Jump to content

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


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

 

Also, Tom Hardy is playing a character that is suppose to be nearly 20 years younger than his actual age?  I'm enjoying it but I don't know what to make of these things.

He's supposed tp be 20? And has a 12 year old son? Something doesn't add up - either me thinking the character has been away for 12 years or you thinking his character is 20 years younger than the actor?

I like older people playing younger roles as it creates the illusion i look younger :)

11 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I really love the music for this, especially the opening credits. And the tone of the show is excellent, so dark and moody. Love it.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The bit where he speaks with Zilpha at the end you mean? I didn't think that sounded like he was speaking of his father at all. 

Also, was the woman at the end someone we had already met, or just a random assassin? I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be Helga but assumed not.

Enjoyed this episode. And I think we can safely say that, whether historically accurate or not, "fucking" is not being used as some kind of indicator of character backstory :lol: 

 

Yeah turns out they don't give a fuck about using fuck. The saturation of it in this episode made it seem less obtrusive though.

And why was this person playing the prince/king? Or was it this guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, red snow said:

 

Yeah turns out they don't give a fuck about using fuck. The saturation of it in this episode made it seem less obtrusive though.

And why was this person playing the prince/king? Or was it this guy?

I'm still finding it quite intrusive from some characters.

It was Mark Gatiss, wasn't it.   If I recall it's set in 1814 so it's George, Prince Regent (who becomes George IV in 1820).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ser Quork said:

I'm still finding it quite intrusive from some characters.

It was Mark Gatiss, wasn't it.   If I recall it's set in 1814 so it's George, Prince Regent (who becomes George IV in 1820).

I did not recognise him!

Are there any british shows that don't feature him? He seems to be everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Quork said:

He's is around a lot, although probably not as much as Olivia Coleman. :D

True - those two must cover 90% of British TV.

I rewatched episode 2 as I was being distracted by my phone on several occasions. Was definitely worth it. I'm really enjoying the style and how everyone is scruffy and/or poxed. I also love how lyrical Hardy's delivery is when he's not in mumble mode eg "The man with the Silver Tooth" (with a bizarre emphasis on tooth) and the brilliant "Atticus!!!" call out.

I think Godfrey might be a mole - he takes notes at the EIC and I recognise the actor leading me to think he'll have a bigger role than it currently appears. Possibly in league with Delaney as they could be a similar age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issues with this show are kind of summed up by the fact that although people are talking about it, and although it's the kind of show that invites questions, the talk isn't really about anything and not very many questions are being asked because it's just not giving us enough to even hang theories off. I criticise this kind ofshow sometimes for dropping too many red herrings and such, but this, so far, drops the other side of the fine line. It doesn't drop anything.

It's not bad so far (though there have been some poor moments, I thought, as well as some good ones) but I am going to want it to start being less obtuse soon. If we're going by arty vague stylishness, The Young Pope did it much better and I still hit a major stall on that despite loving the first four episodes (admittedly, I hit a major stall on all telly, after a brief period of watching-activity). Not that this and TYP are similar in any way but that style-over-clarity thing so far, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting stuff from Hardy:

Quote

Does every episode escalate dramatically?

Hardy: Yes, because I wanted to create a bit of a chocolate box. You open up in a fairy tale kind of Grimm story, almost like a horror story. It starts like that and the introduction is slow. It’s a slow burn, so we wanted to offer a lot that gets tied up by subsequent episodes. It really starts to take off in four and five. In six it goes off again to another angle and then seven and eight goes off in a completely different angle. We even incorporate the Western into there, sort of Peckinpah meets Barry Lyndon, which makes sort of early English Gangs of New York territory.

It will start to open up in a very different way. So the first three are a little bit tough, but stick with it because it opens up and diversifies once the machinations of the game of chess starts to play, and we’ve introduced all the characters and get to know them. The world gets a lot wider.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

It does feel like it is building up to something so it'll be great if we get some pay-off. I guess Westerns often built up to a key scene too. Maybe they wind up in America? That would make good use of the FX connection too.

I was talking about the supernatural stuff with someone at work today when a thought occurred to me but it may be instantly dismissed if I have forgotten a scene.

have we seen any scenes with Delaney's scottish manservant in the presence of someone other than Delaney? If not then I'm calling him a ghost! But I'll gladly dismiss the notion if we've seen him interact with anyone other than Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished episode two. I'm still thinking the sound is a bit low on a lot of dialogue and may start viewing this with captions. I'm a bit lost on the interaction between the brother and sister. I cant read the sisters feelings towards the brother at all. Does she despise him or love him or lust him or resent him or some combination of all of the above? They keep hinting at some mysterious past, but I havent pieced together what shape that past was between the two (brother and sister) of them? If she, deep down, has a love for the brother, she shows zero support to him outwardly and in front of her spouse.

Has she put the spouse up to having a hand in the fathers poisoning, in other words has she been a architect of some of this or has she simply been going along because shes fealt powerless to do otherwise? Its still a bit mysterious to me.

Definately going to do a episode 2 rewatch tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, red snow said:

It does feel like it is building up to something so it'll be great if we get some pay-off. I guess Westerns often built up to a key scene too. Maybe they wind up in America? That would make good use of the FX connection too.

I was talking about the supernatural stuff with someone at work today when a thought occurred to me but it may be instantly dismissed if I have forgotten a scene.

  Reveal hidden contents

have we seen any scenes with Delaney's scottish manservant in the presence of someone other than Delaney? If not then I'm calling him a ghost! But I'll gladly dismiss the notion if we've seen him interact with anyone other than Hardy

 

Spoiler

Spending too much time in the Mr. Robot thread? :)

It is definitely a slow burn, but enough is happening to keep me interested. Some interesting developments and reveals.

I share the feeling we will see Nootka eventually.

I'm wondering if the ghosts hidden in scenes are providing clues to Delaney.

I didn't have any trouble with the dialogue the first week, but had a few instances this week. It seems to be the mumbling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Astromech said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Spending too much time in the Mr. Robot thread? :)

It is definitely a slow burn, but enough is happening to keep me interested. Some interesting developments and reveals.

I share the feeling we will see Nootka eventually.

I'm wondering if the ghosts hidden in scenes are providing clues to Delaney.

I didn't have any trouble with the dialogue the first week, but had a few instances this week. It seems to be the mumbling. 

some appear to be slaves on a ship he was on. although they may have just been ghosts from the ship he bought (i think that's what made him check his new ship's past)Maybe he ate some of them? It could be they make more sense as it goes along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Just finished episode two. I'm still thinking the sound is a bit low on a lot of dialogue and may start viewing this with captions. I'm a bit lost on the interaction between the brother and sister. I cant read the sisters feelings towards the brother at all. Does she despise him or love him or lust him or resent him or some combination of all of the above? They keep hinting at some mysterious past, but I havent pieced together what shape that past was between the two (brother and sister) of them? If she, deep down, has a love for the brother, she shows zero support to him outwardly and in front of her spouse.

Has she put the spouse up to having a hand in the fathers poisoning, in other words has she been a architect of some of this or has she simply been going along because shes fealt powerless to do otherwise? Its still a bit mysterious to me.

Definately going to do a episode 2 rewatch tonight.

Well the relationship between James and Zilpha is never going to be straight forward. Even if she does still love him she has a lot to consider before she acts on such an impulse. And of course, her husband despises him, moreso now that he has robbed her of an inheritance. It makes total sense she would not show any kind of support for her brother to her husband or society in general (he is, after all, a widely rumoured cannibal. Why would she want to associate herself with that? Bad enough she is already tainted socially by a mad, indebted father).

In terms of how she actually feels, I suspect she retains some strong feelings for what they had in the past, but she tries to suppress these because of the reasons outlined above. It's quite clear she does not feel disdainful like she presents herself as feeling to her husband

eta: I think her husband probably did the killing or organised it without her knowledge. Either of his own accord or because of the EIC (recall Thoyt's comments about how they own everyone. The offer they made for Nootka Sound must have been substantial, but for him to make such a deal Delaney's father had to first die)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain to me why ever the East India Company would have an interest in the coast of North America?  This region is not their brief or their mission.  Neither was Africa. 

Now there is history between Britain and the area in the coming decades -- 54° 40' or Fight! -- in 1844.  In the negotiations to end the War of 1812 there was some discussion of the boundaries, but nothing changed.  But never did the East India Company be involved.  Sheesh, all of Russia was in between, nor had what romanticism like to call The Great Game yet begun (which was among the reasons for dissolving the John Co. because they had demonstrated over and over their incompetence to handle anything).

Just to clarify, there were disputes between Britain and various other nations over this region, particularly among Britain, Russian and the US (Spain kinda got in there at one point I think, via their claims to the Philippines) but the East India Company had nothing to do with them, as far as I know. But I'm not an expert in the EIC, though I do find its history fascinating and have read a few books -- which doesn't expertise make!  

Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Can anyone explain to me why ever the East India Company would have an interest in the coast of North America?  This region is not their brief or their mission.  Neither was Africa. 

Now there is history between Britain and the area in the coming decades -- 54° 40' or Fight! -- in 1844.  In the negotiations to end the War of 1812 there was some discussion of the boundaries, but nothing changed.  But never did the East India Company be involved.  Sheesh, all of Russia was in between, nor had what romanticism like to call The Great Game yet begun (which was among the reasons for dissolving the John Co. because they had demonstrated over and over their incompetence to handle anything).

Just to clarify, there were disputes between Britain and various other nations over this region, particularly among Britain, Russian and the US (Spain kinda got in there at one point I think, via their claims to the Philippines) but the East India Company had nothing to do with them, as far as I know. But I'm not an expert in the EIC, though I do find its history fascinating and have read a few books -- which doesn't expertise make!  

Am I missing something here?

The history of Nootka intrigued me too. As far as I can tell, the programme has little relation to the actual history. Being only two episodes in and the addition of the supernatural element does complicate it somewhat.

Presumably the EIC are interested in Nootka as it is the 'gateway to China' according to James, but I'm not sure how that works geographically. Maybe both sides are just keeping up the facade that their interest is for purely profane reasons. Why it is such a priority for the US, is unclear too. We are going to have to wait till the end of the series, if at all, for any explanation I fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 18, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Horse of Kent said:

The history of Nootka intrigued me too. As far as I can tell, the programme has little relation to the actual history. Being only two episodes in and the addition of the supernatural element does complicate it somewhat.

Presumably the EIC are interested in Nootka as it is the 'gateway to China' according to James, but I'm not sure how that works geographically. Maybe both sides are just keeping up the facade that their interest is for purely profane reasons. Why it is such a priority for the US, is unclear too. We are going to have to wait till the end of the series, if at all, for any explanation I fear.

 Heres some mention of its origins: In 1780, trade started between Nootka Sound on Vancouver Island, Hong Kong, and Macao. British and American merchants shipped fur and lumber from Vancouver Island to Canton.

from this site: http://curious.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/early-transpacific-chinese-travelers-and-todays-british-columbia/

They also mention the Opium Wars, The Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company. No mention of EIC that I noticed , but perhaps the show is using a little creative license with the setting since its fiction.

The westerlies are a strong Pacific current that flows between Asia and the Pacific NW so that influences the "Gateway" reference. Especially in past centuries where shipping was sail powered, the current and winds were the least path of resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

Can anyone explain to me why ever the East India Company would have an interest in the coast of North America?  This region is not their brief or their mission.  Neither was Africa. 

Now there is history between Britain and the area in the coming decades -- 54° 40' or Fight! -- in 1844.  In the negotiations to end the War of 1812 there was some discussion of the boundaries, but nothing changed.  But never did the East India Company be involved.  Sheesh, all of Russia was in between, nor had what romanticism like to call The Great Game yet begun (which was among the reasons for dissolving the John Co. because they had demonstrated over and over their incompetence to handle anything).

Just to clarify, there were disputes between Britain and various other nations over this region, particularly among Britain, Russian and the US (Spain kinda got in there at one point I think, via their claims to the Philippines) but the East India Company had nothing to do with them, as far as I know. But I'm not an expert in the EIC, though I do find its history fascinating and have read a few books -- which doesn't expertise make!  

Am I missing something here?

If you have any good recs on the period I'd be glad to hear them.

The British Maritme museum has a section on EIC and at their height it seems they ran India which seems insane. We claim corporations are powerful now but I don't think there are any that run countries as franchises yet? Otherwise I just tend to hear about them in the background of a lot of british history. I think they were partly involved in american indepence as the colony tax raise (stamp/paper duty) was in part to pay for a British bail out of the company.

They seem pretty fascinating or at least involved in lots of things (inadvertently and proactively). Seems like an establishment that could quite easily sustain a show on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am glad to see that Hardy states that the first three episodes are tough, but gets better from there. Strange to hear someone who created a show admit that it starts off slow but gets better.

Still have trouble with the mumbling, my wife watched it at a different time and she mentioned the same thing, had to have sound up quite a bit.

Him and his sisters relationship? Best guess is they were incestuous, loved each other, and she felt betrayed when he joined the EIC and left. She blames him for her being left with the father who shamed her and went insane. She married, IMO, someone she never loved just to get away from her father and hates that he is now back and she is trapped in a marriage. She did say to him on the steps that in the woods or someplace else she would gladly hear him profess his feelings for her, meaning, not in public view.

I hope Hardy is right and it picks up soon because honestly I felt bored watching Ep 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

The history of Nootka intrigued me too. As far as I can tell, the programme has little relation to the actual history. Being only two episodes in and the addition of the supernatural element does complicate it somewhat.

Presumably the EIC are interested in Nootka as it is the 'gateway to China' according to James, but I'm not sure how that works geographically. Maybe both sides are just keeping up the facade that their interest is for purely profane reasons. Why it is such a priority for the US, is unclear too. We are going to have to wait till the end of the series, if at all, for any explanation I fear.

How weird though, because China isn't IEC's mission either.  Trade with China, yes, but not controlling it in the way the Company was organized.  Also this is still New Spain, via Mexico (Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1821) > California, and stays so until 1848. Britain was really not interested in war with Spain in 1814 (this is the year of the Congress of Vienna when the allies are dividing up Napoleon's empire).

Not to mention that further north there's the Hudson's Bay Company and so on already claiming all the fur lands.  If I recall correctly from my histories of the fur trade in North America this is a place where seals are massacred in their tens of thousands.

As far as the EIC's involvement with the tea of the Boston Tea Party -- that is correct.  They overproduced their tea plantations (basicly slave labor as their poppy factories and farms were later), there was massive smuggling of the tea into England as well as the colonies -- smuggling was in play enormously from the very beginning, and in the western colonies it was so easy as everybody had a boat, and Yankee merchants went everywhere, and so we see from the beginning our the Original Founders always hated taxes.  So Parliament decided to help out their relatives and insist that only EIC tea could be sold in the Colonies, and help out the King's dignity by putting a (very) small tax on it.

Over the years I've had to study all this pretty thoroughly, because the history of the War of Independence, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, etc., all play such huge roles in the lives of each other, the War, what happens before and after -- and also the role the Caribbean plays in all this, particularly trade in commodities and the slave trade too.  

As far as I am currently informed, John Keay's history of the EIC, is still the history: THE HONOURABLE COMPANY: A History of the English East India Company (1991).  I read it as soon as it was available here in the US.  There have been others since.  Some of them will show up on amazilla if you look for Keay's book, such as Nick Robin's The Corporation That Changed the World, which is another EIC history I've read. Anything to do with the opium trade in China in the 19th century will include material on John Co. too. But Keay's book goes from start to finish of the company.  Like all these companies: The Virginia Company, the Royal Company of African Adventurers, the South Sea Company (which was the West Indies Company, so to speak, responsible for the $outh $ea Bubble Cata$trophe), The Hudson Bay Company, the various grants granted to groups of Lords Proprietors as with Carolina (founded literally on the concept of a slave state), or the Penns of Pennsylvania (notably all the slave colonies failed and were taken back by the Crown) -- you name it -- they were the cutting edge of colonialism and belonged to and were administered by ugly people who did dirty deeds, but not dirt cheap!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...