MrE

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of MI-5: Volume 4 at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=26001 and... "inherent dishonesty" is obviously not confined to one side of the ocean. This "review" belongs in POLITICS not Reviews.

Paul Mavis

Of course I discussed the political content of MI-5 in my review -- that's the show's main purpose, isn't it? To stir up the viewers? I also touched on the show's entertainment value, which is tired and cliched, at best.

When a show puts its politics up front in the viewer's face, I'm going to discuss that with equal weight in my review.

Thanks for reading my review.

Paul Mavis

nemein

Personally I love the spooks series but I have to agree w/ Paul that this season got a bit heavy handed w/ the anti-US rhetoric (although it was really only blatant in a few eps IIRC). However, I think Paul missed the point that this is not primarily an action series in the sense of 24 but is more along the lines of the original Mission Impossible, it's more about the drama, the situation and the interaction of characters. I'm not sure if he's watched the other season or not (I don't recall if he mentioned that) so while I do disagree w/ his "skip" recommendation, I guess that really depends upon whether or not you're into the series. On it's own I wouldn't recommend this season, I think 2 was the best according to my recorded ratings, but I think it was a worthy addition to the whole. In general just don't expect it to be on par w/ the previous seasons, things just didn't click as they have before. I think most of it came from trying to integrate the new people in. In fact that's one major problem the series is starting to suffer from, the constant changing of main characters. This may make it a little more realistic, and certainly creates a sense of jepordy for the remaining characters, but it does prevent the viewer from "caring" about the characters since you start to get the "you're not going to be here long so why should I give a flip about you" attitude.

So the bottom line is if you're into MI5/spooks you'll want to watch it (it finished off w/ another great cliff hanger IMHO) but don't expect it to be on par w/ the previous seasons.

slop101

I'd understand this sort of criticisms when reviewing a documentary, but since you're reviewing a work of fiction you should disassociate yourself from views and ideologies you don't agree with. It's sorta like not enjoying Godfather because you don't approve of organized crime, which it romanticizes.

Is America responsible for more atrocities than terrorists are? It doesn't matter - I don't watch this show to affirm my political beliefs, therefore it doesn't bother me if and when it presents something I don't agree with. Instead, what I look for in a work of fiction is if the characters and drama are compelling - that's it. And in the case of MI-5, both the characters and the drama are well-written and presented in a very compelling manner that, unlike 24, doesn't insult one's intelligence, that is, if you take their political views with a massive dose of salt... (and for the record, I don't think it's trying to be "complex" at all - it's just hot-button, "ripped from the headlines" kind of stuff that's the same bread and butter for Law & Order and CSI).

It is also no more "tired and clichéd" than about 95% of television programming, which while it might not earn it a hearty recommendation, the "skip it" judgment is far too harsh. But the most irresponsible part of the review has to be that no mention is made of how it compares to previous seasons of the show.

Paul Mavis

I seem to have struck a nerve with some readers here -- that's good, as far as I'm concerned. That's what opinion in writing is all about.

While I appreciate the support from Nemein, I don't think I missed the point of this season at all. If you look at the box, this particular series and season are sold as "action-packed" and "riveting." Well, I've seen a lot of spy movies and TV shows in my research for my book, and MI-5: Volume 4 wasn't riveting, and it wasn't action-packed. And as for "the drama, the situations, and the interaction of the characters," they're nothing to write home about -- as Nemein's final verdict indicates: "On it's own I wouldn't recommend this season." And this season is what I reviewed. My review wasn't of the whole series, nor should it be. Fans of the series can debate the merits of each season, but I'm coming to this review for what it is: the merits of this particular season.

As for Slop101's comment, "I'd understand this sort of criticisms when reviewing a documentary, but since you're reviewing a work of fiction you should disassociate yourself from views and ideologies you don't agree with. It's sorta like not enjoying Godfather because you don't approve of organized crime, which it romanticizes,", I'm not sure what that first part even means. Why in the world would ANY critic not comment on views and ideologies that he or she doesn't agree with??? That's the whole point of criticism: one person's ideas and thoughts on an artistic endeavor. It's funny how people suddenly start demanding some kind of "objective" approach to a review -- when that review's viewpoints don't match their own.

As for The Godfather comment, you raise an interesting point. It reminds me of Bosley Crowther (the head critic for the New York Times) and the Bonnie and Clyde flap. He trashed the film because he didn't agree with the politics in the film. That's fine; that's what a critic should do. But he took heat from other critics who said he was "out of step" with the times, and he recanted his first review. He was promptly "kicked upstairs" -- I've always suspected it was more because he went against what he originally wrote, not for anything he wrote in the first review. I happen to agree with you; The Godfather does glorify gangsters. Is it a great film? Sure, but it makes me uneasy to see what Coppola does with that glorification (I happen to prefer The Conversation to The Godfather, anyway). So if I reviewed the film, you'd have me not mention what Coppola does with the film's politics? What would you have a critic do then, just agree with what you like to believe?

As for your statement, "Is America responsible for more atrocities than terrorists are? It doesn't matter", I would state, "You're right -- it doesn't matter...if I'm reviewing Van Wilder or You, Me and Dupree. But I'm not; I'm reviewing MI-5: Volume 4, a show about terrorism (and America's role in it) and anything I referred to, and commented on in my review, came from the episodes I watched. The content is there; I didn't make it up. The show slams the United States every five minutes or so; it even goes as far as having a character say that the United States forges terrorism in the name of religion and money. Now, if that's the outlook of the producers, that's fine (as I said in the review) -- it's a relatively free country in England (just watch out for all those CCTV cameras). And if you enjoy that kind of thing, fine again (as I said in the review). But for me, I don't happen to agree with that viewpoint. And my job as a critic is to make an argument for what I believe about a piece of work. Again, I'm responding to what they, the producers, are putting out there. This isn't random noodling on my part, to make some kind political speech or point; I'm responding to the level of politics that are in the show. And to the intent of the show; clearly, this particular season of MI-5 wants to be about politics, and about ramming the U.S. of A. in the ass. And that's valid; you'll never read a review of mine that calls for censorship. But as a critic, I'm certainly not going to not comment on those filmmakers' views, nor am I going to keep my own viewpoints out, just to satisfy what you're comfortable with. I'd be a pretty piss-poor critic if I did that. You don't agree with what I said in the review. That's cool; agitation means something about my writing grabbed you on some level -- that's the best compliment a writer can get.

Seriously, and no joking or sarcastic intent whatsoever; I love these kinds of arguments and comments about my writing. I have absolutely no qualms about my views, or fears about what reactions they may get (and you may be surprised if you think you have me pegged one way or the other, politically or any other way). I really appreciate you taking the time to read my stuff, and I'm glad it reached you in some way.

Paul Mavis

nemein

I'm going by the R2 box from the UK and IIRC it doesn't have that on it so personally I would blame that more on the marketing people than anything directly related to the show.

That's the problem though. When you're writing about a series like this you have to take into consideration where you have been to see where you are going. For example I wouldn't recommend season 5 of 24 to anyone who isn't familiar w/ atleast season 4 (if not 3 and 4 or the whole series). Certainly you can criticize it on it's own, but w/o being familiar w/ the whole picture IMHO you're doing yourself (and those who are relying on you) a disservice. At the very least in the review you should have mentioned whether or not you've seen the other seasons of the show.

Paul Mavis

Actually, if you read my response on the forum carefully, I never said whether I did or didn't see the other episodes. That's beside the point. Actually, I have seen episodes from series 2, and some from series 3 -- and I still don't think it's that great of a show. So I am familiar with the show (but probably not as familiar with it as you appear to be). My point was, mentioning that in the review would have had zero impact on readers who didn't like what I wrote. These two responses on this forum are about readers who don't like my responses to a show they like -- and politics they don't agree with. If I said I loved this season of MI-5, and agreed with everything in it, it wouldn't have mattered a bit if I mentioned I saw other seasons -- they would have emailed and thanked me.

As far as people "relying" on me for this review, who exactly would that be? Serious fans of the show already know what the show's about, and are most certainly going to buy it -- regardless of what I write. If someone wants a rubber stamp approval of what they already like, they can get that on any number of blogs or other DVD review sites. If anything, I'm writing to those who may not be familiar with the show at all (and therefore, I'm doing them a favor telling them not to buy this season -- as you agreed with in your response), or those fans who may want a different, more involved response to the show than the average internet fan/blogger who just puts up descriptions of the episodes, and says, "They're wonderful!"

If you think that's a "disservice," then I disagree.

David Cornelius

Oh, but how bland a review you'd have. "I didn't like the show for reasons I'm not allowed to discuss because that would reveal my opinion."

When politics and entertainment get so intertwined, any respectable critic must bring to the table a worthy discussion of the politics involved, just as Paul did here. (I have not seen MI-5, but Paul gives me a detailed glimpse into the show that I don't need to in order to enjoy the review.) Entertainment of this sort is supposed to make you think, and criticism is supposed to spur on such thinking.

Overpar

All I know is that MI-5 Rocks! At least through season 3. I haven't seen Season 4 yet. I've seen season 1 of "24" and hated it. Like a lot of drama shows recently, "24" has that "shakey" camera technique that makes me want to vomit.

As far as the politics goes, welcome to the world view of the US in 2006. The current administration has done a good job in making enemies around the globe. Did you know that more Iraqis have been killed in this war than when the country was ruled by Saddam? Don't get me wrong, Saddam was an evil man, but George Bush is not much better.

nemein

Obviously you can write your reviews however you want, it just seems to me that if you are writing about a series it would be best to compare/contrast it to previous eps/seasons of the series. Up to you though...

slop101

Yeah, it's like writing a review for a sequel of a movie and never even mentioning the previous instalment.

cmleidi

While I disagree with many points made in the review, I understand not watching a show for ideological reasons as I can't stand 24. I've tried to watch it, but its politics and relentless sexism put me off so I don't even bother trying to understand its popularity. I also would not review the show. I don't understand the thought behind reviewing a show or a film you've already decided against before you've put into it the player.

As for television sets, I do think its best to have someone compare them to previous seasons. I want to know if the set is worth purchasing and I will not get that from someone who has not seen the previous seasons or does not like the series. If possible, I prefer the same reviewer to discuss each new release of a television show. There have been many times i've used DVDTALK as a deciding factor in whether to purchase sets of a television show I've never seen. It doesn't help me when someone who doesn't like a show reviews a third, fourth, or fifth season of a show i enjoy.