"...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.