FEATURE: Buffy the Vampire Slayer - The Prom

Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Faith's on the dark side with the Mayor, who was a bit too honest about how a mismatched couple like Buffy and Angel could fare as they travel along. Buffy and the gang are still trying to find out stuff about the Mayor's Ascension as Graduation Day looms on the horizon.

Hands up if you cry at this episode.

All of you? If not, someone is either lying or completely stone-hearted. Because this is the episode where Buffy finally gets to be recognised for what she does and is acknowledged as a nice, nearly normal girl who happens to save people's asses a lot. This is also what she does in this episode as a guy called Tucker Wells who no one really knows decides to get revenge on everyone because a girl wouldn't be his date to the prom. A guy threatening violence because he found he wasn't automatically entitled to a woman's time? Never... Ahem. Anyway, basically Buffy decides that this isn't on and goes after the hell hounds that Tucker has conjured up and brainwashed into attacking formal wear.

Though the prom is something that's only just started to take in the UK, it's a concept that is hugely familiar to us through the teen movies we all know and love. The prom is a rite of passage event, the beginning of the end of high school and also the opportunity for new beginnings afterwards. This episode sort of subverts it in the traditional way by packing the episode full of endings; Angel and Buffy break up, he commits to leaving and Cordy has lost everything. 

That being said, it's not without humour. In fact, it contains some cracking lines, not to mention it features the best 'asking for a prom date' line ever from Anya: "Men are evil. Will you go with me?" Wesley's constant dithering about Cordelia is always amusing whilst Anya regales Xander with all of her tales of vengeance demoning. Nicholas Brendon's expression throughout that whole scene is pitch perfect. Still, I'm upset this exchange had to be cut out of the final episode for length:

Willow: Promise me you'll never be linear?
Oz: On my trout.

Despite everyone else's joys and woes, the episode is all about Buffy. Going right back to Prophecy Girl when she was determined to go to the dance despite an ancient manuscript telling her she was due to die and through the Homecoming Slayerfest, Buffy is determined to at least fit in a bit and have a normal high school experience. The prom represents another opportunity, possibly the last, for her to do this and she doesn't take too kindly to someone threatening it. Saving the prom may just be another day in the office for her, but the episode's sweetest moment comes as the Class of '99 recognise Buffy as their Class Protector.

Jonathan's speech is another perfect example of how Buffy combines humour with melancholy to produce something exceptionally moving. It's one of my favourite moments of the entire series, precisely because it combines those two things so well. There's Jonathan giving the speech after Buffy stopping him from committing suicide in the earlier episode, Earshot, which carries even more emotional heft given Jonathan's fate later in the series. Then there's the references to how the Class of '99 is graduating with the lowest mortality rate in Sunnydale High history to the weird things everyone has faced at school ("Zombies!" "Hyena people!" "Snyder!"). 

Coupled with the moment in which Angel appears to dance with Buffy at the prom itself, everything about this episode is pretty much perfect. The sombreness builds well into the general tension surrounding the approach to the Mayor's Ascension, whilst the levity ensures it doesn't get too maudlin. Next week, we hit Graduation Day which not only contains my favourite line of Oz's, it also might be the best two-part finale Buffy produced. 

Quote of the Week:

Giles [to Wesley]: For God's sake man, she's eighteen. And you have the emotional maturity of a blueberry scone. Just have at it would you? And stop fluttering about.

Let's Get Trivial: Vera Wang designed Buffy's gorgeous and floofy wedding dress for this episode. Wang would also go on to design Sarah Michelle Gellar's wedding dress when she married Freddie Prinze Jr.

Demonology 101: Tucker's brother, Andrew, famously goes on to become one of The Trio who kinda suck at everything. He does do some neat film-making later on though.

- Becky

You can read Becky's look back at Choices here.

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page

TV REVIEW: Broadchurch - Episodes Three & Four

When the first series of Broadchurch had reached the halfway point, the nation was on tenterhooks wanting to know who had killed Danny Latimer. Now, everyone seems to be wondering how long it's going to be before everyone in that courtroom gets disbarred and/or starts dancing a fandango on the grave of this particular fictional legal system. As much as I still love the show and all the weird and wonderful goings-on, it's gone a bit mad. It's not quite full cobblers just yet, but compared to the glorious restraint shown in the first series, it feels like Broadchurch has taken a running jump of the picturesque Cliff of Sanity, falling headlong into the Sea of Melodrama below.

The two strands of the Broadchurch and Sandbrook cases aren't so much weaving together as crashing into each other at opportune intervals. Lee Ashworth lurks in every scene he's let near like a handsome, dangerous lurking thing (James D'Arcy gives good lurk), the residents of Broadchurch itself seem to have forgotten that a young boy died and are revelling with a grotesque glee at the proceedings whilst Miller and Hardy try to connect the dots. The trouble is, all of the dots are screaming 'Lee Ashworth is innocent! Look check out this creepy guy over here!" Only they're not.

Before I descend into a complete frenzy of bewilderment and slightly open-mouthed awe, I do have to point out a lot of the positives going on in Broadchurch right now. Well, a few of the positives. Ok, fine, one major positive; all of the roles for older women currently occupying this production. Obviously, Olivia Colman is wonderful and amazing and we still love her. Then's there's Charlotte Rampling who is utter class, Meera Syal bringing fierceness and an excellent wig to the proceedings and Marianne Jean-Baptiste as the conscience-stricken defence barrister. They are all absolutely fantastic and are really excelling within the slightly bonkers proceedings.

Not only that, but we also get the return of lurking Pauline Quirke in the fourth episode (more lurking) who points the finger at Creepy Nige for the disposal of Danny's body. Yes, Creepy Nige is back to earning his nickname, pulling all sorts of facial expressions at his estranged mother when she first tries to make peace with him before trying to frame him in another ridiculous shock moment. It's at these more emotional, sombre moments of high melodrama that Broadchurch is striving for a balance that it's not always able to keep. 

There are those jaw-dropping moments that are fuelled by pure pettiness on behalf of the witness (seriously, how have none of them been done for perjury?) and then there are others where Chris Chibnall is trying to hark back to the restraint of the first series. It doesn't always quite land. The scene of David Tennant gallantly carrying the body of the Sandbrook murder victim back to shore through the pouring rain was far too overwrought to be taken seriously. Tennant is a good enough actor to just let the storytelling land the emotional moments. He doesn't need sodden flashbacks to make him look good.

And yet, we're still hooked. It's still absolutely compelling television, it's just compelling television of an entirely different kind to the first series. This one seems to be hinging more on how many times can we shock the audience with another cliffhanger before they call foul as opposed to crafting the meticulous crime drama we all fell in love with. And I'm sort of OK with that. Granted, if we do get that courtroom-based fandango, I may eat my words, but hell, I'm all for Meera Syal dancing on her bench with wig in hand.

- Becky

You can read Jen's review of Episode Two here.

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page

THEATRE REVIEW: Happy Birthday Without You - Tricycle Theatre

Photo by Luke Pajak

Written and performed by Sonia Jalaly, one-woman comedy Happy Birthday Without You introduces us to the world of Violet Fox, a performance artiste with a passionate and somewhat misguided belief that she has some very important things to say.

In her own words: ‘I put my soul on stage every night for strangers. In my eyes that makes me a hero.’

Through a mash-up of spoken word, cabaret, satire and visual comedy, Violet takes the audience on a journey through the various disastrous birthdays of her life, weaving in anecdotes about her complex and destructive relationship with her mother. 

As Violet, Sonia Jalaly is highly expressive, watchable, and is a natural comic performer. Expertly sending up Violet’s astronomical opinion of herself, Jalaly appears just the opposite, gleefully unafraid to take risks and interact with the audience – often looking quite silly in the process. We’ve all encountered exactly the sort of ‘troubled artist’ Violet thinks she is, especially in the spoken word world, so it is undeniably refreshing to see this satirised, particularly in such a unique and interesting way and by a talented performer in her own right.

Visual comedy is something that can often be quite difficult for an audience to gel with, and there seemed to be a real mixture of reactions on the night I saw the show. Particular highlights, however, included a solitary game of musical chairs involving post-it notes and lipstick, different renditions of ‘Happy Birthday to you’ in the style of various Broadway dames (Jalaly has one hell of a voice), and a mimed Edith Piaf impression. A healthy smattering of self-aware, satirical theatre jokes works well too - ‘Ooh look the lights have come on and everything – it’s just so immersive’. There’s also a really brilliant joke about some pornographic bunting towards the end which frankly is worth the ticket price alone.

Photo by Luke Pajak

The actual plot of the piece, whilst fragmented and non-chronological, is held together remarkably well. You suspect that in the hands of a lesser performer, perhaps one closer to Violet than Sonia, it would not be anywhere near as well constructed. Interestingly though, the darker elements of the hour and ten minute production are some of the most effective, and despite the satire you so find yourself wanting to see them taken further, especially when Violet then breaks the tension with a characteristic ‘so…yeah’. It’s really quite clever to get an unexpected laugh from somewhere like that and Ruby Thompson’s direction really shines in such moments. I couldn’t help but wish the darker moments were taken further, but then pulling the rug out from under the audience when the satire crashes sharply back in.

It’s main and really only weakness as a piece, and certainly one often felt by the genre as a whole, is that it’s easy to feel on the edge of the humour rather than fully immersed in it. It can often feel as if there’s a huge-in joke that you misheard the punchline of or just didn’t quite get. When you do get it, you find yourself laughing out loud, but the parts which don’t quite land are a little alienating. 

Essentially, when this show works, it really works. 

For me, there were just a few too many gaps between the big laughs. But if cabaret, visual comedy, spoken word, or anything between is your bag, this is definitely a performance worth seeing if you can catch it.

Jen

★★★

@jenniferklarge

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page  

FILM REVIEW: Ex Machina

When Mary Shelley published Frankenstein in 1818, she set a template for stories about man playing at being God that has lasted for nearly two centuries. Her doctor was concerned with the reanimation of man, an experiment which resulted in the earliest science fiction novel, asking big questions about man's place in the world, the nature of humanity and the way in which society's nurture can alter it. The inspiration for Ex Machina is clear as first-time director, long-time screenwriter Alex Garland remoulds Shelley's tale for the 21st century, melding her Romantic sensibilities and philosophical searching with a technological sheen that re-examines the age-old question of what makes us human.

The film finds a computer programmer, Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) winning the opportunity to spend a week in the company of his reclusive billionaire boss, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). As is so often the case, all is not what it seems and Caleb discovers he is to be the human component in a Turing test, the ultimate test to see if artificial intelligence can pass for being human and all that entails. The artificial intelligence in question is a humanoid construction called Ava (Alicia Vikander). As Caleb progresses through the test, he finds himself questioning everything he has been told so far and forming a curious relationship with the inquisitive Ava.

Meticulous in its construction, not a single word of Garland's screenplay is wasted, building the tension between the three leads beautifully as the story unfolds. It deftly combines exposition with the action itself and considering the subject matter, it neither belittles nor leaves its audience behind. Garland has an impressive track record with genre screenwriting anyway, but he more than proves himself as a director too, intricately building the claustrophobic world of Nathan's retreat. That world-building ensures that the film not only excels narratively, but thematically too.

The location and design of Nathan's house is a perfect microcosm of the way in which Ex Machina sets binary opposites together seemingly in harmony. Conversations about evolution and the natural world take place within a location that itself sees the meeting of the chaos of nature and the order of the modern world. Nathan's house is all clean lines and carefully arranged rooms with the natural world jutting in through a stylishly designed rock formation as part of a wall or a tree growing through into a small courtyard. Floor to ceiling windows allow its occupants to see out to the mountains, the forest and all of the impressive scenery beyond. The message of this house is clear; this is a place where nature is controlled and kept at bay, a fitting house for a man attempting to play God.

Ava, the figure at the heart of the film, is another example of this meeting of opposites. Impressively designed and realised via Vikander's performance, Ava is a combination of human features and metal bodywork, glimpsed through transparent panels on her arms, torso and legs. It is an uncanny version of humanity and Vikander captures both facets of the character masterfully, given her an almost mechanical physicality with a none-more human personality. The casting of Vikander also builds in a layer of objectification regarding both Caleb and Nathan's interaction with her; it's something Garland casts a critical eye over. It builds into a voyeurism at the heart of the film, one which not only casts Ava within the male gaze of Nathan and Caleb, but also the entirety of humanity. Nathan's search engine, Bluebook, can code and quantify human needs, constructed solely from the profile their use of the internet constructs.

Both starring in a certain blockbuster sequel later this year, 2015 looks set to be a big year for Isaac and Gleeson. In this smaller, confined world, Gleeson brings a wide-eyed naivety and a warm performance to the film. As the human component in the Turing test, his innate goodness filters through and he makes for a sympathetic narrative focus. It also helps that he has an exceptional chemistry with both Vikander and Isaac. Isaac may have broken through with the morose Llewyn Davis, but he proves his versatility here, giving a performance that is operating on several levels all at once. Mercurial, sinister and broodingly physical, he brings a masculine posturing to the film that produces an excellent counterpoint to Vikander's soft femininity. 

Ex Machina is fascinating, multi-layered piece of work and Alex Garland's directorial debut is extremely impressive, combining thematic explorations with a chilling, twisting narrative. It's an intelligent new spin on a Frankenstein-like tale and will stand as an example of the kind of clever science fiction that enthrals and bewilders in equal measure.

- Becky

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page

FILM REVIEW: Into The Woods

After watching Into The Woods, Rob Marshall’s adaptation of Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s 1987 musical, it seems to me that ‘The Woods’ aren’t so much a place, but rather a state of mind. A place of suspended disbelief, where stories are mixed up and characters wander in and out of narratives as they please.

By default, some people will gel with this quite happily, where others won’t. It’s worth remembering that, despite the variety of upside-down, what-happened-next fairytales available for our viewing pleasure, Into the Woods was very much a forerunner back in the day. 

But back to the film. The ‘Prologue’, introduces us to James Corden’s baker and his wife (Emily Blunt) a childless couple, who are one day visited by a witch (Meryl Streep) who claims responsibility for the curse on their house which has rendered them childless all these years. They are set the challenge of retrieving certain magical items (you can probably hazard a guess) by the next blue moon in three days’ time in order for the curse to be lifted. Along the way, they meet some familiar fairy-tale faces, albeit with a twist each time, from an indecisive Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), to an arrogant, slightly sinister Prince Charming (Chris Pine), to an emotional Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy) via Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) of beanstalk fame, whose best friend is a cow.

Personally I’d be hard pushed not to enjoy something Sondheim has had even the smallest involvement in, as the many questionable performances of ‘Being Alive’ I’ve watched on youtube is a testament to, but arguably as strong a draw with this production is the all-star cast. And that proved a worthy notion, although not entirely in the way you would expect. Most of the pre-release hype has been focused almost entirely on Meryl Streep, calling to mind that highly appropriate Tina Fey and Amy Poehler Golden Globes joke ‘Meryl Streep can’t be here tonight… She has the flu – and I hear she’s amazing in it’.

And amazing indeed she is, veering between cackling, spell-casting and flashing her disturbingly long nails –all your traditional witchy activities – and genuine, heart-felt laments at the loss of her beauty and youth. Oh and her magic beans, of course. She’s quite keen on them. Her performance of the powerful ‘Last Midnight’, a typically complex Sondheim number full of quirky rhymes (see ‘witch’ and ‘hitch’, ‘hunch’ and ‘bunch’) and neat summaries of just about everyone else in the plot along the way, is particularly awe-inspiring.

But I’d be willing to bet that it is Emily Blunt’s performance audiences are still talking about on the bus home. She plays the childless baker’s wife with vulnerability, warmth and vitality, all whilst cracking out a singing voice I certainly had no idea she possessed, providing some really gorgeous harmonies in the group numbers in particular.

And it’s not just Blunt who takes us by surprise. Chris Pine’s performance of the out-loud ego-trip ‘Agony’ alongside Rapunzel’s Prince Billy Magnussen was an unexpected triumph (‘Agony! Far more painful than yours, when you know she would go with you, if there only were doors’), as were almost all songs performed by the younger actors - Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood and Les Miserables’ Daniel Huttlestone as Jack. Film viewers know Anna Kendrick has a lovely voice through Pitch Perfect, but it’s great to see her stretching her cinematic comfort zone a bit here, and using those Tony nominated Broadway vocal chords to full effect. 

You can also play an excellent game of ‘spot the character actor’ in Act II, if Johnny Depp (who else?)’s performance as the infamous big bad wolf wasn’t enough for you.

Marshall has played a sensible game here in striking for the fun, playful angle in Into The Woods, rather than overly focusing on the themes of storytelling or the innate darkness in children’s stories – Cinderella’s ugly sisters cutting off parts of their feet in order to fit the slipper, anyone? The darker scenes are there, granted, but they never feel like the main focus.

This is by no means a perfect film, you do get the slight sense at times that there's a little something missing, but you can't quite put your finger on what.

With that in mind, if you enter the woods looking for a good time, you won’t stray far from the path. 

★★★★

Jen

@jenniferklarge

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page  

TV REVIEW: Broadchurch - Episode 2

Alright there at the back? Have we still got everyone?

Granted, we’re only at Episode 2 of ITV crime drama Broadchurch’s second series, but I must admit I’ve found myself behaving slightly like a fretful tour-guide this week whenever I’ve spoken to a Broadchurch viewer. Are we still all here? Are we still following?

The answer appears to be a resounding yes so far, although don’t worry, I’ll keep checking we haven’t accidentally left anybody in the loos.

There was certainly a lot to take in this week, even for Broadchurch. The trial of Joe Miller (Matthew Gravelle) kicked off in earnest, now with a full quota of lawyers, DI Hardy (David Tennant) ramped up his mad mission to solve two crimes at once, orchestrating a meeting between Claire (Eve Myles) and Lee Ashworth (James D’Arcy), Mark Latimer (Andrew Buchan) continued to behave very oddly, as did Reverend Coates (Arthur Darvill), whilst poor old Ellie (Olivia Coleman) is still bearing the brunt of just about everyone’s anger. Oh and Beth (Jodie Whittaker) went into labour. 

So a quiet episode, really.

Admittedly, there was some silliness, with several reviewers astutely pointing out the show’s ever-increasing resemblance to a soap opera. And it is, really. The meet up between Claire and Lee was doomed from the outset, made obvious by how many times we were told in the dialogue exactly where Alec and Ellie were both standing, and how safe it all was. This is Broadchurch - nobody should be taking ‘safe’ at face value anymore.  The anger aimed at Ellie continues to defy all logic, at least as far as I’m concerned, mainly as I don’t see how anyone can bring themselves to shout at Olivia Colman in an orange anorak. Especially when she’s had nothing to eat but ‘a scotch egg and a Kit-Kat’. In its defence, though, it does neatly demonstrate the atmosphere of blame and paranoia in the town.

And I think that might be part of the reason why, despite its barmy-ness, the show is very much still working. We’re still feeling the aftermath of Danny’s murder, but if all the action was just inside the courtroom, it would get very boring very quickly. So we’re seeing other things. We’re seeing the continued extraordinary performances from Colman and Tennant in particular as their characters’ relationship strengthens further. So much so that it almost makes you wish you could see them detective-ing together in happier times. 

We’re seeing the relationships between the legal teams, flashbacks to the Sandbrook case, a theme of misanthropy as just about everyone is guilty of something unpleasant, lots and lots of beautiful coastlines, a few bluebells, and then Meera Syal turned up! Meera Syal on a bike, slapping on a judge’s wig and then basically delivering the ‘let’s have a good, clean game’ speech a la Madam Hooch. Brilliant, just brilliant.

For this, arguably, is where the show’s genius really lies. Despite its primary storyline being over, there’s still plenty going on that’s new. Amazingly, it somehow still pushes you into having theories, still having suspicions, even though the culprit has allegedly been caught.

  

For example, I personally want to know what Mark Latimer was doing between 1 and 4am on the night in question, what on earth he’s up to hanging out with Tom Miller (Adam Wilson) quite as much as he is, and who Sharon the lawyer (Marianne Jean-Baptise) was talking to on the phone in the hotel.

Oh and I wouldn’t trust the vicar as far as I could throw him, Arthur Darvill or no.

And that’s just me. There are masses of theories and discussions going out there and everyone’s got their own.

If it carries on like this, it’ll have us all hooked until the very end.

Jen

@jenniferklarge

Follow @AssortedBuffery on Twitter
Or like our Facebook page