Being Human series 2
Mar. 1st, 2010 12:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shapinglightDue to RL pressures, I haven't got around to saying anything (I don't think) about series 2 of Being Human. I have been watching, though, and for the most part enjoying it enormously. So here's where I try and gather my thoughts together.
Spoilers for the whole series within.
Should say that, though I found the finale absolutely gripping, I did have some quibbles with it, but I'll get to those.
This series was a lot darker than season 1, which was already pretty dark. That said, it didn't lack humour. The banter between the three main characters was still wonderful, and the whole show for the most part continues to feel very grounded, grungy and British. Aidan Turner is very pretty, but even he lacks the Hollywood gloss the show would have if it were American, (and a good thing too IMO), but apart from him, the cast is very down to earth and ordinary looking. The new ongoing characters introduced in this series -Kemp, Lucy, Daisy and Ivan - were all well drawn and believable, and the cast of one-off supporting actors, like Annie's ghost RAF pilot mentor and the medium, and so on - were uniformly excellent. Was nice to get a cameo from the Sarcastic Vicar in the penultimate episode too.
The three main characters' arcs were very well done, I thought - and incidentally, I'm not for one minute concerned about Annie, as long as season 3 isn't all about Mitchell and George rescuing her while she sits and whimpers. I'd like to see more of Proactive Annie, as seen in the season 1 finale and the Annie-centric episode where she told the men with the chains and whips where to go. That said, I do like the idea of a Kafka-esque/Beetlejuice-ian afterlife (for my own take on which see my fanfic story Heroes in Hell) and am looking forward to how that's going to be expanded on.
I thought Nina had a pretty good arc too, and it intrigues me the way she's gone from being revolted by what she's become and angry at George for her predicament, to being the most outspokenly Supernaturalist of the four. I can see her tipping over into very dodgy territory next season, because of course it's all very well for her to speak to Lucy the way she did. She hasn't actually killed anyone yet. It's very different for George and Mitchell.
I was a bit meh! about parts of George's arc, but liked it for the most part, and Russell Tovey continues to be absolutely delightful in the role. I was about to say that George is the moral centre of the trio (because they're very much a trio still, with Nina as the hanger-on), but then I decided it was Annie. Not sure. Hmm.
Anyway, whichever of them it is, Mitchell needs them both desperately. In fact, this season, he showed us what it really means to be a vampire, because he's not only physically needy for blood, but emotionally needy, leeching off other people while trying (at times) not to do it, only to fall back into the old patterns. That was why the episode with the 60s flashbacks was so brilliant. Here is Mitchell, with Lucy, falling back into the old dependance he took up with Josie (?) in the 60s, of begging a woman to save him and ultimately draining her lifeforce, if not her blood, by his neediness. Of course, part of him must know that in the end he has to save himself, and yet his vampire instincts keep dragging him back down. At the same time, he has a touching loyalty to 'his' people, which the BH vampires (like the True Blood vampires) have, as opposed to the Buffyverse ones who kill each other with much less provocation than the drop of a hat. I like that, and I like the idea of a wider vampire society, because without that they really aren't interesting - just as Buffyverse vampires are totally uninteresting until they're given personalities and allowed to interact with each other and other people in a communal way (something that Joss kept jumping back from, I think, whenever he realised he'd strayed too far in that direction).
Poor Mitchell! He ended up being about the worst king the vampires had ever had, and having not only the blood of his own people on his hands but that of many more humans as well. I thought the scene in the finale where he's listening to the radio news story about the train massacre, until George turns the radio off, unaware that Mitchell is contemplating his own actions, was inspired. BH isn't afraid to take its characters to some very dark places. I wonder if it will ultimately shrink from leaving them there, and if so, how Mitchell can ever be redeemed. We'll see. One thing's for sure: there might be superficial similarities, but Mitchell isn't Angel.
The show also wasn't afraid (or possibly wasn't aware enough of the implications of what it was saying, I'm not certain), to equate religious persecution of vampires and other supernatural beings with other kinds of intolerance. Of course, as Lucy pointed out to Mitchell, it can only be a partial equation, because vampires do kill people - lots and lots of people - so one can hardly blame humans for wanting to get rid of them. Dodgy ground. Maybe the BH vampires work better as a comment on the ills of modern society - a dark reflection of ourselves, what we could become if we're not careful? In fact, didn't someone say this in last night's episode?
This brings me to the things that didn't work quite so well for me. Firstly, the very overt religiosity. I know - and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sueworld2003 did point out to me - that vampires and religion go together. Maybe it's because real, actual religion (as opposed to the odd reference to nuns) in the Buffyverse is barely a footnote, that it makes me uncomfortable here? I'm not sure. I just know that I felt it was overdone and that I felt quite annoyed that Kemp's second exorcism of Annie worked. I suppose he just wasn't trying the first time? And ultimately, whether I feel the religious stuff is overly intrusive or not will depend on how the Rescue Annie from the Great Beyond story works out in the next season.
The other thing that didn't work for me was the return of Herrick, I'm afraid. Yes, great character and he's been missed (which was why it was so great to see him in the 60s flashback episode), but I thought he had his story, plus a great sendoff at the end of season 1. I don't want or need him back permanently. In fact, if any dead character deserved to be brought back, I thought it was Ivan, because all he is so far is potential, and if that's really all we're going to see of him, it's wasted potential IMO.
I also don't see Daisy making sacrifices like that to bring Herrick back. Cara, yes, Daisy, no.
Of course, Ivan may still return. I can't really work out why he's dead, in fact, seeing as his body looked relatively undamaged after the explosion. We'll see.
All in all, great stuff, and I wish we didn't have to wait so long for season 3.
Minor point: was sorry Tully was disposed of like that, though the little note he left for George was a nice touch.
Spoilers for the whole series within.
Should say that, though I found the finale absolutely gripping, I did have some quibbles with it, but I'll get to those.
This series was a lot darker than season 1, which was already pretty dark. That said, it didn't lack humour. The banter between the three main characters was still wonderful, and the whole show for the most part continues to feel very grounded, grungy and British. Aidan Turner is very pretty, but even he lacks the Hollywood gloss the show would have if it were American, (and a good thing too IMO), but apart from him, the cast is very down to earth and ordinary looking. The new ongoing characters introduced in this series -Kemp, Lucy, Daisy and Ivan - were all well drawn and believable, and the cast of one-off supporting actors, like Annie's ghost RAF pilot mentor and the medium, and so on - were uniformly excellent. Was nice to get a cameo from the Sarcastic Vicar in the penultimate episode too.
The three main characters' arcs were very well done, I thought - and incidentally, I'm not for one minute concerned about Annie, as long as season 3 isn't all about Mitchell and George rescuing her while she sits and whimpers. I'd like to see more of Proactive Annie, as seen in the season 1 finale and the Annie-centric episode where she told the men with the chains and whips where to go. That said, I do like the idea of a Kafka-esque/Beetlejuice-ian afterlife (for my own take on which see my fanfic story Heroes in Hell) and am looking forward to how that's going to be expanded on.
I thought Nina had a pretty good arc too, and it intrigues me the way she's gone from being revolted by what she's become and angry at George for her predicament, to being the most outspokenly Supernaturalist of the four. I can see her tipping over into very dodgy territory next season, because of course it's all very well for her to speak to Lucy the way she did. She hasn't actually killed anyone yet. It's very different for George and Mitchell.
I was a bit meh! about parts of George's arc, but liked it for the most part, and Russell Tovey continues to be absolutely delightful in the role. I was about to say that George is the moral centre of the trio (because they're very much a trio still, with Nina as the hanger-on), but then I decided it was Annie. Not sure. Hmm.
Anyway, whichever of them it is, Mitchell needs them both desperately. In fact, this season, he showed us what it really means to be a vampire, because he's not only physically needy for blood, but emotionally needy, leeching off other people while trying (at times) not to do it, only to fall back into the old patterns. That was why the episode with the 60s flashbacks was so brilliant. Here is Mitchell, with Lucy, falling back into the old dependance he took up with Josie (?) in the 60s, of begging a woman to save him and ultimately draining her lifeforce, if not her blood, by his neediness. Of course, part of him must know that in the end he has to save himself, and yet his vampire instincts keep dragging him back down. At the same time, he has a touching loyalty to 'his' people, which the BH vampires (like the True Blood vampires) have, as opposed to the Buffyverse ones who kill each other with much less provocation than the drop of a hat. I like that, and I like the idea of a wider vampire society, because without that they really aren't interesting - just as Buffyverse vampires are totally uninteresting until they're given personalities and allowed to interact with each other and other people in a communal way (something that Joss kept jumping back from, I think, whenever he realised he'd strayed too far in that direction).
Poor Mitchell! He ended up being about the worst king the vampires had ever had, and having not only the blood of his own people on his hands but that of many more humans as well. I thought the scene in the finale where he's listening to the radio news story about the train massacre, until George turns the radio off, unaware that Mitchell is contemplating his own actions, was inspired. BH isn't afraid to take its characters to some very dark places. I wonder if it will ultimately shrink from leaving them there, and if so, how Mitchell can ever be redeemed. We'll see. One thing's for sure: there might be superficial similarities, but Mitchell isn't Angel.
The show also wasn't afraid (or possibly wasn't aware enough of the implications of what it was saying, I'm not certain), to equate religious persecution of vampires and other supernatural beings with other kinds of intolerance. Of course, as Lucy pointed out to Mitchell, it can only be a partial equation, because vampires do kill people - lots and lots of people - so one can hardly blame humans for wanting to get rid of them. Dodgy ground. Maybe the BH vampires work better as a comment on the ills of modern society - a dark reflection of ourselves, what we could become if we're not careful? In fact, didn't someone say this in last night's episode?
This brings me to the things that didn't work quite so well for me. Firstly, the very overt religiosity. I know - and
sueworld2003 did point out to me - that vampires and religion go together. Maybe it's because real, actual religion (as opposed to the odd reference to nuns) in the Buffyverse is barely a footnote, that it makes me uncomfortable here? I'm not sure. I just know that I felt it was overdone and that I felt quite annoyed that Kemp's second exorcism of Annie worked. I suppose he just wasn't trying the first time? And ultimately, whether I feel the religious stuff is overly intrusive or not will depend on how the Rescue Annie from the Great Beyond story works out in the next season.The other thing that didn't work for me was the return of Herrick, I'm afraid. Yes, great character and he's been missed (which was why it was so great to see him in the 60s flashback episode), but I thought he had his story, plus a great sendoff at the end of season 1. I don't want or need him back permanently. In fact, if any dead character deserved to be brought back, I thought it was Ivan, because all he is so far is potential, and if that's really all we're going to see of him, it's wasted potential IMO.
I also don't see Daisy making sacrifices like that to bring Herrick back. Cara, yes, Daisy, no.
Of course, Ivan may still return. I can't really work out why he's dead, in fact, seeing as his body looked relatively undamaged after the explosion. We'll see.
All in all, great stuff, and I wish we didn't have to wait so long for season 3.
Minor point: was sorry Tully was disposed of like that, though the little note he left for George was a nice touch.