The Second Coming...

[fajrdrako]

A few quick comments on The Second Coming now, because I had no time to comment yesterday.

The reasons this is worth seeing: it's by Russell T. Davies who is a good writer, an effective-but-sloppy writer, who manages to be gripping and to raise emotion even when he's getting things wrong. With this particular show, a two-part miniseries, he presents his views on religion: and though the theme is though-provoking and worthwhile, it comes across as essentially shallow. Which is a pity, because in many ways I think he's right. But a good theme poorly presented isn't a good theme.

The best things about the movie: Christopher Eccleston and Lesley Sharp in the lead roles. Both gave strong, complex, and riverting performances.

The problems? All in the script, in the writing. Not so much ideological as probems with the portrayal of the ideas being presented. If you're going to take on a subject as broad as the spiritual future of mankind and as deep as religion, you have to make it convincing, either emotionally or intellectually or, preferably, both. Though I have every disposition to accept the humanistic, atheistic viewpoint that Russell T. Davies presents, I found that he was failing to make me believe things I already believed. Which is not to say I'm an atheist; I'm a pantheist with humanistic leanings. Which puts me in his camp, more or less.

For example:

1. For me the primary flaw was an ideological paradox I couldn't sort out, a catch-22. One of the primary propositions of the story is that God exists, the Devil exists (along with demons), and Steven Baxter is the Son of God. Having established that, the point is made that we are better off without God or religion. Making me think, "What?"
   
   
2. Even if we accept point #1 at face value (whatever that might be), I didn't understand why Steven's death would make people humanists or atheists, taking responsibility for their own future, whether they believed in him or didn't. If they believed he was the Son of God, there's their religion, anyway. If they didn't believe, where was the significance?
   
   
3. Though Steven talked about supplanting all religions, the only religion dealt with (in either imagery or creed) was Christianity. The imagery was great, though.
   
   
4. I thought Judith was Thomas, the doubter. Instead she was Judas. That was cool.
   
   
5. Loved the special effects on the demonic characters - the little glint in the eye. I thought Mark Benton was particulary good - and his role as the Devil worked both conceptually and symbolically. Best part of the movies, maybe. Christopher Eccleston himself was terrific as Steven Baxter, but that didn't make his actions or dialogue more convincing.
   
   
6. Loved the scene with the gay couple in the pub.
   
   
7. I liked the young priest (played by Rory Kinnear) and wish he'd been part of the story till the end. Couldn't help thinking of Jerott Blyth.
   
   
8. Some of the best moments were when Eccleston had no dialogue - standing at the window, or walking along the empty motorway.

Basically, I think Russell T. Davies has handled the subject of religion and faith better, more consistently, and more clearly, in Doctor Who and Torchwood.

Comments

Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...

[walkingowl.livejournal.com]

Yet you like my writing? Not that you've seen much of my fiction or plays. Hm.

dang-- battery!

Re: Thinking Deep Thoughts...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I like your fiction writing: I've seen almost none of your fiction - just a few LSH bits from long ago. And I've never read one of your plays. If it's non-linear, I probably wouldn't like it. I like your non-fiction writing style, as I've said.