Taboo: Tom Hardy's historical drama (BBC1/FX) [spoilers]

[unJon]

Thanks again, board! Have just set DVR to record this. 

[Zorral]

The John Company's board and admin and staff were anything but nice people.  They were of the same sorts of noble families who started the Royal Africa Company to slave Africa to fill theirs and the Stuart kings' private purses. They were entitled to have the British military make sure they got what they wanted whether it was theirs to be taken or not. The Company was the first line of colonization (along with missionaries, of course) of the jewel in the crown and further east.

What they were not were efficient and honest.  Like the Virginia Company, finally they had to be dissolved by the Crown because they just effed up way too much -- and weren't making that much profit either.

There are brilliant histories of the East India Company out there, and they are filled with fascinating figures and stories -- and lots and lots of horrors.

Quote

 . . . . Its commercial monopoly was broken in 1813, and from 1834 it was merely a managing agency for the British government of India. It was deprived of that role after the Indian Mutiny (1857), and it ceased to exist as a legal entity in 1873.

 

 

 

 

[Isis]

7 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The idea behind the show was one Hardy pitched to his father and he seems to have been very involved in production. So Delaney probably is tailored for him.

 

I love that 'hey, dad' story. I guess we'll see a lot of Tom Hardy being utilised as Tom Hardy. But how long will we have to wait for him to give a performance that is totally different to that? I'm sure it will come. /threadjack

[red snow]

8 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The idea behind the show was one Hardy pitched to his father and he seems to have been very involved in production. So Delaney probably is tailored for him.

 

That story about his Dad is pretty cool. Great Dad.

45 minutes ago, Isis said:

I love that 'hey, dad' story. I guess we'll see a lot of Tom Hardy being utilised as Tom Hardy. But how long will we have to wait for him to give a performance that is totally different to that? I'm sure it will come. /threadjack

It does seem to have been a while. The fact that film/tv viewers respond best to his preferred type of role (which I call grumbly Hardy but now realise it could also be "wears slightly outlandish jackets/cardigans" Hardy) is self reinforcing. Then again when I think about different versions of Hardy all I come up with is "star trek", "this means war" (HArdy in a spy romcom!) and "Inception" (where I can't really remember much about him other than he's in it and doesn't grumble). I guess we have to hope he tries different types of crazy and maybe does non grumbly/cardigan wearing crazy at some point.

[Ser Quork]

9 hours ago, red snow said:

<>.

Also, has FX weakened its policy on swearing of late? I always got the impression that "fuck" was off the cards on their shows but (unless they film alternate scenes for FX) they will be using "fuck" a few times here. I noticed "Atlanta" does too. Maybe it was a stylistic thing with other FX shows but it always struck me as odd how in "sons of anarchy" the motorcycle gang never dropped a F-bomb. Same with Archer, Sunny in Philli (where they bleep out words-possibly for comedic effect) and the Americans. I think it's better when shows have the freedom to say what they want - especially when you know people would use such language in the context of certain shows. If anything I found the EIC guy saying "fuck" a bit "off". I'm not sure that's something that class of people would say but then again that might just be my conditioning from watching how men in wigs talked at that time.

I'll be honest that I find it annoying that writers have any and all characters swearing to show "they mean business" or "they are angry" - it's lazy writing.  Having Strange swear when he threatened Delaney felt like a huge miss to me too.  People can be menacing without swearing but it's always included now, whether such a character would swear or not.  I suppose modern writers think it's edgy rather than thinking (as they should) about the language and culture of the character.

[red snow]

9 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

I'll be honest that I find it annoying that writers have any and all characters swearing to show "they mean business" or "they are angry" - it's lazy writing.  Having Strange swear when he threatened Delaney felt like a huge miss to me too.  People can be menacing without swearing but it's always included now, whether such a character would swear or not.  I suppose modern writers think it's edgy rather than thinking (as they should) about the language and culture of the character.

I agree. Breaking Bad was a great example of the writers overcoming the language restrictions to such a point that I never even realised the language was restricted. On the other hand "Deadwood" makes swearing poetic. It probably is something that's only a problem with lesser writers (or directors lacking confidence in the script/actor).

I think it's like you say - it just felt like lazy shorthand for showing the character was angry/losing his cool. Hardy's character wearing or the woman at the whorehouse using "fuck" would have seemed fine. But Having Strange swear in the setting he did seemed wrong. The only defence I can muster is that Strange was a naval officer at one point so possibly rose through the ranks with more colourful speaking people. Still, I think Jonathan Pryce is more than capable of displaying his loss of control through the delivery of words on their own - he could have easily conveyed his anger without using "fuck".

[Calibandar]

Funny that someone else picked up on how Hardy sounds a lot like he did in "Lawless".

Now, i don't mind, because that is my favorite Tom Hardy film so far.

As for this first episode, I thought it was ok but a bit dull. Hardy is an excellent lead though and Jonathan Pryce is similarly very very good. Looks like they will carry this series easily.

I'm not wild about the supernatural elements on display so far. But it's an intriguing series.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Calibandar said:

Funny that someone else picked up on how Hardy sounds a lot like he did in "Lawless".

Now, i don't mind, because that is my favorite Tom Hardy film so far.

As for this first episode, I thought it was ok but a bit dull. Hardy is an excellent lead though and Jonathan Pryce is similarly very very good. Looks like they will carry this series easily.

I'm not wild about the supernatural elements on display so far. But it's an intriguing series.

I'm hoping the supernatural elements are just psychological and showmanship. Delaney seems very well informed and I think he's using that to create the illusion he knows "african magic" or possibly "Native american magic if his mother was a native american".

[Ser Quork]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

I'm hoping the supernatural elements are just psychological and showmanship. Delaney seems very well informed and I think he's using that to create the illusion he knows "african magic" or possibly "Native american magic if his mother was a native american".

I've been wondering myself whether these elements will be 'real' or psychological. I'm not sure yet how I prefer it to go.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Ser Quork said:

I've been wondering myself whether these elements will be 'real' or psychological. I'm not sure yet how I prefer it to go.

Oddly for me I like the ambiguity. The weird thing is that I don't think I want it to be "real" but some of the previews make it appear more one way than the other. What would be nice is if they mimic the "magic" from Cornwell's "winter king" where the power is dependent on people's superstition. I'd be on board with that.

Speaking of - Hardy would make a great Mumbling Merlin when he's a bit older.

[Ser Quork]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

Oddly for me I like the ambiguity. The weird thing is that I don't think I want it to be "real" but some of the previews make it appear more one way than the other. What would be nice is if they mimic the "magic" from Cornwell's "winter king" where the power is dependent on people's superstition. I'd be on board with that.

Speaking of - Hardy would make a great Mumbling Merlin when he's a bit older.

Agreed - I think that would work well.

[HexMachina]

I think I would like it to remain ambiguous. Let the audience decide whether it's just the characters believing the magic is real, or whether magic is really going on

[Jen'ari]

I thought it was pretty decent, plus it's always good to see the high sparrow not get his way.

[polishgenius]

Remaining ambiguous would be fine. What I'd hate would be a True Detective type situation where they layer clues throughout but leave it open until right at the end where they go 'oh, no, it was all bollocks and the explanation is totally mundane, if creepy'.




As for the swearing, and the particular moment mentioned a lot here- I thought that worked, because I don't think it was an attempt to show the character being extra-menacing, it was him at the end of his tether. The very fact of the incongruous curse is a character point.

[HexMachina]

32 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Remaining ambiguous would be fine. What I'd hate would be a True Detective type situation where they layer clues throughout but leave it open until right at the end where they go 'oh, no, it was all bollocks and the explanation is totally mundane, if creepy'.




As for the swearing, and the particular moment mentioned a lot here- I thought that worked, because I don't think it was an attempt to show the character being extra-menacing, it was him at the end of his tether. The very fact of the incongruous curse is a character point.

The swearing and whether it was unusual or not doesn't bother me one way or the other. But didn't he do it twice? Once with the guy from the Africa desk and then again to Delaney? I suppose it could also be him being at the end of his tether in the first case too since Africa Desk was infuriating in his wandering around the subject of the rumours on what James had done. I'm not bothered either way though, it didn't seem jarring to me.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I think I would like it to remain ambiguous. Let the audience decide whether it's just the characters believing the magic is real, or whether magic is really going on

I think it's only a one-off event show anyhow so they don't really need to reveal anything until close to the end

12 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Remaining ambiguous would be fine. What I'd hate would be a True Detective type situation where they layer clues throughout but leave it open until right at the end where they go 'oh, no, it was all bollocks and the explanation is totally mundane, if creepy'.




As for the swearing, and the particular moment mentioned a lot here- I thought that worked, because I don't think it was an attempt to show the character being extra-menacing, it was him at the end of his tether. The very fact of the incongruous curse is a character point.

Some of the weird stuff in True Detective remained ambiguous eg the weird things McCog saw at times - it was just the evil cult being a couple of psychos that was unveiled. And I found the ambiguous stuff with no resolution or ultimat connection to the plot (although it did add to the feel of the show) was more annoying for me.

As for the swearing, I'll openly admit that I don't know how gentlemen spoke behind closed doors in the early 19th century but saying "fucking" feels a bit contemporary for me. I could imagine "God Damn" being more in line for gentleman and said curse was probably as shocking at the time. It's a tricky one because ultimately the language in the show is for modern audiences so there is a good argument for sticking with language we'd consider offensive now.

I tried to do a bit of googling on it and the first written example where they can be certain of the modern use of "fucking" was in 1857. Although "fuck" had been around for a while. It still seems that God based cursing was the more offensive in god-fearing times though.

[HexMachina]

29 minutes ago, red snow said:

I think it's only a one-off event show anyhow so they don't really need to reveal anything until close to the end

Some of the weird stuff in True Detective remained ambiguous eg the weird things McCog saw at times - it was just the evil cult being a couple of psychos that was unveiled. And I found the ambiguous stuff with no resolution or ultimat connection to the plot (although it did add to the feel of the show) was more annoying for me.

As for the swearing, I'll openly admit that I don't know how gentlemen spoke behind closed doors in the early 19th century but saying "fucking" feels a bit contemporary for me. I could imagine "God Damn" being more in line for gentleman and said curse was probably as shocking at the time. It's a tricky one because ultimately the language in the show is for modern audiences so there is a good argument for sticking with language we'd consider offensive now.

I tried to do a bit of googling on it and the first written example where they can be certain of the modern use of "fucking" was in 1857. Although "fuck" had been around for a while. It still seems that God based cursing was the more offensive in god-fearing times though.

I don't know either (though I'm having fun researching this ). This salon piece has quite a lot about historical usage of profanity.

Another thing to consider, if I understand correctly the EIC was run by aristocrats and wealthy merchants, right? In which case not all of them would have the standard upbringing for the wealthy, so i guess this could be the case for Sir Stuart. He is relatively new to wealth and slips back into old mannerisms when angry?

I'm giving way to much thought to this considering I don't mind it anyway...

[Philokles]

Distaste for swearing is primarily a middle class thing, so the upper classes in the EIC would likely not have minded too much. I have no idea what words they would have used, but fuck stands out less to me than some archaism.

 

I found it a pretty decent opening episode, but I am concerned that the supernatural could come to dominate. 

 

Spoiler

One issue I had with the timeline is that James left England at 15, but still managed to have a child with his younger by a good few years half-sister. Unless I am misunderstanding something.

 

[red snow]

8 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I don't know either (though I'm having fun researching this ). This salon piece has quite a lot about historical usage of profanity.

Another thing to consider, if I understand correctly the EIC was run by aristocrats and wealthy merchants, right? In which case not all of them would have the standard upbringing for the wealthy, so i guess this could be the case for Sir Stuart. He is relatively new to wealth and slips back into old mannerisms when angry?

I'm giving way to much thought to this considering I don't mind it anyway...

I said the same when i first brought it up, Sir Stuart was a naval commander and therefore could potentially have risen through the ranks and sailors were well known for swearing and picking up all the new profanities from around the world. Keeping in mind that people often bought themselves into better starting positions so wealth tended to breed wealth and limit access for those at the bottom working their way up. So it could actually be some interesting character work. I'm trying to remember whether any of the others swore in that way - I don't think so.

I totally agree that the origin/use of swear words is far more interesting than its use in the episode. Like I say I just found its use clunky and dubious. So it may well have been the execution that was at fault. Afterall, they cuss all the time in "Black Sails" and I don't notice and that was decades before this setting.

[Zorral]

Review by someone who saw the first 3 episodes -- NY Times, so use your browser's incognito / private window:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/arts/television/review-fxs-taboo-a-british-costume-drama-with-doom-and-gloom.html?