Back again with a London location post which I'm sure no one is reading! But for posterity:
Daybreak and the police are back at the D Grain Silo (https://goo.gl/maps/TUJcRJ14ZDispWmZA) and just across the road, the first annual Bad People Meeting is taking place at Thames Barrier Park. With those great silver structures behind them (the Barrier https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-thames-barrier), which I'm currently looking at from our flat's windows (which you can kinda see when Berna walks down the park path and there's Barrier Point in the background). Does this matter to the story? Probably not, but I found it very curious that they would be meeting so close to where the police are investigating the Laurie body-dumping scene.
The Illegal smuggling ring may be a letdown, but normally you hear of the smugglers being from the country they're being smuggled from, not the country being smuggled to.
I don’t mind the introduction of Berna at this juncture. It’s not so late in the game that it feels like a cheat. It just feels like the unspooling of a complex, messy situation.
I need to watch the footage again, but the basic outline of the story about what happened on the refugee boat aligns pretty well with what Fatima first described to the police. That would probably mean that Peter lied to Sandrine about killing a “terrorist.” Peter wanted him dead because he interfered with the business and knew too much. That’s an interesting decision by Peter to lie to a close family friend to get her to commit murder. How does he think that ends well?
This is why I think Tim is a little off base when he calls Sandrine a “straight up racist/xenophobe.” My read is that she is a soldier committed to a cause, with a very misguided desire to extend the battlefield to London to revenge her dead friends. But she was genuinely concerned that she killed the wrong person after the initial police reports. Maybe she was just concerned about not doing a job well, and getting the wrong person, but I don’t think she was content to just kill immigrants. She wanted to keep killing the enemy. If she were just a xenophobe, she would be a much less interesting character. In the therapy session, I thought it was interesting how Sandrine discussed the difficulty for soldiers returning home from battle, given how dedicated she is to her work and proud she is of her military family. I can’t decide if this demonstrates that Sandrine is a complex, self-aware, intelligent character, or if this a clumsy forcing of themes from a character who would never talk that way. I’m inclined to the former.
Thank you to the Box Set member who pointed out the disheveled books framed around Sandrine’s disheveled mind in the therapy session. I noted it again this week.
David’s life is a mess. David is one of those high-placed characters who cannot seem to do anything right, leaving to wonder how they got their positions in the first place. David’s speech during the television interview served as a sort of unsubtle mission statement for the show as a whole. If I have one complaint about the show, it's that there has been a lot of speechifying and grand pronouncements. Show, don't tell, as they say.
As others have noted, there are lots of overhead shots of people, especially Sandrine, walking, individually and in pairs. Also, lots of framing shots where trains or London is on the edge of the shot, always there, always moving.
I haven’t said it yet, so I will just say that Carey Mulligan is giving a wonderful, understated performance.
All good points, but I would point out that when Sandrine says she "wants to kill a terrorist" -- on British soil, not in a war zone, though we could argue about the moral difference -- then she's displaying sociopathic tendencies. In addition, her talking about "terrorists" coming to Britain to essentially spoil the English way of life read, to me, as xenophobia, particularly in a series that is confronting a refugee crisis as a dramatic element (including David's speech about the hardening of English hearts).
Don't have much to add. This episode felt a little bit disjointed for me after about 10 days between episodes. Knowing it is only 4 episodes, with somewhat intricate drama threads, it probably benefits from a little more continuity in watching? I mean doesn't have to be in one day, but this is the kind of thing I might have watched an episode a day, and finished in 4-5 days. Maybe not during the Olympics, of course. 😉
I don't have the same issue with Station Eleven, though, probably because at least so far the episodes have been more discrete. I think certain genres can benefit more from it.
I agree with everyone about just about everything. This series' main appeal for me is the comfort food of these fabulously adept Brits in their element, which I've always been a glutton for. Mulligan's VOICE just kills me—the richness and strength of it with seemingly no effort, which helps make her character so serenely, unapologetically powerful. I figured it was because she had gone through such good vocal training, at RADA or wherever. But looking her up I found that she applied to three drama schools at 17 and was rejected by all of them. So there you are.
That's so funny about the vicar. Yeah, you can kinda see that. A little too clingy maybe. I'll bet we could watch this 5 times and not have that reaction but as soon as you said it, it's kind of clear....The female characters are everything in this....And I DO think they will get to much of the important stuff in the end.
Three episodes in it has become clear that I've developed some inexplicable fixation with the aesthetics of each scene without being able to decipher the meaning of these visuals...
With that in mind:
- It was interesting that Westbourne kept referring to the GROUP as "gentlemen" even though there was clearly a lady present...
- The framing when Sandrine is eating with her mom is once again pretty noticeable, the edges and sides of the screen are purposely obscured by opaque crystals and reflections in glass...
- When she's walking with her mom after the meal we get the same walkway/pathway/hallway/tunnel straight line framing of the shot that happens when two characters are talking about something that is most likely moving the plot forward...
- When Sandrine is talking to Peter its the first time two characters are talking on a pathway/walkway/hallway/tunnel and the path is curved (in both directions actually)...
- When Sandrine is crouching in the bushes at the and the framing around her is as clear and defined as its been the whole series so far...
- I'm definitely interested and checking out the services at whatever church Bishop Rufus and Vicar Jane are representing...
- Making those poor people pay for their own cleaning supplies is just shitty...
- Fatima's phone video is just a little too convenient and feels like the writers trying to get themselves out of corner...
I am VERY much interested to see how all of this gets resolved with only one episode left, CAN'T WAIT!!!
Yeah, and it's funny how some scenes can strike you differently depending....like, if I were to see a really FOCUSED AND INTENT soldier in full uniform and a big ass backpack walking briskly anywhere, I'd think there was trouble looming.
With TV series, there are at least two ways to evaluate what we are watching. There is the experience of watching each episode in turn, and there is how we feel when the series is over. If a series ends poorly, we shouldn't forget the pleasures of the watching. So I'm enjoying watching Collateral, but there really are a lot of loose ends to address in the finale. If they don't all get covered in a satisfactory manner, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy watching the show. But I would like to see some closure.
Yellowjackets suggested a few mysteries in its pilot, and most viewers thought we would find answers by the end of the season. But a lot was left open-ended, kinda like Lost did, because they wanted to setup a Season Two. We know with hindsight that there won't be any more Collateral after the four episodes, so again, I hope it all comes together in the finale.
I totally agree, Steven. Especially for long running series. There is this notion if the finale doesn’t “stick the landing” it was all for nothing. I don’t think that’s true! Obviously this one is just 4 episodes but through 3 episodes I have found it very entertaining and interesting.
That's about as clear eyed and reasoned as can be said about the viewing experience, Steven. I think critically we often demand not so much perfection but some kind of of sustained excellence and it's too rigid. I definitely watch more leniently now, as a viewer and as someone who is watching this with half a critic's brain and half a writer's brain. I would add that, as another example of how to look at Collateral, if it does managed to end well -- and my admittedly lousy recollection of it is troubling, but the memory that comes through is that it DOES work nicely enough, then I think my OWN disappointment of Ep. 2 then fades to lesser relevance. In fact, it's forgotten and forgiven. (I can't comment on Yellowjackets because I haven't seen it). It's like with Station Eleven -- I had some issues, and a couple of not great episodes (for me) but overall very happy with it.
I got my act together and watched the episode last night.
Very suspenseful episode with a lot of moving parts:
1. The best scene was Kip going back to the detention center to interview Fatima. Carey Mulligan is simply outstanding.
2. The most interestingly filmed scene was Sandrine eating lunch with her mother. Very strange conversation but interesting camera work which made me pay attention.
3. Ah I see our MI5 guy is up to something. Is this an undercover operation?
4. I was a little disappointed with the big meeting with our bad people. So this is all over an illegal smuggling ring? Felt slightly like a letdown.
5. Not sure where the MP and his troubled ex wife fits into all of this. Something about owing a Russian gang money? Time will tell.
I really am looking forward to the conclusion. I get why many couldn’t resist binging.
Tim: good point on Sandrine. They’re putting tidbits in to make you feel sorry for her but yes on the xenophobia.
Oh, yes, the Russian money! It was like, wait, what? Again, one of those things that would have been more subtle with more episodes. It was almost hilariously like they said, "Oh, and ALSO!, yeah, that!"
Back again with a London location post which I'm sure no one is reading! But for posterity:
Daybreak and the police are back at the D Grain Silo (https://goo.gl/maps/TUJcRJ14ZDispWmZA) and just across the road, the first annual Bad People Meeting is taking place at Thames Barrier Park. With those great silver structures behind them (the Barrier https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-thames-barrier), which I'm currently looking at from our flat's windows (which you can kinda see when Berna walks down the park path and there's Barrier Point in the background). Does this matter to the story? Probably not, but I found it very curious that they would be meeting so close to where the police are investigating the Laurie body-dumping scene.
The Illegal smuggling ring may be a letdown, but normally you hear of the smugglers being from the country they're being smuggled from, not the country being smuggled to.
If you’d like to see what the Thames Barrier looks like when closed - https://twitter.com/alanbarrierea/status/1495782136330305539?s=21
I don’t mind the introduction of Berna at this juncture. It’s not so late in the game that it feels like a cheat. It just feels like the unspooling of a complex, messy situation.
I need to watch the footage again, but the basic outline of the story about what happened on the refugee boat aligns pretty well with what Fatima first described to the police. That would probably mean that Peter lied to Sandrine about killing a “terrorist.” Peter wanted him dead because he interfered with the business and knew too much. That’s an interesting decision by Peter to lie to a close family friend to get her to commit murder. How does he think that ends well?
This is why I think Tim is a little off base when he calls Sandrine a “straight up racist/xenophobe.” My read is that she is a soldier committed to a cause, with a very misguided desire to extend the battlefield to London to revenge her dead friends. But she was genuinely concerned that she killed the wrong person after the initial police reports. Maybe she was just concerned about not doing a job well, and getting the wrong person, but I don’t think she was content to just kill immigrants. She wanted to keep killing the enemy. If she were just a xenophobe, she would be a much less interesting character. In the therapy session, I thought it was interesting how Sandrine discussed the difficulty for soldiers returning home from battle, given how dedicated she is to her work and proud she is of her military family. I can’t decide if this demonstrates that Sandrine is a complex, self-aware, intelligent character, or if this a clumsy forcing of themes from a character who would never talk that way. I’m inclined to the former.
Thank you to the Box Set member who pointed out the disheveled books framed around Sandrine’s disheveled mind in the therapy session. I noted it again this week.
David’s life is a mess. David is one of those high-placed characters who cannot seem to do anything right, leaving to wonder how they got their positions in the first place. David’s speech during the television interview served as a sort of unsubtle mission statement for the show as a whole. If I have one complaint about the show, it's that there has been a lot of speechifying and grand pronouncements. Show, don't tell, as they say.
As others have noted, there are lots of overhead shots of people, especially Sandrine, walking, individually and in pairs. Also, lots of framing shots where trains or London is on the edge of the shot, always there, always moving.
I haven’t said it yet, so I will just say that Carey Mulligan is giving a wonderful, understated performance.
On to episode 4.
All good points, but I would point out that when Sandrine says she "wants to kill a terrorist" -- on British soil, not in a war zone, though we could argue about the moral difference -- then she's displaying sociopathic tendencies. In addition, her talking about "terrorists" coming to Britain to essentially spoil the English way of life read, to me, as xenophobia, particularly in a series that is confronting a refugee crisis as a dramatic element (including David's speech about the hardening of English hearts).
Don't have much to add. This episode felt a little bit disjointed for me after about 10 days between episodes. Knowing it is only 4 episodes, with somewhat intricate drama threads, it probably benefits from a little more continuity in watching? I mean doesn't have to be in one day, but this is the kind of thing I might have watched an episode a day, and finished in 4-5 days. Maybe not during the Olympics, of course. 😉
Yes, I think this is a good example of fine tuning things and I'll be doubling up episodes on future shows. Just to speed it up.
I don't have the same issue with Station Eleven, though, probably because at least so far the episodes have been more discrete. I think certain genres can benefit more from it.
I agree with everyone about just about everything. This series' main appeal for me is the comfort food of these fabulously adept Brits in their element, which I've always been a glutton for. Mulligan's VOICE just kills me—the richness and strength of it with seemingly no effort, which helps make her character so serenely, unapologetically powerful. I figured it was because she had gone through such good vocal training, at RADA or wherever. But looking her up I found that she applied to three drama schools at 17 and was rejected by all of them. So there you are.
BSers doing homework. Love it.
For a split second I thought BSers meant ‘BullShitters.’ 🤣 Proud to be one!
One of the most British things I've heard is Sandrine's posh mom wanting to be alone to grieve so no one bears witness.
Was Sandrine always robot-like, or is this all military? She is an ice cold terminator.
The vicar really annoys me and I wish I didn't feel that way.
Loving the growing and expanding role of the female characters, for better or worse.
There's a LOT to wrap up in the last ep!
That's so funny about the vicar. Yeah, you can kinda see that. A little too clingy maybe. I'll bet we could watch this 5 times and not have that reaction but as soon as you said it, it's kind of clear....The female characters are everything in this....And I DO think they will get to much of the important stuff in the end.
Three episodes in it has become clear that I've developed some inexplicable fixation with the aesthetics of each scene without being able to decipher the meaning of these visuals...
With that in mind:
- It was interesting that Westbourne kept referring to the GROUP as "gentlemen" even though there was clearly a lady present...
- The framing when Sandrine is eating with her mom is once again pretty noticeable, the edges and sides of the screen are purposely obscured by opaque crystals and reflections in glass...
- When she's walking with her mom after the meal we get the same walkway/pathway/hallway/tunnel straight line framing of the shot that happens when two characters are talking about something that is most likely moving the plot forward...
- When Sandrine is talking to Peter its the first time two characters are talking on a pathway/walkway/hallway/tunnel and the path is curved (in both directions actually)...
- When Sandrine is crouching in the bushes at the and the framing around her is as clear and defined as its been the whole series so far...
- I'm definitely interested and checking out the services at whatever church Bishop Rufus and Vicar Jane are representing...
- Making those poor people pay for their own cleaning supplies is just shitty...
- Fatima's phone video is just a little too convenient and feels like the writers trying to get themselves out of corner...
I am VERY much interested to see how all of this gets resolved with only one episode left, CAN'T WAIT!!!
Aesthetic representation is...important. Glad you're noticing!
Still feels like there's a bunch of misdirection and side plots that might make sense in a 10 episode series. But in 4?
Like, where is the story going with Sandrine stalking Major Tim at his house with basically an hour left of the whole story?
Yeah, and it's funny how some scenes can strike you differently depending....like, if I were to see a really FOCUSED AND INTENT soldier in full uniform and a big ass backpack walking briskly anywhere, I'd think there was trouble looming.
With TV series, there are at least two ways to evaluate what we are watching. There is the experience of watching each episode in turn, and there is how we feel when the series is over. If a series ends poorly, we shouldn't forget the pleasures of the watching. So I'm enjoying watching Collateral, but there really are a lot of loose ends to address in the finale. If they don't all get covered in a satisfactory manner, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy watching the show. But I would like to see some closure.
Yellowjackets suggested a few mysteries in its pilot, and most viewers thought we would find answers by the end of the season. But a lot was left open-ended, kinda like Lost did, because they wanted to setup a Season Two. We know with hindsight that there won't be any more Collateral after the four episodes, so again, I hope it all comes together in the finale.
I totally agree, Steven. Especially for long running series. There is this notion if the finale doesn’t “stick the landing” it was all for nothing. I don’t think that’s true! Obviously this one is just 4 episodes but through 3 episodes I have found it very entertaining and interesting.
That's about as clear eyed and reasoned as can be said about the viewing experience, Steven. I think critically we often demand not so much perfection but some kind of of sustained excellence and it's too rigid. I definitely watch more leniently now, as a viewer and as someone who is watching this with half a critic's brain and half a writer's brain. I would add that, as another example of how to look at Collateral, if it does managed to end well -- and my admittedly lousy recollection of it is troubling, but the memory that comes through is that it DOES work nicely enough, then I think my OWN disappointment of Ep. 2 then fades to lesser relevance. In fact, it's forgotten and forgiven. (I can't comment on Yellowjackets because I haven't seen it). It's like with Station Eleven -- I had some issues, and a couple of not great episodes (for me) but overall very happy with it.
I got my act together and watched the episode last night.
Very suspenseful episode with a lot of moving parts:
1. The best scene was Kip going back to the detention center to interview Fatima. Carey Mulligan is simply outstanding.
2. The most interestingly filmed scene was Sandrine eating lunch with her mother. Very strange conversation but interesting camera work which made me pay attention.
3. Ah I see our MI5 guy is up to something. Is this an undercover operation?
4. I was a little disappointed with the big meeting with our bad people. So this is all over an illegal smuggling ring? Felt slightly like a letdown.
5. Not sure where the MP and his troubled ex wife fits into all of this. Something about owing a Russian gang money? Time will tell.
I really am looking forward to the conclusion. I get why many couldn’t resist binging.
Tim: good point on Sandrine. They’re putting tidbits in to make you feel sorry for her but yes on the xenophobia.
Oh, yes, the Russian money! It was like, wait, what? Again, one of those things that would have been more subtle with more episodes. It was almost hilariously like they said, "Oh, and ALSO!, yeah, that!"