Last night Anne and I were glued to watching the first act of Prime Suspect 7 on PBS Masterpiece Theater. Helen Mirren returns in her role as the hardened Chief Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison, solving another London murder before going off into retirement. We've been big fans of the Prime Suspect series for years, and this is the last one. It's as good as television gets. Catch it if you can...
Monday, November 13, 2006
Prime Suspect 7
Last night Anne and I were glued to watching the first act of Prime Suspect 7 on PBS Masterpiece Theater. Helen Mirren returns in her role as the hardened Chief Detective Superintendent Jane Tennison, solving another London murder before going off into retirement. We've been big fans of the Prime Suspect series for years, and this is the last one. It's as good as television gets. Catch it if you can...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've never seen that one, Jeff. I'm a fan of Poirot, though :-)
Hi Crystal,
We like most of those PBS and BBC mysteries... Poirot, Cadfael, Morse, Foyle's War, Robson Green in Touching Evil...
We've seen part of one of the season and thought it was great, but we're not good at following something regularly on TV. We do much better checking out DVDs. Will have to try that for this series. Mirren's great. I've heard she's really brilliant in The Queen.
Foyle's War rocks. That's our very favorite of all these kind of series. Going through withdrawals right now.
We just finished the 8 Horatio Hornblower films from A&E. Highly recommended. That's probably been our next favorite.
BTW, would like to know what you think of Assassin's Gate when you finish. I kept wanting to talk to someone about it when I read it and couldn't find anyone.
Hey, William. How are you?
Regarding the Assassins' Gate, I haven't gotten too deeply into it yet (I've been captivated by the Gibson and Tabor books), but here are some early impressions...
I think Packer really knows what he's talking about, and he does a good job of laying it all out. If I were Robert Kagan or Kanan Makiya, my ears would really be burning right now. If I had to criticize Packer at all, it would be for overplaying his acquantaince with these academics and the influence they've been able to parlay from their cluttered aparments and basement coffehouses in New York and Cambridge.
I want to be really careful how I say this next thing, because I am very sensitive to the issue of anti-semitism, but I think Packer might by understating the influence of the pro-Israeli (or at least pro-Likud) faction in the US government and various neo-conservative think-tanks. I think a very good case could be made in a court of law that Richard Perle is an Israeli agent of influence.
The book can really make you angry. I get upset every time I think of the way that Paul Wolfowitz was able to dance away from all of this. The parallels between these guys (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) with Robert MacNamara in the Viet Nam era are startling, right down to Wolfowitz going off to continue to wreak havoc on the globe with the World Bank just like MacNamara did.
Jeff, good to read your take on Packer's book.
>If I had to criticize Packer at all, it would be for overplaying his acquantaince with these academics and the influence they've been able to parlay from their cluttered aparments and basement coffehouses in New York and Cambridge.
I thought he did a good job writing about the history of the neo-cons, but I totally agree with you - he seems to have been totally captivated by their rhetoric before the war. He and Christopher Hitchens and many others.
>I want to be really careful how I say this next thing, because I am very sensitive to the issue of anti-semitism, but I think Packer might by understating the influence of the pro-Israeli (or at least pro-Likud) faction in the US government and various neo-conservative think-tanks. I think a very good case could be made in a court of law that Richard Perle is an Israeli agent of influence.
The very fact that you're so concerned about saying the wrong thing is one more example of the kind of negative influence the hardcore pro-Israeli lobby has had. I have to admit, I'm pretty angry about what they've done to public discourse in this country. I never in my life thought I would have to defend my support of the Jewish community. I've always had tremendous admiration and respect for Judaism, yet I find myself afraid to say things as well. My Jewish friends are the only ones able to speak out, and they do, but the general public in the U.S. isn't allowed to participate in a rational discussion about the role of Israel in the Middle East, though a large amount of OUR tax money is directly involved. In the end, I think it's a horrible mistake for AIPAC and other pro-Israeli groups to push things in the direction they have. It's bad for Israel, for Jews in general, and for concerned Americans. I just have to keep reminding myself that they only represent one aspect of Judaism, U.S. policy, and Israeli politics.
>I get upset every time I think of the way that Paul Wolfowitz was able to dance away from all of this. The parallels between these guys (Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld) with Robert MacNamara in the Viet Nam era are startling, right down to Wolfowitz going off to continue to wreak havoc on the globe with the World Bank just like MacNamara did.
Well, a LOT of people have been allowed to dance away from their role in this fiasco, haven't they?Amazing, isn't it - the MaNamara/Wolforitz connection with the World Bank?
Overall, I thought it was a good book, and Packer did an excellent job in showing the various aspects of what was going on in Iraq, from the neo-colonial attitudes in the Green Zone to the inspiring stories of various military commanders trying to bring about real positive change on the ground. But I had a couple of major complaints. I was thoroughly irritated at his coverage on the lead-up to the war, and almost quit reading the book. He paints a far too simplistic picture of the opposition to the war. According to him (and Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.)you were either for the invasion or you basically supported the Islamofascists. But there were many opponents, including numerous intelligence and military people, who thought from the beginning that the invasion was going to do serious harm to the larger war on terror. This is the viewpoint that I held then and still hold now. He never discusses this point of view. He talks about Eli Pariser and MoveOn.org, as if they represented everyone who was against the war. He and the Hitchens crowd bascially got suckered into classic liberal naivete about bringing democracy to the Middle East, selling us the old imperialistic line dressed up in pretty motives - the Spanish empire bringing "Christianity" to the stupid natives of the Americas, the British empire bringing "civilization" to the stupid natives of Africa and the Middle East, etc. And, more disgustingly, they backed it up with the shoddy machismo of fey intellectuals who wouldn't even listen to real military people who KNEW all along the true cost of the war. Secondly, he never bothers to relate what was happening in Iraq to the larger war on terror, as if they were somehow separate. I suppose he was trying to focus on Iraq, but I think his neglect of the interrelated issue of global terrorism only proved the inherent flaw in his initial attitude. Finally, I did find some of the book repetitive.
But, having gotten out my anger at him and his kind, he did do a good job in other areas.
Hi William,
Interesting comments. I agree with you that being hamstrung and muzzled in the ability to offer constructive criticism towards certain Israeli policies has come back to bite us badly. I'm just starting to get back into that book now, so I'll keep an eye open for the things you've commented on. It's too bad that Packer wasn't more cognizant or appreciative of skeptical attitudes towards the war in military, intelligence, and State Department circles. I think James Fallows probably covers the State Department aspect very well in Blind Into Baghdad, a lot of which I've read in extended articles in the Atlantic, and I imagine that Thomas Ricks must cover the military doubts and concerns well in Fiasco. Does Packer mention the constant and consistent drumbeat of opposition by paleo-cons like Pat Buchanan at all?
I'll give you more impressions as I get futher on into it.
Post a Comment