Life in Squares

Life In Squares

It was a dreadful rambling mess that just amounted to self-indulgence. The lives of the Bell's and the Woolf's was just so tedious and yet we had no sense of all the work they did and the money they made opening companies and creating books, paintings and designs.

With regard to their "shocking" lives, perhaps unconventional for the time but surely not for a group of artists. It was a really nothing more than commune living.

We spent half our time trying to work out who was who as we had two sets of actors playing the parts of the characters at different ages. The script was clunky and the emotions, at best, superficial.

I'm giving this a 4 outta 10, but my advice skip the whole series as it was rubbish!

Life in Squares is a confusing and dull three part period drama about the tangled love affairs of the Bloomsbury Group.

Virginia (Lydia Leonard) married Leonard Woolf (Al Weaver) who soon realises that she is mentally fragile, while her sister Vanessa (Phoebe Fox) turned her affections towards Duncan Grant (James Norton) who teams up with her and his male lover. In fact Grant is the love and leave em kind when it comes to male relationships.

As the drama progresses the younger actors are replaced by an older set of actors and the Bloomsbury group attitude towards free love and creativity gets bleaker as World War Two approaches and losses are felt.

Amanda Coe's script was not easy to follow and seemed sparse which explains why I felt bored and listless.

Scandinavian director Simon Kaijser goes for Nordic noir pacing and a murky look which did not work for this three parter that needed to be faster moving and brighter.

I recorded this mini series because being a fan of Woolf's writing and being interested in Keynes I was interested in the topic. I delayed watching it because of the potential for lascivious sexism and cliché I have observed in other artistic works regarding the Bloomsbury set.

I started watching it when I was ill and was gripped. I like the way the author focused on Vanessa Bell and the avoidance of sexist representations of the women, as is so often the case, especially where there is a break from accepted relationship convention.

I was so glad the author just introduced some characters by name and didn't over explain who everyone was and list their achievements. Unlike a previous reviewer I was glad the snobbishness and self importance and flaws of individuals was not written out.

I particularly enjoyed the inclusion of angelica's experience. This took the examination of the group far beyond previous works I have encountered, giving the story some real emotional meaning.

Over all this series seemed to me to be an exploration of relationships. It reminded me of Phillip Larkin's poem of parenthood.

Confused look at the Bloomsbury Group over several decades. This 3-part miniseries jumbles the narrative time and the actors so that it's a confusing mishmash. Some actors play the same part over time and others change. The various actresses who play Virginia and Vanessa look nothing like each other and the dumbest bit is Eve Best (a dead ringer for Virginia) playing Vanessa.

None of the people are particularly likable and maybe they weren't in real life. They come off as self-absorbed boobs. Maybe they were. But this makes for an unappealing 3 hours.

Some viewers may be shocked at the sexual escapades among the group members but sex existed even in this post-Victorian era.

I TRIED (I really did) with the first episode of LIFE IN SQUARES but after twenty minutes my brain started to dig a tunnel through my spine and tried to escape the UTTER TEDIUM of this smug little series. Worse, the episode moved with all the speed and urgency of a glacier, unlike my brain digging the escape tunnel.

It was like being trapped in a room with a gang of self-regarding teenage Hipsters and Emos all moving in slow motion because of clinical depression.

Frankly (and this is rare) I gave up after that twenty minutes and I won't be returning.

Were the Bloomsbury Set a significant collection of artistic types who paved the way for the freedoms we enjoy today or a bunch of tedious and ultimately irrelevant posers only of interest to similar posers who write long serials for the BBC? Discuss.