The Village

Yes I agree it's mournful, depressing, grim and harsh but that was the reality of life then. If your harvest failed your family could die, there was no public money, or other jobs to be had if you lived in a small remote community.

In fact watching a drama which is so well executed, scripted (and stunningly filmed) reminds me of how fortunate we are today. It's also poignant to see the excitement of those enlisting to World War one, a very real honour at the time and what subsequently twisted into an unimaginable horror. How much has changed in 100 years, how well the BBC has done in creating another masterpiece series.

A little perspective is a wonderful thing and I certainly recommend this series to those who have a penchant for social drama, as I do.

We are all one family, as the Latin saying goes, and THE VILLAGE is an excellent proof to it.First,cheers to the script writer!Mr. Moffat has managed to tell us the simple things of everyday life of simple people without being banal;he presents heart-breaking stories without making them cheap melodrama;he is very meticulous in showing the historical background of the events without making them text-bookish boring.Second,excellent acting!True, nowadays, the British school of acting is the best in the world.Not a single false note or a gesture;perfect(as is a rule in all British films)enunciation and intonation in the speech of all, socially and educationally very different, protagonists.Third,a very good direction:all episodes are logically and emotionally connected,giving the viewers the complete understanding of the motivation of the heroes' actions. I just wish THE VILLAGE a long and successful screen life!

The Oldest Briton looks back on life in a rural English village during WWI, much of which he seemingly learned about through constant lurking and eavesdropping. The usual suspects are all here: indomitable mother, alcoholic father, idealistic preacher's kid, grasping bourgeoisie, scheming parvenu, morally bankrupt upper class scion, disillusioned upper class scion, nutso upper class daughter, conchie, and...brother Joe. It's Joe's story that occasionally elevates The Village, especially in E5. Otherwise, it drifts along comfortably, with nice acting-especially from Rupert Evans and the ever-reliable Juliet Stevenson-disguising the pedestrian screenplay.

Criminally underrated writer/producer, Peter Moffat, showcases his prodigious versatility by following up his brilliant legal drama, Silk, with the equally compelling The Village.

The Village chronicles the lives of the inhabitants of a small country town as they struggle to adjust to the turbulent societal upheaval brought about by the First World War. From the gentry to the poverty stricken working class, the shocking realities behind closed doors belie the idyllic surrounds of the Derbyshire countryside.

The Village is far from feel good entertainment. It's dark themes and gritty period realism creates viewing that is often emotionally harrowing, but undeniably brilliant.

Despite the explosive era in which it is set, the narrative threads of the series are predominately insular and familial, relying on interpersonal relationships to create drama. The results are riveting, primarily thanks to the vast array of intriguing characters and superb performances by the stellar cast. Moffat is a genius at writing fascinatingly unconventional characters that are neither heroes nor villains, but ambiguously grey. Unlike many male writers, he also consistently imbues his shows with multifaceted females roles that are equally if not more dynamic than their male counterparts.

Moffat's leading lady from Silk, Maxine Peake, is the emotional center of the series. Peake remains one of the finest actresses working today and if there is any justice The Village should garner her some long overdue recognition.

http://infilmandtvland.wordpress.com/

IN A NUTSHELL: Wonderful cast of talented actors, terrific cinematography. Terrible scriptwriting to the point where at times it's nearly unwatchable.

It would take far too long and too many words to detail what's wrong with this production, and you don't want the spoilers anyway. So I'll give you the mile-high viewpoint, and if you watch, see if you agree.

Above all, this is yet another depiction of the 19th and 20th Century chock-full of spurious 21st Century mores. As if people THEN thought the same way people do NOW. That ruins the historicity of it for me.

The writers are far too intent on preaching modernist socio-political thought to give you an accurate depiction of life in rural England in the 1910s, 20s and 30s.

In every instance of moral dilemma - which after all is what drama is inevitably about - what someone WANTS is always given precedence over what they OUGHT to do from a traditional ethical and moral perspective. In fact, "what one ought to do" is uniformly presented as stunted or even evil. No, you shouldn't honor your marriage vows if you FEEL like doing something else. No, you shouldn't hold fast to your religious convictions, because religion is for nutters. Feel like having sex on the spur of the moment? Go for it; it's what you WANT to do (outmoded ideas of moral fidelity are barbaric anyway).

I watched this because the actors in the drama manage to rise above bad writing and horribly inaccurate social history. The scenes of rural life are breathtaking.

But the story is not. It's maudlin, prissy and factually inaccurate.