David Hare

[Conchis]

I think this writer's work is extremely poor and vastly over-praised.

His political analysis is shallow, usually confused, and suggests he has no more insight into 'stuff' than the average punter on the average omnibus.

His characterisation is cliched in the extreme - has anyone ever noted how his principal male characters tend to be unsympathetic wealthy middle-aged white men who are going through some ill-defined mid- or post-mid-life crisis? And how all his principal female characters are young, sympathetic 'redeemer' figures? Someone I know recently commented that all Hare's female characters are basically 'the author in a dress', which I think is spot on.

And then there's his dialogue, which aims for a kind of verisimilutde but which emerges (on the page at least - good actors can turn even this shit into gold) as ponderous and inchoate. (There is a favourite Hare expression: 'So, you go on. That's what you do.' A variant on it appears in every single one of his plays - ie, 'So, you suffer. That's what you do.' 'So, you turn right instead of left. That's what you do.' 'So, you visit the supermarket. That's what you do.' )


How has this man managed to persuade the critics and a small but influential section of the public that his nudity is in fact a set of elegantly tailored robes of the kind his wife manufactures?


I'm genuinely dumb-founded, because his work is empty. Almost as empty as the wretched Stephen Poliakoff's.

[LMcD]

I think this writer's work is extremely poor and vastly over-praised.

His political analysis is shallow, usually confused, and suggests he has no more insight into 'stuff' than the average punter on the average omnibus.

His characterisation is cliched in the extreme - has anyone ever noted how his principal male characters tend to be unsympathetic wealthy middle-aged white men who are going through some ill-defined mid- or post-mid-life crisis? And how all his principal female characters are young, sympathetic 'redeemer' figures? Someone I know recently commented that all Hare's female characters are basically 'the author in a dress', which I think is spot on.

And then there's his dialogue, which aims for a kind of verisimilutde but which emerges (on the page at least - good actors can turn even this shit into gold) as ponderous and inchoate. (There is a favourite Hare expression: 'So, you go on. That's what you do.' A variant on it appears in every single one of his plays - ie, 'So, you suffer. That's what you do.' 'So, you turn right instead of left. That's what you do.' 'So, you visit the supermarket. That's what you do.'


How has this man managed to persuade the critics and a small but influential section of the public that his nudity is in fact a set of elegantly tailored robes of the kind his wife makes?


I'm genuinely dumb-founded, because his work is empty. Almost as empty as the wretched Stephen Poliakoff's.

Did you watch 'Collateral'?

[Conchis]

Did you watch 'Collateral'?

No.

[Conchis]

Did you watch 'Collateral'?

No.

[LMcD]

No.

You didn't watch it twice?
I was particularly struck by a line spoken by the John Simm character:'We really are turning into a nasty little country'. I suggest there's, sadly, no lack of evidence to support that view.
As for Mr Poliakoff - some of his work is undeniably pretentious and pompous, but I've rarely seen a more perfect TV drama then 'The Lost Prince', which I recently watched for the first time since it was oriuginally broadcast. And then there was the wonderful 'Caught On A Train'.

[Richard Tarleton]

Did you watch 'Collateral'?

I didn't get past the first episode, as I found it terrible - similarly Turks and Caicos in 2014, one episode was enough. I'm similarly mystified by Poliakoff's continued presence on our screens. I haven't seen any of David Hare's stage work.

[Conchis]

You didn't watch it twice?
I was particularly struck by a line spoken by the John Simm character:'We really are turning into a nasty little country'. I suggest there's, sadly, no lack of evidence to support that view.
As for Mr Poliakoff - some of his work is undeniably pretentious and pompous, but I've rarely seen a more perfect TV drama then 'The Lost Prince', which I recently watched for the first time since it was oriuginally broadcast. And then there was the wonderful 'Caught On A Train'.

You see, that's the kind of line you'd expect Hare to write - it may be true but it shows no insight, or vision. Literally anyone of average literacy and perception could have written it, including you or I.

The Lost Prince is probably useful as an aid to History teachers but I found it painfully slow and, yes, empty. Poliakoff brings nothing to these famous events that you wouldn't find in an average textbook.

As to Caught On A Train.....I was impressed by it when it was originally broadcast but I've seen it since and there just aint much there. It's the usual Poliakoff mixture: self-absorbed individual gets a wake-up call from an encounter with someone different/older/wiser. His scam as a filmmaker is to get first-rate actors to animate his scripts - this helps to distract an audience from their essential thinness.

[french frank]

And then there was the wonderful 'Caught On A Train'.

OT for the thread title, but yes. Still memorable - and I haven't had a TV for 23 years. Though, come to think of it, it could be something to do with the subject matter …

[Serial_Apologist]

You see, that's the kind of line you'd expect Hare to write - it may be true but it shows no insight, or vision. Literally anyone of average literacy and perception could have written it, including you or I.

The Lost Prince is probably useful as an aid to History teachers but I found it painfully slow and, yes, empty. Poliakoff brings nothing to these famous events that you wouldn't find in an average textbook.

As to Caught On A Train.....I was impressed by it when it was originally broadcast but I've seen it since and there just aint much there. It's the usual Poliakoff mixture: self-absorbed individual gets a wake-up call from an encounter with someone different/older/wiser. His scam as a filmmaker is to get first-rate actors to animate his scripts - this helps to distract an audience from their essential thinness.

I always think it's important to have at least one character in a plot that one can find sympathetic. Too often in Poliakoff's dramas there is no one to like - he seems too enamoured of bourgeois lifestyles, either from a pseudo-voyeuristic or envious perspective - and therefore one gives up on them all and cares little for their (mis)fortunes, which rather destroys the whole point. I started to watch the Hare, but quickly switched to another channel, for similar reasons of unsympathetic characters or characterisation. Fortunately there are still enough wonderful real and ordinary characters to encounter in real life without needing to escape into unrealistic scenarios that show the worst of people as born of "human weakness" per se, rather than elucidating the material circumstances shaping their life choices.