Iain J Coleman ([info]iainjcoleman) wrote,
@ 2008-02-07 22:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ashes to Ashes
Spoilers for Ashes to Ashes episode 1:



So, the heavily-trailed successor to the mighty Life on Mars is here at last. But is it The Empire Strikes Back or Highlander II?

It's certainly got a different vibe.The time-stranded cop is female, of course, and more on that in a bit, and of course it feels different for me because I remember 1981. There's a much more fundamental difference, though, which is that this time the modern police officer knows all about Gene Hunt et al, and has no doubt at all that the whole experience is nothing but a figment of her own imagination. This is one of the things that lets down the drama. If our viewpoint character doesn't care about the events and people around her, why should we? Most importantly, Life on Mars was founded on the moral struggle between Sam Tyler and Gene Hunt: but if Alex Drake doesn't believe the people around her are real, why should she care if they get beaten up, tortured or shot? And speaking of the Gene Genie, the other big problem is that Ashes to Ashes has bought into Hunt's self-image wholly uncritically. His pig-headed machismo made dramatic sense in opposition to Tyler's modern restraint: without that opposition, the id-monster is free to roam wild in a show that gleefully indulges his every excess.

There is good stuff here: the period details are nicely evocative, and Glenister, Andrews and Lancaster do a very good job of portraying older versions of their previous characters. Sadly, the new lead actor isn't in the same league. Watching Keeley Hawes' shrill and mannered performance, you realise just how crucial John Simms' introspective intensity was to the success of Life on Mars. Presumably the production team thought that a female lead would add a new dimension to the central relationship, but there's much less sexual tension here than there was between Hunt and Tyler. Instead, there's just some ritualistic sexism that even Gene Hunt seems bored with.

But one of the really basic problems with this show is that it doesn't have a clear idea of its source material. Life on Mars was part tribute to, part parody of The Sweeney, a core concept that anchored the entire series. Ashes to Ashes wants to do the same with 80s cop shows - but there are two problems. The first is that all the good cop shows in the 80s were American. Where Life on Mars just needed to screech a brown Cortina through a brickworks to invoke its roots, Ashes to Ashes really needs dazzling sunshine glinting off bright blue sea if its speedboat full of gun-toting cops is to have the same effect. Puttering up an overcast Thames just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. The second problem is that the source material here has such a range of tones, and Ashes to Ashes can't make up its mind which to go for. A hail of submachinegun fire in which no one is hurt can work as an affectionate send-up of The A Team, but only if the rest of the production supports it. When it's variously trying to be Miami Vice or The Equalizer, poor old Marshall Lancaster just looks like a twat as he dances amidst the bullets.

And finally, where the first episode of Life on Mars was structured around two brilliant, iconic scenes - Tyler's first confrontation with Hunt, and the pair of them leaping over the table at the climax - tonight's episode had no such moments.

I'm hopeful that these are just teething troubles, the creaks and groans of trying to restart the idea in a new setting. Perhaps, with the work of justifying the central premise done, the show will settle down to a solidly entertaining level, even if it never reaches the heights of its parent. Then again, perhaps I'm just being over-optimistic. We'll see.


(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-08 01:46 am UTC (link)
Whoa! I actually liked it. Some plot devices got in the way but it was a heck of a lot of fun. Hawes was terrific in a tough part: part of her knows this is a construct but part of her is kiving it and quite frankly, she underplayed a lot. I guess to some folks, simply having a female state an opinion is "shrill". Her only screams were aimed at the clown and I have to say everyone we watched it with screamed too. If you were a mom who was separated from a child, you'd be a bit obsessive about getting back. Just sayin' I thought the performance was spot on and I can't wait for more.
(A cursory glance of the reviews reenforces the belief: females loved it much more than the guys. I do believe because it's not as laddish as LOM. Probably why I'll enjoy it more and I really liked LOM. This is just different.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iainjcoleman
2008-02-08 09:34 am UTC (link)
I guess to some folks, simply having a female state an opinion is "shrill".

Oh, fuck off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kalypso_v
2008-02-08 01:03 pm UTC (link)
Actually, "shrill" was the word I came up with when trying to work out why I didn't much like Keeley Hawes in this part. I've seen her before (Our Mutual Friend, Tipping the Velvet) and don't remember her coming across like that, so it's obviously deliberate.

My cursory glance at the reviews suggested that a significant number of females hated it, and men were willing to give it a go. I think it's too early to say on the basis of this episode. Various people have commented that it's trying too hard to establish parallels with Life on Mars, but to some extent that's a given. To explain the presence of Hunt, Skelton and Carling*, Alex has to be so immersed in Sam's story that she recreates his framework, and that's acknowledged in her attempts to reproduce his methods of communication with the present. The surprise was that she doesn't seem to have worked out all the parallels yet: I was expecting her to scream "Test Card Girl!" at the clown (a weak replacement, I thought**), and to realise, much more quickly than Sam, that she'd "picked" 1981 because of the traumatic loss of her parents.

As someone who lived through both 1973 and 1981, this seemed less familiar. Whether that's because I lived in Manchester in 1973 and didn't live in London in 1981 (I was in Oxford, Manchester and, in July when Ashes to Ashes opens, New York), or whether it's because, as [info]iainjcoleman says, it's trying to parody an American-style cop show, I'm not sure. It was all much gaudier than I remember, even though I recognised some of the music.

I'm expecting to stick with it, but my mind remains open on whether to accept it as part of the Life on Mars canon.

* If it wasn't that the whole point was to keep Philip Glenister on screen, it might have been amusing to recast the three characters transferred from Manchester, because there's no reason why Alex should know exactly what they look like. But that would confirm that this world is her fantasy, and I don't think that's proven yet. The friend watching with me pointed out that, although insisting that it was all in her mind, Alex instantly accepted Ray's statement that Sam had died a year earlier as indicating that he really had lived through seven years in his dying moments, rather than interpreting it as her own explanation of his absence.

** It's now been explained to me that the clown is from the video of David Bowie's Ashes to Ashes. That went right over my head. It occurs to me that I would have seen a lot less television in 1981 than 1973, because for much of the year I was at college; we had a TV room, but you'd only go and watch if there was something you particularly wanted to see, like Blake's Seven. And, even though we'd got a second TV room by the time Channel 4 started, if you couldn't command a majority you couldn't see your programme.


Edited at 2008-02-08 02:12 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]altariel
2008-02-08 10:33 am UTC (link)
I thought it was a disaster. For many of the reasons you give (1980s cop shows not iconic in same way), but particularly because the misogyny is now going entirely uncriticized and we are, I think, meant to think it's funny coming from "our boys" rather than nasty (a bit like Little Britain in that respect). But since when was, "Come on, darling, it's just a bit of a laugh!" a defence?

I like Keeley Hawes an awful lot, but I think this is a rubbish female part, a real waste of her. Oh well, I'll watch the rest of the season because it's short, but they need to pull something magic out of the hat, and soon.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iainjcoleman
2008-02-08 10:15 pm UTC (link)
In fairness to Ms Hawes, "not as good as John Simm" is hardly the most damning criticism of an actor. I didn't think she was up to this particular job, though. There's a certain element of concealed vulnerability that a part like this demands - Simm did it brilliantly, and Hermione Norris, say, is also splendid at this.

It's not all Hawes' fault, by any means, but the script and the perfomance contrived together to ensure that I really didn't care what happened to her character.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]i_smell_shite
2008-02-08 10:32 pm UTC (link)
I liked the bit with Zippy and George, I was 4 in 1981 and I used to watch that and eat Mr Men yoghurt which was great.

I liked the music.

I liked David Bowie Ashes to Ashes clown running at her like a nightmare

I liked seeing Hunt again

I liked the opening bit with ultravox and Vienna that was good

I noticed that Hunt included her more, bought her a drink and took her home and looked after her.

I quite liked her skinny jeans.

If she did survive and get back would she be disabled being shot in the head? Would she choose a life with Hunt and the boys and Keeley Hawes or do a kill bill? (AAAHHH, where's me daughter?)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]i_smell_shite
2008-02-08 10:36 pm UTC (link)
I meant to say the actress who plays Shaz who I've seen in a few things! Sorry its only allowing me to delete the whole message not edit it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…