Sam In Sylvia

I watched this movie at a kind of odd time - I was just about to go off to this heavy metal night a friend was playing at - and was perhaps not in the best state to be watching such a serious movie. And yet I enjoyed it then and I enjoyed it more rewatching segments later, when I was taking stills. I had no idea what to expect - I know next to nothing about the people involved, except that we have a book of Ted Hughes' poetry at home because he wrote about where I used to live - and yet I have to admit that I am very glad I watched this movie.

Why? Because this is a very beautiful movie. It tells the story (the real life story) of poetess Sylvia Plath and her stormy relationship with fellow poet and lover Ted Hughes.

Although no-one can be sure of what really went on between them as they are now both dead, it was assumed by many that their tumultuous relationship - along with Ted's affair (which may have been one or many) - led to Sylvia eventually committing suicide... after writing some of the most beautiful poetry of her entire career.

Well, as my mum pointed out, you can't tell the story of those two without involving the grand and over-powering creature that is the Yorkshire countryside... and yet it features surprisingly little in this movie.

That's not to say that when it is there it doesn't shine (perhaps shine is the wrong word...) but it did grate on my nerves a little how much is set in America (in Sylvia's mum's rather well decorated house) and on the beach. The beach is beautiful, but it is the isolation of the countryside - and later the isolation of the flats - that shows what this movie is about.

But I'm wandering off on a waffle about scenery when I haven't even started on the actors. Sylvia is played by Gwyneth Paltrow (despite her fame I know surprisingly little about her except that she played this role very well) and Ted is played by the always excellent Daniel Craig. Still not sure about him as Bond but I can't deny that he is an incredible actor. He perhaps plays his character a little too neutral at times though this tends to happen in 'based on a true story'-style tales. And as most people who know anything about the lives of either of these poets will know, no-one can be quite sure what truly happened in the Plath-Hughes relationship, except that it lead to some inspiring poetry and an early death for Sylvia.

As for Sam in this movie? Well, he gets marginally more screen-time than in Vera Drake but in essence he is a very minor character who doesn't make it past the first twenty minutes of the film. He plays a poet friend of Sylvia's called Tom who introduces her to Ted (and perhaps I could say he acts as the tool of her destruction because of this!) and he gets to read a poem really, really fast and dance worse than I do. Oh and there is quite a nice (pitifully short) scene in Sylvia's garden where he and Ted (Craig) are lobbing stones at her window. The boyish giggling and falling over is quite sweet...

On the other hand, unless you like deep, tragic movies then I probably wouldn't buy it just for him alone.

Just like Vera Drake, this movie has its good scenes and its rather dull and tedious scenes (and themes). The main one which put me off was the extended fights between Sylvia and Ted over whether or not Ted had been sleeping with other women. This back and forth bickering (and a slight amount of obvious paranoid jealousy on Sylvia's part) meant that when he finally did cheat on her it was neither shocking nor surprising - it was merely a relief. It also portrayed Sylvia in rather a bad light, and Ted in rather a good one (overall), and although this may have been true to life it may also very well have not been true and probably irked Sylvia fans. It's one of those cases where I really wish I could have met her and judged for myself.

Moving back to other great actors who manage a bit-part in this movie I'll mention Michael Gambon (or Dumbledore mark 2.0 for the HP fans) who plays the bloke downstairs when Sylvia moves herself and her children into a flat away from Ted. He is marvellous despite his minimal screen-time and doubly so because of the slight twist they place on him. Whilst it's obvious that he is supposed to be the sympathetic ear for Sylvia - and perhaps someone who will ground her in reality in desperate times - when it comes down to the crunch it's also obvious that she scares him, as she would scare anyone acting the way that she acts. And the last scene he has with Sylvia, where he gently shuts the door on her, is perfectly done and symbolises perhaps her final step away from reality and into suicide. Not in a dramatic way, but in a quiet, beautiful way.

Be warned: you may find yourself coming out after watching this movie in something like the same state of mind you imagine Sylvia to be in just before her death. It's a movie that definitely invokes sympathy, especially towards the end. I noticed that on the DVD box it shows lots of stills of Ted and Sylvia on the beach or chatting at parties and so on and looking happy. To me, these are not the scenes that capture the movie (hopefully a few of the ones I've posted here are... aside from the gratuitous Sam pics...).

Oh and I did fail to mention the lovely scene near the beginning of the movie when the poet students (including Sylvia, Ted and Tom) are gathered in this dingy looking room drinking and reciting poetry as fast as they can. I love it, I wish there had been more scenes like that. The room is dark and messy and yet still cosy and safe, a stark contrast to how Sylvia's life becomes. The scene also captures the joy that these people find in poetry - and that is in part what the movie is about.


So finally I had better give it a summing up. Certainly it is, in filmic terms, one of the best I have reviewed on this blog so far. I still enjoy Spirit Trap more (and obviously it is the better for Sam screen-time) but Sylvia, as a whole, is a lovely, well-crafted little movie especially for poetry fans. It is not perfect (what movie is?) but it is a worthwhile watch:


As a Film/TV Episode: 4 out of 5
As a Sam feature: 1.5 out of 5 (yes he's in 4 whole scenes but his screen-time and lines are bare minimum)
WARNINGS: There are scenes of a sexual nature, some swearing and a suicide, though no extreme graphic violence. This is a generally gentle movie if you skip over the adultery... which would be a little silly.

And I will end this post with some of the pictures I didn't manage to jam into my review. Curses.

What's On With Sam

Found this a week or so ago in the TV What's On. I think it's possibly the most Sam info I've seen written down in one spot ever! And it has actual quotes from him too. Though he doesn't get to say much:



I finally know his age (29) and that he's got a one year old son (!!!). I'll let you read the rest yourself. I'm still in shock... or I probably should be. Fortunately I'm a sane fan.

So nice to get a little of his childhood too - but now I'm dying for an even LONGER interview!

UPDATE: Sometimes prayers are answered. Check out this wonderful interview (dug up by Pygmypuff) which is obviously the source for the above quotes:

Interview With Sam From The Birmingham Post

Thank you God of Weblogs! I'll leave a small offering at the temple tomorrow...

Vera Drake and Other Things

Apologies for lack of posts... got hit by a film essay and had to go into panic mode to finish it in time. Nearly dissolved my brain in the process, took awhile to recover.

But it's worth it to keep the entity of film study alive. And it's a film I'm gonna ramble on about today, namely Vera Drake.

Vera Drake is a movie I've been interested in seeing ever since it first came out. It never got shown at our cinema so at the time it passed me by. It was only when I saw Sam's name on it on IMDB I finally kicked myself into buying the DVD. From a Sam perspective, I needn't really have bothered. He's in it for a minute or two as a drunken aristocratic young man who forces himself onto a nervous young aristocratic woman. And that's it - he's never seen again. Give him his due, however, despite only having a minute or two to establish his character you really do dislike him. So I guess it worked.

Moving on from Sam's (miniscule) role... the movie starts off well. It is one of those slow-moving deep-meaning films which in general I quite like. The characters are very realistic and interesting enough, the scenery is wonderful (gritty and dark and constantly overshadowing everyone) and some of the dialogue is quite witty. However, after a while I began to feel that the 'realism' of the movie was crushing the entertainment aspects. I realise that this movie has a message - its trying to strike up a debate on the topic of abortions and all the stigma that comes with that topic - but I also feel that they will have lost some of the audience in the overly long awkwards scenes, especially between Vera and the police.

The strange thing is that I heard many wonderful reviews of her acting skills, in particular during the first arrival of the police at her house. And at first I would have agreed with all of them, she played her face, voice and dialogue perfectly. Unfortunately all of those scenes went on just a bit too long and it really started to grate on my nerves after ten minutes of her sobbing instead of answering questions. Many of the interesting characters that you meet throughout the tenements - and throughout Vera's little 'visits' to pregnant mothers - are lost in the second half of the movie. In fact it only really redeems itself in a short but wonderfully written scene where the freshly imprisoned Vera talks nervously to two other imprisoned women, who sympathise and tell her of their own performances of illegal abortions. Vera's shocked and frightened look coupled with the seemingly world-weary women works perfectly to capture all that the movie is trying to say - encompassing the good, the bad and the practical aspects of illegal abortions all in one.

However, to say that the movie dragged is perhaps a little harsh. Up until Vera's arrest the movie introduces many fascinating characters. The women she visits - from the nervous, frightened girl on the ground floor to the well-practiced slut (and I don't mean that harshly) in her much richer apartment. The best is probably the young Jamaican girl, the one who questions everything about the procedure and looks so frightened and alone when Vera finally leaves her.

Another interesting aspect - detached from the subject of abortions almost entirely - is the little sub-story of Vera's daughter and her eventual marriage to a man Vera invites in for dinner at the beginning of the movie. The young couple are so nervous (with one another as much as with other people) and their slow and gradual 'courtship' is wonderful to watch. And so very real, especially compared to all these fast-paced romatic comedies you get nowadays. I almost felt sad that I couldn't see more, though they at least seemed to end on a happy note.

All in all it is worth a watch and probably some people would enjoy it a lot better than me. I appreciated what it was trying for and if they had simply edited down some of the scenes in the police-station (and the back and forth from station to house to courtroom also seemed un-necessary) then I think it could have really worked. I also wonder whether Vera's character - so praised by critics - was the right choice to go for. Many people (in the movie and in reality) mention her self-less-ness. She certainly works hard at cleaning houses however I couldn't tell if her tendancy to constantly ask people if they wanted a cup of tea was charming or a little insulting. I know that I tend to do that, mainly at my gran's, but I'd hate to think that it was my only solution to a problem. By the end Vera was sounding a little like Doctor Who. Tea can't solve everything. But as I said, it may have simply been charmingly British.

So how do I rate this movie? Well I feel a little harsh but here goes:


As a Film/TV Episode: 3 out of 5
As a Sam feature: 1 out of 5 (I would put 0 - but he does get to dance)
WARNINGS: Contains sexual references but no graphic scenes. The medical bits might make you squirm.

A Few Nice Pics

Just a short post this time - mainly just as an excuse to put up some very nice pics of Sam. These stills are from the Hood Academy behind-the-scenes section of the new BBC Robin Hood DVD and were posted by smithy on the RobinHood2006 forum. Thanks smithy! They're luvverly.

I've just put cropped down versions up but click on them to see the bigger pictures. This first one is probably the best quality shot of Sam I've seen since the BBC desktop picture of Much. And that was ages ago! So yay for DVD stills.

(click to enlarge)

Then there's this one which is a really nice shot of all the Outlaws:

(click to enlarge)

I'll have more of a talk tomorrow. Right now I have to hurry away and make tea as the 6th episode of Robin Hood is on at 7.00pm and it should be a corker!

Slashing Up The Legend

A topic concerning the new series of Robin Hood that has been hit upon by several forums/blogs is the notion of Much's love for his master (i.e. Robin) being more than just a mix of loyalty and respect - even extending it into the romance/sexual end of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure that this was a deliberate move on the part of the writers...

So what do I think of it?

Well, in general, I'm all for it. As it stands it's been treated quite light-heartedly with only odd hints and suggestions (the most blatently obvious being when Much declares his love for Robin in the middle of a fight with the Sheriff - but even this can be taken either way). I like this ambiguity. The little looks, the little turns of the head, the slight clingyness of servant to master. Whether I'd want it to develop into anything more serious... I really couldn't say. My gut reaction is no. Not because I dislike the idea of the relationship but because I can't see it fitting into any of the other segments of the story. Robin is already competing with Guy of Gisbourne for Marian's attention, adding any serious developments with Much in would only make things confusing and a little ridiculous.

I also believe that it was the aim of the writers to keep it at the lighter end, more as a reference to the times that we live in rather than as a major new twist to the legend. Perhaps it was even a reference to the kind of fan culture that is developing more and more nowadays (particularly since the internet came about) and that has for many years and for many different series been 'twisting' certain relationships and creating from them vast archives of slash-fanfiction and websites, coupling up male characters (in general, I'm sure there are female couplings too) and declaring them gay. Suggesting this themselves before fans had a chance to is certainly an interesting way for the writers to keep one step ahead.

Also, on a more personal note, I would like to argue that Much is not 'gay' but more likely 'bisexual' - as it's my belief that everyone is bisexual to a degree and it's only a matter of chance and circumstance that defines who we end up with. I also hate all sexual definitions, they seem utterly fake. But that's only my opinion on the matter that I had to add in whilst I had the opportunity.

Moving back to Much and Robin, I should probably back up the argument by mentioning a few of the scenes that have got fans wondering. As I said before, I'm sure the hints are entirely light-hearted and so none of these scenes are 'conclusive' as such - each could be taken simply as everyday signs of friendship - but some would argue that a deeper feeling is there:

Episode 1

*Much declaring that he loves his master when Robin agrees to let them work for food.
*Much's expression when he sees Robin kissing a peasant girl a few yards away.
*A long bath scene moving from Much crying in the bath to him hiding his tears as Robin enters + various expressions exchanged.
*Much's rolling of eyes as Robin talks of Marian not being married.


Episode 2

*Any bit of the scene where Robin and Much are stripped of their clothes and tied to trees can be taken the 'wrong' way - especially all the discussion of perfumes.
*Much's devestation as Robin gives himself up and is dragged away.
*Much's anger at Marian and her father when they will not help free Robin followed by a slightly bitter tone as he tells Marian how Robin dreamt of her in the Holy Land.
*Much explaining how he would die of grief if Robin did not come back followed by Robin saying that this was why he loved him.
*Much's hurt look as Robin asks Roy to help him rather than Much.
*Much mentioning how he has no family or wife... but doesn't mind.


Episode 3

*Much questioning Robin as to why he'll feed the villagers who hate him but not Much who loves him.
*Much's face when he rounds the corner and sees that Robin has caught Marian out as the Nightwatchman.
*Robin turning from laughing with Marian to see Much staring at him - followed by a slightly guilty look from Robin.


Episode 4

*Several scenes in the forest showing Much's extreme dislike and jealousy over Roy - especially in regards to the praise and attention he gets from Robin - building up to the point where he embaresses himself in front of the Outlaws by wrongly accusing Roy of leading the Sheriff to them.
*Much's extreme reaction to Roy's attempts to stab Robin.

I'm certain that there will be many more to come.

I think it's a good move on the part of the writers as - because it is done in such a tongue-in-cheek manner - it adds a little comedy, a little romance (IF you choose to see it that way) and a little support for gay/bisexual views without it seeming like some kind of badly done propaganda (like, for instance, some of their references to modern politics are...). Also, as a fan, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for new twists within the story and within any fanfiction that springs from it (some more ridiculous than others, just see the RobinHood2006 forum if you don't believe me).

What does it do to the original legend though?

Well it changes it. But that's not a new thing - the Robin Hood legend has changed a hundred times over and will probably change a hundred times over still. Even now there are places that are contradicting the popular legend that his home is Nottingham and claiming that Robin Hood was actually their outlaw, their hero. Or sometimes even their villain. Out now is a book claiming that Robin Hood was a guerilla-style outlaw from Wales who never went near the Sheriff and Nottingham. My argument to this would be in two parts: 1) I'm pretty sure Robin never existed, he certainly never existed in the way that we make him out to exist, so the argument is redundant. 2) If he did exist and he was in Wales and never saw Nottingham/The Sheriff/Sherwood or any of the other elements we know and love - then is he really Robin Hood? He would be Hood in name only, because the legend is not just the man himself. All the places and characters connected to him are very, very important.

Hence why I am a bit peeved that they wrote out Friar Tuck from the new series. It's the most major loss for me. All the other changes I can live with but it's my firm belief that every generation should have it's own (full) cast of Robin Hood characters and to take one away deprives them of that.

Though 'full' could of course mean anything now, as so many characters have come and gone throughout history. But there is a certain core (Robin, Little John, Marian, The Sheriff, Friar Tuck) that I feel should always be there.

But I digress... I was talking about the changes a gay/bisexual relationship could have on the story of Robin Hood. Taking perhaps a more down to earth or simplistic view, you could make the point (as many have made - jokingly) that they are a gang of young - and in this version very attractive - men, stuck out in the forest with little to no female company. And people can get very lonely. If you do take this perspective then it really isn't surprising if all of the Gang are revealed to have their little crushes on their fellow Outlaws. More so with Robin and Much as they have also been away fighting in the Crusades - even further from female company. Supposedly. Though it has been known, in general, that where an army goes female company of a sort will follow. But that's an historical argument I don't know enough about to argue.

Accepting that they are all suffering from solitude sickness, does this mean that there will be more relationships springing up in unexpected places? (I love how terrible that sounds...)

I'm guessing not, certainly not in the first series. There's too much else going on, too many other stories to tell. Just reading ahead on the episode synopsis' and seeing the amount of twists and turns (especially where Guy and Robin are concerned - and no I don't mean in a romantic sense) I'd be surprised if anyone has time to fall in love. But on a side note there may well be at least one more added piece of character depth from the Sheriff's corner. I lifted this quote out of an interview with Gordon Kennedy from the Daily Record:

"...newcomer Jonas Armstrong takes the lead role, with Cockney lad Keith Allen as a bisexual Sheriff of Nottingham.
Richard Armitage (Macduff in last year's BBC Macbeth remake alongside James McAvoy) plays Guy of Gisbourne..."

A bisexual Sheriff of Nottingham? I maybe being a little dense but I'm fairly sure I haven't read any interviews or reviews that have said that quite so directly. Is it the Daily Record exaggerating? Entirely possible. But then again, I was under the impression that the Sheriff aimed to be a little bit different from previous interpretations. I thought it was just an attempt to 'camp him up' and make him a bit more pantomime villian - but it's not such a far stretch from that to this. And the bedroom scene between him and Robin did have a fair old whack of sexual tension smothered across it - as well as some rather smouldering looks. Or perhaps my brain is getting carried away with itself again. It wouldn't be anything new.

As a closing note, then, I leave you with the thought that a little bit of romance can go a long way and if the writers play it right - and keep any relationships (real or suggested) just on that balancing point between yes and no - then it could really add quite a charming sparkle to this modern retelling. And I love sparkle.

Plus, if it never works out between Much and Robin, at least they aren't the only two lonely Outlaws in Sherwood...

Spirited Attempt

I stopped myself from entitling this post 'Spirit Crap' as I was oh-so-tempted to do. Thought it was a bit of an obvious joke.

Yes, today's posts shall cover the joys of the Brit-flick-horror that is 'Spirit Trap'.

Have to say before I start on this post; I may sound a bit like I'm tearing this movie to pieces or that I think it's terrible. I don't. I actually really enjoyed watching this movie and have rewatched it several times since. However, for those who haven't seen it, from a filmic perspective it is a truly terrible horror movie. Imagine Scooby Doo crossed with The Haunted House remake only mixed in with a cringe-worthy script and a questionable plot line. I know, I'm not really selling this to ya. Unfortunately I can't lie about it - it is bad. But as I have said and will say again: I love it to bits.

The story of the movie runs thus (turn away from this review if you don't want any spoilers): Five students rent an old house in London happy to have found somewhere so cheap to live. One is a daughter of a spirit medium (played by Billie Piper), one a slightly nerdy graphics design student (Sam Troughton), one a drug dealer (played by Luke Mably) and his semi-actress girlfriend (Emma Catherwood) and then one is the mysterious Tina (played by Alsou - who I understand is a singer and probably responsible for the track on the end credits). As mysterious events start to occur, causing some of them to go a little crazy, they have to unlock the secrets of the house and try and escape alive. Or something along those lines. I don't think I really need to say much more.


Ok, so what makes this movie so terrible? Well for a start it has some god-awful lines said by actors who are obviously not wholly confident in their acting skills. Billie Piper perhaps suffers worst as she has various pagan/witchy type subjects to chatter about which always sound bad, no matter who says them. Although they are vaguely neccesary for the plot to progress, personally I would have written them out altogether and found some other device. Especially as poor Sam has to listen and respond to these lines... and it's surprising that he actually succeeds reasonably well in this field. Maybe it's because his most common response to her (slightly whingey) rants about the spirit world is a sympathetic 'Yeah...'.

"You're obviously missing her, give her a call."
"I can't. She's dead."

He even manages to tell the story of his dead brother without it sounding contrived... which in essence the entire story and all it's connecting ones are. And when Billie's character says, immediately afterwards, the old 'You can't blame yourself, let it go' line (and you want to hit her for this obvious and very unhelpful remark said in a rather patronising tone) you feel thankful that he kisses her rather than either a) sniggering at the terrible line or b) (in character) giving her a slap across the back of the head and leaving before she can give anymore helpful tips.

The most terrible lines for me came after the finding of the diary in the clock. This is nothing to do with the actors, the lines are just so obvious ("The last entry was 100 years ago today" etc etc) and very tacky. However, they do at least tie in nicely to the plot when the murderer in the room upstairs mistakes their talking about the book and it's owner for them talking about his murdering of his girlfriend. That, sadly, is about the cleverest bit in the entire movie.

Following this there is a flashback about what really happened to the owner of the diary (including a fairly gruesome murder scene - crucifixions always disturb me) but the effect was slightly spoilt by the odd accent of the woman in the scene. I'm pretty sure they never actually say where she's from, only that in being in England she was in a foreign country. I read a review that guessed her accent was Russian (because the actress is) but in the flashback it seems more like a strained American accent and becomes more and more American as the movie progresses. Unfortunately for the people who made this movie, this accent mystery became more important to me than the mysteries in the actual story. But that's what happens when you don't pin down your accents properly.

The special effects are fairly impressive. If they weren't trying to be quite so stylish it could have really worked for me. The simpler bits work better. For instance when they run out of the front door only to find themselves running straight back into the house again. Not an entirely original concept but it's one I like and that works. More of the same could have worked wonders. The fight scenes (between Sam's character and the main villian) are pleasantly messy. I don't mean gory, I mean that they have that sort of realistic clumsiness that I've missed in this age of Matrix-style choreography. According to the interviews on the DVD Sam actually got so into the fights he fell and knocked himself out. Which makes the fights seem even better!

The ending is nice and realistic as well which is unusual as most horrors I have seen recently come to a grand climax of unspeakable terror and over the top special effects. This climax is merely violent and a tad nasty. In fact, considering the unpleasant end the villian meets, it seems surprising to me that it doesn't appear to unsettle the surviving heroes much at all. They get freaked out by a leaking roof but they can handle gruesome death which they themselves were responsible for? Bizarre.

The best part of the movie for me, aside from some quite pretty ghost moments, was the spooky dream sequences within the University Accomodation Office/Afterlife. Yes I know that sounds like a strange crossover, but it really works. Mostly because anyone whose ever had to apply for anything in a major city will recognise that eerie, empty look of those type of buildings that seem so modern but feel so unfriendly. I love that atmosphere, it sparks so many great ideas, and I'm glad that they use it that way in this movie. However, they don't use it nearly as much or as well as they should and it's a pity as it could have been their biggest asset. The house itself (creaky old mansion with a dark and spooky cellar etc) has been done to death and is in no way horrifying to a modern audience. Maybe it was the comparison between the two that made the Afterlife segments seem spookier to me. Who knows...

WORST SAM LINE: This is crazy! This is fucking crazy!
BEST SAM LINE: You...

If you want to see a movie where Sam pushes his eyeball stretching wide-eyed look to the limits then this is definitely your movie. Provided you're not looking for a sensible/original plot, well developed characters/accents or any thrills and scares beyond a little mindless violence and the obligatory sex scene. Or for that matter any sensible dialogue. It also includes Sam getting beaten up a lot and snogging Billie Piper - which depending on your tastes could be a good or a bad thing. Oh, and I'd love to know where Billie picked up that odd little Sherlock Holmes style cape thing she wears through the second half of the movie. A very peculiar choice.

And so, a run-down of this one-in-a-million film...

As a Film/TV Episode: 2 out of 5
As a Sam feature: 5 out of 5
WARNINGS: Although pretty laid back for the most part, this movie does contain sex and the odd extremely violent scene. And some really bad acting.

Person Unknown

Grr. It's so hard to find information on Sam Troughton! I thought researching Patrick was hard - as he shied away from so many interviews - but Sam's impossible! IMDB doesn't even have his date of birth. How come they can find out a birthday from the 1920s but not a birthday from a couple of decades ago?

Anyway, for those who are interested IMDB does at least have a list of all Sam's TV/Movie work and a (very short) biography, mostly about his family connections to other actors. A bizarre fact, but he is the cousin of the boy who played Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter films. There you go. And that's about all you'll pick up from there... but I'll give you the link anyway:

Sam's IMDB Profile

I'll put that up on my links list too when I get round to filling this blog out a little bit. Wikipedia has an equally limited profile here - though hopefully there will be more added as Robin Hood progresses. I haven't looked for any information on the character of Much (and his place in the Robin Hood legend) but I'll probably cover that in a later post. Right now I'm just after a bit of real life info... sadly it seems to be missing.

The BBC also lacks any major info. In fact it's bio of him is actually a link to IMDB so not much use to me! Heck it doesn't even have a photo of him out of character... Am I starting to sound frustrated yet?

What I HAVE come across so far are a few positive reviews of Sam's acting skills (he certainly gains a lot of praise for someone no-one talks about!) for instance this clip from a BBC review of Spirit Trap:

"Treading similar ground to The Skeleton Key, itself no masterpiece, Smith's opus can at least boast a handsome set and a likeable performance from Sam Troughton (that's Patrick's grandson, Who fans) as the nerdy fifth tenant. But those are hardly reasons to waste your hard-earned on a laughably bad Britflick that's more in need of an exorcist than an audience."

Similar sentiments (though without so much slating of the film involved) in this little piece from a review of the first episode of Robin Hood from the BBC Nottingham website:

"Jonas Armstong has charisma as the new Robin and Sam Troughton does his grandfather, Patrick, proud in developing the character of Much, so often thrown away in other Hood projects. Patrick, remember, was a Doctor Who and a Robin Hood in his time, so Sam's upholding the family tradition."

Sad to say (or perhaps glad to say?) that Sam will probably be labouring under the shadow of his family's (especially his grandfather's) talents for awhile to come. Which is surprising, considering how much work he has under his belt already. But that's the way it always goes with actors following in family footsteps. Even in the Jonathan Ross interview on the Robin Hood behind-the-scenes documentary he gets asked about his grandfather. I would complain - I usually expect Jonathan Ross to ask original and interesting questions even if he can be an obnoxious git at times - but since they played a very rare clip of Patrick Troughton as Robin Hood as part of the interview I forgive them. But if there should be a follow up interview I expect to find out more!!

Oh, if you're after watching that interview then check out The RobinHood2006 Multimedia Page where you can download a .rm version. I'd put it up here myself but I have a great respect for the RobinHood2006 forum and I don't want to break their rules. They're quite strict about it, so you'll have to sign up to their multimedia section. But this doesn't take long and it's well worth it if you're a fan of the new series. They gather all the best interviews and behind the scenes stuff for RH. If you have any problems, just send them an email. They're very friendly. Honest.

Unfortunately, all I really gathered from the interviews with Sam so far is that his character is a bit of a coward (duh), he wouldn't complain if he became a bit of a heart-throb, that he wore long-johns whilst filming Robin Hood and that he fell over a lot. And that last bit was actually said by Jonas Armstrong (Robin) on the official BBC interview rather than Sam, who I gather wasn't so proud of the fact. I suppose that is actually a fair amount of info to be going on with... but seeing how much the other actors get interviewed, I was really hoping for more! Call me greedy, that's just the way I am. So if anyone spots any magazine or newspaper interviews with him in, then leave a comment and tell me! There's a world shortage of Sam interviews and it would be cruel and inhumane to keep them all to yourself.

On a more stage related note - and I have to admit now, I know next to nothing about theatre - Sam was one of the finalists for the Ian Charleson Award (which I gather is very good) for his role as young Talbot in Henry IV and was, coincidentally, up against David Tennant. See how these Doctor Who connections keep coming? Love it. Though I'm sorry to hear that he didn't win the award (Sam I mean). I'm sure he deserved it. My sympathies from a person who never wins anything. The list of actors and winners and awards and such like has been posted on a webpage called Drama Addict if you're interested in the other nominees.

And that's all I got for you so far. I will be posting up more reviews of the films and TV series' Sam's been in, so don't worry, there'll be more info and pictures. But for now, sadly, that is all. Maybe tomorrow the internet will actually do my blog some good!

Much Of A Muchness

If there is one of Sam's roles that I am going to talk about more than any other then it has to be Much in the new BBC adaptation of Robin Hood. Despite having seen him before (Alien Vs. Predator, Spirit Trap) it's as his role as Much that I really like Sam Troughton. Not to mention it's an ongoing thing, so it makes me chattering on about it that bit more relevant.


First off I'm going to deal with that demon of modern Film and TV which is the 'comedy sidekick'. I loathe comedy sidekicks. I loathe them with all my being. The amount of potentially good movies that have been ruined for the sake of a few bad jokes is unbelievable and I always thought that any character built for this purpose was a curse.

I am now slowly having to eat my words.

This is because (as anyone who watches the new Robin Hood will know) Much is, of course, the comic relief. The plucky sidekick. The butt of most jokes. And the one who falls upside down into a ditch within the first ten minutes of the program. Not that I mind that - slapstick is one comedy add on I'll always have a soft spot for. But the rest...?

Well I have to say I'm warming to it. Maybe it's because Much is played as a very loveable character, despite his many faults, or perhaps it's cos he's played by Sam Troughton. I'm sure my judgement is now well and truly blurred on that account. But I don't think it's just that. I think it has a lot to do with the writers and how they chose to handle his character.

For a start he is annoying, there's no doubt about that, he even seems to annoy Robin at times. But his annoyance doesn't feel too overplayed or staged. He doesn't repeat things in an annoying voice to get attention. He doesn't constantly need rescued. Ok that's a lie, he gets rescued in the very first episode... but after that he's a perfectly useful member of the team. And he's not the only one who gets the humorous lines.

Not to mention the very interesting twist the writers chose to insert into the first episode where Much (a character already established as the comedy sidekick) is the very first character to have a serious mental breakdown scene. It's short - just a minute or so of tears in the bath - but it really stuck with me. As you can tell. Afterall, I'm still talking about it five episodes later. The point was it was different; it wasn't the hero torn up by the strains of his many heroic deeds and inner turmoil. It was the aide, a secondary character who you would expect to have next to no depth beyond what he needs to appear human. And that made not only Much but the whole series more interesting for me.

Of course it's yet to have any moments equal to that... a lot of the show is fairly shallow and when it does attempt depth (mostly in the not-so-subtle political references scattered in between fights) it does not handle it particularly well. Certainly not with any style. But I think - and hope - that this will change. It would only take a little bit of really good writing and some improvements to the dialogue and it could take the audience by storm... and let's face it, what else is there to watch on telly at the moment?