|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 25, 2017 11:21:03 GMT
That was an interesting scene. I think it was handled perfectly, and I think she was right not to try to comfort him. I bought a book years ago on how to help others deal with grief. The writer had questioned hundreds of people about what made them feel better - or worse - during their grief. One piece of advice from the book which surprised me was to resist the urge to hug or otherwise comfort someone who cries or wants to cry. It actually has the opposite effect than was intended. It makes the cryer feel like their crying is bothering you and you want them to stop crying. But a person who is crying needs to cry, and should be left to do so. You're also not supposed to ask how they're doing (again, they feel they have to lie and say "fine" to please you). I think the real estate agent handled it best when he told them he was sorry for their loss and his wife had "cried buckets" upon hearing their story. He didn't ask them anything so they didn't have to make up a lie to please him. They just said "Thank you". I don't know anything about techniques but from the point of view of the Head I think she was super kind, I mean he is an unknown man who claims was the father of a random young girl and wanted to take her with him! She surely felt compassion for him becauseshe recognized him from when he was in the news but the logic thing to do is to call the police. Later Stephen recognizes that and says he was lucky she didn't. To give him some space to compose himself was actually extremely kind of her because he wasn't familiar to her but also because it was a apart of painful, a very embarrassing situation for him.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Sept 25, 2017 12:35:16 GMT
Although the extension to watch the BBC was working super fine, my laptop (which is rather old) overheated and shut down when I was watching. I caught only parts of the movie so I'm not going to comment till I watch it completely.
From what I saw I think that for a first production it was fine.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 25, 2017 13:14:46 GMT
I watched a stream during the UK transmission. It completely stopped during the supermarket scene!!!!
I watched it again after it finished thanks to the Chrome add so a big THANK YOU!!!
Even when the subject matter is very different, I think it's more like TTSS than a typical BBC drama so I'm sure the StudioCanal influence was huge. The weaker scenes to me were actually the ones when they tried to explain things (the mother talking about the pub meeting or the "ghost" boy) but audiences who not are used to watch slow burning almost metaphorical movies would always find themselves lost. And purists who always love the books more than movies even when they are different mediums! (My position is that you can say I loved the book but not the adaptation but never the book is better than the adaptation because the medium is not the same but it always happen with acclaimed authors. No one cares for bad ones!)
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 25, 2017 14:26:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 25, 2017 14:28:32 GMT
4.5 million viewers, that's pretty good, right? www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41384350There are a ton of comments, very mixed but it seems people didn't know what to expect. The inevitable Sherlock comparisons, some people confused by the time jumps and different storylines, at least one thought it was just a first episode of a new show (he/she "won't be watching more episodes," LOL). Those familiar with the author or original book seemed to like it. Many who didn't, seem like fans of less-challenging TV (for example: "Not my cup of tea. Flipping back and forth in time is as bad as subtitles.")
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 25, 2017 14:52:23 GMT
Winning comment: Worst episode of Sherlock ever.
Lol!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 25, 2017 15:01:21 GMT
I completely agree with the criticism! I didn't read the tweets until after the movie ended, but I was shocked at how inappropriate they were. Whoever wrote them clearly did not actually watch it. What a shame! The "confused" viewers who did follow along on Twitter might have had an easier time understanding what was happening if the BBC tweets had made sense.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 26, 2017 1:55:00 GMT
The ratings were good. Of course they are far from Sherlock numbers but that's not a surprise. I actually thought there was a possibility of people not being interested in something like this. It won the night. I checked and during the last Sundays there have been a battle between Poldark and Victoria. Apparently the BBC moved Poldark because the competition but still they received slightly better ratings. It would be interesting to know how much that figure will grow with the iPlayer numbers. Right now The Child in Time is on first place in their list of most watched episodes. The last Sherlock episodes had very strong iPlayer numbers.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 26, 2017 5:32:08 GMT
In the BAFTA interview at the preview screening, Benedict said they were worried that people wouldn't want to tune in because of the upsetting subject matter. He thought the biggest hurdle would be just getting people to watch. Then the critics gave it pretty good reviews and recommended it. I guess what they hadn't predicted was all the idiots who watched it and tore it apart on Twitter.
I feel so sorry for everyone involved in creating this beautiful little movie! It would have been better to have a smaller - but appreciative - audience than large numbers of people whose Sunday evening was ruined by having to use their brains!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 26, 2017 13:06:41 GMT
They should know or at least suspect people would have extreme reactions to it. I mean it's about child abduction but also fetishism, politicians and time travelling! Also the poetic way they adapt it. If they thought everyone would understand their intentions then they have a LOT of faith in commercial general audiences!
Reading reactions make me think in a late friend who was a very respected Historian and writer. He told me he discussed a lot of with his daughter in law because according to him she had an awful taste in movies and always said things like "well, we all have opinions and should respect others". He used to get angry and said: "I studied at the Sorbonne, my opinions doesn't have the same value than yours!" It sounds so pretentious but I read a pair of comments of people acting like some kind of mediators claiming people who are screaming that they didn't understanding it actually understood it but they didn't like it and we all should respect their valueable opinions. I guess it's part of the "democratization" of the Internet. All opinions have the same value because we are all equal. Except that not all opinions are informed opinions. I'm not saying people didn't like it are dumb or stupid. Actually there are a lot of very intelligent people who have awful taste in movies. Also there is the possibility that someone with good taste wouldn't like this. But why say, people telling the world they don't understand this actually meant the opposite or, my favorite, a few comments in The Guardian review actually claiming it's one of those things that only "middle and upper classes" enjoy! (nasty people who went to good schools, I guess! And I'm almost sure people who wrote that aren't working class at all. Just typical progressives who think working classes are stupid but cool!). These reactions actually kind of confirm my theory that this is something more in tradition with European art houses than BBC prime television. Nothing bad with saying people who enjoy certain kind of movies are more open to understand something like this.
Also yes, I miss the snob times when consensus wasn't a sign of quality and informed opinions were more valuable than any Twitter shit storm!
(I didn't study at the Sorbonne but he asked me what was my favorite Kubrick movie and I said, Barry Lyndon. That answer apparently made me a person with great taste in films! He in general hated Kubrick!)
|
|