Reviews

Staying On is a sequel to the Raj Quartet, but preceded the 1984 mini-series The Jewel in the Crown. I watched it in the order the author Paul Scott intended and felt I benefitted as such. Staying On is more focused than the more famous mini series, and arguably better suited to TV as a result.

It reunites Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard (of Brief Encounters fame) as the elderly English couple, the Smalleys, who have 'stayed on' in India, after the collapse of the English regime.

Both into their 70s, Mr Smalley is suffering from a poor heart. His wife Lucy, who loves him despite his increasingly eccentric behaviour, worries for her future health and happiness when he dies. The fact that they are at the whims of the conniving Mrs Bhoolaboy adds to the tension.

I would ultimately put this on a par with its more famous relation. I can't say anything about the books, but the characters here have more room to come to life and develop in their own way than is the case in TJITC.

While death and illness - common themes for Mr Scott - hang over the Smalley's lives, it is less melodramatically intrusive, though no less significant. As a meditation on love and dependence, it is quite touching. However, love cannot conquer death, or so the climax suggests.

There is greater warmth and love in this hour and twenty minutes than the whole of TJITC, as Mr Smalley's apparent intransigence before his wife's love ultimately gives way in a touchingly realised voiceover. This is Howard's moment in the sun.

Johnson's comes at the very end, when she delivers a heart-rending monologue delivered to her dead husband. The camera follows her patiently round the room, never getting too close or jumping around, as Lucy pours our her heart.

Patience brings reward for the audience, as this climax is worth the wait.

Fire is the dominant icon of The Jewel in the Crown. Much like its the theme, this 1984 English miniseries is, or was intended to be, an inferno. Fire as purifier and destroyer; the fire of human passions, love and anger; the fires of hell; the heat of the sun.

However, though it burns brightly, it is flame that threatens too often to eat up its fuel or escape its grating. Based on Paul Scott's Raj Quartet, the 14 episodes attempt to do justice to what is, I believe, a quite elliptical plot, not naturally suited to television.

While there is a visceral pleasure to the death, intrigue, violence and romance, the overall effect is somewhat bewildering. I can only assume this was Scott's impression during his time in India as an army officer during WWII.

The novels begin during the last days of the Raj, the English regime which controlled India, as WWII was reaching its zenith and a Japanese invasion of India appeared imminent. The episodes follow several storylines interlinked by characters, locations and actions, but not so much by plot.

The one constant throughout these stories is Ronald Merrick (played excellently by Tim Pigott Smith), a sadomasochistic and anachronistic English policeman and officer. He is evil, flat-out, a man who believes that all relations are ones of power, ruler and ruled; a racist who takes on a nannying, dictatorial style with 'the natives'; and a manipulative liar, willing to use any means to get on.

How people respond to him often indicates their moral standing. Those characters who hate him recognise in his brutality something of the English regime's treatment of India; those who accept him are either of that order, or see his political uses in ensuring the country doesn't get out of hand.

But while rejecting this icon of Nietzschean power, it's not clear what Scott proposes in its place. Merrick is killed in the end, and people who knew him surmise that he actually wanted to die, having fallen in love with an Indian boy. It is not the discovery of his homosexuality that upsets him, one character surmises, but the fact that the love proved his own racial theories false.

But romantic love is not set up on a pedestal in place of power. Death haunts the screen, and the dynamics of power disturb those of love too. There is little room for humanism, either. Charles Dance's Guy Perron concludes that all those Englanders who love India can really do is hope.

But a question hangs in the air, even here, at the conclusion - hope in what?

Regardless of the (perhaps deliberately) inconclusive story and moral scheme, the show was a treat to watch. The characters, complex and multifaceted, benefit from the wealth of acting talent available in England at the time. Piggot-Smith stands out for maintaining an air of menace and madness, without ever resorting to melodrama. Even as a one-armed, scarred villain, his pomposity has just the air of human frailty to keep any caricature in check.

Filmed on location in India (except the interior shots), there is a wonderful sense of place throughout.

It allows the themes of fire, heat and incomprehension to be conveyed televisually. The vast landscapes, the heaving streets, the beating sun... and fire, always returning to fire. Appropriately, the show ends with an image of the series' symbolic heart, a painting called 'The Jewel in the Crown', consumed by flame.

!Warning-Spoiler! Part1: In my opinion, this is the better of the two parts. The child actors are more dynamic than their adult counterparts and the storyline far better paced. I felt the way they introduced the characters, through flashback, was very effective and set the scene perfectly. It draws you in and builds the tension perfectly, dropping and rising to keep you on the edge of your seat.

I felt the children were believable and conveyed their varying emotions, especially terror, wonderfully. I felt at times, though, the character development was a little bit jerky, especially the bully. The monster itself, played brilliantly by Curry, is quite creepy at times and never goes over the top. The monster felt quite similar to John Carpenter's 'The Thing', so it didn't surprise me when I learned the director was a protégé of his. The camera work is also slightly reminiscent of Carpenter's. Overall the first part got a 8/10 in my opinion.

Part 2: Though not as good as the first part, it still holds up well. I felt that the adults were just a little wooden in places and the scares weren't quite as effective this time. I also felt I was missing some parts from not reading the book. But the story still moved smoothly and the build up in tension between the lead characters was handled well.

The script at times seemed a little clumsy, but still I can't say I noticed it that much. But the ending fell far short, though still was serviceable. But the final monster was an unbelievable spider-like puppet. I don't know of this is how the book ended (I'm sure I read somewhere the ending was too cerebral for TV) but I felt they would have been far better off using the clown again. Overall though, still enjoyable and well made. 6/10

7/10

I'm a big fan of John Carpenter, but not such a big fan of horror films. I watched this film with trepidation. I didn't regret it. I think I picked a good horror movie to start off with. Carpenter sustains a creepy, suspenseful a atmosphere all the way through the movie. His camera work is very simple, bringing you to the center of the action. The views he gives over Micheal's shoulder are very clever, giving us his point of view. But it's the empty shots that create the most tension as they leave you thinking 'What's going to happen next?' The score to this film is fairly minimal, but highly effective. Who could ever forget that famous theme tune? It helps build up this unbearable tension and you just know something is going to happen soon. Carpenter uses it cleverly though. He knows that silence can be just as effective as suspenseful music in creating an aura of expectation. Though the plot is fairly implausible, but it holds fairly well through the movie. One could attempt to tear holes in it, but it's a lot more difficult then you'd think. Donald Pleasance is as good as always, portraying the worried doctor very well, if not always believably. Jamie-Lee Curtis is solid, but not outstanding and her two friends are as stiff as a plank throughout most of the film. They're characters and the way they act are fairly believable though and, in my opinion, vacuous and annoying. But it's really the character of Micheal Myers that makes the movie. The William Shatner mask is very disturbing and his silence is far better then if he grunted or talked. The way he shows up and disappears works very well and makes him seem almost supernatural, an idea aided by how impossible it seems to kill him. The movie moves along reasonably slowly, but it's worth the wait. The ending is terrifying and finishes off the movie with a bang. A seminal film which, horror buff or not, you should make time to watch. 7.9 seems about right.

One of the best efforts at a batman movie which I've seen (though i still hold a special place in my heart for the Adam West version). As the joker, Heath Ledger is outstanding, the best villain of the trilogy by a mile. His manic personality is intermingled with shows of wit and ruthlessness while never going totally over the top. Morgan Freeman is solid, but seems to be coasting a little bit in this film when you compare to many other films he has done. The directing and screenplay remain consistently good throughout, though never outstanding. Sadly, for me at least, the movie fell down with the partnership between Bale and Caine. Neither convince me in anything they do and their chemistry together is very poor. Caine has always seemed overrated to me and Bale usually only shows flashes of his talent. Overall a decent watch, but probably not deserved of all the praise it has received. In my opinion though, I could watch it just for Heath Ledgers performance.