Dogosmall is in need of said whisky me thinks

To further add to this - according to the publicans in my family, not all whisky can be called scotch. Scotch (so I'm told) is only the stuff distilled in Scotland. Irish Malt for example, is never refered to as anything other than whisky. The plot thickens

(23-01-2011 06:08 PM)loladom Wrote:  Dogosmall is in need of said whisky me thinks

What a jolly good idea!

And just to complicate matters even further, the Irish do spell it whiskey!! (I'm sure they do that deliberately!)

So does Harry only drink Scotch, or does he drink whisky from other countries?

(24-01-2011 01:38 PM)HellsBells Wrote:  So does Harry only drink Scotch, or does he drink whisky from other countries?

I am pretty sure I have only ever seen Harry drinking scotch. Single malt at that. None of the blended cheaper stuff that I can afford!

And BTW, after reading DSS's post I went at look at our latest collection (Johnnie Walker Red blended and a Balvenie 12 year single malt) and, sure enough it is whisky with no "E". I am probably one of the guilty ones. I am much more concerned with the nose, tounge and flavor of a whisky/whiskey, so, until I have to pass a spelling test to purchase, I am really not too concerned about it. I'm a crap speller too.

I do have to say that I think Harry's disdain for American's comes less from the spelling differences of his favorite quaff and more from the fact that the majority of the Americans he knows work for the CIA. If that were my frame of reference, I'd hate us too!

While we are capable of producing every kind of whiskey, the typically American WhiskEys - Beam, Jack, Markers Mark, Knob Creek, to name a few - are all Bourbon whiskey. I cannot say that I have ever seen these labels in Harry's office. I'd recognize them pretty quickly too. (Sad, isn't it?) Since the majority of the whiskey labels in the US began with the illegal distilleries of English smugglers in the hills of Kentucky and Tennessee, I don't think they would give a rats patootie when the Guv'ment swoops in 200 years later and mandates the "official" spelling of the word whiskey. Somehow, I think that Harry would appreciate this.

Next thing you know I'll be spelling color with a "u"!

Divided by a common language - twas ever thus!

(whispers: but I bet Harry would care - a whisky snob is a whisky snob)

Greetings, Jedi mind tricksters

Occasionally, I venture forth from... other threads and ask a question that has nothing to do with... other threads I'm afraid this time it is the turn of this thread to roll its eyes and wish I'd stayed away

Before I wheel out my question-of-the-day, let me be very clear that this is intended to occasion discussion. I'm not looking to be confrontational or mean-spirited. I don't want to upset anyone. I don't want to have to buy a rotten-tomato-proof coat. Please please please don't take this as a declaration of hostilities.

So, my question is this: When did Spooks come to be all about Harry, and should we be worried?

I have seen several posts in this thread (including its predecessors) and others to the effect that Spooks is nothing without Harry, and that the show without this character holds no innate interest. I wonder if this is suggestive of a kind of attenuation of dramatic potential for the character and for the show. Here is a character who exists at the heart of a narrative in which 'anyone can die', and yet we can be more or less certain he won't. In most other shows, this would hardly matter, as kidnappings, physical peril and near-death experiences are presented as elements in a classical hurt/comfort formula. In Spooks, though, jeopardy has to mean something, because outcomes have to illustrate the necessity of loss within the context of the show's well-established and well-observed rhetoric of risk.

I understand that Harry represents continuity, and that this is important to a long-running drama with a rapid cast turnover. But I am curious about the extent to which much of the good will that exists towards the character is transference from the good will that exists towards the actor. If, for example, Harry was Harriet, or if the character was portrayed by someone with the physical and moral aspects of Rupert Murdoch or Norman Tebbit, rather than those of Peter Firth, would that good will persist? Does the popularity of the character represent a liability to the meaning of the character? Does the popularity of the character undermine the sense of the show?

I'm not agitating for an episode in which Harry is pulled apart by horses. Neither am I suggesting that he should be killed off quickly - or at all - so Ruth can be miserable (and in love with a ghost) and Kudos can test its own version of the Grissom/Langston replacement solution. I am, however, genuinely interested to see what responses might be generated by this post. There is a lot of in-depth interest and knowledge on this board and in this thread, so I await - with some trepidation - whatever mixture of opprobrium and analysis might come my way

It's a good question. I have no erudite or intellectual answer. I think it is really quite simple, and, as you say, it is about the actor. The standard of acting in Spooks is really high across the board, and when the directors can work with an actor of Peter Firth's abilities I doubt they would be keen to write him out before they have to. It is generally admitted that actors are only written out because they choose to leave so that they can explore other options. The manner of their exit can then be as dramatic as the writers dare to make it. I think the killing off of major players developed more because there was such a young, talented cast likely to be poached for other projects than because it was an initial aim of the show. Peter is a little further down his career path than most of the others and probably values the charms of a steady job, so is less likely to choose to leave. A mundane, practical consideration for all concerned rather than an artistic one.

Peter Firth took a small role and created a character that inspired admiration and devotion. I should imagine he is also wonderful to work with for directors and other actors. None of which has anything to do with where the plot should be going, but is bound to have an effect on the decisions of the programme makers. You can't really speculate on whether it would be the same if you had a different actor playing a different type of character (Norman Tebbit? - god forbid!!). Of course the good will or lack of it would be entirely different.

Speaking personally, it is the delightful acting skills of Peter Firth that keep me wanting to watch Harry Pearce. Sometimes a character just captures the imagination, and the man who has given up every personal consideration to protect his country and keep us all safe in our beds at night whilst maintaining the soul of a poet is a man of much fascination to me. He hasn't taken over the show in terms of screen time. Maybe it is just his scenes (and lines) that are the most memorable. Spooks is a great show, but I could take it or leave it if it wasn't for Harry Pearce.

Ironically, when Spooks started, PF wasn't that well known. So for me, this isn't a case where most people started watching because he was in it. A lot of Harry fans fell in love with the character first and then discovered PF as an actor and the rest of his body of work. In that sense, then, it doesn't yet create a problem for the show. I think it only becomes problematic if the creators actually want to get rid of a character, but is afraid to because they fear that the actor is too iconic to do so.

Another issue which I think is sometimes overlooked, is that even though Spooks has made a name for killing off its characters, this is almost always done because the actor playing the character in question wants to leave and go on to bigger and better things. So once again it is my impression that Harry is not kept alive and in the show because the creators are too afraid to kill him off, but because they are happy to keep an interesting and well-portrayed character in their show.

For all the talk that the show won't survive if Harry leaves, I don't think that's necessarily the case. In the same way that a lot of people who came to watch the show for Richard Armitage will now not bother to watch since he is no longer in it, there are a lot of people who will stop watching when PF leaves. But there will be many more who will still watch for the stories. And whoever they bring in to replace him will in all probability bring his/her own support base as new viewers to the show. This is the way of long-running TV shows, and I don't think Spooks is any different.

I, for one, am very happy that PF is willing to stick around for so long, as it allowed the writers to gradually develop a truly fascinating, heroic, tragic and fallible character, which goes a long way in explaining why he's so popular. Don't we all love to know that there is someone out there willing to sell off pieces of his soul, to do both good and horrible things, all to keep us safe? Harry's appeal for me lies to a great extent in that he is not a perfect man; a one-dimensional knight in shining armour who always does everything right. He fails, he makes mistakes, but always with good intentions. Long may he live on.

Nicely put, Silktie. I would only add that I think Peter's role was expanded simply because they realised just what sort of an actor they had on their hands and expanded the role pretty quickly after that.

One of my favourite episodes for Harry is the season 1 finale and PF plays it all so beautifully, with a number of very fine lines that have defined the character since then. I think they made some mistakes with the Harry of season 2, but since then they've done an admirable job of staying pretty true to several ideals for the man. A consistency that has been missing, on occasion, for other characters.

All of the above plus one. Peter almost forced this part to become what it is, but Peter's abilities aside, Harry's role has fallen into something similar to the godfather. He's the daddy so to speak. Whilst younger eye candy may come and go, there is the feeling they are more dispensible to the viewer. Harry is the backbone, structure, consistency and to some extent the moral (or imoral) compass. He sets the ethos of the team. He also sets the heart of the team and the viewer. As much as Ruth/Nicola is excellent, the viewer is more invested in Harry finding happiness. Pull that away and the show loses its core. If they had changed the boss every season from the beginning this perhaps would not be so, but now it's too late IMO. Should they chose to try this now it would be an enormous gamble I think.

Whilst I love PF in general and PF as Harry, I don't doubt there are other actors who could've started this off and moved Harry into this pivotal role (albeit in a different way.) Having said that, I do believe Harry is Peter's ultimate role, and I credit Peter with harnessing viewer love and running with it.

Harry represents something old fashioned from a lost time and I think there is something in all of us that secretly longs for those old values.

SO it's a combination of Peter's abilities+Harry's character+great lines = backbone of the show.