As much as I love Jamie, I just can’t get into these films. The subject matter is still of little interest to me and though I know situations and actions are historically accurate, it just frustrates me too damn much to sit through them. (I’m sorry, but it’s hard to put aside my modern perspective and see how slaves fighting for their freedom is a problem.)
Perhaps infuriates me is a better term because even though I knew what they feared (trial and death for mutineering) would likely come to pass because of the fracked up military dictates of the time, the captain was obviously nuts and needed to go. I can get depressed, angry, or critical when something I watch takes a turn I don’t like or makes me uncomfortable, yet most of the time I’m still finding myself entertained. But, with these films, it was an overwhelming feeling of discomfort and frustration to the point I was no longer entertained and fast forwarding over scenes.
And, frankly, I like my heroes to screw up on occasion. It’s why I sympathized with Fox Mulder. It’s why John Chrichton fascinated me. And it’s why I choose to believe Lee Adama broke his parole rather than plotting while not on duty. So, Horatio Hornblower, who in the three films I saw always seemed to have the right answer and save the day, bored me. Maybe if we knew he really did push the Captain I’d actually take an interest in him. Which, brings up my question, do we know who or if in fact anyone did push him? I just assumed he tripped and fell backwards. Though, the editing provided an opening for Archie to do it and we had fingers pointing at Horatio and him being very vague in his responses.
What did I like about these two films. I enjoyed the grayness of the supporting characters. Buckland was grossly unprepared for the job of captain, but I empathized with his plight and was sad when he realized that he was lucky to have made it to first lieutenant. But, then in order to try to salvage what’s left of his reputation, he offers up Horatio to the noose and I suddenly hated the man. Moments later my disgusted feelings for Hobbes evaporated. He was steadfast in his loyalty to the captain and perceived himself doing his duty throughout. And while he did do some questionable things, I don’t recall him outright doing anything dishonest. Did Willard not confess who ’pushed’ the captain and Hobbes could not bring himself to lie? Did he put his personal feelings aside and was unable to let a man’s reputation be unjustly tarnished? Could he not allow a weak, incompetent, back-stabbing man walk away from this while another faced death?
Lt Bush was a character I feared was going to be another buy the book officer when he first arrived on the ship, but soon proved he was more concerned about the welfare of the ship and men then blindly following the command structure. He even had no reservations or issues when Horatio would essentially take charge. I have to say I enjoyed Paul McGann’s performance almost as much as Jamie’s.
Speaking of Jamie, what can I say other than I thought he was fabulous in the role. The guy really knows how to sell a death scene. Not to mention a one liner. I burst out laughing when Bush announces he wants to make a stand with the twenty men they have. Suddenly, one guy in back is taken out by a bullet and Archie replies with “Not quite”. J
And on a shallow note, there was a scene where Jamie is standing outside the fort and the way the light hits him I never realized what amazing eyes he has. I guess shooting only interiors for BSG and with the artificial lighting I wasn’t able to properly appreciate them before.
Well, tonight is Poirot. Given my non-BSG Bamber viewing track record he’s bound to either be the killer or the victim. :p