“… a character who only exists to generate laughter” - OK, that and the mental juxtaposition with how Davison actually plays Tristan is very sad.
There is a lot of “Tristan’s feelings (unlike James and Helen’s) don’t really matter” implied in this, which wasn’t the case in some of the earlier ACGAS, particularly the bits with Alice, where his feelings and the end of the love story were dealt with sympathetically and sensitively.
I think part of the problem is maybe that the show sometimes isn’t sure whether it wants to be a drama or a comedy, or rather, it’s trying to drop a ‘pure comedy’ character into what is otherwise a drama, which is difficult to pull off successfully, if it’s possible or desirable at all.
Agreed. Davison needed to give Tristan nuance and depth in order to make a character like Tristan sympathetic. I remember reading interviews where Davison mentioned wondering how he was going to play Tristan and make him likable, but then he met Brian Sinclair and it finally clicked for him. I am certain that part of that was because he got to see Brian as a real human being and not just a source of amusing stories….and that’s how he decided to play him….
As a result though, when there is this attitude you mentioned…this attitude that Tristan’s feelings don’t matter the same as everyone else’s….I don’t see how the audience could respond any other way than to feel bad about it.
I love that you mentioned the end of Ways and Means (Episode 2.11) because that is a perfect example of how Tristan was given a better treatment by the writers in regards to his love life. Yes, Alice went away like all the others, but the responses from Siegfried, Helen and James are so much better.
You have Helen and James watching Tristan with obvious concern….
And then that lovely bit with Siegfried where, first he congratulates Tristan on a job well done with Mrs. Bond’s kittens. Then he remembers Tristan’s request to not be referred to as “little brother” (although he also implies that it will be a nigh impossible habit to break)…
And then there’s the bit with Tristan smoking in the surgery. Tristan tries to put out his cigarette without being asked to….
And Siegfried doesn’t yell or nag at him about it….
It’s a quiet but meaningful gesture of consideration on both of their parts…and one that is so very important in an emotionally charged episode like this for Tristan.
Put all of this together and the audience knows that, even though he’s lost someone important to him, he still has his friends and family to care for him.
I agree that sometimes there was a struggle as far as how much comedy or drama (or maybe to put it in another way, laughter or heart) to include…or if the show should lean more one way or the other.
In the end though, I think the writers really should have taken a page from Alf’s books (yes, joke somewhat intended) and realized that it works best when you have an equal amount of both.
Well, I think whether things hit a nerve sometimes depends on the life experiences of the person watching, listening or reading, but as someone who hasn’t had a great deal of success in relationships either, I do find the treatment of Tristan’s love life in the later series (in the script and the reactions of other characters, not in the way Davison actually plays it) sometimes poorly judged and flippant.
They also seem to ignore the fact that Tristan is older now. When he was young, he could reasonably be hopeful that if one relationship didn’t work out, no problem, there would always be someone else and he had plenty of time. In the later series, the character is older and has lived through the war as well as a large number of romantic rejections so it’s unlikely that he would have got through all of that without a few bruises, and it doesn’t make sense to write him as the same naively optimistic person he was when he was younger. What was initially funny, now becomes simply sad. Optimism, by this point, is probably a survival strategy more than anything else (at least this is how Davison seems to have chosen to play it - the alternative, I suppose, would have been to play him as immature or in denial).
I don’t know much about the craft of acting and how far it’s possible to decouple from your own experiences to put yourself in character, but most people don’t get to their late thirties without having been through the mill in one way or another and I think that must show, to some extent, in how an actor approaches a part. I’ve noticed people of my acquaintance becoming mellower and more empathetic as they get older and realise that, as the song goes, everybody hurts. Even in his earlier work, Davison had a very empathetic acting style, and this would surely only have been enhanced by his life and acting experiences between the two series. So I suppose that while Davison probably could, from a purely technical point of view, have played Tristan as if he had been a naively hopeful twentysomething despite his own age and the age of the character, it may not have occurred to him to do so.
With this episode, I think I can sum up my feelings by saying that it was a mixed bag of ideas….but it was also consistently strong with the execution.
First off what really worked…
Once again, I think it was wise to keep the focus down to a couple of animal oriented stories so that they felt complete and resolved. In this case, Tricki Woo being a horse race expert and Tom Maxwell’s pig troubles. Mrs. Pumphrey and Tricki always add a welcome element of odd humor to an episode and this was no exception. Also, the story with Maxwell and with James’ struggles to deal with the extreme winter conditions of the Dales give a real glimpse into the hardships country vets had to deal with at that point in history. And once again, Timothy did a lovely job conveying the physical and mental toll that James experienced during these times.
Also, special kudos to Helen and how the writer, director and rest of the cast handled Bellingham being sidelined into her bed for the duration of the episode. I think they did a good job working Helen into the story with the limits they were given. Also, Bellingham did a great job bringing plenty of warmth and quiet humor to Helen in her interactions with the guys. I really loved her scenes with Tristan in particular as their close friendship was put on full display here.
And of course, Byrne did bring in some of the typical humor that you’d expect from Tristan running schemes and James, Siegfried and Calum being all too aware of the impish side of Tristan’s nature.
Still, there were some problems for me. Perhaps the main one being there seemed to be far, far too much reliance on putting Tristan through the mill as a source of humor for this episode.
James and Calum seemed consistently exasperated and annoyed with Tristan’s presence. Granted, Tristan did try to pull a prank on both of them, but they had this attitude even before they could have been aware of this. Then you had Tristan’s latest love interest, Verity, appearing at best only mildly interested in him and at worst having almost as much disdain for him as her father does. The one job we see Tristan do in this episode involves a farmer who is 100% fine with letting Tristan freeze outside and labor all alone with no help or comfort offered whatsoever.
Then to top it off, there’s that cruel charade that James and Siegfried pull on Tristan. Yes, I get that it was supposed to be humorous and yes the audience probably isn’t meant to take it too seriously, but it still seemed to go much too far and there wasn’t the needed moment where Siegfried and/or James make amends with Tristan afterward.
Although, going back to what worked for me, I do think Davison did a wonderful job of conveying Tristan’s hurt, dismay, and frustration during all of these incidents while also balancing it with Tristan’s tendency to keep moving forward and stay as positive as he can…at least on the surface…until that optimism can have a chance to take a firmer hold inside him.
Overall, I think there was a lot that worked, but the parts that didn’t as much, unfortunately, left an impression that’s hard to ignore. It’s a case where the writers really did benefit from having such a strong cast who could add some depth and warmth to the material when needed.
From what I remember from this episode, and the bits I just rewatched, this fits pretty well with my impressions. The Herriot books have a warmth that the best of the TV series’ episodes captured. (By ‘warmth’, I mean not just feel-good fluffiness but Herriot’s generous-spirited attitude towards the people with whom he shares his life and a respect for the farmers trying to make a living in difficult conditions, even when these people have somewhat irritating foibles.)
However, not all the episodes were successful in conveying this warmth and sometimes the irritation comes across without the underlying respect and affection.
For example, the friendship between James and Tristan is often taken as read and only the irritation (usually James’s irritation with Tristan) is shown. A few more brief scenes to counterbalance this and remind us that these are good friends would have helped. In the event, as you said, it just comes across as if everyone apart from Helen finds Tristan annoying. This takes away any fun element to these scenes and actually makes him come across as a rather sad, lonely figure here, which I’m not sure was the intent - this is surely supposed to be a mostly fun show with some wistful elements about the harshness of farming life, the sadness of losing a beloved family pet etc. rather than some kind of psychological drama about Tristan dealing with ambivalence or disdain from his love-interest and borderline abusive behaviour from his brother and supposed friend. It makes me wonder whether Davison brought more nuance and wistfulness to this than he was really meant to, by working things through to what was clearly, to him, their obvious emotional conclusion rather than being some kind of cartoon figure who re-emerges, unscathed, from whatever kind of battering he has been subjected to. (In which case, I think the writers should have figured out by that point that Peter Davison doesn’t really do ‘unscathed’ acting.)
Yes, you captured it exactly. James didn’t just tolerate the Farnons and Tristan in particular. Siegfried and Tristan were close and life-long friends who happened to have some irritating quirks, but who were wonderful people on the whole. And while Siegfried and Tristan certainly argued in the books, there was always a fraternal affection just below the surface…which was made even more apparent on the show albeit with somewhat different facets due to the increase in the age gap.
Thus, only pointing out the annoying aspects of say, Tristan, without getting more into the enduring friendship he shared with James or familial bond he had with Siegfried does make it seem like they only tolerate his presence out of vague obligation.
And it would have been easy to accomplish a better balance between the affection and occasional annoyance because look at how simply it happened with Helen. Yes, Helen did tease him a little, but she also was supportive and honored his wishes to keep his resigning from the Min of Ag private. In return, Tris did his best to make her comfortable and help out with the chores. No, he wasn’t perfect at it, but she took it with humor because she could see that he was trying his best.
If the writers could manage those moments of friendship between Tris and Helen with Helen being stuck in bed, why couldn’t they pull it off with James, Siegfried or Calum who he had far more scenes with?
Also, I agree with you completely that Davison ultimately did the right thing for his character by having Tristan respond realistically to that horrible prank of James and Siegfried’s. Yes, maybe it blunted some of the intended humor, but it also made Tristan seem like a human with real emotions and personality of his own…not just as a character who only exists to generate laughter.
Your comment about how Davison doesn’t do unscathed acting is perfect…because that’s is at the core of the problem here. After a while it becomes difficult to believe that Tristan could remain unaffected when the woman he has fallen in love with is indifferent and the people he is supposed to rely on (his brother and close friends) would rather not deal with him.
I suppose the argument could be made that Tristan shouldn’t be too dismayed by Verity’s indifference because, after all, it’s not like it will go anywhere serious anyway.
But that is a very sad thought for reasons of its own….
“… a character who only exists to generate laughter” - OK, that and the mental juxtaposition with how Davison actually plays Tristan is very sad.
There is a lot of “Tristan’s feelings (unlike James and Helen’s) don’t really matter” implied in this, which wasn’t the case in some of the earlier ACGAS, particularly the bits with Alice, where his feelings and the end of the love story were dealt with sympathetically and sensitively.
I think part of the problem is maybe that the show sometimes isn’t sure whether it wants to be a drama or a comedy, or rather, it’s trying to drop a ‘pure comedy’ character into what is otherwise a drama, which is difficult to pull off successfully, if it’s possible or desirable at all.
With this episode, I think I can sum up my feelings by saying that it was a mixed bag of ideas….but it was also consistently strong with the execution.
First off what really worked…
Once again, I think it was wise to keep the focus down to a couple of animal oriented stories so that they felt complete and resolved. In this case, Tricki Woo being a horse race expert and Tom Maxwell’s pig troubles. Mrs. Pumphrey and Tricki always add a welcome element of odd humor to an episode and this was no exception. Also, the story with Maxwell and with James’ struggles to deal with the extreme winter conditions of the Dales give a real glimpse into the hardships country vets had to deal with at that point in history. And once again, Timothy did a lovely job conveying the physical and mental toll that James experienced during these times.
Also, special kudos to Helen and how the writer, director and rest of the cast handled Bellingham being sidelined into her bed for the duration of the episode. I think they did a good job working Helen into the story with the limits they were given. Also, Bellingham did a great job bringing plenty of warmth and quiet humor to Helen in her interactions with the guys. I really loved her scenes with Tristan in particular as their close friendship was put on full display here.
And of course, Byrne did bring in some of the typical humor that you’d expect from Tristan running schemes and James, Siegfried and Calum being all too aware of the impish side of Tristan’s nature.
Still, there were some problems for me. Perhaps the main one being there seemed to be far, far too much reliance on putting Tristan through the mill as a source of humor for this episode.
James and Calum seemed consistently exasperated and annoyed with Tristan’s presence. Granted, Tristan did try to pull a prank on both of them, but they had this attitude even before they could have been aware of this. Then you had Tristan’s latest love interest, Verity, appearing at best only mildly interested in him and at worst having almost as much disdain for him as her father does. The one job we see Tristan do in this episode involves a farmer who is 100% fine with letting Tristan freeze outside and labor all alone with no help or comfort offered whatsoever.
Then to top it off, there’s that cruel charade that James and Siegfried pull on Tristan. Yes, I get that it was supposed to be humorous and yes the audience probably isn’t meant to take it too seriously, but it still seemed to go much too far and there wasn’t the needed moment where Siegfried and/or James make amends with Tristan afterward.
Although, going back to what worked for me, I do think Davison did a wonderful job of conveying Tristan’s hurt, dismay, and frustration during all of these incidents while also balancing it with Tristan’s tendency to keep moving forward and stay as positive as he can…at least on the surface…until that optimism can have a chance to take a firmer hold inside him.
Overall, I think there was a lot that worked, but the parts that didn’t as much, unfortunately, left an impression that’s hard to ignore. It’s a case where the writers really did benefit from having such a strong cast who could add some depth and warmth to the material when needed.
From what I remember from this episode, and the bits I just rewatched, this fits pretty well with my impressions. The Herriot books have a warmth that the best of the TV series’ episodes captured. (By ‘warmth’, I mean not just feel-good fluffiness but Herriot’s generous-spirited attitude towards the people with whom he shares his life and a respect for the farmers trying to make a living in difficult conditions, even when these people have somewhat irritating foibles.)
However, not all the episodes were successful in conveying this warmth and sometimes the irritation comes across without the underlying respect and affection.
For example, the friendship between James and Tristan is often taken as read and only the irritation (usually James’s irritation with Tristan) is shown. A few more brief scenes to counterbalance this and remind us that these are good friends would have helped. In the event, as you said, it just comes across as if everyone apart from Helen finds Tristan annoying. This takes away any fun element to these scenes and actually makes him come across as a rather sad, lonely figure here, which I’m not sure was the intent - this is surely supposed to be a mostly fun show with some wistful elements about the harshness of farming life, the sadness of losing a beloved family pet etc. rather than some kind of psychological drama about Tristan dealing with ambivalence or disdain from his love-interest and borderline abusive behaviour from his brother and supposed friend. It makes me wonder whether Davison brought more nuance and wistfulness to this than he was really meant to, by working things through to what was clearly, to him, their obvious emotional conclusion rather than being some kind of cartoon figure who re-emerges, unscathed, from whatever kind of battering he has been subjected to. (In which case, I think the writers should have figured out by that point that Peter Davison doesn’t really do ‘unscathed’ acting.)
