Stella - Series 4

Stella, Sky 1's smash hit comedy drama, has just left us with its compelling series 4 conclusion. I have been a firm fan of this show from day one, and I am in no mood to change my mind now. I was overjoyed to see it back (particularly so soon after such a stonking Christmas special) and I am now sad to see it go, though  I am hopeful again for yet another outing to Pontyberry before too long.

It is notoriously hard to keep a show going for one successful season let alone four, and I believe Ruth Jones and her fantastic team deserve every credit ; each episode of series 4, like the others before them, were of a good, solid and very watchable quality. Such is what we have come to expect from Stella.
By and large I have no real complaints, and again praise Stella for its consistent good standards. There were a few noticeable chinks in the show's armour this time around that did not sit with me personally, but all in all still Stella at her superb best.

Last time around when reviewing series 3 (see my BLOG ARCHIVE) I commented on the fact that a lot of chops and changes had been constantly made to the cast of Stella since the end of the first series. The same is certainly true of this latest run, yet now I get the sense that the team are well and truly celebrating this.
An intrinsic understanding of the fluidity and popularity of each individual character has been established, and used to good effect this season. We had the warmly welcome series staples (including but not limited to Ruth Jones as Stella herself of course!) that we all know and love, a couple of new faces, plus the fantastic (if a tad brief) return of those we hadn't seen for donkeys. I refer especially to the joyous return of Elizabeth Berrington as Paula, who we hadn't seen since series 2. I loved the character of Paula and always hoped for her return, and was thus thrilled to see her make a comeback, though regrettably without her husband Dai. It was like she had never left, despite the world of Stella having heavily changed in her absence, but her return stint was sadly cut short. The same was said of Mark Lewis Jones, who briefly popped back as Rob Morgan in the series finale.
This was a bit of a jumble, and resulted in a bit of a mixed message for me as an audience member. The evolving and ever growing sizable cast list of Stella is full of utter gems, brilliantly written and executed and as a result it really does feel like a fantastic community ensemble that is constantly flowing in and out of one central Pontyberry story line. Fine, great but at times (and for the first time in all of Stella's run) I did feel a bit fobbed off with this sporadic introduction and reintroduction of faces old and new. Yes the cast still blended together and into the story very well, but it just feels like they are trying a tad too hard at times to please everyone at once just for the sake of it.
I realize it is a difficult balance; to keep introducing fresh elements and characters whilst remaining true to why we fell in love with Stella in the first place. I also know mostly they have struck gold, but I would just say that a little more finesse may have been needed  in alternating the cast list as they did in series 4. Yet as I say - great to see such a superb ensemble strut their stuff again.

In terms of the overall continuing plot of Stella in this latest fourth series; again very good most of the time but there were several moments (again perhaps more so that in previous years) where things got a little stunted for me.
Having successfully coupled Stella and Michael (played by Patrick Baladi) last year, I suppose the next logical step was to uncouple them, which they did in spectacular form. This was a powerful central arc of this series; Michael's betrayal, shame and eventual redemption. in Stella's eyes and everyone else's. Baladi plays it brilliantly, and the chemistry between him and Ruth Jones is still wonderfully tangible. However the flippancy and slightly "soap" style way in which the uncoupling rift was done slightly niggled me. That said, a touch of scandal in Stella was never a bad thing.
The supporting Luke/gambling arc was a bad move in my case. Not because it wasn't compelling dramatically or because the actors couldn't pull it off, but because it was a tad predictable. Still plenty of powerful and comedic moments, but that element left me feeling a bit empty in all honesty.
I mentioned characters for characters' sake; Auntie Brenda, played by Di Botcher, has been a huge hit as a Stella character since she arrived, but her story arc this time around did not add much depth to her persona. I can still see her popularity and the reasons for it, but in small, sharp doses - her election story line showed us nothing we hadn't seen before from her and her fellows, and dare I say it, left the Auntie Brenda character feeling a tad stale.
However, these really are small (if quite constant) niggles within Stella series 4, as by and large it was still more of the same joyous moments to enjoy (including an incredibly funny, touching, and poignant Alan/Celia wedding arc).

All in all, Stella still brought a huge smile to my face. Yes, four seasons in and it may be flagging a tad, but Stella's world is still going strong and still has a lot to give I am sure. At its heart the show is incredibly warming, hilarious and fun, but it is written, conceived and played in a way that borders on the genius in its ability to keep legions hooked. Once again, I must say bravo Stella. It was a joy to see you back, and don't take too long in returning again.

Election 2015: 7 Leaders Debate

I know I know! Far be it from me to get all political! Don't worry - this is not be jumping on the bandwagon and down your throats; I'm already sick of all the hooha and twaddle, and postulating politicians being bandied about on the news regarding the forthcoming election, and we've got over a month to go! That being said, I do like to keep aware of these things and I do think our votes are important, and seeing as the recent seven-way political leaders debate was the first of its kind really, I thought I would give my brief take. As is the way with things on this blog at times, I thought I'd focus on the performance each leader gave. The general consensus is that no clear victor emerged, and I would agree with that, but I shall see if I can separate them slightly on how they each came across  to me (with the help of the old trusty star system!). I must stress - this is not me suddenly commenting on my own political bent or declaring certain party loyalty, and it is certainly not me telling you who to support or vote for. I am simply giving my take on how each leader performed. So, from how they appeared on the night left to right, here we go...

NATALIE BENNETT - Green Party

The relative political outsider who since the debate has had a bit of a renaissance in voter interest and media coverage, Natalie Bennett struck me as being different enough to turn heads, but essentially not having much gumption or clear cut resolve to back up her postulating. 

She often stood quite calm and collected on the end podium, waiting for her moment to strike amongst all the banter and old boy jabbering. And strike she did, and often she struck well. Her ideas, proposed policies and motivations were markedly different and clearly struck a chord with the audience, but the big let down with Natalie Bennett was that she often did not present solid, resilient enough arguments when challenged by her fellow leaders. She had enough for a good opening gambit but not much else, and when it came to her performance on the night; it seemed to me to be a case of talking the talk but not being prepared to walk the walk.

NICK CLEGG - Liberal Democrats

Nick Clegg struck me as humbly refreshing during the debate. After the frankly disastrous run he and his party have had in recent years in terms of public relations, it almost seemed as if that Clegg had reverted to type behind his podium. For the purposes of his campaign he has clearly put party first (shock horror!) and has tried to appeal to voters again by side swerving his Deputy PM status. 

As a result, he appeared likable, charming and crushingly and resoundingly humble in the face of what has been a series of very public and very scathing backlashes for him in the eyes of the people. In the realms of the countless cock ups by countless politicians, Clegg is one of the very first to not only apologize, but to use that apology to his own unique advantage. Put it this way - no other leader was remotely humble about their position on the night (or if ever) and that is what made Clegg stand out. Yes OK we all probably know he wont get too far with this approach, but it certainly wasn't too detrimental to be "the most likable".

NIGEL FARAGE - Ukip

Say what you like about Nigel Farage and his marmite party. he is certainly different, and he is unapologetic about it. Yes he is probably as self-absorbed, and as self-motivated as the rest of them, but his approach to politics is so brashly upfront and unsubtle, that yet again at the debate this was his trump card. He did not care who he offended (and he did) he did not care how he looked, and he did not care what was said about him. Never has the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" been so apt as in the case of Nigel Farage. 

Yes he may have been a bit of a one trick pony debating his points, yet his opposition found it very difficult to argue with them; they just took a lot of issue with him himself and his delivery. In the end, Farage probably is a bit of a joke candidate, especially if you are thinking in terms of the next PM, but I think that in his own way, he did hold his own on the night of the debate.

ED MILIBAND - Labour

Whatever I may think of the Labour party (and actually I am in two minds) I despise their leader, and the debate did not change that. Rarely have I seen a politician, or indeed anyone, who is such a feckless, twittering, falsely arrogant, narcissistic prig.  

Whenever this man speaks in public, he makes me wonder how Labour ever thought it positive to make him their leader. It was obvious what Miliband's spin doctors had told him what to do at the debate; I imagine it went something like - "when you are talking, ignore whoever you are supposed to be talking to and make sure you stare directly into the camera at all times. That way you will appeal to people at home and make them feel like you are a man of the people."

What it made him look like was an arrogant, ignorant moron who did not know how to address an audience and seemed to be completely clueless about what the word "debate" meant. He seemed to think he was appearing in some lame form of party political broadcast. I actually timed it - each time Miliband spoke it was only a matter of moments before he suddenly "dramatically shifted his gaze" to stare deadpan down a lens; the shortest time was two seconds, and the longest was a hefty ten seconds. Yes it made him stand out from the others, but for all the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately for him, his actual stance and position within the debate wasn't that great either. He started OK, often when he was attempting to bully David Cameron, but he soon crumbled when it came to holes in his arguments and position, and when his opponents saw this they easily blew those holes wide open and tore him apart, leaving him shaking his head like a bemused schoolboy. He was also the one who kept musing "if I'm Prime Minister" before sentences. If he becomes Prime Minister, I for one will strongly consider emigrating. 

LEANNE WOOD - Plaid Cymru

I felt sorry for Leanne Wood in a way, as she clearly was not used to the big stage and clearly not used to fighting so exposed against the big boys of Westminster. In the end hers was a deeply nationalistic position, like Nigel Farage. But unlike Farage, Leanne Wood was nowhere near passionate and convincing enough to stand out with such a simple method for trying to attract attention and voters.

Like Natalie Bennett she did try to adopt a more empathetic, sweet tone to her outlook, and she was clearly going for a nice localized community feel to attract potential support. But her delivery was simply too timid and too weedy; rendering her to come across as nowhere near confident enough in her convictions, if at all.

The main problem however, was that she would not shut up about Wales. Yes we know she is all for the Welsh and Wales as independent, but in a programme that is being shown to the UK as a whole, she surely cannot hope to win UK wide support if all she goes on about is what she will do for Wales.

NICOLA STURGEON - SNP

Of all the "alternative" party leaders, and certainly of the three female leaders gathered for the debate, Nicola Sturgeon certainly gave the strongest performance. Yes she is strongly and proudly independent when it comes to her beloved Scotland, but she has her head screwed on straight enough to know that she needs more than that to cut it in a UK wide election.

Any whispers and mutterings of alliances were ignored on the night, as Nicola Sturgeon wasted no time in standing up to and at times fighting back against her opponents. Yet she did all this from a calm, collected and measured stand point. She managed to strike that happy balance of not losing her cool and not coming across as disengaged and boring. Occasionally she did show her lack of experience and standing, and she did let her Scottish roots override her judgement and postulating at times. But she had enough style and substance to pull through, proving that she is capable of playing with the big boys now.

DAVID CAMERON - Conservative

Its possible David Cameron had a slight handicap in confidence as he is of course the current PM. Yet for all the fuss he made about whether or not he would be joining this debate, overall I didn't think he did too badly. He may have left himself open to all kinds of attack (perhaps predictably) which he didn't always react well too and he did of course come across as quite pompous and full of Tory grandeur that may not be that deserved.

However he did remain calm, and seemed sure of what he was doing. Plus despite the typical Tory facade, he did seem quite earnest in protesting the values of what he had accomplished in power, and what he could go on to achieve. Like all political spiel, this cannot be taken lightly and is probably all talk to try and cling to office, but it can be said that Cameron can talk quite well. He did not lose his rag when attacked from all sides, and whilst there wasn't really any humility in how he conducted himself (quite the reverse at times) there was a whiff of the statesman at times. Alongside his Scottish counterpart, David Cameron can breathe a slight sigh of relief in holding his own during this particular political debate.

Grace of Monaco

A highly glamorized, highly stylized and highly publicized film, presented as a Hollywood biopic of Hollywood legend Grace Kelly, AKA Princess Grace of Monaco. This is also a film that, for whatever positives it may hold, has been almost universally panned by critics and audiences alike. So, time for my two pennyworth... 

Whilst I did not think the film was a total flop at all, I do think it could have been finished to come across a lot better. 

For a start, you do not have to be an avid historian to twig that this is not a film that is faithful and accurate in terms of a biopic. The script features a heavy Hollywood-style theme, and it is plain to see that sadly yet again Hollywood has made quite a butchery of a distinguished and elegant historical figure. Whilst the idea was sound, I think in practice this film has been sequenced and presented all wrong. In trying to make it a very personal journey, centering on Grace almost completely, they have also thinned out any depth to her story, almost to the point of extinction. The result being a story that floats loftily from point to point with the merest whiff of historical intrigue, relying solely on its good looks to succeed.

That being said, there is just enough substance, aided by just enough performance, to keep your interest ever so slightly held. I for one did not feel disgruntled, angry or even dissapointed at the film's end, but I did get a slightly hollow feeling which cannot be good.

Talking of just enough performance, let us now look at the cast which is quite extensive; on paper the names alone on the cast list should add up to a winner but sadly it was not to be.

We should start I think with Nicole Kidman as Grace of Monaco. To look at, she is Grace Kelly - effortlessly stylish, breezily ethereal, serenely sexy and deliciously beautiful. Yet when she performs, again it is almost a case of the minimum will do. This was a disappointment for me as I know that Nicole Kidman has the star quality and the talent to carry the role and the film effortlessly. But she merely inhabits the role of Grace Kelly just enough to get away with first glance inspection. Hers was one of the better performances of the film, but if you are looking forward to a 100 % accurate and emotively powerful Grace Kelly, then I fear you must look elsewhere.

Opposite her is Tim Roth as Rainier III. Again, there are elements of his performance which are touching and stoic, but scratch away the surface and I think more often than not you will find a rather shallow and empty sense of character. Other British acting staples included Robert Lindsay, who again was well conceived and well placed as Aristotle Onassis, but in terms of his accent and some bits of characterization... oh dear.

Frank Langella was a well needed piece of gravitas and quality, but not much is done with his character in terms of driving the plot. Still, his dulcet tones are still always welcome.

Again oodles of quality were readily found in the surprise but welcome appearance of Sir Derek Jacobi. He was a joy to see and watch but again very frustratingly his power and talent was used very trivially and not to full advantage. 

I think that really sums up Grace of Monaco. Nice idea, and in theory works well, but not nearly enough oomph was put in at almost every juncture. Given enough performance and commitment,

this film could be as glamorous and stylish and though provoking as it attempts (and fails) to be. Beautifully shot and nice music, and just good enough performances, but in the end Grace of Monaco, whilst being a good watch, is not much more than that.