SS-GB (BBC 1)

JP Liz V1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y7tHhyowqg

It starts on BBC1 the 19th February 2017 at 9pm

written by Bafta Award-winners Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (Spectre, Skyfall, Casino Royale), and adapted from Len Deighton’s 1978 alternate history novel, SS-GB stars Sam Riley (Brighton Rock) as British Detective Douglas Archer, who is forced to work under the brutal SS in occupied London. Archer is determined to continue to do his job in the service of his country, but he’s up against impossible odds.
We first meet Archer in 1941, with the vast majority of England and Wales are under Nazi occupation after losing the Battle of Britain. Pockets of resistance continue to show their defiance against the occupying German forces, but after a German pilot is murdered by a British Resistance fighter, tensions in London could not be higher

JohnFalstaff

Trailer looks good, I remember enjoying the Deighton novel back in the day.

Although it does feel like the BBC might have missed the punch on this seeing as 'Man in the High Castle' is working in similar territory.

Harry Palmr

Not really - I imagine not more than a proverbial two men and a dog have seen Man in the High Castle in the UK.

Beyond that BBC One's main drama slots seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment.

Lovely Bloke

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Beyond that BBC One's main drama slots seems to be on a bit of a roll at the moment.

I was just saying this to the mrs the other night.

Appletree Yard was excellent, and The Moorside was pretty gripping in it's first episode.

River also good, and the other one about theundercover police investigating police one I can't remember the name of at the moment.

Even further back, The Night Manager and The Honourable Woman, the BBC has really upped it's game in the last two or three years.

9or10

Looking forward to it. I read the book years ago and listened to a very good audio version about 10+ years back.

Just hope they don't do a "Fatherland" on it.

Joe_ Public

Another WW2 drama following the engrossing but little bit weird Closer to the Enemy. Will be looking forward to this too. Haven't read the novel but the premise looks interesting and fun.

I think there is too much nazi stuff on telly but as a drama it will probably be good!

Mr.Nice Guy

Looking forward to this as well.

cml387

First episode this evening.

Lot's of money spent, the opening scene shot down The Mall with a badly damaged Buckingham Palace was a good moment.

I should say firstly that I've read the book, years ago so I know what's coming.

It's a pretty faithful adaptation so far, maybe too much so in that various plot elements seem a bit buried at the moment.

If you are wavering, I'd say give it chance.

Harry Palmr

That scene in the cafe was a bit cringy but otherwise it's an okay starter - though it all looks terribly clean and bright after Taboo!

ThisRegard

Harry Palmr wrote: »

That scene in the cafe was a bit cringy but otherwise it's an okay starter - though it all looks terribly clean and bright after Taboo!

It's where I turned off. I found the main character and his mannerisms very irritating, how he spoke being the worse so I knew I probably couldn't stick it so the café was my cue to go.

The Rape of Lucretia

I thought it was pretty good and will follow. Read the book decades ago and cant remember a thing about it, but the plot is intriguing having seen that ep and it looks well.

Mr.Nice Guy

I turned it off after 15 minutes. I was disappointed. There wasn't much to the alternative history aspect from what I could see and the main character was playing it very smug and smarmy to the point where it really grated.

Maybe I would be better off reading the book if that goes into more detail on the alt-history elements. This just seemed to me like a 40s detective drama with some Nazi flags in the background.

9or10

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I turned it off after 15 minutes. I was disappointed. There wasn't much to the alternative history aspect from what I could see and the main character was playing it very smug and smarmy to the point where it really grated.

Yes, I didn't turn off though. There's so little worth watching these days that I clung on in.

It was a really long while that I read the book and I don't remember much other than it felt really dark, that Archer was scared for himself, his family and friends. I don't really like the casting.

Hopefully it will get better.:(

gandalf

The first episode was very very slow moving but I'll give it a chance as TMITHC took around 5 episodes to get going in season one and has turned out to be excellent.

The one problem I have is the lead actor, he just seems to be devoid of charisma.

9or10

gandalf wrote: »

The one problem I have is the lead actor, he just seems to be devoid of charisma.

I also remember from the book that Archer was "shy with the ladies", still getting over the death of his wife, but they seem to have charima guy as a babe magnet. :eek:

skankkuvhima

I thought it was pretty good so I'll watch the lot I think.

silverharp

yep very slow and assuming the Nazis are meant to be more than background they didn't set them up very well in the first episode and basically no tension going into the second one.

Lovely Bloke

Didn't like it, it's like an episode of Goodnight Sweetheart.

His voice irritated me from the off, that speak-whisper in every single scene, is it some attempt to seem moody or mysterious.

My skin was crawling off at the scene with the American lady.

And the music, it's scored to within an inch of it's life.

Will not be returning.

cml387

9or10 wrote: »

I also remember from the book that Archer was "shy with the ladies", still getting over the death of his wife, but they seem to have charima guy as a babe magnet. :eek:

Well the novel had him knocking of Sylvia(?) the resistance girl, and

he'll soon be in bed with the American journalist

.

The problem I have with Sam Riley as Archer is that he's too young to have a senior position as a detective in Scotland yard. He looks about 25 although I see he's actually 37:eek:.

political analyst

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I turned it off after 15 minutes. I was disappointed. There wasn't much to the alternative history aspect from what I could see and the main character was playing it very smug and smarmy to the point where it really grated.

Maybe I would be better off reading the book if that goes into more detail on the alt-history elements. This just seemed to me like a 40s detective drama with some Nazi flags in the background.

How can you say there wasn't much to the alternative history aspect when you turned it off after 15 minutes?! If you regret doing so, then feel free to pre-order it on DVD or Blu-Ray on Amazon. Then you can binge-watch it.

9or10

cml387 wrote: »

Well the novel had him knocking of Sylvia(?) the resistance girl, and

he'll soon be in bed with the American journalist

.

The problem I have with Sam Riley as Archer is that he's too young to have a senior position as a detective in Scotland yard. He looks about 25 although I see he's actually 37:eek:.

Sure. I don't deny he played a tune or two, but he came across * as slightly "backward in coming forward".

* my perception after 30+ years of having read the book.

Agree about the age thing.

Harry Palmr

In the book he is late 30's so the only error was casting a youthful 37 year old.

gunny

I read the book 30 odd years ago and thought the whole idea cried out to be made into a film or TV drama . Unfortunately it really didn't live up to my expectations and during the airing on Sunday night twitter was full of disgruntled viewers. To make matters worse the BBC after such great dramas like Colditz and War and Peace make such an error on the standarten Furher's uniform really make me wonder if they really thought the whole project through at all. Oh the error was an iron cross being worn where the knights cross should be . Made him look more like Count Dracula than a high ranking SS officer.

gunny

gunny wrote: »

I read the book 30 odd years ago and thought the whole idea cried out to be made into a film or TV drama . Unfortunately it really didn't live up to my expectations and during the airing on Sunday night twitter was full of disgruntled viewers. To make matters worse the BBC after such great dramas like Colditz and War and Peace make such an error on the standarten Furher's uniform really make me wonder if they really thought the whole project through at all. Oh the error was an iron cross being worn where the knights cross should be . Made him look more like Count Dracula than a high ranking SS officer.

Slightly disturbing knowledge of nazi detail there! :eek:

cml387

If anyone ever reads the "You Say" column in the Sunday Times Culture TV section, you will know about "Routemaster Bus" issues!

gunny

Not really, just an informed attention to detail .

political analyst

gunny wrote: »

I read the book 30 odd years ago and thought the whole idea cried out to be made into a film or TV drama . Unfortunately it really didn't live up to my expectations and during the airing on Sunday night twitter was full of disgruntled viewers. To make matters worse the BBC after such great dramas like Colditz and War and Peace make such an error on the standarten Furher's uniform really make me wonder if they really thought the whole project through at all. Oh the error was an iron cross being worn where the knights cross should be . Made him look more like Count Dracula than a high ranking SS officer.

I doubt it makes a difference to most viewers, including those who have a basic knowledge of the Third Reich.

A senior SS officer is a senior SS officer. Standartenfuehrer, Gruppenfuehrer......whatever!

political analyst

cml387 wrote: »

If anyone ever reads the "You Say" column in the Sunday Times Culture TV section, you will know about "Routemaster Bus" issues!

I remember reading about that Foyle's War anachronism. Honestly, I never notice.

Mebuntu

I enjoyed Episode 1 but had to turn on the subtitles as I couldn't hear what some of the actors were saying, especially the lead.

bnt

I quite enjoyed it, and though I haven't read the book, I can tell the tension is ratcheting up e.g. there's the threat to Archer's son, Douggie. Trivia: the kid playing Dougie is the son of Andy Serkis (Lord Of The Rings, King Kong).

Del.Monte

Got to see the first episode last night and found it excellent, but then WW.II. and alternate history are my thing. After hearing bad reviews about the sound quality I was a little worried, but after watching it I can only recommend that those who couldn't hear it properly visit their GP or Specsavers for a hearing check-up.

Anybody expecting a Bourne type storyline should watch the Ipcress File (1965) which was also based on a Len Deighton novel - detailed and slow moving are the order of the day. If the BBC stick to that formula they are onto a winner.

Agent Smith

Got to see the first episode last night and Enjoyed it. Wouldnt rush out and order the dvd, but it's been added to the Sky+

Strazdas

Watched it last night. The basic premise of a Nazi occupied London in 1941 should make for an absolutely brilliant storyline but it was a bit slow moving and turgid and the mumbling / whispering of the lead character didn't help (it's been pointed out elsewhere that people's diction during that period was actually very loud and clear, people didn't mumble their way through sentences).

I'll stick with it though and see if it improves.

political analyst

A letter from Ivor Shorts, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16 (4th letter on the following page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/latest-syria-peace-talks-leave-kurdish-groups-out-in-the-cold-35478193.html

9or10

political analyst wrote: »

A letter from Ivor Shorts, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16 (4th letter on the following page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/latest-syria-peace-talks-leave-kurdish-groups-out-in-the-cold-35478193.html

Is it pertinent?

political analyst

9or10 wrote: »

Is it pertinent?

Why don't you read the letter? After all, it is about the programme that is being discussed in this thread.

Strazdas

political analyst wrote: »

Why don't you read the letter? After all, it is about the programme that is being discussed in this thread.

The letters page is hidden to anyone who is not registered with the independent.ie website.

9or10

political analyst wrote: »

Why don't you read the letter? After all, it is about the programme that is being discussed in this thread.

That was not obvious from your post, but why should I be interested in what Ivor Shorts thinks?

cml387

political analyst wrote: »

A letter from Ivor Shorts, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16 (4th letter on the following page):

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/latest-syria-peace-talks-leave-kurdish-groups-out-in-the-cold-35478193.html

Sorry I have no idea what letter. Maybe you could quote it or paraphrase.

political analyst

Strazdas wrote: »

The letters page is hidden to anyone who is not registered with the independent.ie website.

9or10 wrote: »

That was not obvious from your post, but why should I be interested in what Ivor Shorts thinks?

cml387 wrote: »

Sorry I have no idea what letter. Maybe you could quote it or paraphrase.

Apologies. I forgot about the sign-in requirement.

Ivor Shorts asked if anyone in these islands has been able to make out what the actors were saying in the first episode?

It's completely ludicrous. The BBC spends millions on a fictional drama set in an England that had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany in 1941, and then employs actors that can only mumble their way through the programme. Obviously, nobody in the BBC 'has ways of makin them talk'...clearly.

Ivor's letter echoes what Mebuntu said in post 30 on this thread.

Del.Monte

political analyst wrote: »

Apologies. I forgot about the sign-in requirement.

Ivor Shorts asked if anyone in these islands has been able to make out what the actors were saying in the first episode?



Ivor's letter echoes what Mebuntu said in post 30 on this thread.

In which case as I posted earlier in this thread the deaf twit should see his GP or go to Specsavers for a hearing aid.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

brian_t

Del.Monte wrote: »

In which case as I posted earlier in this thread the deaf twit should see his GP or go to Specsavers for a hearing aid.

He could just switch on the subtitles.

Strazdas

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I watched it in two half hour chunks (not exactly a ringing endorsement for its ability to hold the attention). It's slow moving and the mumbled delivery of the main detective character is not helpful as it's a struggle to make out what he is saying. I'll give Episode 2 a chance but you'd have to think it should really have hit the ground running and not been so slow and ponderous in the first episode.

SPDUB

gunny wrote: »

To make matters worse the BBC after such great dramas like Colditz and War and Peace make such an error on the standarten Furher's uniform really make me wonder if they really thought the whole project through at all. Oh the error was an iron cross being worn where the knights cross should be . Made him look more like Count Dracula than a high ranking SS officer.

How is that a mistake ? It's an alternative reality after all .One in which Germany has defeated Britain , Barbarossa has not occurred and the Iron cross is worn in a different position

Skid X

Newsnight did a re-dub to help people who couldn't hear the programme!

Harry Palmr

Does anyone know if Len Deighton novel made any reference to the fate of Ireland in his book? After all if the UK is largely "pacified" logic suggests they'd want to occupy the most westward land in NW Europe lest the Americans take an interest.

Strazdas

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Does anyone know if Len Deighton novel made any reference to the fate of Ireland in his book? After all if the UK is largely "pacified" logic suggests they'd want to occupy the most westward land in NW Europe lest the Americans take an interest.

I haven't read the novel but I assume that as a tiny neutral power like Denmark or Norway, Ireland would be in no position to resist a German invasion and therefore its fate would be identical to that of occupied Britain.

cml387

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Does anyone know if Len Deighton novel made any reference to the fate of Ireland in his book? After all if the UK is largely "pacified" logic suggests they'd want to occupy the most westward land in NW Europe lest the Americans take an interest.

Only to mention that the Germans were importing horses from Ireland and that the decanters in the soirees where the British debs were sucking up to the Germans were Waterford glass.

In fairness it wasn't the sort of book for an earnest analysis of alternative history senarios.

Strazdas

cml387 wrote: »

Only to mention that the Germans were importing horses from Ireland and that the decanters in the soirees where the British debs were sucking up to the Germans were Waterford glass.

In fairness it wasn't the sort of book for an earnest analysis of alternative history senarios.

One big question that arises from the series is just how co-operative the British would be with an occupying army. I imagine they would be deeply resentful given that they hadn't been invaded for many hundreds of years.

The Channel Islands are not a good example in that most men of fighting age had left before the German invasion and were now over on the mainland. The islands were too small and enclosed and too overwhelmed by military might to attempt any form of serious resistance.