"Some obligations can't be passed on": Watching A Place To Call Home

[James from London]

Season Three

it’s sad to think that the rest of the Poletti family - who brought instant sunshine to the series, but also had a background of tragedy that had yet to be fully explored - won’t be seen on this series again.

Likewise the Goldbergs were mentioned by name in Episode Two, yet it appears that two of the three of them have left for good. I loved what they brought to the series, and they, too, are a definite loss. Episode Two included a Jewish ritual and a challah was sent by the Goldbergs - who were conspicuous by their absence. It seems wrong that they haven’t interacted with René.

That's so interesting. I've finished Season 3 and still hadn't really registered their absences were permanent!

It’s impossible to discuss this without noting that - for whatever reason - characters who are from ethnic minorities are evidently those who are considered the most expendable within the framework of the series.

It’s perhaps worth noting, too, that the three new characters so far this season (the housekeeper, the conspicuously gay doctor and the stuffy old Blimp) all appear to add to the series’ now almost ubiquitous WASP factor.

Again, I hadn't clocked this consciously, but it's just what happened with Falcon Crest -- by Season 3, there wasn't a Hispanic character in sight -- and, more gradually, EastEnders which started off as a truly multi-ethnic soap, yet by the (admittedly great) '90s was almost exclusively caucasian.

Said doctor is treating George. Or at least picking up treating him from Sarah, who took over his care in the ambulance and used a non-sterilised instrument to remove the bullet when she somehow knew that it was vital to remove it rather than leave it (she instructed the trained ambulance staff to get her a pen or a piece of wire). And as Doctor Henry Fox intuitively knew at a casual glance, she’d done the right thing. Not that he’s too bothered, as he spends most of his time outside chain smoking with James (James smokes now?) and gazing into his eyes with all the subtlety of Jim Carrey.

Yeah, James seems to attract these futuristic gay men who have time travelled from the 21st century to tell him everything's cool and the most important thing is you to be true to yourself, bla bla bla. Both Dr Henry and the fella he kissed in the barn in Season 1 have the same ability to effortlessly unnerve James the way Luke Fuller did Steven Carrington when he was married to Claudia on Dynasty, just by their smouldering well-adjustedness. I guess the demands of soap, or soapish drama, require this kind of archetype to move things along, but how interesting it might have been if James had instead encountered someone as inhibited and ill-adjusted as himself whose gaydar didn't automatically ping at first sight? What would have happened? Maybe nothing, and I guess AP2CH is about stuff happening.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Again, I hadn't clocked this consciously, but it's just what happened with Falcon Crest -- by Season 3, there wasn't a Hispanic character in sight -- and, more gradually, EastEnders which started off as a truly multi-ethnic soap, yet by the (admittedly great) '90s was almost exclusively caucasian.

Oh, interesting. I suppose APTCH has the family saga thing going on, and since the central family are all caucasian those from outside the family are more expendable. Whatever the case, it's a loss for the series.

Yeah, James seems to attract these futuristic gay men who have time travelled from the 21st century to tell him everything's cool and the most important thing is you to be true to yourself, bla bla bla.

Yes indeed. This reminds me of a comment @JamesF made back when I was rewatching:

If I level one criticism at the show, it's that sometimes the character reactions that create the warmth are borderline anachronistic for the 1950s universe it inhabits. But it treads that fine line well generally and I was so invested in the characters, I could move past it very easily.

The level of acceptance in Inverness is slightly mindblowing. On the one hand it feels slightly unbelievable. On the other, it makes the characters doing the accepting seem more special. It treads that line between having ugly attitudes and characters responding to it in a way that's palatable for a 21st Century audience. Would so many people evolve to change their outlook towards homosexuality or illegitimacy or ethnicity in reality? Probably not. Perhaps it's just something that's viewed as necessary for the audience to feel empathy for the characters. Widely accepted bigotry of the time would demonise regular characters in the minds of many viewers if they were seen through the prism of a modern day audience.

Along similar lines, I watched an episode of Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries over the weekend in which two men were photographed in bed together and subsequently blackmailed. Naturally, some were shocked, apart from Phryne Fisher herself who was more appalled that the men would probably be imprisoned for sodomy for loving someone. By episode's end the tough nut police inspector handed over the photos to Phryne so she could "lose" them. It's a nice scene, but came across very strongly as far more progressive than one would expect for the 1920s setting. Likewise, Phryne made a comment to a mixed race couple that everyone should be free to love whomever they please. It's hard to dislike a scene like this, but it still feels quite airbrushed. Or maybe I'm being too harsh on the early 20th Century.

I guess the demands of soap, or soapish drama, require this kind of archetype to move things along, but how interesting it might have been if James had instead encountered someone as inhibited and ill-adjusted as himself whose gaydar didn't automatically ping at first sight? What would have happened? Maybe nothing, and I guess AP2CH is about stuff happening.

Yes. In reality, the chances of them meeting someone inhibited and ill-adjusted would be very high. I suppose Henry has the bonus of being from the big smoke, which I imagine makes his well-adjusted outlook feasible. But the thought of James meeting another James is an enticing one. This series has good form when it comes to taking the audience into the feelings of the characters without them necessarily externalising it, so I'm sure it could have been done well.

 

[Willie Oleson]

By episode's end the tough nut police inspector handed over the photos to Phryne so she could "lose" them

A classic example of the Anti-Whatever character who's not "anti" enough to hate that Whatever-Person out of existence.
I think it usually happens in cop-type shows and period dramas e.g. Downton Abbey.

Phryne made a comment to a mixed race couple that everyone should be free to love whomever they please. It's hard to dislike a scene like this, but it still feels quite airbrushed. Or maybe I'm being too harsh on the early 20th Century.

I'm sure that mindset already existed and Miss Fisher appears bohemian enough to support that mindset in a convincing way.
But when that mindset is being scripted into dialogue it may come across as being overtly progressive. It's that extra bit of convincing that the viewer doesn't really need.
Kind of like telling a reading-between-the-lines joke and then giving clues where the joke is hidden because you're afraid they don't get it.

 

[James from London]

If I level one criticism at the show, it's that sometimes the character reactions that create the warmth are borderline anachronistic for the 1950s universe it inhabits. But it treads that fine line well generally and I was so invested in the characters, I could move past it very easily.

Yes, one trope I've never loved about period dramas is the "free-spirited" character, usually female, who is "ahead of their times and challenges the norms of the day." In other words, they're really from the time the show is being written rather than when it is set, which is a bit of a cop-out. The daughter in Upstairs Downstairs, Elizabeth Bellamy, was one such character who conveniently mixed with suffragettes and the Bloomsbury set, dragging her family into one scandal, then another. But she was a great character and the writing was really good so one could overlook it. However, when she left she was essentially replaced by her cousin Georgina (Lesley Ann Down), who was very interesting because she was a character of her time, who was then impacted by the changing world around her. She started off as a hedonistic bright young thing, all Charlestons and cigarette holders, but was then plunged into WWI where she became a nurse and was forced to see a different side of life.

AP2CH takes place on the other side of WWII and characters like Sarah and Jack have already been changed and traumatised by war, so when they challenge societal norms and prejudices it feels absolutely believable because their sense of injustice comes from a very real place rather than something externally imposed to make things more palatable to the viewer.

I suppose APTCH has the family saga thing going on, and since the central family are all caucasian those from outside the family are more expendable. Whatever the case, it's a loss for the series.

For all of early Enders' earnest attempts to depict a realistic cultural melting pot, you always got the sense that the heart of the series was the Fowlers' living room -- a white, working-class, nuclear family steeped in local history -- and the further the show moved away from that living room, the less confident it became. So with the best will in the world, they were never gonna be able to write the shy Asian couple running the corner shop or the gay middle-class graphic designer with as much guts and passion as they did Pauline and Arthur.

The level of acceptance in Inverness is slightly mindblowing. On the one hand it feels slightly unbelievable. On the other, it makes the characters doing the accepting seem more special. It treads that line between having ugly attitudes and characters responding to it in a way that's palatable for a 21st Century audience. Would so many people evolve to change their outlook towards homosexuality or illegitimacy or ethnicity in reality? Probably not. Perhaps it's just something that's viewed as necessary for the audience to feel empathy for the characters. Widely accepted bigotry of the time would demonise regular characters in the minds of many viewers if they were seen through the prism of a modern day audience.

The compassion and respect shown to Sarah at Rene's funeral is a great example of "the accepting seeming special" - I guess because she'd earned that acceptance, and so had Rene for what he'd endured during the war. So again it felt specific, rather than just something a modern-day audience supposedly "needs" to see.

But when that mindset is being scripted into dialogue it may come across as being overtly progressive. It's that extra bit of convincing that the viewer doesn't really need.
Kind of like telling a reading-between-the-lines joke and then giving clues where the joke is hidden because you're afraid they don't get it.

Which just makes the audience feel like they've had their intelligence insulted. Certainly, AP2CH hasn't been guilty of that as far as I'm concerned (except for maybe that flash-forward thing at the start of Season 2, but let's not think about that!).

 

[Willie Oleson]

AP2CH takes place on the other side of WWII and characters like Sarah and Jack have already been changed and traumatised by war, so when they challenge societal norms and prejudices it feels absolutely believable because their sense of injustice comes from a very real place rather than something externally imposed to make things more palatable to the viewer.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I wonder if it makes any difference that the story takes place in Australia, and not Europe or America. Were/are they less conservative? I have no idea, just asking.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I'm sure that mindset already existed and Miss Fisher appears bohemian enough to support that mindset in a convincing way.

Yes indeed. And James's comment about post-war characters challenging societal norms also fits there, since there have been flashbacks to Phryne working in the field as a nurse during WWI, rather like cousin Georgia in Upstairs Downstairs.

The daughter in Upstairs Downstairs, Elizabeth Bellamy, was one such character who conveniently mixed with suffragettes and the Bloomsbury set, dragging her family into one scandal, then another. But she was a great character and the writing was really good so one could overlook it. However, when she left she was essentially replaced by her cousin Georgina (Lesley Ann Down), who was very interesting because she was a character of her time, who was then impacted by the changing world around her. She started off as a hedonistic bright young thing, all Charlestons and cigarette holders, but was then plunged into WWI where she became a nurse and was forced to see a different side of life.

Yet more reasons for me to keep Upstairs Downstairs on my viewing bucket list.

The compassion and respect shown to Sarah at Rene's funeral is a great example of "the accepting seeming special" - I guess because she'd earned that acceptance, and so had Rene for what he'd endured during the war. So again it felt specific, rather than just something a modern-day audience supposedly "needs" to see.

Absolutely.

 

[James from London]

In the Season Two finale, Gino had suggested Anna should become a writer since she reads so many banned books. I thought this might be hinting at a Capricorn Crude type storyline for Season Three.

Yes, I was worried about that too. It feels a bit early in the run for the series to start devouring itself -- although I think someone in Models Inc wrote about a book about what happened in Models Inc during its first (and only) season!

Baby George goes missing and - quelle surprise - is found to be in bed with creepy housekeeper Rose. Which has made me realise just why Rose is really there.

I thought/hoped Rose might be the baby's real mother and it was all part of a hideous plan devised by Andrew. That would have been far out.

Elizabeth staying at Carolyn’s apartment alone has been an interesting diversion. It feels wrong that she’s not at Ash Park: but that’s the point.

Yes, the prospect of Elizabeth going off to find herself was not a promising one -- again, it felt very early in the series to uproot her -- but it works, because she works.

Still at a loose end, Prudence ropes Elizabeth into fundraising for a refuge run by one Douglas Goddard. Could this be her Clayton Farlow?

Ha! Yes, that's exactly who he is!

We see her struggling to chop veg, then serving the food to the homeless vets - even cutting up food into small pieces for one. It’s a typical fish-out-of-water story that feels almost disposable. Almost. Because it leads to a moment where she has a piano brought in, then plays and sings When I Get Too Old To Dream, with the teary-eyed vets joining in. It’s slightly contrived (Elizabeth sings now? Whatever next?!). But entirely forgivable because it’s also effectively poignant.

Yes, it's lovely. Both Coronation Street and EastEnders used memories of WWII as a strong evocative backdrop in their early years. But with AP2CH being set in the decade between the war and the start of Corrie, you can feel the weight of that past pressing that much more heavily on the present. You get a real sense of the lasting damage to those who were directly caught up in the war, and that's something the "good" characters, Elizabeth included, intuitively understand and respect. Its an indication of their shared humanity really, and marks them out from the bigoted characters in the town who never went to war (like the wife-beater who got shot and the mean cop who beats Rene in his cell) and, of course, evil Katherine Wentworth with the chin.

Yet more reasons for me to keep Upstairs Downstairs on my viewing bucket list.

Ah, I couldn't remember whether you'd seen it or not. Maybe Willie can lend you his copy -- I don't think he was too impressed!

 

[Willie Oleson]

Maybe Willie can lend you his copy

I would have given it if I still had it! When I realized that U,D wasn't for me, that boxset became a very unwanted item because I didn't want to be remembered of my unfortunate purchase. The money itself doesn't bother me, once it's spent it's gone.
And so...

And I think I assumed that Mel already had his own boxset but just hadn't gotten around to it (because there was Home And Away, and then this and then that - we all know how it goes).

 

[Mel O'Drama]

although I think someone in Models Inc wrote about a book about what happened in Models Inc during its first (and only) season!

Oh really? I can't remember that at all, but then it's been so long there'll be a whole bunch of stuff I've forgotten about.

I thought/hoped Rose might be the baby's real mother and it was all part of a hideous plan devised by Andrew. That would have been far out.

Oh wow. Having Andrew behind it would have been devilish.

Both Coronation Street and EastEnders used memories of WWII as a strong evocative backdrop in their early years. But with AP2CH being set in the decade between the war and the start of Corrie, you can feel the weight of that past pressing that much more heavily on the present.

Yes. The war feels very important to the series and I love how it's woven in to the fabric of the characters' stories, informing who they are.

I seem to remember some of the EastEnders prequel novels being set in WWII, and there was CivvyStreet, which I remember little about, other than Fay from Grange Hill was Ethel. I recently spotted a new series of Corrie and Emmerdale novels set around WWII, which I thought looked interesting.

Its an indication of their shared humanity really, and marks them out from the bigoted characters in the town who never went to war

Nice observation. I hadn't consciously spotted that.

evil Katherine Wentworth with the chin.

Ha ha. Yes.

I would have given it if I still had it!

Oh, that's very thoughtful Willie. Fear not, it's still widely available and on my radar to buy.

I think I assumed that Mel already had his own boxset but just hadn't gotten around to it (because there was Home And Away, and then this and then that - we all know how it goes).

We do indeed. That's essentially the reason I hadn't got round to buying it. Between Prime and a backlog of DVDs there are just too many series already lined up.

 

[James from London]

This leads to a scene of Sarah sitting in a park watching a mother pushing a pram framed with beams of sunshine to create a halo effect. It’s slightly depressing to think that Australian television doesn’t seem to have gained a new perspective on decisions around abortion since Caroline Morrell did exactly the same thing almost three decades earlier (in viewer time, of course. By character chronology, Sarah enacted this moment three decades before Caroline did).

Interesting. I've yet to reach that S&D storyline, but I've never been keen on the "woman decides to have an abortion then changes her mind at the last moment" cliche, with its implication that women are too dizzily indecisive to be trusted to make an informed decision about their own bodies*. But this didn't feel like that: Sarah's dilemma wasn't about whether or not she herself wanted to keep the baby, but about the wider implications of her decision. And needless to say, Caroline is a total moron while Sarah definitely isn't.

As the long surgery goes on, Jack tuts about the girl having a hysterectomy at 15 (I assume this to mean that the hysterectomy has been necessary as the result of a botched abortion, though it’s possible she was for some reason meant to have a hysterectomy at the black market doctor’s place). Anyway, the girl bleeds to death, and the only non-supportive character - an officious nurse at the hospital - tells the police what’s gone on. Elizabeth then uses her influence to discourage the officer from pursuing it.

I kind of liked Elizabeth becoming involved/implicated in this situation which is completely outside of her comfort zone. It felt satisfyingly knotty. And at the end of Season 3, it looks as if it has returned to bite them all on their Australian arses, which is all to the good.

One almost feels that an "issue" demands a statement. What statement this storyline makes about abortion is open to interpretation. There are certainly mixed messages. It's clear that black market abortion is A Bad Thing. So it could be supporting legalised abortion for the lower risk and trauma to women. The series protagonist has chosen a different path. But would this have been the case if she could have had the procedure safely and legally? That's unclear.

Hmm, I guess I felt the wider statement the show was making was linked to the grim medical procedures we'd already seen performed on Anna and James. Contraception, abortion, gay conversion thingy -- they're all about aspects of sexual freedom that we take for granted now but that were strictly prohibited then. And they do love close-ups of forceps.

*unless it only emerges that she changed her mind decades later when her long-lost child turns up looking for murderous revenge, in which case I'm all for it.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I've yet to reach that S&D storyline

Oops. Apologies for any unintentional spoilers/refreshers.

I've never been keen on the "woman decides to have an abortion then changes her mind at the last moment" cliche, with its implication that women are too dizzily indecisive to be trusted to make an informed decision about their own bodies*. But this didn't feel like that: Sarah's dilemma wasn't about whether or not she herself wanted to keep the baby, but about the wider implications of her decision.

Spot on. The situations are very different, which I think became clearer as the season progressed. I think I was just struck by the similarities in the staging.

*unless it only emerges that she changed her mind decades later when her long-lost child turns up looking for murderous revenge, in which case I'm all for it.

Seconded!!

And needless to say, Caroline is a total moron while Sarah definitely isn't.

Ha ha. You won't hear any argument from me.

Hmm, I guess I felt the wider statement the show was making was linked to the grim medical procedures we'd already seen performed on Anna and James. Contraception, abortion, gay conversion thingy -- they're all about aspects of sexual freedom that we take for granted now but that were strictly prohibited then.

That works for me. They certainly do link up in terms of theme.

 

[James from London]

Rose tells how she was strapped to the bed, her face covered with a sheet so she couldn’t see. And surrounded by people telling her she was a silly girl, and that the stillbirth was her punishment for being an unmarried mother.

Another account of a horrific sexually related medical ordeal.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Another account of a horrific sexually related medical ordeal.

Yes. There's almost enough material for a medical spin-off featuring salaciously nasty procedures every week.

 

[James from London]

If anyone can deal with Sir Richard, it’s Carolyn. She’s not one to be impressed by titles. And she can dish it out as well as she can take it.

Those were the thoughts going through my mind when he started to attack her. I found myself thinking, "It won't happen, she'll be fine, she's not the type to get raped." More specifically, she's not the type to get raped on TV.

The scene is all the more fascinating because Bennett is played by an actor with a none-too-imposing stature. Sara Wiseman looks down at him during their scenes. He’s made imposing by the presence Mark Lee gives him. And this sells the scene. It also serves to make the outcome a little surprising, because early on in the scene there was every reason to believe that he wasn’t that serious a threat to Carolyn and she could have fought him off. It’s only as the scene progresses and Bennett becomes more determined that the threat level rises and Carolyn’s vulnerability and entrapment dawns on her and audience both.

So this was a good reminder for me that there is no "type". Carolyn might be older and taller and worldlier than your usual TV rape victim, but that doesn't render her immune.

This is the Fifties. Bennett is a knight. And Carolyn is a liberal woman. Her chances don’t look good.

Yes, now that you mention it, this where Carolyn's "free-thinking, woman ahead of her time" persona and the reality of that time collide. In contemporary-set rape storylines, particularly on soaps, "You don't have to accept this. You can get justice." Here, the message seems to be, "Back then, there was no justice, and you were expected to accept it." It's not a specifically medical ordeal this time, but it's another sexually-related one where society and "the system" are not on the victim's side the way they (theoretically) would be today.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Those were the thoughts going through my mind when he started to attack her. I found myself thinking, "It won't happen, she'll be fine, she's not the type to get raped."

So this was a good reminder for me that there is no "type". Carolyn might be older and taller and worldlier than your usual TV rape victim, but that doesn't render her immune.

Yes. I thought it played against expectations with the rapist as well. Richard has a chip on his shoulder and a good degree of entitlement, but he's not the rugged, brutish type that might spring to mind when thinking of this kind of scenario, especially on TV. Watching this, I felt very similarly to how I'd felt with Kathy and Wilmott Brown the first time I watched that play out. Which was a very similar setup, now I think about it.

Yes, now that you mention it, this where Carolyn's "free-thinking, woman ahead of her time" persona and the reality of that time collide. In contemporary-set rape storylines, particularly on soaps, "You don't have to accept this. You can get justice." Here, the message seems to be, "Back then, there was no justice, and you were expected to accept it." It's not a specifically medical ordeal this time, but it's another sexually-related one where society and "the system" are not on the victim's side the way they (theoretically) would be today.

Absolutely. It all adds to Carolyn's entrapment and isolation.

 

[James from London]

Doris has certainly become a supportive and understanding character.

It's kind of amazing how she seems to have done a 180 degree turn from an almost monstrous character to, by time of Rene's funeral, a pretty heroic one, all without really changing her personality, simply in response to what's going on around her -- at least that how it feels. (It's pretty much the opposite of Charlie on S&D whose transformation from shallow society queen to merrily cooking meals down on the farm is enjoyably implausible.)

Doris gives her a tonic to take home

Who would have guessed that tonic would become such a dramatic part of the plot?

René’s been an interesting part of the series for me. In particular, it’s his inaccessibility that has reeled me in. He’s difficult to get to know, and hasn’t always been especially likeable. But I do like him. Ben Winspear has helped create one of the series’ most complex characters, and it comes across strongly that truth is more important than being liked. Which is how it should be.

It's an interesting one. In another soap, he would simply be the Mark Graison/Ben Gibson obstacle to Sarah and George's eventual happiness, but because he's already Sarah's husband and because of everything he's been through, he can't be dismissed as such, even though, because of his inaccessibility, we can't warm to him as much as George - who sort of has become the Ben Gibson obstacle to Sarah and Rene's happiness. It's complicated!

Technically, René dying frees Sarah to be with George who now knows she’s carrying his child. But Regina’s soapy scheming has put paid to that.

Yes, it's like Mark Graison dying only for Pam to find out Bobby's engaged not to Jenna, but to Nazi Katherine.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

It's kind of amazing how she seems to have done a 180 degree turn from an almost monstrous character to, by time of Rene's funeral, a pretty heroic one, all without really changing her personality, simply in response to what's going on around her -- at least that how it feels.

I know what you mean. I think there was also some misdirection in Doris's early episodes. Or at the very least some ambiguity around her motives. She looked quite sinister going through Sarah's papers, for example, and since we didn't know her it could have been read any number of ways.

As you said, all of it rings true for Doris. The person who spies on her tenants and reports to their enemies; the woman who judges others; the strict Christian whose sensibilities are easily upset; and the "good stick" who'll take great risks and even overlook the law if it's for the greater good.

(It's pretty much the opposite of Charlie on S&D whose transformation from shallow society queen to merrily cooking meals down on the farm is enjoyably implausible.)

Very true.

Who would have guessed that tonic would become such a dramatic part of the plot?

I love that it did.

Yes, it's like Mark Graison dying only for Pam to find out Bobby's engaged not to Jenna, but to Nazi Katherine.

Yes. Yes!!

 

[James from London]

Firstly, the overarching story was somewhat tied up by the conclusion of Season Four. There were no major loose ends, and little outstanding friction. This means that much of the drama in these first two episodes feels a little forced and manufactured. There’s the sense of a series trying to start over and find new ways to interest.

I felt this watching the first episode of Season 5. For the first time, I was kind of bored. Little did I suspect this would turn out to be (probably) my favourite season so far!

Imagine my delight on seeing Tim Draxl’s name appear in the opening credits (I actually groaned. Out loud). We’re now expected to believe that James and his wife have left, but James’s gay lover is not only still on the series, but living at Ash Park in James's absence. This is real “why are you still here?” stuff. It makes no sense. With Berry and APL gone, there’s no logic to Draxl remaining. That's a lot of trouble to retain a tertiary character, so I assume the actor must have got on well with people behind the scenes. Henry’s entitlement was plain to see in his first two seasons, but his arrogance has been taken to a whole new level this season. Now he’s all over the hospital making lofty put-downs to Sarah (whose help is unwelcome since she’s “just a nurse”) and Jack, while living under the same roof as them. In a way he’s re-enacting Regina’s arc: making nice to George and Carolyn while being bitchy to Sarah and Jack in his trademark rapid fire speech with high school vocal fry. When Jack tried to say he wasn’t sure they should live under the same roof while working together, Henry cleared his throat(!) and reminded Jack that “James Bligh” had asked him to stay. Then he stuck his nose in the air and walked off. Talk about your thick skin. It’s to his credit that Draxl seems willing to go ugly, but when the actor has done little to endear or interest over the course of two full seasons, it simply reinforces a frustrating viewing experience. And it’s all in tune with Season Five’s story-over-logic approach.

Contrivances aside, I like how the things the audience (well, us) found irritating about Henry have now become apparent to the characters on screen. He seems to have originally been conceived as a wise, kind man of the world, but on screen that mostly translated into smug and boring. Now that smugness has been incorporated into the character and he's far more interesting, and psychologically messier, as a result.

George and Sarah are in conflict over Sarah’s desire to raise David in the Jewish faith. It’s a rehash of stuff we’ve seen before: Sarah says they can’t be together unless “X” happens; George concedes and permits it but then warns Sarah to never again use their relationship as a threat.

Something about their dynamic this season reminds me of Billy Corkhill and Sheila Grant's relationship on Brookside. I've read interviews with Sue Johnston (aka Sheila) who felt that her character's religiosity was overdone in her last couple of years, that she became suddenly strident about her beliefs, and that it was a contrivance by the writers to generate drama for its own sake. But as a viewer, her behaviour made perfect sense to me -- a devout Catholic wife does the unthinkable by living in a sin with another man so, to compensate, she doubles down on other aspects of her faith, punishing herself and her new relationship in the process. Sarah is in a different situation to Sheila, but there's a similar lack of compromise, almost anger, about her faith that I find very interesting.

On one hand, you can sense the writers having to invent conflict to keep the story going this season, but the result is that they're forced to drill a little deeper into the characters' psyches and things turn out to be messier and darker and richer than maybe was originally intended. I think that applies to nearly all the characters in Season 5. Certainly, keeping Regina around after her original arc had come to a logical conclusion initially felt like flogging a dead horse, but instead she has become totally elevated as a character. Watching this whole season, I kept being reminded of a painter I used to know. I remember seeing a picture she'd done and, thinking it was complete, saying I really liking it but she insisted it was only half-finished and she kept working on it, "destroying" what I'd liked so much about it in the process, but eventually coming up with something else entirely. In a weird way, I think watching a soap, or long running drama, can be like that. You're watching a work in continual progress, and sometimes it's a risk to keep it going, but sometimes the risk pays off and you can end up with something unexpectedly richer and deeper as a result.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I felt this watching the first episode of Season 5. For the first time, I was kind of bored. Little did I suspect this would turn out to be (probably) my favourite season so far!

Oh great. It sounds like we had very similar Season Five epiphanies.

I like how the things the audience (well, us) found irritating about Henry have now become apparent to the characters on screen. He seems to have originally been conceived as a wise, kind man of the world, but on screen that mostly translated into smug and boring. Now that smugness has been incorporated into the character and he's far more interesting, and psychologically messier, as a result.

This is true. Even now, I'm unsure how much of my frustration or irritation with certain characters was intended by the writers. And Season Five is the one that flipped my thinking around a couple of these (even if I never quite got there with Henry). At the end of Season Five I was able to look back and see a very specific journey for certain characters that felt very planned even though, as you said, some of the stuff this season came out of necessity.

Something about their dynamic this season reminds me of Billy Corkhill and Sheila Grant's relationship on Brookside. I've read interviews with Sue Johnston (aka Sheila) who felt that her character's religiosity was overdone in her last couple of years, that she became suddenly strident about her beliefs, and that it was a contrivance by the writers to generate drama for its own sake. But as a viewer, her behaviour made perfect sense to me -- a devout Catholic wife does the unthinkable by living in a sin with another man so, to compensate, she doubles down on other aspects of her faith, punishing herself and her new relationship in the process. Sarah is in a different situation to Sheila, but there's a similar lack of compromise, almost anger, about her faith that I find very interesting.

That's an interesting parallel.

I seem to remember feeling the same way about Sheila's Catholicism when she was with Billy. Her moving in with him seemed so out of character that it makes sense she'd feel conflicted and fall back on what she knows at times of guilt.

Certainly, keeping Regina around after her original arc had come to a logical conclusion initially felt like flogging a dead horse, but instead she has become totally elevated as a character.

Season Five made a wholehearted Regina fan out of me, which was a complete surprise given how my heart sank when I saw her return at the beginning of the season.

Watching this whole season, I kept being reminded of a painter I used to know. I remember seeing a picture she'd done and, thinking it was complete, saying I really liking it but she insisted it was only half-finished and she kept working on it, "destroying" what I'd liked so much about it in the process, but eventually coming up with something else entirely. In a weird way, I think watching a soap, or long running drama, can be like that. You're watching a work in continual progress, and sometimes it's a risk to keep it going, but sometimes the risk pays off and you can end up with something unexpectedly richer and deeper as a result.

Wow. And yes.

I loved how when done well it also enriches what came before it by adding layers. I know I'd feel very differently about characters on a rewatch, based on having explored more of the characters' complexities here. That can probably be said to some extent of most series. But APTCH does it far better than most.

 

[James from London]

After a slow start, Season Five is proving to be a heavyweight season, and is delivering with each episode.

Absolutely.

I love that as a viewer I’m in the same position as the Blighs. All recent evidence points to Regina being trustworthy. But it’s difficult to trust because of her past behaviour. And all I have to do is watch. The Blighs have to decide whether or not to ask Regina’s help.

Yes, and what's so great is how genuinely traumatised all the Blighs still are by what Regina did to them in the past. It gives them a real journey to go on to get to the point where they have to start trusting her. For convenience sake, forgiveness can sometimes come a bit quickly in Soap Land but here ... well, they never exactly do forgive her, do they?

George and Carolyn, meanwhile, have done some digging into their accounts at Regina’s suggestion, and have found that a couple of companies that have given their financial backing in recent years are owned by Richard. Meaning he can call in those loans and take possession of Ash Park at any time.

The scene where George comes off the phone after realising he's been duped by Sir Richard and is at his mercy was great. The main reason I was attracted to AP2CH to begin with was Brett Climo's singular performance in S&D. As George is more Gordon Hamilton than Peter Healy - steadier, more contained - he hasn't had as many chances to show what he's made of, but his shaken reaction here, and later on to the news about James, reminds me of what I liked so much about him to begin with.

George pointing out that Carolyn has done very little at Ash Park over the years resulted in what I believe is the series’ first F-bomb, shot off - twice - by Carolyn. And in front of the help as well

And it was as beautifully deployed as Sue Ellen's "Bullshit!" in her big drunk scene with John Ross on New Dallas was.