Reviews

What stands in my mind is how, eight to ten minutes before the end of nearly every episode, the society on a new planet encountered by the Alphans ends up being destroyed, usually at the hand of Commander John Koenig, because what it seeks does not meet with the life Alphans are used to. This was a weakness to otherwise intriguing stories that were not going to be mistaken for Star Trek.

Although I remember too many things that left me scratching my head, even from the superior first season - why did the command centre have exterior windows that could be opened when the Moon was given an atmosphere? With all of the Eagles that crashed or were otherwise disabled, how did they always seem to be able to get another one aloft, and how were they fast enough, given the scramble of Alan Carter to keep up with the Moon when it first left Earth's orbit, to reach the base again when outside the gravity of the orb.

The local TV station aired the first season Fridays at 7 pm, the same time slot that it had used for Star Trek a decade earlier. The second season was picked up by the CBC, but they threw it away by airing it Saturday afternoons at 3 pm. In the late 80s, it ended up on the children's channel YTV at about the same time, grouped with Blake's 7 and Red Dwarf. The TV regulator felt Space 1999 and Blake's 7 were too violent for a children's channel, and Red Dwarf being possibly too racy for daytime airing on that channel.

It had potential, but it just seemed to have the need to sell in many markets so that it could pay its bills, rather than just to tell great stories. If it had told great stories consistently, it would have sold solidly and been a franchise comparable to Star Trek.

Maybe Isabelle Huppert rubs me the wrong way, maybe trying to do European work in an American context confused the crew and writers, maybe the cast and director realised that this just wasn't going to connect for most people, but it proved unwatchable for me. I'd try it for a while, and then go back to channel hopping. The DVD, which I bought at a liquidation store, sat in the player for three months, watching a chapter here, a chapter there, until I got into the eighth chapter. I elected to bite my tongue and watch the rest, finding myself pushed away further by acting that just did not seem to be trying or allowed to try, from actors that I have seen do much better. In the end, the player would no longer open, possibly fearing that others may have to see the movie.

Much of the cinema I seek out is European, not in English, with writing and concepts of depth. I watch and enjoy art movies, great films that explore people, concepts, relations, but that is not what this was for me.

It reminded me of what someone trying to live the concept of The Producers would do - irrelevant and unbelievable dialogue, a gunfight that belongs in Police Squad, and characters that are almost universally unsympathetic - except the missing persons officer who aspires to make up for all the rest. I laughed at the production that seemed to have been asking the cast to weaken their performances, a presentation that increasingly seemed like theatresports without the humour as the rendition gave up in even believing the movie would work. I'm sorry, but this is closer to Plan 9 from Outer Space and Spaceballs than it is to Kolya or L'Ennui.

I was in the Czech Republic last month, and my host took me out to Karlstejn Castle, built by Charles IV of Bohemia, who became the Holy Roman Emperor, it was on the top of a ridge over a deep river valley, for its defensive value. As soon as I got through the gate, my mind clicked on with the recorder, accompanied by a gentle harp, playing "Early One Morning" Fact is, you had to "Look up, Wa-a-ay up" to see the castle, and once inside, there was not a lot of furniture left, maybe three chairs and a fireplace, one was big enough for two kids to curl up in and then you could put a rocking chair in the middle. (Can anyone remember the entire quote? Why hasn't it been added here?) I did look over the turrets for giraffes - even whistled for them. Just waited for someone to say "And there's that boot." It is a beautiful place to tour, but it will always be made more memorable by the connection my mind made back to my childhood and some of its warmest memories.

As the stories of Arthurian legend (maybe myth?) have evolved through re-tellings and expansions over the centuries, this retelling also goes in directions from Marion Zimmer Bradley's book, which openly created a different presentation and interpretation of the stories of Camelot. Morgan Le Fay, demonised in the Tennyson presentation where she had been a somewhat neutral character in previous renditions. Viviane had been the villain of most renditions meanwhile. I cannot profess to have read every telling over the years of the Arthurian tales, but being a student of multiple religious faiths including "English paganism" (not simply that of the Druids, but also the little people) I can see much of the potential of the book.

Unfortunately, the faith issue was not the topic of the movie, nor was the ability of Arthur, first through force against the Saxons, and then through conversion to Christianity of those same Saxons, to unite England. Instead we have the Saxons still attacking at the end in the movie. Instead, we have characters as sculpted in the book presented in a low budget production with leaps in the story meant for people that haven't read the book to get a sense of the voices. Acting does accomplish some leaps over problems in the story, but read the book, read the early texts, maybe then read the Tennyson rendition.

Could a big screen rendition handle this better? I doubt it would have enough time for the stories along the way, which contrary to the view of the director explain much of the book. A mini-series, as this originally was, with another two hours (this is already 183 minutes) could have better developed key aspects, such as Lancelot's marriage, and the important plotting Morgaine undertakes in Wales, as well as Gwenhwyfar's abduction and Igraine's death. Even the death of Viviane and Raven's prophecies were mishandled, losing key understandings of the different faiths. Maybe somebody with the time, budget, and in need of a sweeps blockbuster will try again, but then again, maybe the tale works only when transferred from the words on the page to the images of the mind.

Maybe the best that can be done with cinema is either the musical Camelot, or Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the Arthurian tales are too broad to cover in one presentation. That said, the migratory sparrows are dropping more coconuts around here, I need to go pick them up.

This is a very well written show, but it goes a step beyond that. Rather than the usual sitcom format of taking a story's premise, and playing around it for the half hour, usually of one character trying to hide a misstep from the others, this show plays on the moments, allowing it to play with many, many different, nominally connected jokes through a half hour.

The normal show is split into three scenarios - Guy and his "blonde" (slang in Quebec for female significant other) Sylvie, interacting in a situation or with others. Each scenario is split into 5 to 7 segments, split with flashy graphics and sometimes an appropriate comment such as "jalousie" or "le monde est pervert" Each segment sets up and plays out jokes that stand on their own, playing on the quirks of the characters. For much of the earlier series, with a few exceptions, you do not see the other characters beyond hands or feet, or in the case of Genvieve (a co-worker of Guy's who was always too friendly to him in Sylvie's company, inspiring her "jalousie",) the entire shapely figure below the neck, particularly when she was pregnant.

It just finished up some five seasons run on Radio-Canada, but I've found that while knowing French sometimes help understand the jokes, it isn't essential - you can tell what is happening. An example is one Christmas when Guy's father gives two year old Anakin (yep, Melanie chose the name from Star Wars) a Barbie doll as a present. Sylvie lectures the father about how Barbie is such an unrealistic image of women, while Elise and Guy both happen to look at Melanie, seated obliviously between them, with quite the Barbie build and wardrobe.

This series has been licensed for local production in numerous other countries and languages, to great success there. I yearn for an English edition.

I'm lying a bit here - I didn't see much of it, but I feel it needs to be mentioned: For at least the next decade, Jalna was a running joke when dealing with Canadian programming. Those that designed and pursued the project wanted a great classic mini-series in the same successful strain as Upstairs Downstairs in Britain and various mini-series becoming popular in the United States, but with a Canadian story to try to demonstrate the relevance of the nation's literature. Unfortunately, a story that was somewhat slow and formula-bound when RKO did it in 1935 became very slow and over-played as the main suspense was wondering how long it would take for something interesting to happen, or even develop. Was it poorly done? Not really, it was just the wrong story for the time given to tell it, and not really a competitor to what was being developed by American and British producers.

It took a generation for CBC drama to live down the memories of The Whiteoaks of Jalna and bring back a willingness among the audience to give Canadian television drama a chance. It also gave English Canadian private broadcasters an excuse to *not really try* with drama on the argument that it wouldn't have a chance of getting an audience.

This movie was disappointing. After 15 years, when it was brought back to mind from reviewing some info about Mariel Hemingway, all the regrets I felt about the movie came rolling back. While I remember Peter O'Toole, I was entirely oblivious to the fact that the female "lead" (okay, - she was little more than an object for discussion in the storyline) was Ms. Hemingway. I saw this movie back in the days when I wrote movie reviews, and warned people off it, as the stories just didn't work, and fifteen years of my subconscious trying to sort things out still hasn't made sense of the flow of the ideas.

Part of this may have to do with the fact that it looked like, after the original movie (whatever it was about) was filmed, an editor came in and tried to piece together something out of it. I don't know if this had been a project of a previous studio boss, and so was sabotaged to discredit him or her by the successor, or this was a disaster from the original screenplay that attempts to salvage were unsuccessful. The theatrical version just didn't work.