How to enjoy Sens8

A number of my friends have struggled with the new Netflix series Sens8, from the Wachowskis. I have to confess the original Matrix movie was one of my ten best ever, but I was a bit worried that the siblings were one hit wonders (think M Night Shyamalan). But despite some problems with their first TV series, they have achieved something interesting with Sens8.

So here we go.

Lie back and go with the flow. It will take some time. Not much happens in the first two episodes, but it does slowly build after that. Just let it wash over you. It's about the experience, man.
Accept the fact that about 90% of the script is essentially an extended therapy session for the main characters. They won't necessarily end up happier, but they will be more self aware. Be happy for them.
You are going to find flipping between eight main characters' storylines irritating, particularly when there is action in one of the locations and it gets engrossing. But over the season all the characters become genuinely interesting.
Don't expect deep philosophy from science fiction. Essentially the argument seems to be that our heroes a) Feel things far more than ordinary humans and b) Believe that the solution to almost all problems is hitting people. This doesn't feel entirely logically, but remember the philosophy of the Matrix and all will become familiar.
Unlike a lot of US series writers, the Ws know the importance of ending on a positive note, even though there's clearly a lot more strife to come. So thankfully there isn't one of those really irritating season end cliffhangers, which I truly hate. (Especially when the series gets cancelled, so the cliffhanger is never resolved.)
There are a surprising number of good bits. Anything worthwhile is worth working for. Consider the rest of it the necessary work. You can always speed through the gratuitous sex scenes.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog