Friday, February 27, 2015

What Spock Taught Me About Life: In Memory Of Leonard Nimoy



On hearing of Leonard Nimoy's passing, I felt the same kind of emotion I'd experienced when Sir Alec Guinness passed on. The characters they created helped shape who I am. Not real, not imaginary, but people of the in-between, a nebulous place where friends from books, film, and television exist when you're a child.

I come from a family who have always loved stories, without pretension. My parents would gift a classic and a pulp novel in the same way: with enthusiasm, and an interest in my opinion. My brother and I grew up on a diet of narrative, and television was an important source of nourishment.

People love to denounce TV as mind-numbing garbage, but we watched everything, and were better people for it. Fellini films, Western classics, kung fu movies, Hollywood musicals, endless sitcoms, and constant cartoons. If there was a storyline, we were in, and it was rare for anyone to watch TV alone.


The original Star Trek was a staple. From the very first episode I was hooked. They were in space! Gene Roddenberry's idea was breathtaking, and all the characters were magnificent, but especially Spock. He always held a special place in my heart.

Spock taught me that it was okay to be smart, and that the right people would like it. While his friends teased him for his detachment, they also loved him. Whenever Spock spouted some fact that helped save the day, my dad would say, "Good old Spock," as if they were old friends.

We'd watch the movies over and over, till a new one came out. The crew of the Enterprise were often in trouble, but always managed to get out of every predicament, all the while saving people (and whole civilizations, if not planets) along the way. I watched the other Star Treks television shows that came along, and adored them in varying degrees, but Spock and Kirk held a special place in my heart.


Television writers will tell you the characters of Spock and Kirk embody the trope of the odd couple, a pair who alternate between exasperating and assisting each other. Initially appearing mismatched, it soon becomes clear the differing personalities are a perfect complement. These pairings are very popular in entertainment mediums, and appear constantly on television for a reason, but Captain Kirk and his science officer were always my favorites.

When it comes to the films, many cite Spock's death scene (and eventual resurrection) as the most affecting, but for me, it was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country that resonated. Partly due to circumstance: my parents bought me the VHS (showing my age) after surgery, and I watched the movie repeatedly while recovering.

Mostly, though, because of the storyline, and because of Leonard Nimoy's performance: Spock's initial inability to truly understand the depths and repercussions of Kirk's grief over the death of his son, likewise his ability to envisage a brighter future for both the Federation and the Klingon Empire. Not to mention his handling of betrayal, and his use of logic as a tool in the face of great obstacles. He had to work to save Captain Kirk from a predicament resulting from Spock's own choices (and of course, in the end he did) and then together with the crew they saved the precarious peace in place across the galaxy.

Instead of being a film about defeating power-mad baddies, the movie was about the moment when a civilization previously presented as the enemy, become victims of circumstance, and for want of a better word, are humanized. The "enemies" this time were those who had given in to fear (on both sides) and wished to maintain a status quo of cultural mistrust. A brave, interesting premise. Shatner and Nimoy's performances were brilliant, stretching across myriad emotions, leading the audience through both humorous and psychologically harrowing scenes.


I know that as an actor Leonard Nimoy had a sometimes uneasy relationship with the role of Spock; I imagine it must be incredibly difficult to play an iconic character over so many years. Audience perception of the line between the character and the actor invariably begin to blur, an odd situation I'm guessing is terribly frustrating, especially when your career spans much more than a single portrayal. While I vastly appreciate his myriad talents–acting, writing, directing, music makingSpock will always be the role that had the most personal impact.

Which is probably why I was hesitant to watch Nimoy in the recent rebirth of the Trek film franchise. What if his portrayal of Spock somehow jarred, failing to transition to this new variation of the Trek universe?

But I shouldn't have worried. When Leonard Nimoy appeared in the Star Trek reboot, he played the part with so much emotion, brought so much wisdom to his roleand echoes of painit was obvious that beyond the role itself he had become a true master of his craft. The part of me that had looked up to him as a child, woke up, recognized the character, and recognized the messages Nimoy was imparting about life, love, and loss all these years later.


Hearing of Leonard Nimoy's passing made the portion of my psyche that perceived Spock as a metaphor for all things magnificent and complex, cry out in sorrow. Ironic that someone presented as part alien portrayed the most human conflict of all; the struggle between emotion and logic. Perhaps because deep down, all of us feel a tad alien sometimes, and the character of Spock was a reminder that somewhere in the universe there is a place for us all, with people who love us despite our quirks, who will appreciate our skills, and with whom we can achieve great things.

If it wasn't for Leonard Nimoy bringing such life, vitality, and depth to the idea of Spock, the character could have ended up little more than a long forgotten gimmick. I doubt I would have the love of science fiction that I do today, or written the kind of stories I tell, without the years of Trek that helped shape my appreciation for the potential of the genre, and, I guess, bolster a belief in humanity's potential for great achievements... In science, yes, but also in moments of selflessness and empathy.

LLAP x

Friday, February 13, 2015

The Game aka The Trials and Tribulations of Joe



What better show to blog about on Valentines Day than The Game, a miniseries that sees the lives of spies shaped, changed, even destroyed by love.


Possibly taking the covert theme too far, this fantastic miniseries about an MI5 operative during the Cold War almost slipped under my radar. The Game is an odd beast, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

The show's opener is a kicker. Lead protagonist Joe is in the midst of defecting. I know, not what you'd expect of a hero (or even an antihero), right? But Joe is In Love (capitals warranted). The brutal scene that follows elicits instant sympathy, planting the audience firmly on Team Joe. 
Not the perfect date...
Cut to a much colder Joe back at the office, where we're privy to MI5 in action. Before you get any ideas, this spy zone is the opposite of a James Bond film. More like The Office: Covert Affairs, a daggy staff meeting in a daggy building, where everyone calls the boss Daddy ('cause that isn't creepy).
Come to Papa.
Magnificent casting renders this series topnotch; the understated performances could teach a few Yank productions a thing or two about onscreen subtlety. Tom Hughes holds his own with Brian Cox, Jonathan Aris, Victoria Hamilton, Judy Parfitt, Rachael Stirling, Paul Ritter, and Shaun Dooley, which is no mean feat. My only casting criticism would be Chloe Pirrie, who seems to be overacting, even for a "bumbling" character like Wendy. Then again, she is playing opposite the best in the game (pun intended), who manage to convey complex cocktails of emotion with barely a blink.
When tech didn't fit in your pocket.
The tech is clumsy and old-fashioned, a startling reminder of how much the digital world has developed since this period. On some level, each character seems determined yet disillusioned (or in the process of becoming disillusioned) regarding the machinations of international espionage. Lies, cultivated misconceptions, negotiations, and illusions of power, control, and trust are all driving forces.

For those who claim the show is "too slow", well, I can only feel sorry for you. There is so much happening psychologically that I was riveted and genuinely confused by the criticism. Everyone is weaving webs, the sub-plots as tangled and interesting as the more dominant narrative elements. 
The attitudes of the period to Bobby's sexuality
are empathically addressed.
The espionage storylines unfold in a time-honored convoluted way, with false trails, traitors, and shocking revelations galore. Hindsight is a strange creature; watching the characters fret about imminent attack from the USSRcovert or overtseems disarmingly quaint, until you realize the actions of people such as these are what rendered possible threats negligible in the first place.

The cinematography is beautiful: colors muted, shots instilled with an odd coldness (even the uber-beige sets lack warmth). Every now and again the actors' faces fill the screen poignantly, frames that could be reproduced as a series of portraits capturing the turmoil of repressed emotions. There's a strange kind of elegance to even the grittiest of scenes. Kudos to assorted episode directors Niall MacCormick and Daniel O'Hara, as well as cinematographers Sam McCurdy and Urszula Pontikos.
No mobile?! My mind couldn't believe it when the spies had to find a phone box. 
As for the conclusion... not to go near spoilers, but while you know a twist is coming, the twist on top of the twist is what had me nodding and saying "bravo" to the television. Joe's mental state at the end of the series is also beautifully written/outlined. Happily Ever After is an alien, almost laughable concept for this crewgiven their various professional and personal situationsbut the true tragedy is that deep down they still yearn for connection, despite living in a state of cynical vigilance bordering on paranoia.
International timekeeping prior to apps.
One of the elements I admired most about the script was that the primary sexualized spy character was not a woman, but a man. Joe's ability to seduce is openly acknowledged as part of his professional skill set, a psychologically horrifying scenario for someone recovering from perceived romantic loss. Instead of offering this as a conquering, hero-type trait, the referenced sex scenes become a convoluted form of torture that add to the lead's disassociated state. Nice writing from Toby Whithouse (along with Sarah Dollard and Debbie O'Malley for some episodes).

If you haven't seen the series yet, find the time. I caught it at the end of last year, making The Game a late but solid contender for one of the best shows released in 2014. Looking forward to a second season.