Me, too, Callie. The Father Brown series has taken on a more...modern edge. I have not read the original Chesterton books tho I have them on the ipad, perhaps I'll try one and see which film creation is more accurate. But it really isn't about accuracy as the film versions have a life of their own, and that life appears to be changing as you've said. Maybe the idea is to show Father Brown tackling not the world of the '50's but of 2017, what we're more "used to."
In the meantime we can always go back to the beginning and watch the old ones again, they're worth it. I just found out there are more episodes in those which were shown in the UK, so I'm going to hope PBS shows more of them than on the DVD's.
Rosemary, this is an explosive question and you really need not answer, but you have said several times that you don't follow the Royal Family particularly and I guess my question is I'm wondering why? The Queen seems to be exemplary, but is it the antics of the rest of them you are not interested in?
I ask for two reasons: first, that The Crown is coming back for a 2nd year in November!! Minus John Lithgow as Churchill, unfortunately, but this will be the last season with our present cast, and I can't wait to see it, the acting is out of this world. So that has piqued my interest in the Royal Family, or some of them.
And also because I'm reading the new Smith biography of Prince Charles. It's gigantic and I'm half way through and...I'm not sure what to say? How can we know any of our public figures? Why do we insist on putting them pedestals? I don't think any of our own public figures are who we think/ hope/ project they are. I never was interested in "Camelot," or the Kennedys, who were not as they were portrayed, or any of the other presidents and their families, as far as following them personally. I'm beginning to wonder what is wrong with me.
We live in such a Revisionist Age. Many of our former Founding Fathers and heroes are often shown now to have been half legend and half nothing like what we thought. I'm also reading a mammoth, 1000 page biography of MacArthur, my gosh his real life defies description. It's like some sort of ancient epic, and yet, all I knew of him was the "old soldiers never die," the Truman firing, and the takes and retakes of his landing over and over on the beach.
The Smith biography of Charles presents a different side of him, positive things he's actually accomplished, which are considerable. I had no idea. And the little negative things are sort of presented after an avalanche of astonishing works, as tiny little after thoughts, as if they don't matter. . But they linger in the mind. I gues they are more salacious and easy to remember for the normal reader than some of the projects and things he's tried to do.
So now he's more of an enigma, than ever, to me. He's... He's plunged himself into really worthy causes, unlike a lot of his predecessors, he's done a great deal which I knew absolutely nothing about, in areas which seem particularly worthy, quite a few of which ideas which I agree with, actually...but... then there's the other side. Sad. Things I really didn't need or want to know. I can't seem to put a finger on it. He seems contemplative and concerned, BUT... for some reason like that Peanuts character, he always seems to have a little cloud over his head. Despite everything he's done, started, and accomplished, his press remains awful. What is it he lacks in dealing with people?
I think perhaps one issue has been that all these years he's been trying to manage his own press by honestly pouring out his feelings, doubts, insecurities, etc., in public and on paper, whinging, really, and maybe he has needed a better PR manager. Because it doesn't seem to be working. Maybe the last half of the gigantic Smith book will do that for him. He's at an age when people look back to their own legacy and want control of their lives. I wonder how history will see him.