|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 4, 2014 23:35:14 GMT
Had some thoughts today about a vague similarity between Murdoch Mysteries and Inception, one of my favorite movies. No, it's not just because I like men in sharp suits in incongruous circumstances.
As I mentioned in another thread, the director of Inception, Christopher Nolan, once said something along the lines that it didn't matter what layer of "reality" you were in within the movie, because in the end the whole movie was the director's dream. This is something I feel Murdoch Mysteries recognizes and comes to grips with, that American TV does not. American TV emulates reality, and measures it's quality in terms of verisimilitude. MM accepts that it is a form of dream, and measures its quality in terms of story features: plot, continuity, characters, props. Because it is a dream, ideas can be conveyed in shorthand, with archetypes and symbols. This is a quality I like in TV in general, and I'm always trying to put my finger on it. I'm going to start calling it "surrealistic", though the surrealists, as historical figures, were generally a bunch of egotistical pigs.
This led, tenuously, to another thought about William's magic homburg, and his suit in general. I think the reason why it's so important is that this identity is completely fabricated for him. William did not grow up to be a "toff". He's from the working, or even the indigent class. A suit is not his natural attire: middle class manners are not his natural persona. While he may have always been an introvert, he may not have been wielding the sort of propriety and manners he does now when he first joined the constabulary. This is an adopted identity, and I believe it's firmly sewn to the suit for him. It might even be attached to the hat!
|
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 0:43:06 GMT
Hmmm. Interesting thought. I'm not sure that I follow it entirely...which could be mostly because I'm overdue to rewatch "Inception." But I think you're definitely on to something about the dream-like quality of MM. As I thought about this post and watched another episode, I realized that the theme itself is something like the introduction to a dream. It's ritualistic in its use of music and the repetitive images of specific objects, and when it's over, we're transported not to true Victorian-era Toronto, but the Toronto that exists only in the hearts of the fandom. On the other hand, so much historical reality is rooted in the show that the marriage of the real and fantastical is what really creates the magic, IMO. I agree that his homburg may indeed be truly magical though. Maybe, like Frosty, he found it one day and suddenly gained super-detective powers!  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 1:31:08 GMT
Hmmm. Interesting thought. I'm not sure that I follow it entirely...which could be mostly because I'm overdue to rewatch "Inception." But I think you're definitely on to something about the dream-like quality of MM. As I thought about this post and watched another episode, I realized that the theme itself is something like the introduction to a dream. It's ritualistic in its use of music and the repetitive images of specific objects, and when it's over, we're transported not to true Victorian-era Toronto, but the Toronto that exists only in the hearts of the fandom. On the other hand, so much historical reality is rooted in the show that the marriage of the real and fantastical is what really creates the magic, IMO. I agree that his homburg may indeed be truly magical though. Maybe, like Frosty, he found it one day and suddenly gained super-detective powers! I'm having trouble articulating it myself, and as you can probably tell, I'm not usually someone at a loss for words (at least in writing). There are also definitely shades to this "TV surrealism" I'm talking about. The Prisoner is probably tinted with the most surrealism for a TV show. Wild Wild West episodes with Doctor Loveless are about 50% surreal. MM is around 40%. It tries to create a sense of "historical truth" and the character situations are reality-based - it's only decorated with surrealistic touches, and the audience is spared *too much* reality. The brush strokes are broad, and sometimes the story can be wrapped in a symbol. Like dreams, it's hard to tell whether that's reality being symbolized or symbol being made believable with tangible details. D: LOL at the Frosty analogy. Wouldn't it be amazing if he found that hat or was given it instead of buying it in some store? There could be some mythology behind that hat. But that would mean it would have to be THE hat showing up in England, not William buying a new one. I do so want it to be a magic hat. D:  Ps. I've seen Inception 10 times, and I still love it. There's a great comment on the soundtrack on youtube: if it's playing in the background it makes whatever you're doing seem important. XD |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 2:18:30 GMT
I'll definitely have to carve out time to rewatch Inception, especially considering I've only seen it once about two years ago. I believe in the hat! There has to be something special about it...although it could be that it's less like Frosty and more like Excalibur, in that the actual qualities of the wielder are what makes it special. Regardless, it was definitely THE hat in England.  |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 2:25:52 GMT
I'll definitely have to carve out time to rewatch Inception, especially considering I've only seen it once about two years ago. I believe in the hat! There has to be something special about it...although it could be that it's less like Frosty and more like Excalibur, in that the actual qualities of the wielder are what makes it special. Regardless, it was definitely THE hat in England. But how did it get there? Teleportation? Did it appear just when William needed it to appear? A scary thought: does William melt if he goes without it for too long?! *shivers* Ps. Excalibur is a really great parallel. |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 2:35:49 GMT
Shhh...don't question how. It's just there when he reaches for it. Accept it. Love it.  He probably doesn't melt, but if it gets forcefully knocked off he gets transported through time and space. Exhibit A: The Murdoch Effect. Excalibur came to me after more serious contemplation on the subject. I'm also working out a scenario in which each MM character corresponds to various Arthurian subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 2:49:13 GMT
Shhh...don't question how. It's just there when he reaches for it. Accept it. Love it. He probably doesn't melt, but if it gets forcefully knocked off he gets transported through time and space. Exhibit A: The Murdoch Effect. Excalibur came to me after more serious contemplation on the subject. I'm also working out a scenario in which each MM character corresponds to various Arthurian subjects. OMG YOU FIGURED OUT HOW TIME TRAVEL WORKED IN THE MURDOCH EFFECT! He didn't need George to hit him at all! He just needed someone to knock his hat off! He took all that bruising for nothing!  I like your Arthurian endeavor! Did you ever read the Structure-of-Every-Movie-Ever-Made-After-Star-Wars classic Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell? If you can see Arthurian archetypes in MM (which I haven't even tried to look for yet), then you're hip deep in the Jungian Collective Unconscious of MM surrealism. XD The problem with Arthurian imagery is that a lot of authors really want to draw on it, and they want so desperately for other people to see it, that it's easy to over do it, and reduce whatever you're doing to some sort of parody of Arthurian legend. If you have to start naming the dog Sir Kay, you're not doing it right. If you lay the subtlest of clues and make your viewers really work - and perhaps engage in their own creative constructions - to come up with the projection of the archetype, then you're a genius. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 3:15:56 GMT
I adore the original Arthurian tales, and spent some time a few years ago immersing myself in the characters and their stories. So when looking at MM, it was fairly easy to draw some connections, even though I don't feel like the writers made any overt attempts to project them. I think you hit the nail on the head when said that those archetypes can be really overdone, so I really appreciate the simplicity of the MM structure.
In my mind, I see Murdoch as Lancelot, Julia as Guinevere, Brackenreid as Kay, George as Percival, and Henry as Gareth. If you really wanted to stretch Enid could be Elaine with Allwyn as Galahad, but that takes a little more imagination.
In this structure there would be no "Arthur" character. I shall have to add that book to my growing list of "Must Reads."
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 3:20:36 GMT
In my mind, I see Murdoch as Lancelot, Julia as Guinevere, Brackenreid as Kay, George as Percival, and Henry as Gareth. If you really wanted to stretch Enid could be Elaine with Allwyn as Galahad, but that takes a little more imagination. In this structure there would be no "Arthur" character. I shall have to add that book to my growing list of "Must Reads." Now I'm really intrigued since without author, the throne is empty and the land isn't healed, so to speak. Before I got to your last sentence, I would have pegged Darcy as Lancelot since he ran off with Guinevere, but he was basically a well-meaning guy. But then if William were Arthur, he would have to be friend to and betraying William somehow. What makes William Lancelot in your view? I think I see that little detour into madness! XD  |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 3:35:56 GMT
Haha, yes, beware of rabbit trail ahead!
Lancelot was considered the greatest knight in the land, but was hampered by his love for Guinevere. It was this forbidden love that kept him from being considered pure enough for the grail quest (that honor went to Sires Galahad, Percival, and Bors). William and Julia share a similar love, deep, hidden, and following her marriage to Darcy, forbidden. After a time, Lancelot leaves the land, then returns, broken yet resolved to forget Guinevere and pursue his knighthood with the utmost honor. I haven't yet passed Season 5, but based on what I've read here, this particular phase may be reflected when Julia and William are free to love again, meaning that there love is no longer forbidden and no longer a burden to William's duties.
I agree that having no Arthur does leave the story a bit out of sorts, but it could be imagined that Author is an off-screen, behind the scenes orchestrater. Or perhaps some could see James Pendrick filling the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 3:55:08 GMT
Haha, yes, beware of rabbit trail ahead! Lancelot was considered the greatest knight in the land, but was hampered by his love for Guinevere. It was this forbidden love that kept him from being considered pure enough for the grail quest (that honor went to Sires Galahad, Percival, and Bors). William and Julia share a similar love, deep, hidden, and following her marriage to Darcy, forbidden. After a time, Lancelot leaves the land, then returns, broken yet resolved to forget Guinevere and pursue his knighthood with the utmost honor. I haven't yet passed Season 5, but based on what I've read here, this particular phase may be reflected when Julia and William are free to love again, meaning that there love is no longer forbidden and no longer a burden to William's duties. I agree that having no Arthur does leave the story a bit out of sorts, but it could be imagined that Author is an off-screen, behind the scenes orchestrater. Or perhaps some could see James Pendrick filling the role. I will follow a rabbit trail anywhere. >.> I'm following your line of thought, but it's sad that William can indeed never be "pure enough". He's not going to find any grail of justice. He has to come to terms with justice tempered by mercy and the human condition, and he chose his love for Julia. That "forbidden love" phase really took some work to uncover - I'm going to have to think about that one some more, and perhaps pull out my Arthurian dictionary. D: Whoa, James Pendrick as Arthur. Mind officially blown! D: Wait who's Merlin? Who's Morgan le Fay? Who's Mordred?  |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 4:47:22 GMT
Unfortunately MM doesn't have a big enough cast to set all the characters. Even James Pendrick doesn't quite work if you stick to Julia as Guinevere. If you really did want to reach and grasp at some fluttering straws, Sally Pendrick might be Morgan le Fey...the others are even harder. Maybe Tesla as Merlin? Can't come up with a Mordred at this point, but I'll think on it.
It is sad that William doesn't quite measure up to the Galahad standard of purity, but that tragedy is part of the allure of Lancelot. He's the greatest knight in all the land, but that one tarnish of his life keeps him from achieving the greatest of all quests. The saddest part is that Lancelot and Guinevere are never truly allowed to be together. He simply accepts that his greatest duty is to his knighthood and that there is no room for her in that life.
Alternatively, William and Julia could be viewed as Tristan and Isolde, but I feel like that puts too much emphasis on their romantic relationship without allowing for the other aspects of their personalities.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 5:00:56 GMT
Unfortunately MM doesn't have a big enough cast to set all the characters. Even James Pendrick doesn't quite work if you stick to Julia as Guinevere. If you really did want to reach and grasp at some fluttering straws, Sally Pendrick might be Morgan le Fey...the others are even harder. Maybe Tesla as Merlin? Can't come up with a Mordred at this point, but I'll think on it. It is sad that William doesn't quite measure up to the Galahad standard of purity, but that tragedy is part of the allure of Lancelot. He's the greatest knight in all the land, but that one tarnish of his life keeps him from achieving the greatest of all quests. The saddest part is that Lancelot and Guinevere are never truly allowed to be together. He simply accepts that his greatest duty is to his knighthood and that there is no room for her in that life. Alternatively, William and Julia could be viewed as Tristan and Isolde, but I feel like that puts too much emphasis on their romantic relationship without allowing for the other aspects of their personalities. William is definitely not Galahad. I agree on Lancelot or maybe even some other obscure knight - it's just been so long since I've delved into this area that I need to read up on my Arthuriana to connect the dots. He does have the tragic side which is why he's so appealing as a character for me. I don't really see Tristan and Isolde, either: without King Mark, what's the point? Also they were brought together by a love potion. I'm still bothered by the lack of King Arthur, though. He might be some abstract concept.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildhorseannie on Jun 6, 2014 5:21:51 GMT
I think that's what I finally settled on...Arthur as an abstract concept. To try to figure something else out would be to try to force it and it would become obvious right away that it doesn't fit.
As far as less famous knights, I would have to brush up a little too before really considering them for William. I thought about Gawain, but he has no love interest; Percival is, again, too pure of heart; Gareth was a possibility but I felt like the distinctions in his love story was too divergent for him to qualify.
|
|
|
|
Post by snacky on Jun 6, 2014 5:33:05 GMT
I think that's what I finally settled on...Arthur as an abstract concept. To try to figure something else out would be to try to force it and it would become obvious right away that it doesn't fit. Lancelot got my vote from the moment you brought up tragedy and madness. XD Wait, I think I brought up the madness. But there was madness. Soooo, Arthur. What does he mean? Camelot. Justice. Law. Duty. Code of Honor. Peace throughout the Land. The Dude That Needs to Find the Grail. Someone with a greater destiny, designated by pulling a sword out of a stone and being mentored by a famous wise man. Not a despot - had a roundtable and facilitated a fraternal brotherhood of knights. The knights upheld the honor of camelot by jousting a lot and rescuing fair ladies. That's all I can think of. William does his duty with respect to Canada: maybe Toronto is Camelot?  |
|
