Jessica Jones - Review

*almost spoiler-free*

Dark, grim, up-close and personal, Jessica Jones is not without fault, but delivers a strong message.

Every desk should have one

Following the same lines as this year's very well-received Daredevil Jessica Jones is set in the same borough of New York, and follows a similar anti-superhero line, which will eventually link up to give rise to The Defenders.

The opening episode shows our eponymous hero in a bad place. Suffering from the fall-out of previous ordeals, she's a functioning alcoholic private investigator, living under the radar, not revealing her powers. These powers (super-strength, and some enhanced healing) are used casually, but only occasionally. She's sullen, unfriendly, and practically alone in her seedy, gumshoe, world. The 'pilot' episode is a confusing mish-mash of hints and asides, which wouldn't naturally lead one to further watching, apart from some clarification in the final third. What is clear, however, is that Jessica is deeply damaged by abuse she's previously suffered. She jumps at shadows; seeks to flee as soon as her previous abuser is mentioned; and cannot face life without a bottle of whiskey. It's an unattractive proposition - life as Jessica isn't something you'd court. She keeps people at arms' length, and stumbles from day to day in an unfeeling haze, keeping herself away from personal relationships.

As the episodes progress, we learn more of her back-story. The source of her abuse; how she came to be where she is; who else matters to her; and most importantly, the weight of guilt she harbours. The story of this first season is essentially one of her and how she is forced into dealing with her former abuser, the mind-controller, Kilgrave. There's mention of both the mental and physical abuse she's suffered, and Kilgrave's influence seeps like a cancer into the lives of all around her, making her feel guilty for the pain and suffering she's not responsible for. Many of the exchanges between her and Kilgrave focus around this central issue - him feeding her guilt for actions she performs whilst under his control; or blaming her for the abuse he unleashes on others due to his fixation on her. The ideas of victim guilt, retribution, anger, revenge are at the heart of the show; these are difficult themes to address, and the show is quite explicit in dealing with them - specifically in their fall-out, and the victim impact.

Overall, I'd say it's less successful than Daredevil. The story is simple enough, but some of the plotting is overly contrived, and the practicalities aren't always consistent (Jessica's lack of invulnerability is at odds with several of the fight sequences; sometimes she's cut with a knife; at others times she can be punched through a wall without being knocked out). It's smaller, and more personal than Daredevil. The focus remains on the single story, there's little filler, and Kilgrave's attention lies purely on further abuse of Jessica, rather than on anything else.

This isn't a particularly easy watch. There's physical violence, but the mental and emotional toll is greater. It's this which lingers, and leaves the biggest scars on all concerned. Don't get me wrong; this is good, possibly very good, but not particularly pleasant. Anyone viewing the show should be made aware of the strong themes of abuse presented within.

Mike Colter as Luke Cage is physically imposing, and covers the lesser role (in this show) with a steady calmness. The early Luke Cage perhaps better than the later one. Again, they seem to be somewhat inconsistent in the representation of his powers, and I hope this is tidied up if/when the Luke Cage show arrives.

David Tennant as Kilgrave works well on his fairly formulaic bad guy; he works best as the psychotic mind-controller; less well as the abused child who's out for revenge against his parents. There are hints at his own inner turmoil which might have been nice to explore, and the scenes with his parents are well portrayed.

Ferne Cotton in a wig

Krysten Ritter is excellent in the title role. She brings many physical elements to the portrayal, as well as delivering on the harsh, emotional, content. When she says she's a "piece of shit" you believe she thinks it. It's a dark reflection of a nicer, warmer Jessica Jones that's been stripped away by Kilgrave. Although hardly any different in appearance to her part in Breaking Bad, she's completely unrecognisable. Her performance is possibly better than the story she's in. As the biggest asset on the show, it's a good choice to fit her in as many scenes as possible. She displays Jessica's obvious self-loathing at the start, but brings enough character depth, so that you're rooting for her, and for her eventual redemption.

---

Addendum
I'll admit that to start with I couldn't get past how much Ritter both looked and acted like Eliza Dushku in Dollhouse; nor how the opening notes of the theme tune remind me of Dexter; nor how the plot smacks a little of Heroes Season 2. I had lots of echoes(!) to deal with, before it final started to strike its own chords. If you are similarly affected, don't let these things put you off - it finds its own voice.

Daredevil - Review

A departure from the standard superhero TV series, bringing the bleak comic book character to life.

He's not as cool as this

I'm not much for streaming TV services, but I quite enjoyed 'Bosch' from Amazon, so thought I'd take a good look at Netflix's 'Daredevil' series. Those familiar with with the Marvel character (ignoring *that* movie) will know that this is Marvel's closest parallel to DC's Batman; a hero who deals with the day-to-day, small-life, everyday crimeworld, rather than the global or interstellar problems the likes of the Avengers handle. 

Daredevil is a blind defence attorney, Matt Murdock, who fights crime during the twilight hours as a customed superhero, operating in the grim Hell's Kitchen neighbourhood of New York, fighting the seemingly all-powerful Kingpin of crime, Wilson Fisk. Let's be clear - Daredevil is a grim read; often facing seemingly insumountable odds, and rarely 'winning' his battles against an array of powerful nemeses. His alter-ego seeping into his personal life, badly affecting those closest to him. Even in the early 80s, love-interest Karen Page had turned to prostitution to pay for her drug addiction (yes, it's not big on laughs). He's a complex character conflicted by strong moral and religious views, in a dark, criminal controlled world, which often makes you wonder why he bothers trying to save it.

Murdock & Page

And to Marvel's, and Netflix's, credit this is the hero we get in the series. The 'superhero' element is light, and we're given a programme more akin to latter-day police dramas. A city oppressed by dark undercurrents; corruption; bad cops; powerful companies; and a bleak future for Joe Public. The series starts quickly, only unfolding Daredevil's back story slowly, and follows a narrative that sees college friends Foggy Nelson and Matt Murdock starting up their defence firm by taking on the case of Karen Page, who has become their secretary by the end of the first episode. It's not until episode three that we even see Daredevil's arch-enemy, Fisk, or even hear his name.

The first four episode are outstanding. Gritty, brutal fight sequences, full of bone-crunching brutality. This isn't a series that would occupy a prime-time Saturday evening slot ... you'd seek it out past the water-shed, after the kids are safely tucked away. Some of the earlier set-ups are clearly there to demonstrate Daredevil's more prosaic skills over other superheroes; this isn't a flashy, powerful, demi-god - this is the guy who just about holds his own.

Episodes five and six drop the pace a little, and are weaker episodes, but the next episode introduces 'Stick' played by Scott Glenn, and gives us the first true glimpse into Daredevil's origin. Stick, and his agenda, are crucial to the larger story arc which we don't see much of in this series, but again we're given a correct 'Stick' - an unsympathetic, harsh, tutor, determined to create weapons, not heroes. Beyond this, the story continues at a fair pace, and all elements are beautifully in place by the climax of the series. There's much still to be told, but we know who we're dealing with by the end of the 13 episodes.

"Stick. Mighty Stick"

The cast are very good. Charlie Cox in the title role is excellent. There's a lot to be asked - his accent is believable, his mannerisms stilted, or flowing depending on who he's being, and he conveys the inner conflict with subtlety. Deborah Ann Woll as Karen Page is perfect for the role. Someone with inner strength, determined to stand up for herself, and whose affections are torn between Nelson and Murdock. Then Vincent D'Onofrio as Fisk is rightfully terrifying. A man on the edge of violence, liable to strike out at any moment, but also cold, detached, and even sympathetic.

Don't mess with Kingpin

There are some niggles. The Daredevil of early episodes seems less capable than the one we exit with; by necessity most of the action takes place at night, and the visuals can be hard to make out at times; Elden Henson as Foggy, although looking the part, wavers at times early on; there's a tad too much empathy being evoked for Fisk; and Vanessa seems fairly indifferent to Fisk's livelihood, even though it's clear she knows what's going on around her.

Other reviews have likened the series to the Frank Miller (Sin City, Batman) seminal run on Daredevil, which created the characters of Bullseye and Elektra. I think it's closer in look and feel to the later 80s period written by Ann Nocenti (and beautifully drawn by John Romita Jr), when Daredevil was closer to the heart of Hell's Kitchen, and engaged in trying to make it a better place to live. To help it drag itself out of the hell it had become. In either case, it's pleasing that Marvel haven't eschewed the fundamentals of the character by trying to create a more "family-friendly" Man Without Fear. This is the real Daredevil, and I'm grateful for it.

Definitely worth a watch, even if you don't much go for superhero series.

Below the Line Challenge

There's an online 'challenge' website all about living "below the line" - basically its purpose it to raise awareness (and money) for the people of the world who are forced to live on financial resources that are considered less than a living wage. It's been endorsed by a number of celebtrities, and on social media, and I think it first came to my attention after the appearance of Jack Monroe on the BBC one morning.

I've tried out a number of her recipes, and bought her book; but I also fancied seeing how hard the actual challenge would be.

The challenge itself is to live for five days on £5. There are additional rules (for example, that's £1 a day for five days; not spend £5 on Monday and enable that food to last for a week; not buying a lettuce for 30p, then saying you'll only have 6 leaves, so that's 2p - what you buy you have to pay for out of the fiver).

So as I wasn't going to ask for sponsorship, or sign up to the site, I thought I'd relax the rules a little, but stay within the ethos of the challenge - if I would, on "week 2" have used the rest of the food (i.e. it would be viable to use, and practical) then I could take a percentage of that. An obvious example is a bag of rice - a 1Kg bag costs 40p, so I could use half of that in the week, and take only 20p from my budget. This seems a reasonable compromise to me, and something I could do were I genuinely living on that level of income.

The focus of my ideas came from simple food, made with basic ingredients. I decided to go for goods I could get from the local Tesco superstore, and at their 'everyday' level it's remarkable how cheap some items are.

Here is the budget I put together, and the meal plan for the week:

I had already started making my own bread, so calculated I could make a half-tin loaf, and some rolls for less than it would cost to buy (and the flour, salt, and yeast could work on the budget, and be used in later weeks); and although the mince would take up a lot of the budget, it could give me my main meal for the full five days. At the time the milk price wars were happening, so I could buy 4 pints of milk, freeze 2 pints, and use 2 pints in the week ... a week without tea is beyond contemplation. This would give me porridge (with milk!) for breakfast, and with the beans and tomatoes some breakfast options.

When I was a child, the *only* thing I ate for lunch was banana sandwiches, so I knew I'd be okay with that for five days.

On 'Day One' I found out that my yeast had gone off, so my bread didn't rise. Luckily I went to the local shop and they had some 'use by' today rolls for 20p which meant I had bread for those days, and I then made some more bread (with fresh yeast) for the remainder of the week. This was one of those unlucky breaks, but if that were really my budget I'd have to make do with un-risen bread (which is yucky).

I was lucky in that there was no 'everyday' herbs when I ordered the food, so I received 'normal'(!) herbs for the same price - although not sure of the variance in dried herbs.

The chilli I made was simple, and nice. Without any real chillis available, or anything with heat to add, I put in the 10g of spices I could utilise. It was still fairly bland, but not the worst chilli I've eaten, and by day 2 it had improved. The chips (Tesco 3-way cook chips) were nice enough. I'd eked out the 2 eggs I was permitted, to use part of one as a binding agent for the burger I made on the Thursday evening. Again with a few herbs, and 1/4 of the onion I'd not used in either the bolognaise or chilli, it was a decent burger (which I've made a few times since). Only by Day 5 was it really down to 'anything that was left'. Hence this was the sight that greeted me on Friday evening:

Yummy!

In addition to the 'cheats' above I also didn't count the small amounts of salt and pepper I added to some foods. But I avoided alcohol or pub trips in the five days, as this was meant to be a full budget for those days.

What I did realise was that cutting things up smaller seemed to make them go further (finally chopped onions were the order of the day), and food was rarely put in the bin ... every scrap was eaten.

Life on £1/day was hard (I was hungry), and not very healthy (bananas were the only fruit, and vitamins restricted to that tin of beans, and tin of tomatoes). I went to bed most days with my stomach rumbling, and in a week lost 3lb - imagine that for week after week. 

Maybe something you'd like to try some time; not something I think you'd like to live with. But we have the choice of course. Many don't.

Penny Dreadful - A Review

'Penny Dreadful' is a silly, sordid, mess of a Victorian monster mash-up ... and I love it!

*** no spoilers ***

This Showtime/Sky co-production aired earlier in the year on Sky Atlantic. Even though I was a Sky subscriber at the time, I eschewed Sky Atlantic as it seemed another of Sky's tawdry attempts to isolate re-sellers by placing premier shows on their new channel. I ain't playin' yo stinkin' games Mr Murdoch. Also it seemed all too much blood and gore for my liking ... or maybe it was just the wrong time. In any case, I've only just decided to tuck into the first series, and was very much surprised - pleasantly at that.

The show's first season (it looks like there will be a second) is 8 episodes, each around an hour's viewing time. The setting is Victorian London ... the London of Holmes, Jack the Ripper, and swirling fog, despair, and debauchery. A theme familiar to viewers of the departed 'Ripper Street'. 

"Are you flossing regularly?"

Into this world we are introduced to a collection of familiar, yet mysterious, characters; literary figures of the times - an adventurer, a medium, a surgeon of dubious practices, a seemingly immortal young man, and their various associated characters. Named after the sordid, sensationalist novellas (costing only a penny of course) of the time, 'Penny Dreadful' mashes up these characters' familiar stories into an exuberant, Gothic, visual feast which although not likely to gain any mainstream awards, delivers well in style, excitement, and traditional horror themes.

Technically the show is excellent. The set designs lavish and bold; the camera-work precise without being overly flamboyant. At times the sound was slightly muddy, but this is a minor grumble. This is a show that looks good ... the opening credits give you a good idea of what visually is to come:

The cast is largely well-known and do good work with a script that overall succeeds at handling the outlandish storyline within the confines of the times. Timothy Dalton heads the 'heroes' (such a term though is ill-fitting for any character as they are all essentially dark-hearted people, struggling - often literally - with internal demons) as Sir Malcolm Murray, the African adventurer, who cares more for his fame than his family; a broken, arrogant, egotist who is the focus of the group. He brings to his employment a young doctor (who has his own agenda, and demons) played by Harry Treadaway; an American sharp-shooting showman, Josh Hartnett; a friend of his daughter, the spiritualist Vanessa Ives, played by Eva Green; and Mallory's own "man-servant" from his African expeditions, Sembene, played by Danny Sapani.

Additional regular characters are played by Billie Piper (a dying consumptive), Rory Kinnear, and Reeve Carney as Dorian Gray. The latter is worth singling out, as the role of a fey 'pretty-boy' can be hard to play with any veracity, yet Carney brings unexpected depth and nuance to the role.

Without doubt though, this is Eva Green's show. She excels as the enigmatic Miss Ives, letting slip only hints of the torment she has imprisoned within. It's a compelling, magnetic, and alluring performance, offering many opportunities to toy with the other characters and viewer. It's not completely without flaw, but the camera draws you to her in every scene, and she fizzes with restrained emotion. The memorable scenes come from her.

There are also lovely cameo performances from Alun Armstrong and David Warner; any show with David Warner can't be all bad.

I'm not sure where the show can go; whether is will eventually limp to obscurity or suffer an early, unfinished, demise, but when I compare this to, say, 'The Strain' it's far superior in all elements.

"I hate flocked wallpaper. How many times do I have to tell you?"

I've deliberately tried to avoid much precision in plot details. However this is a mash-up story, with plot-lines less interwoven and more running parallel for each main character. Sometimes bumping into one another, but the eccentricity and enthusiasm of the story is part of the joy. It's like one of those old Univeral 'House of Dracula'/'House of Frankenstein' movies from the 40s but more so. Everything thrown into a pot of extraordinary characters, and left to bubble over. It is blood and gore, and sordid excess, and fleshy bits, but it also plays it wonderfully straight and genuinely. Marvellous.

Scottish Independence Referendum

"I believe in a Scotland free from Westminster interference."

"I believe in Scotland becoming a democratic, self-governing country..."

"I believe that Scotland is good enough to be an independent nation, trading and building harmonious relations with the rest of the world"

What has the Scottish Independence referendum got to do with the rest of Britain? Well, a lot as 'Scotland' is currently a country that is a part of my nation, so I am affected by its future.

But it's not my place to say how the Scottish people should vote - that's their choice, but I do think they need to be weighing the right factors when making this decision, and appreciate its importance.

Is it important? Hell, yes.

Referendums come along very infrequently in the UK (maybe they'll be every other week in 'free-Scotland' ... who knows) and it's not as though there will be another one on this matter next year, or a year later. Or even 5 years. Or 15. This decision will be a commitment for the next 50 years. So decisions should be based on that sort of time-scale, not purely on what's happening now, and for you. The consideration needs to be about what the UK and Scotland will look like in 10 years time; under different governments, and in different political, social, and economic climates. This isn't about "today"; it's about many tomorrows.

Nor should it be seen as a typical political choice. Here, the SNP have been canny in trying to make it look like a choice between Westminster and Holyrood (it is) but dressed it as 'Tories' or 'SNP' (which it's not). It's not, because this current Tory government ends next year (even if they are returned, it won't be this government) and the SNP won't be the same SNP in 2025 as it is in 2014. This is a long-term decision, so don't base it on what is happening today in either place. It's not about that.

Promises, promises.

To steal a line or two from young Mr McAvoy ... don't base your decision on whether you think you'll be better or worse off after independence. Politicians always promise the Earth and deliver dirt - pre-election promises soon forgotten post-acceptance. Will you be better off with an independent Scotland? No-one really knows. There's speculation, threats, predictions, forecasts, and hot-air. But don't think independent Scotland will suddenly become a land of milk and honey. Life just isn't like that. If the complaint is that "if we're 'Better Together' then why aren't we?", then if it's better to be ruled by the SNP, why isn't it better now? With devolved powers, how much has life changed for you?

Promises are made and broken. This is political life. That won't change whether you're in Britain or out of it. So don't let "I'll be better off voting this way" sway you. We're always being told "you'll be better off if you vote for me" - it's rarely true; frequently false. Don't let promises influence your vote.

Make your Decision

If you can't trust politicians(!) then what can you do?  Vote for what you believe in. If you truly believe that staying within a united Britain is the way forward, then vote 'No'; if you think a separate Scotland is for you, then vote 'Yes'. Do it for those reasons; do it for your own reasons; do what you think is right for your nation.

From my own point of view, Great Britain is a nation made better by its parts; by their separate identities, joined in a union. This is a nation that has been together through hard times, great triumphs, divisive issues, and amazing human achievement, for over four hundred years England and Scotland have been united. That's the level of decision we are now looking at.

And those opening quotes? Well, they're not from me. I took them from here (with very small amendments) - if these words sound familiar, then we can apply them as much for this referendum as we can for the idea of a United Kingdom out of Europe ... it's the same argument (although that union is backed by only 40 years of history).

We are all governed by a group of people distant from us; ideologically, geographically; politically; ... but if we want to split Scotland from Great Britain for *those* reasons, then the Scottish Islanders can say just the same about Holyrood. Let's give them the independence they want too. And then the Highlanders ... what does the City of Edinburgh know about those people? In fact Glasgow would be better on its own too? Maybe your district? Your street? You? Let's make as many divisions as we can. I've heard every man is an island.

Or something like that.

A Post not about Depression

Depression is suddenly in the news again, following the tragic death of Robin Williams. Here, I'll not be talking about depression.

It's not something I talk about. For reasons I'll not state. That's how it is for me.

A lot of reaction to the death has focussed on the health issues he had, centred around addiction and depression, and there has been a lot in social media about depression and what is, and isn't, the right way to support sufferers.

I'd just like to say that we need to consider this illness along the same lines as cancer is now viewed. We don't think of cancer as being one illness, with one treatment, but rather as an umbrella term for a range of illnesses. This is why we don't talk about a "wonder-drug" to cure cancer, but drugs that are effective against certain forms of cancer. No single, silver bullet.

Depression is a term used to cover a range of illnesses. Treatment that works perfectly well for one person, will not work for another. Causes in one patient will be different to the causes in another. Even sufferers will not be able to say whether their treatment will work in another ... having it doesn't make you an expert on anyone else's. Each illness is separate, and unique to the sufferer.

It's insidious and clever, and knows how to counter the tools you develop to fight it off. It's like playing chess against an opponent that can read your mind.

Do not preach your solutions to others. They might work, they might not, but it carries no more validity than "cheer up", and no less. The treatment is unique to the condition. 

All you can do is offer support, and the form of that support will be set by the patient, and your relationship to them. There's no blueprint to follow, like there's no blueprint for friendship. No prescriptive advice - you know how to treat your friends without needing the words of strangers.

For Pebz!

Here is a vine:



See?