Man in an Orange Shirt

There was missing information and plot development in both stories so both should have been 90 to two hours long each.

In first one, there should have been some explanation as to the circumstance of how the grandson came to live with the grandmother and also what happened to his parents. Did the parents die in a car or airplane crash? Of a disease? It just left the viewer hanging.

There is a shot of the son in his school uniform and in a military uniform, but nothing else. I'd also like to know why the grandfather, Michael, died at 60.

For the second story, you can see some connection between Adam and Steve but there needed to be more plot as to that connection. Also, more background as to why Adam was hesitant in getting involved with Steve because all he says is "I can't" but he doesn't explain why. The jarring scene with the grandmother's harsh homophobia seems to come out of nowhere in terms of her reaction. She already had her suspicions of her grandson but then to react the way she did, didn't really make a lot of sense other than pent up anger from decades ago.

Then, at the end the second story the grandmother shows up at the cottage but there is no explanation given as to her remorse and what made her come about/change her mind about her homophobia.

Anyway, I liked both stories and watched them twice as I thought I missed some key information as stated above, but I did not because the information wasn't there.

I watched this series as part of the 2018 US PBS Pride series. It was shown in its entirety. The story of forbidden is not unusual for the gay world, but something about this was very genuine in it's writing and portrayal. The plot line moves along quickly as there was such a short time for the writers to tell two complicated and deep stories. The first section seemed to just be getting it's wind when we lept forward several decades to the modern world. We were just learning about the leads, the loves and their lives. The second section brought in many of today's challenges with instant sex, but not much love. Again, there were many question about what happened in between. However, the quality of the production and the talent of the cast made it a gem to watch. And yes there are tears. As many others have said, worth the watch and if we could have the years in the middle please as a 2019 BBC pride production, I am sure that the audience is there.

All together they are very beautiful stories. Unfortunately they are placed into two 1 hour parts. They needed about double the time to marinate in more storytelling. Each of the individual relationships were so complex I was left wanting to see them develop more gradually. Despite this, the excellent cast (and the director) do all that they can to avoid it all coming off clumsily. There is a lot of beauty on the screen, especially with part 1 of the two.

They were able to make me care about the characters and the parallels between the two accounts, but I think it could have been much richer by delving deeper into each of their stories.

I can't remember when a movie has haunted me more than this one, at least since Brokeback Mountain, which has a similar resolution to the first part of this Masterpiece Theater miniseries. I was so sad after seeing Brokeback Mountain that I never wanted to see it again. But something about Man in an Orange Shirt keeps drawing me back again and again. Having the second part to help resolve the hurt and pain is part of it. But it's the first 17 minutes I'll remember most, in which two main characters meet in WWII Italy and, two years later, resume their relationship. The editing, the score, and two very attractive and believable lead actors are perfection. There's also a love letter, key to the plot, that will bring tears to your eyes, it's that beautifully written.

This two-part miniseries leaves many questions, such as what happened in the 60-year interval between episodes. The second part, set in 2017, answers many of them if the viewer watches and listens closely for clues. The two parts are so different, it might seem that there are two different directors. The first one plays out cinematically like a movie from the '40s or '50s, with lush colors, a stirring theme, the thrill of a long-denied romance explosively consummated, and a somewhat melodramatic conclusion that leaves the viewer wanting more. As an intentional contrast, the second part follows present-day stylistic conventions, with quick edits, repeating motifs, more sex scenes, and some dark and intensely personal confrontations. There's an interesting dichotomy raised by pitting these two episodes against each other: How can same-sex relationships survive a world that overwhelmingly condemns them, and what happens organically when the legal condemnation is removed but the prejudice remains?

All of the acting is superb, which is to be expected from the venerable Vanessa Redgrave, but the other lead actors (who don't yet come close in name recognition) are impressive in their very difficult and heartbreaking scenes. At the top of my list is Andrew Jackson-Cohen, who is the definition of leading-man material. I'd seen him in lighthearted or action fare, but this man deserves to be cast in more dramatic roles like this. I can't fathom why he didn't garner a ton of acting awards.

If you can, watch the BBC original. There are many short snippets of dialog and reactions that make the story feel much less rushed and add greater understanding of the characters' motivations.

The emotions, the love, the fear, the self-hatred, the harsh realities. I really loved it; however it felt incomplete, like we got part 1 and part 3 but they forgot to film part 2. Too many unanswered questions for a drama with this much emotional heft.