DVD review: Slings and Arrows
Apr. 16th, 2009 10:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacA friend who knew I like the films Shakespeare in Love and A Midwinter's Tale suggested this, and I found the DVDs in the public library. Like those films, this is a comic drama about theatrical creativity, focusing on Shakespeare. It's usually described as a Canadian TV series that lasted three seasons (in 2003-05), but that's misleading: there's only 6 episodes per "season," and the plots of the individual episodes are so tightly successive that it's best viewed as a trilogy of mini-series. Er, mini-serieses.
The central character, if there is only one, is the artistic director of a fairly successful but under-pressure Shakespeare Festival. (He's played by Paul Gross, who is strikingly like Tom Hanks, except that he looks considerably younger - though he isn't, much - and isn't quite as whiny as Hanks would be in such a role.) The director's mental stability, already questionable, isn't helped by the fact that the ghost of his deceased predecessor - with whom he already had a complicated enough love/hate relationship - shows up, visible only to him, and kibitzes his artistic decisions and his personal life.*
Whizzing around them are the actors, with their own emotional problems; a wacky guest director; the easily flappable festival executive manager, trying to woo corporate sponsors and getting more than he bargained for; and the bemused staff. Lots and lots of jump cuts among plotlines. It's probably best to watch a season in as short a span as possible, just to keep everything straight, though this risks making it seem like a single 5-hour movie when a 2 or 3 hour movie would do.
I liked season 1 a great deal, even if it could have been trimmed. It was bright and diverting. The central thread is a production of Hamlet with a woefully inexperienced lead. Watching them put it together and make it work is captivating; and there is no condescension in the writing, which makes no allowances for viewers who don't know Hamlet. Also, the secondary plots are equally amusing, and emotionally subtle. There's much complex interplay, even between the artistry and the finances; as a result, lots of realism amidst the silly comedy.
Season 2 is more mixed. The mood is darker, apparently intentionally, but that doesn't always work to its benefit. The principals go through the same rounds of self-discovery again; the secondary characters are dragged around in subplots neither funny nor plausible. This time the central play is Macbeth: there's more hand-holding for the viewer, and the arguments over the play's meaning don't really make sense. The season only really comes to life in the last two episodes when they finally get Macbeth on the stage, and that is very good indeed.
I decided to take a break, and watch season 3 (King Lear) later. In the meantime, I'm recommending the show.
* The predecessor is still alive and on the job in the first episode of season 1; he kicks the bucket at the end of the episode. I reveal this massive spoiler because it's part of the set-up: the first episode is necessary, but it conveys a different tone and balance from the rest of the show.
The central character, if there is only one, is the artistic director of a fairly successful but under-pressure Shakespeare Festival. (He's played by Paul Gross, who is strikingly like Tom Hanks, except that he looks considerably younger - though he isn't, much - and isn't quite as whiny as Hanks would be in such a role.) The director's mental stability, already questionable, isn't helped by the fact that the ghost of his deceased predecessor - with whom he already had a complicated enough love/hate relationship - shows up, visible only to him, and kibitzes his artistic decisions and his personal life.*
Whizzing around them are the actors, with their own emotional problems; a wacky guest director; the easily flappable festival executive manager, trying to woo corporate sponsors and getting more than he bargained for; and the bemused staff. Lots and lots of jump cuts among plotlines. It's probably best to watch a season in as short a span as possible, just to keep everything straight, though this risks making it seem like a single 5-hour movie when a 2 or 3 hour movie would do.
I liked season 1 a great deal, even if it could have been trimmed. It was bright and diverting. The central thread is a production of Hamlet with a woefully inexperienced lead. Watching them put it together and make it work is captivating; and there is no condescension in the writing, which makes no allowances for viewers who don't know Hamlet. Also, the secondary plots are equally amusing, and emotionally subtle. There's much complex interplay, even between the artistry and the finances; as a result, lots of realism amidst the silly comedy.
Season 2 is more mixed. The mood is darker, apparently intentionally, but that doesn't always work to its benefit. The principals go through the same rounds of self-discovery again; the secondary characters are dragged around in subplots neither funny nor plausible. This time the central play is Macbeth: there's more hand-holding for the viewer, and the arguments over the play's meaning don't really make sense. The season only really comes to life in the last two episodes when they finally get Macbeth on the stage, and that is very good indeed.
I decided to take a break, and watch season 3 (King Lear) later. In the meantime, I'm recommending the show.
* The predecessor is still alive and on the job in the first episode of season 1; he kicks the bucket at the end of the episode. I reveal this massive spoiler because it's part of the set-up: the first episode is necessary, but it conveys a different tone and balance from the rest of the show.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 03:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-17 04:45 pm (UTC)