lxndrnll
Joined Mar 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews3
lxndrnll's rating
The dancing was good, the set was perfect, the orchestra was just right.
The cast was also perfect, except, unfortunately, for two individuals who appear only to be cast in an attempt to garner greater views: Peter Marshall as the captain and Frankie Howerd as Sir Joseph.
Peter Marshall overacts far more than necessary for the role, and frankly there are plenty of more than qualified English actors that could have been found, since his accent is distracting. So it's clear that he was chosen simply because he is a name that people would have recognised.
Frankie Howerd clearly didn't learn his lines and can hardly pronounce them. He improvises enough words to get him through the scene, bearing only minor resemblance to what is in the script. He also didn't sing, but rather, a la Rex Harrison (though not half as gracefully) just speaks them generally near to the note, looking annoyed and occasionally sighing in the process. It's also clear that he doesn't care for the lines, and he's not trying to add to Sir Joseph's character by acting like that, as one can see by watching the behind the scenes feature. However, it is rather funny when Sir Joseph cannot remember the Captain's name, a mistake that I could almost believe was unintentional, since Howerd is about as much a buffoon in real life as Sir Joseph was in fiction.
These choices, unfortunately, make this production stick out poorly in the Brent Walker collection, which does have some fairly decent videos, and some fairly decent talent that one wouldn't have otherwise expected. It is also clear that the direction and other aspects of the production did as best as they could, and it is unfortunate to have two stains on what could have otherwise been a good rendition.
Speaking in terms of what could have been, for instance, Keith Mitchell who the series had cast as the Major General, Robin Oakapple, and Don Alhambra del Bolero would have made the perfect Sir Joseph. Likewise, Donald Adams or Derek Hammond-Stroud who played a number of Brent Walker baritone parts would have been suitable captains. If they wanted a household name to bring in the views, at least someone who could sing and memorise the lines, like Clive Revill, would have been more sufficient than Frankie Howerd.
The cast was also perfect, except, unfortunately, for two individuals who appear only to be cast in an attempt to garner greater views: Peter Marshall as the captain and Frankie Howerd as Sir Joseph.
Peter Marshall overacts far more than necessary for the role, and frankly there are plenty of more than qualified English actors that could have been found, since his accent is distracting. So it's clear that he was chosen simply because he is a name that people would have recognised.
Frankie Howerd clearly didn't learn his lines and can hardly pronounce them. He improvises enough words to get him through the scene, bearing only minor resemblance to what is in the script. He also didn't sing, but rather, a la Rex Harrison (though not half as gracefully) just speaks them generally near to the note, looking annoyed and occasionally sighing in the process. It's also clear that he doesn't care for the lines, and he's not trying to add to Sir Joseph's character by acting like that, as one can see by watching the behind the scenes feature. However, it is rather funny when Sir Joseph cannot remember the Captain's name, a mistake that I could almost believe was unintentional, since Howerd is about as much a buffoon in real life as Sir Joseph was in fiction.
These choices, unfortunately, make this production stick out poorly in the Brent Walker collection, which does have some fairly decent videos, and some fairly decent talent that one wouldn't have otherwise expected. It is also clear that the direction and other aspects of the production did as best as they could, and it is unfortunate to have two stains on what could have otherwise been a good rendition.
Speaking in terms of what could have been, for instance, Keith Mitchell who the series had cast as the Major General, Robin Oakapple, and Don Alhambra del Bolero would have made the perfect Sir Joseph. Likewise, Donald Adams or Derek Hammond-Stroud who played a number of Brent Walker baritone parts would have been suitable captains. If they wanted a household name to bring in the views, at least someone who could sing and memorise the lines, like Clive Revill, would have been more sufficient than Frankie Howerd.
To start with what is dissatisfying, to any Savoyard who knows the lines to every Gilbert and Sullivan song, not being able to sing along when someone decides to change lyrics can be particularly annoying. This is the case in this production, where it feels like about 30-40% of the lyrics have been altered or simplified. One of the other issues with this is that the jokes are now quite dated, and I'd suspect that non-Canadians might be a bit puzzled by some of them.
The song "I am a courtier" was cut, which really ruins what could be an almost near-perfect version of the Gondoliers. Cuts in G&S are really unnecessary, and I rarely understand why they're so common, since no G&S comic opera is much longer than 160 minutes. Mostly, this is disservice to G&S fans.
Inconsistency with accents: some are Canadian, some are British, some are Spanish. Don Alhambra features a very funny Spanish accent, and as a comic performance, this is really one of a kind and very funny, so I cannot object to it. However, the actors are all talented and more than capable of the British accents that suit the songs - this is a minor issue however, and it is not as bad as some American recordings of G&S.
As regards good stuff:
While lyric changes are not necessary to make Gilbert and Sullivan funny, one has to be miserable and stuffy not to laugh at some of the choices made in this regard.
The acting is superb, lively, vivid, characterised, and funny. The actors are all truly talented and believe in their performances. While this version is sometimes disliked because the Duchess is played by a man, Douglas Chamberlain's performance is quite good, so I cannot see any reason to dislike the production on this point.
The set is well put together and well used.
The dancing is very well done, and something that many productions of G&S forget. The original D'Oyly Carte productions featured dancing, and this should not be neglected as often as it is. "Dance a Cachucha" with dummies that is absolutely hilarious, and really memorable - apparently this was taken from an earlier Stratford production of something, and it has since been used by Opera Australia. By the end you'll be laughing in tears.
I've never been so impressed and moved to laughter so easily by a G&S production as by this one, and I think it really comes down to the emphasis placed on the fact it is a parody. One isn't supposed to have emotional or dramatic depth, since that would take away from the fact that it's all supposed to be in good (English) humour. While Gilbert wouldn't approve of such lyric or dialogue changes, since one of the advantages of the originals is that they're timeless, as I said before, one can't but appreciate and enjoy the ones done here, even if one would prefer the originals.
The song "I am a courtier" was cut, which really ruins what could be an almost near-perfect version of the Gondoliers. Cuts in G&S are really unnecessary, and I rarely understand why they're so common, since no G&S comic opera is much longer than 160 minutes. Mostly, this is disservice to G&S fans.
Inconsistency with accents: some are Canadian, some are British, some are Spanish. Don Alhambra features a very funny Spanish accent, and as a comic performance, this is really one of a kind and very funny, so I cannot object to it. However, the actors are all talented and more than capable of the British accents that suit the songs - this is a minor issue however, and it is not as bad as some American recordings of G&S.
As regards good stuff:
While lyric changes are not necessary to make Gilbert and Sullivan funny, one has to be miserable and stuffy not to laugh at some of the choices made in this regard.
The acting is superb, lively, vivid, characterised, and funny. The actors are all truly talented and believe in their performances. While this version is sometimes disliked because the Duchess is played by a man, Douglas Chamberlain's performance is quite good, so I cannot see any reason to dislike the production on this point.
The set is well put together and well used.
The dancing is very well done, and something that many productions of G&S forget. The original D'Oyly Carte productions featured dancing, and this should not be neglected as often as it is. "Dance a Cachucha" with dummies that is absolutely hilarious, and really memorable - apparently this was taken from an earlier Stratford production of something, and it has since been used by Opera Australia. By the end you'll be laughing in tears.
I've never been so impressed and moved to laughter so easily by a G&S production as by this one, and I think it really comes down to the emphasis placed on the fact it is a parody. One isn't supposed to have emotional or dramatic depth, since that would take away from the fact that it's all supposed to be in good (English) humour. While Gilbert wouldn't approve of such lyric or dialogue changes, since one of the advantages of the originals is that they're timeless, as I said before, one can't but appreciate and enjoy the ones done here, even if one would prefer the originals.
If you are looking to learn about the "History of Britain" this documentary will not aid you. There has never yet been a particularly competent attempt by any documentary film makers towards making, "at least," a summarised history of Britain, so I can forgive the BBC – but they really have set the bar very low.
Before you conclude that I hate this series, let me correct you, I do love it – I love the way Schama articulates history and I love being able to see genuine locations, pictures and music (especially the wonderful period music) which are, evidently, absent in history books. However, as a Historian, I must caution viewers who believe that they are going to understand, let alone "learn" the history of Britain from this series. With only seventeen episodes, the BBC have set themselves an impossible task. You will hear seventeen, well scripted dialogues about "ideas" in British history – unattainably succinct summaries of vast stretches of time, sometimes two centuries surrounding "themes" such as "death," "nations," "dynasties," being the "wrong empire," and so forth. This, while often poetic and elegant in its delivery, manages to omit an unbelievable amount of details which simply makes this history, at times, appear completely devoid of persons and the driving force of individuals.
You will hear nothing of most of the Britons and Saxons, you will listen as some of the most important battles of the middle ages are utterly ignored, you will pass through the renaissance untouched by the complexities or details of that most formative of English wars – the War of the Roses. Do you want to know about Marlborough and how Britain helped to forge the entire shape of Eighteenth Century Europe? You won't. Do you want to know, not just a minor detail, but the major details of the Hanoverian monarchs, the seven years war, the development of the greatest parliamentary system the world had yet seen along with its master statesmen, Walpole, Burke, Pitt? You won't in the least – beyond a minor quote here or there. Indeed, the entire Eighteenth Century is reduced to ideas, pies in the sky, of which nothing substantial is told, other than that Schama wishes to impose political correctness on a world with different values than him from three centuries ago.
Do you want to know how the British Empire was built? You won't, you won't hear of any of the exploits of Wellesley in India, Sir Garnet in Africa, of Wolfe in Quebec, of Cook – but you will hear about famine, and nothing of the immense expense expended by Curzon to prevent them – you will hear about how you ought to be ashamed, and little of the opposite. Of course this is to be expected of the BBC, they have never once produced a documentary detailing the origins and growth of the British Empire, even though it is a key element of British history. Britain is a country with a history which it refuses to tell – for reasons I know not, for it is perhaps the greatest history of all countries. Could it perhaps just be the unfortunate result of political motivations? I do think that Schama is telling stories well, that is fundamentally what history is – he is telling a particular story however, and it is not the story of "the" history of Britain, it is "a" history of Britain, one which tends to miss facts which matter most to the complexion and character of that history which most Britons would have known by heart before political correctness set in, in the 1960s. The story, and how you tell it, is the scaffolding of a history – I would grant that Schama does that well, but the facts within, those are the building materials of the British historical façade. Instead of showing us the façade, he begins to analyse it without revealing what shape it is first – this is perhaps the influence of the E. H. Carr and Fines approach to teaching history from the perspective of the historian, i.e. "views" and "skills & methods" over content – you simply cannot analyse that which you don't know about.
The British, and those who are trying to understand them from overseas, require a map of history – simply the facts, what has happened. I do not discount that Schama's analysis "may" be valid, the Schama's presentation is elegant – I do discount that he has presented a map of history, a thing which, in terms of documentaries, simply is not available. I would never shy away from suggesting people to simply "read" history before they watch a documentary about a topic, but fewer people are reading these days and frankly, a documentary allows you to visualise and internalise information in a way words alone cannot – which is also a dangerous fact, which should encourage whomever is making such a documentary to err on caution when taking stances on issues historic.
In short, I think that the approach which Schama has taken works best in "small" less ambitious works. Think instead of this series as seventeen separate documentaries analysing certain ideas in certain time periods and "not" as a coherent, comprehensive, façade or image of "what happened" in British history. There does "not" exist a history of Britain in documentary form, if you are looking for it, this is not it. Meanwhile, I urge the BBC, or whoever has the capacity, to provide a history of Britain. It is needed to help develop the country's historic memory – which like memory in a human is key to personality and character. Such a history, fundamentally, but not be critical (that can be left to individual documentaries) but must be celebratory, it must be something to give people value and something which matters deep in their hearts – Britain.
Before you conclude that I hate this series, let me correct you, I do love it – I love the way Schama articulates history and I love being able to see genuine locations, pictures and music (especially the wonderful period music) which are, evidently, absent in history books. However, as a Historian, I must caution viewers who believe that they are going to understand, let alone "learn" the history of Britain from this series. With only seventeen episodes, the BBC have set themselves an impossible task. You will hear seventeen, well scripted dialogues about "ideas" in British history – unattainably succinct summaries of vast stretches of time, sometimes two centuries surrounding "themes" such as "death," "nations," "dynasties," being the "wrong empire," and so forth. This, while often poetic and elegant in its delivery, manages to omit an unbelievable amount of details which simply makes this history, at times, appear completely devoid of persons and the driving force of individuals.
You will hear nothing of most of the Britons and Saxons, you will listen as some of the most important battles of the middle ages are utterly ignored, you will pass through the renaissance untouched by the complexities or details of that most formative of English wars – the War of the Roses. Do you want to know about Marlborough and how Britain helped to forge the entire shape of Eighteenth Century Europe? You won't. Do you want to know, not just a minor detail, but the major details of the Hanoverian monarchs, the seven years war, the development of the greatest parliamentary system the world had yet seen along with its master statesmen, Walpole, Burke, Pitt? You won't in the least – beyond a minor quote here or there. Indeed, the entire Eighteenth Century is reduced to ideas, pies in the sky, of which nothing substantial is told, other than that Schama wishes to impose political correctness on a world with different values than him from three centuries ago.
Do you want to know how the British Empire was built? You won't, you won't hear of any of the exploits of Wellesley in India, Sir Garnet in Africa, of Wolfe in Quebec, of Cook – but you will hear about famine, and nothing of the immense expense expended by Curzon to prevent them – you will hear about how you ought to be ashamed, and little of the opposite. Of course this is to be expected of the BBC, they have never once produced a documentary detailing the origins and growth of the British Empire, even though it is a key element of British history. Britain is a country with a history which it refuses to tell – for reasons I know not, for it is perhaps the greatest history of all countries. Could it perhaps just be the unfortunate result of political motivations? I do think that Schama is telling stories well, that is fundamentally what history is – he is telling a particular story however, and it is not the story of "the" history of Britain, it is "a" history of Britain, one which tends to miss facts which matter most to the complexion and character of that history which most Britons would have known by heart before political correctness set in, in the 1960s. The story, and how you tell it, is the scaffolding of a history – I would grant that Schama does that well, but the facts within, those are the building materials of the British historical façade. Instead of showing us the façade, he begins to analyse it without revealing what shape it is first – this is perhaps the influence of the E. H. Carr and Fines approach to teaching history from the perspective of the historian, i.e. "views" and "skills & methods" over content – you simply cannot analyse that which you don't know about.
The British, and those who are trying to understand them from overseas, require a map of history – simply the facts, what has happened. I do not discount that Schama's analysis "may" be valid, the Schama's presentation is elegant – I do discount that he has presented a map of history, a thing which, in terms of documentaries, simply is not available. I would never shy away from suggesting people to simply "read" history before they watch a documentary about a topic, but fewer people are reading these days and frankly, a documentary allows you to visualise and internalise information in a way words alone cannot – which is also a dangerous fact, which should encourage whomever is making such a documentary to err on caution when taking stances on issues historic.
In short, I think that the approach which Schama has taken works best in "small" less ambitious works. Think instead of this series as seventeen separate documentaries analysing certain ideas in certain time periods and "not" as a coherent, comprehensive, façade or image of "what happened" in British history. There does "not" exist a history of Britain in documentary form, if you are looking for it, this is not it. Meanwhile, I urge the BBC, or whoever has the capacity, to provide a history of Britain. It is needed to help develop the country's historic memory – which like memory in a human is key to personality and character. Such a history, fundamentally, but not be critical (that can be left to individual documentaries) but must be celebratory, it must be something to give people value and something which matters deep in their hearts – Britain.