'Tom' character


I've not shouted at the tv for a long time apart from when the football is on, however the Tom character drove me to it. The BBC must have insisted on him being written in. Apart from him its was enjoyable, especially Ben Chaplin's sarcastic comments throughout " Ethical tweed underpants " 7/10

reply

The BBC must have insisted on him being written in


Why, because he is liberal/left? So, I'd guess, was David, judging from his speech, yet he also voted 'aye'. Tom is better seen as the conscious of the group, if of course you assume'nay' was the right answer.

And it was rather more than merely 'enjoyable', IMHO

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

Nothing to do with his leanings, I just found him irritating.

reply

Ah, ok. Why, can I ask?

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

I felt he was putting his own views before the greater good, plus he was pretty selfish not being by his wife's bedside too.

reply

Good points but I think - having read around the web voraciously - that part of the point of the film is that each of them brings their own problems and views to the game, wrongly since they should be objective, as Philippa says, but realistically. The point, I believe, is that in a real scenario, that is just what would happen. Thus it may have been better for Tom not to have been there are trying to dissuade the others from committing, for example, just as Maria should perhaps have been at home recovering too etc

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

Fair point, it was good. It seemed to fly past. Good to see Chaplin in a good role again. πŸ‘

reply

Thanks for chatting, enjoyed it; gotta get some sleep now! Will be blogging on this, probably tomorrow if I can - see my site below (obvs). Do take a look.

Best

Chris

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

Thanks pal same to you, I'll check it out in the morning. Kind regards πŸ‘

reply

Took a bit longer but is 'up' now....http://www.chrismrogers.net/

Do let me know what you think, either on here or via my site's 'Contact'button. Thanks

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

Excellent write up Chris, I enjoyed reading thatπŸ‘ I see you're a fan of NYPD Blue also, one of my all time favourites.

reply

Thanks, glad you liked it and glad you took a tour! Yes, I watched every episode and loved it. It was the precursor of those great series like The Wire and The Sopranos etc (though I didn't actually see those - I did though love The Shield...)

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

reply

Christ are you lot on something. Banging on as if this was a serious piece of work. It was bullshine. Do you seriously think a committee of senior civil servants would include a loud mouth Scouse scally. A black kid out of college and a bird who shows her briefs? What about the weeping and wailing at the end? Laughable. Now I know why it was a BBC4 exclusive. Oh yeh and major decisions being made after a nanosecond of discussion.
Could have sworn that chairlady person was Zoe Kravitz. Uncanny.

reply

Besides which the whole premise and Churchill style speech at the end was fatally flawed. The deterrent held firm. No one fired on us so why the hell would we be pressing the button. Not even affecting Nati members. Garbage.

reply

The speech didn't make an awfull lot of sense to me and the character seemed to suddenly change from what was established when he made it.

I also did not see an awfull lot of relevence in pointing out that the UK only held 1% of the worlds nuclear capacity. Surely the point is that even with such a small percentage of destructive nuclear power you can end up destroying millions of people.

I am not totally sure how that was not understood?

reply