Normal People [BBC - RTE] - [**SPOILERS**]

olestoepoke

I mentioned this previously, I found this show by mistake during a night of insomnia. Bored and went onto BBC player for something to watch. This was about a month ago so had never heard of the show or the book or seen any trailers. Anyway I loved the show, found it very evocative and nostalgic. The first time I even thought about Paul being too old for the part was after reading about it here on Boards, it never entered my mind watching the show. I was also fooled into thinking Daisy was Irish which is a testament to the great job she did on the accent. I think people are getting too hung up on the age of the actors. It was a great show with great acting, music and camera work so just enjoy it for that and forget about small issues.

Larbre34

Strazdas wrote: »

She's definitely the star of the show. It's a stunning debut from Paul Mescal.......

No, his stunning debut was as 'Bally.......haunis' boy in the Denny ad.....

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

From that review

“Part of why I couldn’t ever forgive Mescal’s character is the fact that he simply looks too old for the role—certainly old enough to know better. In fact, he looks roughly the age of his own mother, Lorraine (Sarah Green, only 11 years Mescal’s senior)“

Thankfully a reviewer has pointed this out. I’ve talked to numerous ppl over the last few weeks who’ve said exactly that - mescal is miscast and is WAY TOO OLD looking for that role

As I’ve said previously I came to the series without any prior knowledge of the novel/plot.

I was confused by Mescal’s “old as the hills” looks and was further confused that he apparently was a 6th year student. I then was wondering if the plot twist will be he is a late 20s man pretending to be much younger and that eventually the truth would emerge?

Casting 101 - don’t create unnecessary confusion in the audience on stuff like this - it’s basic.

Too old for the role??? This is him as an underage Kildare footballer. He hasnt changed a whole lot. If anything he looks younger now. He's just physically big for his age.

The 'reviewer' sounds like another man hating twat. Politics has to be brought into everything with these saddos.

Thargor

Wish there was a separate thread for the neverending tedious age discussion.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, his stunning debut was as 'Bally.......haunis' boy in the Denny ad.....

I liked that ad.

Is there a risk of Mescal perhaps being typecast as one of these strong silent types in future roles? He reminds me of the hundreds of lads who i used pass in the hallways of IT Carlow daily. They just seem to blend in the background and are happy to do so even though they are fairly sporty types.

Thargor

Thargor wrote: »

Wish there was a separate thread for the neverending tedious age discussion.

I tend to agree. In most cases, actors play characters who are a few years younger. For example, Home and Away used actors in their early twenties as school kids. I thought both Mescal and Jones had undoubtable chemistry on screen and that is probably why he was chose for casting. They didnt just pick any two randomers off the street. They screen tested people to see what worked and those two really clicked.

lainey_d_123

Can we not just accept that people have different opinions? He looks at least 30 to me, even in more flattering light than the show was shot in, for example on the Graham Norton show last night. I'd never take him for being 24, let alone a teenager. I think this one must be somewhat subjective and based on our own experiences of people we've known.

olestoepoke

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Can we not just accept that people have different opinions? He looks at least 30 to me, even in more flattering light than the show was shot in, for example on the Graham Norton show last night. I'd never take him for being 24, let alone a teenager. I think this one must be somewhat subjective and based on our own experiences of people we've known.

It certainly is subjective. However, I personally went to school and played football with guys that were shaving at 15 years old and built like grown men at 16 and 17. Not your typical 17 year olds but they do exist, one guy in particular raised a lot of eyebrows when we would play certain away games at under 15s and under 16s.

lainey_d_123

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Can we not just accept that people have different opinions? He looks at least 30 to me, even in more flattering light than the show was shot in, for example on the Graham Norton show last night. I'd never take him for being 24, let alone a teenager. I think this one must be somewhat subjective and based on our own experiences of people we've known.

Ive no objection to the discussion about Mescals age. Thats fair enough we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think the article that was linked was laughable throughout though. Littered with gender political agendas. The pic of the author at the end then :rolleyes: The soy was real with that one

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I tend to agree. In most cases, actors play characters who are a few years younger. For example, Home and Away used actors in their early twenties as school kids. I thought both Mescal and Jones had undoubtable chemistry on screen and that is probably why he was chose for casting. They didnt just pick any two randomers off the street. They screen tested people to see what worked and those two really clicked.

They look a normal early 20s couple to me. Also, Marianne was made look a couple of years older when we see her at Trinity with her hair and make up, more like a proper woman than a young girl.

All that fandango

Deleted User wrote:

I tend to agree. In most cases, actors play characters who are a few years younger. For example, Home and Away used actors in their early twenties as school kids. I thought both Mescal and Jones had undoubtable chemistry on screen and that is probably why he was chose for casting. They didnt just pick any two randomers off the street. They screen tested people to see what worked and those two really clicked.

Also the 4 lads from The Inbetweeners were all around mid 20s playing 16/17 year olds.

Beechwoodspark

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Can we not just accept that people have different opinions? He looks at least 30 to me, even in more flattering light than the show was shot in, for example on the Graham Norton show last night. I'd never take him for being 24, let alone a teenager. I think this one must be somewhat subjective and based on our own experiences of people we've known.

Fully agree.

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Too old for the role??? This is him as an underage Kildare footballer. He hasnt changed a whole lot. If anything he looks younger now. He's just physically big for his age.

The 'reviewer' sounds like another man hating twat. Politics has to be brought into everything with these saddos.

Ehhhh, Sorry now but did you actually read the review? It’s not a long review and it’s worth reading in full - won’t take long.

I don’t know where you arrived at “man hating twat”.

Really and truly I don’t know why some ppl are so triggered/touchy over other ppl having a different opinion about this show.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

Too old for the role??? This is him as an underage Kildare footballer. He hasnt changed a whole lot. If anything he looks younger now. He's just physically big for his age.

I was wondering why his legs were so big ,he has massive thighs on him .

MoonUnit75

Thargor wrote: »

Wish there was a separate thread for the neverending tedious age discussion.

Indeed, let’s get this back on track discussing the neverending, tedious and humourless on/off friends-with-benefits storyline

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ehhhh, Sorry now but did you actually read the review? It’s not a long review and it’s worth reading in full - won’t take long.

I don’t know where you arrived at “man hating twat”. Really and truly I don’t know why some ppl are so triggered/touchy over other ppl having a different opinion about this show.

if its the same review as this below then the 'journo' is a moron.

https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/hulus-normal-people-has-all-the-appeal-of-a-bad-date-that-refuses-to-end

Hrududu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I liked that ad.

Is there a risk of Mescal perhaps being typecast as one of these strong silent types in future roles? He reminds me of the hundreds of lads who i used pass in the hallways of IT Carlow daily. They just seem to blend in the background and are happy to do so even though they are fairly sporty types.

I saw him in a play at the start of the year: The Lieutenant of Inishmore. Couldn’t be further from his role on Normal People, so he definitely had the range. I guess it comes down to how casting directors see him.

Going to finish this off over the weekend and halfway through episode 7 now. So

they broke up because he wasn't able to pay the rent at his gaff during the summer and assumed that because he'd be home in Sligo she'd want to see other people?

have I got that right?

He couldn't have

moved in with her or she couldn't have offered to put him up for
a few months ???? Solid relationship there alright.

MisterAnarchy

Deleted User wrote: »

Going to finish this off over the weekend and halfway through episode 7 now. So

they broke up because he wasn't able to pay the rent at his gaff during the summer and assumed that because he'd be home in Sligo she'd want to see other people?

have I got that right?

He couldn't have

moved in with her or she couldn't have offered to put him up for
a few months ???? Solid relationship there alright.

Yes ,I thought it was handled poorly in the tv series ,it came out of the blue and was a bit ridiculous.

Neither of them made any effort to patch things up either .
He was only going to Sligo for the summer ,you'd think it was the US or somewhere overseas where they wouldn't see each other .
Less than 6 weeks after Connell leaving she had shacked up with that gimp Jamie.

lainey_d_123

Deleted User wrote: »

Going to finish this off over the weekend and halfway through episode 7 now. So

they broke up because he wasn't able to pay the rent at his gaff during the summer and assumed that because he'd be home in Sligo she'd want to see other people?

have I got that right?

He couldn't have

moved in with her or she couldn't have offered to put him up for
a few months ???? Solid relationship there alright.

You are totally missing the point. The entire point is that

it isn't a solid relationship. They're not even an 'official' couple. He's worried about it looking like he's using her for accommodation, after the way he treated her at school, and she doesn't catch on that he's hinting for her to offer, because she's never had to consider money in her life. You as the viewer have the ability to see what they can't - that the feeling they have for the other is mutual. Each one thinks the other isn't bothered, and that's where the misunderstandings spring up from.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Going to finish this off over the weekend and halfway through episode 7 now. So

they broke up because he wasn't able to pay the rent at his gaff during the summer and assumed that because he'd be home in Sligo she'd want to see other people?

have I got that right?

He couldn't have

moved in with her or she couldn't have offered to put him up for
a few months ???? Solid relationship there alright.

It reminded me of the many, many missteps I had in relationships growing up. Inability to communicate, admit how you feel and presume incorrectly what the other person is thinking. Very relatable imo.

Historybluff

I finished watching the show on Friday. I thought it was a good depiction of young adulthood in Ireland today: dealing with peer pressure, figuring out who you are etc. I could relate to Connell's struggles with anxiety and his social awkwardness. The acting was good, as were the script and the production values. I intend to read the novel soon.

mal_1

As a married man in my late 40's, I have come to the thread with what others similarly have expressed in wonder at why this series has had such an impact to people outside may be seen as its immeadiate audience.

Not be a big reader, but get through maybe a handful of books a year, I read the book the summer it came out on holiday and was engrossed by it, but left it and never thought about it again other than acknowledging its winning of awards at the end of year, meant it was held in high esteem.
I starting watching the tv series late in hope that it would do justice to the book, and not just be sensationised, as the first weeks reaction was and has been well aired. Now have watched it through to the end and rewatched it when the time is available, to 'study' it to understand why it has that impact.

While I didn't relate to the direct experiences of the characters (no jock at school), I could see elements of all the students in my own journey, to include shyness, been bullied, or ridiculed, been a smartar$e, jealousy, domestics, isolation while been popular.

I see this thread developing into sides of the coin as to whether Connell is cast too old or not. My opinion is that it is irrelevant if he is 'baby faced enough to be seen as a Leaving Cert student, and is more physical and visual, and this carries right through the series. He is a fine speciem of a man/athlete and capable of dominating the field, while playing football for his school at that level. The occasional 18 /19 year olds play soccer / rugby for their country, and Mescal as a minor county footballer reflects that. He dominates the screen like a David statute.

Beyond that and all that is going for him, the physical bravey of the diving block on the football field, the brilliant student, the pick of the girls etc, but its cowardice that destroys him. And in one act which he couldn't man up to, will define his young and maybe whole life.

It is this which can come at any point in a young life is which has entrapped me, which haven't seen before presented so eloquently. The consequence of the cowardice is that there never can be contentment and the happy ever after. The opportunity to get it all right has been lost. The idea that the there is only one true love for everyone has been presented to him and he has destroyed it. They may be lovers, they may have children, they may well marry, those are the easy bits. There will always be mistrust, and can they ever ever forgive and move on.

On the issue of whether there is a follow on series, the book I understand is a prequel to a short story, a couple of years further on and brilliantly there is no sign of a happy ending coming in sight. This relates nicely to what Lenny Abrahamson has said he would like to return to it in 10 years, which links well to my favorite film of Before sunrise/sunset/midnight which is of my age bracket. I can see this story taking 20/30 years to resolve, because SR should live the years out and reflect that into the complex characters. I cant wait for Series 4 in about 2050.

The short story
https://www.thewhitereview.org/fiction/at-the-clinic/

kowloon

I see all the people talking about nostalgia in a positive way, all I got out of it was sickening feeling of regret. I really wished I hadn't watched it, I'm miserable now. I'm not saying it was bad, although I thought they went way overboard on the sex scenes, that ate up a significant amount of the running time for episodes that are so short.

As for people losing their mind over yer man's mickey, have they not seen any films/tv in the last 20 years? There are mickeys flopping about in 15 rated films now. I resent how prudish Catholic Ireland has made a lot of us.

Historybluff

kowloon wrote: »

I see all the people talking about nostalgia in a positive way, all I got out of it was sickening feeling of regret. I really wished I hadn't watched it, I'm miserable now. I'm not saying it was bad ...

But surely that demonstrates the power of good art - its ability to stir emotions in viewers. The show provoked feelings of regret in me too - risks I should have taken, things I should have done etc. Coming away from the show, my attitude is that the past cannot be changed and that I should avoid having regrets in future.

I don't agree that the sex scenes were too long and frequent. I think they captured the pent-up lust of both characters. And I think the controversy about the sex scenes on Liveline etc. is amusing.

Everything Italian

kowloon wrote: »

I see all the people talking about nostalgia in a positive way, all I got out of it was sickening feeling of regret. I really wished I hadn't watched it, I'm miserable now.

FWIW, I had exactly the same sensations after reading the book, that was a little less after finishing the TV show. It took 2 weeks before it stopped occupying my thoughts when times were quiet. It upset me to the point I regretted reading it at one level. In retrospect, that sense passed quickly. Good novels do this...

I think there are a few reasons for this but in hindsight, I think it was mostly because of the 'odd' background of Marianne's character and her subsequent behaviour that engendered high levels of sympathy, empathy and pity. It's important to remember that it is just a work of fiction, but one that the author has been able to really work into the readers consciousness.

I can only explain that the sense of regret passes in time as you realise that it is a pretty dysfunctional relationship of its time, in a specific time in the lives of the two characters, and actually not that relatable if you are outside that segment.

That's how I rationalised it anyway but it did make me rethink my own relationship and examine some things that have 'slipped' in it over the years, and that I will work to put right, so good to have read it in the end

kowloon

Historybluff wrote: »

But surely that demonstrates the power of good art - its ability to stir emotions in viewers. The show provoked feelings of regret in me too - risks I should have taken, things I should have done etc. Coming away from the show, my attitude is that the past cannot be changed and that I should avoid having regrets in future.

I don't agree that the sex scenes were too long and frequent. I think they captured the pent-up lust of both characters. And I think the controversy about the sex scenes on Liveline etc. is amusing.

The episodes are just under 30 mins, not much time for a lot of artsy lust.
Still deflated by the whole thing.

olestoepoke

kowloon wrote: »

The episodes are just under 30 mins, not much time for a lot of artsy lust.
Still deflated by the whole thing.

Is it not better to read a book or watch a show and feel something, be it good or bad? 90% of whats on tv is garbage and the equivalent to junk food for your brain. I'd rather watch a show that made me think about my past , stir up the regrets I have than fake ****e like love island and the likes.

SusieBlue

It made me realise how I took things so personally when I was younger, and how self centred I was when I was rationalising situations where I had been wronged.

Like when lads would be emotionally unavailable or maybe inconsistent about what they wanted with me at the beginning, my automatic response was to assume they were being intentionally nasty & had no respect for me, and that they were messing with my head for fun...
When in reality it was probably more to do with them having issues in their own lives, and trying to get through things going on in their own heads that were absolutely nothing to do with me.
Some basic communication would have cleared it all up, but the lads didn’t want to appear weak & overshare, and I didn’t want to seem needy.
So I just assumed they were assh*les & they probably assumed I was a psycho and we never understood where the other was coming from.

Obviously there were some instances where lads did mess me around, but when I think back to times where I dithered over whether I was interested in someone, it was always to do with things going on in my own life and what I wanted, and never to do with the value or worth of the person in question, and that’s what made me realise it worked both ways.

A lot of that is to do with being young and I’ve definitely (mostly) grown out of taking things so personally in that regard, but I did feel some regrets coming back during those parts of the story.

kowloon

olestoepoke wrote: »

Is it not better to read a book or watch a show and feel something, be it good or bad? 90% of whats on tv is garbage and the equivalent to junk food for your brain. I'd rather watch a show that made me think about my past , stir up the regrets I have than fake ****e like love island and the likes.

Not a huge fan of thinking about my past. I'll happily watch most things and just take them for the story they are, I don't have a fine literary mind, I don't delve deep for themes or any of that.
I can happily watch things that aren't upbeat, I really enjoyed Chernobyl. That was a damn good series and it didn't have to make me so self-reflective.
It doesn't help that I can't go anywhere.