abzug PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 12:24 pm

I'm only four episodes in, so perhaps its not fair of me to start evaluating yet, but I'm not enjoying it as much as season 4. It seems to be less thematically tight than other seasons. I mean, its clear that this early part of the season is preoccupied with issues of loss and grief (losing a partner/spouse, losing a child) and how various characters respond to that grief. But its tough when two of the characters they focus on the most are Bodybag (who is just beyond loathesome--she deserves whatever she gets, imo) and Shell.

Other quibbles so far:

--Karen seems to be a former shadow of herself. She's like sleepwalking or something. There has been little evidence of her asserting her authority as wing governor, and the idea that Fenner could just go over her head to Grayling to have Shell shipped out is troubling. Or, its not troubling that it happened (we saw the potential for this kind of thing in season 1 and season 4) but its disturbing that Karen doesn't even seem to mind. Where is the feisty Karen we saw intermittently in season 4?! I miss her!

--They can't get rid of Snowball Merriman soon enough, as far as I am concerned. Especially seeing her sharing episodes and scenes with Shell, she's like the lamest shadow of that character.

--There's no power struggles between the cons and the screws so far this season. That was always one of the dynamics that made the show so interesting--you'd have these electric scenes between Nikki and Fenner, or Yvonne and Fenner, or whoever. Now its like the cons are doing their thing, and the screws are doing their thing, and they are almost completely separate. I understand that the new character Kris (who hasn't arrived yet) winds up in a lot of struggles with Fenner, so perhaps they are paving the way for that.

--I found the Karen's intake interview with the Costa Cons to be very strange. Why was she meeting with them both at once? Why did she emphasize the importance of them admitting guilt, and in writing?! That has never been something this show has been concerned with--its assumed that most characters are guilty, and they've never gained or lost prison privileges because of their willingness (or lack thereof) to take any responsibility. Perhaps I will find this scene less puzzling as I learn more about these new characters (I've only watched 2 of their episodes).

Speaking of the Costa Cons, I love them already. I was primed to love them, of course, because I had the BIGGEST crush on Stephanie Beacham when I was 13 and she was on the sit-com "Sister Kate." She played the coolest sexiest nun ever, who ran this orphanage. Jason Priestly (from Beverly Hills 90210) was also on the show. But I had been feeling like few of the remaining cons had half a brain (the combination of Julie O, Buki and Al has been too much to bear, in terms of dimwittedness), so the Costa Cons were a nice change, bringing the intelligence quotient back up to Nikki-era levels. I'm glad they are going to be around for a few seasons--they seem like very rich characters with a lot of potential.

Alrighty, that's all for now. More musings later as I watch more episodes. And perhaps I'll take back all the negative things I said above. After all, I'm the person who didn't have a nice thing to say about Roisin, and now I'm a bit obsessed with her, so obviously I can change my mind. Smile

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:01 pm

I've only watched seasons 4, 5, 6 & 7 on the telly and wasn't motivated to start taping it again until towards the end of series 7. I've always liked the prog but I feel series 1-3/4 were the best so far.

I too love Stephanie Beecham & think she's continued to be one of the high spots in the prog. I first got to really like her in Tenko.
_________________

silverballnz PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 7:17 pm

Tenko now that was a wonderful show just loved it. Thats what I call the best of British just wonderful.
Of topic sorry just couldnt help myself. Rolling Eyes

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 10:06 pm

Watched a few more episodes today (I'm through episode 7 now, the one with the privatization protest) and things are definitely looking up. I love the Karen-Yvonne pair--what a dynamic duo those two are! Don't know why Fenner thinks he even has a shot against them. And I'm finding Colin's crush on Yvonne to be very compelling. I'm sure it won't end well, but its still oddly tender.

In fact, this seems to be the season of odd alliances:
1. Yvonne and Colin
2. Di and Tony
3. Yvonne and Merriman (this one is kind of off and on, but when its on, very unlikely)
Its like the theme of season 5 is Sleeping with the Enemy!

I really did love the whole privatization protest. My favorite episodes are always those that examine power dynamics, and show different groups or individuals trying to get the upper hand. And of course the ones which are the most enjoyable are when the cons triumph. Smile Great twist with them all getting drunk and bonding with the actor (can't remember his name--is he a real British actor who audiences would know?).

But not only did they make a very entertaining episode, they managed to state very clearly why privatization is a bad thing for the prisoners. I mean, when you think about it for a second, a private capitalist economy only works when those who are "purchasing" the good or service have a choice between who they want to buy that good or service from. But the prisoners have no choice about being in prison at all. Its the government making the choice about who gets the contract, and with long-term contracts, there's no economic motivation to provide quality of service, only to keep costs down and profits high. And when you're talking about prisoner's lives, every single moment of their existence, privatization then seems deeply fundamentally immoral.

I've also been thinking more about Shell Dockley's fate, and I have to say, I'm not sad for her. I mean, the whole move by Fenner was totally evil. But I don't think the baby is necessarily worse off. Not that Fenner should have the power to make this type of decision, and get her shipped out etc, but I just haven't been able to find it in my heart to feel that she had an unfair end.

Very very interesting plotline though, from the perspective of women being able to control their own bodies. Fenner pimps her out, and the one time she doesn't go along with it, she has her newborn taken away from her. So she's not allowed to decide when and where she wants sex, and she's not allowed to decide what happens to her own offspring. And if we see Larkhall as a microcosm of our patriarchal society, this whole storyline is not making a very nice statement about what happens to women when we let men make decisions or have control over our bodies.

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 10:19 pm

Ah yes now you're refreshing my memory. As I've only seen eps in series 4-7 once they tend to have become a blur in my memory.

I've never had the excitement about BG that I had in the first 3 series... til I started to feel a bit of a stirring towards the end of series 7 & was really beginning to look fowward to the next ep with some excitement.

But it is those power struggles and the social comment that has kept me watching the prog over the last few years. It always takes a leftish & and-patriarchal view on things. So even those eps that are less than great, keep my interest.

Yvonne was always a great character. Her whole character was a challenge to the system, while maintaining a moral stance.

It's interesting that the prog has continued to take this line even when the British government did not seem to give much support toa lot of those perspectives. It's curious because BG has maintained a high level of popularity, and I have heard that the British (male?) critics tend to dismiss it.
_________________

NZ Bad Girl PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 1:57 am

I kept watching to see what happened to characters that were already real to me, such as Yvonne.

By the end of series 7 I had a habit of waving my hands and singing "It's the Di and Fenner shooow!" Because of that and my constant bitching, I ended up being kicked out of the living room by the family and I watched most of Fenner's final ep from the stairs outside the room. This was completely fitting, because I watched the very first ep from the stairs because my parents decided I was too young (12) to watch it.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 2:33 am

I'm definitely enjoying watching how all the characters I grew to love (and hate) are ending up. But I don't know if I can stand season 7 if it really is the Di and Fenner show! These two really drive me NUTS!

I've been really enthralled by the Colin plotline. It reminds me a lot of Lorna Rose in season 1, except with Lorna they got rid of her just as it was starting to get interesting. I remember watching it and thinking "Wow, they're showing us how a good screw like Lorna turns into an evil amoral screw like Fenner." But instead they wound up using Lorna as a way of enabling Helen and Nikki to get some power over Fenner and Shell. Which I was certainly happy about, but was still rather disatisfied that they had never explored what can happen when a generally decent (but morally weak) person becomes compromised.

With Colin, he was pretty damn compromised from the moment they introduced the character, so in that way its a bit different. But to watch a person who knows they are weak try to do the right thing--its fascinating. And his powerlessness is also compelling. He's under Fenner's thumb, he allows himself to get under Yvonne's thumb--he's always using someone else's morality to guide him.

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 5:44 am

I agree Colin is an interesting character. I didn't like the first half of of series 7 at all and commented to some people that I thought it waqs to male dominated. It seemed like the Fenner and Grayling show to me. And didn't Grayling do a bit of an unexplained character reversal from what he was like when he first came into the show?

But I really enjoyed the last few eps of series 7 and am looking forward to seeing what changes they make in series 8.
Gosh.... I'm feeling my age. You were 12 when you first watched BG? On the stairs? Yes I remember Shed was really surprised by how young some of their audience was in the first series. That's why they cut down on the explicit drug taking & deccrutching scenes in later series.

_________________

NZ Bad Girl PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 6:18 am

11 or 12. Well, I'm 18 now. I actually feel very lucky to have had a show like Bad Girls to challenge the way I thought in my early highschool years. It might sound a bit over the top, but I really think I would be a different person at this stage if I didn't have that anchor, to stop and make me think.

And the drugs and decrotching scenes... I think I took it in my stride. I don't remember being traumatised by them or anything.

The reason I didn't have to keep watching from the stairs is simple - my parents decided it was too good to ruin by trying to stop us watching. Rolling Eyes

_________________

Dockley PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:47 pm

I was 17 when Bad Girls first appeared on telly...and to be honest I don't remember a great deal about it except completely falling head over heels for Nikki! LOL! Laughing Laughing

I did watch the odd episode from seasons 4,5,6 and 7 and I may start watching season 8 if i manage to catch it outside of work.

A couple of months ago, a friend of mine re-introduced me the season 1 to 3 of Bad Girls on DVD, and Wow! I'm totally amazed all over again!

Those seasons will always be my favourite, not just because of Nikki and Helen...but I loved Zandra, Dominic, Crystal, Monica and Spencer...I loved the interactions between Fenner and Shell, Nikki and Shell, Denny and Shell (Can you tell I loved Shell?)...Denny and Shaz were adorable!
I loved the hard-nosed bitch that was early Karen, I loved the early Yvonne and her Charlie (Not to mention Lauren! Yum!)
And I loved the way the Two Julies interacted with everyone! Very Happy

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 6:55 pm

Yes I've gotta agree. I just started looking at the first series again after not looking at it for several years..... stimulated by reading some of the discussions here. And I watched the deleted scene from Oh What a Night for the first time last night online. And I was right back there feeling exactly like I used to about Helen and Nikki. Those first 3 series hold up well after all these years. I can't recall an onscreen lesbian romance that worked so well.

I also started to remember that many were disappointed when O What a Night first aired. I had avoided spoilers so wasn't expecting a lot from it, and I always loved the sense of passion that was conveyed. But I think someone, maybe Simone had led fans to believe that there was going to be a more extensive sex scene than was shown. I rememner that there was a lot of speculation about cut scenes - especially the bedroom scene for that ep. It always looked like something had been deleted.

On the other extras I watched last night: I was interested in that scene when Helen apologises to Nik when Simone keeps saying she can't speak & ends up saying she'll be getting her p45. It reminded me of what I'm like when I'm coming down with a migraine.

I also watched the outtakes when Helen and Simone do 15+ takes of the surprise Helen returns to Larkhall scene. I think the problem with that scene was how it was written. It never did work for me. I always felt that attempt at a conspiratorial shared girlish giggle was just out of place for both characters, especially Nikki.

_________________

Dockley PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:38 pm

Quote:
I also watched the outtakes when Helen and Simone do 15+ takes of the surprise Helen returns to Larkhall scene. I think the problem with that scene was how it was written. It never did work for me. I always felt that attempt at a conspiratorial shared girlish giggle was just out of place for both characters, especially Nikki


I have to agree with your comments to this scene...I also thought the giggling was just a little too out of character for H&N Rolling Eyes

I think Mandana summed it up quite well in the first take, when she stuck her fingers down her throat!! Laughing

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:55 pm

campgrrls wrote:
I rememner that there was a lot of speculation about cut scenes - especially the bedroom scene for that ep. It always looked like something had been deleted.


Hi, I agree with your take on these things; I felt (and still do) that the scene feels 'cut' & more to the point, that without the pleasureable beat of the couch scene, that transition--from high of sex/finally getting together to the train wreck that follows--is emotionally a little hard on the audience: the pacing feels just a bit off.

campgrrls wrote:
I also watched the outtakes when Helen and Simone do 15+ takes of the surprise Helen returns to Larkhall scene. I think the problem with that scene was how it was written. It never did work for me. I always felt that attempt at a conspiratorial shared girlish giggle was just out of place for both characters, especially Nikki.


I didn't mind the giggle per se: it was that the scene just felt... unfinished to me, like they cut something at the very end & just leave it on this odd suspended note, or hold the take just a bit too long at the end. --e

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:18 pm

Montages
Why must you all remind me of H&N as I am trying to focus on season 5 and enjoy it without them? And just as their absence was starting to feel bearable... <sigh> Wink

One major change I've noticed in S5, which was SO glaring that I'm suprised no one has mentioned it anywhere, is that the show started using montages. (!!!)

From Wikipedia, a quick definition of the "classic montage sequence":

Montage consists of a series of short shots that are edited into a coherent sequence to condense narrative. It is usually used to advance the story as a whole (often to suggest the passage of time), rather than to create symbolic meaning. In many cases, a song plays in the background to enhance the mood or reinforce the message being conveyed. [...] the montages are used to compress narrative time and show the main character learning or improving skills that will help achieve the ultimate goal. The song "Montage" used in Team America's montage parody described this perfectly:

Show a lot of things happening at once
Remind everyone of what’s going on
And with every shot you show a little improvement
To show it all would take too long
That’s called a montage
Oh we want montage

Now, in a way, montage seems like the perfect film technique for Bad Girls, since the show has always employed what I would call a narrative shorthand, condensing the story by entering scenes after conversations have begun, leaving out whole sections of said conversations, and then cutting out before the conversation is completed. With the cross-editing/simultaneous action common in the script structure, one could almost describe the writing style as the verbal equivalent of montage.

Except, its not. Its fundamentally different. A montage at its essence glosses over the hard work inherent in accomplishing a task. The two places its used (so far) in season 5 are when the Costa Cons build their still/the wheelchair (both are combined in the same montage, if I recall correctly), and when Julie S is undergoing her cancer treatment. Two very different challenges, of course: one is deeply personal and life-threatening, and the other is about subverting the system (what I've elsewhere referred to as "prisoner hijinks."

However, in neither case should the effort involved be diminished or de-emphasized in the storytelling or camera techniques. When we think of other prisoner hijinks (the wine brewing in season 1, babes behind bars in season 2, embezzlement from the canteen in season 4) we got to see the effort required to get things going, and saw how that played out over time. How the hijinks were integrated into the day to day life of Larkhall. Similarly, we can compare Julie S's illness and treatment with how Zandra's illness was portrayed in season 2. Zandra experienced symptoms for many many episodes. Her headaches were a constant irritant, and she was desperately seeking a remedy (drugs, glasses etc) before she was diagnosed. Julie S, on the other hand, moves fairly swiftly from finding the lump in her breast to hospital treatment--she benefits from the narrative efficiency of the montage.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that montage seems like the wrong film technique to use for Bad Girls. Its too sappy; its the opposite of realism; it undermines the hard-hitting political nature of the show; it feels manipulative, like the montage is telling us how to react and feel, rather than letting us have our own organic reaction to a scene or moment.

PS For the record, I should mention that I have always wanted season 3 to have ended with a Helen & Nikki montage which flashed forward and gave us glimpses of their life together outside of Larkhall, condensing a year, or three years, or 20 years into a few moments of closure for all of us H&N fans. But even a sap like me has to admit that it would have been a huge (possibly intolerable) tonal shift for the show at that point. Still, I wish for it.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:20 pm

Re: Montages
abzug wrote:
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that montage seems like the wrong film technique to use for Bad Girls. Its too sappy; its the opposite of realism; it undermines the hard-hitting political nature of the show; it feels manipulative, like the montage is telling us how to react and feel, rather than letting us have our own organic reaction to a scene or moment.

One other thought about why montage represents the antithesis of Bad Girls. The issue of serving time--its fundamental to the drama of the show. These women are confined to prison. They are serving a sentence with a pre-determined length. As Nikki said, the release date is everything (she was more articulate, but you get my point). The idea that these women are counting days is an idea which pervades the show. And its emphasized in season 5, with the anti-privatization protest, where the women lose their early release. Babs had less than three months to go, and after the protest has 351 days. They actually include the number of days in the dialogue, to emphasize how every single day counts, because it is another day of confinement and torture and lost life.

So, given the above, given the importance of every single day, the immorality imprisoning many of these women for even a single day (and I think the show DOES think imprisoning many of them is immoral), then what's the excuse for using a film technique that purposefully blurs the passage of time? Where days, weeks, months, years even can pass in a few moments, as if time were nothing, as if none of it mattered in the grand scheme of things. As if every single day in prison is not torture in itself.

Quote:
PS For the record, I should mention that I have always wanted season 3 to have ended with a Helen & Nikki montage which flashed forward and gave us glimpses of their life together outside of Larkhall, condensing a year, or three years, or 20 years into a few moments of closure for all of us H&N fans. But even a sap like me has to admit that it would have been a huge (possibly intolerable) tonal shift for the show at that point. Still, I wish for it.

Holy crap, I really am talking to myself here! But I had another thought about my fantasy flash-forward H&N montage, which is that in a way, the tonal shift would have been meaningful, symbolically important. Because in a montage, H&N (and particularly N) would have been freed from the drudgery of prison, from the achingly slow passage of each day locked up. Instead, they'd be free to live life and love at their own pace, with no restrictions of time and place. <sigh>

campgrrls PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:06 pm

Abzug you're not talking to yoruself & I find the shift to montage a really interesting observation. I have difficulty remembering a lot of series 5 as I only watched it once a few years ago. I can remember vaguely the Costa Con's still but not the wheelchair building.

I think the point about the pace of the prog. mirroring the pace of prison life is a good one. However, I think it's held in tension with the pace of TV that viewers are used to and the fact that the prog. is also a microcosm of life in general. The flexible narrative form that BG has always used, with its crosscut narratives plus the condensed storylines were more in keeping with a style common when BG was first shown. The montages and other techniques like split screens (pioneered by Linda La Plante) have become more common since then, futher representing a sense of speeding up of social life. So I guess Shed may have just picked up on some current trends.

There's always been a bit of a problem about how the pace of prison life has been represented in BG from series one IMO. Often the only clue we have had that seconds of screen time cross days or weeks of prisoner time are things like changes of clothes etc. Sometimes it's a bit confusing and it's not always immediately clear that there's been a time gap. I think one of the problems with series 7 is that some storylines are laboured and given too much screen time while others develop far too quickly. But that's the latest season I've watched so my memory of seasons 4-6 are a bit dim.

But I'll watch out for the montage effect in future. Good tip.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:22 am

Oh. My. God. I just watched episode 13. This is the one where Karen puts together the dossier on Fenner. And I'm sitting there. And I'm watching Karen be all courageous. And Colin be all courageous. And Yvonne's working things with the camera. And Karen has that amazing speech when Fenner confronts her in her office, where she tells him he's going to pay for all the women he's abused and destroyed, and she lists Rachel, and Shell, and Helen and Nikki. And I'm sitting on the sofa and I'm practically cheering.

Even though I know the whole time that he doesn't get caught now. But I can't help myself get thrilled by this show of power and aggression and cohesion and just darn good strategy on the part of the good guys. I mean, Helen had nothing compared to this.

But boy, when they let you down on this show, they let you down. Fenner is just beyond all evil. I was actually shouting at the tv. My girlfriend was fearing for my sanity. I mean, even just the breaking into the apartment and not stealing the file or visibly destroying the evidence, but leaving Karen to think she was still delivering the whole thing to Area Management--that is just beyond sinister. Its sadistic--he gets enjoyment out of torturing people, destroying them as brutally and thoroughly as he can. I'm all wound up about it. The car thing was just, well, I mean, there's nothing to say. Beyond the pale, but somehow less apalling than the stuff with the file. Not sure why.

Now I'm not going to be able to fall asleep. Why oh why do I watch this show so late at night?!

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:42 am

abzug wrote:
I mean, even just the breaking into the apartment and not stealing the file or visibly destroying the evidence, but leaving Karen to think she was still delivering the whole thing to Area Management--that is just beyond sinister. Its sadistic--he gets enjoyment out of torturing people, destroying them as brutally and thoroughly as he can. I'm all wound up about it. The car thing was just, well, I mean, there's nothing to say. Beyond the pale, but somehow less apalling than the stuff with the file. Not sure why.


The apartment invasion is clearly another kind of rape, & the file stuff is literally a mind-fuck. Which however awful the car stuff is, is far more sinister & invasive, to my way of thinking.

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 4:11 am

campgrrls wrote:
Abzug you're not talking to yoruself & I find the shift to montage a really interesting observation.


Ditto! ...dang, I posted a reply but don't see it now, 7 hours later, wtf?? Will try to reconstruct.... As I recall, the other anomaly in S5 was the interview sessions with screws during one of the privitization eps where each character faces the screen and 'talks' to the audience. I found it jarring, definitely didn't work for me. The fact that they didn't use it again suggests perhaps the directors thought it didn't work so well either: the problem with that technique is that it pulls you out of the narrative & calls attention to itself. BG tends to stick with more traditional narrative techniques, as campgrrls noted above: unless you're Jonathan Demme working with the likes of Foster & Hopkins, it's damn tricky to pull off (as Demme commented in interviews on S of the Lambs) & make it work to its opposite effect, of sucking you right *in*. Perhaps this--and the montage business--was an effort on Shed's part to mix things up a bit or experiment, change direction in some ways. In this case, I'm glad they dropped it. --e

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:39 am

Well it might just have been a bit of expeimenting by one director and/or writer. Once I was familiar with the styles of each director in series 1-3 but I've forgotten most of it. But I've noticed that there was almost a complete change of writers and directors by series 5. In series one I think I particularly liked the eps written by Maureen Chadwick and directed by Mike Adams. I wasn't so keen on Laurence Moody (director) or Phil Ford (writer). Phil Ford has continued to be a writer for BG I think?

But also they do do some divergent things within the format they're given. Some eps are a bit more gothic than others (muppet wing eps) and some a bit more camp.

The final ep in series one really does diverge from the social realism that BG mixes with soap style. That whole final sequence with I will Survive with women dancing on the tables, burning the wedding suit etc was leaning towards the montage, music video style. But I really LOVE it.

I just knew from that final seuqnce for series one that the trio of Shed women (McManus, Gallagher, Chadwck) had had acquaintance with the same women's movement I had been involved in while in London. It was sooo reminiscent of some of the women-only gigs I went to in London - and that scene always makes me chuckle for that reason.

A UK academic who visited NZ recently made some interesting comments about Shed and BG. She did a presentation at some seminars here on women writers, directors and producers of TV in the UK. She particularly focused on Linda La Plante and Shed. She was very glowing about how innovative these women have been. I said Shed had got some criticism for being too populist and soapy. This academic (her name escapes me right now) said that usually the creators of a new prog. are directly involved in the writing & producing for the first few series, then they pass it over to lesser writers. She also said that, unlike the US, most of the writers for progs like those produced by La Plante and Shed serve their apprenticeships in soap operas. (a lot of Shed personnel came from Coronation Street). This academic said that she knew a lot of those writers found it quite difficult to adjust to writing for more serious dramas.

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:55 am

No. I kind of slipped out of the movement when Thatcher did so much damage to the left and feminist movements, and I got more caught up in work and study, and domesticity.

I did go to a few demos and forum, and women4peace gatherings when I first came back to NZ in 2000. But now I'm putting my energy mostly into trying to finish my PhD while I have to also keep working.

And you, NZ BG?

_________________

NZ Bad Girl PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:59 am

No, not at all. Something I was waiting to get to Uni for. Now I have put off Uni for a year, those plans will have wait as well.

shit happens

Where in NZ are you?

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 2:54 pm

ekny wrote:
The apartment invasion is clearly another kind of rape, & the file stuff is literally a mind-fuck. Which however awful the car stuff is, is far more sinister & invasive, to my way of thinking.

Totally! Thanks for putting my instinctive emotional response into words so clearly and concisely. I hate him.

ekny wrote:
As I recall, the other anomaly in S5 was the interview sessions with screws during one of the privitization eps where each character faces the screen and 'talks' to the audience. I found it jarring, definitely didn't work for me. The fact that they didn't use it again suggests perhaps the directors thought it didn't work so well either: the problem with that technique is that it pulls you out of the narrative & calls attention to itself. BG tends to stick with more traditional narrative techniques, as campgrrls noted above: unless you're Jonathan Demme working with the likes of Foster & Hopkins, it's damn tricky to pull off (as Demme commented in interviews on S of the Lambs) & make it work to its opposite effect, of sucking you right *in*. Perhaps this--and the montage business--was an effort on Shed's part to mix things up a bit or experiment, change direction in some ways. In this case, I'm glad they dropped it.

Great point about the camera work during the interviews. I had noticed that myself (which proves how jarring it was!) although it didn't bother me as much as the montage. I felt like it was making a statement about privatisation, about the characters having to advocate for themselves, or explain themselves, in a way that they never had to under a government bureaucratic regime which is far less evaluative. I mean, what civil servants ever have to convince their bosses not to fire them? It's inherently a lifelong job--that's part of the appeal. But agreed that it called too much attention to itself, and drew me out of the emotional drama of the situation. It almost made it seem funny or surreal in a way, and the situation really wasn't surreal.

campgrrls wrote:
The final ep in series one really does diverge from the social realism that BG mixes with soap style. That whole final sequence with I will Survive with women dancing on the tables, burning the wedding suit etc was leaning towards the montage, music video style. But I really LOVE it.

Interesting observation. I actually didn't find it campy, although I found it goofy. I thought they were trying to depict a level of emotional exuberance which can only be captured in song and dance. (For people who take musical theatre seriously, this is the essence of why musicals work as a legitimate art form--they're not just silly entertainment). I guess it all comes down to your definition of 'camp' and of course I'm hesitant to start defining it here, but I've always thought of it as performative and exagerated, with an element of mockery. The "I Will Survive" sequence doesn't seem to have any of those qualities--in a way, its remarkably emotionally earnest. (PS I love it too!)

Now, the suit bit. That's a bit trickier, for sure. Its definitely about performance--Sean has come to do this dramatic thing in front of an audience. He's come to "perform" his emotional immolation. So in a way that's the epitome of camp, other than the fact that he's deadly serious, and his goal is a scathingly vicious one. (Although, speaking from the other side of my mouth, the best camp is also scathing and vicious, but usually with humor as a tool.)

campgrrls wrote:
A UK academic who visited NZ recently made some interesting comments about Shed and BG. She did a presentation at some seminars here on women writers, directors and producers of TV in the UK.

Was it Didi Herman? She's the only UK academic that I know of who has written about Bad Girls. Is there any information anywhere about the seminars or any presentations which went along with them? I'm always hungry for academic writing on the show!

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:18 pm

To clarify: I wasn't referring to the I Will Survive sequence as being camp. My camp comment was a general comment about moments in BG & the way it varies in style from time to time. Gothic and camp are very close IMO. They both involve exaggeration and excess. Using Sontag's definition of camp as failed seriousness, gothic can very easily veer into camp when it's excess makes us laugh - and that can differ according to who is watching it.

I'll check thru my email & see if I can find the notice for the seminar.

I've watched the very first ep of BG last night. Gee.... it is so much better than many later eps. Very tight in composition and well-filmed. Great dialogue. And the opening performance is kind of camp. It has suggestions of drag.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:29 pm

campgrrls wrote:
To clarify: I wasn't referring to the I Will Survive sequence as being camp. My camp comment was a general comment about moments in BG & the way it varies in style from time to time. Gothic and camp are very close IMO. They both involve exaggeration and excess. Using Sontag's definition of camp as failed seriousness, gothic can very easily veer into camp when it's excess makes us laugh - and that can differ according to who is watching it.

Ah, yes, I totally agree with everything here. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post. And they certainly had that balance perfect in the first season--which has been (and always will be?) my favorite of the bunch....

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:43 pm

Here's the blurb that advertised one of the seminars:

Independent Women: Drama Producers and Writer/Producers in the UK
Julia Hallam, University of Liverpool

The development of female owned and managed independent drama production companies is a relatively recent phenomenon in the UK. Until the early 1990s, very few women were creating drama for television in spite of broadcasters’ response to equal opportunities legislation that sought to redress their exclusion. This paper traces the rise of female owned and managed independents in the1990s such as La Plante Productions, Rollem, Sally Head Productions, Red and Shed and analyses their contribution to British television drama in the context of changes in the practice of UK drama commissioning since 1990. Neglected in recent histories of British television drama and dismissed by some critics as ‘equal opportunists’ in the context of the ‘feminisation’ of prime time on British television, the paper will argue that these independent producers, while not necessarily making dramas with overt feminist agendas, have nonetheless significantly extended the repertoire of roles for women by addressing women’s issues and women’s lives in interesting and innovative ways. The principal focus of this argument is two writer/producer independents, La Plante Productions and Kay Mellor’s Rollem, and the writer/producer consortium Shed, makers of Bad Girls and Footballers Wives.
<end blurb?

I have an article in an NZ media studies text book that is not exactly about BG so much as using an eg or 2 from BG fandom in NZ. The chapter is an introduction to the Internet, its history and some significant issues. I refer to some egs of BG fans online & meetups in NZ, which I ran by one of the fan participants before I finalised the chapter. I also drew on my research on a study of place and Xena Warrior Princess - the main part of the research is audience research, showing my sociological leanings.

My interest tends to be on issues related to NZ and media production & reception & global-local dynamics, but sometimes I just keep getting side-tracked by my fascination with BG.

Oh my article is:

Carolyn Skelton (2004) 'The Internet: democracy, identity and popular culture' in Nabeel Zuberi & Luke Goode (ed) Media Studies in Aotearoa/NZ

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 7:18 pm

Thanks for posting about the seminar. It sounds extremely interesting. And I'm glad to know that more academics are writing about Bad Girls. The only published articles I have been able to find are by Didi Herman and Jenni Millbank, and it was feeling like they were the only two people in the world writing about this show! One aspect of the blurb caught my eye:
Quote:
the paper will argue that these independent producers, while not necessarily making dramas with overt feminist agendas, have nonetheless significantly extended the repertoire of roles for women by addressing women’s issues and women’s lives in interesting and innovative ways.

That may be true of some of the other programs coming out of Shed and the other production companies, but it seems to me that Bad Girls has an incredibly explicit feminist message/agenda. But I'm sure she addresses that in the paper itself. Now the question is how do I get my hands on it? Its moments like these that make me wish I had stayed in the academic world after college....

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 7:44 pm

abzug wrote:
That may be true of some of the other programs coming out of Shed and the other production companies, but it seems to me that Bad Girls has an incredibly explicit feminist message/agenda.


I knew I could count on you! ;) Yes, I'd strongly second that. Regardless of people's feelings about the various seasons & their strengths/weaknesses, there's no question in my mind as an American viewer this show absolutely has things it wants to say/present about women's lives in prison. Not 'men's' lives, not 'people's' lives.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:03 pm

ekny wrote:
I knew I could count on you! Wink Yes, I'd strongly second that. Regardless of people's feelings about the various seasons & their strengths/weaknesses, there's no question in my mind as an American viewer this show absolutely has things it wants to say/present about women's lives in prison. Not 'men's' lives, not 'people's' lives.

Hehe. You know me so well! I'd add/clarify, though, that its not just that the show focuses on women's lives and concerns, because if you focus on that you're saying it fits into the little thesis Hallam included in the summary.

I'd call it "feminist" because its looking at power dynamics between men and women, its looking at the ways that men control, oppress, victimize, and abuse women in prison, and in society at large (since the prison is a microcosm of the larger world), and its looking at the ways women can gain power by bonding together without the influence or interference of men. To me, all three of those themes/subjects/concerns are what I would describe as "feminist" (ie "concerned with social, political, and economic inequality between men and women" to quote Wikipedia).

ekny PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:06 pm

abzug wrote:
Hehe. You know me so well! I'd add/clarify, though, that its not just that the show focuses on women's lives and concerns [...]


Actually, I hope I know you well enough to guess if I left it open, you'd come back & post a much stronger mission statement than I could. <blinkblink.> It's one of your strengths. So thank yuh muchly. ;) --e

_________________


richard PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:16 pm

I havve just caught up with all the great posts which have galloped along and have made such a lot of brilliant points.
I can't thank you enough for picking up on the privatisation theme, abzug, as i remember dancing round like a demented maniac in plugging the theme on another message board a number of years back and getting nowhere.
As you say, the combination of Karen and Yvonne works terriffically well. it is noticable that, in the destabilised world of incipient privatisation when the PO's are in danger of being gobbled up alive, Karen has no inhibitions in enlisting support from any source to nobble the scheme, possibly even less than when Helen enlisted Nikki's support. The total humour of the occupation backs up against the tragic drama of Yvonne coming across Ritchie's dead body on the stretcher and Linda Henry and Clair King really pulled out all the stops.
Harking back to Karen's induction of the Costas, I always saw that as Karen's censure of their lack of acceptance of responsibility. They are very well drawn characters in being utterly ruthless behind their dizzy charm.
The episode where Fenner breaks into Karen's flat and the aftermath is utterly horrific.
There is a real parallel between Series 5 Karen and Series 1 Helen when both swear in moments of lonely isolation 'shit' and 'bastard' respectively.

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:21 pm

abzug wrote:
The only published articles I have been able to find are by Didi Herman and Jenni Millbank, and it was feeling like they were the only two people in the world writing about this show!


Huh. I just came online to tell you about Jenni. I had to do a search for her at Sydney Uni to find the article. Jenni was actually one of those rowdy Antipodeans that squatted the Larkhall Insider MB while people in the UK like Cool slept way back then. I met her once for coffee when I was in Sydney a couple of years back - a very cool woman. She was working on an article at that time when she wanted to write about BG. I heard that she had it published. She lectures in law, specialising in issues for lesbians & sexuality. She has an interest in the way popular culture influences the law.

Here's the mostly likely articles for her BG material. She was talking about drawing on Foucault's ideas about prisons as I recall.

http://heifer.ucc.usyd.edu.au/law/FMPro?-d...ff.fp5&-format=
academicstaff_detail2.htm&-lay=web&StaffID=JenniMillbank&-find

I've slpit the url so as not to stretch the MB as happens in some forums so you will need to do a copy & paste.

Jenni Millbank, "It's About This: Lesbians, Prison, Desire" in Michael Freeman (ed), Law and Popular Culture, OUP (2004).

Jenni Millbank, 'It's About This: Lesbians, Prison, Desire' (2004) 13 Social and Legal Studies 155-190.

When I met her she was talking about getting the article published in the Law & Literature journal

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 10:02 pm

Hey, thanks for all that background info on Millbank! She did get that article published, and I found some random pdf version of it online (it was like a proof or something--I have no idea why it was left online in a location where anyone could get to it, but I wasn't going to complain!). It was a great article--very insightful and with a good critical perspective on the show and why it matters in terms of prison policies, how lesbians are treated in prisons etc.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:52 am

OK, one more ep to go with S5. I know what happens, or at least some of what happens, so I have to admit I'm a bit apprehensive about watching it. But I'll be strong, I'll get through. Wink

I have to say, this season really picked up after the first few episodes. I've felt fully and completely involved in all the machinations. Not that its been pleasant, because so much of what has gone on has been truly depressing and demoralizing. Campgrrls mentioned in the Penetrating Fenner thread that some of the pessimism from these seasons may be rooted in the bleak political state of the world since 2001, and I think that is very very true. It wasn't just H&N leaving which marked a shift for the show--by the time Shed was writing season 5, it was very clear what a horrible path the world was on. Yvonne had a little throwaway line when chatting with Kris, about how she's Fenner's Osama Bin Ladin, and I thought it was very telling, in the way it positions Fenner as the GW Bush of Larkhall. Which makes his immoral actions and ascent to power even more terrifying, if that's even possible. Of course, he's not even as bad as the real article....Anyway, this whole line of thought almost makes me want to go back and watch the entire season as a metaphor for world politics--its probably not as neat as all that, but could still be interesting.

I also think they've done a really good job with the cancer storyline. I don't know how it turns out yet (Julie's bleeding nasally right now), but nothing could be more powerful than when Julie finds out she has a 78% chance of living 5 more years, when she knows she has a 100% chance of being at Larkhall for 8. It gives a whole new perspective to this type of prognosis. They've managed to not be sappy or melodramatic, and yet to still provide a deeply moving storyline, particularly in how Julie S's cancer is tearing apart Julie J. And they've also been a bit more subtle than some other television shows which shall remain nameless in their depiction of the relationship and personality changes which can occur when a person becomes very ill.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:51 am

Well, that's it then. I don't even know what to say. That may be the most perverse ending for a character that was ever concocted. The idea that everyone thinks Yvonne escaped, that even Lauren isn't expecting to hear from her, and she's locked in the tiniest little cube, buried alive in the bowels of Larkhall...its almost too much to bear. I can't think of a worse way to die. Its just so awful, so bleak. The only semi-positive thing that can come from a person's death is for that death to be acknowledged. The fact that no one knows about Yvonne's demise is erasing her life all over again.

Can't stop crying. Yes, I'm a big sap. This really was a bleak bleak season. And its a really bleak message for the state of the world, both inside and outside of Larkhall. The only force opposing the tyrant is now eliminated. Must go to sleep--hopefully will feel better in the morning. <sigh>

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:49 am

I've found 2 other articles about BG, both by Didi Herman.

This one is available online to the public. It compares the coming out ep of Ellen with Helen's coming out in BG:

‘I’m Gay’: Declarations, Desire, and Coming Out On Prime-Time Television
Didi Herman
University of Kent at Canterbury, UK,
http://sexualities.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/7

the second one I could access thru my Auckland Uni login to the Uni library database. It focuses on thru the Nikki-Helen storyline:

"Bad Girls Changed My Life": Homonormativity in a Women's Prison Drama
Didi Herman
Critical Studies in Media Communication: Volume 20, Number 2 / June 2003: 141 – 159

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:58 am

abzug wrote:
I don't know how it turns out yet (Julie's bleeding nasally right now), but nothing could be more powerful than when Julie finds out she has a 78% chance of living 5 more years, when she knows she has a 100% chance of being at Larkhall for 8. It gives a whole new perspective to this type of prognosis. They've managed to not be sappy or melodramatic, and yet to still provide a deeply moving storyline, particularly in how Julie S's cancer is tearing apart Julie J. And they've also been a bit more subtle than some other television shows which shall remain nameless in their depiction of the relationship and personality changes which can occur when a person becomes very ill.


The interesting thing about this storyline relates to something I was thinking about in relation to Fenner's role in BG. It has to do with class. I think in the first series or 2 of BG, working class characters tended to be reactionary figures and/or figures of comic relief (kind of like in Shakespeare re the comic relief).

But with Julie's cancer storyline we get working class characters in a serious storyline. Also Yvonne was the working class hero, that Nikki seemed like she should be while seeming to straddle any class divide.

It's interesting also that Yvonne was killed by a combination of Fenner and the archaic structure of the prison building... to continue with my Fenner motif.

And indeed, yes a pessimistic end to the series.

I think it's worth persevering with BG. I had high hopes for series 6 as it began, which were only partially realised. Again at the end of season 7, I see a promise of a new beinning. I hope it doesn't turn out to be only partially realised again.

_________________

filbertfox PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 10:14 am

abzug wrote:
Well, that's it then. I don't even know what to say. That may be the most perverse ending for a character that was ever concocted. The idea that everyone thinks Yvonne escaped, that even Lauren isn't expecting to hear from her, and she's locked in the tiniest little cube, buried alive in the bowels of Larkhall...its almost too much to bear. I can't think of a worse way to die. Its just so awful, so bleak. The only semi-positive thing that can come from a person's death is for that death to be acknowledged. The fact that no one knows about Yvonne's demise is erasing her life all over again.


You know...I can still remember the massive effect the end of this episode had on me. The building I work in has a basement full of seminar rooms, and for weeks afterwards I felt totally creeped out whenever I had to go down there on my own.

You're right, the thought of Yvonne being locked up down there really was too much to bear. It's one of those 'worst nightmare' scenarios isn't it? The fear of being buried alive and the knowledge that however hard you scream, no one will hear you. It's got to be a universal fear.

Yikes...i'm covered in goose bumps now. I really can't find the words to explain the physical and mental effect the end of that episode had on me. It was bleak, cold and unfeasibly cruel...it was also excrutiatingly uncomfortable to watch.

Quote:
Can't stop crying. Yes, I'm a big sap. This really was a bleak bleak season. And its a really bleak message for the state of the world, both inside and outside of Larkhall. The only force opposing the tyrant is now eliminated. Must go to sleep--hopefully will feel better in the morning. <sigh>


I hope you do feel better in the morning, but I have a feeling you won't. I know I didn't...

Right...at the risk of sounding cruel and heartless by moving on so swiftly...when are you going to start watching BG6??

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:17 pm

Hiya campgrrls, thanks so much for the references to the other articles. I've actually read both of those too, and enjoyed them very much. In particular the "Bad Girls Changed My Life" article helped me pinpoint just what it was about the show that I found so fundamentally appealing and affirming.

filbertfox wrote:
I hope you do feel better in the morning, but I have a feeling you won't. I know I didn't...

Right...at the risk of sounding cruel and heartless by moving on so swiftly...when are you going to start watching BG6??

You're right, I don't feel better. I didn't sleep well, and now I'm feeling cranky and just generally run through the mill. Trying not to think about Yvonne, because its just unspeakable.

Umm, season 6, eh? Well, its sitting on top of my tv just begging to be opened, but I think I need a little break, a few days at least to unwind, catch up on emails to certain people who I am sure have been feeling neglected. But I bet you I start by this weekend. Wink

OK, more thoughts about season 5 as a statement on global politics. The more I thought about it last night (and I had a lot of time to think about it, seeing as I couldn't fall asleep), I don't think its a useful metaphor for the season as a whole. HOWEVER, I think its the central concern of the last three or four episodes. Here's the cast of characters:
Fenner = Dubya, a leader who embodies the lone superpower, with no one to counterbalance his narcisistic, pwer-hungry impulses
Karen = Any legitimate opposition to Dubya (could be the UN, powerful European nation, the Democrats etc)
Di = (don't hate me for this one, remember, no one hates my country and its leadership more than I do right now) Tony Blair, in bed with Dubya, a tool in Dubya's messianistic mission, with no awareness of her total lack of power or authority
Yvonne = Osama, Sadam Hussein, whoever the evil Arab leader of the day is (I felt like they must have been writing this as the Iraq war was being debated, or was getting going)
Colin = Any Middle Eastern Bush ally, cowed into obedience, yet ultimately loyal to the target of Bush's aggression

So, in our little political play, Fenner/Dubya has destroyed and manufactured evidence to eliminate Karen/The Opposition. Once she's gone, there are no checks and balances to his unilateral action at Larkhall. He can do anything he pleases, and what he pleases is to abuse, threaten and murder, and essentially destroy as much life as he can, particularly Yvonne, the leader of the cons, the one group which threatens his power and authority. Of course this only works because he has Di/Blair, the nominal leader, under his thumb, and has the power to threaten destruction to anyone who's not loyal to him (ie Colin)--its Bush's whole "if you're not with us you're against us" thing, and frankly, after the mess we've made of Iraq, who wouldn't be terrified at the thought of an American invasion? Colin is incredibly weak-willed (definitely one of the most compelling and heart-wrenching aspects of S5), but we can understand his cowardice--Fenner/Dubya is hellbent on world domination, and he's going to stop at nothing, so its just a question of getting out of his way. Which in the end is what Yvonne was trying to do, but it was too late.

The sad part about the above is that as painful and terrifying as it was to watch these final few episodes of S5, what's actually happening in the world today is far far worse.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:18 pm

richard wrote:
I havve just caught up with all the great posts which have galloped along and have made such a lot of brilliant points.
I can't thank you enough for picking up on the privatisation theme, abzug, as i remember dancing round like a demented maniac in plugging the theme on another message board a number of years back and getting nowhere.

Hiya Richard, thanks for your post--I don't know why I didn't see it yesterday! I can't believe people didn't pick up on the privatization plot. Out of all of the deeply disturbing elements of season 5 (and there were many), the privatization one was so effective in its simplicity. It plays into the whole question of the essential humanity of the prisoners--are they human beings or are they animals who can be used to make a profit? The evil guy who ran the prison company (can't recall his name) was presented as this amoral robot, soulless, with no concern other than profit. Deeply disturbing.

Quote:
As you say, the combination of Karen and Yvonne works terriffically well. it is noticable that, in the destabilised world of incipient privatisation when the PO's are in danger of being gobbled up alive, Karen has no inhibitions in enlisting support from any source to nobble the scheme, possibly even less than when Helen enlisted Nikki's support. The total humour of the occupation backs up against the tragic drama of Yvonne coming across Ritchie's dead body on the stretcher and Linda Henry and Clair King really pulled out all the stops.
[...]
There is a real parallel between Series 5 Karen and Series 1 Helen when both swear in moments of lonely isolation 'shit' and 'bastard' respectively.

The Karen-Helen parallels are very striking--a powerful illustration of how no woman, no matter what her background, political perspective, sexual orientation, sympathy for the prisoners etc, is going to be able to survive or succeed in this particular patriarchal hierarchy. Without male protection/support, they're both screwed. When Merriman hung herself, my first thought was "Hey! When there was a suicide under Helen, she got REAMED for it! And Karen's going to get off scott free!" Of course, I was wildly wrong, and then felt so sorry for Karen. She was more than paid back for any benefit of the doubt she received in S2 and S3 as wing gov.

campgrrls wrote:
The interesting thing about this storyline relates to something I was thinking about in relation to Fenner's role in BG. It has to do with class. I think in the first series or 2 of BG, working class characters tended to be reactionary figures and/or figures of comic relief (kind of like in Shakespeare re the comic relief).

But with Julie's cancer storyline we get working class characters in a serious storyline. Also Yvonne was the working class hero, that Nikki seemed like she should be while seeming to straddle any class divide.

Thanks for introducing this subject. I've always thought the show has a lot to say about class, but its been hard to really delve into it, because as an American I don't have a clear understanding of the socioeconomic status of many of the characters. I can make a guess, but its often just a guess because I can't read the clues inherent in accent, slang, cultural attitude, etc.

I agree to some extent with your theory, at least as it relates to characters like the Julies. They are definitely Shakespearean-type comic stock characters, most notably in the Chateau Larkhall storyline in season 1, which I've always thought was the single best-structured episode of the show.

But on the other hand, the very first character who got "redeemed" on the show was Denny, in a very dramatic and emotional storyline with her mother in S1E6. So from that perspective, I don't think that the show denied working class characters dramatic storylines, even from the start. It just took them a few seasons to realize the dramatic potential of characters like the Julies--which didn't happen until season 4 (with Rhiannon) and season 5 (with the breast cancer).

Quote:
It's interesting also that Yvonne was killed by a combination of Fenner and the archaic structure of the prison building... to continue with my Fenner motif.

Oooh, nice observation. It was all very potent, emotionally, symbolically etc.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:31 pm

I'm pulling this from the Yvonne thread, since it seems like it could work well here:

ekny wrote:
Yvonne's death was made particularly hard to bear by the whole disintegration of her character beforehand, although she rallies a bit at the end--but the breakdown in solitary didn't work for me very well, particularly screaming 'I'm innocent'--gah, just makes me wince. & why she didn't contact Lauren again... I don't know. Whole thing doesn't sit right with me. I agree, I can't imagine Shed would let actors dictate something so important as a character's demise, but it still feels unlikely.

I actually thought they built this up fairly well. I didn't mind the breakdown in solitary, because the injustice of her being put there was just beyond the pale. She was put in solitary for swearing. I mean, holy shit! When things like that can go on, you know you're living in a tyrannical dictatorship, not living under any sort of rule of law. That's deeply destabilizing for someone, particularly if they know they are a target, and have absolutely no support. Karen is out, Colin is useless, Nikki and Shell are long gone, and there aren't any other characters with any power.

The only part I was annoyed about was that Lauren hired such an incompetent hitman. He didn't even try! But remember, Yvonne finds out the hit was unsuccessful and then finds out Fenner has it in for her that very day. She doesn't have time to get Lauren to put out another hit on Fenner. She's concerned she's not going to make it through the next 24 hours.

I don't think Shed let Henry make a decision about the character--they were going to have her down in the hanging cell (and off the show) no matter what. Going back to my Osama Bin Ladin theory, this alternative ending (where we don't know Yvonne's fate) is kind of like all the times Osama has disappeared--we don't know if he's dead or alive, etc. So in that way, the ambiguous ending is the right one for a leader of the resistance, which is what Yvonne is. HOWEVER, from a dramatic perspective, as an illustration of the evil Fenner has wrought, NOTHING is more powerful than Yvonne's death. I don't think the writers would have chosen this ending (or agreed to Henry's request) if they had not wanted the dramatic and symbolic effect of it.

_________________

campgrrls PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 6:13 pm

Those are interesting parallels with BG characters and Iraq politics. But I'm not surprised that it only works for a few eps. I was thinking about a shift in the general tone of the prog. across the series rather than a direct allegorical parallel with characters and storylines. I was thinking of the way in series one, in spite of all the struggles and efforts of Fenner there was a sense that our two heroines good triumph. But by series 5 there was a descent into moral chaos where evil seemed to prevail and resistance seemed totally futile.

I think the discussion of the privatisation issues also points to the dominant ethos of the times when neo-liberal free trade policies had/have become another (IMO) evil ethos. I wish I'd taped those eps now, cause I only saw them when they aired and can't remember them in detail.

On class: yes Denny was a good e.g. of a working class character with serious storylines - and Zandra. I love her response to Monica's intro: "Monicah. I'm Zandrah."

Nikki's class background was always puzzling to me. Mostly she sounds quite middleclass but at times she uses a kind of working class London accent on some words, accentuating her streetwise persoanlity.

Bodybag is interesting on class and sometimes I've thought she's been stereotyped too much as right wing working class.

Fenner? Hmmm... I'll maybe talk about that on the Fenner thread when I get back from work tonight, along with more comments on Body Bag.

_________________

abzug PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 6:35 pm

campgrrls wrote:
Those are interesting parallels with BG characters and Iraq politics. But I'm not surprised that it only works for a few eps. I was thinking about a shift in the general tone of the prog. across the series rather than a direct allegorical parallel with characters and storylines. I was thinking of the way in series one, in spite of all the struggles and efforts of Fenner there was a sense that our two heroines good triumph. But by series 5 there was a descent into moral chaos where evil seemed to prevail and resistance seemed totally futile.

Completely agreed here. Its just that your thematic point planted this crazy idea in my head, and the idea seemed not-so-crazy when it came right down to it! But your point is more significant and illuminating, in terms of the way the world has started to feel like a terrible harmful dangerous place over the last 4-5 years. In 1999 the economy was still good, the western world was becoming semi-steadily more progressive, and it was easier to be optimistic. Its funny because I've seen so many critiques of the later seasons (ie S4 and later, or even S3 and later) which look at them as artistic failures, but I think in the end people are just uncomfortable with the pessimism of it all, and so they blame the quality.

Quote:
I think the discussion of the privatisation issues also points to the dominant ethos of the times when neo-liberal free trade policies had/have become another (IMO) evil ethos.

I couldn't have put it better myself. :)

Quote:
Nikki's class background was always puzzling to me. Mostly she sounds quite middleclass but at times she uses a kind of working class London accent on some words, accentuating her streetwise persoanlity.

I remember I asked about that in some thread or other (the accents thread maybe? Or was it the class thread where we started talking about accents and so I think of it as the accent thread?)...anyway, someone suggested that Nikki speaks in a more working class way when she needs to be aggressive and assert her power/authority amongst the cons, or against screws like Fenner. But then when she's more relaxed and talking with Helen, say, she speaks in a middle class accent. Based on that info, my interpretation was that Nikki had a middle class background, but having been kicked out of home as a teenager, she felt comfortable in a working class millieu, and was able to slip in and out of that persona as she felt necessary. She definitely straddles both worlds, as I think you mentioned in another post.

_________________

richard PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 8:42 pm

Hi abzug. I very much like your idea that BG has become darker just as society has gone in the last 5 years. Curiously enough, I associated early BG with a time when, in England, we had finally got shot of the Conservatives only to run into the full malevolence of New Labour. On your side of the pond, you've got the neocons and the bible bashers on the loose which isn't a cheering spectacle. To pursue the parallel further, while we've been waiting for someone to finally put a stake through Fenner's heart (if he has one) the same applies to Blair right now.

And yes, campgirls, Shed handled the whole privatisation issue with considerable astuteness and, from my perspective, they did great in putting these politics across on prime time television. I loved the way that Karen subtly worked hand in hand with Yvonne to sabotage the presentation.

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2006 8:58 pm

abzug wrote:
I remember I asked about that in some thread or other (the accents thread maybe? [...] someone suggested that Nikki speaks in a more working class way when she needs to be aggressive and assert her power/authority amongst the cons, or against screws like Fenner. But then when she's more relaxed and talking with Helen, say, she speaks in a middle class accent.


http://mandana-jones.com/hnboard/viewtopic.php?p=20961#20961

richard PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:00 pm

message
It is interesting that the noticably 'posh' prisoners are apt to be picked on by either the prisoners or by Bodybag- Barbara and Monica- while Nikki's natural accent isn't a million miles away from theirs. One reason for this is that Nikki is able to defend herself physically and another is that she can verbally face them out on their terms by 'toughening' her accent. She gets enough stich about her sexuality but not about her accent.

_________________

ekny PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:41 pm

richard wrote:
It is interesting that the noticably 'posh' prisoners are apt to be picked on by either the prisoners or by Bodybag- Barbara and Monica- while Nikki's natural accent isn't a million miles away from theirs. One reason for this is that Nikki is able to defend herself physically and another is that she can verbally face them out on their terms by 'toughening' her accent. She gets enough stich about her sexuality but not about her accent.


Have noticed this too & totally agree w/this take on things. Also her accent shifts are fairly subtle; she's clever enough she can play to various audiences w/in the prison--screws, other prisoners etc.--w/o their noticing. Presumably this works in part bec she's not entirely aware of it at all times either so it comes across as genuine. --e

'Scuse me if I repeat anything that's already been said on the subject, but I thought that reading the whole thread would remind me of even more to rant about series 5 :P

Firstly, I thought that after the s4 finale with the fire, the beginning of s5 was something of an anti-climax. I mean, don't get me wrong, I didn't want half the wing to die, I just thought the end was overly dramatic, and then, "Oh, nearly all of them lived....". I dunno, I honestly don't mean that to sound twisted or anything!

I thought the whole Grayling/Di fake marriage thing wasn't a bad idea in s4, but I got so bored of all the stuff with Di's 'pregnancy' and the sperm mix-ups, etc. :S

Whilst I'm generally a fan of Yvonne, I much prefer the way she interacts with Nikki in s1-3, and Cassie in s4, as opposed to being much more involved with the officers as she is in s5. I wasn't keen on Colin the first time around, but now I sometimes have to fast foward through s6, or the odd ep of s5, just because he annoys me so much! It isn't even just that he represents some bizarre personality change on Yvonne's part which means that she sleeps with an officer, but actually because I can't see his function in the show, aside as convinient and unoriginal way for Fenner to discover more about Yvonne. There are a couple of times in s6 when I can bare him- mainly in scenes with Selena when I can see them as (albeit very watered down) versions of Dominic and Helen in series 1&2, where it was always them that stuck up for the prisoners' rights and basically stuck two fingers up at Bodybag and Fenner. But then I remember that's he's a junkie and sleeping with Yvonne for some unknown reason, and I go back to finding him annoying :P (For the record, I'm not trying to suggest that Kris and Selena are the s5/s6 equivilent of H&N..... nooooo!)

It started to grate on me in s5 that Fenner was continuing to get away with worse and worse things. I know he's got away with ridiculous amounts up to this point, but I think s5 is where I really began to go "for goodness sake, this is just silly now!". Killing Yvonne was kinda the last straw :S

I like the Costa Cons, though, and think that they're probably the best things to come out of s5. Great characters and great actresses, IMO.

I expect I'm likely to get hounded away for this, but if I'm going to watch s5 it's usually one of the last three episodes, simply because I like Kris and Selena. Okay, we've seen a lot of it before in one guise or another, but they entertain me, at least. I mean, call me shallow if you like, but just look at Charlotte Lucas :P

I'm with you on pretty much everything you've said about S5 (particularly the Fenner stuff!), but I have to stand up for Colin a bit. :) Forgetting about how terrific the actor was (better than any other male actor on the show, imo), the character was absolutely unique in the world of Bad Girls. He was a character who wasn't Good, he wasn't Evil, he was weak, and he desperately wanted to be good, and it was such a struggle for him. I found this incredibly compelling to watch, because it was so human, and because it wound up being a more realistic depiction of how and why people do evil things. In contrast to Fenner, who seems to just do evil things because he's Evil. If that makes sense. I was actually really sad to see the character disappear in S7, because he was truly one of my favorite characters in the post-Helen & Nikki era.

I clearly picked the wrong time to have a Colin rant, then :lol: I was disputing that the guy's a good actor, he convinsed me! :P I'd actually forgotten about his random dissappearance in s7 (along with half the rest of the cast, I think ) :lol:

Oh, its never the wrong time here! We always disagree about things. In a friendly way, of course. :) Keeps the discussions interesting!

Kirsty I can understand your dislike of Hedges. He isn't one of my favourite characters. And I also wasn't that keen on the Yvonne-Hedges storyline. I can appreciate that he functions as an eg of a man who is a casualty of the macho competitive world; a non-macho man etc. But it doesn't make me like him at all.... at least not in series 5 & 6.

I think there were probably a few flaws in the way the Yvonne character's story developed in series 5 & 6, but she always was a character I enjoyed to watch. Actually I never worked out how she was all over Dominic in series 1, then we learn that she's majorly in love with her husband Charlie in later series. I guess maybe she wasn't monogamous, but it seemed a little strange to me.

OTOH I don't miss Hedges.

My feelings about Colin Hedges changed a lot as time went on. In early Series 5, he came over as Fenner's willing sidekick and being largely responsible for Shell being shipped out where, for once, Fenner was the accomplice. Later on, his nature became very ambiguous- as Abzug said, he was a weak character wanting to be good and held back by his past. I had problems in accepting why Yvonne came to get drawn into the relationship with him as far as he did when she knew what part he played in Shell being shipped out.

Shed scored a major success in his character being a heroin addict and avoiding the 'down and out' stereotype. Curiously enough his addiction being both his strength and his weakness (in the sense of confessing to what he did and letting him down when Fenner set about his scheme to murder Yvonne) Throughout Series 6, he gained the strength to confront his weakness and his relationship with Frances and Fenner are both extremely well written and acted. Lastly, Series 7 does wonders in finally revealing the backstory on him and the very well drawn explanation as to how he came to be. It is a very interesting study of bullying.
What makes his character a challenge for the audience is in just how far you accept a character to atone for the bad things he has done in his past- him and Grayling pose these challenges.

I would agree that Tristan Sturrock's acting was certainly very high quality. I also like his Elvis act (showcased in full in the Series 6 extras) being an instance of a 'secondary talent' being usefully employed. There is a highly interesting interview with him which shows that the guy is intelligent.

I thought Yvonne's relationship with Colin was meant to represent how few allies or resources she had available to her. In earlier seasons she had Nikki, she had Charlie, she had Helen and Karen sort of, and she had Lauren. By the end of S5, she is pretty desperate. She's got no real support from the outside, nor any other strong prisoner allies on the inside. Karen is lacking any real power in S5, and once she's gone, Colin is really the only person Yvonne has left. I think she'd prefer to not have to trust him, and I think she'd prefer to not be sexually involved with him. But she's sort of at the end of the line, barely holding on, trying to survive, and he's the only liferaft, albeit a really poor one.

Excellent point here. It's funny because I found Colin FAR easier to forgive than Grayling. I think that says more about me and where my sympathies lie than anything else. Grayling had power, and he abused it. Colin was weak and had no power, so his failing was in not standing up for what he knew was right. For some reason this is easier for me personally to forgive. I hadn't really thought to compare the two or think about why I found one character less troublesome than the other until just now, though. I'll have to muse on it some more....

I agree w/your points abt Karen & Colin, but re Colin, it was also, for me, that though his problems, like Grayling's, are of his own making, Grayling shows a lot of bad character throughout, in dealing with them, and Colin consistently shows his basic instincts are good, and kind; to side with the prisoners; to know, & be very uncomfortable with, abuse when he sees or participates in that. Grayling seems to be totally self-absorbed, by contrast, so it's not til S6 that we begin to see him come into his own, when pure anger at Di pushes him to the point where he's just fed up & had enough, comes out, & then can be free of his fear. Colin's got a harder row to hoe with his addiction, and comes out seeming... mm, more of a whole person, sort of, once he's past that. The integration of Graylins's professional bearing with his social conscience didn't seem quite as integrated, to me. I was glad to see it, but was kind of so over him after 3 seasons of bad behavior that I didn't care, as much, I was more invested in Colin as a character, even w/all his waffling & its unhappy results.

I just finished watching series 5 last night so be warned I'm in a foul mood...

It certainly was. And too much so IMO for it to be compelling and entertaining at the same time. What worked so well in especially S1 was the balance between compelling and sometimes heartbreaking drama and the more light funny and/or heartwarming storylines or scenes (Larkhall Tabernacle Choir and "I will survive" are prime examples). But the yin and yang balance in S5 was just so off and I really struggled to watch all the episodes, and now I'm not sure I should have tried so hard to persevere. It's not only that the whole thing was so damn bleak (which to some extent could be justified as an analogy the current state of the world I suppose), but that it took such a soapy farcical turn too, which both annoyed and bored me at the same time. The ill-advised Di and Grayling union left me cold as did a lot of other storylines and for the first time I really felt BG was wasting my time.

I couldn't agree more. I find the progression of his character arc to be inconsistent and absurd. I mean the S1 and S2 Fenner was by no means a nice guy, but he wasn't a serial killer either! To use an MJ quote I found it very hard to suspend disbelief. Nevertheless especially Yvonne's demise really got to me (didn't sleep well!) even though I knew, she wasn't going to make it out of S5 alive (I just didn't know exactly how!). I guess it's a case of allowing a show to get under your skin, which makes you vulnerable to the antics of the writers (to some extent they hold your heart in their hands!). So I'm left feeling not only alienated but even violated by the writers and Shed (I felt sort of the same thing with S3 of The L word)

And why oh why couldn't Barbara have received flowers from N&H too? It wouldn't have been enough to redeem the series for me, but it would have helped...a lot.

So sorry about the rant.

Someone mentioned something about Linda Henry having had a say in how her character left the show. Is that true?

Another final request: I'd love to read the Didi Herman article "How Bad Girls changed my life". I wonder if there's a link floating around the web somewhere that I haven't been able to find. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

According to one of the Q&As with Chad and Ann on the official site, they had originally written the end of S5 to leave it up in the air as to whether Yvonne had escaped or been killed. But Linda Henry wanted Yvonne to die, and so that's the way they wrote it. I guess LH wanted to have the most memorable exit for a character on BG? I have no idea why else she would have wanted the character to have such a horrible demise.

Here's a link to download the article:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=11N8BATG

but the entire BG post S5 hangs on Yvonne being killed. For us, for the inmates it is the ultimate cruelty that Fenner is capable of. He needs to be killed because of that. So I don't really see how it oculd have worked with it just leaving it up in the air. Not to mention, wouldn't you have screamed in frustration if Shed have left such an important issue in the air?
I thank Linda Henry (if it was her idea) tremendously for the inspiration. Things only make sense if Yvonne dies. To show that when you have somebody like Fenner not even somebody as strong and smart as Yvonne is safe or can survive. To show that somebody like Fenner doesn't really stop at anything, that he has no moral cell in his body, he's a heartless monster. To show that despite being this heartless monster the prison service is so incapable of rooting him out that it takes the prisoners taking justice in their own hands.
Up until Fenner dies Yvonne's death and the way it happened is crucial to everything.

Yes, but, had Yvonne not definitively died, then the whole trajectory of S6 & 7 would have been different, and I can't say that I would have minded that. To me, it was at the end of S5 and in S6 that Fenner became too evil to be believable. When you go back to S1, the guy is an evil prick, he's a sociopath, but he functions pretty much within the bounds of society.

Once you've got someone who murders multiple people (Yvonne, Doreen, the poor hit & run victim), who pisses on Kris in her cell, you've got someone who is no longer grounded in any sort of reality. And to me, once this happened, the show lost something, because when Fenner's evil behavior felt real and possible (particularly in S1-2), his character was saying something about the prison system, about the way the system allows for totally corrupt and abusive people to assert and maintain authority.

Once he became a serial murder, the show turned into a soap opera, imo, with no political statements yet to make. (I'd say the political messages pretty much ended at the end of S5, with a few bright spots in S7.) Everything he did before Yvonne's death was still completely corrupt and thoroughly evil, so the point was already made--it didn't need to go so over the top.

PS If I am not mistaken, Shed wanted S6 to be the end of Fenner, when he gets sent to jail for the hit & run. But ITV wanted him back, and so they followed him into prison and concocted that scheme to get him released and back at Larkhall. My theory is that the reason they wrote the storyline to murder Fenner was because it was the only way they could guarantee that ITV wouldn't make them write him back into the show!

I see your point but I somehow think that that would have happened anyway, due to the fact that

.
I just don't see how Yvonne's uncertain fate could have worked better in the storyline. What would that have proved, made a statement about. I'm honestly curious.

Thanks for the download link, abzug! And thanks for the info about Linda Henry (I since discovered that there was an entire thread dedicated to Yvonne's death :err )

I haven't seen beyond the first episode of S6 so I don't know yet if I'll ever feel her death (or the manner of it) was necessary in the longer scheme of things, but in terms of S5 it just felt like another seemingly endless adding of bleakness and despondency solely for the sake of bleakness and despondency. As you said, abzug,

On a different note S6E1 made me glad I did perservere :)

It wouldn't work better in the storyline which happened in S6&7. But it might have worked better in a totally different storyline. For instance, imagine a storyline where Fenner never takes that last step, the step to becoming a murderer. He just goes on abusing women, continues with the sexual assalts, the sabotage, the undermining of others' authority.

The storylines become totally different. There's no crusade of prisoners against Fenner (like Kris, the Julies etc), and perhaps you wind up with more of an alliance of Natalie and Fenner (rather than the battle between Natalie and Frances, and then Natalie's subsequent alliance with Spiers). Potentially Fenner doesn't even get murdered in the end--maybe he just rots in jail for the hit & run. The story could have gone any number of ways, and I'd argue it would have been more interesting not having to watch Fenner's emotional breakdowns in S6, because they never humanized the psychopath that he was, they just stretched believability beyond all limits--why did this guy still have a job at Larkhall?!

I know exactly what you mean! Back on the old board when we had longer thread titles, I started a S6 thread and called it "Frances Myers: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Series 6." It was SUCH a relief to have her come in and call everyone on their bullshit after the horror that was the end of S5. And I was so glad they found Yvonne's body so quickly. Part of the horror of the end of S5 was, for me, focused on the idea of her rotting to death in that tiny box, and no one knew about it--in fact, they were all rejoicing for her escape.

I'm not sure if I've said this before but I would very much agree with the general conclusion that Series 5 is very bleak and dark especially where not one but two major forces for good are beaten. At the end, you feel that Fenner can run amuk with nothing to stop him.
At the risk of indulging my pet topic, the occupation about half way through that Yvonne led was one of the few positive things that did happen, an episode where the forces for evil were running round like headless chickens (Grayling and Bostock) and things were going swimmingly for the other side (the alliance between Karen and Yvonne).
Thanks to Karen and Yvonne and the boldest of the prisoners, the threat of privatisation which would have entered Larkhall into a much darker existance, was blown out of the water.
One very well written bit at the end carried on the bleak theme in the way that Ritchie committed suicide with its devastating effects on Yvonne and, by extension, Karen. The finale scene where Fenner is pouring bile at Karen as his careerist dreams have gone up in smoke is matched by Karen's feelings of emptiness and in pouring out a large measure of alcohol. Both in acting and writing, BG got the episode about right and, of course, it started the witch hunt on Karen.

I find it very funny to defend this because Fenner on the loose was the reason I didn't want to watch post S4.
But I still cannot see how it would have worked with Yvonne's fate being uncertain and Fenner continuing the way that he was.
You either get rid of Fenner (in some legal way) and continue to explore other storylines about life in G wing - brilliant alternative - or you don't get rid of Fenner but make his situation worse.
Somebody like Fenner in the prison service in a car on a collision course. Hollamby isn't. You can keep her being the same Bodybag for as many series as you want. But Fenner he either wrecks havoc and gets rooted out when the tipping point is reached or you get rid of him the first time he does something very stupid and unprofessional. Somebody like Fenner doesn't do lukewarm. You can't constrain, mellow or keep Fenner under control. Once as a system you don't get rid of him early on (which the prison system in BG couldn't / didn't) you loose all control over him.

Yeah, get rid of Fenner in S3 or the latest S4. But if he's made it to S5, the end of S5 actually, then you can't just pretend that you can constrain him or that he won't up the ante.

I couldn’t think about anything else during the episode except the fact that Yvonne’s going to be finished off, but I still managed to pick up on the use of light/darkness throughout the episode. A lot of dark hollows and many of the character’s faces were hidden by darkness (the Julies, Colin, Yvonne, etc.) and once Yvonne’s flashlight went off, it was like a switch of hope was turned off for me. That has to be one of the most cruel things I’ve ever seen in my life. I just read the entire thread and agree with all epithets that were attributed to Yvonne’s death, it is definitely the worst nightmare one could ever come up with.

I think it was very risky on Shed’s part to end the season like that. It’s not like they didn’t do risky before but I suspect there was a lot of negativism thrown at them after the season’s initial broadcast.

There’s so much of Fenner and Di I can take though. Like, REALLY. There’s no way in hell and heaven someone could get away with everything they do, I think they went a bit too far with their evil/psychotic storylines. I was raving when Fenner tricked himself out of a rap-trap in S3 and managed to make Helen resign, but getting away with so many more machinations and crimes is unbelievable, as of now it really seems to be like this man can’t be stopped which leads me to question credibility. As for Di… her situation is just as improbable as Fenner’s. I don’t even know where to start. I feel like there’ll be no end to it if I do.

Oh, and there were so many Helen/Karen parallels throughout the season. It’s amazing how both of them tell other people not to underestimate Fenner, cite that he’s very smart and yet both of them celebrate their victories too early, loosen their grip on him (in Helen’s case by giving him a day to write a resignation letter and thus a chance to come up with anything he feels like to save his arse and in Karen’s case, she wasn’t too careful and protective of herself and of her information, she knew he was capable of absolutely anything and yet didn’t think of at least locking her files of High Importance into a safe) and let him get away with it again and again.

I greatly enjoyed the Yvonne/Karen interactions this season (and we’ll never have a chance to see them again! :( ) and I thought they worked quite well. [I mean, except Yvonne having a deal with Snowball -- who was a total joke, btw -- and it working out not the way they both wanted it to.] My memory is a bit blurry now as I try to erase the images of Yvonne crying for help from my mind, so I’m not sure I can count on my judgment right now, but I think they worked so well with one another because they were not involved with one another. Helen and Nikki had a secret liaison going on and that complicated a lot of things for them, most of the time they acted like they did because they were personal feelings involved. And although Ritchie came between Yvonne and Karen at first, I think their dynamic duo worked because there was no personal relationship between them, thus it was strictly professional (e.g. Yvonne-Karen-privatization, pictures of Tina and Jim). Karen wasn’t torn between morals, professionalism and love like Helen was. There was little chance Karen could let her emotions cloud her professional judgment, so to speak. Which I think was an advantage in terms of doing one’s work. And yet Fenner got away with it, AGAIN. And framed Karen in the process, too.

I don’t want to say this, but the scene where the hitman didn’t kill Fenner was a bit lame. I mean, Lauren’s men had no problem taking out Charlie in front of dozens of people and television cameras and yet the pizza delivery guy didn’t manage to shoot Fenner in his home. Yeah, right. And it’s not like he couldn’t come again. Not buying this. But setting this aside, try to imagine Yvonne’s thoughts once Lauren tells her Fenner isn’t dead…

--

I wanted to mention Shell/Debra. When she appeared in the first episode, I think I cheered. Debra is one fantastic actress and I don’t think anyone could’ve pulled out a better performance than her (just like Helen Fraser with Hollamby). Unlike abzug, I really felt for her when she they took away her baby and shipped her out. I felt like that one time she was going to make it work for the sake of her baby. I was a bit appalled when I saw her taking smack out of her wig, but I really had faith in her once the baby once born. I don’t know…

[I feel like I’m trying to cover all points in one post.. Christ.] I loved the Costa Cons. Their Bodybag stunt was priceless.

Colin, I strongly didn’t like him at first. [What was the deal about never introducing him properly anyway?] That went on for quite a number of episodes and was mostly based on the fact that he highly contributed to Dockley being shipped out and to Fenner’s Master Plan of Revenge on her. I also somehow managed to miss how his feelings for Yvonne started to develop but they both were pretty convincing in their relationship (if I’m allowed to call it that), I’d think it’s a challenge to star opposite of Linda Henry, but he did an excellent job, might I just say.

Kudos to abzug for bringing up camera work. Amazing points, too. For me, the use of montage was a clear downside because it absolutely does not coincide with the style of BG as TV show. BG always explores situations fully and there are rarely ever scenes that feel abrupt, not finished, out of place or like they happened all of a sudden, like there was something that happened when the camera was off and we didn’t get to see it. [Which is a trademark of another TV show I could mention. As well as giving pretty much every character a new personality each season. Talk about alien abduction.] But the montage scenes give me exactly that impression.

Also, I felt cinematography generally had changed, took a different direction. A more primitive one, perhaps. This is especially obvious when I’m comparing the Helen/Nikki scenes and those of Kris and Selena. There’s a lot of close-ups in most of H/N scenes, especially in crucial scenes, this lets us see just how they emotionally experience something, there were practically no close-ups for Kris and Selena and that made me feel like this whole thing lacked depth (yeah well, it’s not like I’m expecting the depth of Helen and Nikki from anyone, mind you ;) ). Also, editing on H/N scenes is fantastic in terms of using all the right camera angles to prolong pauses, to underline this or that movement, this or that glance, etc. The one scene that comes to mind is the Shit Happens one. Notice just how many camera angles were used for that scene, surely means they didn’t underestimate the scene’s importance. ;) If you saw the deleted scene that was a bit longer than the one we got to see, you can see it’s shot from a rather peculiar angle (that nevertheless lets us see how Nikki puts her hand on Helen’s leg which is an omission I didn’t appreciate). In the original scene, when Helen says "…which means I can do this", she makes significant eye contact with Nikki which is shown from one angle and then right before she leans in, the angle changes taking a very advantageous position of showing Helen invading the camera space before she kisses Nikki which creates a pause (probably one tenth of a second but still..) to let us try to analyze what she could possibly mean and before we have a chance to start doing that, her lips are already on Nikki’s. If we take the deleted scene, the eye contact after she says those words is easy to miss and her invading of the camera space (=of Nikki’s personal space) is not as clearly evident as in the original scene. All this contributed to the viewer’s perception of the scene. The camera work and the editing are great, that’s my point (I’m not sure I’m being coherent enough to point that out). Most of the Kris and Selena scenes are shot from one angle and that gives them quite a soapy feeling. That’s how I see it anyway. I think camera work was very effective on most N/H scenes and that enhanced the experience. Unlike with Kris and Selena.

Okay, I’m finally finished. Must be my longest post ever. Duh. I don’t know how I feel about watching further seasons. I really felt that S4-5 were chock-full of Fenner and Di and if it goes on like this, I’m not sure I’m up for it.

I'm at work so can't reply in detail right at the moment, but your post was terrific, totally spot-on in just about every particular. (At least in terms of my own emotional responses: iow, ITA!)

I think your criticisms are very just. The Costa Cons were, for me as well, just about the only mitigating factor for S5. I'll have to take a look at the deleted scene, it's been a long time so I can't remember & the phrase invading N's camera-space seems a bit odd to me--I can almost grasp what you're getting at but not quite. Great post though! :) --e

Thanks, dear. :)

Just to clear myself a bit on this, Helen invaded Nikki's personal space umm.. positively. Until that time it was Nikki who invaded Helen's space and made her feel uncomfortable, this time Helen takes charge if you can call it that. She reciprocates in her own way. eta: The camera just accentuated that greatly. Truly amazing editing in that scene. Has to be my favorite style-wise.

I'm going to write a longer reply later, but I wanted to tell you DO NOT GIVE UP NOW! The end of S5 is a total low point for the show. It's a horrible, depressing ending, and trust me, things improve a lot from there. Stopping watching after S5 would be like having a huge fight with your parent/spouse, and then finding out they died in a car accident later that day.

Your post was a great piece of writing, Mad Maggot. It got the sense of the series very well- keep writing. :)

I'd echo everything that Abzug and Ekny say. What is really hard in appraising Series 5 is that technically, Shed can't be faulted. I was just that towards the end, being emotionally beaten round the head is hard to take. Even my most favourite episode and the most triumphant moment, the anti privatisation protest had the good feeling taken away by the tragic note at the end. This series was where the bad guys are on the loose and seem unstoppable. I would watch the progress of Grayling and Colin Hedges with keen interest (no spoilers dropped, hopefully)

I got the feeling that Shed themselves were feeling pretty darn negative and pessmistic about the world at large, given what they showed us in S5. Their ambivalence about capitalism came to the fore in a way it hadn't in prior seasons, and I think that ambivalence (or should I use a stronger word? It's hard given the fact that they as Shed benefit from capitalism) is emphasized even more in S6-7 with a certain character who I won't name to avoid spoilers. I'm sure I mentioned this upthread, but the general bleakness of this era (2002-2003) when they were writing and filming S5 had to play into it. I can't think of a time in my lifetime when I was more depressed about our political leaders and the trajectory of the world around me than I was at that time, and I can imagine Shed felt the same. The last few eps of the season really reflect that.

I couldn't agree more. And the real problem in S5 was there wasn't enough of a counterweight to those two. Karen and Yvonne just couldn't balance the show out on their own. I think that lack of balance is somewhat rectified in S6, and definitely rectified in S7, although I still could have used less Di and Fenner throughout S5-7.

At some point, Fenner became The Villain, rather than a villain, and I think the show suffered for it. To some extent, it felt to me like the writers were like, "boy, we created this character who inspires SUCH loathing" and kind of patted themselves on the back for having a character who would be a top 10 (or top 50) all-time tv villain. But after S4 he stopped being a real person who was perhaps a sociopath, but regardless reflected true problems with the prison service.

Don't get me started on this one either. Di outwore her welcome for me by the end of S3. Of all the prison officers, SHE was the one they kept around for 6 seasons?!?! She was so useless and repetitive. And really repugnant as a human being. Although as I was watching S3E10 last week, in the scene where she shows up at Josh's place, I noticed she has a totally cute bod. I immediately felt disgusted with myself, but it's hard to deny. You just have to imagine her head removed from her body and then you can see it.

It KILLS me that these two couldn't get onside and work together against Fenner. I know they did it for the sake of plot (writing Helen off while keeping Fenner on, and then writing Karen off while keeping Fenner on) but it still really bothers me politically that two such smart, competent women weren't able to overcome him. That's one way in which the musical "repaired" the storyline, imo, by allowing Helen et al to triumph over Fenner.

Why wouldn't you want to say that? It's totally and utterly true. It makes me think we should make a list of top 5 (or top 10) lame/badly staged BG moments. This one might be #1. It's a shame because this failed hit is a HUGE turning point, and so it really should have been staged in a believable way.

Colin was introduced very strangely, as if he's just an extra, you can barely tell him apart from the random guards. But then very slowly you realize he's significant. He ultimately became one of my favorite characters, but he's very hard to take in S5, because he is so weak-willed. I was screaming inside for Yvonne, because she was so isolated, and her only ally was this total limp noodle, Colin.

Great comparison of the Helen/Nikki vs Kris/Selena camera work. I think in general everything to do with Helen and Nikki (writing, acting, camera work, editing) was done with exquisite care, but that this can't be said for many other characters, storylines, or episodes in general on BG. Which is why the Nikki-Helen message board is still going strong after all these years. :)

Well… perhaps, it was a bit hasty of me to conclude that things will go even more downhill from here, but all this really did my head in. It made me think how amazing it was for Nikki to win her appeal and go back to normal life. If she hadn’t won, with no Helen and no support from her, Fenner could’ve easily won and he clearly was after her. She even said that Helen, above everything else, was her hope. “How can I face another 10 years in this place with no hope?” And we got to see what it can be like with no hope --- through Yvonne’s eyes. Helen, being the strong/powerful/faithful character that she is, littrally pulled