I'm Not Particularly On Board With "Crowley Is Raphael" Theory, But That's A Very Interesting Take On

What a shame we haven't seen him in full Clan McDonald gear since 2014, when the cast were promoting What We Did On Our Holiday (I think?). DT looks magnificent in a kilt.

David Tennant and Kelly Macdonald

How much have we lost!

Specifically – a chance to see David Tennant in the role of "a cross-dressing, cocaine-snorting therapist", OMFG.

"Screenwriter Paula Milne, who wrote The Politician's Husband, says Tennant can convey "a kind of damaged humanity… although he may not have been that likeable you felt he had gone on a journey where he became that person".

"Sometimes when you write a very tough, muscular character the actor says, 'yes, but will they like me?' That is a question he never asked. He took it on and delivered it."

She previously discussed another project with Tennant, about a "cross-dressing, cocaine-snorting therapist". Despite his enthusiasm, it proved "too out there" for the BBC or Channel 4, Milne recalls. "He was up for it. He read it and said he would love to do it." Perhaps, in a parallel universe, he still will.”

If only I could go and get a glimpse into this parallel universe!

I love The Politician's Husband – it's definitely in my personal top of things DT has done for television. It provides a gripping and poignant insight into the psyche of an essentially decent human being, whose chain of decisions becomes a downhill slide that irrevocably ruins his life, his family, burns him out – and literally kills someone he loves. Heartbreaking stuff.  

BTW, I'm actually quite surprised that anything is really "too out there" for Channel 4. Reminds me of the scene from Life Of Mars where Sam Tyler, during the raid on the porn studio, casually remarks: "Hardcore? I've seen worse on Channel 4". And that was a decade earlier!

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/nov/14/david-tennant-profile 

I absolutely cannot stop thinking about the version of Crowley we get to see from before the Fall. He smiles differently, he speaks differently. There's so much oppenness in his expression. He loves what he does! Is genuinly mournful when he learns it will be destroyed.

Compared to the Crowley we see after years of solitude, abuse and treading on eggshells around his bosses. Closed off, furious, suspicious. I do truly believe that after he was called back to Hell in the graveyard that the next time Aziraphale saw him was in 1862, when he asked, in that feeble, broken down voice, for Holy Water. He has spent so much of his existence in survival mode, is desperate to cling to the peace he's found.

Nina describes him as the "hard bitten one" who can't trust anyone ever again, and it sort of gobsmacked me that she could see that!!! that Neil Gaiman would have someone say that!!!!! But, of course, she is in many ways the same.

Whatever happened to Crowley after the Laudanum incident certainly wasn't a one-off. He was certainly punished again and again for deeds seen as too good. Enough so that when he is called kind, when he is called good, when he is thanked, his response is violent panic.

It's easy for us to believe that maybe he's always been like that. But no. Gaiman gave us incontestable proof that there was a time where Crowley smiled freely, where he looked with wide and joyful eyes at the parts of the world he created. The difference from that, to the numb and deeply lonely Crowley that we see with Job, the anxious, repressed and angry Crowley that we see in the present day, is one of the biggest tragedies of all.

I am so insane about the Job arc.

God says, "I will destroy Job's children," and Aziraphale says, "How did he wrong you?"

God says, "I will destroy Job's children," and Aziraphale says, "How will you make it right?"

God says, "I will destroy Job's children," and Aziraphale says, "Gosh, I don't doubt you know what you are doing and all, but maybe we could slow things down a little and talk about this? And it's essential to the divine plan? Are we sure?"

Crowley says, "I will destroy Job's children," and Aziraphale looks him in the eye and says, "No, you won't."

GOOD OMENS SEASON TWO SPOILERS.

okay so we all know aziraphale DID want to kiss crowley. he wasn’t miserable because of kissing crowley, obviously. he’s in love with crowley. obviously.

BUT LIKE.

aziraphale is a romantic, we know this, yes? he believes in slow, quiet, pretty romances, and dancing at balls together, and romance novels, and love letters, and basically he just believes in love.

i can imagine him lying awake at night, planning out perfect dates, and imagining what the moment will be like when he finally musters up the courage to kiss crowley- maybe the sun will be setting, or it’ll be golden hour, because at golden hour crowley’s eyes always look breathtaking, and they’ll be alone, and maybe in a field of flowers…

and then. crowley finally kisses him, and it’s not at all how he expected. it’s not slow, quiet, or pretty, it’s angry, and petty, and there are tears in crowley’s eyes, and it’s a last resort. it’s crowley trying to show him what he’d be missing if he leaves, it’s crowley cornered and breaking glass in case of emergency, it’s crowley hurt and lovesick and reaching for aziraphale’s heart and hoping that the one time it really counts, he doesn’t miss.

FUCK.

DT talk throwback: my interview w/David Blair, director of Takin' Over The Asylum

Over half a decade ago now I was a writer for David Tennant News/DT Forum, one of the bigger unofficial fan sites of DT's at the time (now sadly defunct). During my time there, I got the chance in Jan 2016 to interview David Blair - most notably the director of Takin' Over The Asylum, though he worked with DT in three other shows - about those projects, and what he remembered about David. I didn't want this interview to sink into the depths of the Wayback Machine and I thought y'all might enjoy reading it, so here is that interview in its entirety:

David Blair, Director / Front Cover of BBC DVD for Takin' Over The Asylum (UK)

Hello Mr. Blair! From 1992-1996 you worked with David Tennant on four separate television shows:  Strathblair in 1992, The Brown Man in 1993, Takin' Over The Asylum in 1994 and A Mug's Game in 1996.   Were you at all involved in the casting process for Strathblair, the first project you worked with David on... If so what did you see in the young actor that won him the role?  And how did that translate into choosing him as Campbell Bain?

I was a Producer at the BBC before I started directing. David was a student at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music & Drama in Glasgow. He asked if he could meet me just to talk through procedure for TV, interviews, etc., as the college appeared more interested in theatre than camera. Indeed, frowned on the latter! He’d be about 18 then. I certainly knew from the outset that he ‘had something,’ and I gave him a few minor opportunities as soon as I embarked on my directing career. To be clear, I only work with actors I want and believe in – still do. Some might say my own career has been stifled by this obduracy but I don’t care. My need of working with great actors is paramount and David’s a shining example of what makes it all worthwhile. I commissioned Takin’ Over The Asylum for the BBC and worked closely with the writer throughout the creative process. I knew as soon as I read the screenplay, David was going to be perfect for Campbell. But I’m not a fascist about this kind of decision-making, so I mentioned to the writer and Casting Director I had a boy ‘in mind’ for the role. I didn’t oversell; I knew he would make it work for himself. There may have been some minor scepticism at first, but when he did his audition, he blew them away.

David's audition tape for Takin' Over The Asylum

Many of David's fans have seen Takin' Over The Asylum and are well-versed with it. Can you talk more about Strathblair, The Brown Man and A Mug's Game, and David's roles in each?  Little is known about the roles he played in those productions. Can you give us any insight into the stories behind all three of the projects themselves, and what was it about David in those years that made you want to cast him in all of them?

In truth, Strathblair and The Brown Man were merely cogs in my directing wheel. They weren’t aesthetically of great merit but gave me a few credits to kick-start my career. What I needed was a ‘signature piece’ and that came along with Takin’ Over The Asylum. In many ways, I regard that as the start of my directing career. In those days, without a high-profile production on your CV, you would more than likely be destined for a treadmill of soaps and ‘continuing drama’. Before Asylum I was picking up scraps; after it, I was being asked what I wanted to do. Thus A Mug’s Game became my second collaboration with Donna Franceschild, who’d written Asylum. Ken Stott, Katy Murphy and others from Asylum were already on board - and really? We just wanted David to ‘be in it’. It wasn’t a huge role but he kindly agreed to come in and do it for us. Played a music student (at the Scottish Academy, as it happens), as I recall but, again, hugely professional and accomplished. In one scene, he had to throw up over the railway tracks at Partick train station in Glasgow.... ah, an enduring memory.....

Did David do anything on set of any of the productions he worked on with you that totally took you by surprise or that was unexpected?  What did he do?

I think in those days, more than anything, it was important to keep in mind just how young he was. This boy of 21, was commanding the space, displaying an extraordinary ability to create laughter and tears; sometimes both at the same time! He had natural charm and wit and that, combined with this wonderfully spontaneous joie de vivre, made him a joy to be around both on the set and off.

What do you feel David's most unique/valuable attributes as an actor are?  What do you think separates him from his peers as he has matured into the career he has today?

When I look at him now I still largely see the same lad I met all those years ago. Still bursting with enthusiasm and an absolute desire to come out on top – which he’s done consistently. He’s retained his appetite, clearly, and devoured a huge range of roles – never seeking a ‘comfort zone’ in the process. It’s also struck me that he’s never attempted to be somebody he’s not and that truth, integrity, diligence – some might say, ‘Scottishness’ (!) – defines the man we see today.

David has said he considers Takin' Over The Asylum a career-defining project for him. What is your reaction so many years down the line to that comment?

I’ve always been rather humbled by David’s regard for myself and Takin’ Over The Asylum. I genuinely never felt I did anything out of the ordinary. I picked the best man for the job which, God knows, he underlined in spades once he played the role. He gave me as much as I gave him. Of course, there are occasions in my own career where I look back at defining moments and say “if it hadn’t been for so-and-so”.... but, I guess, the reason why we can reflect in that way, is because we didn’t let anybody down. David didn’t – and I hope I didn’t.   Looking back at Takin' Over The Asylum all these years later, do you feel it still holds up as well as it did?  In retrospect do you feel it helped shed as much needed light on the mental health industry as you'd hoped?

Funnily enough, somebody called me the other day to say he’d sat down and watched all six episodes and couldn’t believe how well it’s stood the test of time. I think I agree. I suppose because it’s a subject matter nobody would touch with a bargepole these days – that’s keeps it fresh somehow. All the scripts were vetted by the Association For Mental Health before we signed off on them. The writer had had mental health issues and wanted it to be authentic and in no way derisory. In fact, I remember many of the extras I cast all had had mental issues – one in particular having been institutionalised for 37 years!

I'd like to explore your decision to cast institutionalized patients as extras in Takin' Over The Asylum in a bit more detail. Was this related to filming the series at Gartloch Hospital, and if not, how was the idea first presented and eventually implemented?  Was this something you and Donna discussed as part of your intention to make the show as sensitive to the subject matter and as authentic as you could?  And did you run into any problems with compensating the extras, or any other issues relating to their Sectioned status?

It was simply an idea I had not just to add authenticity, but to have these guys make a worthwhile contribution to the film – and also make them feel good about it, if you like. I wanted to dispel the notion that all mentally ill people were screaming banshees – the story alludes to this anyway – by whose definition are we mad? I also thought it would help the non-mad actors (if there is such a thing!!!) to be surrounded by the ‘real’ rather than the ‘made up’ and thereby enrich their own performances.

Speaking of Gartloch Hospital, how did you choose that particular hospital for the filming location?

Gartloch was one of several mental hospitals around Glasgow being run down at the time, as part of the government’s controversial ‘care in the community’ programme. In other words, ‘we don’t want to pay to look after them any more, so you do it’. Of all the ones I looked at, Gartloch – not least with its huge tower – seemed to provide the best ambience; most suitable for the story and visually rewarding also.

Exploratory views of the interior and exterior of (now abandoned) Gartloch Hospital

As you mentioned, you do certainly seem to gravitate towards actors and writers that inspire you. Years ago you spotted a certain something in David -- so if given an opportunity, would you be willing to work with David again and if you could choose your own ideal role for him, what would that role entail?

Nothing would give me more pleasure than finding a project that both David and I could work on. David, creatively, is a bit of chameleon, so I don’t think there’s an ‘ideal role’ for him as such. A brilliant piece of writing and a character that takes him a place he hasn’t been before would be the simple remit.

Over the years many fans of Takin' Over The Asylum have expressed their desire to know what happened to Campbell and Eddie after we left them. If you were to continue their story, where do you think Campbell and Eddie would be today?

My hunch is that Campbell would have gone on to be a success in the music industry and Eddie would have tumbled into an even darker place, fueled by alcohol and self-doubt. I’ve often imagined Campbell inadvertently bumping into Eddie while he was sleeping in a cardboard box and Campbell doing for Eddie what Eddie had done for Nana in the very first episode.

Lore is - from Donna amongst others -- that you asked her to take a minor character from a play she'd written and make a drama around him. Of course that character is Ready Eddie McKenna. Could you tell us what the name of that play was?  And what was there about Eddie in the framework of that play that made you see him as the kind of character that could carry an entire series - and that Donna was the woman to write it?

With regard to the question below, it’s strange how little fateful moments define what we are and what we do. In my early days as a Producer, I commissioned Donna to write one of four monologues I was overseeing – I didn’t direct it, as it happens, but it was a sterling piece performed by Katy Murphy. The BBC – not myself – then commissioned Donna to adapt a stage play she’d written called And The Cow Jumped Over The Moon to fit a play strand we were doing at the time.

On the day of the studio, the Producer overseeing the project, was taken ill and they asked me to fill in for her ‘in the gallery’. (This was an old TV play where you worked in a rehearsal room for, say, three weeks then shot the whole thing – multi-camera – in a matter of days). Of course, as a result, I became familiar with the material and was indeed taken by this minor character – Eddie – who was a hospital radio DJ. After that, I asked Donna if she felt there might be mileage in creating a serial based around this character. I’d love to go into great and meaningful depth about why I thought that but, in truth, it was just a hunch – although it was one relative to how Donna was writing at that time; I believed she could deliver something unique with wide appeal. She hadn’t done any original TV work at that time (apart from the monologue) and had worries.

It took her some time to finally come up with a first draft – the breakthrough, she told me, came when she switched from just a hospital to a mental hospital. After that, we worked the episodes one at a time getting precisely where we wanted to be on one, before moving on to the next. Not an option that’s often available these days. During this process both Donna and I were supported hugely by the then Head of The Department, Bill Bryden. And that support manifested most clearly in simply leaving us to our own devices. No script executives, story editors or any other distractions. The work we ended up with had the footprint of nobody but ourselves.

And that's that! I hope you all enjoyed this unique insight into Takin' Over The Asylum and DT's work with David Blair.

Favourite ship dynamic: no one truly knows what exactly is going on between the two characters, including the characters themselves. But whatever it is, it's written in the fabric of the universe.

Even after the master craftsmanship of Season 1, I am STILL blown away by all the little things they put into this show.

S2E1 -- Crowley and Aziraphale's argument about what to do with Gabiel. Look at this imagery.... wings behind Aziraphale and the dichotomy of colors in the background.

And Then.....

Crowley in Hell, meeting with Beelzebub. In THESE chairs, which make horns.

Such beautiful touches

I’ve seen a lot of posts about Az being controlled by the Metatron but I don’t buy it. 

I’m fully on board with Aziraphale making stupid decisions for what he believes is the greater good. We’ve had evidence time and again of him wanting to get Crowley back on the side of angels so he’ll be safe. “they’ll destroy you”/“they’ll kill you” was his biggest fear all through S1 and that fear hasn’t gone away, especially now the neutrality protection has gone from the bookshop and Heaven and Hell can both get in.

You’ll notice he said “I don’t want to go back to heaven” until the moment the Metatron tells him that it means he could guarantee Crowley’s sanctuary and safety. And this is not ten minutes after the rest of heaven’s archangels were planning on wiping Aziraphale completely from the book of life and leaving Crowley alone? The Metatron didn’t have to threaten Crowley. The threat has always always been there. Aziraphale didn’t choose death because he’s predictable.

Trouble is that the Metatron knew Crowley wouldn’t want it (he’s always been an independent one, going his own way, asking questions) and is using this as something to drive a wedge between them. Because the Metatron fully admitted that “we’ve kept track of your history” and as Gabe said re. Armageddon “at least we know who’s fault it was” that it stopped.

Together, Crowley and Aziraphale have stymied Heaven more than once. Together, they produced a miracle that exceeded the power of the Supreme Archangel and could raise the dead 25-fold. Together, their interference/cock-ups led to the failure of Armageddon and Heaven doesn’t want to risk that when they’re working up to the big one, The Second Coming.

They know Aziraphale and Crowley together would be a liability. They needed them separated by whatever means and they have it. They knew Aziraphale would want to do good - everyone knows Aziraphale is a good guy. Even Gabriel, when his memory was gone, went straight to Aziraphale because he instinctively knew this is someone who would protect him. And everyone knows that Crowley is the rogue angel. The Metatron clearly knew him and described him as someone “who always wants to go his own way”.

The Metatron played on both their fears. He also played on Aziraphale’s belief that Heaven can still be good: he came in just in time to save him from erasure from the book of life, he implied that he’s much more like Aziraphale by bringing him nice sweet things and encouraging him to imbibe them, he offered safety and protection for Crowley to keep him out of harms way. But simultaneously, he slammed Crowley’s big red horror button at the idea of being under Heaven’s thumb again. He knew exactly what he was doing.

TLDR: Aziraphale did what he always did. He’s a guardian. He’s doing what he feels he needs to in order to keep people safe. And Crowley did what he always did by rejecting Heaven. The Metatron used that and pressed his and Crowley’s buttons to make sure he split up the dream team to make sure the next Armageddon isn’t interrupted by their interference.

Part 4 the Next Doctor