More wrongness

Posted by

0

I have never chosen to watch a film or TV show because of the stars in it, but that’s not because I don’t rate actors. I also don’t watch something just because of the director.

Okay, I will watch because of the writer. But even then, it’s not automatic, it’s not enough. I have to be interested, something has to interest me, something has to make me watch.

But in particular, it’s not that I under-appreciate actors. Yet then you get things like the cast of “The Usual Suspects”. This is the thriller with the fantastic twist that means every character you’d got interested in doesn’t matter anymore and you can go home, change channels, stream something else, that’s very clever, we’re done now.

Gabriel Byrne in particular, so good in the series In Treatment, is regularly reported to have said he didn’t know whether his character in The Usual Suspects was the one who is revealed to be the baddie.

In my turn, I have regularly said – mostly to myself, you now stop listening when I grumble – that Bryne and the rest should take another look at the script. Specifically, page 142.

Only, this week I came across an interview on YouTube with John le Carré talking about the BBC version of his Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. And in it he describes a conversation he had with its star, Alec Guinness, in which the actor worried aloud about who the baddie was.

Before I could draw breath and say to my TV set that it’s in the bloody script, does no one read this thing, you’ve got one job to do and it starts there on the page, le Carré said “William, no, shut it a minute.”

Well, he might as well have done. What he actually said was how fascinating this conversation was because at that point Alec Guinness knew every word of the scripts — but his character only knew as far as the point they’d got to in filming.

Alec Guinness was able to be a pro who knew everybody’s lines and simultaneously be that much into the character George Smiley, for whom this wasn’t a script, wasn’t a story, it was the character’s real life.

I sit corrected.

I was young

Posted by

0

Oh, come on, I’m a man: yes, it’s taken me 15 years to admit I was stupidly wrong about something, but you know men who will never admit it under any circumstances. Man, wrong, admitting it, that’s a Dear Diary moment for anyone.

Although now I’m clearly just putting this off.

Okay.

Earlier this week I rewatched a 2008 episode of “Doctor Who” called “Midnight”. There was no reason, I just flicked past it in the lists, fancied it, watched it, and afterwards was still so wide-eyed into it that I couldn’t sit still. Couldn’t just think, you know, “cor” or something intelligent.

I had to go say so online. Please explain to me why. I know you know because you’ve done it too, you’ve raced to enthuse about something but I’m not sure why we do it. When you’re a professional reviewer, sure, you want people to watch this wonderful thing you’ve just seen, especially if it’s not something they might watch anyway, but –

Oh.

Speaking of being a professional reviewer…

After I’d blathered away about how great this was, I still couldn’t sit still, so I read all I could about the episode online and unfortunately that included Wikipedia. It’s unfortunate because to my utter astonishment, Wikipedia quotes me.

God, it would be wonderful if I opened Wikipedia to see the exact tweet I had just sent about how fantastic “Midnight” is. That would be full-on timey-wimey stuff. Instead, it was part-on timey-wimey, because it was quoting me from 2008 and words I’m sure are mine, but which I cannot recall writing.

“William Gallagher of Radio Times was generally positive about the episode,” says whoever edits Wikipedia, “but he said he would have ‘liked just a beat’ more, just a tiny further step before the resolution; can’t even tell you what was missing but I needed one more stage in the journey”.

Clearly, I’ve just changed my mind since then and I shouldn’t really say that this means I was wrong then, or that I am therefore right now. But, truly, no messing, what I wrote back then was more than a different opinion, more than just a bit wrong, it was entirely and fully bullshit.

“Midnight” is perfect and I can only wish I wrote scripts that well.

What apparently seemed to me then to be fractionally too rushed an ending now seems like a brilliant deflating of the tension, and all the more brilliant because it does not forgive its characters for what they’ve done.

It did that on a primetime terrestrial broadcast series that’s ostensibly aimed at families. It did it in an episode of a show that’s run for literally hundreds of episodes yet it took us somewhere new.

I re-read the script by Russell T Davies this morning. Even on the page, even as the page has to list deeply complicated overlapping dialogue, it is mesmerising.

Doors opening and closing

Posted by

0

I deeply over-adore the line that says every exit is an entrance somewhere else. But I deeply over-adore it because it comes from Tom Stoppard’s “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” play and every syllable of that is one I wish I’d written.

What I feel just around precisely 100% the opposite about is all of the other lines in the world that are similar but presented as instead as life lessons. Every cloud has silver bollocks, or something similar.

They are always said in an encouraging and well-meaning way, and they are often addressed to someone who is in far too bad a state to argue the semantics of it all. They often go on posters.

But.

Earlier this week, again in the middle of well-meaning-ness-osity, I read someone saying that there is a reason why you meet everyone you do in your life. Something about how either you are there to affect them, or they are to affect you.

Explain to me how that applies to a domestic abuse victim.

I don’t just mean that there are exceptions, though, I mean I think, I insist, that the entire concept is dangerously flawed. The real truth is that there are people you meet and people you don’t, and that’s it, that’s all.

There is no fate-based supernatural guiding force that means we were born to interact with this person and not that one.

So I just had a half-hour talk with a producer I really like and with whom I could talk TV forever, especially once I learned we both loved Northern Exposure. I am influenced by her, I see she will have a direct and visible impact on the script of mine we were discussing, but she wasn’t drawn to me by some fateful guiding hand.

No, I sought her out.

You seek out some people, some people seek out you, you meet others by chance, others meet you by chance, and there is a world — literally — of folks you never meet, see or even hear of.

All of this and the entrance/exit line put this in my head: there is another one that goes something like “every time a door closes, another one opens.” Myself, I’d be looking at the draughts in that house.

But also it’s cripplingly trite and I think damaging. Say you’ve just lost your job, you’ll doubtlessly hear this said by someone and if no other door has yet opened, you don’t think they’re wrong, you think you are.

I’ve lost jobs countless times and as it happens, so far, each time I’ve ultimately been glad and even wished it had happened sooner. Sometimes a lot sooner. But that’s not because some other door magically opened or I bumped into someone who transformed my life that same afternoon.

It’s because I sought out what I did next.

We seriously deny ourselves some praise here. There isn’t a deity sorting out our P45s, there isn’t a reason you and that neighbour nod when she’s out walking her dog. There is just you and me, getting on with it, getting on with our lives, and managing to do something about whatever happens to us.

That said, I’m glad I met you here.

Come back to me

Posted by

0

Some 19 years ago in the last week of January, 2004, I spent an entire afternoon sitting alone in a Radio Times studio in London while BBC Radio stations took turns calling me. Back then, they were calling over a broadcast-quality ISDN line and while I can’t remember how many stations there were, my job was to be on a show talking about Radio Times.

Specifically, RT that week had one of those countdown features, this time the Top Ten Spookiest Shows Ever or something like that. I presume I had worked on the feature, I know I was the only one available that day, but it’s all a bit fuzzy. I’ve just spent a quite happy 20 minutes Googling to find the barely-remembered cover.

RT Cover 2004 with borderFlash forward to this week and on Tuesday I got to do it again, from my Birmingham office and over FaceTime audio. Two decades later, I am clearly the man in demand. But it felt like I was that day because 11 BBC Local Radio stations and 1 BBC national station wanted my opinion about the return of Fawlty Towers.

Hang on. Not true. They wanted someone’s opinion, they each wanted a way to talk about this news, to get their listeners talking about it, and they wanted an extra voice in the mix. I am nothing if not an extra voice and I don’t care how I ended up getting to do this, I got to do it and I relished it.

So that’s very nice for me and also it’s not as if I believe my opinion has any particular value. Yet it looks very strongly like I’m going to give it to you anyway.

And yes, here it comes. If the question is whether Fawlty Towers should come back, the answer is there is not one single pixel of a chance you can possibly guess until it’s made – but that won’t stop us talking about it until, in my case anyway, we get sore throats.

Really the only key thing, I thought, was over the issue that it appears Connie Booth is not involved. She and John Cleese wrote the original, I’ve read the scripts, she’s tremendous and seemingly she isn’t writing this one.

Other than that, what I realised from saying this stuff over and over is why the announcement was made now. There are practically no details, certainly not any indication of where the new Fawlty Towers will be screened – and that’s why it was announced this week.

The makers are shopping this show around the networks and the streamers, and they are now able to point to the mass of attention the news got. There is public interest, there is public demand, this show is guaranteed to get high ratings. That’s what they will be saying to the streamers and they are right.

For episode 1.

Everyone will watch the first episode of a new Fawlty Towers, it’s then up to the show to keep us coming back.

Apparently last year there were 599 new scripted comedy and dramas on American television alone. That’s an unimaginable number and, possibly more significantly, an unwatchable one. You and I will never even hear of most of those shows and simply getting our attention at all must be murderously difficult.

Fawlty Towers got our attention instantly.

I think that is why shows are brought back, because they have a built-in audience and it’s sufficiently big that the return is also brought to the attention of new audiences.

Only, I do think shows finish for a reason. They do come to an end, they do often fizzle away. To work anew, they have to become a new show.

And I don’t think we want that. What we really want, always, is not a sequel, not a continuation. We want the first one again, we want to be back when we hadn’t seen that first one yet and it was all to come. We want to recapture whatever it was we were as well as what the show is.

It’s impossible for a show to live up to how we remember a beloved original, decades after it ended.

But it can be better. All that time ago in 2004, we had no idea that it would be just the next year when Doctor Who would be back and not just living up to the original, but exceeding it.

Don’t write this, write that

Posted by

0

I cannot count and wouldn’t even want to try counting how many times I’ve asked someone in a workshop to write something — and they haven’t. They’ve written something else instead.

If I’d said this to you last week, I’d have said it is always fantastic, it is always an absolute thrill. I can think of writers where even as I ask them to do something, I am secretly willing them to write something different, just to see what they come up with.

Today, I will say exactly the same. But I didn’t appreciate until this week that it is fantastic and thrilling for a really key reason I hadn’t even noticed.

It’s because, in all these workshops and with all these writers, their intention is solely to write well. Nobody is ignoring me just to be rude, nobody is dismissing my ideas, it’s just that what I’ve said has somehow sparked off something else and they have to write it, they have to.

There is no possible way that any of this could be anything less than joyously wonderful.

But.

These writers also know that they can do it. We’re practically playing in a workshop, they’re not commissioned, they don’t have a real deadline behind my giving them either ten minutes or until I get bored watching them write.

They also know, just as I do, that plenty of times what they write won’t work, somehow just won’t work out. And part of being a writer is knowing when to throw something away.

But then a thing came up this week about writing outside workshops, a thing which I suppose was also about ignoring everyone and writing your own thing, your own way, but it wasn’t joyous.

It was amateur.

I may be overthinking this, could be overreacting, but a writer basically wanted you to know he is a rebel. He didn’t say it, didn’t use that word, but the implication and the thrust of it all was that he’s a rebel writer, and though you or I ordinary people are not, that’s fine, that’s fine, not everyone can be rebellious, it’s not our fault that we aren’t as good as him.

No, I’m going too far there. I’d best step away from what he said because I’m being unfair, I got all of that from a word or two in a long piece that I happened to disagree with.

Let me ignore him, then, and instead focus on this amateur versus professional point of mine. What he put me in mind of is the opinion that the reason a given writer is not published is that publishers have closed ranks, that readers just don’t get him — it’s usually a him — and that ultimately he’s an undiscovered genius.

Could be.

Isn’t.

But could be.

The idea is that therefore, any writer who is discovered, who is published, has bowed to the system, has given in, is writing what the masses like.

The trouble is, you can’t do that. You cannot set out to write what the masses will like because you are wrong, you are always wrong. By the time you’ve written it and it’s been published, the masses have long moved on to something else.

Unless you’re writing about zombies, which for some unfathomable reason just will not go away. I’ve begged.

But say it is possible to somehow write what the masses like, say you can catch just the right fad or something and you can deliver what the publishing industry wants. You’re then exactly the same as every other writer who manages to do that and then there is exactly zero reason why you should be read instead of them.

You can’t and shouldn’t even try to write what you think readers will like. You and I could have a very serious coffee trying to figure out the line here, but I also hesitate about editing the way readers tell you to. I can think of a book I relished where the first three chapters were dreadful, because those were the ones that had been workshopped.

Yet despite all of this, I don’t believe you can ignore the audience. You can’t aim at them, you can’t change to suit an imaginary audience in the hope of getting a real one. But writing is not for writers, it is for readers and if they are not in your mind in some way, I think your writing becomes self-indulgent.

There are a thousand reasons to write just for yourself, with no thought of publication, and yet even then, if I do that I still have to point the writing toward an audience because otherwise I’ll just meander along aimlessly.

Okay, I’m writing to you right now and you may yet think I’m meandering.

I’m trying to find a sentence I can write here that begins “But”.

Anyway.

I don’t believe writing for an audience means giving in to the system. I do believe you have to write for yourself, but you have to do it with the intention that there will be a reader at the end.

I like the sound of being a rebel writer. I think writers have to be rebellious.

It’s just that if you regard yourself as a rebel simply because you’re not published, because the world doesn’t understand you, then you’re not a rebel writer, you’re probably just a shit one.

One law

Posted by

0

This is a side point, but I know you know the phrase “one law for the rich, another for the poor”, or something of that sort. It’s not like that’s an alien concept today. But it’s also not the original quote.

Neither is this, but it’s closer in spirit to the — presumably — French phrase that Anatole France said. Anatole France being of course the French philospher whose work I’ve admired since I found him in a Google search a moment ago.

Anyway.

The quote I know, based on his French original, goes thisaway: “One law for rich and poor alike, which prohibits them equally from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.”

I think that is so astute. The law is the same for all of us, but it doesn’t affect the rich. Again, hardly an alien concept today. But the more familiar version, the one rule for them and one for us edition, lacks the nastiness of the original. The two rules version is trite, I think, where “one law” is bitter.

And I have thought this since long before there even was a Google. In fact, I’ve thought it since it was said in a 1976 episode of The Tomorrow People, written by Roger Price.

It’s just that I thought it again on Wednesday night, though not because anything bad or unlawful was happening. I was at a Royal Television Society screening of the new ITV drama “Nolly”, written by Russell T Davies. Short version: it’s perfection. Slightly longer version: it’s perfection about Noele Gordon, 1970s and 1980s star of Crossroads. I wrote an episode of that soap’s revial in the early 2000s and part of the pleasure was in how, even if I wouldn’t say I had been a fan, I would regularly say I defend the original soap against its many detractors.

Detractors who do have a point, to be fair. But still, I lived next door to one of the cast and I’m from Birmingham where the soap was set. It was rubbish, but it was our rubbish.

Anyway.

The screening was followed by a Q&A with the cast and crew, including Russell T Davies. And this is where I want to join a dot, if a really tenuous one. For some reason, the subject came up about how he writes dialogue and that led Davies into a brief aside about – I’m paraphrasing – the insanity of separating out writing into parts. He gave the example of people who say they’re going to work on character now, for instance, where in truth character is dialogue is story is dialogue is character.

“It’s all one thing,” he said. I’m parrot phrasing.

When someone whose writing you admire says the same thing you think, it doesn’t matter that he says it better, he’s still saying it and you feel vindicated.

I have a friend who sees dialogue as — his words — “a tasty extra” that you do last of all. Write the script, then go back to work on what words the characters say.

I think you can imagine what words I say to that. This is a family show so I’ll let you think of the absolute rudest word you can, so long as you promise to prefix it with the clarifying phrase “fucking bollocks”.

To be fair, I think that friend believes dialogue comes last because he wants to put it off. We all have things we can’t do, that we can’t write, and plenty of novelists are better known for their description than for their dialogue. ‘Course, my friend is a scriptwriter, so he’s screwed.

Davies did also say, in one sense, that dialogue comes last. He said that you’ve been thinking about the characters for so long, once you get to writing the script, the dialogue just comes out.

I won’t disagree with him, I don’t believe you can ever disagree with someone else’s process since it’s their process, not yours, except obviously when they think dialogue is a tasty extra. But that bit about thinking about the characters for long gives me pause. Quite a short pause, I suppose, because for me I find the characters in the writing. So I tend to set off down that script road, aguably too soon, arguably too quickly, but I go there and if it’s rubbish I turn back.

But then that’s my rule, you may have a different one.

The backside dilemma

Posted by

0

I’ve been working on the Writers’ Guild Awards for just about a year, so I got to go to the event last Monday. I will never show you pictures because they are startlingly visible evidence that I was even more ill than I thought.

Even so, even being ill, even being there not because I was nominated for anything but because it was work – I suppose it was work – the Writers’ Guild Awards event is the place to be. It is the room to get in if you possibly can and, if anything, I thought this year’s was the best of a remarkable run.

And although it didn’t win its category, “Slow Horses” by Will Smith was nominated and I am actually proud of that. I didn’t write that excellent show, I wasn’t a judge in that category, but I was the one who entered it into the awards.

But then, it’s such a strong show and the Writers’ Guild Awards ceremony is about the best British writing, it had to be entered, it had to be considered.

Consequently that wasn’t me, that was just necessary.

And although I worked on the awards for a year, obviously so did many people. Yet when it came to the night itself, all my jobs were long done and consequently out of all the people working there, I was the sole one who could relax with nothing to do.

I did end up with the odd task but still, the actual event on the night was neither one pixel better or worse because I was there.

So I had a great time, a really tremendous time, and the night was a success. Plus so far in 2023 I can point to various things I’ve learned already, various things I’ve made happen or just plain made, I can think of people I’ve met and things I’ve done.

I suppose.

Well, more than suppose, just before you and I started talking I actually made a list for myself of what I’ve done so far.

But.

I had to write that list because it still feels like we’re only just back working after Christmas and that nothing has happened, that I’ve done nothing. For some reason I am finding 2023 murderously difficult to get going in. Today is January 20 and suddenly, this very second writing to you, what occurs to me is that it’s therefore eight weeks since I had a haircut.

That’s my January. An absence of barbershops. It’s not an accomplishment.

So here’s the thing. Without question, I need to get up off my backside and bloody do something. Except I’m a writer, so what I need to do is sit that backside right down and write.

You see the dilemma.

Give it a reset

Posted by

0

Take a look at this, please.

Fame script excerptI’m trying to see from your face whether you recognise any of that, but all I can see is that you’re looking a lot younger than me. I will try to still like you.

Anyway, if you do recognise it, I guarantee that you only recognise the first 17 words of the speech, not a single syllable after them. And you’re not really reading those 17, you’re hearing Debbie Allen saying them.

It’s the Fame speech. I think Allen delivers those lines in the opening title sequence of every one of that show’s 136 episodes. Certainly it’s in most of them, and I’ve just recently learned that she does different versions of it for some of the different seasons of the series.

Debbie Allen is this remarkable talent, a true and admirable star in so many fields, but curiously I don’t think her delivery of that speech works in any version other than the first one. The one where it wasn’t this famous line being delivered practically like a quotation, instead where it was just a single line of dialogue in an hour script.

Specifically in Fame, season 1, episode 1, “Metamorphosis” by Christopher Gore.

Imagine writing a line that an unfathomably enormous number of people remember vividly, decades later.

Gore wrote the 1980 film, which is frankly better: it’s less about fame, more about failure, and it stands up very well. He also wrote the pilot episode for the series and I understand it went through a lot of changes before it even got to the draft script I’ve just read. The changes were all to help make a series out of a movie, and I don’t know how many other hands were involved.

Nonetheless, “Metamorphosis” is different to both the film and the rest of the series. I’d say there are three Fames – the film, this pilot script and then the rest of the series – but don’t get me started on how many versions there are. There’s also been a TV reboot, a film remake, and countless stage productions.

If nothing else, they surely milked that idea dry.

Only, as fond as I was of the show’s early years when I saw them in the 1980s and how I’ve mostly enjoyed reading – so far – 21 of the scripts – I think it’s an idea that ran out of milk really soon.

I wrote about Fame for the Birmingham Hippodrome a few months ago, just a couple of pieces for the programme for their production of the stage version. In one of them, though, I offered that the reason the series is remembered as being brighter and lighter than the film is that it had whole seasons to tell its stories, not just two hours.

That could have been true and certainly I convinced myself, writing that while deep in COVID. But now reading the scripts, seeing some episodes, Fame seems to be an archetype of a certain 1970s/80s US TV format that I don’t like. It’s the type usually described as having a reset switch. Huge emotional upheaval happens in an episode, but it’s all fine at the end. That kind of thing.

Not that Fame has really huge emotional upheaval in the series, but does land some very good moments and they are then forgotten.

Today we might still know a guest star is never going to be heard of again, but what happens in one episode of a series has an impact that lasts. I’ve always thought that was better than the reset switch, and I’ve always thought it for a dozen reasons, but this week I’ve got a new one.

The reset switch is meant to mean that everything goes back to normal at the end of each episode. But in effect, what that inevitably means is that every episode is starting from scratch next time. There’s no follow through, so there’s no momentum, so each time it’s right, let’s do it again.

I think that’s why Fame seems, to me, to struggle for stories very early on its run. Some episodes seem more forced than others, more “this’ll do” than anything else. Apparently there is one right toward the end of the run where the studio asked whether the producers really wanted to do this story and the producers said it’s this or it’s a two-week production shut down while we try to think of something good.

Still, even with a reset-switch Fame, you get episodes like “A Tough Act to Follow” by Virginia Aldridge where I haven’t got the script, I haven’t seen it recently, but I still remember its punch from 40 years ago.

So I’m not saying that a reset-switch series can’t be any good, I’m just now thinking that it is bloody murder to keep coming up with entirely standalone stories where you’ve got to take us from everything-is-peachy and on to everything-is-peachy-again. I don’t think you can raise the stakes as high when you’re being pulled down at the start and the end.

Curiously, there was one key series that famously and very noticeably ignored the reset switch. I’m sure there were others in the transition phrase between the 1980s and our present golden age of television drama, but one was noticeable because of its background and where its writers came from.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. If you’re thinking I couldn’t go further away from Fame if I tried, I see your point, but Deep Space Nine was the fourth Star Trek series and the preceding three were all primarily reset-switch ones. Very famously against the demands of the studio making it, Deep Space Nine kept on having good people do bad things and living with the consequences. There were consequences. They lasted throughout the run of the series, they weren’t tied off in a neat bow at the end of the hour.

And a key writer in making that happen, in even taking on his studios in protracted fights, was Ira Steven Behr. Yes. He wrote for Fame and then he showran Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

Mind you, this week I learned that Fame’s showrunner, William Blinn, went on to write Prince’s movie, “Purple Rain”, and that now seems a bigger jolt.

I think I’ll shut up here, before I admit to you that in the 1980s, I had the most enormous crush on one of the Fame dancers. Phew. Nearly admitted that.

Pipped to the post

Posted by

0

During the pandemic, I did a lot of interviewing of people and there was one man who got quite anxious before the call. He was a very good, very interesting interviewee and I’m sure he’s rarely anxious, but he was then and for one single reason.

The time.

He told me that he had been on a Zoom meeting that was overruning and all the way through, he could see the clock on his computer and knew I would phone at exactly the time I said. Exactly. And that because we were all in lockdown, because we were all on computers, my exact time would be the same as his exact time.

We talked about that after the interview. How it used to be that you didn’t assume people would turn up on the stroke of whatever time it was, since your clock and their watch would be a bit out.

He was right, that’s gone now. And I like it: if I arrange to meet or to phone you at a certain time, you can be certain I will. On the button. So our use of internet time servers to regulate our computers and our phones and our smartwatches suits me fine.

Only.

On New Years’ Eve, we were watching BBC1 for the countdown to 2023 and because we were watching on the BBC iPlayer, it was late. We’d done the “Watch Live” bit, we weren’t ten minutes behind on demand, but the time it took that countdown to go from BBC1 through the internet to our smart TV, it was a significant delay.

And it always is. I’m shocked how little I listen to BBC Radio 4 these days, but I know it still has the pips to mark the top of the hour — and I know they’re wrong. It used to be that you couldn’t broadcast those pips under any circumstances other than the top of the hour, so dramas that used them had to find some reason to cut away before the full pip time signal was given.

Now you can hear it anytime you like on the BBC iPlayer, because the playback from that is not a discrete recording of any individual show, it is a time-based slice of BBC output. If you want the 18:30 comedy, you get it, plus anything else aired from about 18:30 to about 19:00, sometimes a little before and after.

So here we are with instant access to everything. Here are major global news operations like the BBC, still just occasionally putting out this fiction of the time being what they say it is.

Mind you, you know the BBC started its coverage of the 2023 countdown at exactly the right time, it was internet connections and latency and all sorts of things that delayed at my end.

Whereas CNN just cocked it up entirely through human error. They were playing live music, they forgot the countdown. There was some issue with a technical problem they hadn’t bothered to fix, but that’s just more human error in the end.

And I don’t know why, but in this age of picosecond precision, as much as I like that, I enjoyed hearing about CNN. I know it wasn’t deliberate but, still, good on them.

2022 That Ending Explained

Posted by

0

Sometimes I wonder if our growing use of emoji instead of words means our civilisation is in decline. But then more sensible thoughts prevail and I realise that no, it’s our political systems that are destroying it.

But in between emoji and the end of Western civilisation lies That Ending Explained.

Whether you’ve seen Rian Johnson’s Glass Onion or not, please google a phrase like “Glass Onion That Ending Explained”, and click to get only the video results. At time of writing, you will see 17 YouTube vidoes on the topic.

This is Glass Onion. I enjoyed it hugely but I did not leave the cinema confused by anything other than how briefly Netflix was allowing for its theatrical run. Or possibly also by how the print at that screening was a little fuzzy for a digital projection.

But the ending, nope. One of the hundred reasons Glass Onion is such a pleasure is that it ends very well, very neatly. It’s a murder mystery and a delight in how twisting the journey is, but it’s not like you can possibly leave the film not knowing whodunnit and how and why.

I did need telling why the script is being entered into awards under the “adapted screenplay” category instead of “original”, but don’t turn to That Ending Explained to find out. (It’s because it’s a new, original story – but it features the character of Benoit Blanc, created for a previous movie.)

Anyway. These 17 YouTubers think we need telling everything obvious.

Or rather, 17 YouTubers think we’ll watch.

For That Ending Explained is the video equivalent of the “17 Royal Secrets About Sex and Mice — Number 6 will Blow Your Mind” kind of articles.

But we can kill off That Ending Explained videos by just not watching them. And instead watching the films they want to profit off.

When I started writing to you it was only going to be to wish you a happy new year. Instead, I seem to have turned grumpy.

Please explain this ending to me.