"...things were different then..."

[Just a quick point of order before I start this post; there are many spoilers contained within this post, but all are encoded in rot13; to decode, copy encoded text and paste at rot13.com. Anything unencoded is spoiler free, but encoded text contains MASSIVE spoilers, so please only read if you've seen the show, or don't mind reading spoilers. And, believe me when I say MASSIVE, I mean it... ]

In Australia, a TV show called Wentworth has just finished airing its first season of 10 episodes. It's a modern remake/re-image/re-whatever of the classic women behind bars show, Prisoner; Cell Block H (although in Australia, and other territories it was just called Prisoner). I guess a quick way of comparing PCBH to Wentworth would be like comparing original Battlestar Galactia with the remake of that. 

Wentworth is certainly a heck of a lot grittier than PCBH; there's f-bombs galore, nudity, sex scenes, and some quite nasty violence. (If I were being a lazy comedy slag, I'd say here "...and that's just the screws!") It essentially takes the original and beefs it up. 

There's a host of characters from the original show also in the remake (I counted 9; of which 5 were screws and 4 were prisoners). Notable changes have been made to many of the characters, though, in several cases very little beyond the name to link them with their original counterparts. I reckon if you showed a clip of most of them to someone who'd seen all 692 PCBH episodes, they'd have a hard job telling you who they were. 

But that's mostly not a bad thing, though, as it gives the new show an identity of its own. Frankie Doyle here remains a lsebian, and is prone to moments of violence (she's vying for the position of top dog with... well, I'll come to her later...); but pretty much every other aspect of her character is new. New Frankie doesn't get to tell Vera Bennett her new nickname, for one thing! 

And Vera... Vera, what have they done to you? New Vera is actually a great character, but I can't help but wish she was a new, original, character as she bears no resemblance to the original. Here, she's a quite shy, nervous, individual who doesn't have anything like the authority of PCBH Vera. It's not that there's anything wrong with her character, but she ain't Vinegar Tits...

The whole show, really, spins around Bea Smith, as the whole thing starts with her arrival inside. One of the main arcs of the show is Bea learning to acclimatise to life inside. This isn't the battle hardened Bea of the original who's top dog, and not afraid to push her weight around. She has a real hard time of it inside, finding the whole experience bewildering. She's our viewpoint character, the one who has all the Basil Exposition stuff explained to her, so that we can understand the rules of the prison. Initially, I had my doubts about her, but as the season drew on and things started to happen to her I really warmed to her. 

But, overall, the feel of PCBH was mostly absent. I say mostly, as there was one notable character that was very PCBH, and somewhat ironically she was the biggest character not based on someone from PCBH. She is Jacs Holt, and she's the top dog. 

Jacs is very much cut from the same cloth as the "baddy" top dogs of PCBH. She's in for murder, and the wife of some big crime boss. She really runs the roost, and if you cross her, you know it. The bitter rivalry between Jacs and Frankie just lit up the screen; especially when Jacs insists on calling her Francesca, which you can tell Frankie hates. Sometimes one gets the upper hand, sometimes the other, and sometimes the violence... strewth.

The show does use some key plot points from the original show, although most of it is original plotlines. One very notable original plot point comes early on, and is clearly done as a massive statement of intent.

Va rcvfbqr bar bs obgu fubjf gurer'f n svtug gung trgf bhg bs unaq naq gheaf va gb n evbg. Va CPOU, Zrt'f uhfonaq vf xvyyrq qhevat gur evbg. Jragjbegu unf n evbg, ohg qbrf vgf bja guvat; nyy gur juvyr guebhtu gur evbg V unq n srryvat gung gurl jbhyq qb fbzrguvat enqvpny, naq V gubhtug... jung jbhyq or gur zbfg enqvpny guvat gb qb? V pbaivaprq zlfrys gurl jrer tbvat gb xvyy Orn Fzvgu. V jnf jebat. Gurl xvyyrq Zrt Wnpxfba. Zrt... yvgrenyyl gur bayl punenpgre va CPOU gb ynfg nyy gur jnl sebz svefg gb ynfg rcvfbqrf bssrq va gur svefg rcvfbqr. Vs rire gurer jnf n jnl gb fnl "jungrire lbh guvax lbh xabj, lbh'er jebat..." gung jnf n grkgobbx rknzcyr bs ubj gb qb vg. 

Gurer'f n pbhcyr bs bgure zbzragf va gurer gung ner fbzrjung fubpxvat, gur rcvfbqr jurer Qroovr Fzvgu qvrf vf whfg fb urnegoernxvat (lbh pbhyqa'g uryc ohg ubcr gurl'q yrg ure yvir), juvpu frgf va zbgvba n frdhrapr bs riragf gung yrnqf gb Orn zheqrevat Wnpf. Guvf vf nyy pyrneyl trggvat gb gur fgntr jurer Orn'f tbvat gb znxr n zbir gb gnxr bire nf gbc qbt qhevat gur frpbaq frnfba.

And a second season has been commissioned. It'll be interesting to see if any other PCBH characters pop up; Lexie Patterson was name checked in one episode, so I was expecting to see her, but she never appeared. 

Most intriguing, though, is the teaser poster for season 2 that's very recently been released showing a close up of a pair of hands; one of which is pulling a black leather glove on to the other...

I've got just one thing to say to the Wentworth people; don't fuck up The Freak. She has to be the most corrupt, bent, screw in the place, and she has to be perfectly cast. 

"...I liked him best in the play..."

The regular reader of this blog will recall a good while back a review of a production of Hamlet with a unique twist, fusing said Shakespeare play with the stylings of The Catcher in the Rye. Well, the director of this production of Hamlet, Gavin Leigh, has been at it again, only this time the twist was Naked Shakespeare...

...actually, it wasn't; but I figure the more I mention that idea, the sooner someone will run with the ball. And in the case of the Shakespeare play produced this time, given that it contained the line "My naked weapon is out" it would have fitted entirely with the play. But, I digress... (what else would you expect?!?)

The production this time was Romeo and Juliet fused with Alice in Wonderland, and the conceit here worked very well indeed. Here we have a Juliet, blooming in to womanhood where she enters this wonder land of love and romance as she meets her White Knight, Romeo. Everything is strange, and new, and it's such a joy to experience it all. Thus, the performance must get over this sense of wonder, and I have to say that Eleanor Massam managed to capture this just so... wonderfully. I really believed in this Juliet, that she was so in awe of the new things she was experiencing, as she drew closer to her Romeo. The scene where they first met was spellbinding, as they exchanged looks, and slowly edged together... I was never anything other than completely entranced by her performance. 

Matt Young's Romeo played off her with just the right note of heroic stoicism. There wasn't as much of a sense of wonder from him, but then there probably shouldn't be (as the notion of Alice is that it's her experiencing the wonder, whereas to all else it's normal). The performances  complemented each other very well. 

And I have to mention the balcony scene, probably the most iconic scene in the play... it was a very brave directorial decision to do the scene, erm, without a balcony, but it worked really well. The pair of them were in each other's arms, sharing a tender moment, and it just felt right. 

However, when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I'm in agreement with Holden Caulfield...

Mercutio, ah, Mercutio... he was styled as the Mad Hatter, and very appropriate this was indeed. We got here an exuberant performance from Ant Henson, which was so full of life. He strutted his way across the stage, stealing scenes all over the place place when he wasn't the focus, and owning the stage when he was (oh, the Queen Mab speech...). Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but I got a real sense of the Ford Prefect (TV version) from his performance; the guy who'd rather go to a party than save the universe... 

So, when he does die it's all the more sad... he was so suave he even put his hat back on head after it fell off... 

I think the one real criticism I'd have of the production is that its aims were possibly a bit over ambitious for the budget available. There was the occasional character who I couldn't work out what the Alice in Wonderland equivalent was, as some outfits were a little generic. But, really, this is small potatoes.

The play was edited down quite a bit, which didn't have any negative impact on the play at all. Shakespeare fiddled with his plays all the time, so there's no reason why a contemporary performance shouldn't follow suit. 

The only time any of the cast are out of Alice garb is at the end of the play, when Romeo buys poison from the apothecary. Here he's in an ordinary suit. We're about to get to the end of the story, wonderland will be left behind, and we plummet closer to the tragic ending. 

There's a whole host of other things I could say; I could list all the cast and say how great they were, but that could get a bit boring (although I have to give a quick nod here to Jack Wilson's performance as the Prince; such great regal nonchalance), and it would be more shopping list than review. I don't recall a singe duff performance. 

I understand that the director's next production will be King Lear fused with the TellyTubbies... the scene where Tinky Winky has his eye gouged out will be a sight to behold. Well, it's either that or Naked Shakespeare...! :)

"...you eat your cutlery instead of your food..."

Now, I'm not the most fashionable of types, but as the weather hots up yet again I see the same sort of things going on whilst walking around town. So, here are some fashion tips that, frankly, if I notice should be blimmin' obvious to all... yet, somehow they are not...

Ladies; if you want to wear a pair of those shorts that are cut in such a way they show of the lower part of your bottom don't pull them down over said bottom every few seconds. After you've taken a couple of steps they'll rise up, and you'll be pulling them down again. I would humbly suggest if you don't want any part of your bottom to show, you should not wear such shorts. Shorts which offer proper bottom coverage are widely available. (See also; short skirts. If you're spending all your time pulling down your skirt; it's too short for you. Wear a longer skirt.)

Gents; sandles with sock are never acceptable. Ever. Wear one or the other, but not both. Even sandals with really horrible toenails are better than sandals with socks. If you are so attached to your socks that you must wear them; wear them with shoes. 

Ladies; if you are wearing those leggings that are so thin they're indistinguishable from tights, be aware that everyone can see your knickers. Everyone. At least make sure said knickers are complementary to the colour of your leggings. Wearing white leggings with (for example) neon pink knickers only goes to alert the world to the fact you're wearing neon pink knickers. Oh, and unless you tuck them in we can also see the labels on your knickers. 

Gents; whilst walking around town, wear a shirt (or at least a vest; you'll look like Bruce Willis, at least!). You may like to show off your six pack, although it's often more a keg, but we really don't need to see it. 

Ladies; if you are wearing clothing with writing on it, expect it to be read. The sole purpose of a  piece of writing is for it to be read; even if said writing is a single word, or a short phrase, printed across your t-shirt. No, chances are we are not looking at your boobies; we're reading the words on your t-shirt that happen to be written across your boobies. If you do not wish people to look at the words on your clothing, don't wear clothing with words on it,. 

Gents; the waist band of your trousers should be positioned in such a manner it is above your buttocks. Wearing your trousers halfway down your arse makes it look like you can't find clothes that can fit you, and makes you look a fool. At the most, a glimpse of the waistband of your pants above your trousers is acceptable; any more is not. 

Ah... now I know how Gok Wan feels...! :)

"...life depends on change, and renewal..."

As we head towards Doctor Who's 50th birthday on November 23rd, the storm clouds are gathering. There was all sorts of talk about how Dr Who would take over television, and how the programme was going to be entering its longest sustained period of production since it came back... but as things stand, the omens are not good. 

As things stand at the moment, there is very little confirmed for the anniversary year in respect of the main event itself, the show;

* - there's the second half of Season 7 of nu-Who, which really should have been on last year (don't forget in 2012, we had just six new Dr Who episodes), so that's 8 episodes.
* - there's a 60 minute anniversary episode. 

And that's all that's been confirmed thus far; albeit that this confirmation has been from promotional material seen at a toy fair, rather than as a result of a direct press release or promotion to the public at large.

The speculation that we'd get a special a month from June seems to have been, sadly, unfounded, as were such specials happening you'd expect mention of it at the toy fair. Also, that the show is on a production break at the moment, with filming due to resume in April would give insufficient time for this to happen anyway. And then there's the news that come May, Matt Smith is off to the US to film a movie...

Whilst it's true that there's no mention of a Christmas special yet, that doesn't mean there's not going to be one. It's been a lynchpin of the Christmas Day schedules since 1985, and I can't see that changing. 

Yes, there's all sorts of spin off stuff, re-issued books, the series of short stories, the Big Finish stuff, but really that's all small potatoes, and a sidebar to what should be the main event; the TV show.

The most substantial of the spin off material, and by far the most interesting is the behind the scenes drama, penned by Mark Gatiss, about the origins of the show, how it came to be, the casting of the leads, and (apparently) going all the way up to the departure of William Hartnell. I am very much looking forward to this... 

...but it does set me thinking... if you've got a cast of actors playing the parts of Hartnell et al, wouldn't it be just perfect to use these actors as the guest cast in an actual Dr Who story playing the roles of the 1st Doc, Susan, Barbara & Ian... wouldn't you just love to see 1st and 11th meet...?

...and if they're going up to the point where Hartnell leaves, does that mean the drama will cast an actor to play his replacement? Will there be a 2nd Doc, Polly and Ben in the drama? And if so, shouldn't they be in the main show as well...? 

It all starts to get intriguing. 

And, returning to the main show, if there is just this one anniversary episode to come, wouldn't that be the perfect time to have a surprise regeneration? If there's nothing else in the can come November (although indeed there might be; no-one knows filming schedules beyond April.) wouldn't the fall of the 11th, ending with a regeneration in to a new Doctor be just the cherry on top of the cake? 

Especially if that actor happens to be Adrian Lester, who would be just perfect as the 12th Doctor.

After all, we should always trust the Moff. He'll get it all right. 

Am I worrying about nothing with my ramblings above? I do hope so...