![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlodeI tried watching the BBC's new "The War Between the Land and the Sea", which was being put into the Saturday-evening slot. Unfortunately I really struggled to understand what was going on.
The picture was dark, the dialogue was incomprehensible, the volume seemed incredibly quiet (or was it just mumbling?), I found myself guessing at the plot from what fragments of words and images I could catch -- when the words UNIT flashed up on screen I was confirmed in my guess that this was in fact the return of the Sea Devils, although the vibes I was getting were closer to "The Kraken Wakes" -- and the cast appeared to have been chosen for 'diversity' rather than interest. Our apparent designated protagonist -- a man who'd apparently found himself in the role of back-up civilian expert by some administrative mistake without possessing any actual expertise -- was notable mainly for the bulging muscles sticking obtrusively out of his wife-beater vest, which put me off. I know this body-builder look is supposed to signal that the character is attractive, or at least fit, but I *know* what real functional muscles on people who are capable of manual labour or athletic strength look like; I know the shape of a body that jumps and works or does breathtaking stunts for a living, and it doesn't bulge or stick out, any more than any other healthy animal would do. This modern look is about as appealing as the square cattle and pigs in 19th century art.
At any rate, at the point when I was seriously considering putting the subtitles on so that I could follow the plot, it dawned on me that in fact the whole experience was distinctly familiar from my routine struggles to understand Russian programming. And then it dawned on me that in terms of struggle and reward I would actually much *rather* go back and continue listening to an obscure clip of Mikhail Boyarsky answering banal questions from a hall full of teenage students -- recorded at a volume so low that I had to turn everything up to the maximum to be able to hear the young interviewer at all, but giving responses with a vigour and humour and serious consideration that were a good deal more attention-compelling, despite the language barrier.
So I went and watched Boyarsky instead -- without subtitles. (Mostly; on the occasions when I did go back and put them on, they were as fragmentary and generally unreliable as I'd expected!)
And for me at least it genuinely was a lot more interesting. It's still going to take a long time and several more sessions for me to work through an hour of Boyarsky being muffled and loquacious, but the difference is that for whatever reason I actually have some investment in what is being said, even for a question like "Is it possible to be objective when watching your own daughter act?"
Sorry, Russell T. Davies, but you had one chance to fix my interest, and you didn't make it. (Which, by an ironic coincidence, was more or less what Boyarsky was saying about his own experience of recent film releases in that school-interview :-p)
The picture was dark, the dialogue was incomprehensible, the volume seemed incredibly quiet (or was it just mumbling?), I found myself guessing at the plot from what fragments of words and images I could catch -- when the words UNIT flashed up on screen I was confirmed in my guess that this was in fact the return of the Sea Devils, although the vibes I was getting were closer to "The Kraken Wakes" -- and the cast appeared to have been chosen for 'diversity' rather than interest. Our apparent designated protagonist -- a man who'd apparently found himself in the role of back-up civilian expert by some administrative mistake without possessing any actual expertise -- was notable mainly for the bulging muscles sticking obtrusively out of his wife-beater vest, which put me off. I know this body-builder look is supposed to signal that the character is attractive, or at least fit, but I *know* what real functional muscles on people who are capable of manual labour or athletic strength look like; I know the shape of a body that jumps and works or does breathtaking stunts for a living, and it doesn't bulge or stick out, any more than any other healthy animal would do. This modern look is about as appealing as the square cattle and pigs in 19th century art.
At any rate, at the point when I was seriously considering putting the subtitles on so that I could follow the plot, it dawned on me that in fact the whole experience was distinctly familiar from my routine struggles to understand Russian programming. And then it dawned on me that in terms of struggle and reward I would actually much *rather* go back and continue listening to an obscure clip of Mikhail Boyarsky answering banal questions from a hall full of teenage students -- recorded at a volume so low that I had to turn everything up to the maximum to be able to hear the young interviewer at all, but giving responses with a vigour and humour and serious consideration that were a good deal more attention-compelling, despite the language barrier.
Q1: Do you consider yourself as someone who loves his profession?
A (firmly): No :-P
Q2: So how do you see it?
A: It's my job. ;-)
And then he goes on to explain how essentially unromantic an activity it is... (and, in his view, much more enjoyable for women than for men, since for the former the whole business of make-up and constant costume changes at least has an intrinsic appeal :-p)
So I went and watched Boyarsky instead -- without subtitles. (Mostly; on the occasions when I did go back and put them on, they were as fragmentary and generally unreliable as I'd expected!)
And for me at least it genuinely was a lot more interesting. It's still going to take a long time and several more sessions for me to work through an hour of Boyarsky being muffled and loquacious, but the difference is that for whatever reason I actually have some investment in what is being said, even for a question like "Is it possible to be objective when watching your own daughter act?"
Sorry, Russell T. Davies, but you had one chance to fix my interest, and you didn't make it. (Which, by an ironic coincidence, was more or less what Boyarsky was saying about his own experience of recent film releases in that school-interview :-p)