Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James from London" data-source="post: 417825" data-attributes="member: 22">Great observations! I'd never have picked those little details up.Yes, on past viewings. I've been guilty of tarring Jonathan and Laura with the same brush, but he's actually good, or as good as he can be under the circumstances. I thought your earlier description of him as a cross between Hughs Grant and Laurie was spot on. He's got a bit of that uptight Roger Huntington thing going on, but without going full-on prig. He's posher than Roger to begin with, which probably means he's more comfortable in his own skin. There's one scene where he's casually juggling some balls in the background, which on one hand is quite an actorly thing to do, but it also sort of fits in with his university-educated, rugger-shirt persona.I can't disagree with any of that, but I guess a combination of low expectations and knowing Laura won't be around for long makes me kindly disposed to her.  Her slightly lifeless, monotone delivery feels more forgivable than Sandra's shrill histrionics or Pat's grotesque mugging. What's left is a kind of curiosity of what might have been had she been played by a more dynamic actor and then stuck around longer. On paper at least, her combination of ditzy and driven makes for an interesting paradox. As does her lack of interest in the wedding which puts Jonathan in the more traditional female role of worrying about the arrangements and being hurt by her innate lack of romance. But when he feels obliged to go ahead with the plans without her approval, she accuses of him being a typical man overriding the feelings of the little woman. Also, it's kind of interesting that Jonathan, posho that he is, should have more of an understanding of her working class parents' pride in giving her an expensive wedding than she does.Yes, I wondered if Heather and Laura's offices were the same too. I'm not sure if I read it somewhere or just surmised it. but I think Redmond had originally wanted to explore the career versus babies dilemma faced by a young professional couple through Roger and Heather, but that was curtailed when Roger quit. So Jonathan and Laura was a second chance to do the same thing, but then that gets cut short as well. And yes, there's a kind of overlap between Jonathan having to make all the effort with his and Laura's wedding, and the actor playing Jonathan having to do all the heavy lifting in their scenes together. Yes, post-wedding, Jonathan and Laura increasingly feel like a pale xerox copy of Roger and Heather: the bickering over who has the car, who picks up whom, extravagant shopping trips without the other one's blessing ... and then both arriving home in a bad mood to be greeted by an obliviously cheery Paul Collins. Jumping ahead, I've just watched the dinner party episode where Laura loses her wedding ring, which reminded me of an really early dinner party at Roger's boss Derek's house, where the guests once again include an opinionated feminist and her eye-rolling husband, but minus any of the subtlety or nuance of the earlier story.All fantastic stuff. Funny in a satisfyingly real, character-based way, as opposed to the unfunny farcical stuff concurrently taking place at the Collinses and Harry's.Amen. Even though I've been scrolling through most of his scenes for two screen years now, it's still a sweet relief to have him finally gone.</blockquote>

Verification: What month follows July?

Poison your name this Hallowe'en

There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username

Click here for more details

Reply to thread