SyFy's Being Human cast

There is a proud tradition of selling TV programme formats between countries. Inevitably, the vast majority of remakes are viewed as inferior by the fans of the original; partly because they are used to the characters and the style of their own show, partly because the remake is made with a different audience in mind, with different expectations and different cultural and sociological references and ideals.

With this in mind, I grabbed a bottle of Diet Coke and a big bar of chocolate, and settled down to watch the first few episodes of the SyFy Channel’s remake of Being Human.

Toby Whithouse’s saga of three supernatural beings living together as flatmates is one of the big success stories for the BBC in recent years, and it’s been a favourite of mine since the second episode, so I was naturally cautious when I approached the US version.

The original is not without its faults. I like the character of Herrick, and I like Jason Watkins, who plays him, but I don’t like Watkins in that role. I don’t believe he imbues the character with the high levels of menace demanded by the script. He’s a bit… Well, I find him a bit too short to be frightening, to be honest – a bit weedy. I recognise that I’m in the minority here, though. I’ve also never quite loved Annie as much as I think I’m meant to, and I’m not convinced that Lenora Crichlow is quite strong enough a performer for the role.

Those niggles aside, the writing is strong, the direction superb, Aidan Turner as Mitchell and Russell Tovey as George never fail to give anything but excellent performances.

So, how does the US version stand up?

Like the British original, there are some aspects of the show that work for me, and some that don’t. The writing is good – though much of the plotting so far has mirrored the early episode of the UK version. As the US has ordered 13 episodes per season (the UK has 6) I would expect the story lines to divert, pretty soon. Although there have been some pretty intense scenes, it isn’t imbued with the same level of visceral horror that the original often employs. The biggest turn-off for me, however, is the incidental music, which is cheap, and a little distracting.

What about the characters and the performers?

There have been some name changes, but the characterisations remain fairly true to the UK version – right down to the character types.

Sam Witwer plays Aidan (a nod to Aidan Turner, who plays Mitchell, his UK equivalent, perhaps?) and like Turner he’s an impossibly pretty actor. He manages to bring a decent level of intensity to the role, but if you were betting on a fight between Aidan and Mitchell, all the smart money would be on our guy.

Meaghan Rath plays Sally (Annie in the UK). Again, a physically beautiful performer, but her performances are stronger than Crichlow’s, with more depth. She gives the impression that there are more layers to her character than Annie has ever displayed. Her insecurity, and inner strength is never in doubt. A win for the US team, here.

Mark Pellegrino (Supernatural’s very own Lucifer) plays Bishop (Herrick). As with the UK edition, he’s a cop with the local force. Unlike Herrick, however, his performance absolutely drips with menace; you believe in his capacity for evil, even without his vampiric nature.

And what of Josh (George)? Russell Tovey is a fan-favourite – even having recently won the SFX readers’ award for Cult Hero. This was always going to be the hardest character in the remake to like. Sam Huntington is more than up to the challenge, though. His portrayal of a slightly geeky hospital porter who just happens to turn into a savage beast once a month, is as good as Tovey’s. I’m truly on the fence about this one. Huntington also makes you believe in the dangerous nature of the character, far more than Witwer. Josh is a nice guy, but he has a darkness under the surface. A great performance. I want to prefer Tovey’s performance, but they’re neck and neck.

Both versions of the show mix drama and humour, and strive to be set in the world in which we exist, although lately, the UK episodes have been heavy on the farce – dogging gags, gimps and middle-aged vamp orgies, a chav zombie WAG who doesn’t know she’s dead – and this is sometimes detracting from the dramatic tension that previous episodes have built up.

So, the £750 question (that’s the recession for you): which is better?

Individual performances aside, and taken as a whole packages, the UK version edges out in front – just – but the US remake is only 4 episodes old, and still has the chance to improve. But if the UK show continues to move in a Ray Cooney direction, SyFy’s version won’t need to improve much to be considered the better show.

If only they’d tone down that bloody incidental music.

Why? Why do you do it? It’s the televisual equivalent of poking a loose tooth to see if it still hurts. Let me tell you – it is still going to hurt.

Oh, but it’s not like it was when I was younger you say. That’s true. It’s probably better. But you know, it’s not the programme that’s significantly changed – it’s you. You watched it through the eyes of the young, and loved it for what it was. Then you grew up, and you expected the show to grow up with you. But it didn’t – not in the ways that matter to you. It’s not a show designed predominantly for adults, and it’s time you realised that. It’s a family show. It’s aimed at all frequencies of the familial waveband, from 5 to 105, and for non-genre fans as well as the enlightened. It can’t compete with Battlestar Galactica or Fringe on their own terms – they’ve been designed with you in mind. They’re shown later at night. Their websites don’t regularly feature official reviews from 5-yr old children. They don’t have their own sections at Toys R Us!

I don’t like mushrooms. I manage to get through life by choosing not to eat them. I don’t decide to eat mushrooms every meal on the off-chance that the flavour has miraculously changed, and then post negative reviews at www.FungusFans.com when I am yet again disappointed. That’s because I’m not an arsehole.  I might try mushrooms at some point in the future to see if my own tastes have changed sufficiently for me to enjoy them, but the chances are that mushrooms are simply not for me.

I’m sorry to tell you this, but Doctor Who isn’t your show any more. You’ve lost the ability to watch the programme through the eyes of a child, and until you rediscover that ability you are going to be consistently frustrated by the show. There is absolutely no point in watching it. Seriously. For you, it’s not going to get significantly better. Buy some DVDs of other shows, instead. Watch some post-watershed adult-themed programmes. You’ll have a better time and you’ll piss off fewer people.

Now, before I start with my views, I think it important to clarify my particular stance on the subject of the BNP.

First of all, I despise everything the bunch of nasty little shits stand for. Secondly, I’d not lose a minute of sleep if they boarded a plane that mysteriously disappeared over the Bermuda Triangle. I’m not that bothered about their welfare. Thirdly, I think it’s important that I’m allowed to call them a “bunch of nasty little shits” without fear of reprisal.

We kid ourselves that we live in a free society, and we – quite naturally – get very upset when something happens to upset the status quo, particularly when we’ve been relatively content with how quo the status has been.

When the BNP (I can’t bring myself to type out the party’s full name more than once in this entry – I find it offensive that they use the word “British” in their title, as if they represent those of us born or nationalised here)… I’ll start again, as that was far too much of an aside to be easily read: when the BNP won two European Parliamentary seats earlier on this year, I felt ashamed. Not only to be living in the general area where they were elected (“the north”) but also ashamed that nearly a million people in the UK felt that this group of fascist idiots offered more than the other parties running for election. Seriously – how low must the public opinion be of the Tories and Labour, if they’d prefer to allow this bunch of cretinous bigots to represent us in the European parliament!

Now there is outrage that the BNP have been invited to appear on Question Time on the BBC. It is the opinion of many (including a number of close friends of mine) that they should be banned from the programme, as to appear would lend them the appearance of respectability and implied acceptance.

There is a lot of truth in this argument, but the fact remains that the party are a democratically elected body, and if the BBC were to ignore them, just because their policies are offensive to many (not to all, of course – they were elected, after all), or because the BBC has been pressured by other political parties, then this would be tantamount to censorship. It would be the Comics Code all over again – “we don’t mind what you say, as long as we agree with it”. And yes – it’s not art, it’s politics, and it’s an over-simplification, perhaps, but there is truth there.

I hate the BNP with a passion, but if a line is drawn, and they are not allowed the right of free speech, how long before the line is drawn a little closer, and a little closer, until our own opinions are subject to approval before we are allowed to express them? Or we’re not allowed to express them at all?

The BNP are fascists of the lowest order, but as legally, democratically elected members of a legitimate political body, they have a right to express their opinions on the same stage as their competitor parties. I abhor what they say, but as long as no laws are broken, I’ll defend their right to say it.

Despite John Barrowman publically describing this drop in episode numbers as a “kick in the teeth”, the move to a 5-nighter appears to have been the best move Torchwood could have made, and both critics and fans agree on that. The fans agree because it made for greater tension, and the single storyline made for more meat on the bones of the plot. The critics agree because it was 8 fewer episodes clogging up the airwaves.

Set over 5 consecutive days, Torchwood: Children of Earth dealt with the threat of an alien race, come to steal our children. The race (known only as the 456, after the frequency on which they communicate) first appeared to us in 1965, when they demanded just 12 children in return for an antidote to a plague that would have devasted the planet. This time around they want more. Considerably more. No, not 14 – even more than that. What’s that? Sorry, I can’t hear you – speak up a bit. No, not 18, either. Look, if you haven’t watched it yet, don’t read this – it’s going to be full of spoilers. Ok, has he gone? Good.

Where was I? Oh, yes – this time around they want 10% of the children on the planet.

The story is centred largely around the British government and their complete and utter ballsing up of the situation. Honestly, if you think the expenses scandal was bad, you ain’t seen nothin’, yet!

Episode One was slow – not a great deal happened, but things rarely do in the first 20% of a programme. It was all set-up, and character introductions. Oh, except for the fact that at the end of the episode the Hub had been blown up, as a bomb had been implanted in Jack’s stomach Ouch. One respected television screenwriter (for the sake of anonymity, let’s call him Julian) described episode one as “the worst science fiction I have ever seen, and that includes the two Matrix sequels”. Episode one wasn’t marvellous, but it certainly wasn’t worse than The Matrix Rehashed (which had… *shudder* Keanu Reeves in it!). It wasn’t a great episode, but it wasn’t as bad as anything in Keanuvision.

Episode Two was much better, though even less happened – it was one long chase scene, but handled pretty well. The science was pretty uneven, though – we know that Jack can’t stay dead, but the scene in which part of his head and torso grew back into a fully-grown Jack inside a body bag was ludicrous. The rest of his body grew from nothing – matter must have simply come into existence for this to happen. Also, of course, if this happened to just part of his head and torso, there must be other bits of Jack blown up from the bomb – why did none of those grow into another Captain Harkness, like a Scottish-American starfish? Mind you, to complain about the accuracy of the science in a programme like this is a bit like complaining about the unfeasible amount of sex that happens in porn films. It happens because it happens, though sometimes the writers should give us something on which to suspend our disbelief.

Episodes Three and Four upped the ante, somewhat, and provided some truly memorable TV (the fans will say it was memorable for mainly good reasons, the critics… less so). Episode Four was noteworthy for a few reasons. It was the episode in which Torchwood’s Grand Plan is discovered to be Jack and Ianto telling the aliens to go away or else. Evidently it’s something Jack learned from the Doctor, but the Doctor has been around a lot longer than Jack, and is a lot better at improvising solutions when things go awry. It’s also the episode in which Ianto dies a pointless death. The character of Ianto has developed significantly since season one, in which most viewers wondered if Gareth David-Lloyd was actually an actor at all, and not just someone who happened to wander onto the set while the show was being filmed. Season Two saw his character grow balls (while Jack systematically emptied them) and the actor appeared to grow a degree of talent. In reality,of course, the writers recognised the popularity of the character, and simply gave David-Lloyd more to do. In Children of Earth, Ianto is a key player, and his death resonates – certainly more than those of Tosh (who was well-named) and wide-mouthed-frog Owen.

Episode Five, however, is the episode that divides. And mainly for that scene – the scene during which Jack Harkness sacrifices his grandson in order to save millions of people across the world. The main complaint is that this action was out of character. I disagree. Jack was and is a soldier. Unlike the Doctor he is comfortable killing others for the greater good. He doesn’t like it, but he recognises that sometimes it is a necessary evil.

He was willing to sacrifice the children of Earth at the end of the previous episode to save his beloved Ianto. Why, then, does he agree (albeit reluctantly) to sacrifice his own grandson at the end of Day Five? Well, Ianto was his life, his love, his reason for living, his grounding, and his soulmate. His grandson was none of these things. Oh, Jack undoubtedly loved him after a fashion, but in a remote sense. His love for his grandson was almost certainly bourne of duty – the thought that you have to love your family, and the love bourne of responsibility. We know that Jack’s daughter ran from him, and keeps out of Jack’s life, as Jack is dangerous to be around. Ironically, it was her running from her father that probably sealed the fate of her son – had Jack and his grandson shared a fraction of the time and the love that Jack and Ianto shared, he might not have been killed.

So, who is right, and who is wrong?

Well, I’m wearing strong trousers, and splinters hold no fear for me, so I’m going to sit on the fence and say : everyone.

How so?

Were Jack’s actions out of character? I’d say no, as we know of Jack’s background as a soldier, and we know that he has had to do things of which he is ashamed. Unfortunately, we have not been shown ebough evidence of this in previous series; we’ve not experienced first-hand Jack’s dark side, so when we see it for the first time, it feels like a betrayal. This is the fault of the writers, of course. Partly of the writers (and series producers) of series 1 and 2, but largely for the writing team on Children of Earth for relying on evidence that was only barely referred to in the past. So, the writers were wrong.

The audience who complain are also wrong for expecting Jack to act in anything but a conventionally heroic way. His background has been hinted at, but if we expect him to act in the interests of himself (by saving his grandson, and therefore his relationship with his daughter) instead of the interests of the world (although, let’s be honest – it would be nice if there were fewer chavs on the street – not that I’m advocating mass alien-abduction, of course… just throwing it out there…) then we’re not only fooling ourselves, but denying ourselves the possibility of enjoying one of the few less-than-perfect heroes on television.

The audience who don’t complain are also wrong, because we should have been given more, and to accept it with the flimsiest of historical references is weak, and shows a willingness to watch just about anything. Including Big Brother.

So, if everyone is wrong, then who is right? Well, everyone, of course. For exactly the same (or diametrically opposite) reasons.

What is clear is that Torchwood: Children of Earth has got people talking, and arguing about television, and that can only be a good thing. It had strong viewing figures, and (unusually for a five-nighter) it retained them. It was certainly better than anything series 1 or 2 had to offer, and it treated the genre seriously. It was adult television which felt comfortable to eschew the need for sex and swearing. In short, it was everything Torchwood always wanted to be, but never was.

Badly written? Badly acted? Badly directed? Opinions differ wildly on this, but what is clear is that it was a television event that made people sit up and listen (and write – my god, did people write about it!*)

It also made people think, and that’s got to be good. Hasn’t it?

*the irony does not escape me.

The Dollhouse of the title is a corporation who hires out people for specific jobs. A bit like Office Angels but with a better hourly rate. The ‘temps’ in this case are the dolls - five men and women who have had their personalities erased (all similarities to Eamonn Holmes is entirely coincidental). When a client needs a doll for a specific task, the Dollhouse team implant an appropriate personality, along with the memories and skills needed to complete the job – be it corporate espionage, hostage negotiation, or plain old rumpy pumpy.

In the series pilot, we meet Echo (the trouser-tightening Eliza Dushku)  - she has agreed to work for the Dollhouse for 5 years in return for which the corporation has agreed to help her escape from some undisclosed transgression from her past. As dolls, Echo and her ‘colleagues’ have but a simple personality imprinted – enough to allow them to walk, talk and interact with the doctors and technicians at the facility, but little more.

Echo has been implanted with the memories and abilities of a top-rate negotiator, in order to secure the release of a client’s kidnapped daughter. During a fragile negotiation process, Echo remembers snippets of her treatment at the Dollhouse facility – something that should not happen – and the transfer of the kidnappee is compromised (and the client is shot in the process).

In the pilot we get to see Dushku in a shower, Dushku in black leather on a motorbike and Dushku as a sexy secretary type, complete with glasses – something for everyone. You’d almost get the impression that the producers weren’t sure people would tune in to the show, so decided to throw everything into the pot. However, we also get to see her act, and at no point do we see Dushku the vampire slayer – no high kicks, no back flips, no smart quips; and of course, with this particular format we should get to see her play a different character every week.

It’s not a perfect pilot, but there’s enough here to make you want to come back next week. In that respect, it’s done its job.

Also starring: Olivia Williams, BSG’s Tamoh Penikett, and Angel’s Amy Acker. If the show is a success, you’ll also start to recognise some of the other names, particularly Fran Kranz, who excels as techie Topher Brink.

Ok, not quite. I stand by my thoughts about last week’s episode, but in its defence, it was a series opener, and although it had a pilot last year the producers – quite rightly – saw episode one as an opportunity to start from scratch and introduce everyone anew, in order to pick up the stragglers like me, who missed the original.

So, last week: a bit shit. Not  huge, steaming pile of moist horse manure – more a patter-patter-patter of rabbit droppings. As I say, a bit shit.

This week, though… Oh, this week it more than lived up to its premise, and I’ll definitely tune in next week. Not – as I hinted last week – in the hope that it gets better, but in the hope that it’s at least half as good as tonight’s episode.

Tonight I saw the last episode of season 1, and it is still my favourite TV series. This is what TV was invented for!

Fantastic characters, great performances, amazing writing.

But, uhhh… that Mandy character… is there, you know, a point?

Right at the start of the series a huge deal was made of the fact that she’s pretty much the best political PR person in the country. Why, then, do all of the other characters dismiss pretty much everything she says? And why do the writers feel embarrassed that she’s there? She’s had about half a storyline in the whole of season 1 (she’d written something dismissive about the president before she started working for him and everyone said “boo, sucks”, then the president said “give her a break” – which doesn’t happen in real life, believe me!)

So, all you West Wing gurus – spoiler-free, please… does the (slightly odd-looking, but you still would) Moira Kelly get any screen time worth a damn?

It’s the story of three flatmates – one is a ghost, one a vampire, and one a werewolf – and of how they cope with the loss of the humanity, or their struggle to maintain/regain it.

It was shown on BBC3 on Sunday night (25th January) and I watched it with Gina last night.

About 20 minutes in I asked G what she thought. “It’s alright.” she said.

Russell Tovey as the werewolf (and the only actor to return from the pilot) was good, but helped by a few decent lines and situations. The guy who played the vampire (I’m sorry, I just can’t be arsed to look him up at the moment) was about as brooding a vampire as you could imagine, and the actress who played the ghost was ok. Just ok.

We do “ok” well in Britain, and we tend to count ourselves lucky for it. If this was a big budget US production I’d have given up, but as it’s a British show I’ll probably watch next week to see if it has improved. If not, I might watch the following week, just in case. ‘Cause that’s what we do. We expect UK genre shows to be a bit shit, and if they’re a bit better than a bit shit we’re happy.

We really should demand higher standards of ourselves – not just as producers of genre TV, but as viewers.

So, yeah – Being Human? It’s a bit shit, but that’s ok, ’cause it’s our shit.