Close to the Enemy

The acting of Alfred Molina is worth the time. Yes, I agree with some that the plot has some unlikely twists and down ends, but overall I enjoyed the series. Lindsey Duncan and Angela Bassett are noteworthy. Perhaps from a British viewpoint the series didn't dig deep enough, but frankly I found the characters with their obvious guilt and pain over the war very human. I see so many murder mystery series that this was refreshing looking at this time period. So I don't know if they will ever do another season, but I wish they would.

You know comedy shows like Harry & Paul or Mitchell & Webb or Armstrong & Miller do 1940s smarminess? Well, this is like that, only not very funny. It's only funny in as much as the acting is so bad you can't really believe it. Stand-out bad performance goes to Jim Sturgess as an even cheesier version of Pierce Brosnan. Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy, as he is better known) comes on like the "Suits You" tailors from the Fast Show. The cut-class accents everyone is putting on are cracked and blemished, taking you out of the story. All the characters are clichéd. We get the noble lady of the night, the sassy American jazz singer. Everything about this show is just so awful, apart from Phoebe Fox who is a center of calm in an otherwise farcical maelstrom of nonsense. So we have to turn away from the plot, the acting, and the script, and look instead at the physical components. From the beginning, we see that everyone's clothes are brand new and show no signs of wear, straight from the tailor shop. The military uniforms are clean, new, and without any dirt. The sets also have a fake feeling about them. Look at Foyle's War to see how this type of show should be made. Had to stop watching after 30 minutes.

I expect this will annoy some people and if so all well and good. Reading the negative reviews of Poliakoff's recent BBC drama I was apt to think that the reviewers were likely to be from a particular demographic: white, middle aged and ( this is a long shot) Brexit voters. It seems to me that they have completely misunderstood the whole point of this brilliant drama. It is indeed stylistically quirky, stilted in its language and takes a long time to get to its real points. However, it is a wonderful journey and well worth the seven hours it takes to get there. Far from being poorly acted, as several people state, it is quite brilliantly acted and huge talents like Lindsay Duncan and Alfred Molina are far from wasted. Moreover there are new talents being revealed here. I think that the reason several reviewers hate it so much is that it is a cultured and deliberately nuanced piece of drama that demands the audience pay attention and read between the lines. For it is not really about the 1940s at all! It is about now. It is about the racism and bigotry of the time in which we live. The intolerance of difference and tendency to avoid thinking in our society. The moral dilemmas of the central characters are not simply those of the 1940s where murderers got away with things because the British, Americans and Russians wanted to use their knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are not only still with us but pose a threat that may be even greater than in the Cold War era. It is about power in age age when bigotry, racism and fear are ever present. The efforts of some to create a Europe and international community of cooperation are placed in jeopardy by the ignorance of those who don't want to think, don't wish to explore the past for what it can teach us and who simply want the crap of the vast majority of media output we are presented with on TV, film and the Internet. If you can't see that you have totally misunderstood the point of Poliakoff's work.

Why does the BBC keep pouring out cash whenever Poliakoff writes a new series? In recent years there has been the awful Glorious 39 and the daft Dancing on the Edge, both of which were set in the thirties. They were marked by a lack of realism on more than one level. This would be fine if they substituted something else, such as comedy. As it is, they are just naff.

Now we are in an unconvincing version of the 1940s. Others have commented on the awful dialogue (which presumably is meant to be a clever conceit?), the stereotypical characters and the plot, which on past form, won't be satisfactorily resolved. Poliakoff seems to be particularly weak on finishing them.

In this serial, which I'm writing about after two episodes, there are, so far, some interesting elements and characters, despite the stereotyping, and I'll have to wait and see what the dénouement is like.

Jim Sturgess is not good in this. Why does he have a fake accent resembling Alan Whicker? He's supposed to be a superbrain, but comes over as a bit of a dope.

I don't understand all the bad reviews, but then they usually say they gave up watching early on. I went all the way through it and wish there would be another season or two. I don't know what they think is 'well written' but I enjoyed most of the plot and scenes. Only the sexy scenes were not to my liking and felt as if they were put in to make things more 'exciting'. The last episode was the best way to end things. I didn't feel cheated or let down. I really liked the scenes in the hotel. It was interesting to see the challenges after the war that we never really see made into a series or a movie. I think the story message to me was that people in a difficult situation don't always do the right thing. They aren't always brave and sometimes they are just plain overwhelmed. And that is whether you are on the winning side or the losing side.