Psychoville - Season #1

Psychoville - Season #1

BBC2
Comedy / Mystery

18th June 2009 - 30th July 2009
7 Episodes
Approx. 26-28 minutes per episode

Viewed: Nov 2012

C

First off, if given the option to go blu-ray or DVD, I'd go with the former option. I was very impressed with the picture quality of the blu-ray disc; images are crisp and superbly detailed and it comes packaged with the most pristine, crystal-clear photo-gallery that I've seen in a long time. The menus are easy to navigate and the discs also come with a reasonable amount of extras.    

Brought to us by the same people that gave us The League of Gentlemen, this creepy little number is not for the faint-hearted or squeamish so let's not beat about the bush; the humour, tone, atmosphere and sheer all round absurdity of the show is right up there with that cult classic. Like The League of Gentlemen, this is not really "laugh a minute / laugh out loud" humour because it veers far too heavily towards the dark side for that. But by drawing on the more disturbing side of human nature and exploring its more sinister side it is equally proficient at pulling the viewer into its quirky world. Many of us probably have these types of emotions and qualities lurking deep down within us anyway so seeing them played out and re-enacted on screen in such a bizarre fashion certainly appeals to our subversive side.

We have here a British-based drama, by the way, so, it has to be said, it cannot touch those big-budget US dramas when it comes to scope and scale. Seven, 30-minute episodes cannot compete with 45-60 minute affairs that weigh in at 12-24 episodes per season and are practically little movies in their own right! Still, we can enjoy Psychoville for what it is...

The title menus and all-round outer-packaging create that mysterious feel created by those creepy victorian puppet shows; also, with a fully made up clown and theatrically attired dwarf, brings in that weird circus / fairground atmosphere that has the outward appearance of wanting to be entertaining but which doesn't look quite right - as if hiding something dark and subversive underneath the surface. As mentioned, that's pretty much Psychoville in a nutshell.

The general structure of the first episode prepares us effectively for the season. Five eccentric characters each receive a letter that simply reads, "I know what you did." The sender is a mysterious black-gloved man who remains masked and whose identity remains hidden right up to the denouement at the end. There is a constant reference to blackmail but the conditions or terms of these are never discussed or made known. When each character receives the letter they are already deeply involved in twisted developments and dramatic events of their own so while the letter has obvious significance, it's really of secondary importance to the characters.

We trace the characters' lives by being shown sketches of their key moments in the form of 1-3 minute snippets. We flit backwards and forwards between the characters' stories by transitions that are marked by a burning film effect. When this occurs, we know that we are going to be focusing on a different character again and pick up on the action where we left off. The effect is that there are mini-cliffhangers within each episode but it also drives the story forward nicely. There are no hard-to-follow complications and  we always know exactly what predicament the characters are in. This adds up to making the series enjoyable and dynamic viewing.

Before moving onto the characters, a word about the content (mild spoilers ahead). Well, it's by the fellas who gave us The League of Gentlemen so expect the weird and the disturbing at almost every turn. It'll be the women, however, who will cause the most cringe-inducing moments of the show. Maureen Sowerbutts, in one scene for instance, takes a sausage from the plate of her fully-grown son and then masticates on it before shoveling the chewed up mush back into her son's mouth (no editing in sight); while Joy Aston, meanwhile, performs a makeshift blood transfusion that sucks almost all the blood out of her victim - as it then enters the body of a doll till the blood seeps from its eyes. If you can stomach these types of goings-on then you'll probably get a good kick out of the many other bizarre goings-on.  

Here are the five characters who receive those sinister messages from the black-gloved man (mild spoiler alert):

 Oscar Lomax (Pemberton) is an old and blind millionaire eccentric who enlists the help of "Tea-Leaf" (a petty thief on community service) to read to him. His story lies in his obsession to find the last "first-edition" Beanie Baby in order to complete his collection. He is a bitter, bad-tempered and repulsive old git who has nothing better to do than to try to track down that elusive toy. We warm to him due to these weaknesses and vulnerabilities but also because of his ludicrous out-of-touch opinions.

 Mr Jelly, like Oscar Lomax, is played by Reece Shearsmith. He always appears in a clown costume but hardly ever gets any work as a children's entertainer because his twisted and aggressive attitude frightens the kids. Mr Jelly's story revolves around his bitter rivalry with Mr Jolly (ex-doctor now children's entertainer), who amputated the former's hand during a routine operation AND stole all of Mr Jelly's routines. We appreciate this character for his hopeless attempts at turning his career around.

David Sowerbutts is the "man-child" played by Steve Pemberton. With learning difficulties but an encyclopedic interest in serial killers, along with a very strange mum and a misunderstanding about a murder that never happened, the two of them go off on a murdering spree of their own. We sympathise with this character because he is led on by his insane mother and is involved in situations beyond his understanding. Pemberton has a calmer, more restrained acting style than Shearsmith who can sometimes come across as a bit forced.

Joy Aston, played by Dawn French, is arguably the most disturbed character of the pack. Her problem is that she has formed such a close relationship with a doll that she starts to believe that it is human and that it is her very own baby! Anyone who suggests the doll is otherwise or if she's ridiculed for her unhealthy attachment, she reacts with the wrath of the devil himself. I had my doubts whether such a big name could fit in with the tone of the show but she has one of those faces and acting styles that plays the delusional, naive crackpot very well.

Robert Greenspan is a dwarf who is playing the role of one of the seven dwarfs in the pantomime production of "Snow White" in the glitzy seaside town of Eastbourne. Although he's probably the most normal of the five, this little fella's problem is that he's fallen in love with Debbie, who plays Snow White, and is mocked for it by the staff around him. The practical jokes and humiliation keep getting heaped upon him until an interesting twist leads him away from the theatre and into a dark wood with a mysterious cottage... The actor, Jason Tompkins, plays the role of a tormented soul very well.

--------------------------------------------------

These are just the five characters who receive letters, there are many other key roles that help to make the story fit together including: Micheal Fry (Tea-Leaf), the carer for Oscar Lomax; Mr Jolly, the rival of Mr Jelly; Maureen Sowerbutts, the manipulative mother of David; George Aston, the long-suffering husband of Joy who's forced to play along with the baby charade; Kerry, the dwarf who is trying to protect Robert from himself; Debbie, the dipsy actor who plays Snow White; and then there is the black-gloved man himself, the mysterious figure who links them all together.

In conclusion, the show is certainly worth giving a whirl (at the time of writing Season #1 and #2 can be picked up for less than £6 each on blu-ray from Amazon) and with plenty of added extras to keep your interest up it's a very good value package. In my opinion, the tighter first three episodes eclipse the later ones as the mystery and intrigue remain high in those whereas in episodes 5, 6 and 7 the plot loses its way just a tad and the puzzle doesn't quite pique the curiosity as much. Also, the musical interlude with singing and dancing in the waxworks is blatantly filler in my eyes; totally pointless and incongruous tripe. 

There are also just a few other niggles: I am not a fan of watching an entire episode filmed on one set (as if it's a play) and (seemingly) in one long take. To me, this just seems like a cost-cutting exercise and I felt put-out because I was so used to the dynamic format of earlier episodes. In this respect Episode 4 was a bit of a fail for me, despite the great performance of Mark Gatiss (He of The League of Gentlemen fame). Finally. stereotyping plays a large part in this series (eccentric old millionaires, creepy clowns, dwarfs mistaken for children, the doll springing to life, the Nurse Ratched type tormenting the patients... etc etc) and I think it fair to say the show is riddled with them. Therefore, although surely original, unique and watchable in many respects, the odd reliance on these stereotypes must be held against it.

Cracker - Complete Collection (S 1-3)

Cracker: Complete Collection 
(Seasons 1-3)

ITV
Crime / Drama

27th Sept 1993 - 1st Oct 2006
11 Episodes
Approx. 100-150 minutes per episode

Viewed: Jan 2012 - Oct 2012
C


This is another from the "Mixed Bag" selection so I'll be reviewing the entire three seasons in this review. It is possible to purchase each individual episode separately but it's best to go for the Complete Collection for value-for-money. First the boring maths bit...

This box set contains the three seasons of Cracker plus two extra stand-alone episodes commissioned later, meaning you get 11 episodes in this box-set. An episode length varies because some were first broadcast in two installments over two weeks while others were in three installments. Each installment was scheduled a one-hour slot but, with adverts and breaks, each one amounted to about 50 minutes in length. This made a full episode either a 100 minute affair or a mammoth 150 minuter. It does pay to know which type you're settling into because if you watch late at night and want to watch in one sitting those two and a half hour episodes can challenge your stamina. (Not that they're dull mind you.) To confuse matters, the last two "special" episodes were shown in just one installment and were each about 100 minutes in length.

Just like Sherlock, this show is a "crime of the week" type affair where the inept police are totally befuddled and confused as to how to proceed with a particular case. Enter the huge, roly-poly figure of the great criminal psychologist, Fitz. Very much like a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, our Fitz (played by Robbie Coltrane) has deductive and reasoning skills well beyond the mere mortals he has to work with. Both Holmes and Fitz are experts at deducing facts from studying a crime scene and both have supreme psychological profiling abilities but the main difference between the character of Sherlock and Fitz is that rather than focusing on the reading of people by studying their appearance and what they wear, the emphasis on the latter character is his interrogation of suspects when brought in for questioning. In this respect, it makes Cracker more grounded in realism and a lot more believable but, as we'll see, no less ridiculously melodramatic.

Fitzy-babes will stop at nothing to get the truth out of his suspects and when a suspect is finally hauled in, his interrogation techniques can make for uncomfortable viewing. As he tries to tap into the other person's weaknesses and as they are often accused of serious crimes such as murder and sex offences, taboos involving family members and sexual relations with various partners are explored resulting in conversations that often seem downright perverse. However, it's made clear that it's all part of the process for getting a confession and a necessary evil.

But what about Fitz as a person? Well, as a struggling but half-decent poker player and someone who likes to think he can read other people, I was drawn to Cracker not only because of the psychological element and how the protagonist attacks weaknesses, but also because in the promo material he is said to have a few weaknesses of his own that I could relate to. Being a "drunken excuse for a husband", a "lousy father" and a "gambling washout" may not quite be the terms in which I like to describe myself but I can, at least partly, identify with such things.

It was his penchant for gambling that I was mainly interested in because how, I thought, could such a "brilliant pychologist" - who can reason so well and understand so many principles - throw away and lose so much money at gambling? Surely, I reasoned, with such an aptitude for psychology he could not only avoid the casino games (where you're guaranteed to lose at, long-term) and move over to poker which gives the edge to, and generally rewards, the more skilled? This would also mean he could interact more socially with others AND engage in his put-downs when he tires of the ineptitude or incompetence of others around him (another trait shared with the character of Sherlock). But then, of course, there was the episode where he attends a gamblers' anonymous session where we see for ourselves the reason why he puts roulette above poker - he's one of those self-destructive type of gamblers who just love the buzz, the quick thrill and rush of winning and wants that feeling again and again. And that's a strong addiction.

Of course there are other characters who appear throughout all the seasons as well and these are family and close friends who mean a lot to Cracker and who have a bearing on how he conducts his life. However, after Episode 4 "To Be A Somebody" which is the best episode in my opinion, these people in his life start to become so heavily embroiled in the cases he is involved in that it pushes the credibility boundary a little too far. By the time we get to the end of Season #2 in "Men Should Weep" they throw everything including the kitchen sink at us! The beginning of Season #3 doesn't let up as the drama is laid on with such an enormous trowel and to such overly melodramatic proportions that realism goes out the window (or off the edge of a building if you will) - there are just TOO many dramatic events coming at us TOO fast and furious. In retrospect, this may have had something to do with the fact that the series was shown in installments and so needed plenty off cliffhangers to keep the audience coming back, but having all this going on in one episode in its entirety is a bit much.

On the subject of drama and characters and friendship, I was watching a documentary the other day on the history of the displaying of emotions through the ages. What struck a chord here was the idea that those who go overboard with their emotions on a regular basis tend, in some respects, to be more shallow than their more reserved counterparts who keep their emotions in check and who consequently appear more grounded. The logic behind this is that when the latter type of person truly displays outward feelings of emotion, they are somehow shown to be more genuine.

Now there was obviously more to it than that but, to me, this sort of logic helps to explain why Sherlock has the edge over Cracker when it comes to quality and depth. While Fitz has plenty of family and friends in his life to care about and to interact with, the choice of the writers to involve them so much means the drama and emotions run high - far too high. Sherlock, by his own admission has no friends at all and his relationship with his brother is stone cold to say the least. This means that, given Sherlock's situation and ability to detach himself from others, when he does have to make difficult decisions involving the lives of others - the situation comes across more genuinely and with more intensity and depth. So, yes, Cracker is a cracker for those who love their melodrama nice and thick like a rich cream cake but head for Sherlock for depth, sophistication and more class.