![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
intrikate88Now that we've come to the end of series two of Ashes to Ashes and Some Stuff has happened that is strange and significant in mysterious ways, I think it is high time to go back and analyse once again the complexities of the first instances of Alex being totes crazycakes episode. Because I can both do my job AND have my iPod playing episodes, meaning that I can make money AND use my brain. Just not together.
In one of my earliest film studies classes my film professor started off by telling us that nothing happens by chance in a well-constructed film, and I believe this applies to the small screen as well. He went on to say that they are creating this story in a goddamn studio, controlling the light, the sound, and the objects in the scene, so if a character's face is half in shadow it is because somebody fucking wanted it that way. It doesn't happen by chance.
As Alex said, "I must believe that everything means something. Everything in this place is a clue."
This is my excuse for anytime I overanalyze this show.
I started with the opening shots, at a time Alex seems to indicate takes place less than a year after Life on Mars ended.
The very first sound, even as the nondiegetic score starts, is the sound of a siren. This seems significant, since a good portion of Alex's time after she's shot is spent waiting for an ambulence to arrive and take her to hospital. The fact that there is already one involved immediately suggests two things: either she is already waiting for the ambulence because something has already happened to her, or that is is foreshadowing.
The first sequence of shots, before we are even introduced to Alex, are the shiny new buildings of the London Docklands, on the north side of the Thames. These buildings represent the development, growth, and rebuilding that came out of the eighties, and a strong financial center for London and the world. (It's also around the area of Canary Wharf. If this show got into Doctor Who intertextuality I would probably give myself a hernia in excitement.) But there's something about these buildings. The way they're shot- they're all upside down. Inverted. Something is Wrong with this world. Again, foreshadowing? Or an indicator of current problems?
We hear Molly's voice-over reading Sam Tyler's summary of his time in 1973. There is an immediate connection drawn between Sam Tyler, Molly, and this world, as the three parts are overlaid. By the way Alex responds to Molly reading the file, Sam Tyler represents insanity, ill health, and confidentiality to her. As Molly reads, there is a shot of Sam Tyler, or perhaps a statute of him, decorating the corner of a building- anybody know what building it is? It may be significant.
In any case, he's a lone figure. Caught between earth and sky, and all alone in his troubles.
Now as Molly puts away Sam's case and delves into Alex's current life, she asks if he's going in "The Book", complete with waggling finger air quotes- which, probably-not-coincidentally, Alex uses at great length when she tells Gene he's a construct- and Alex responds that Sam gets a book all his own. It's very interesting that Molly should refer to Alex's potential book in such a way, indicating that it's something often talked about but in reality is a myth of the distant future. Now that we have met Molly's father at a young age, we know that one of Alex's bitter complaints about him is that he lazes around talking about the book he's always going to write, a book that never happens. Pots and kettles, Alex.
It's also interesting that if Alex intends to write a book on Sam at some point, she'll have to do research- and the first thing she probably ought to look at is where he got his delusions from. This would require looking at police records, which would immediately turn up personel records on Gene Hunt, Christopher Skelton, Ray Carling- and would also say if there was another Sam Tyler that he may have identified with, or if Annie was there. Would this investigation matter? It probably wouldn't prove anything, but I think the research would be somewhat incomplete if she failed to even look at the possibility of some existence of these people.
The siren and light go on, and she makes it all the way to the Millennium Bridge and I presume the south side of hte river (tangent: okay, so trailers for the seventh Harry Potter movie show the Millennium Bridge kind of exploding. We found out in that book that all this stuff took place in the eighties, right? And the silly epilogue is modern day? And the Millennium Bridge wasn't opened until 2000? Yes, you take my point.) and discovers there's a hostage situation and the gunman, Arthur Layton, has demanded her specifically. This is the first time somebody expresses a specific need for Alex on this show, but it certainly isn't the last: Alex operates because people need her. It's why she does her job, why she wants to get back home to her daughter, why Gene is demanding her backin her head at the end of series two. Alex needs to be needed.
Another theme is introduced in this sequence: one of Looking. Any film student has had the idea of The Gaze thrust repeatedly upon them until they feel as violated as the ladies they are told are being gazed at on the screen. What does Layton's issues with being looked at represent? Is he a reflection of Alex? What's more, pretty much everybody in these sequences is associated with sight in some way. Molly cannot see from the car, so she comes out, and runs towards Alex when she sees what's going on. Layton wears dark glasses, because he doesn't like to be seen, doesn't like to be seen seeing. The snipers all around are looking through the sights of their rifles at the events unfolding. Everyone's seeing something.
Except Alex. Alex talks, and listens, but- Alex can't see what happens to her daughter when Layton takes her down the steps. Alex averts her eyes not to look at Layton. Why isn't Alex seeing, and why can't she?
(AND WHO THE FUCK LETS A LITTLE GIRL THROUGH POLICE TAPE LIKE THAT INTO A HOSTAGE SITUATION? Answer: people don't? And nobody notices her? In an odd twist of fate, Alex gets the same reaction when she climbs out of bed in 2x08 and should set off 343,234,098,234,454,320 alarms but instead fails to get the attention of any of the nurses when she is acting CRAZY. What. is going on.)
So now. Crisis averted, little birthday girl saved, everything is sunshine and ponies and Alex tells her daughter that the world is dangerous and scary "but if you listen to me, I might just be able to get you through it." These are about the exact words that Gene uses to Alex later on in the episode: that if she listens to him, he might be able to get her through things okay. Again, what is the connection between the two relationships here? Again, F/I?
From the time Alex gets back in the car, we never see her face straight on until Layton is revealed. First, through the windscreen glass, and then in the mirror. The sight of Alex, even, is obscured. And we all know what mirrors mean: another side of the personality. Something about Alex's nature is being concealed.
Onto the barge, Layton shoots Alex in the head. But before he does so, he does a curious thing: He puts on his sunglasses. It's a deliberate action, and unnecessary, considering where they are. What does that mean?
She falls back. She hears voices: Molly's, and then.... Gene's? that tells her to wake up. It almost begs the question, is this the end of a dream, or the beginning of one?
And there is the sequence.
One image is particularly dominant in this scene: glass. Glass is something that reveals and obscures; it is used as an aide to vision. It is also something easily broken. Like Alex.
More on the Molly/Bolly connection: throughout the show, Alex is continually talked to by children's show puppets; Gene reads a children's book about her life and says she's liked brains since she was little. Given this strong association, I have the beginnings of a theory to put forth:
Perhaps Alex is stuck wtih the broken mind of her eight-year-old self, (or older, with a mind that broke at that point) when her parents were killed. Since Gene Hunt was the man who actually took care of her at the scene of the car explosion, she constructs a world where he is the solid constant. While her parents abandoned her by dying, she makes up a reality where she is an adult who won't abandon her daughter even when faced with certain death. It's a world where she can confront her parents for failing to be there without consequences. She can solve problems and is not a powerless child. But things keep leaking through- the children's programmes, and the problems of seeing/not seeing: she doesn't want to look at herself and see a child, all alone, with no control over her life.
OR Gene Hunt is a Timelord. That is my other theory.
PS GO LOOK AT![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
donna_gene . YES, THAT DONNA NOBLE. AND THAT GENE HUNT. AND THEM TOGETHER. YESSSSSSS.
In one of my earliest film studies classes my film professor started off by telling us that nothing happens by chance in a well-constructed film, and I believe this applies to the small screen as well. He went on to say that they are creating this story in a goddamn studio, controlling the light, the sound, and the objects in the scene, so if a character's face is half in shadow it is because somebody fucking wanted it that way. It doesn't happen by chance.
As Alex said, "I must believe that everything means something. Everything in this place is a clue."
This is my excuse for anytime I overanalyze this show.
I started with the opening shots, at a time Alex seems to indicate takes place less than a year after Life on Mars ended.
The very first sound, even as the nondiegetic score starts, is the sound of a siren. This seems significant, since a good portion of Alex's time after she's shot is spent waiting for an ambulence to arrive and take her to hospital. The fact that there is already one involved immediately suggests two things: either she is already waiting for the ambulence because something has already happened to her, or that is is foreshadowing.
The first sequence of shots, before we are even introduced to Alex, are the shiny new buildings of the London Docklands, on the north side of the Thames. These buildings represent the development, growth, and rebuilding that came out of the eighties, and a strong financial center for London and the world. (It's also around the area of Canary Wharf. If this show got into Doctor Who intertextuality I would probably give myself a hernia in excitement.) But there's something about these buildings. The way they're shot- they're all upside down. Inverted. Something is Wrong with this world. Again, foreshadowing? Or an indicator of current problems?
We hear Molly's voice-over reading Sam Tyler's summary of his time in 1973. There is an immediate connection drawn between Sam Tyler, Molly, and this world, as the three parts are overlaid. By the way Alex responds to Molly reading the file, Sam Tyler represents insanity, ill health, and confidentiality to her. As Molly reads, there is a shot of Sam Tyler, or perhaps a statute of him, decorating the corner of a building- anybody know what building it is? It may be significant.
In any case, he's a lone figure. Caught between earth and sky, and all alone in his troubles.
For the show to introduce the young girl reading, Alex addresses her daughter. She calls her "Molls" as a nickname for Molly. And this is where some very odd parallelism begins. Gene Hunt calls Alex "Bolly Knickers", then "Bolls" and "Bolly" back in 1981 as a term of... well, we'll call it endearment. Why such a close nickname? What does the relationship between Alex and Molly have to do with the relationship between Gene and Alex?
For the entirety of this sequence, Alex's face is also bisected by the line of the glass window. Her whole face is visible, but partially obscured; she is split. From now on Foreshadowing vs. Indicator is going to be abbreviated as F/I because I am going to repeat it often and am damn tired of typing it. F/I???
For the entirety of this sequence, Alex's face is also bisected by the line of the glass window. Her whole face is visible, but partially obscured; she is split. From now on Foreshadowing vs. Indicator is going to be abbreviated as F/I because I am going to repeat it often and am damn tired of typing it. F/I???
Now as Molly puts away Sam's case and delves into Alex's current life, she asks if he's going in "The Book", complete with waggling finger air quotes- which, probably-not-coincidentally, Alex uses at great length when she tells Gene he's a construct- and Alex responds that Sam gets a book all his own. It's very interesting that Molly should refer to Alex's potential book in such a way, indicating that it's something often talked about but in reality is a myth of the distant future. Now that we have met Molly's father at a young age, we know that one of Alex's bitter complaints about him is that he lazes around talking about the book he's always going to write, a book that never happens. Pots and kettles, Alex.
It's also interesting that if Alex intends to write a book on Sam at some point, she'll have to do research- and the first thing she probably ought to look at is where he got his delusions from. This would require looking at police records, which would immediately turn up personel records on Gene Hunt, Christopher Skelton, Ray Carling- and would also say if there was another Sam Tyler that he may have identified with, or if Annie was there. Would this investigation matter? It probably wouldn't prove anything, but I think the research would be somewhat incomplete if she failed to even look at the possibility of some existence of these people.
The siren and light go on, and she makes it all the way to the Millennium Bridge and I presume the south side of hte river (tangent: okay, so trailers for the seventh Harry Potter movie show the Millennium Bridge kind of exploding. We found out in that book that all this stuff took place in the eighties, right? And the silly epilogue is modern day? And the Millennium Bridge wasn't opened until 2000? Yes, you take my point.) and discovers there's a hostage situation and the gunman, Arthur Layton, has demanded her specifically. This is the first time somebody expresses a specific need for Alex on this show, but it certainly isn't the last: Alex operates because people need her. It's why she does her job, why she wants to get back home to her daughter, why Gene is demanding her back
Another theme is introduced in this sequence: one of Looking. Any film student has had the idea of The Gaze thrust repeatedly upon them until they feel as violated as the ladies they are told are being gazed at on the screen. What does Layton's issues with being looked at represent? Is he a reflection of Alex? What's more, pretty much everybody in these sequences is associated with sight in some way. Molly cannot see from the car, so she comes out, and runs towards Alex when she sees what's going on. Layton wears dark glasses, because he doesn't like to be seen, doesn't like to be seen seeing. The snipers all around are looking through the sights of their rifles at the events unfolding. Everyone's seeing something.
Except Alex. Alex talks, and listens, but- Alex can't see what happens to her daughter when Layton takes her down the steps. Alex averts her eyes not to look at Layton. Why isn't Alex seeing, and why can't she?
(AND WHO THE FUCK LETS A LITTLE GIRL THROUGH POLICE TAPE LIKE THAT INTO A HOSTAGE SITUATION? Answer: people don't? And nobody notices her? In an odd twist of fate, Alex gets the same reaction when she climbs out of bed in 2x08 and should set off 343,234,098,234,454,320 alarms but instead fails to get the attention of any of the nurses when she is acting CRAZY. What. is going on.)
So now. Crisis averted, little birthday girl saved, everything is sunshine and ponies and Alex tells her daughter that the world is dangerous and scary "but if you listen to me, I might just be able to get you through it." These are about the exact words that Gene uses to Alex later on in the episode: that if she listens to him, he might be able to get her through things okay. Again, what is the connection between the two relationships here? Again, F/I?
From the time Alex gets back in the car, we never see her face straight on until Layton is revealed. First, through the windscreen glass, and then in the mirror. The sight of Alex, even, is obscured. And we all know what mirrors mean: another side of the personality. Something about Alex's nature is being concealed.
Onto the barge, Layton shoots Alex in the head. But before he does so, he does a curious thing: He puts on his sunglasses. It's a deliberate action, and unnecessary, considering where they are. What does that mean?
She falls back. She hears voices: Molly's, and then.... Gene's? that tells her to wake up. It almost begs the question, is this the end of a dream, or the beginning of one?
And there is the sequence.
One image is particularly dominant in this scene: glass. Glass is something that reveals and obscures; it is used as an aide to vision. It is also something easily broken. Like Alex.
More on the Molly/Bolly connection: throughout the show, Alex is continually talked to by children's show puppets; Gene reads a children's book about her life and says she's liked brains since she was little. Given this strong association, I have the beginnings of a theory to put forth:
Perhaps Alex is stuck wtih the broken mind of her eight-year-old self, (or older, with a mind that broke at that point) when her parents were killed. Since Gene Hunt was the man who actually took care of her at the scene of the car explosion, she constructs a world where he is the solid constant. While her parents abandoned her by dying, she makes up a reality where she is an adult who won't abandon her daughter even when faced with certain death. It's a world where she can confront her parents for failing to be there without consequences. She can solve problems and is not a powerless child. But things keep leaking through- the children's programmes, and the problems of seeing/not seeing: she doesn't want to look at herself and see a child, all alone, with no control over her life.
OR Gene Hunt is a Timelord. That is my other theory.
PS GO LOOK AT
donna_gene . YES, THAT DONNA NOBLE. AND THAT GENE HUNT. AND THEM TOGETHER. YESSSSSSS.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:03 am (UTC)Cha it does! Of course it does. TV as a lesser medium than film as an intellectual argument makes me bonkers.
For the entirety of this sequence, Alex's face is also bisected by the line of the glass window.
Really like this analysis of this shot! As well as the deconstructing of the ways in which people are seeing things around them, and how Alex doesn't quite.
And that you picked up on all of the glass/mirrors usage. It really plays into one of the producers stated references, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass (the second one especially) (And Alex's name ain't so similar sounding by chance).
And all the parallels with Gene and Alex and Molly have always been a favorite thing of mine, anything that ties in with parental issues and guardianship roles; listening is a big thing especially as set up by that quoted line among many other references throughout both series. Listening to the Guv is key to one's making it through that world, and it seems as though Molly didn't listen to Alex and thus...hmmm!
You're theory is totes an interesting one (poor sad little Alex OMG), if this is just the beginning you should certainly do some more. Though I am left to question where it leaves Life on Mars and Sam (and his agency as a real person) in this scenario, the entirety of that show in general (unless I am missing something fundamental from the scenario)? [My basic rule of when I'm all thinking A2A theories as I always do: whilst theorizing and when you're thinking like a filmmaker making choices, you have to also always consider what's going to play well as an ending overall and make sense in a straightforward way to audiences, while still making sure that all the characters get their due respect from both series. This is why while I think Supertheory is really elegant on paper, it probably maybe isn't going to happen on screen, etc. but it beautifully ties together everyone and everything. Also, I have trouble sometimes with the notion of Alex actually shooting herself; I think it's much more devastating for her to have just...broken (a la Theory), imo. Then it gets all, "is everything a real place?" as Sam got there via physical bodily trauma and near-death experience, so how did Alex get there if she's just nuts? I don't mind the notion that she just constructed everything based on what she learned from Sam which is a pretty basic thread and through-line, but it seems that the producers certainly want to explain more about "who Gene Hunt really is" and create this giant connective tissue between both shows at the end of s3. God, I am scared a bit, it's true, lol. Anyway, theorizing makes me nuts.]
I have taken the children's tv to be some of the more accurate representations of the childhood memories Alex has of her youth that she would use to reconstruct the past, but when they appear, they tend to get completely subverted by whatever her subconscious is doing, she even says as much re: the one with Gene. All the children's telly has gone wrong. AND remember they did it once before with Molly in Rainbow in series 1 as well.]
This is a great post; scene analysis FTW. You really picked apart this scene and illustrated a lot of the important bits. I have done gone over and over this scene like you wouldn't believe; it would probably frighten you the amount of times I've watched it, lol. :)
P.S. I love that statue on the building that is representative of Sam; they totally lucked out having that art installation taking place in London when they started shooting.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:27 am (UTC)Oh my dear sweet fluffy Buddha, I never realized that. *has teh dumb* So bloody obvious.
TV as a lesser medium than film as an intellectual argument makes me bonkers.
AHHH me too. It's not even that people are too boring to analyse stuff (okay, well, yes it is) but its that show directors fall for it too, and that's why not every show is brilliant in its use of symbols and themes and so on. When they totes should be.
Yeah, this theory is just very basic and I'm not married to it or anything. I like Supertheory because the show explains everything in it, but I think there's even MOAR going on and the rabbit hole is deeper and darker. But the whole thing with Sam, and the adult themes of the show- that all problematizes her as an eight-year-old, or with the mentality of an eight-year-old... unless she reverts, or she's an emotionally retarded adult, or... I really, really don't know. There's some huge huge construct here and maybe its almost too big for one person's brain but then I don't even know what that would mean.
This is a great post; scene analysis FTW. You really picked apart this scene and illustrated a lot of the important bits.
YAYYYYYYYY. I like being cool like that. I miss my film classes even though Dr. Tierce did hit pause like every five seconds to explain things.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:10 am (UTC)One more thing.
Since Gene Hunt was the man who actually took care of her at the scene of the car explosion
Just wondering! Do you believe this? As in, actual Alex reality true? I'm fairly 100% certain that he wasn't really there (as I'm also pretty damn sure he's not a real person, I'd be bummed to the extreme if they went that way). She conflating things in her mind, themes and Gene as guardian figure and etc. etc.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:17 am (UTC)Yes! No! Sorta! No! ...not exactly! Like, if my theory is anything remotely even close, then Gene was at the explosion. Then he goes away and Alex never sees him again and actual Gene Hunt doesn't matter. Maybe that's not even his name, maybe we can go CRAZIER and try to make that name mean something, but because he was there the Gene Genie becomes the central figure in little Alex's fantasy coping mechanism.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:35 am (UTC)I don't know if Gene is real. I want him to be real... but it occurs to me that may not, actually, be based on critical analysis. :P
Though didn't Alex ask "Why on earth would my subconscious generate something like YOU?" which is sort of what we're all asking, really.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:42 am (UTC)Ha, I am just so the opposite! I don't want him to be real. I'm not sure what that reveal would bring to things in general. Mainly I just really hate when people pop up and say things like "Gene's in a coma toooo!" And I get all hostile! LOL.
She did, she said something like, "when good coppers go under, why do you appear?" WHICH. YES WHY?? :) Why for Sam, why for Alex, what the fook is going on I haven't a clue really but I loooooove it and I love squeeing about it.
THEY JUST REALLY NEED TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS UP WITH MOLLY. SHE IS SO IMPORTANT
AND DEAD :P. SHE HAS THE FIRST LINES OF THE SERIES! SHE'S THE FIRST CHARACTER WE SEE AND HEAR! alsjfalfdjalf. *spins*no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 03:54 am (UTC)...oh, fuck life. I heard that Sam went to thirty years from now but I hadn't heard it was that blerghy.
GENE IS NOT IN A COMA. *twitch* I understand your hostility. I don't really want him to be real in the present day, but then I don't like to see sperm whales flopping across my kitchen counter and it would sort of be like that. But... some kind of real would be nice? Like, I dunno, this Shroedinger's Alex is both alive and dead so Gene is both real and unreal. And suddenly I'm wondering how late it is and if I accidentally and mysteriously smoked a whole lot of pot.
YES YES to the Molly stuff. WHAT IS SHE.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 12:07 am (UTC)I don't know the building featured in the beginning. However, the statue is part of Andrew Gormleys's 'Another Place'. Telling in itself and a wonderful LOM tie-in.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 09:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 12:10 am (UTC)YES. XD
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 01:46 am (UTC)This is from the DVD commentaries: The man on top of the building is actually an actual statue in London that the director got permission to film. It is used to symbolize Sam Tyler. The mirrored view of the buildings is also deliberate, although he did not specifically say what it’s meant to symbolize.
On the Harry Potter thing, it’s entirely possible that the Books take place in the 80s, but the movies DO NOT. So, yes. I defend the exploding Millennium Bridge.
I too agree that Alex’s need to be needed is incredibly important. It says a lot about her, and why she used to hate her mother: It seemed like her mother didn’t need her, so she went back in 1981 to er…make herself needed and prove that she had always been needed.
Do you think, thematically, the fact that Alex is obscured so much in the film could possibly mean what Sam Tyler sort of figured out in LOM? Alex is never shot obscured in 1981/2, only in 2008. So 2008 isn’t “real life.” Only 1981/2 is. For Sam, he felt nothing in 2007, and that’s what symbolized that 2007 wasn’t a real world for him, a valid world.
I’m not sure if I buy into your theory, but there are worrying lapses in Alex’s judgement. Like, why would she bring her daughter to a hostage situation at all?
I’m also shocked no one has ever mentioned how vaguely squicky the Alex/Gene relationship is. I mean they’re all USTy with each other, but he’s basically a massive father figure who saved her from her evil daddy, and that’s fucked up and Freudian to the Nth degree.
I’m not sure if I buy into your theory, but then again I haven’t bought into the Super Theory, either. I really legitimately believe they’re in some sort of purgatory in the LOM/A2A universe. I really think it’s a sort of test of faith or something. It’s funny, I’m an atheist in RL, but my obsession with Battlestar Galactica has made me a fandom theist.
Also: DONNA/GENE IS MAH NEW OTP.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:09 pm (UTC)Okay, that makes some sense! :D
That is cool about the statue, a couple other people have mentioned it. It's a very nice tie-in.
Do you think, thematically, the fact that Alex is obscured so much in the film could possibly mean what Sam Tyler sort of figured out in LOM? Alex is never shot obscured in 1981/2, only in 2008. So 2008 isn’t “real life.” Only 1981/2 is. For Sam, he felt nothing in 2007, and that’s what symbolized that 2007 wasn’t a real world for him, a valid world.
How brilliant are you?! I think that's a very possible meaning; there is just so much in the 2008 scenes that seems to be pointing towards that world not being real.
Oh, don't buy into the theory, add to it though if you've got anything. It's a really huge and adult world for an eight-year-old mind to make up, is my problem. But the really persistent connections always being made with a childhood world and childhood things seem to indicate that there is more than just a meaning and a drawing point there- it's something very significant.
Hmm, purgatory idea... that's not a bad theory, as they go. I could get with that.
I’m also shocked no one has ever mentioned how vaguely squicky the Alex/Gene relationship is.
GOOD GOD I KNOW. Totally Freudian, and why I generally stay away from A2A fandom- the porn is frightening. But then I have this whole thing where I'm over the diversity of human relationships being simplified down to glorifying the heteronormative sexual relationship above all and dismissing or railroading all other relationships into that one variety. So when I see a relationship like Gene/Alex where they clearly value each other and bring out the most interesting parts of each other, where overtones of father/daughter and also lovers and also adversarial relationships come out, I love what they have- and totally don't need to hear about how it automatically has him bending her over a desk. (WHUT.)
Also: DONNA/GENE IS MAH NEW OTP.
INORITE, AREN'T THEY TEH AWESOME?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 05:25 am (UTC)I had also always thought "The Book" Molly talked about was actually a sort of reference guide to Alex. That she stored information about both criminals/police officers, who were suffering with a mental ailment, for her own research/later reference for other cases. I'd never entertained the idea that she would publish the book or sell it. Which if it is the latter, it shows the depth of Alex's anger towards Peter; that she's trying to still show him up. And maybe even prove to him that he needed her, going along with how Alex needs to be needed.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:18 pm (UTC)EXACTLY MY PROBLEM. It's a work in progress. The main thing I hold to, though, is there's a very significant connection between Alex and childhood- not just as when her parents died, but in all the children's shows, in the way her relationship with Gene reflects Molly's relationship to her, and with all the Through The Looking Glass And What Alex Found There going on. So I'm not sure WHY that connection is there, but I'm convinced it is, and its meaningful.
Hmm, as a reference- that makes some sense. But see, Molly asks if Sam's case "is going in 'The Book'", and if it was just Alex's comprehensive casebook file, then she would just drop the copies in her accordion folder and it's not the process that Molly seems to indicate. My understanding, anyway. Showing Peter up, that's a strong possibility. She's got quite a strong bent that way even when she knows he doesn't have a clue who she is.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:24 pm (UTC)SOMEBODY HERE IS TOTALLY A TIMELORD, I'M TELLING YOU.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 08:06 am (UTC)The opening shots of the buildings -
The way they're shot- they're all upside down. Inverted. Something is Wrong with this world. Again, foreshadowing? Or an indicator of current problems?
When I saw those, the first thing that sprang to my mind was that they were like that well-worn first-person pov from a hospital trolley - the familliar moving shot of a corridor ceiling reversing. Its an unusual view of buildings and I rather liked it.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 08:31 am (UTC)i can help you out with the figure on the building. it's was an art installation, there were loads of these figures dotted around the city - mostly on rooftops but there were a few on london bridge that you could actually look at and touch. it was really interesting but for the life of me i cant remember who it was by or what it was called. what i do know is that the police got a lot of calls about people trying to commit suicide lol ^_^
as far as the opening shots go, if you listen to the audio commentary you'll find that the images are inverted, once again adding to your observations of reflections.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:31 pm (UTC)HAH. When were they put up? I didn't notice them last summer when I was living in London but they must have already been there... I was mainly up around the Bloomsbury/Fitzrovia area (taking classes at UCL) and Camden and Embankment... were they like a permanent thing? (Obviously I must move back to London so I know these things! ...and that's not even the flimsiest excuse i have, either. God I miss it.)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:48 pm (UTC)i've just found a news article about it here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/may/06/art)
the figures were made by Anthony Gormley who designed the Angel of the North ^_^
no subject
Date: 2009-06-20 06:46 pm (UTC)Oh this brings back memories. I remember watching The Scarlet Empress for the very first time and discovering that all that deep focus and cluttered mise-en-scene was the director's solution to the very noisy, whirring movie cameras of the day - softly spoken dialogue could work if he kept the actors well away from the machinery. The result was a wonderful look.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-20 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-26 11:17 am (UTC)By the way, might I add you? :)
no subject
Date: 2009-09-26 04:16 pm (UTC)Go ahead and add me! Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-19 05:49 pm (UTC)On reality: According to the LOM commentaries, everything was shot from Sam's perspective because he was the only certain person in the world, and they wanted to make sure the viewer never knew if the world existed without him.
A2A has many scenes where Alex isn't present, which, using the established logic of the filmmakers, indicates that the 1981 reality has an existance outside of her.
On the Molly/Bolly thing, that's bothered me for quite awhile. One of the other things that has bothered me, however, is Molly's mole. If filmmakers choose everything you see, why choose that? It's quite large. I often see it and wonder if it's an indication of a bullet wound to the head for her too. And, given the last moments in 1981 where she sees Molly miraculously free of her attacker, it makes me wonder if she found Molly dead and couldn't cope, and that is part of what is going on.
The comments from Gene about "listen to me" echo LOM. Several times Gene fights with Sam about listening, and always to save his life.
Also, and I hope this is covered in Series 3, I agree that Alex's book wouldn't be good research if she didn't look for police records of Gene, Ray, Chris, and Annie. It should make a difference if Sam concocted them out of whole cloth or if he might have been influenced by stories of real people.
The LOM producers, while leaving things open to interpretation, said that a lot of the imagery was death-related, and that it was supposed to be an afterlife. This doesn't quite work with Sam "dead" in A2A, but the last scene of Chris, Ray, Gene, and Shaz had an angelic soul quality. It makes me wonder if they aren't dead in the 2009 reality, but were given second chances in an alternate reality by Sam and Alex (responsible for Shaz's coming back to life at the end of series 1). It would make A2A sort of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir.
Glass & Molly further notes
Date: 2010-01-07 05:03 am (UTC)I think the biggest instance is when Alex has been captured in the meat locker of the restaurant and Gene Hunt is forced to shatter the large plate glass window in order to get to her. A sign that he is able to break through the reflections and illusions Alex is dealing with -- and perhaps that he is the only one able to do so.
Also, the discussion about Molly/Bolly, the parallels of Alex as a girl being the same age as her daughter, the fact that Peter's cat is named Molly. Something big is happening here -- and I think it has way more to do with Molly than Alex simply missing her.
We'll see in just a couple more months!