Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
William and Mary (2003–2005)
Brothers under the Skin
26 October 2011
Public television in my area is showing 3 series starring Martin Clunes. I've watched 3 episodes each of William and Mary and The Fall and Rise of Reggie Perrin and all of the first two seasons of Doc Martin. Although my opinion may change when I've finished watching all the episodes, at this point I am struck by the way all three have characteristics in common which make them both endearing and in some way admirable and override their obnoxious aspects.

(1) They need to value what they do for a living in order for them to be happy. William's ability to be empathetic makes him, in a real sense, a "community worker." Doc Martin lacks the ability to pick up on the feelings and viewpoints of others, as would someone with Asperger's Syndrome, but he is unshakably dedicated to serving the health needs of his community and responds to situations with alacrity and persistence, undeterred by distressing and inconvenient elements. The feckless but lucky Reggie Perrin has been rendered punchy because of his inability to either reconcile himself to or escape a job he despises.

(2) They may flirt with infidelity but are generally restrained by their monogamous dispositions.

(3) They are emotionally vulnerable.

(4) Reggie and Doc Martin do not suffer fools gladly. The latter insults the good as well as the foolish. Reggie says the things we would like to be able to say to people we wouldn't like either and generally defies people in authority, breaks stupid regulations, and largely ignores assignments from which he can't escape. He's a bit like an out-of- control and luckier. Dilbert. In this regard William so far has only maintained benevolent parental authority over his disrespectful teenage daughters.

All this is validated by the people in their environment who respond to them with affection, often partly due to their own tolerance as well as their appreciation of their good qualities. The love Mary's sons openly show towards her is especially endearing.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Scientology Dogma
26 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
My state representatives received this DVD in the mail. I viewed it with one of them. This "documentary," made by one of the Church of Scientology's front organizations, is a boring, repetitious, and bizarre mix of highly selective information, rapid-fire mini-sound bites from people in the street repeating short phrases or single words (e.g. "bipolar" "Zoloft"), "experts" opinions, and ominously-colored and flashing graphs and numbers (e.g. millions of dollars) with portentous-sounding voice-overs. The message is that psychiatry is a mercenary hoax threatening everyone and that psychiatric medications have no good effects and kill lots of people. Since the film provides no research supporting claims made in the film and the "experts'" credentials — and even, in many cases, their actual positions regarding psychiatry — seemed dubious, I looked for facts online. I was saved considerable time because someone else had already checked all the presenters that could be found and had written them asking if they were aware of the nature of the film they appeared in, providing them with the minutes where their comments appeared so that they could check to see what was included in the film. Some seem to have responded. I found an extensive article by University of Texas bioethicist Dr. Howard Brody who appears often in the film. In his article he expresses his positive opinion of psychiatry and psychotropic medication and presents a clear and careful analysis of the entire film. I can't include the URL but it isn't hard to find. I also found a statement by a state representative from another state about how he narrowly escaped publicly endorsing Scientology's anti-psychiatry position, explaining, "They misled me." (not by this film, however). There may be a good documentary somewhere about the very real problems with the pharmaceutical industry: the profiteering, the way they advertise, conflicts of interest by professionals, etc., — but this isn't it. This video merely promotes Dr. Thomas Szasz's incorrect ideas from his half-century old book in complete ignorance of facts and sound subsequent research.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed