#which i think is important because goodsir's act is one that is treated with such stylization and care and morfin's is dark and gritty

[afterthefeast]

i think it’s interesting that fitzjames’ justification to crozier for eating his body after he dies is to say “i am not christ”, ie his body is not sacred and after death is merely meat that is sorely needed by the crew, in contrast to hodgson explicitly invoking the eucharist in relation to eating gibson’s body. obviously what makes any potential cannibalism of fitzjames potentially justified would be his prior giving of consent, in contrast to gibson dying with no idea what hickey intended to do with his body, but what’s more interesting is the fact that what renders fitzjames’ body as possibly sacred, in the sense of having a meaning and importance beyond its material reality as meat, is crozier’s insistence that his friend’s body be left alone.

in contrast, if you interpret the eucharist monologue as being to do with hodgson’s recent consumption of human flesh (which i do think is the most useful interpretation at any rate), gibson’s body is only sacred once it has been consumed, in direct opposition to how fitzjames’ is given greater meaning by not being eaten. in both of these contexts what gives the body a potential sacredness is the external meaning imposed upon it, but while hickey does try to present cannibalism as having a sacramental quality, it’s obvious that at the end of the day gibson is merely meat.

crucially, this is ultimately also true of fitzjames, despite crozier’s best efforts, because his body ends up possibly eaten and definitely looted anyway. hodgson’s speech has no real meaning beyond futilely trying to justify what he’s done. he finishes the monologue with the only thing that really matters - “i’m so hungry”. moral concerns have no weight in the face of such an immediate material reality, and the body itself does not really have any importance beyond its own materiality - instead what is sacred are the bonds it once had. i think crozier’s refusal of fitzjames’ offer is still important, less so for its effect, but more because it marks the persistence of his love for his friend regardless of other concerns. if anything is sacred in the terror, it’s that.

this emphasises the show’s overall emphasis on the importance of human dignity and fellowship in the face of utter ruin. despite the above, i think the terror is overall ambivalent on the direct moral question of eating human flesh, and it does not really encourage the viewer to judge any of the men who actually engage in cannibalism beyond pitying them. the whole mantra of “god wants you to live”/characters encouraging each other to survive suggests that cannibalism might be justified in that context, but that the disrespect shown to those who end up cannibalised in the show is what renders the act explicitly immoral.

aside from crozier, no one survives the terror, regardless of whether they abstain from cannibalism or not. refusing to butcher gibson would not have saved goodsir, and doing so did not save hodgson; little’s group would not have survived even if they stayed with jopson. crozier’s best efforts did not prevent hickey from finding fitzjames’ grave. but precisely because there is no greater meaning in death and its aftermath, the way the crew treated each other in life is more important, because really that’s all there is.

for little and dundy, the moral event horizon is not when they eventually succumb to cannibalism long after they’ve kept walking, but when they abandon jopson and the other sick men - this is a line they toe in the previous episode when they suggest abandoning fitzjames, but crozier doesn’t let that happen. crozier has also eaten human flesh (the fact that it’s goodsir, who in crozier’s view is “clean” is another fascinating element i’m not bothered to untangle here), and in that respect he’s equal to little, but his refusal to abandon his friends affords him, at the end of the show, his own dignity, best expressed through survival. i don’t mean to imply he has the moral high ground in a reductive sense, nor do i think his survival has really any greater meaning than the fact that he’s the protagonist (by my own logic any of goodsir, jopson, blanky, or fitzjames could still be standing at the end). but i do think the show presents certain actions as ones you cannot go back from with your own dignity or self-respect intact, and these are primarily based on the ability to recognise humanity in your fellow man regardless of circumstance (be that deprivation, illness, or cultural difference).

fitzjames was correct - he is not christ, and hodgson’s attempts to justify his cannibalism through the eucharist are revealed as just that, empty attempts. nonetheless, while there is nothing sacred about the body in death, there is something almost transcendental about the bonds it had in life.

[ohveda]

The Terror - season 1 review

I have paused in my frantic gif reblogging to finally write out my thoughts on the Terror and why I enjoyed it so much.

The first season of The Terror tells the story of the tragic Franklin expedition. This was a British arctic expedition in the late 1840s, led by Sir John Franklin, which had the aim of finding the North West Passage. The expedition was comprised of two ships, Erebus and Terror, hence the name of the show. It was tragic because everyone died (this is not a spoiler). The circumstances as to how everyone died are still mysterious to this day and there is lots of speculation (although a cursory glance at wikipedia suggests that people are building up some theories).

So, this is a TV show where you know from the outset that it is going to end tragically: everyone you get to know is going to die, and the only question is exactly how. And this is why, despite how much I enjoyed it, I wouldn't recommend the show to everyone. It is not so much scary as it is harrowing: there is gore, there is a monster, and there are disturbing scenes. I finished watching it a day and a half ago and I do not yet feel like I have recovered mentally from what I have seen (give me a few more days and I will be fine). You guys out there will know your tv-watching habits; if you don't like stories that are scary, depressing or dark, this show is not for you. However, if you don't mind watching those themes then I absolutely recommend this show whole-heartedly. It is incredibly incredibly good.

Here is the trailer: https://youtu.be/3WLz6wxEabc

The rest of my review might contain mild spoilers, so I'm going to put it under a cut.

There are several things I love about the show. From the first glance it looks fantastic; you can tell that there was money behind the production. The sets and the setting are lush with atmosphere and historic detail; it really feels like care has been taken (not that I know enough about naval history to assess accuracy, but the little bits I do know felt very right). And those coats! If you know me you will know that I go crazy for well-fitted double-breasted coats with bright buttons. I WAS IN MY ELEMENT HERE.

The acting! You can't fault it. Everyone does a superb job and I think one of the reasons the story works so well is just how compelling everyone is.

But my absolute absolute favourite thing about the show is the writing. I am in ecstasies over how well it was written. It's the best period drama I have seen since 2014. The show is based on a book of the same name, so doubtless many good things from the show come from the book, but I have heard some not-entirely-great things about the book too, so I get the feeling that while the good characters and interesting plot may come from the book, the technical skill that makes the show truly rewarding and compelling comes from the show's writers.

The main thing that they get so right is exposition. It's tricky to do well in any piece of fiction, but it is particularly hard in historical fiction when there is always so much to explain. It seems that often the urge with historical fiction is to explain too much and too frequently, to the point where every line loses its poignancy because it's immediately followed by an explanation of why that line is poignant (Poldark, I am looking at you). The Terror does not fall into that trap at all. Things are not explained; the audience's hand is not held; and the viewer is treated like an intelligent person who can come to their own conclusions. This does, admittedly, lead to some parts where I didn't actually know exactly what happened until I read up about them after I finished the show, but this haziness in certain areas does not detract from the watching experience in any way. The writing is good enough that the viewer always knows the key points of what is happening and what that means for the plot (there is never a feeling of being lost and confused), and the fact that you can get an extra level of detail and interest the more you look into it is an additional joy.

When it comes to how good the exposition is, let us take scurvy as an example. Scurvy is mentioned a lot in the first episode, but not anywhere in that episode is it described. In a lesser show, as soon as scurvy is mentioned the first time, someone would say "oh, you mean the disease where your gums bleed and your old wounds open up?" In The Terror this information is not given in the first episode because it's not needed in the first episode. The information is not actually given until after the first symptoms start to show, and even then it's given in an offhand and believable comment that doesn't feel intrusive at all. This means that for viewers who already knew the symptoms of scurvy, it's not jarring in any way, while viewers who don't know the symptoms of scurvy get a wonderful reveal of what has been happening and are now prepared for what is yet to come.

Augh! It's just done so well! I absolutely can't stand it when TV shows talk down to me, whereas I love it when they treat me as a capable adult who is able to put the clues together by myself.

And then we come to the plot. Going from the trailer, and seeing how high the production values were, I had assumed that the plot would have a level of, what to call it, sensationalism? Hollywood-ness? I was expecting it to be more spectacle and less substance. I was ready for jump-scares and plot-twists and set-pieces, and they didn't come, not really, not in the way I was expecting. There was only one part in the final episode where things veered towards melodrama that was too ridiculous to believe. The rest of the plot is not ridiculous nor is it fluffy nor empty; it feels solid: the pacing works and each plot point follows on from one to another. This is not a show where an unsubstantiated plot twist is thrown into the mix for surprise value (looking at you, BBC 2020 Dracula); this is a show where the hard graft of writing is done, to make sure that the plot is built from the ground up so that the audience can follow it and believe in its progression, regardless of how unbelievable the actual events may seem to be.

One of the main reasons for why this plot progression works so well is that it is almost entirely character-driven. Oh yes, there are events from outside that affect the characters and what happens to them, but the bulk of the plot is driven by the characters and their choices. What is it about character-driven fiction that makes it so satisfying? Certainly stories can and do work without being character-driven, but there's something so good about having a character you can get your teeth into: a character who is a person, with likes and dislikes, and good parts and foibles; a character you get to know and care about. The characters in this story are not mere window-dressing; they drive the plot, and you both love them and hate them for it.

Now, take that well-written, rounded, satisfying character, and multiply them by thirty. This is an ensemble cast and boy does it feel like it! I'm frankly astounded by how many fully-thought-out characters there were. It's not like there are five main characters and the rest are all cannon-fodder. Each character we meet has their own story to tell. There are characters in the first episode who feel like extras, but who come to have important and complex parts as the story moves on. Even as we come to the final episodes there are characters whose significance only then begins to show.

This multitude of characters is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it makes for a story that is rich, rewarding and realistic. But a curse because it is impossible to learn all those names and tell all those people apart. They all look the same! Is that character A in the navy blue coat with the big mutton chops? Or is that character B? I've watched the entire series and for a lot of the characters I still don't know! But this confusion doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the show. Just like the exposition, learning more about certain characters (which is where I think a rewatch would help) will add another layer of interest, but without that it is still easy to follow the main parts of the plot. There are certain main characters who you do come to recognise and to know, and this is enough; the other characters, each with their own richness, even if you don't know it yet, are an extra treat for those viewers who want to watch again and dig into the story a little more.

I won't say that the story is without its faults. I would like to ask the show-makers why apparently all British sailors in Victorian times were white??? And why did the cgi monster have to look like that??? But there aren't enough faults to truly detract from how enjoyable the show is.

Look at me here, trying to be all serious, making points with words, instead of just howling like I want to. What I haven't mentioned yet is how this show consumed me. I ate it up! I watched an episode per day (the short length of the show, being only ten episodes, is another reason why the plot is so tight and satisfying) and I couldn't stop thinking about it! My days were filled with thoughts of boats and mutton chops and my dreams were filled with them too. Even now that I have finished the show, and I have felt just how harrowing it is to watch a show where they all die, horribly, I long for it. I have withdrawal symptoms from it. I'm not yet mentally strong enough to watch it again, but my God I yearn for the time when I will be. It's that good! Whenever, over the past week, someone has asked me how I am, my answer has been "I'm watching The Terror!" as if I felt that from that response alone they could glean exactly how excited and happy I was to be watching it; as if it was my everything at that moment! My God!

And I'm not even mentioning just how much I came to enjoy the character of Goodsir. I was told "there's a character in this who's a bit like Segundus from 'Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell'; you'll like him." I did not know how accurate that was going to be. I want to slam my fist on the table! Do you know what it is like, in a show like this, to develop a favourite character and to know, to know, from the outset that every single character is going to die? It is heart-wrenching and it hurts, and I am still not over it (not by a long shot) but at the same time the pathos is so satisfying you want to eat it all up. This is 2021. We're not here for good times. Make it hurt. Make it cathartic. Take my mind off of the world of today with a pain that I can control with my TV.

So. Wow. tl;dr The Terror is an excellent show that I highly recommend for people who like this kind of stuff. (And I'm still sparkly-eyed over Goodsir and can't do anything about it.) The End.

[gaylord-fagaton]

How to Not Make Friends: A Guide by One George Henry Hodgson

Or alternatively titled: How George Hodgson’s Character Arc is Actually a Story about Trying to Fit in, and then Failing Miserably

Today I’ll be bringing you more Hodgson thoughts, specifically on the question of his place within the group, or rather his lack of place within the group. He exists at the fringes of the Terror’s command team, he’s a part of it of course that’s his job, but he really isn’t part of the group not like Little, nor Crozier, or finally Irving. This is what made him such a good target for Hickey, who is probably observant enough to notice this, his feelings of rejection coupled with the fact that apparently nobody ever taught him about stranger danger had him following Hickey into the tent.

The way Hodgson behaves is the primary reason for him being ostracized from the rest of the terror officers I believe. If you hadn’t noticed, Little is basically depression personified, Irving is well….the way he is, and their captain is an alcoholic angry at the entire world. There is no room for the happy go lucky Hodgson, who is just here to have a good time, not a long time. (Side Note: This doesn’t have much relevance when it comes to the terror as a show, but Hodgson was hand picked by Fitzjames. Can you imagine having your friend asking you to come work with them, only to find out you aren’t actually working with them at all, and are in fact working in one of the most stressful environments imaginable.) It also does not help that a great deal of Hodgson’s attempts of relating to others or bringing levity to situations are generally not particularly relevant or are downright inappropriate at times. I always go back to the “hear, hear” bit when Irving is listing their dwindling food supplies, because it’s one of the best examples, you’re going to starve to death Hodgson what is wrong with you? (Not to insert head cannons into my meta but, George Hodgson autistic). The sheer level of annoyance on the faces of his companions when he does his bullshit, is almost funny. In the aforementioned scene Irving looks about ready to kill him, so does Armitage when he goes on about the origin of the word diet in a later scene.

Not only does the way everybody behaves around Hodgson tell us about the way he is viewed, but so does everybody’s reactions, or rather lack thereof.  Nobody ever responds to him verbally at least; this is except for one notable exception in Hickey. I think this was perhaps a ploy on Hickey’s part at least at first, later it became mocking, he had no intention to really allow Hodgson into his group (more on this later).

I hadn’t really noticed this before, until @gildatheplant​ mentioned it on my newest gif-set, but we really don’t have any shots of the Lieutenants together. This to me, is seemingly done to create a further sense of separation between Hodgson and his fellow command members.

Here the camera pans away from Hodgson leaving only Little, Irving, Crozier, and Jopson in the shot. He was left out, even though he is standing right next to Little at the time.

In this scene, Little and Irving are standing right next to each other, but Hodgson is standing across the room by himself.

I don’t know how much those kinds of scenes really mean in the long run, I just think it’s really interesting to look at. Even without them, Hodgson is painted as quite the outcast from the rest of the terror command. There but not really There.

Here we come to his murder of the Netsilik family, now this is primarily motivated by racist fear. His go too wouldn’t have been fucking murder if he wasn’t a shithead racist, and as I’ve mentioned before his story to Little later when he realizes he might have fucked up on goes on to further illustrate how he feels about the Netsilik people. Beyond the racist fear fueled by a story that sounds like a chain email or a shitty Facebook post, another motivator for his haste in acting, I think is probably a want for some form of acceptance into the group. At this point he’d just been informed of the fact that a command meeting had occurred, and he wasn’t invited, instead he was sent out on the rather unlikable task of burying Morfin. They are sharing important information and promoting new officers, and they hadn’t thought about including him. If he didn’t feel like an outcast beforehand, he must certainly feel that way now, especially as hickey is shoving his rat like fingers into the hole in his heart where friends would go if he had any. So he acts, because if he does the right thing, perhaps this will be enough for him to get the recognition that he wants and craves, and he’ll maybe be a part of the group finally. It turns out, however, that he was wrong, really fucking wrong, and then everything proceeds to go to shit.

When it comes to his placement within the mutineer group, I wouldn’t call him a mutineer but he is also definitely not a hostage like Goodsir. He had a choice something which Goodsir who was forced at gun point to come with Hickey and co. did not, a shitty choice, but a choice none the less. (Side note: beyond referring to the fact that he is to much of a coward to do anything about hickey, I think his “I’m hungry and want to live” line could also describe the circumstances in which he joined up with Hickey. If he hadn’t joined he’d have certainly starved to death.) He is still on the fringes even here, treated like a spectacle, a joke, and has his live threatened by Hickey multiple times. He is neither a mutineer or a hostage, but kind of both at the same time. Hickey was a collector of those who he knew didn’t fit in, and that fits Hodgson.

Onwards to his monologue to Goodsir in the tent, who also doesn’t respond to him rip. In part beyond it being about a strange religious experience, which oof dude you were like 8, I think it is also a tale about fitting in. In church setting like that everybody is doing the same thing, you are a part of a collective in front of god. Which is why tiny Hodgson was so moved to participate because it finally meant he was a part of something. He labels it a “perfect moment in his imperfect life” because it’s what he always wanted, to fit in. Interestingly enough, (Thanks to @gobnaits​ for pointing this out) communion means “sharing in common” and is a sacrament of initiation. (Catholic facts that make you hmmm) He ultimately rejects this because he was taught this kind of community is wrong but also because, I believe that he thought he’d eventually be unable to function within this group. (*Cough* George Hodgson Autistic *Cough*) Ultimately I think George Hodgson’s story arch is about being an outcast and a want for acceptance, which along with his own ignorance is the reason for his downfall.

TL;DR: Hodgson is outcast and it makes me sad. Also I love him.

[annecoulmanross]

The premise: AMC’s The Terror (2018) is almost perfectly set up to be a structured as a classical Greek tragedy, or, ideally, a series of three tragedies.

Three requirements of a classical Greek tragedy:

The play is performed by only three actors and a chorus.

The three actors perform all of the dialogue roles between them.

All of the action of the play takes place on a single day (in the space of no more than twenty-four hours), and always in the same physical place.

Obviously this last requirement is the hardest to achieve with the events of the show sprawling over two years or more, but with a trilogy of three tragedies, you could narrow the action down to three key days: (1) Franklin’s death, (2) Carnevale, and (3) The day the mutineers lure the Tuunbaq and everyone but Crozier dies. I could focus on the structural elements that would allow for these three days of “action” but I’m more interested in the implications of the first two requirements: basically, can you stage a version of The Terror with only three actors? The answer is that – barring action sequences which would never be staged in a Greek tragedy anyway, because all true action happens off-stage – yes, yes you can. So, let’s talk about logistics.

Core Casting Divisions:

ACTOR 1 = Franklin (also: Goodsir, Blanky, Little, Bridgens, Tozer, etc.)

ACTOR 2 = Fitzjames (also: Lady Silence, Hickey, Jopson, Peglar, Stanley, etc.)

ACTOR 3 = Crozier (also: Collins, MacDonald, Hodgson, Gibson, etc.)

Beneath the cut: how this casting breaks down, scene by scene; and the implications of these casting divisions, complete with a lot of rambling thoughts about – among other things – gender, masculinity, and (amusingly) Rome.

(Also, I want to thank my dear friends, fellow terror-classicists, and everyone who has so patiently talked terror-meta and terror-thoughts with me, including, but in no way limited to, @kaserl, @catilinas, @rhavewellyarnbag, @paramaline, and @endofvanity – your wonderful thoughts about this show have been enormously helpful as I’ve played with the narrative mechanics here!) 

+

Casting, Scene-by-Scene

A basic outlay of all major dialogue scenes in every episode (a “major dialogue scene” is a scene with more than one character, minus “fight scenes” because action never happens on stage in a Greek tragedy), with the roles of the three actors listed in 1-2-3 order, and an “x” to mark when an actor doesn’t appear in a scene.

01x01 – “Go for Broke”

Franklin – Fitzjames – Collins [Discussing the ice]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Crozier complains, part 1]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier complains, part 2]

Strong – Hickey – Young [Young’s illness revealed]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Fitzjames’ storytelling]

Goodsir – Stanley – Young [Treating Young’s illness]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Collins [Collins’s dive]

Goodsir – Stanley – Young [Young’s autopsy]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Franklin’s decision]

Tozer – Hickey – Manson [Burying Young]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gore [The pack has arrived]

(Notes: This is an incredibly cleanly written episode, and the casting is correspondingly clean. Franklin and Fitzjames almost always appear together, as do Goodsir and Stanley; both pairs are “leader and subordinate,” but the roles shift, with Actor 1 as Franklin and Goodsir, and Actor 2 as Fitzjames and Stanley. Actor 3, meanwhile, plays three characters with foresight: Crozier, who foretells the pack ice through his knowledge and by listening to Blanky; and Collins and Young, through their more supernatural visions.)

01x02 – “Gore”

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gregory [Checking the engine]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [“Here comes the lending library”]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Gore [Gore’s sledge party departs]

Goodsir – Peglar – Gore [Gore’s sledge party]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [“Repairing bonds”]

Irving – Hickey – Gibson [Irving’s discovery]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Hodgson [Hodgson’s sledge party returns]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Remembering Parry’s expedition]

Irving – Hickey – Crozier [A shared drink]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [The death of Silence’s father]

Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier [Goodsir explains how Gore died]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [Franklin discusses how Gore died]

Blanky – Lady Silence – Crozier [Lady Silence’s warning]

(Notes: As the show adds complexity, so does the casting. Irving appears as a new role for Actor 1, paralleling Franklin in his religiosity; Gibson appears as a new role for Actor 3, paralleling Crozier in being a person with whom Hickey.... uh, flirts.)

01x03 – “The Ladder”

Hartnell – Morfin – Weekes [Preparing Lady Silence’s father, part 1]

Goodsir – Morfin – Weekes [Preparing Lady Silence’s father, part 2]

Hartnell – Lady Silence – Hodgson [Returning the totems to Lady Silence]

Goodsir – x – Des Voeux [“Burying” Lady Silence’s father]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Little’s worries about the Inuit]

Irving – Hickey – Gibson [Gibson asks for Irving’s counsel]

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [The sledge rescue party proposal]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Crozier’s mutiny plan]

Irving – Hickey – x [Irving’s warning]

x – Hickey – Gibson [The break-up]

(Note: The sequence in the hunting blind is nigh-impossible within this casting, since it features predominantly three separate characters all played by Actor 1 – Franklin, Goodsir, and Tozer. Imagined poetically, one could say that this is an omen of the violence so soon to come in the physical space of the hunting blind, since violence cannot be depicted on stage in a Greek tragedy. Conceived practically, one might argue that this is because the hunting blind is a hotbed of toxic masculinity, where the masculine Tozer baits the patriarchal Franklin into remaining with the marines, and teases Goodsir for his “feminine” caution.)

Franklin – Fitzjames – Crozier [The death of Franklin]

Chambers – Morfin – Weekes [“Silver swan”]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [“It’s technically not mutiny if I’m in charge”]

(Notes: This episode mainly functions to round out the first third of the show’s narrative, so the main parallels are familiar. We do, however, have a range of important sequences featuring the new-to-us characters Morfin and Weekes; we begin to get to know more of the men, rather than just officers. Morfin is played by Actor 2, which could be evidence to argue that Morfin was once lashed was for sodomy – cf. “Actor 2,” below for more.)

01x04 – “Punished as a Boy”

x – Jopson – Crozier [“You hear everything, Jopson”]

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [“Does not one bring one’s habits to Terror?”]

Goodsir – Stanley – MacDonald [Tending to Heather]

Tozer – Hickey – x [The idea to kidnap Lady Silence develops]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [The plan to “get” Lady Silence develops]

Hartnell – Hickey – Crozier [Questioning the kidnappers]

Johnson – Hickey – Crozier [The lashing]

x – Hickey – MacDonald [After the lashing]

Goodsir – Morfin – x [Morfin’s headaches]

(Note: The scene “Morfin’s headaches” is really interesting to me, because it causes overlap problems all over the place: Morfin MUST be played by Actor 2, because his death scene must have Goodsir (1) and Crozier (3) in it, but Actor 2 also plays Fitzjames and Stanley, both of whom are also in this scene; this is the scene in which Fitzjames and Stanley have their one significant conversation, in fact, which it hurt me desperately to lose. I think there’s something in this scene about thwarted connections – Morfin reaching out to Goodsir, Stanley reaching out to Fitzjames – and that may be why it all tangles up here, why the casting system breaks down and fails here, as it does.)

Irving – x – Crozier [Men shifting to Erebus]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Des Voeux [Feeding Lady Silence]

(Note: Goodsir sure does have a lot of scenes with Des Voeux in these early episodes. I’d never noticed this, and I’m not sure what to make of it.)

01x05 – “First Shot a Winner Lads”

Little – Fitzjames – x [Sending Lady Silence to Terror]

Goodsir – Stanley – Des Voeux [Goodsir asks leave to go to Terror]

x – Fitzjames – Collins [The requisition of spirits]

Goodsir – Hickey – x [Hickey’s wounds]

Little – x – Crozier [“How fares the raft of the Medusa?”]

(Note: Little and Blanky almost never interact, so the fact that they are both Actor 1 rarely causes problems. Losing Blanky in this scene is tragic, though, BUT this does create an interesting parallel between Crozier’s failure at being a mentor for Little, and MacDonald’s greater success(?) at being a mentor for Goodsir, below, since both are Actor 1 as mentee & Actor 3 as mentor scenes. )

Goodsir – Hickey – x [“Does that really work with anyone?”]

Goodsir – x – MacDonald [Doctors bonding over teeth exploding]

x – Hickey – Gibson [The proposal]

Irving – Hickey – Manson [Storing Hornby’s body]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Interviewing Lady Silence]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [The punch]

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Blanky’s amputation]

(Note: Jopson is holding Blanky’s hand during the amputation. That’s my justification for having him here. I just like it, that’s all.)

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier’s detox plan]

(Note: Obviously, there are additional important people in the “Crozier’s detox plan” scene, and one is loath to ignore Fitzjames, for example. But this is the beginning of Jopson’s core arc, so he takes priority, and Little receiving Crozier’s gun is weighty.)

01x06 – “A Mercy”

Irving – Fitzjames – MacDonald [The provisions remaining]

Blanky – Fitzjames – x [The Fury Beach™ Scene]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Tending to Crozier, with Jopson’s backstory]

Hartnell – Hickey – x [Hartnell’s new charter]

Little – Fitzjames – x [Carnevale as a “last hurrah” before the walk-out]

x – Stanley – Collins [“Flurried thoughts”]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [Xenophon’s Anabasis]

Goodsir – Stanley – x [Goodsir’s discovery re: the tinned goods]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Going to Carnevale]

(Note: We’ve just had seven (7!) entire 2-person scenes of either (a) Actors 1 and 2, or (b) Actors 2 and 3, bouncing back and forth – this would keep Actor 2 very, VERY busy. Actor 2 also plays no less that five (5!) different characters in here, almost their entire core repertoire of Fitzjames, Hickey, Jopson, Stanley, and Peglar, omitting only Lady Silence, who will also show up later in this episode. There’s a lot more to be said here, but I’ll just note that we start and end with scenes of Jopson caring for Crozier – a classical ring structure – with Stanley failing to care for Collins placed at the center.)

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Crozier arrives at Carnevale]

x – Hickey – Des Voeux [“Unless you want that ripped off?”]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Crozier’s speech at Carnevale]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Lady Silence returns]

x – Stanley – Crozier [The fire begins]

x – Hickey – MacDonald [MacDonald’s death]

Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier [After Carnevale]

01x07 – “Horrible from Supper”

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [What the men have packed]

Tozer – Hickey – Gibson [The mutiny plot begins]

Goodsir – Morfin – Collins [Morfin stumbles]

Blanky – Jopson – Crozier [Goodbye to Terror]

Goodsir – x – Collins [“Terrible from supper”]

Goodsir – x – Crozier [Goodsir wants hunting parties]

Tozer – Morfin – Crozier [Finding Fairholme’s fate]

(Note: For casting reasons, Fitzjames doesn’t appear here, though he’s very much present in the show’s version of the discovery of Fairholme’s remains. One might derive some AU scenarios for this (what if Fitzjames didn’t know about the destruction of Fairholme’s rescue party?) or one might contemplate what it means for Fitzjames to be present or not, when, notably, the numbers of how many men have died that Fitzjames writes on the Victory Point Note addendum in the next episode ONLY tally if Fitzjames forgets – or purposely omits – Fairholme and the men of his sledge party.)  

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [The Hand Touch™ Scene]

Little – x – Crozier [“The men deserve every gold thing there is.” ]

(Note: Crozier and Little will have to also discuss Tozer’s recommendation to arm the men as a past event, since Tozer can’t be in this scene with Little already there, when they’re both Actor 1; more on this in the next episode.)

Goodsir – Morfin – Crozier [Morfin’s death]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – x [Goodsir gets comfort-cuddles]

Hartnell – Jopson – Crozier [Hartnell is a good boy.jpeg and so is Jopson]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Jopson’s promotion]  

Tozer – Hickey – Hodgson [Bringing Hodgson into the mutiny]

Irving – Hickey – Koveyook [Asking for help]

01x08 – “Terror Camp Clear”

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [Victory Point Note addendum]

(Note: The scene where Crozier questions Hodgson poses some problems, since both are Actor 3. The details may simply have to be elided into other scenes. This episode has several such issues, including, tragically, Hickey and Jopson’s scenes (Actor 2), and, unfortunately, Little and Tozer’s scenes (Actor 1). What this does show us is some new dynamics in the overlaps – Hickey and Jopson are Crozier’s “prodigal son” and the obedient elder son, respectively; Little and Tozer are what happens when leadership goes wrong, in two very different ways.)

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Discussing Irving’s mutilation]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Leaving Little in charge]

Bridgens – Peglar – Collins [Bridgens the doctor]

Blanky – Hickey – Crozier [Interrogation at the scene of the crime]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – x [Mourning friends]

Tozer – x – Des Voeux [Noises in the fog]

Little – x – Hodgson [Hodgson’s worries about the Inuit]

Blanky – Fitzjames – Crozier [Realizing the camp is armed]

Goodsir – Lady Silence – Crozier [Sending Lady Silence away to safety]

x – Hickey – Gibson [Mutiny planning]

Little – Fitzjames – Crozier [Arresting Hickey]

Little – Hickey – Crozier [The hanging]

Diggle – Hickey – Gibson [The mutiny sledge leaves]

Tozer – x – Collins [Collins’ death]

(Note: Even before Goodsir is kidnapped by the mutineers, like Penelope ambushed by the suitors, this episode gives us none of the Goodsir – Fitzjames – Crozier dynamic that stabilized the end of Carnevale; Bridgens has, in many ways, already taken over for Goodsir in becoming the “doctor” for the crew, and he will bloom into having two vitally important and devastating Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier scenes in the next episode. For now, Goodsir has three major scenes with Lady Silence: the last they will ever have together.)

01x09 – “The C the C the Open C”

Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier ["Blank pages now”]

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [“More than god loves them,” part 2]

Tozer – Hickey – Hodgson [Hodgson joins the mutiny]  

x – Fitzjames – Crozier [Fitzjames falls]

x – Hickey – Hodgson [“Veal Cutlets Tomata”]  

Goodsir – Hickey – Gibson [“(Tr)eating” Gibson]

Little – Jopson – Crozier [Little proposes leaving the sick behind]

(Note: The last time we saw these three together, it was Jopson’s promotion, and the time before that, it was “Crozier’s detox plan,” and Jopson was promising “I got you” to his captain; now it’s the other way around. Little acts as a pivot around which circumstances turn, rather than an agent in and of himself in many ways. Like fellow Actor 1 character Franklin, Little is thrust into a position of leadership for which he isn’t truly ready, and then his choices are slowly cut off from him – but where Franklin’s choices are cut off by fate, and the ice, Little’s are largely cut off by the opposition of others: first his captain, in vetoing the plan to leave the sick behind, and then by the men, in voting to leave the captain in Hickey’s clutches.)  

Inuit Leader – Lady Silence – x [Not enough food to share]

Bridgens – Fitzjames – Crozier [The end]

Little – Golding – Crozier [The funeral]

Blanky – x – Crozier [Forks]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [“Can we sleep?”]

Tozer – Hickey – Armitage [Making mutiny camp]

Goodsir – Hickey – Hodgson [Feeding mutiny camp]

(Note: So technically Tozer is visibly in this scene, and Hodgson’s not, but in a Greek tragedy he would be visibly on stage, so I’m calling that fair play.)

Goodsir – x – Hodgson [Hodgson’s Eucharist monologue]

Tozer – Hickey – x [Tozer’s plan to return to the ships]

Bridgens – Peglar – x [The C the C the open C]

Tozer – Pilkington – Armitage [Discontented mutineers]

x – Jopson – Crozier [Foley’s cow]

Little – Golding – Crozier [A false report]

Hartnell – x – Crozier [“Go be with your brother now”]

Little – x – Crozier [“We will live”]

01x10 – “We Are Gone”

x – Hickey – Crozier [A Wednesday]

Little – x – Le Vesconte [A vote]

(Note: For you Dundy fans, this is literally the first time I’ve found a place for him; I could perhaps have gone back and put in the short “benjo” scene, but alas, some things aren’t meant to be – the primary people listening to that announcement are Hickey (2) and Gibson (3) and Le Vesconte clearly can’t be Actor 1, since this, his star scene, is with Little (1). Dundy really does come out of nowhere, narratively speaking, even more so than Hodgson in many ways.)

Goodsir – x – Crozier [“This place is beautiful to me”]

x – Hickey – Crozier [“I forgive all of them”]

Diggle – x – Crozier [Escape plans]

Tozer – Hickey – Crozier [A doctor a day keeps the doctor… well]

Tozer – Hickey – Des Voeux [Next steps forward]

Tozer – Hickey – Crozier [“You could have just joined up”]

Little – Lady Silence – Crozier [Captains losing ship and crew]

Inuit Leader – Lady Silence – Crozier [“Silna”]

Inuit Leader – Translator – James Clark Ross [“Aglooka”]

(Note: Working chronologically such that James Clark Ross appears only at the end but not also at the beginning, as per the rules of Greek drama, our Actor 2 ends the story in the role of the Translator. Something very poetic about that.)

+

Implications of the Casting System

Basically, my argument here is that, in a pinch, you can retell the narrative of AMC’s The Terror (2018) using only three actors, with relatively minimal problems of overlap, and that’s FASCINATING.

In part, these core casting divisions (Actors 1, 2, and 3) are purely pragmatic – we have scenes that require, e.g., Franklin and Fitzjames and Crozier to all make important statements, so those three have to be played by different actors. And it fractals out from there – e.g., Blanky and Crozier have numerous significant scenes, so they can’t be the same actor, and you can’t lose the “Sir John Ross Never Knew How Close He Came” Fury Beach scene, so Blanky and Fitzjames can’t be the same actor, which means Blanky and Franklin MUST be. But sometimes these spiraling casting necessities make for very cool accidental overlaps as a result of the pragmatic necessities of so small a cast. 

(Also, for the classicists in the room, I first mapped this out while watching a production of the Bacchae, so that tells you something about my headspace.)

So, interesting things about what parallels these actors might play out:

– Actor 1 predominantly plays very masculine men in very traditional masculine roles (Franklin, the paternal leader; Blanky, so rugged and grounded in himself; Little, the stoic with depressive tendencies who’s bottling up his emotions; Tozer, who is, um, Tozer). The exception in many ways is Goodsir. The thing is, Goodsir is one of most feminized men in this show, given his role as a medical care provider, his warm softness, his initial apparent lack of physical courage (it’s an abundance of reasonable caution, Tozer!), and his Penelope-like role in later the Odyssey narrative. But Goodsir has to be played by a different actor than most of the other characters in this show with a dubious relationship to Victorian British masculinity (Actor 2, see below), because he shares scenes with them! Goodsir and Hickey MUST be played by different actors (not to mention Lady Silence). So here we are, with Goodsir amongst the “manly men.” Even Bridgens is fairly traditionally masculine, if only in his physical appearance and his classical education.

Other interesting parallels: If I had to give a real, classical answer to the “why is Goodsir with this bunch” question, I think it has to do with the shift from the Franklin & Fitzjames & Crozier “First Triumvirate” of the early episodes (brief Roman digression, but the Roman “First Triumvirate” would be Franklin = Pompey, Fitzjames = Crassus (well… Cicero), Crozier = Caesar? …hilarious) to the Goodsir & Hickey & Crozier “Second Triumvirate” of the later episodes (Goodsir = Lepidus (I’m SORRY), Hickey = Antony, Crozier = Augustus). Basically, Goodsir has to take Sir John’s place as the representative of (or spokesperson for) the brittle British empire and its hapless inadequacies, once Franklin is gone (more on this is “Actor 2.”)

Also, you know, re: Blanky and Sir John, both men lose a leg. Do with that what you will. (“Good one leg man” and “Bad one leg man” indeed.)

– Actor 2 predominantly plays figures whose masculinity is either queered, problematized, or non-existent. (Fitzjames, who crossdresses, who carries his legacy like a woman’s beauty – easily lost over time; Lady Silence, who is rarely if ever treated like a woman within the narrative, but, in fact, is one; Hickey, whose queerness and violence are intertwined; and Jopson, whose life is defined by dedication to a career that places him in feminized roles.) Peglar, despite his sexuality, is one of the more traditionally masculine characters this actor plays, but what can I say, Peglar is fragments, and fragments, as we know, are gay-coded. Stanley is also, on first glance, a more masculine outsider, but the gender binary of live men and dead men prevails in this show, and Stanley’s been dead inside since long before he ever set foot on Erebus. This is also where one might argue that the flogging to which Morfin alludes is a punishment for sodomy, and that mentioning it to Goodsir is a specific attempt to find a kindred soul, and/or an attempt to flirt. 

Other interesting parallels: Fitzjames and his masks, both literal and metaphorical, and how those masks are desecrated by Hickey along with Fitzjames’ body and boots; Hickey and Jopson as the opposite ends of the spectrum for father/son relationships with Crozier (I know this means we can’t have that Hickey & Jopson scene – I can’t account for it, I’m sorry too!). But back to Fitzjames and Hickey, this parallel also makes interesting sense re: the two “triumvirates” in show (Franklin & Fitzjames & Crozier and later Hickey & Goodsir & Crozier) because, in contrast to Franklin and Goodsir who are representatives of the British empire, Fitzjames and Hickey are places where the British empire is most visibly broken, Fitzjames because of the lies he’s had to tell about his origins, and Hickey because he’s the eternal outsider, literally trapped outside the tent. (Well, and the lies Hickey’s also had to tell about his origins! Though that’s his own damn fault in many ways.) Also, Fitzjames is technically “Crassus” in his triumvirate, and he does play on tropes of wealth and privilege and inane military campaigns in the east, but he’s mostly, actually Cicero, mutilated by Hickey/Antony, who also steals his mask – aka boots/severed head – to prove his cruelty and co-opt power.

This actor has to do A LOT of work, as a friend of mine once said. But also they play all three of my favorite characters, so I adore them.

– Actor 3 predominantly plays Crozier. (Crozier is the main character of this narrative, we can’t avoid that; he’s part of both triumvirates, and a vast number  of the significant scenes include him, so his actor is stuck playing just Crozier much of the time.) Apart from that, however, I love that one of the natural overlaps is for this same actor to play Collins, whose connection with dreams and visions parallels so interestingly with Crozier’s foresight and foreknowledge.

Note: Because of the tragic structural limitation of “one setting only.” I’ve not included any of the characters back in England, apart from James Clark Ross, since he does eventually make his way out to the Arctic. If I were to include the contemporary England scenes (omitting the flashback scenes), it would have basically this set up:

ACTOR 1 (overlaps with Franklin) = Lady Jane, Barrow Jr.

ACTOR 2 (overlaps with Fitzjames) = Sophia Cracroft

ACTOR 3 (overlaps with Crozier) = John Ross, James Clark Ross, Dickens

Actor 3 is potentially the most interesting of these, because Crozier doubles with James Clark Ross re: life experience (Antarctic hand tremors!) and with John Ross re: being a harbinger of things to come. Actor 1 is intriguing also, though – less, I think, for doubling Lady Jane with her husband, which I do ultimately like quite a lot, but also for the other parallels offered, e.g. Lady Jane and Goodsir. (Did you know Lady Jane once dissected a giant squid? Goodsir would have loved it!) 

This has been your “a Terror-obsessed classical scholar tries to make a tv show into a Greek tragedy” hour – thank you for joining me! 

[themetestblooooooog]

The Terror Q&A — Paul Ready (Doctor Henry Goodsir)

Q: How much of this story did you know before being cast on the show? How much research did you do on the real Goodsir?

A: The whole world was new to me. Surprisingly I didn’t know anything about the expedition, which is really surprising, considering it’s a whole period of British history, but I suppose – because of what happened – it’s not something British history shouts about. I couldn’t believe that something so major in history was there and I was completely unaware of it. I realized what a big event this was and what a big disaster – still one of the biggest naval disasters, I think. I read the novel and then I did as much research as I could before we started.

Q: How deep did you go in deciding who Goodsir was as a real person or did you more want to stick to what was in the script and develop him as a character in your own mind?

A: I went as deep as I could because I think, for me, you gather all the information you can, as many angles as you can and then you choose what’s useful as you consider the character that’s written in the script. The script is ultimately where I have to start and finish. Little things like knowing that his father was in the medical profession was a big thing and that his brother was also in the medical profession and quite successful. It gave me little hints of what I might be able to use. Why were any of these people going on this expedition? Some were going out of necessity, for financial reasons. Other people were going for adventure and other people were going to make their name. I thought it was useful that part of Goodsir’s journey was, apart from adventure and curiosity, that he wanted to make his name as well. That’s useful to get on the ship, but then circumstances pretty quickly take over.

Q: Goodsir is a bit of an anomaly on this crew. How would you describe him and how he fits into the larger dynamic of the expedition?

A: He’s certainly an open-hearted soul and a curious individual – and that is what drives him, I think. His desire to understand different cultures, his desire to understand even the surgery he’s doing. He’s still an assistant surgeon. Back in the day, there wasn’t any formal training. You observed how surgery was done and you learned on the job. His inquisitive nature is at the heart of who he is, but he’s not just a good sir. Ambition is important. He doesn’t always follow the rules. He has to break them where he can, subtly. When his superiors are telling him that this is none of his business, to keep his nose out, he still continues to burrow and find out what he needs to find out. Even though he’s a good fellow, I’d say he doesn’t always play by the rules, and I think that’s important as well.

Q: What does Goodsir think of Dr. Stanley?

A: I think it’s very difficult [for Goodsir to work for Stanley]. Dr. Stanley is someone who blocks him at every turn, it seems. I think that’s why he’s found more of an ally in Dr. MacDonald on the Terror. I think he’s there to learn and he finds it very difficult to have this obstruction above him. As the voyage goes on, Goodsir becomes a little bit cheekier. There’s a part of one of the episodes where he starts to be cheekier towards Dr. Stanley, and I think that’s how Goodsir undermines that relationship.

Q: Goodsir has been up close and personal with the Tuunbaq twice already. How do those experiences affect him?

A: I think he is tied to science, but I think he is also open to wonder, open to the unknown and to the unimaginable. Dr. Stanley, from Goodsir’s point of view, doesn’t leave space for the unknown element in the world, but I think Goodsir is ready for it. Goodsir is ready to be surprised. Having said that, being faced with a creature that is terrifying and unlike anything he’s ever come across before – how does he cope with that? He’s obviously shaken to his bones by it. I mean, there’s no doubt about it. What I think gets him through that experience is his curiosity. He doesn’t know what it is. It’s terrifying to him. What can he do? He can study and see what creature it could have been. Is there any record of this creature? Is it a bear? His curiosity is the thing that gets him over his fear.

Q: Why do you think Goodsir becomes fascinated with Lady Silence and learning her language? What is he hoping to accomplish?

A: I don’t think he does things particularly to please his superiors. I think he’s doing things because he sincerely wants to know. At the time, going to the Arctic was like going to the moon and the people that lived in that culture were so foreign. I’m sure that Goodsir was projecting. In his imagination, he’d already projected so much on the Inuit people. I think this is his chance to discover something, perhaps to be the authority on, hopefully. I can imagine, in his dreams, he could become the authority on this culture, for example. Even though he’s a good man, there’s an ambition in there. There’s an ambition to really study the culture.

Q: When Crozier vows to take away Lady Silence’s protections, how does Goodsir feel?

A: I think he completely disagrees with Crozier in that moment. I also think, unlike many of the characters, I think he’s open to the guilt and shame of what it means to go into another culture. I think from very early on, in Episode 4, he’s talking about why they are there and looking for this Northwest Passage to open up trade routes – and it already starts to ring hollow. I think that he’s really affected by the way Lady Silence is treated by Hickey. He feels very protective and very guilty. I don’t think there’s romantic love. I think it’s more like a sibling love eventually, I would say, but he does feel protective of her.

Q: How does Goodsir feel when he sees Lady Silence has cut out her own tongue? Does he bear guilt of not being able to protect her?

A: I think he’s horrified by the moment, but of course he’s already seen an example of her father’s tongue being removed. I think when someone he cares for walks in the door and is covered in blood, I think he’s really worried for her and really horrified. I don’t know about guilt in that moment.

Q: Goodsir discovers that all of the men are at risk for lead poisoning but Dr. Stanley doesn’t care. Why do you think Goodsir doesn’t break rank immediately?

A: I think he was very careful before he went to anybody with his theory. When he sees the gums of Morphin, that’s when he starts to suspect something. He carefully studied Jacko. To a modern reading, I find it quite shocking for a caring character to be experimenting on Jacko. I mean, he obviously knew it was going to head towards death, but it’s a different time period. To our modern sensibility, I think it’s extremely cruel. So, when he goes to Dr. Stanley, he’s convinced because of the studies that he’s done. He expects Dr. Stanley to do something about it immediately, but I think as soon as [Stanley] says, “You don’t talk about it anymore,” I think he knows he’s going to go to somebody else with this information.

Q: What does Goodsir make of Stanley’s suicide?

A: I think he reacts with horror. I mean, he knew there was something deeply wrong, deeply depressed about this man, who seemed embittered by life, but I don’t think he ever expected that he would go this far to kill himself and put other people in danger. Also, he’s the main medic on the ship. I think it’s terrifying to him that, not only the act, but what he’s doing is putting the men in danger because he’s the guy with the experience and knowledge of the medical world, which Goodsir doesn’t have. I think in that moment, it explains everything about why Stanley didn’t particularly seem bothered about the information he was given and it explains everything about how he’d been acting for the whole trip.

Q: How do you think Goodsir will carry on now that he is officially the doctor for the expedition?

A: I think a moment as big as that is just too overwhelming. After the dust settles – well, actually the dust doesn’t have time to settle because by the end of the episode he obviously realizes that he is the only surviving medic. I think that is a moment of fate landing on him and feeling completely out of his depth.

Q: Which of the many terrors faced by the crew would you least like to face?

A: I’ve got to say I think there’d be a lot of things I would be afraid of. Initially, I imagine there would be some camaraderie among the men. So, I think facing a harsh, unknown environment – and it becomes very apparent very quickly that they might not have the tools to survive it. I think, faced with a harsh, unknown territory and land, I think I’d be quite unnerved by that.

Q: What was your favorite aspect of shooting the show?

A: For me, it was a really great shoot and a great experience. I won’t forget how – after doing all the research I’d done about the ships, about how Victorians lived, about the knowledge that they had of the Arctic or the polar regions at the time – I still won’t forget walking into the studio and seeing the ship for the first time. That was jaw-dropping for me and a bit emotional to finally arrive on set after all the working on my own — and to see this incredible, detailed replica where I’d be working for the next few months. That was pretty epic.