"...the play's the thing..."

(I know this is not exactly the most original title for a review of a production of Hamlet; this is somewhat ironic given that the production this review is about was a highly original production. And it's rather late.)

But, first, some background; every year, the Reading University Drama Society puts on a Shakespeare play or two in the open air. This year, one of the plays was Hamlet. However, this was a Hamlet with a twist. Shakespeare with a twist is not an unusual thing, there are all sorts of contemporarily set plays, or transposed locations, or even naked Shakespeare... but I can’t think of another time when Hamlet has been mashed up with The Catcher in the Rye...

Now you may think this is a crazy notion as the two source texts are so very different from each other, but think about it; for example, one of things Holden rallies against are phonies. What could be more phony than the “grief” of Claudius for his brother’s death; murdered at his own hands? Hamlet sees this phoniness, and endeavours to expose it. And once you start looking, you can find all sorts of little examples.

So. Hamlet, with Catcher in the Rye stylings. Does it work? Well. There’s really only one answer, and it’s a three-lettered one beginning with a “y”.

Now, I’m sure it’s not escaped your knowledge, but I am somewhat of a fan of The Catcher in the Rye. It’s my favourite book. I have no idea how many times I have read it. Often when I finish reading it, I’ll flip straight back to the start and begin again. If I’m carrying a bag there’s about a 97.8% chance there’s one of my four copies of Catcher in there. Look to the top right of this blog to see where its title comes from. I’m sure you’re getting the picture, yes? But then there is also something I’m quite militant about and that’s my loathing of the idea of adapting The Catcher in the Rye in to any other medium. Take a look at the post “...don’t ever tell anybody anything...” dated March 9th 2010 for more on why a Catcher movie would be a bad idea; the same really applies to any other medium. Including the theatre. Now. The thing this production got right was that the Hamlet here is still clearly Hamlet. Although there are stylings of The Catcher in the Rye, and influences, at no point did it feel Hamlet was trying to be Holden. It was enough that the world this Hamlet inhabits is a similar one to Holden. It didn’t need Hamlet to actually become Holden.

And the Catcher touches were all over the place. From the Little Shirley Beans record that Ophelia gives back to Hamlet, to the red hunting hat Hamlet wears occasionally, to the fencing, to the whole prep school look of several of the characters, to the game of chequers that Hamlet and Horatio play; with Horatio even shedding a tear on to the board. Although I did actually miss her doing that...

...yes. You did read that bit right. In this version, Horatio was female; she was the Jane Gallagher to Holden’s Hamlet. You remember; in the book, she’s the one who keeps all her kings in the back row. Actually, this led to one of the few prop errors in the production; when they were playing chequers, the kings were facing Horatio, when they should have been facing Hamlet. Having said that, though, chances are I was the only one in the audience that noticed this.

Having Horatio as a female changed the dynamic of the play a little; especially heightening the way how Ophelia acts. Her desire for Hamlet, and his rejection of her (“Get thee to a nunnery” etc) makes her gradual decline looks as if jealousy of Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio plays a part in it. Does this Ophelia see Horatio as a rival, perhaps?

Both roles were brilliantly played. The brilliantly cast. Katie Gunning’s performance as the reliable Horatio (one of the few truly honest, and stable, characters in the characters in the play) was spot on; I remember seeing her in a production of Closer (the Patrick Marber play) last year playing the Natalie Portman role, and in the intervening months she’s clearly improved her acting skillls. It’s not that she was bad in Closer, she was okay; but in Hamlet she shifted up a couple of gears to give a compelling performance, both when acting and reacting.
In any case, Marber is no Shakespeare; the only way his play scores over Hamlet is the gratuitous lapdancing scene. As far as I am aware, no production of Hamlet has yet found a a way to work a lapdancing in to the narrative... but I digress...

The flip side of the coin was the unstable Ophelia. It’s always a tricky thing to get Ophelia’s descent in to madness correct; it’s very easy to go a little too over the top, so that it seems hammy. This was not the case here; the performance was a believable one.

But at the core of every performance of Hamlet is one performance that will make or break the entire production. Clearly, I should not need to tell you which role this is... and luckily the titular role here was cast perfectly. The sheer energy of Ant Henson's performance just left you breathless. When Hamlet staggered, drunk, on stage, bottle in hand, splurging out “to be or not to be...” shivers went up the spine. It was that good. It felt fresh.

Now, I’ve seen three productions of Hamlet, and if you were to ask me about Rosencratz and Guildestern in the first two... well, I’d have to Google them to find out who played them, and really I can’t remember a thing about their performances. That’s not something that will happen with this performance; Matthew Clark and Lee Anderson came close to stealing the show every time they were on stage with their performances as the toadying little pair. The sheer physicality of their performance oozed lackiness to such a degree that Waylon Smithers would have felt confident in bossing them around. They were just brilliant. Even now, as I type this, I’m chuckling at the memory of their performances.

Ah... I could mention so many other performances... from one of the gravediggers and his Matt-Smith-esque attire (at one point he pinged his bow tie as if saying “It’s a bow tie. I wear a bow tie now. Bow ties are cool.”), to Alexander Wilson’s Stradlater styled performance as Claudius, and Fiona McIntyre’s very regal Gertrude... so much to praise.

There was some real talent on that stage. I don’t know how many of them will end up pursuing acting as a career option, or just dabbling with amateur theatre occasionally, but there are certainly a handful up there who really should think about doing a lot more acting, as they were so damn good; and were I to hear that they have not acted further, I'll track them down and slap them round the chops with a wet fish. Maybe a bream, or a brill.

In closing, I’ll just leave you with this one comment; I went to see the last of the three performances of this production. In hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have gone to the first. Then I could have seen it twice more...

"...Star Trekkin' across the universe..."

Now, it's been quite some time since I watched any amount of Star Trek; it's kind of slipped under my radar for a while, even with the JJ flavoured movie... but the other day, I picked up a set of 4 DVDs containing all 12 Q episodes on it for a fiver. Bargain. So, I've been watching them, and thus far in, here's my thoughts:

Encounter At Farpoint

Now, this was a lot better than I remembered it as being. John de Lancie pretty much steals the scene every time he's on screen. He's a wonderful presence from the off, and you're never quite sure where you are with him. Otherwise, though, the story's pretty ho-hum. There's way too much "pilot"ing going on here, whereby things happen, and stuff is set up, just to show off the newness of the show. The most notable example of this is when they split the saucer section for a really spurious reason (I'm reasonably sure I'm right in saying this doesn't happen again until the Generations film, aren't I? Heck, they don't even split for the Borg in BOBW...), and also the backstories of Jean Luc & Beverly's and Riker & Troi's repesctive histories seems shoehorned in. But, overall, not too bad.

Hide and Q

This was another one that surprised me. Q's temptation of Riker was a lot better than I remembered, and I'd forgotten the glorious moment when Wesley gets a spike through his guts. Even the game he gets them to play isn't too bad. Still, despite this, it remains one of the weaker Q episodes... especially when it's up against these next two;

Q-Who

Before they started fucking around with continuity, this was humanity's first encounter with The Borg. The way how Q maliciously flings the Enterprise halfway across the galaxy (well, two years away at maximum warp...). This episode is one of those rare beasties; an episode where the good guys can in no way be said to have won; faced with a choice of being crushed by the Borg or submitting to Q, Jean Luc wisely chooses the latter. It's a stunning, powerful, episode that sets the stage for what remains the best Star Trek ever, thus far; The Best of Both Worlds.

Deja Q

From the relentless doom of the previous Q episode, we get a complete inversion with an episode that's got some of the funniest moments of Trek ever. Taking the omipotent Q and making him human worked brilliantly. The look on Q's face as Mr Worf chucks him in the brig... priceless! It's a testament to the versatility of John de Lancie's acting skills that he's able to portray these varying facets to Q's character equally well; you've never quite sure when playful Q will turn in to vengful Q... brilliant.

Q-Pid

But, it couldn't last. This episode is the nadir of Q TNG episodes, and pretty much only comes to life when Q is on screen (not enough, in this episode). The Robin Hood sequences really don't work, and are only enlivened once, by Worf's best ever line; "Sir, I protest, I am not a merry man"... Overall, quite a dull episode.

Still, 5 TNG episodes down, three to go... and then there's the DS9 episode (*shudder*) and the Voyager ones... Hmm...

Actually, you know what... I'm surprised they never had Q in Enterprise; I know, in terms of continuity it would not have worked... but hey, continuity stated they should never have had the Borg or Ferengi in that show, but they still did. : )

"...we've been waiting for you..."

Okay. So I have been rather slack in respect to the ol' blog of late. I had meant to post after every episode of Lost, for example, but events seemed to overtake me. So, I never got to say how moving I felt the sideways Ben episode was, how great it was to see Sawyer as a cop, the brilliance of the Richard episode, and how moving the Libby & Hurley scenes were, and how it was great to see Charles on the island, and the sense of dread that pemeated through episodes 12-14, and how shocking the events on the sub were, and how flat the Jacob episode was (could have been done in half the time), how I shed a tear at a scene of two people talking in a kitchen, and how Charles was so offhandedly killed... and... so many things.

But, in The End...

First of all, I would like to stake my colours to the post right from the off; I loved the final episode of Lost to bits. It wasn't what I expected from the show at all, but it gave a resolution to all that really mattered in the show. Yes, there were questions remaining unanswered, but that really doesn't matter. I have seen so many posts just whinging that a minor plot point from an episode in Season 2 (or whatever) has been left hanging. I've even seen people complaining that things that had already been answered hadn't been. And there were also many questions that, although not directly answered, can be answered if the brain is put together and you actually think about the show. Does everything need to be spoon fed? Strewth. Get a grip. I've seen people say that if a pseudo-scientific explanation was given for, say, the light, or for how the island moves that would have improved things. I mean, would it really matter if, in all solemnity, if Jacob had said to the Candidates that this was due to the transperambulation of pseudo cosmic antimatter, or something...??? I mean, really? Damon and Carlton had said in interviews during the season they didn't want to get all "midi-chlorian" with answers, as sometimes if you know too much about something, it lessens it. Does the midi-chlorian explanation enhance understanding of the Force, or does it diminish it. I suggest the latter...

Anyway; what is needed from a resolution is that it is true to the programme, and true to the characters, and what we got most definitely was. I tell you; for about the last 10-15 minutes, when it was becoming obvious what was going on with the sideways world, and the significance of the location of the light (behind the bamboo grove), I started to blub. It had such an impact on me, so by the time Vincent lays down next to the almost dead Jack, I was in floods. All I cared was that the finale was a fitting end, and that when that last "Lost" pinged on screen it felt like a complete whole. And that's exactly what it did.

I also loved that Hurley ended up as the islands latest protector, with Ben as his "number 2". I was so glad Ben made it to the end, as I had long feared he would end up dead by the end (when the tree fell on him, I thought that was it and was shouting "noooo!" at the screen). But, no. He lives. It was good also to see Rose & Bernard living their idyllic island lives.

Also a suprise was those who made it off the island in the plane... the "Ajira 6", if you will... Sawyer, I was sure, was going to make some noble sacrifice (probably to save Freckles, and without his shirt) , but he made it off.

You do have to hand it to the producers, though, for the spectacular misdirection they used for the sideways world; all along the theory was that this was a timeline, created by the bomb going boom at the Swan site, that had time changed completely from 1977 on... right from the Comic-Con videos of Hurley, Kate, and the Oceanic Ad, that was always what it was; an alternate time line... In hindsight, given that all signs pointed to that interpretation, it should have been obviously an incorrect assumption. The eventual, afterlife, explanation was far more satisfying than any other alternative. It harks back to the idea that in each life we find ourselves with the same people.

I just love it. The perfect end to what, to my mind, has been the best TV show ever.

"...life can always start up anew..."

Do you remember the first time we saw the second cast of Skins? That wonderful sequence where Freddie hops on his skateboard at the top of Park Street and dodges his way past all the obstacles on the way down, before meeting up with Cook & JJ. Cook already on, what, his third or fourth pint of the day and they'd not yet started their first day at college. And Effie's dad crashing the car, and Cook pretending he'd crashed in to him, and the old granny sticking up for him, and Effy looking call in the car. And as she walked away all three of them were in love with her...

...it seems like such a long time ago now.

Of course, then it was a really brave thing. Axing, essentially, the whole cast (bar Effy, obviously), and replacing them with completely new characters. It was like Grange Hill on an epic scale; there there was always the turnover of characters, as each year left the school, there was another new year waiting in the wings. But as that was set in a secondary school and sixth form college, each character could be there for up to seven years, so even if some left, there was always a core of characters from the previous series there. Not so, with Skins. Such a wholesale change of cast shouldn't have worked; but it did.

Whilst it's true the old cast were missed, we soon grew to love the new one. We became as invested in this mob's lives as we were in the previous.

Now, we're going to have to go through it all again, as Seasons 5 & 6 (already confirmed as definitely happening by E4) will again have a completely new set of characters (no word on if there's an "Effy" as yet, but if there is, the smart money's on Karen...). This last Thursday we bade farewell to Cook and company with an episode that managed to be both inspired genius, and a massive disappointment at the same time...

Most episodes of a TV show have to do just one thing; be a damn good episode. That's all. There's no denying that was what we got. However, there are a couple of exceptions whereby an episode has to do more. One of these is the first episode of a show, which has to get you hooked on the show's premise and characters; the other is a finale.

The Skins season 4 finale was a damn good episode, but it failed as a finale.

Now, I'm not saying I expect every loose end to be tied up, every question answered, or that kind of thing; just that there should be some kind of satisfactory ending to the characters. It doesn't even have to be a definite ending. Take for example, the end of Skins season 2, which was the finale for the first set of characters. That was an episode that did indeed work perfectly as a finale. You could have ended Skins right there and it would have been seen as a coherent whole.

That whole episode was all about moving on. You had Chris, who had just died, and the rest of the gang coming to terms with his death (the coffin stealing sequence was just brilliant; as was the scene on the beach), and you had the characters moving on to the next stage in their lives. There was the moment when Maxxie was heading to London, with Anwar feeling left alone; until he makes a spur of the moment decision to go with him, changing his life completely. There was Sketch with her totally screwed up existence. Jal's eulogy to Chris. The scene with Tony & Michelle in the car at the airport when they break up. Sid searching for Cassie in New York, and coming so close to finding her... even with the cut away before we see if he notices her or heads off it doesn't seem like a cheat... and that last shot, of Effy in the bed, smiling a cheeky smile that (at least to my mind) brought back echoes of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It worked.

Whereas the gen-2 cast's finale, mostly, really didn't. There were too many characters whose "resolutions" just came from out of nowhere. Thomas's sudden Harvard Scholarship, and Pandora's extra exams she'd taken being the most obvious examples.

But. As I said earlier, this was not a bad episode. It was a damn good one, as there was so much in it to love. Naomi's declaration of love for Emily was beautiful. Wonderful writing. Brilliantly acted. Also, I actually ended up liking Cook by the end of it (see previous Skins entries in this blog). I do really, really love the show; it's probably the best contemporary drama series around at the moment. I just found this last episode, when judged as a finale, to be so very frustrating.

Which is a shame.

I get the feeling that the show suffered from its cut from 10 to 8 episodes. I wonder how much of the season had been scripted by the time this cut came through, and whether they tried as best they could to cram the ten episodes in to 8, by cutting various elements, and whether these elements would have ensured there was a more finale-esque feeling to that last episode, and that things that appeared to come from nowhere had been seeded beforehand.

I'm still wondering exactly what the point of Freddie's death was. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those loons that's going "oh, noes, Fred's dead, I'm never going to watch again" or anything; I just cannot see why you bother with as shocking a climax as episode 7 had, and to more or less completely ignore it in the finale. I mean, it's not like these characters are ever coming back or anything. In Season 2, Chris's death had a massive impact on the characters, and it became the centre piece around which that season's finale was built. So, I guess they figured that they'd done the whole grief and moving on thing with the show then. But this was a different death. A murder. And there's a whole range of things they could have done.

Instead, he's barely mentioned all the episode, and only Karen seems worried he's not around. They just seem to think he's run away or something. Really, it strikes me that the only reason for having Freddie killed off is in order to get a scene like the very last one with Cook. And even that came from nowhere. With hardly any time left in the episode, Cook notices a figure watching them, follows, finds Freddie's blood stained clothes and twigs he's dead. The phrase "deus ex machina" is somewhat overused in many circles, but seems to apply here perfectly... that last confrontation, however, was great... where it cut off was not.

'Cos you just know that at some point early in Season 5 there'll be some offhand comment whereby they'll be talking about a court case or something, and it'll either be Freddie's murder, or Freddie and Cook's murder, or the Doctor's murder, as it'll have been in the news or something, or gossip around the college and it'll be just like Grange Hill when Jonah left to go to another school... I hated that kind of thing then, and I still hate it now. Little info dumps telling you all about the stuff that's happened off screen that you, really, should have seen on the screen.

The really odd thing is that had that been the very last episode of Skins, ever, with no more to come, I would have liked that ending more. It's that knowing that we'll almost certainly get comments about it next season that sours it. As the last ever shot, it would have worked. But it'll just be relegated to a footnote in a random scene in season 5. It deserves more

"...Dr Linus, actually..."

There is, to my mind, a general rule of thumb with Lost, and it runs something like this; if an episode concentrates on Ben Linus, it will be a fantastic episode, and probably the best episode of the season... The latest episode of the final season of Lost does nothing to disprove this theory, and in fact is not only the best episode of this season, but one of the very best episodes so far (The Shape of Things to Come; Ben episode from Season 4 is probably the very best).

There was so much about this that was great, it's hard to know where to begin...

The parallel Ben showed all the same Machiavellian tendencies as his on-island counterpart, but he lacked that killer instinct needed to follow through with his plans. When it became obvious that had he gone through with his plan that Alex would be unable to go to Yale, he backed down. This is something that on-island Ben would never do. Even when faced with the situation of a ruthless killer with a gun to his "Daughter's" head, he would back down, and we know how that ended...

...this was also something that came up in the on-island thread; that he had been unable, after all this time (I forget exactly how long it would have been as I forget the date he arrived in Tunisia) to come to terms with the action that led to Alex' death. Tying this in with the reasons he killed Jacob, and then Illana's subsequent forgiving of him was quite something. The range of performances put in by Michael Emerson in this episode only goes to prove, once more (if it were needed), that he's one of the very best actors on the planet. I was convinced island-Ben was going to die... but then, I was also convinced of this last season when he went up against Smokey for judgement... (and subsequent events put that in a whole new context...)

But this was an episode just jam packed with greatness. From Ben's "stood over them with a bloody knife" line being used back at him by Miles. Miles getting his hands on Nicki & Paulo's $8 million worth of diamonds. To Smokey-Locke attempting to out-maniplate the arch-manipulator to Jack and Richard...

That scene in the Black Rock with the dynamite was, well, for want of a better word; dynamite. Jack is finally coming to terms with his role in the bigger picture. The sheer tension there was as the dynamite came closer and closer to exploding... and then fizzled out. Ooh... It was just like Michael in Season 4 when the island wouldn't let him die as he still had work to do. What is the work that these two have to do?

Cast your mind back to the web only Missing Pieces, especially the one set immediately prior to the first scene of the first episode, in which Christian speaks to Vincent and tells him to wake his son up as "He has work to do..." It's a phrase that has appeared many times in the show. Walt appearing to Locke when he's in the pit of Dharma bodies, for one.

With only eleven episodes to go, things are getting hot...

And with Widmore almost back on the island...

[Incidentally before I carry on, I should mention this blog's spoiler policy. The following are not considered spoilers to my mind;

1 - titles of forthcoming episodes.

2 - centricity (that is, which character is focussed upon) of episodes.

3 - contents of trailers and officially released "sneak peaks".

4 - officially released cast information.

All other details of forthcoming episodes, plot points, events, anything else is a spoiler. If your spoiler threshold is lower, please do not read on...]

Sawyer fans should like next week, Recon, as it's the Sawyer parallel-flash, and he is seen in the state all Sawyer fans love to see him in the most; shirtless.

But I'm rather more looking forward to the week after, Ab Aeterno, which is all about Richard Alpert, and his backstory. Also, it's six minutes longer than normal. Excellent! : )

"...don't ever tell anybody anything..."

I think there is a certain irony in the fact that the front cover of the 2010 UK paperback edition of The Catcher in the Rye, if looked at right, resembles a £ symbol. Salinger had been dead less than a month when it appeared in the shops, an almost indecent haste with him barely cold before these new editions showed up. On top of that, it looks rubbish too. Now I know there are all sorts of restrictions on what new editions of covers of JDS's books can have on them (no pictures, no plot summary, no author biog, no author photo etc), but this new covers shows a supreme lack of imagination. It is almost as if it was polished off in five minutes in order to get the edition out quicker. It's massively inferior to the old, red, edition; that had class and style, and there was a uniformity of design across the yellow (Seymour), blue (Esme), and green (F&Z) books. Oh, and whilst they've re-done Catcher, they didn't bother with the other three books... ho-hum.

I had intentionally not posted on Salinger's death until now, as really I needed time to reflect. I remember finding out about his death upon reading a flippant comment on an message board (which seems to be the method du jour of findind out these things), and doing a double take. First things I did was to head to the BBC site for corroboration (best news site out there, and thought that it might be neutered by stupid people makes me sick; but that's for another time), and there it was. He'd died. Only three weeks after his 91st birthday. Now, I know it's a cliche to say that it was a shock, but it genuinely was. He was 91, so it's not like it shouldn't have been unexpected, but it did sadden me immensely.

His uncompromising nature was legendary; if things were not done his way, they didn't get done. He had such clout, despite his not publishing anything new since 1965, that he could make the demands as mentioned above about his covers. His steadfast refusal to submit any more material for publication would have got many lesser authors struck off from their publishers, their books allowed to slide out of print. But, I guess when you have a title that still shifted (apparently) circa 250,000 copies a year that must have counted for something.

The thing I most admired about him, though, was his refusal to allow his work to be adapted in to other media. There was no Catcher in the Rye move, stage play, TV show or anything; I really do agree with him on this point. The trouble with, for example, movies of books is that whether bad or good they affect the book. A bad movie can taint the book on which it is based; it will be supposed by many that as the adaptation was bad, the source novel will be also.

A great movie of a book can also be bad for the book in that it will supplant the original text in the minds of the public, so that the only thing people think of is the movie. Now, this is one of those areas where I often say contradictorary things; for example, I love the movie A Clockwork Orange, but I am aware that when I think of Alex, what he looks like, what he's wearing, his swagger, the image in my head is the one designed by Kubrick, and Alex is Malcolm McDowell. Even when I read the book, I picture Alex in his white outfit, with the bowler hat on; even though Anthony Burgess tells me that Alex looks completely different, and his Droog outfit is completely different. I just can't help it. Ditto with Trainspotting; Renton is Ewan McGregor, Begbie is Robert Carlye, and so on.

Now, when I read The Catcher in the Rye, there is a picture in my head of Holden. There is a rhythm to how he speaks. I imagine him narrating the book at a frantic pace, with words tumbling out of his mouth; almost fighting to get out. He's yammering, he's got to get it all out, he's digressing all over the place, he's fast.

Ten years ago, the BBC did a list of best books, and in one programme they did Catcher, and in this they had someone reading the book. But they read it in a really slow drawl, that almost sounded like the K-Billy DJ in Reservoir Dogs... That wasn't how Holden should sound... but clearly someone thought that was how he spoke.

So, should they make a Catcher movie, it will be the director's Holden. They'll get it wrong. Anyone doing it would get it wrong. I'd get it wrong.

And, within days of Salinger's death, there were talks that there may now be a movie... it would all depend on his will. There was talk that a couple of decades ago he made a comment that once he was dead it was up to his estate if his unpublished work was published, and if movies were made; and that he was just glad he wouldn't be around to see it.

I'll tell you this; I don't want to see it. It could be the best movie ever, but I don't want someone else's version of Holden to interfere with mine. I've read that book a million times, and I'll read it a million times more, but I want to read it my way, unpolluted by actors and directors.

There'll be more books by him published in due course, and I'll devour each new one as it arrives. Chances are, most (if not all) will be about people called "Glass", but we shall see.

There's a bit in Catcher where Holden talks of reading a book and wishing that the author was a really great friend of yours you could call up at any time and shoot the breeze with; I always got that feeling every time I'd read Catcher. I would have loved to have called Jerry up and shot the breeze about anything and everything.

He loved the movies, apparently...

"...it only ends once..."

I had meant to blog weekly, after every new episode of Lost, but thus far this appears to have fallen by the wayside... ho-hum.

So, the final season so far, five episodes in;

• This parallel timeline is clearly there for a reason (everything happens for a reason, remember...?). But what that reason is remains a mystery. It's clearly not there as a "what if?" kind of aside, as there are clear indications of both timelines bleeding in to each other; I mean, you'd remember if you'd had your appendix out, wouldn't you? You'd have seen the scar every day of your life...
• Claire being claimed and acting all Rousseau makes me think that Rousseau was claimed, too, and that this, not the time displacement exhibited by Desmond and Minkowski, is "the sickness" previously mentioned. Now, I contend that by enterting the Temple, Rousseau's party got protected from the sickness (captured by the others and innoculated, perhaps?) and the sick person all along was Rousseau. (Or was it the businessman in his suit and tie?)
• The numbers return in force, both on the roof of the cave and on the contraption in the lighthouse. That contraption had space for 360 names, but there were clearly higher numbers on the cave roof.
• As for the Candidate; I'm going to call it now, and say that Sawyer will take over from Jacob as the islands protector. Unless the real Locke is somehow brought back to life in which case he'll take over. Or maybe there'll be a mashing of timelines and parallel Locke will take over. "Don't tell me what I can't do?"
• Sayid's an odd one. He appeared to die, but did not die. Dogen suggests he'd been "claimed" like Claire, and Miles keeps looking at him funny... something's clearly wrong there. I think we may find out this week what it is...
• In anycase there's a theory that the whole malarkey as to what's really going on with Jacob and the Man in Black (I really wish we could learn his name; I suspect that when we do it will be a significant name) is like a game of chess on an epic scale. Remember that in a game of chess that kings cannot take each other, and have their pieces do their work for each other. Smokey-Locke is getting his pieces (Sawyer, Claire, previously Ben) in to place, and Jacob is doing the same (Hurley, Jack). Whereas there is something going on between Ben and Widmore, this may be small potatoes in comparison to the Jacob/MIB feud.
• Oh, and seeing the skeletons in the caves this week is a definite precursor to the imminent revelation as to who they are...

Still, 108 episodes in, 13 to go... part of me can't wait until May 23rd (well, 24th...!), but part of me wants it to never arrive.

"...random shoes..."

It's been a while since I updated this ol' blog, and this in some ways is normal for me, but in other ways, not so. Especially since there's been so much I really need to be writing about. So, this post will cover most of the things I wanted to cover. And probably in a much briefer manner than I really should. There's one thing that I really want to cover in much more detail, and that will be the subject of another post, entitled "...you start missing everybody..." If you can't work out what it's going to be about, please hang your head in shame.

Okay. So. Things.

Heroes

So, Season 4 of Heroes is now ended, and it's been almost a return to form. It was a much better season than 2 and 3, and whilst not reaching the heights of season 1, it's certainly been damn good. There have been patchy moments, and I'm unsure with the direction they're taking Sylar in... but, I do hope that there's a season 5. I'll not say what the end of season cliffhanger is, as it's not aired in the UK yet, but it offers up intriguing possibilities.

Oh, and there's a scene in the finale which, if it does not make a tear flow from your eye... well, you have no soul. It's beautiful.

Lost

We're in the home straight now. 15 to go, and the ending approaches. The parallel timeline is most intriguing. It is obvious that this is not a mere frippery; a "what if?", but rather something integral to the plot. How it is integral is another matter... it'll be interesting to see how.

I'll blog properly on each new episode from now on. But here's some comments I posted elsewhere on the latest episode;

The whole business with Sayid potentially being "claimed", like Jack's sister... that does raise some interesting possibilities. I do not think it was any coincidence that when we see Claire in the woods at the end of the episode, her pose and manner is very much that of Rousseau... Think back to the last time we saw Claire even pick up a gun, let alone shoot one, let alone as expertly as this...

Imagine if, for example, the "sickness" that Rousseau described in prior seasons wasn't in her colleagues, but in her? And that it was some kind of "possession"/"claiming"... And with Rousseau's obvious death, it had to find another consciousness to inhabit... and found Claire.

'Cos there was something not right with Claire since the attack on Dharmaville in The Shape of Things to Come. Even if the entity that "claimed" them could reanimate the dead, it would probably be too conspicuous to bring Rousseau back to life. But Claire... trapped under the debris, not see to be dead. Well, there's an obvious candidate. I dunno, it may be a mile off of what's really the case...

The "not-crash" timeline is getting more and more intriguing; the sudden thought of the name "Aaron" is interesting. There's talk that there's some bleed through in the time lines, and this is one of those occasions. Also, remember that there's no way this "not-crash" timeline is a mere interesting diversion. It's fundamentally important to the story is some way that's yet to be revealed.

Fanzines

I will have something interesting to say about fanzines soon. Both about the old, and the new... Two hints;

1 - it makes me want to shout.

2 - September's not so far away.

Ah... cryptic. : )

Anyhow, must get back to playing Desktop Defender. I tell you, it's like crack...

"...I always have a plan..."

I've now finished my big Lost rewatch in preparation for Season 6; I watched all of the first five seasons over the last three months or so. Or was it longer? May have been. Anyhow, I've been thinking of what to do when Season 6 ends, and to console myself that when it does I should plunge myself headlong either in to a rewatch of something else in its entirety, or something completely new that I've not seen before. The thoughts that are going through my head;

Babylon 5 - a good, big epic story. 111 episodes should last me just long enough until I'm ready to do a "complete Lost re-watch" when I'll watch all six seasons. B5 would be good in this respect as that's all one big (albeit "incomplete") story, with some truly wonderful moments in it.

Twin Peaks - I've not seen Twin Peaks all the way through in quite some time now. I don't even think I've watched most of Season 2 on DVD at all. It'll be good to revisit it.

The Wire - I started this a little while back, but only got three or four episodes in to season 1 before getting distracted by other things. Having heard so much about it, especially the praise heaped on it by Charlie Brooker, I really should get around to watching it.

There are of course other shows. Battlestar Galactica would probably frustrate me too much, as I'd have to skip some of the really bad episodes and concetrate on the great ones. Oz is a possibility too; Mr Eko's in it. Even The Sopranos; never seen a single episode of that. Some of the box sets of these can be picked up quite cheaply now...

...still, I guess I'll decide closer to the time... : )