of Mahler's symphonies and could easily binge listen to them in sequence. I am definitely interested in Bruckner's symphonies. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard them all but I couldn't say which I have.

I could list the tracks on my Spotify playlists but that would be very embarrassing. On the other hand....

OK, this is playlist Nigel1:

* I Dreamed A Dream from Les Miserables (film version) - Anne Hathaway

* Send in the Clowns from Stephen Sindheim's A Little Night Music - Judy Collins

* I Have A Dream from Mamma Mia - Amanda Seyfried

(Oh my goodness, this really IS embarrassing - but if you blog you probably have to be prepared to be embarrassed)

* Mr. Blue Sky - Electric Light Orchestra
(that's more like it)

* A Whiter Shade Of Pale - Annie Lennox

* Baba Yetu - The Soweto Gospel Choir
(that will get you all Googling)

* Imagine  - John Lennon

* Pinball Wizard - The Who

* Nessun Dorma - Luciano Pavarotti

* We Are The Champions - Queen

* Dido's Lament "When I am Laid In Earth" (Purcell) - Sally Stapleton

* Adagietto from Mahler's 5th Symphony - Valery Gergiev, London Symphony Orchestra

* Adagio for Strings (Samuel Barber) - Leonard Bernstein, New York Philharmonic

* All I Do Is Dream Of You - Faultline

* Fanfare for the Common Man - Aaron Copland, London Symphony Orchestra

 * Lacrimosa from Requiem (Mozart) - Stephen Cleobury, Academy Of Ancient Music

* Summertime from Porgy and Bess - Miles Davis

That's quite eclectic, now I think about it. Pretty sure Trevor will chastise me for listening on my Amazon Alexa but that's what I am doing now as a I write this.

I also have more stuff in my Spotify library: Bach, Wagner, Wynton Marsalis, Ariana Grande, Prokofiev and of course more Mahler. So maybe a tenner a month is OK for value.

I enjoyed writing this, re-listening to previous choices and now thinking about new playlists. Thank you for reading!