Getting it right beats how we’d like it to be
As a columnist on the Rust I am sometimes reminded of a conversation that I had eons ago with an elderly relative on the rather broad subject of which pastimes or subjects individuals take up as hobbies, interests and/or life-long obsessions and the reasons why they do.
In these days of increased longevity and yet the inevitability of gradual senior decline – and the efforts that one can make to stave off senility for as long as possible – those of us beyond the first flush of youth often tend to get advised or encouraged to “take up a new interest” (e.g. indulge in a new hobby or learn a new language) as a means of keeping the brain fit” in the same way as we are supposed to do physical jerks and/or walk 5,000 to 10,000 steps per day in order to do our best to keep our bodies in prime condition.
In the conversation I am referring to, my uncle extemporised upon the theme of whether it was “better” that someone knew a great deal of detail about a single subject or, alternatively, a little about a whole range of topics – this from an assumed theoretical starting point that it was impossible to achieve both.
His thrust was that in certain challenges – e.g. attempting a crossword, or perhaps taking part in a trivia quiz – knowing little about plenty was a definite plus, albeit that with the former of the above, acquiring an understanding over time of how the crossword deviser in question “thought” – and tuning into it – was equally useful/important.
By the same token, when it comes to trivia quizzes there is a degree of complication.
Most annual Pub Quiz books combine a series of “special interest” quizzes (on subjects such as music, sport, history etc.) with “general knowledge” ones and those taking part in a “Quiz” session can either vote on which of these to take on, or instead opt to take “pot luck” (and indeed the consequences).
As someone with a certain working knowledge of general and military history I have to declare that, for good or ill, I am a traditionalist when it comes to modern dramatic treatments, whether these be on television and/or radio, or in the theatre and/or movie screen, or indeed even on one of the many forms of social media.
My views may not make me popular with the all-pervading activist “woke/diversity” brigade but if they offend I shall have to take my medicine because I doubt I shall ever change them.
Over the past three years or so I have watched a number of 18th and 19th Century “period” dramas – as realised both on film and in television series – in which the locations (grand country mansions and estates) and settings (interiors of the same) and costumes (classic male and female attire of the eras concerned) have been recreated and realised both faithfully and successfully enough that – this an eternal conspiracy between creator and audience – they allow the viewer to convince themselves that they are witnessing “life as it was lived then”.
The most obvious British example of this phenomenon is the cannon of Jane Austen as brought to the screen over the past 75 years, together with modern off-shoots of the genre such as Bridgerton.
However, what for me completely pulls the “proverbial rug from under the feet” as regards enjoyment – or even the ability to suspend disbelief and immerse myself in the viewing experience of these representations – is when the “diversity” imperatives of the 21st Century require e.g. that (1) at least 40% of the cast in a piece perhaps set in a gentile 1810 English country setting much be non-white actors; and (2) the narrative and dialogue of the primary action is overlaid with nods to 21st Century attitudes and sensibilities.
Coming forward to the present, over the past week or so we have been bombarded with previews and press releases in advance of the first transmission of a new drama series SAS Rogue Heroes which will take place on BBC One tomorrow (Sunday 30th October) at 9.00pm.
This is based upon the authorised history of the early SAS with the same title written by sometime BBC journalist Ben Macintyre and published in 2016.
Mr Macintyre also subsequently made a BBC documentary on the subject for Newsnight called Last Of the SAS Originals in which he interviewed those who were still alive then in their nineties.
The new drama series beginning this weekend has the advantage of the involvement of Stephen Knight, creator of Peaky Blinders, and a stellar cast whose principals I shall not list here for fear of taking up too much time, but which includes Connor Swindells as SAS founder David Stirling and Jack O’Connell as the legendary Ulsterman “Paddy” Mayne, the Irish rugby international who took over leadership of the SAS when Stirling was captured by the Germans.
As an example of what “turns me off” about modern dramas, this happens to be right on the money.
Below is a still image from the series, showing the lead actors I mentioned above – Jack O’Connell (as Paddy Mayne) and Connor Swindells (as David Stirling).
I would simply register this. Paddy Mayne – a six feet three and a half inches second row forward on the rugby pitch – had a formidable presence and a notorious reputation as a belligerent fighting man in any situation.
Jack O’Connell, the actor playing him in this series, is 1.73 (five feet six and a half inches) tall.
