[December 17th] Miranda Rights in Downton Abbey?

This week proved to be one of the more exhausting variety and I found myself season two of "Downton Abbey", which I find as one of the best period shows I have watched in a long while. The writing is smart, the characters interconnect well enough to keep me watching and there is character growth, which I found overly enjoyable. Edith has become one of my favorite support characters in the series. 

As entertainment, "Downton Abbey" stands on its feet and achieves a lot with the typical British eight-episode season format compared to shows with twice as many episodes per season. However, I can't be entirely sure of whether authenticity is handled in the same way. Now, I don't know about how society operated, how all the different circles in society interacted with each other or how Britain's institutions structured and exerted control over the population during and after World War I.

What I do know is that members of the police force did not use the Miranda Rights during an arrest, which did happen in the season's finale, when two men, who looked like detectives more than officers, arrested Bates for the murder of his wife Vera. The scene itself possesses enough inherent drama to create a strong emotional response without there being any need for the officers to speak, much less use an antiquated version of rights, which were accepted as police procedure during arrests in the late 1960s in the US.  

I try to rationalize as to why they were included. Everyone can relate to the severity of an arrest, so there is no need to evoke sympathy from the viewer by using a popular device for creating tension in modern cinema and TV. I assume that this is an oversight, but one that I find harmful to the suspension of disbelief. I'm only mentioning it because this simple detail derailed the whole experience in that scene.

Have you had similar moments, when watching shows or enjoying movies? 

[November 22nd] The Walking Dead: A Descent into Boredom

Eh, I'm kinda interested in hearing what you think about the new The Walking Dead episodes so far. I had such high hopes for the show, considering that I showed the enthusiasm to review it over at Innsmouth Free Press, but I made the fundamental mistake to create 'expectations', which unfortunately were not met. Is it normal that I should expect a show to be completely boring story lines, which go nowhere [it seems as though they are like drugged asylum patients with identity crisis]? 

In my latest review of the series "Chupacabra" [yeah, I'm a bit behind], I open with the following: 

“Chupacabra” follows after the weakest episode in The Walking Dead to date, which is not as hard as one would imagine. The episode is the latest to miss the mark for me, but at the same time, there is some improvement, as well as some thrills. 

This is not how a review of a beloved show should start. It's very bizarre for me. Anyway, I just managed to sit through episode six "Secrets" and was equally struck down by blandness. I know these people can act, but the lines they are uttering make them sound like amateurs in a B movie. Of course, this is only my opinion. 

Although it's not BAD, there are 40 minutes worth of screen time of nothing. "Secrets" showcases the laziest writing I've seen in quite awhile and sudden confrontations, which make no sense. Dale has never been so vicious and his behavior towards Shane broke any suspension of disbelief. So out of character. 

Speaking of dull TV, the fall season has some pretty weak offerings. Grimm struck me as an overused idea stretched over a cliche archetype of a story. Once Upon a Time alienated me with unbelievable worldbuilding ideas. Even Fringe is reaching a point in its universe, where it repeats itself, considering that they largely left the shape shifting story line without a single mention and now are picking it up again. 

So guys, the ones who are watching TV shows, what have you to say? What do you like? What can you recommend and what can you warn me of?

America dumbs down Downton Abbey

While I'm on the cultural vibe, I've read news that Downton Abbey [my favorite period TV drama to date] will be edited in order for the American audience to have a better grasp on the plot. I find it quite startling, when an article [on Digital Spy] opens with the following:

"TV executives in the US have simplified the central storyline in ITV's hit period drama Downton Abbey due to fears that it will not be understood by American audiences.

The programme's plot - in which a distant relative stands to inherit the estate - will be downplayed and the series running time cut from eight to six hours when it airs in the US next week.

Downton Abbey focuses on the inner workings of the English aristocracy, specifically a legal device called the 'entail', which determines how an estate should be divided up."

REALLY? This is my question. Personally, I don't know anything about British nobility and how the law treats their estate, but I've watched the show. It's pretty obvious: the title of Lord along with the estate and money goes to the closest male relative [in this case, cousin Matthew], while the current Lord's progeny [three sisters] are left with nothing. Even without having to google the 'entail', it is clearly defined in the context of the plot and dialogue.

However, 'it is not a concept people in the US are very familiar with' AND 'American audiences are used to a different speed when it comes to television drama and you need to get into a story very quickly.'

Basically, America managed to ruin another quality story WITHOUT re-booting, re-making or commissioning a sequel. A big round of applause, please. What I'm mostly bitter about is that the American TV executives underestimate the audience without giving it a chance to see for itself, whether it can get the references or not. Plus, it's a minor challenge, really. One which could very well inspire more viewers to become interested in other cultures and really, Britain is fascinating with its history of power shifts and nobility.

It's sad, really.