Fatigues

I am becoming increasingly fond of BBC television. They're not universally well written or intelligent, but at their worst they're a sight better than American television (so far, at least). In one of these shows I saw a subtle piece of business. “Robin Hood” is a tongue-in-cheek retelling of the hallowed myth. In this particular episode, a soldier returned from the Crusades with a healthy crop of PTSD, becomes a danger to the people of Sherwood when his latent programming from his time in the Middle East comes back to haunt him.

Alright, the plot is a little extravagant, in the manner of the show itself, and this is not a hugely historically accurate piece. There was one glaring inaccuracy, however: the soldier was wearing fatigues. Modern, military fatigues. It was a glaring addition, and I wondered if it could be that simple. Were they being that blatant? Yes. Yes it was, and yes they were.

Next question: is that a good thing? Is it productive to be that blatant, to push the underlying agenda in the face of the audience?

Absolutely.

There is a time and place for subtlety, a time and a place for simplicity and brevity, a time and place for all the finesse that can be brought to bear in the film medium...

And then there is a time to yell.

When a matter as important as the true human cost of conflict comes around, and when we who create have a chance to address it, we should do whatever we have to in order to treat the subject matter as it deserves. In this case, a megaphone in Times Square would not be too much (though probably a pretty ordinary happenstance there).

In this case, the show went on to explore redemption through action in a rather heroic manner, a manner that defied reality, which is pretty much par for the course in this show. It was not the most philosophical discussion, but it was a discussion. we should all be so lucky to have such a chance.