Life in Squares

This series comes across as bits and pieces of lives of the Bloomsbury Group that has been loosely strung together on a very hurried timeline. There is little in the way of character development or much continuity. Seems to just be a collection of snippets and vignettes. The actors do what they can with the weak script and superficial dialog but it just fails to ring true in any way.

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.

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.

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!

It's part two of Life in Squares tonight about the Bloomsbury Group and Virginia Woolf on BBC2 tonight at 21.00. In the first episode we romped through nearly ten years and saw how the embryonic group grew out of some Cambridge male graduates in the modern Bohemian squares of Bloomsbury. They were young free and single and OK. for money and everything was exciting. We saw how the complex relationships of Vanessa (nee Stephen) Bell, Virginia (nee Stephen) Woolf and the death of Thoby Stephen who brought the group together for their Thursday evening meetings. Painter Vanessa Stephen and her writer sister Virginia embarked on a life of unexpected and emerged from the whaleboned strictures of Victoria England. It was a remarkably accurate portrayal and covered a lot of ground in a short hour long program. I loved the lighting and treatment of some difficult subjects which set up tonight's second episode for an exciting continuation.