Danny Franks

As soon as they showed a big, amiable bald man and called him Joe, I remembered the part about Joe Lynsky from the book and knew it was going to be tough to watch. By all accounts, he was a popular guy in the IRA and he was close to Dolours and Marian Price. It really highlighted the ruthless nature of the IRA - no one talks, no one betrays their own. If they do, nothing can save them. Joe is still one of the Disappeared, and if there's anyone left who remembers where his body was buried, they've never said. Also another hint at Marian being more coldblooded and ruthless than Dolours. Although it should be noted that this is Dolours' version of the story. Marian hasn't ever talked about this, as far as I'm aware. Jean McConville helping the wounded soldier is one of the many things during the Troubles that's disputed. The IRA have said in the past that she was actually a spy for the British, her children have said she helped the soldier but some of them think that event happened weeks before her disappearance, some think it was just a day or two before. One of those things that will likely never be fully explained. Gerry refusing to admit he was Gerry Adams is straight from the book too - deny even the most basic information and it completely derails the interrogators because they get caught up in trying to force even that simple confession. As I said in the episode 2 thread, one of the reasons Adams gets to deny he was ever in the IRA is so the British government never has to admit they sat down in Whitehall with a terrorist.

Probably to avoid the prospect of one. Gerry Adams has always denied any involvement in the IRA, despite all the accounts from people who say he was heavily involved, and all the British and Irish intelligence that said he was a member. It's a fiction that everyone agrees to go along with to allow Adams to have a degree of legitimacy that his likely (very) criminal history wouldn't allow. And because the British government wanted to maintain its stance that it didn't negotiate with terrorists - "these aren't the IRA, they're Sinn Fein, a political party."

Really good second episode. Seeing Dolours and Marian become more involved in the struggle, and seeing hints at Marian's colder attitude, while Dolours is more conflicted but more of a thinker. I wonder how much of that is due to Dolours being the source of a lot of the information in the book? Anthony Boyle is a really good actor. He's been the best thing in almost any show I've seen him in. I hope he goes all the way to the top. The overhead shot in the scene of Brendan being chased by the British hit squad was really cool. It showed how those estates can be a maze, and how much of an advantage you have if you've got friendly faces behind every door, and possibly weapons hidden as well. This is how the IRA could continue to wage their campaign for thirty years, despite being outmanned, outgunned and with a fraction of the financial means. It was completely asymmetrical warfare, and the British had to resort to ever more brutal and unorthodox ways of fighting - kidnap, torture, assassination, tactics that were considered fine when deployed against the Mao-Mao in Kenya, but more controversial when used against white, English speaking people (even if they were Catholic).

The opening scene was powerful. I didn't think they'd start the show with Jean McConville, but I'm glad they did. The sheer terror of masked men turning up and dragging you away at gunpoint, your kids left behind. Even without context, it tells you about the darkness to come. Then the tone shifts to a completely different, earlier version of the Troubles - the idealism of the Catholic civil rights struggle, in the face of horrendous bigotry, and two teen girls who wanted a better future. I thought this episode showed the cycles of violence and hatred really well, and demonstrated what is probably inevitable when people are denied their human rights. I suppose the central question of this series (and of the book) is "was any of what the IRA did justified?" Coming from a Catholic family (with a socialist father who hated Thatcher's government for too many reasons to count), I know what I was told about it, and I think the answer will always depend on what side of the divide you fall on. The casting of Gerry Adams was spot on, and I really like Anthony Boyle so it's nice to see him getting a prominent role in a Northern Irish drama. From what I've read, the casting of Dolours and Marian is good too - Dolours more glamorous and charismatic, Marian more of a wallflower and follower.

I'm simultaneously excited and dreading this. I grew up in England during the Troubles, and it was never far from the headlines, although still fairly remote other than a few significant events - the Warrington bombing, the Manchester bombing (I heard the explosion from our house, over four miles away). My family are Irish Catholic, my fiancé is Northern Irish Protestant, and she's from Omagh, where the bomb in 1998 killed several people she knew. The story of the Troubles is one that absolutely needs to be told. The trailers are using the Price sisters as the selling point - two sweet looking girls who joined the IRA - but the other side of the story absolutely deserves to be told as well (and there are a couple of bits in the trailers which confirm it will be). Jean McConville and her family.

I always like contrasting Ross's list about Rachel to Joey's list about her: "She made me switch to light mayo. That's it!" But Ross and Rachel are what happens when TV writers are scared that people will get bored of their show if it doesn't have relationship drama. They never should have gotten back together after their second break-up, at the start of season four. In the real world, none of their friends would be encouraging them to get back together, like Phoebe constantly did. Two of your friends had a year-long relationship, six years ago, and the end of it almost destroyed the whole group? More than once? Oh yeah, let's encourage them to give it another go!

I think Chiana is just meant to be that alluring. Every male PK who meets her in the first season wants to bang her (can't really blame them) and she plays up to it, for the most part, so she can manipulate them. But also, I suppose irrevocable contamination is a very inconsistently applied judgement, and often used by superiors when convenient or advantageous. The commander of the Gammak base probably could have had Chiana as his "personal server" for as long as he liked... unless he pissed off Scorpius or another superior officer. The PKs are nothing if not hypocrites. Does Zhaan kiss him at some point in the first season? I may be misremembering. Or the Delvian who's manipulating his mind in Rhapsody in Blue? I always loved that moment between him and Chiana. it sets the baseline for their relationship, which I always considered analogous to "step-siblings who met as horny teens and never got to just bang it out." Chiana is trying to thank him (and the fact that's the only way she knows how is sad. Until she learns another way, by cooking them all a last meal) but she's also shooting her shot because she does like him. There are a lot of goodbyes in the finale, though, and it makes me wonder whether they weren't optimistic about a second season. But I love how much the characters have evolved over the course of the season, and that sincere, warm moments between any combination of them (even John and Rygel) feel earned and authentic.

I just finished Dead Man in a Ditch by Luke Arnold, the second in his series about a private investigator in a fantasy world that has lost all its magic, so all the magical beings - elves, werewolves, gnomes, dragons etc - have become mortal and normal (to sometimes terrible results). It's good read, and a lot of fun despite the world being so dark. Following up with something heavier, I started Pax: War and Peace in Rome's Golden Age by Tom Holland.

The fact that the Snuka thing was so briefly mentioned was a surprise, but I have another podcast recommendation to cover it in more detail - Crime in Sports did an episode on Snuka, and painted a very clear picture of him as an abusive asshole. They covered statements made at the time that strongly suggest Vince paid the cops off. As for the steroids, I remember a quick scene in Beyond the Mat that showed how wrestlers could easily be influenced into using steroids. There's a thread in the film that follows two young guys who wrestle in an indy federation and get a dark match in the WWF - a chance to impress and get hired. The WWF guys (I think it was Jim Ross and Jim Cornette) quickly dismiss one of the guys as not what they want, but express interest in the potential of the other - he's taller, handsome and looks like an athlete - Jim Ross tells him specifically to "work on your upper body, get bigger," and they might give him another look. There's nothing at all in that conversation that tells the guy to use steroids, but you could easily draw that implication from it. All wrestlers will talk about working hurt, because they knew they needed to take every chance they were given. And that's where other types of drugs - painkillers and stimulants - entered the picture. Vince takes no responsibility, as he made clear in this series, but his entire business model was abusive towards wrestlers and pushed them towards using drugs to progress their careers.

This has always been a key part of the Vince McMahon narrative - wrestlers talking about how great he is, even while acknowledging how terrible he can be. Vince regularly did things like pay for rehab for wrestlers who used to work for him, or hired people, in the words of Mick Foley "just to be nice." He'd fire someone over a disagreement, then rehire them and never mention the falling out. And it's too simplistic to say he did those things because he is nice, or because he's an evil schemer. From everything that I've heard, sometimes he was a great guy to work for, and sometimes he was terrible. And that always served to keep people off-balance and unsure. One guy might get a slap on the back and a "that's how a real man acts!" for standing up to Vince, another guy might get fired. And I doubt any of the wrestlers knew for sure which reaction they'd get. Basically, he ran the WWE as a capricious overlord. He didn't treat people the same, he played favourites, he regularly lied to talent to manipulate them, and he clearly abused his power in horrendous ways. But this is a guy who believes sneezing is a sign of weakness, who eats food as quickly as possible because he finds having to eat annoying, who had to be shown Asian porn to be convinced that people actually find Asian women attractive, who apparently shaves at least twice a day because he "can't let the hair win". He's impossibly maladjusted and I can't even fathom how his mind works. Seeing Cena, Taker and others be lost for words when asked about Vince's legacy at the end should have been a message about how they were disillusioned in this man because of the accusations. Instead it came across like they were being reticent on camera, and probably feel the same way Tony Atlas does. Martha fell out with most of the Harts long before Bret went back to the WWE. While she was suing the WWE for killing her husband, Owen's brothers and sisters (except Bret, who sided with Martha) were cosying up to Vince to get hired, or get their husbands hired, by the company. They even took Owen's dad, who by then had dementia, to a WWE show and got front row seats for the cameras. She fell out with Bret for reasons they've never really discussed, but I'd guess it had to do with Owen's wrestling legacy, which Martha wanted no part of. Bret had a stroke five years after Owen died, and one of the first people to call him while he was in hospital was Vince (see above, about him being capricious and capable of surprising kindness). They talked and Bret said he didn't want his career to be forgotten or diminished, so Vince said they could work on a DVD documentary about Bret's career. I think him agreeing to work with the WWE again for that documentary solidified the break with Martha. A few years after that, Bret was back on WWE TV and finally buried the hatchet with Shawn Michaels (they had no contact at all, from the night of the Screwjob to the day Bret made his return, thirteen years later).

Onto the Attitude episode now, and we're still getting almost complete praise for Vince and his supposed creative genius. These episodes will not age well. I will never stop finding it funny that the thing that saved the company - Vince allowing wrestlers to be themselves and responding to what fans were saying they wanted - is exactly what he abandoned after winning the Monday Night Wars. Becoming an obsessive control freak who wanted fully scripted promos, who decided who would be on top and pushed them even though fans wanted other people, actively sabotaging those wrestlers who the fans did pick. If post-2001 Vince was running the WWF in 1997, Stone Cold Steve Austin as the main guy never happens. Vince would have actively buried Austin in favour of Triple H or Ken Shamrock. Mankind as champion never would have happened. The Rock would have crashed and burned as scripted, bland babyface Rocky Maivia. Also funny - the clip of Stephanie's briefly stupefied look when she realised, mid-interview, that Tyson had been convicted for rape long before the WWF brought him in. The bit of that show I can't get my head around, even with everything else, is that the main event that night was The Undertaker vs Stone Cold. I can't even imagine how Taker must have felt, having to go out and be that character when he's just seen a co-worker fall to his death in the ring, and Owen's blood was staining the canvas. And I'll never forget that look on Jerry Lawler's face in the clip from the commentary table. But Vince having the gall to say their treatment of Owen was about making him a star is disgusting. By that time, it probably wasn't about Bret, but it sure as fuck wasn't about making him a star. Owen had vetoed storylines that he didn't agree with, including one where he would have an affair with his tag team partner, Jeff Jarrett's, girlfriend. He didn't like the sleazy angles that they were coming up with for him, so they gave him a character that was designed to make a joke out of his principles - an oafish, clumsy, wannabe superhero who did nothing but fail. And it was the WWF's fault. The quick release system they wanted for the stunt was deemed unsafe by the company who they'd hired to do the rigging, so they found some other guy who agreed to do it. They knew it wasn't safe, but they went ahead with it.

I like this show but, as someone who gets terrible second hand embarrassment, I have to leave the room for some scenes to avoid squirming in discomfort. I don't think the show needs to lean nearly as hard on "Gordon does or says something weird and offends people" as it does. Especially when it's combined with him not understanding Ashley's friends because they're so young. That runner of Gordon being seen as unreasonable because he was looking for Ashley after making dinner plans then her not answering the phone was weird. He wasn't being possessive or controlling, he was being worried, and James saying "party trumps dinner," didn't make sense. Because no one blows off their significant other without even telling them, to go to a party. Megan's new girlfriend was the absolute, overbearingly boring and self-important, worst. And I thought the show was going to focus on her "I feel Indian" nonsense as something that would make Megan realise it, but they went in the other direction and forced Gordon to be an ass, again. While still uncomfortable, I enjoyed the episode with Gordon's family more - bigoted dad and doormat mother, and generally rundown and bitter sister-in-law. And I appreciated the theme of falling into familiar behaviour patterns with your family, that your significant other may not recognise or enjoy. I hope Harriet Dyer becomes a bigger star off the back of this series, because she's so charismatic and engaging, and can do everything from dramatic scenes to full on slapstick comedy.

I watched the first three episodes of this yesterday, and can definitely see where it was going to be a "Vince is a genius" hagiography, before the sexual assault allegations came to light (though there have been allegations floating around for a long time). I found it curious that the Montreal Screwjob was presented relatively one-sidedly, with Vince, Hunter and Shawn getting the lion's share of the narrative and Bret not really being able to expand on his side of things. It was far, far more complicated than the episode showed and there was a lot more duplicity from Vince - towards Bret and towards other wrestlers and officials. Still, it was funny to hear Undertaker accidentally expose Vince's lie about "giving Bret one shot" to punch him and reinforce Bret's version that there was a scuffle and a struggle, before Bret got a good punch in. Also interesting that they didn't talk about wrestlers threatening to quit, and Rick Rude actually quitting, in the aftermath. Mick Foley wrote in his book about having to be talked back from leaving the company by Jim Ross, the night it happened. Something else that's fun - spotting Hogan lies, which occur basically every time he speaks. He's such a shameless carny that I'm not sure even he knows what's true any more. He didn't know if Andre would let him win at Wrestlemania III (at least he didn't repeat the one about "Andre died shortly after"), he didn't enjoy acting and wanted to go back to wrestling, as opposed to Thunder in Paradise being a flop. Just two that immediately spring to mind. Bruce Prichard is as bad, with his revisionist history of everything that ever happened. There's a reason he's been so close to Vince for so long, and it's not because of his integrity and honesty. Anyway, the Behind the Bastards six parter was a much better and much harsher examination of Vince, and of pro-wrestling in general. I highly recommend it.

I'd be really excited for a sequel, but I hope it doesn't come with a slashed budget. It costs a lot of money to make a fantasy movie that looks as good as this one did. There was a lot of CGI, and it was mostly used really well and served the story rather than being empty spectacle.

I confess I was morbidly fascinated to see how this movie would do, given the narratives around the previous one. The first one was like a rallying call for every guy who thinks he's a special snowflake that's been ignored by the world and is bitter and full of rage because of it. Todd Phillips didn't help in the build up to it by whining about how "you can't even do comedy any more because of political correctness." So how would those guys react to a musical, a form of entertainment that's usually seen as non-manly? Would they embrace it because it was centred around the avatar of their misanthropy, or would they reject it because it was full of songs and had a prominent female character muscling in on their guy's supposedly righteous acts of vengeance? Unfortunately it seems like the movie is objectively bad, so all those guys have a ready made excuse for rejecting it. It also sounds like an incredibly lazy endeavour. A jukebox musical? Really? Not even musical fans want that.