"Tales from the Green Valley" BBC documentary (2005)

So now I am going backwards and this show was actually made before "Victorian Farm" and it was equally pleasure to watch group of historians finding their way in a 17th century farm. What is different is that initially the group was slightly bigger but producers obviously later decided that Ruth Goodman, Alex Langlands and Peter Ginn works the best as a team - Stuart Peachey and Chloe Spencer are also present here and to be honest, in my opinion each member of the group has something interesting to say. 

In this particular season we see the way farmers used to live & work in a 17th century - just like in a "Victorian Farm", everything is all about the time of the year, crops, tending the livestock and land cultivating. While Ruth and Chloe gather fruits and veggies, guys are taking care of the building the outhouse, covering the rooftops with straw, ploughing the fields with ox, etc - as expected, a lot of hard physical labour and every time they sit by the dinner they seem to be grateful to have whatever greasy intestines are served. What is interesting is that everything is recycled here - in modern times we are used to a completely different lifestyle where things are discarded and easily purchased time and time again, but in the 17th century farm one would recycle even his own urine (to use for washing and stains removal). Animal fat was made into a soap, rags were used for fire lighting, chicken bones and human waste re-cycled as fertilisers. Absolutely nothing was thrown away. There was a very interesting process of hedge laying which was artificial fence between the fields but built from living parts of the bushes and branches in a way that they would continue to live and grown - one of those completely forgotten professions that used to exist centuries ago. And naturally, they ate in a seasons, so all the fresh fruit and vegetables were consumed in the right time of the year, unless something like Pears were collected and stored in the attic for later. There is a certain voyeurism about the whole thing - after all, we are comfortable in a nice apartments with central heating while the guys are building the pig house with bare hands - but it was very, very interesting. I have actually binged on this.

"Victorian Farm" BBC (2009)

Lo and behold, I have stumbled upon this documentary on youtube and it has completely captivated me, proving again that I can really do without any paying web sites with their streaming movies & programs - good ol' youtube is still a cornucopia of goodies that one just needs to discover. 

One way or the other, I found "Victorian Farm" and this is something completely up my alley - a historical program about daily life of ordinary people. Not just kings, queens and their battles but what actual people ate, how did they sleep and lived centuries ago. This particular program is in fact second part of BBC historical farm series where a group of historians and archaeologists play the parts of ordinary people on a farms in a British countryside, using only and exclusively gadgets, utensils and clothes available at that particular times. So no telephones, lighters, gloves, tennis shoes, sun lotion, sport jackets or anything that was not in the picture at that time. It is not really important, but the program was created this way:

"Tales from the Green Valley" (2005)

"Victorian Farm" (2009)

"Edwardian Farm" (2011)

"Wartime Farm" (2012)

"Tudor Monastery Farm" (2013)

 

Since each program is completely self-contained, it is not really important to watch them in any particular order, in fact I have devoured "Victorian Farm" and than found out about other series. As the title says, Victorian Farm is set in 19th century and joyful trio of Alex Langlands, Peter Ginn and Ruth Goodman are dropped in a miraculously preserved (but still completely neglected) Victorian farm in Shropshire, situated on a land owned by The Acton family who are around since the the twelfth century - Actons just come for a occasional visit to check how the things are going and to show the guys how to use certain Victorian machines but for the most part Alex, Peter and Ruth are left on their own. Dear reader, this was completely and utterly fascinating: they had to often look into old books popular amongst people back than, like "The Book of the Farm" and such, with detailed instruction how and what to do in certain situations. Both guys are super handy (and persistent) with all this hard physical work, while Ruth is just unbelievably skilful indoors and knows hundreds of little household tricks useful in the kitchen, etc. I mean, today we made our lives easier with all sorts of appliances, buttons and electricity but these people had no electricity whatsoever and their whole day was one of hard work. For example, when Ruth was doing the laundry, this was going on for several days - today the housewives just push the button. Also what was fascinating was that their whole existence was focused on food, livestock and seasons of the year - one had to wake up early, take a good care of the animals (first build a warm place for them, using materials available in the forrest and in the fields), make sure they are healthy and well fed and than hope that for the rest of the year everything will go as planned. There are lots of forgotten skills that local people are willing to show, like basket weaving, cheese making, etc, etc - I have binged on the whole series with a glee and now already started "Tales from the Green Valley". 

Keeping the chin up

Banksy and Moco Museum

It might appear a bit decadent to visit museums at this times when everything around us is doom and gloom but on the other hand, it is exactly the right time - there are absolutely no people around so museums are actually genuinely enjoyable and on the other hand, this is one of the best ways to lift my mood a bit and to pamper myself. The streets are deserted and empty, everything is grey and miserable, I might as well enjoy something nice before the whole world goes downhill. 

Moco Museum is here in the centre, literary around the corner from me - naturally, it never occurred to me to go there because its here - if I had to travel, I would have probably seen it long time ago already. It is a lovely old building and has a famous collection of modern and contemporary art - not something I would normally be drawn to, but hey, we all change and our perspectives mature. As a young man, I couldn't care less for the modern art but eventually I came to accept and even enjoy some of it. Like with everything else, when it comes to art, I react completely viscerally and things either move or repel me, there is no middle ground. Most of it is just a pleasant distraction, but every now and than something really catches my attention.

It was a old childhood friend who was constantly going on about Banksy that reminded me, hey, the collection of his works is in Moco Museum and its really close to my work. I was vaguely familiar with his name and notoriety but for this visit I did the homework and read more about him, sounds like really interesting person and contrary to majority of people who would do anything for fame, this one actually hides from it and enjoys working from anonymity. Yeah, I know, it sound silly that I paid quite expensive ticket to see street art but hey, this is a collection and quite large one. There were other artists represented (Keith Haring, Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons and Basquiat amongst others) but honestly, all I saw was Banksy and I was super impressed with his ideas - in fact, I don't remember when was the last time I was so taken with any artist. Sure, the technique has nothing to do with the masters from centuries ago who were in a completely different league, but in Banksy's art I see how the art grows, metamorphoses and changes with time - we are in digital era, after all, so it looks and feels different. With Banksy, its all about the message, a symbol, an idea. For example, there was a bust called "Cardinal Sin" - it is a bust of a cardinal where his face was replaced with tiles from a bathroom floor - obvious dig at clergy and their abuse of children, where their identity is always protected by the institution. I thought that was brilliant. Or a large painting describing group of peace-loving policemen - in fact this was about 1985. Battle of the Beanfield when UK policemen savagely beat up and arrested a group of New Age hippies who were on their way to a Stonehenge festival. Every single of his works has an interesting story or at least a thought behind it, I really thought he was brilliant. Couldn't care less for others. OK there was an interesting work by artist who goes with the initials JR and his The Gun Chronicles: A Story of America was actually magnificent collage with two groups (pro and anti-weapons) clashing against each other. 

"I Am Woman" by Unjoo Moon (2019)

Recently I complained about Shirley Jackson biopic that took too much freedom in describing its subject as a deranged, psychotic woman who spends most of the movie possessed by hallucinations or on the floor - while the movie was completely fictional, at least it was brave enough to move in different direction and the actors were visibly thrilled with chance to be unlikeable. Going in completely opposite direction, Helen Reddy biopic is sweetly toothless but ultimately safe (and therefore probably far more accessible to wide audiences) - it is very pleasant, but contrary to its subject, it does not create even a small ripple. It feels as a feel-good, Sunday afternoon TV movie.

Of course I am familiar with real Helen Reddy. I am old enough to remember that song and thanks to wonders like Spotify her complete back catalogue is now accessible more than ever before. Like majority of early 1970s stars, she eventually fell out of fashion but for a while she was unstoppable and rightly so - even to this day I find everything about her (her music, her voice, even her looks) very appealing and to me she belongs in that sacred trio Karen Carpenter-Helen Reddy-Anne Murray who marked the sound of the decade, their smooth, calm voices coming as a reaction to excesses of Woodstock.Yes, all three of them were considered hopelessly uncool because they were commercially successful - this is also era of the sweaty rock stars waving their guitars and being all very macho and serious - even though Janis Joplin broke the ice and showed that white girls can be as wild as the guys, nobody really followed in her footsteps. Judged by the prism of ageism, sexism and prejudiced snickering, girls had to find their own way - Reddy did it by sheer force of talent, intelligence and as we can see, a good timing.

It starts quite interesting: Reddy is 24 years old single mother who arrives in New York with her little daughter, as a winner of some Australian talent show and her prize is recording contract with U.S. company. Record executive is quick to dismiss wide-eyed Australian and told her they have absolutely no interest in girl singers because boys rock bands are all the rage - enjoy your stay and go back to Australia, see you later - they can't even be bothered to audition her or to even listen her voice. Reduced to perform in dingy lounges just to live hand to mouth, Reddy befriends witty journalist Lilian Roxon who is herself writing the very first Rock encyclopedia and two women witness the rise of feminist movement. For the sake of movie, Reddy is pushed around, her nostrils flaring from scene to scene, director hammering down the point that as a woman she is useless and pointless in a man's world (makes you wonder how any female artist did it, God knows they were around) - until eventually she gets a major break and becomes a superstar.

At this point the movie loses credibility for me. And here is why - it seems that director Unjoo Moon and her scriptwriters thought it would be good idea to explore this story trough the subject of feminist movement and how important was that millions of women found their voices trough Helen Reddy's music. So they approached the biopic with utmost respect and gingerly tiptoed around its subject who ends up more as idea than real person - people around her (Roxon, her husband, everybody else) are creatures of flesh and blood, while Reddy herself have surprisingly little to say - for the most of the movie she is surprisingly meek, mild and submissive. In fact, when the success finally comes, we see her as unhappy and moody but are never told why on Earth she is miserable now, after all isn't this what she always wanted? Earlier, we were treated with scenes of marital arguments between Reddy and her manager husband (quite good Evan Peters) where Reddy fiercely rejects the role of housewife and insist on fulfilling her professional ambitions - but once she is a major superstar, it looks like everybody else enjoys her success more than her. I believe the problem here was that movie was made about the real, living person and producers simply didn't know how to approach this without making Reddy a cardboard, quietly suffering wife who happens to sing a feminist anthem while privately living as a doormat. Movie also suggest that for all her strength, intelligence and talent, Reddy was creation of her manager husband who is chiefly responsible for her break - he was the one who aggressively bulldozed the way for her and without him she would still be at her kitchen table - once he is out of the picture, her career completely dwindles away and its just suggested "I don't sing anymore" - in reality, Reddy was middle-aged, strong and intelligent woman in a business that fed on young, nubile starlets and her moment in the spotlight had passed. 

For the sake of script, the movie suddenly changes focus and instead of explaining what Reddy meant to women and how she became personally involved with the movement, it became all about her failed marriage. Kind of "A Star Is Born" train wreck that we expected all along, because he is basically a Pygmalion who will build his wife as a major superstar but wants her to stay put. Before you know it, it becomes kitchen sink melodrama and its all about Reddy's private life, not about her music or what she meant. Tilda Cobham-Hervey is approximation of the real thing but never really close - she is too meek and mild, where real Reddy was charismatic and powerful. Even the voice for the soundtrack is not real but again a certain Chelsea Cullen who copies Reddy sound - it comes as very vague portrayal of Helen Reddy as idea more than a real person. I guess now I have to find her autobiography.