Man in an Orange Shirt

Except for Ollie's furry chesticles it was a bit boring

already a thread on this

Gorgeousness:

r2, that's all about one actor's chest hair. I think we can have a separate thread for the show.

Anybody have a link to a stream? I checked late last night and found nothing.

When and where is this distributed in the U.S.?

What are the Julian Morris sex scenes like?

Watched the first episode. I really like it. Rhetorical question: why are British actors so much better at kissing each other than American actors?

Julian Morris' storyline begins in the next installment. I hope the second part is as exemplary as the first. Oliver Jackson-Cohen is so damn sexy.

"Shades by Lucien" is my new blog name.

It wasn't bad, but my god did the directing suck! Chock full o'anachronisms! OJ-C commended himself admirably, and James McArdle is wonderful. It really was let down by the director.

If you cant find it streaming ...on PBS in June 2018

[quote]If you cant find it streaming ...on PBS in June 2018

June 2018? JESUS.

Well, you know, PBS can only show gay programming in June for Pride ...

Link.

when's the next one?!

Oliver Jackson-Cohen is SO FUCKIN' HOT in OPs photo. The other photos of him I found weren't quite as good - but that angle and those clothes - WOW. I want him deep inside me and vice versatile.

I've loved so many of Patrick Gale's novels from way back in the 1980s when he first began writing. The Aerodynamics of Pork, Kansas in August, Little Bits of Baby, Rough Magic, Notes from an Exhibition, etc. Quirky wonderful gay fiction.

His books in the last 20 years have not been so easily available in the US so I'm hoping and betting that the attention he will get from this will produce a re-issue here of all of his novels.

And he's quite a stunning looking man!

[quote]If you cant find it streaming ...on PBS in June 2018

Hopefully it will be released on DVD sooner than that.

Should I know Oliver from some earlier credit?

If only there was some internet movie database where you could check on that.

I don't want a list, r20. I want opinions.

So how was tonight's episode?

I read that Julian Morris apparently showed his ass.

Ok, pausing at the 6:40 mark to say DAT ASS.

I had not heard of Julian Morris previously. I will, ahem, follow him now.

[quote]Should I know Oliver from some earlier credit?

I first saw Oliver in the Dwayne Johnson film "Faster". A mindless action film where Oliver plays an assassin. Worth it just to look at him. He was most recently on the NBC series Emerald City.

This Morris boy has a ridiculous ass and I'm angry I was not alerted earlier.

Wow, that guy in the OP's photo is smokin' hot. I want more!

Wow, the DLer who said he's not so impressive in other still photos wasn't kidding. I just looked through his Instagram. He's ...sort of hot. I have no idea how they made him into the Ultimate Prince Charming in that still for Man In The Orange Shirt.

[quote]This Morris boy has a ridiculous ass and I'm angry I was not alerted earlier.

We've had several previous threads on Julian Morris and his ass.

Morris's nude scene from MIOS

Hi everyone! I'm R27! I think this man is only "sort of hot"! I'm still recovering from my "bottom surgery"!

[quote]Hi everyone! I'm [R27]! I think this man is only "sort of hot"! I'm still recovering from my "bottom surgery"!

RIGHT? “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” blahblablah but sorry, this guy is the exception. FU R27!

Just saw James McArdle in Angels in America from the NT. He was quite terrible. Way out of his depth. Plus he's 28 going on 45. A schlubby looking mess.

R14, thanks!

[quote] Oliver Jackson-Cohen is SO FUCKIN' HOT in OPs photo. The other photos of him I found weren't quite as good - but that angle and those clothes - WOW.

Completely agree.

[quote] Saw James McArdle in Angels in America...he's 28 going on 45.

I read his interview promoting Angels in America and was floored by his age. At least he acknowledges that while he's the youngest cast member in the play he looks older than the others.

That mangy cat prop in the beginning reminded me of Balthazar from Vicious for some reason

omg that was wonderful!

R29, thanks for the link to Julian's naked ass.

The scene with Julian pounding his hookup almost made me cum.....twice.

Julian does have a surprisingly substantial ass for such a skinny guy.

And he knows how to work it.

More Juliass:

[quote]The scene with Julian pounding his hookup almost made me cum.....twice.

It's great that Julian didn't shy away from the sex scenes.

I mean...how are they going to show this on PBS? It'll probably take them until 2018 to edit it.

Caught part 1 on Youtube. Part 2 was broadcast Aug 7. Downton Abbey's Laura Carmichael has a supporting role, in between the man sex.

Who can trust PBS to show it 10 months from now without any cuts?

PBS should not edit it. They should have the artistic integrity to broadcast it uncut.

R14, care to upload Episode 2?

TIA!

I thought it was badly acted and kind of romanticised too much. Must have been an emotive part for Vanessa to play considering her husband and father were both bisexual. She's actually lived the part.

"The love I feel for you runs through me like grain through wood."

Part 2.

Thank you, R49 and R14!

I'm disappointed there are only 2 episodes. Two hours are simply not enough to tell the story of these 2 love stories.

I was hoping Michael and Thomas' romance would have had a happy ending. I think Episode 1 was better than Episode 2. Better acting, plot, chemistry between the 2 lovers, etc.

Great interview with Patrick Gale. He discusses the missing middle episode.

AusCaps - Julian Morris and Phil Dunster nude in Man In An Orange Shirt 1-02 “Episode #1.2”

Redgrave is, as expected, magnificent (although the proper age the character should be is mid-90s).

Morris's ass is also magnificent (and will surely not survive the PBS broadcast next year).

Is Oliver still dating Tom Austen?

Some love for cute bottom Bruno aka Phil Dunster:

[quote]Morris's ass is also magnificent

Yes, we should thank Julian Morris for the generous ass scenes.

[quote]Julian Morris and Phil Dunster nude in Man In An Orange Shirt

They're cute to be sue but can never compare to the timeless, raw handsomeness and hairy glory of Oliver Wendell Holmes or whatever the hell his name is!

Gay Times interview with Phil Dunster (from 2016):

Having watched the first episode - there is potential, it could have been so much better. The dialogue seems off at several points (anachronisms, speech patterns, word choice) and the classroom scene with the students about Patroclus and Achilles, oy. I was also waiting for the backstory between the men to be fleshed out a bit, it wasn't, so it all seemed a bit abrupt. Thirdly, did it make sense for Michael's character to be following strange men into bathrooms on the night of his child's birth, or on the day he is leaving for school?

I didn't realize it was only two episodes. I expected more.

[quote]Thirdly, did it make sense for Michael's character to be following strange men into bathrooms on the night of his child's birth, or on the day he is leaving for school?

To me? Yes, it made sense. He was seeking solace from hurt and fear from Flora confronting him prior to her going into labor. I think the cruising on his son's last day before school was inconsequential. He and Flora had a "don't ask, don't tell" marriage and I think it signified that Michael didn't completely shut this side of himself down.

Not going to see March's show that night was the real test. Michael could dabble with men but he knew that if he went to see March's show that night he would not go back to Flora and their son. That's why Flora told Adam that she thought she had won.

Gorgeous!

Sexy

The Daily Mail freaked out over the sex scenes, calling them “graphic and sordid”:

The Daily Mail is graphic and sordid.

My husband and I can speak for millions of license holders, when I say that it is outrageous that the exorbitant fees we pay to the BBC is spent to broadcast this homsexual flith into our homes unbidden. Continental types may revel in this sort of thing, which is why we voted to Leave. True Britons demand that the BBC return to more wholesome fare in the future.

Thanks for the link R49

Just saw it. A few thoughts: Part 2 was definitely stronger than part 1. Part 1 even made me cry (Mary! I know). Part 1 had some very strong acting, from Michael especially (it also didn't hurt that he was hot as fuck). Part 2 suffered from a weaker story and weaker acting. The guy playing Adam couldn't act for shit. I still kept watching though because I wanted to see what happened, I wanted to Flora to tell Adam about Michael and Thomas. One last thing about part 2 that I don't get; Why would someone so composed and together as Steve want someone as damaged and messed up as Adam? I just don't understand what he sees in Adam, but oh well. Maybe he just wanted to have someone he could save, maybe he saw Adam as a project or something.

Steve's existing relationship was a sub-zero nothing, R68. He wanted warmth and passion, even if messed up. Plus a nice country cottage does no harm.

A pretty dull movie, overall.

I disagree, R70. Part one was moving, the plot was good, it was well acted and the characters had chemistry. Then you get to part two and it all falls apart.. weak story, I had no interest in Adam who was just so incredibly messed up I couldn't even feel sorry for him. He had no chemistry with Steve, he was a terrible actor and I never understood why Steve would even want someone as messed up as Adam. I wanted more of Michael and Thomas's story and less of Adam and Steve's story. The former story was far more compelling than the latter.

I think the purpose of having the two episodes take place several decades apart was to show how the times & issues affected gay lives across the generations.

I thought it was fucking awful. I had to watch it like I watched the first couple episodes of Looking, in fits and starts, pausing it to do something, anything, rather than endure it without respite.

I hated McArdle in Angels in America, but he was the first episode's saving grace - actually, his landlord (Lucien?) was also wonderful. It could have done with more writing as sharp as when Thomas' landlord strong arms Michael into visiting Thomas in prison.

I agree that Jackson can look stunning and then really nothing special. I guess it's lighting, though linked pics show scruff helps him. While I thought his crying scene on the stairs was effective, he's not a particularly strong dramatic actor. Does he always speak in that register? His voice kept petering out at the end of sentences because of lack of breath support, which makes me think he's not used to staying in that low part of his voice.

Julian Morris did not bring any real layers to his character, though the writing didn't help him. His big fallout with Redgrave was embarassing, his flashing eyes seeming straight out of melodrama.

Redgrave, like most actors her vintage appearing in tripe, maintained her dignity. However, she was miscast. She radiates intelligence and is not best suited to playing such a small minded, repressed woman. I also couldn't put out of my mind that she was too young for the role. I think Sylvia Syms (only three years older but reads older than Redgrave) might have been fine casting, especially having played Dirk Bogarde's wife in "Victim". Honor Blackman, who is in her 90s and served as a dispatch rider during the war, might have been good as well. Syms and Blackman came up playing wives and girlfriends, whereas Redgrave never toiled in somewhat thankless English Rose roles. They could have brought some of that to the part. Virginia McKenna might also have been interesting.

God, I love that this place has people with strong opinions and ideas about casting 90-something English Roses.

he's hot but i'm still not gonna watch it

Is this the one that's coming to PBS next year? Will it be censored for US audiences?

James McArdle was fucking BRILLIANT in Angels in America. Best performance of Louis I've ever seen, bar none. You watch, he's going to be one of that generation's great leading actors.

Oliver Jackson-Cohen, however, will still be pretty.

McArdle was crap in Angels. Total shit. He had no business being on that stage. He also looks three decades older than he is, and his weak and incipient double chin is a mess.

So... who in the cast is gay? Julian Morris and Phil Dunster, clearly. Anyone else?

[quote]I hated McArdle in Angels in America

James McArdle was not convincing as a Jewish male in 1980s America. He sounded like a caricature of Fanny Brice. And he doesn't look one bit Jewish. Plus his eye color seemed a little blue for all of Lewis' shrieking about blonds with blue eyes.

[quote]So... who in the cast is gay? Julian Morris and Phil Dunster, clearly. Anyone else?

I wonder when Julian Morris and Phil Dunster will officially come out?

McArdle used a generic American accent in Angels. He wasn't doing a Jewish/New York caricature at all, which was probably a blessing considering how wrongheaded his performance was in general.

R81 Probably when he gets married or has "Fuck You" money.

You're all wrong. McArdle was brilliant, incipient double chin notwithstanding. You guys suck.

[quote]Probably when he gets married or has "Fuck You" money.

I wonder if Julian & Landon will get married? They seem to have been together for a while.

How much money does Landon's daddy have since the bankruptcy? .. Were trust funds in place? .. The family still appears to own Beverly House.

I believe the main house gets rented out for social events, films, etc. - with Landon and Julian residing in the guest house? .. Other sources report there are $60 million dollars with of loans against the property.

But it must be a hoot living there.

Say what?! Landon's an heiress? A ruined heiress? Care to provide a potted history?

Landon is very outspoken on Twitter about his dislike of Trump:

R87 Landon's daddy is attorney, mega-financier, developer, Leonard Ross. He made like a gazillion dollars in L.A. real estate. You can find articles about him on the internet. He apparently had a gambling? problem, which led to him filing some kind of bankruptcy several years ago.

But "Beverly House" - which he bought back in the 70s - is still his. Here's some history about the HUGE estate.

Was that the house belonging to the Hollywood producer in The Godfather?

R90 Yes. That's mentioned in the article at R89.

P.S. If you scan Landon and Julian's instagrams, you can find occasional photos of them on the Beverly House property. ( I would guess a smaller, guest house on the estate is home.) But there are also photos of them having parties in the main house.

Charmed life.

Thanks for the info about Landon and Julian at Beverly House, R92.

Didn't realize they had parties there.

R93 Entertaining Julian's sister (center in black) with her bf (in black) at Beverly House last year. And the guy to the far left (also in black) is Julian's father.

Thanks for the photo, R94.

I assume Julian & Landon are out as a couple to their friends & family.

This is kind of an odd shot if they're a couple, they're bro distance apart.

R95 Julian's sister (Amy) has tons of photos of her and Landon. And I've seen the dad (Glen) retweet Landon.

Funny how Julian's sister looks more LA than him. Perhaps he's a "friend of Bernadette Peters" in avoiding sun/tanning.

This is from a dinner party held inside the dining room of the mansion itself .. way back in 2013.

Lanson and Julian across from one another.

There weren't tags on the photo, so don't know which Carver boy that is.

I read this whole thread, and from what I gets, part 1 is about a gay victim of legal homophobia, and part 2 is about a messed up gay guy.

How original.

r96 You're silly if you think gay male couples don't use a bit of distance when they're in mixed company.

Actually, it's not the pair of them keeping distance, it's Julian. Landon is leaning his torso towards Julian, whose distance is causing Landon's awkward torso/bottom half mismatch as he keeps contact with the straight couple.

How many of those tables fit in the dining room?

r102 Do you know any gay couples? It's totally normal for one guy to be more uncomfortable displaying affection than the other.

Gale said he wanted to challenge gay viewers with the modern day tale, I guess the "we have gay marriage, everything is fine brigade".

R103 During the day the dining room looks like this.

[quote]I disagree, [R70]. Part one was moving, the plot was good, it was well acted and the characters had chemistry. Then you get to part two and it all falls apart.. weak story, I had no interest in Adam who was just so incredibly messed up I couldn't even feel sorry for him. He had no chemistry with Steve, he was a terrible actor and I never understood why Steve would even want someone as messed up as Adam. I wanted more of Michael and Thomas's story and less of Adam and Steve's story. The former story was far more compelling than the latter.

I agree with you totally except for Adam whom I actually quite liked. Unfortunately there wasn't even a bit of chemistry with Steve which ruined the whole episode. It was a shame there wasn't more about the granddad and the cottage. I would've loved to have seen their lives more. Now it just suddenly jumped into present day without telling much.

I must admit I ended up fastforwarding through parts of episode 2, especially when Steve was with Adam, so I might've missed some crucial parts. I also felt quite uncomfortable watching it and the episode left me with a foul mood. I assume it hit me with some unwanted truths about my own life which partly explain my reaction. However the show just wasn't very good.

When you see flawed shows like this you're reminded how well movies like Maurice and Brokeback Mountain are made.

R104 , is it a btm/top thing?

Realistically, Adam should have puked on the guy's dick, rather than afterward.

R96 The two other two guys in that photo (besides Landon) are tagged Joshua Thurston and Jackson Heywood.

Julian has become an American citizen and voted in last year's election (for Hillary), so it sounds like he's planning to settle in LA with Landon.

There's nothing particularly challenging about portraying a gay person as a mental case. This Gale person thinks he's so edgy but he's just indulging in a tired trope.

Julian Morris pounding Phil Dunster:

Just wasted an entire afternoon watching this on YouTube when I was supposed to be working.

Agree with the posters above who felt Part 1 was way stronger than Part 2.

Part 1 left me a big MARY! mess. Thirty some years ago, I WAS Thomas, including the part with the Edenic romantic getaway abruptly followed by his wedding, where I was one of the groomsmen. Maybe that accounts for some of why I wanted to see more of Michael and Thomas's story but wasn't especially moved by Part 2.

It felt like this was meant to have been a longer series and the BBC cut the budget, but it seems like a lot of questions were left unanswered and storylines just dropped off--so we find out in passing that Michael died at 60, but what about Thomas? What about little Robert? How does Adam come to be raised by his grandmother? How does Flora evolve from this heartbroken, confused young wife into a sophisticated nonegenarian who speaks fluent Italian and circle of friends but still has all these no-go zones?

The present day scenes by contrast lacked any of sense of profundity as the 1940s ones. So Adam is a sex addict who avoids intimacy and has cats as his emotional outlets, and Steve has outgrown his sugar baby role in an unhappily open relationship. This could easily be about straight people and how technology and endless choice conspire to make people unhappy, but it feels really slight compared with the Shakespearean-level tragedy of Thomas and Michael (also, Adam and Steve--seriously?)

The 1940s scenes seemed better acted in general, where the modern ones just seemed soap opera-ish. I was bothered by anachronistic elements like some of the other posters, especially when Flora drops what sounds like an an F bomb. Also, though I didn't not sense any chemistry between Steve and Adam, the developmentof their relationship seemed abrupt and with their histories, you can only imagine trouble ahead. I was actually more interested in the relationship between Steve and his older man, maybe because Julian Sands did so much with not a lot. Also agreed with another poster that Redgrave didn't work for me. It's not just her famously left wing politics, she just seems all wrong for what's basically an upper middle class English version of Alma from Brokeback Mountain.

If I'd been the producer and limited to 2 episodes, I'd have concentrated on Michael and Thomas, and if I absolutely had to bring the present day into it to show how times have changed, I'd have had Adam renovating the cottage he inherited from his dead grandmother, maybe in tandem with his longtime partner to whom he hasn't quite been able to make the ultimate commitment. Maybe along the way he discovers the painting and unsent letter, kind of like a gay Bridges of Madison County, realizes how lucky he is and what his grandfather would have given to have his opportunities, and finally gets down on one knee and pops the question, etc.

Let this serve as a lesson for viewers who wished Brokeback had a happy ending, though. It's largely the tragic impossibility of Michael's and Thomas' starcrossed love that gives their story its impact. Adam and Steve and his Grindr addiction have NOTHING on that indent letter, read in Jackson Cohen's sexy, sexy voice.

^^^UNSENT letters.

Also don't buy Redgrave for a minute as a woman in her 90s. She's 80 and looks great for her age.

Also kinda surprised we're already past 100 posts and no one mentioned Jackson Cohen's resemblance to this guy:

R114 Patrick Gale said in an interview last week that it was originally conceived as a 3 part series, which was then reduced to two parts.

If that was true he should have cut part 3 and kept part 2.

The Adam character was badly conceived and executed. Vanessa Redgrave is never convincing on film or TV and was miscast.

Part 1 was infinitely better than part 2.

In Part 1, I wanted to see more of how Michael allowed himself to begin have quickies in the department store men's room with cute young lads. He seemed repulsed by such hook-ups in an earlier scene.

He was repulsed earlier because he'd been found out by his wife, who was giving birth to a child that mightn't live, and he was no doubt aware of how he could be arrested if he indulged. I don't think cops prowled department store bathrooms like park/public lavatories.

Ben Whishaw would have been infinitely better as Adam, though he's probably sick of that kind of role.

[quote] Ben Whishaw would have been infinitely better as Adam, though he's probably sick of that kind of role.

Whishaw essentially played that role in LONDON SPY.

Adam would have been a perfectly good character if the story was better, no matter who he was played by.

Adam a guy who has been to university and lived his whole life in London just wouldn't be a self loathing, Grindr addicted wanker at 34. It was a story about someone in the 1970's. Which probably reflects more on Patrick Gale's age than anything that exists today.

[quote]Oliver Jackson-Cohen, however, will still be pretty.

OJC is not "pretty", thank God! He's fuckin' hot and handsome.

Who is "this guy," r117?

R124 OJC is Gyllenhaalescent.

James McArdle is much, much better in this than he was in "Angels in America." Is he gay?

No. He's one of those hetereosexuals.

Sorry, R125, I forgot this thread probably has quite a few Brits in it who would be unlikely to recognize (American) football star Aaron Rodgers, who's widely believed to be gay.

Over a dozen full threads on DL devoted to him and his alleged gaiety and bearding follies.

Here's another shot of him looking like Jackson Cohen's brother:

[quote] Sorry, [R125], I forgot this thread probably has quite a few Brits in it who would be unlikely to recognize (American) football star Aaron Rodgers, who's widely believed to be gay.

I am American. I don't follow sports.

[quote]Over a dozen full threads on DL devoted to him and his alleged gaiety and bearding follies.

None opened and read by me.

OJC is far more romantic and refined looking than Rodgers. Rodgers is still very cute though,

[quote]Julian Morris did not bring any real layers to his character, though the writing didn't help him. His big fallout with Redgrave was embarassing, his flashing eyes seeming straight out of melodrama.

Yep, although hot he can't act for shit. He's one of the worst actors I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. The current crop of actors aren't exactly great. I expected more acting-wise from a British drama. I think the acting in part 1 was good, but part 2 was awful. The directing didn't help either, awful clichéd story. It's like part 2 was written by someone completely different. Part 1 was so good, everything was good.. the acting, the directing, the plot, the chemistry between the actors etc. Then it literally all falls apart in part 2. I have no idea what happened but part 2 seemed off. I would've much rather watched two parts of Michael and Thomas's story instead of that dreadful dreck I had to indure in part 2. Were we supposed to feel sorry for Adam? I didn't. I also don't understand what Steve would see in Adam, as messed up as he was, it made no sense. All of Adam's hook up scenes (although hot!) were clichéd as hell.

brits love melodrama!

Phil Dunster is gay?! More details pls.

Judging from the photos and not having seen either in motion: Aaron Rodgers is cute. Oliver Jackson-Cohen is absolutely gorgeous.

[quote]Yep, although hot he can't act for shit. He's one of the worst actors I've seen in a while, and that's saying something.

Julian Morris is usually a good actor. He's been acting since he was a child and has a lot of experience.

[quote]Julian Morris is usually a good actor.

I don't remember seeing him in anything and not liking him. He is lovely.

I don't think Julian Morris is a complete write off as an actor. He's not dead behind the eyes, zero presence etc. I suspect he's more suited, as Patrick Macnee described his own acting range, "to the lower slopes". I can see him being well utilised in a sitcom or romantic comedy, where he has ample opportunity to smile and be naked in farcical scenarios.

What's the consensus on his acting in The Dana Delany Programme, on... Amazon (?) ?

He's been filming a new remake of Little Women. Is that just a "dream man" gig? I've never seen/read it.

[quote]What's the consensus on his acting in The Dana Delany Programme, on... Amazon (?) ?

Hand of God?

He's also been in Pretty Little Liars, ER, Miss Marple, Donkey Punch and lots of other things.

Did anyone claim or imply he hasn't been in lots of things?

[quote]Judging from the photos and not having seen either in motion: Aaron Rodgers is cute. Oliver Jackson-Cohen is absolutely gorgeous.

Absolutely!

Any idea who did Thomas's paintings in Part 1, or where the cottage is?

Patrick Gale is on Twitter as PNovelistGale. Ask him.

R142 In the screen credits, they have a credit listed for "Artworks" with the name "Edward Jones" identified. So perhaps he was artist who did the paintings we see? Anyway, that would be my guess.

I'm questioning the life experience of the poster who doesn't understand why a guy would be attracted to Adam. He's hot, sexually passionate, and a professional with a good job. Nobody grows into the perfect mate without coupling first. Far worse bets than that guy's profile.

Thanks, R144. The version I watched was on YouTube with Italian subtitles, no credits afterwards, so I missed that. Don't know what else might have been edited out for Italian viewers. The Daily Mail promised sordid butt sex but it was sadly lacking in that department IMO, at least in part 1.

[quote]What's the consensus on his acting in The Dana Delany Programme, on... Amazon (?) ?

It's really The Ron Perlman Program, first of all. Julian's is a silly role. I don't think I'd like anyone in it. The entire Program is pretty dreadful.

Question for British viewers: I had a partner years ago (dead now) who was about the same age as Robert, Michael and Flora's son in Part 1. He went to boarding school at age 8, which I recall thinking was really young for a kid to leave home, but Robert in the film looks even younger, closer to 6. Would it have been normal back in the 1950s to send a child that young away to school, or were kids back then just smaller (maybe due to lingering postwar rationing nutrition)?

TIA.

OJC needs to FUCK ME RIGHT NOW!

Puppies are cute, R135. This is a fucking smoke show:

R148, I'm not a Brit but I took a quick look at Wikipedia where it says:

"Also in Britain children as young as 5 to 9 years of age are sent to boarding schools."

Since boarding schools are hundreds of years old tradition in Britain I assume the age bracket hasn't changed considerably over the years. Obviously I could be totally wrong but judging by the vast amount of British shows and movies I've seen over the years kids really can leave home quite early.

But only a small percentage of British kids attend boarding school, and even fewer what used to be called 'prep schools' for the under 12s.

Seven Day Viewer Totals for each part.

Part 1 - 1.49 million

Part 2 - 1.25 million

Source: BARB Viewing Data

Are those good numbers for BBC TWO?

R154 I'd kind of say mid-range for BBC2. The episodes made the Top 30 for the week they aired, but not the Top 10. (#11 and #17 respectively.)

Not much goes over 3 million on BBC2 (except some sports stuff).

Part 1 did slightly less than something like "Versailles," which was usually scoring around the 1.5+ million mark.

Thanks for the info, R155.

I guess the numbers were not too bad, then.

So BBC2 has mostly uncensored stuff? I'm asking because I watch some BBC shows on Netflix and Amazon and was surprised by the amount of nudity/sex shown unlike what's allowed on regular network shows. Is BBC2 equivalent to a cable or pay channel like HBO? Just curious.

Question with SPOILERS:

When Tomas is released from prison, you see Michael waiting outside across the road, a cab passing by, and then Thomas emerge and look around. Michael starts to call to him, but then a group of Thomas' friends rush from the cab and embrace him and pile him back into the cab, and as they do so, it looks as though he looks in Michael's direction.

So what just happened there? We learn in Part 2 that Michael never posted the letter, and we already know from the voice over that he's rejecting Michael's letters, so he doesn't know about Michael's change of heart and that Michael is prepared to leave Flora and go to France with him. But Michael would know this and that he'd have to work to get past Thomas's defenses.

Did Thomas see Michael and ignore him and did Michael lose his courage in the face of Thomas' rejection, or did Thomas never know Michael was there and it was the sight of Thomas's unconventional-looking friends that caused him to lose his nerve? And then why the breakdown on the stairs? Was it at the thought that Thomas was over him, or his own realization that he didn't have the courage to go against convention and make a life with Thomas, or face breaking up his own family to do it, and knowing that he had closed the door on the possibility of happiness for either himself or Thomas?

It's hard to tell from the photography how the scene is playing out, at least watching it on an Android.

R158 I thought it was more or less these two:

[quote] ... or did Thomas never know Michael was there and it was the sight of Thomas's unconventional-looking friends that caused him to lose his nerve?

[quote] ... or his own realization that he didn't have the courage to go against convention and make a life with Thomas ....

I watched this last night as it's available for purchase on Canadian itunes....I don't think it's available in America yet because PBS is going to air it in June.

I absolutely loved part one! I thought it was very touching and heart breaking really. I have to say I thought Oliver Jackson Cohen stole the show he was absolutely brilliant in conveying such fragility in Michael. The scene where he waits for Thomas outside of the prison but Thomas leaves with his friends made me cry Mary, Michael looks absolutely crushed. I also live the scene where Michael visits Thomas's mother. I thought James McArdle was somewhat underwhelming as Thomas if I'm being honest, I feel like he underplayed some of the more emotional scenes. My only beef was I felt the story was a bit rushed, for example I felt as though they really kind of glossed over Thomas's and Michael's relationship back in school. When did they last see each other because Michael instantly recognizes Thomas as he lay injured during the opening battle.

Part two was disappointing to me. I wasn't really engaged in the story as much as part one because it was somewhat predictable and to be honest the acting was very...blah. I mean I love Vanessa Redgrave but I'm not sure if it's her health but was so low key.

I know Patrick Gale has said the originally the BBC had ordered three episodes but that due to budget cuts they cut the second episode which would have followed Michael and Flora's son. I'm assuming they kept in the third episode because of Vanessa Redgrave. Frankly I would have much rather have had the second part be closer to the first part because there are so many unanswered questions. The end of the first part seems to suggest that with Robert going to boarding school, Michael was going to spend time with Thomas in France. In the third part we learn that Michael died around 1980 at the age of 60, and that Thomas is dead by 2017. Also what happens to Robert as we know he dies and Flora raises Adam. Gale has suggested he's open to doing another episode that would fill in the missing gaps but it comes down to the BBC.

R158

I don’t see how they could go back at this point. A missed opportunity.

Oliver played Prince William years ago... He certainly aged better. And what? R54 Tom Austen is gay, too?

Another reason why the second part was chopped because what BBC wanted was a series that showed what homosexuality was like before it was decriminalized compared to what it is like today. With only two episodes the decision was made to cut the middle part of the story.

Patrick Gale has said BBC's original plans for the series were originally more ambitious I think it was originally going to span the 40s right through to 2017 in several parts but was cut back to three episodes then eventual to just two.

R161 Gale has stated in a couple interviews and on twitter that he's interested in revisiting the middle of the story either by doing another mini-series or maybe in a novel.

R163 on Twitter he said he wouldn't be revisiting the Thomas and Michael story line but rather any potential followup would be based on the "lost" second episode which was going to focus on a closeted Tory MP who Robert works for. Robert ended up marrying a woman his parents disapproved of and he and his wife are killed in a car crash and Adam is left with Flora. He also says that basically Thomas drinks himself to death by the later 70s and Michael has a breakdown and died of a heart attack in the early 80s at the age of 60.

Phil Dunster posted this on his Instagram Story. Did he just come out?

Still gorgeous:

There are three utter gorgeosities in this show? And we STILL can't see it in the USA?

Sunday, June 17 on PBS, r167.

This is the best Jake Gyllenhaal has looked.

[quote]This is the best Jake Gyllenhaal has looked.

When are they going to do a movie together? Or would it be too confusing? I know: each one could speak in his native tongue.

Will PBS cut out all the gay male nookie?

Which one of these guys have shown dong?

Julian Morris has shown his cock a couple times.

[quote]Will PBS cut out all the gay male nookie?

The only scene I could envision being edited is the scene from the second part where Julian Morris is getting face-fucked.

[quote]Julian Morris has shown his cock a couple times.

In which films, SVP?

[quote] "That mangy cat prop in the beginning reminded me of Balthazar from Vicious for some reason —Rancho Unicorno"

Would that be because...I'm a DOG? I have never been mistaken for a cat, R36.

R175, Julian has shown his cock in "Donkey Punch" and "Kelly & Victor".

What is SVP?

R178, I assume it stands for "Si Vous Plait" (French for "If You Please").

[quote]What is SVP?

Sil vous plait. It is French for "please." I am of that generation of gays who believe everything sounds better in French.

Julian has said he likes being naked and that it feels liberating.

It's great that he's been so generous about showing off his naked body.

He has shown his ass many times, and even a few glimpses of his cock.

I love naked Julian. I know a young man who vaguely reminds me of him, physically. I have a crush on said man. It will never go anywhere. I'm sad, but I'm not depressed. I'm old. He's not. It's not supposed to go anywhere. I saw him last night. Out. He introduced me to his grandmother, who was his date for the evening. She's one of the two people he loves most in the world. The other is his brother. I'd like to be the third. But it will never happen. As I said, sad. But not depressed.

I shall think of Julian, who is as unavailable as my friend.

[quote]I love naked Julian.

R182, here's a GIF of Julian's naked ass for you:

You are gracious and kind, R183. I salute you.

Here's one for you, R183. Man in no shirt.

Thanks.

Yes, that's a young, twinky Julian.

Thanks OP - I haven't heard of this before. Just downloading it now and will watch it tonight.

PBS is releasing the DVD on June 19:

Watching it now -- wow!

So what did you think, R189?

I was knocked over by it.

Some spoilers ahead:

The tenderness and then heartbreak of the first part, followed by the seamless transition to the modern era, with its parallel issues but hopeful resolution, felt honest and true.

The acting was strong all around, with a gut punch from Vanessa Redgrave, and the final reveal (of the man in an orange shirt and then the re-reading of the unmailed letter) left me in cathartic tears.

The graphic love/sex scenes were welcome and I doubt they will survive the transfer to PBS, especially the ass-pounding and the throat-fucking. There were echoes of "God's Own Country" in Adam's journey but they were illuminating rather than derivative: We are not all liberated or self-accepting despite modern opportunities and sensibilities.

This is a welcome addition to the growing body of gay-themed stories and well worth seeking out.

[quote]The graphic love/sex scenes were welcome and I doubt they will survive the transfer to PBS, especially the ass-pounding and the throat-fucking.

Julian Morris probably does that every night with Landon Ross.

Why do they have that hunk standing next to that old man on the DVD cover?

R183 , what is that gif from?

That is from "man in an orange shirt," where he's trying to scrub the gay away

Correct.

That's from the 2nd episode of "Man In An Orange Shirt".

Thanks R195 and R196. I haven't seen it yet. Something to look forward to!

[quote]Why do they have that hunk standing next to that old man on the DVD cover?

James McArdle knows he's aging like curdled milk despite only being 29.

This is showing on PBS on 6/17/18.

Is it all in one part or divided in 2

God, check the internet! Google it, loser.

Both parts are on tonight. Two hours. 9-11 eastern.

This is on tonight on my PBS channel (Atlanta)

Starting in a few minutes.

I loved it. I love him. In that very special "he's an actor, I'm a fan, we're never going to meet" kind of way.

Oliver Jackson Cohen is smoking hot. And 6’3”. And his mother is a fabulous fashion diva who designed AbFab costumes. Born in Westminster. He is perfect. And I thought he was the best actor. Except Vanessa maybe. Adam / Julian. Orris was horrible. I rarely notice bad acting - but his stood out.

All in all a very nice pride month movie. Thanks PBS. Now on to further research on my new love Oliver.

Very disappointing!!

Except for OJC who certainly did NOT disappoint, especially in his shirtless scenes. What other films of his should I look for?

Can I also mention the paintings were truly awful, especially the eponymous Man in an Orange Shirt (both the sketch and final version). Could they not find a better artist to execute them?

Patrick Gale used to be such a gifted writer with a truly unique and quirky voice. I loved all of his 1980s novels like Little Bits of Baby and The Aerodynamics of Pork.

Sadly, he became a very mundane and ordinary writer by the 1990s and never recovered so I was not surprised by the lameness of Man in an Orange Shirt.

Oliver was in a dreadful action film titled Faster and was on an NBC series 2 seasons ago. He's on Instagram I believe.

....

So for those who saw the PBS broadcast, was it uncensored, or did they edit out some of the gay sex scenes?

Was this scene broadcast in the PBS version?

It was on PBS ?? PBS has never shied away from gay sex.

r213, I thought PBS cut out some important Whishaw-Holcroft fucking in London Spy, which we saw in the BBC original.

How many episodes were made?

I have seen 2 episodes

There were only two episodes of Orange Shirt. What you saw last night, or not, was it.

There are four or five episodes in London Spy.

There were supposed to be three episodes - a middle one would have featured Jackson Cohen's son. I believe the BBC cut the order down to two.

I'm glad to see consensus about Morris' performance.

I would not have found the show nearly as watchable if Julian Morris hadn't been in it. I don't know what you cunts are cunting about.

I thought part one was much more interesting and affecting than part two, but Morris was perfectly fine in his role.

Yes, r220. I liked the story more in part one. I found Adam annoying in part two—partly because I have a friend who's as "Gruff"-addicted as he was. It was interesting to see this current-day addiction dramatized, however. It would have been interesting to see what Adam's father's life was like. Was he gay, too? Did Adam's self-hating-gayness come directly from his father, or did it skip a generation (as the show seems to tell us).

PBS Podcast: "Julian Morris Isn’t Afraid To Play Complicated Characters."

What a waste of Vanessa Redgrave!

I was thrilled to see her in London in the The Inheritance at The Old Vic, which will move to the West End and then Broadway this fall/winter. Though she seemed quite fragile onstage, her performance and mere presence packed such an unforgettable wallop. I'm thrilled she's stikll working.

Patrick Gale tweeted to a viewer that there were cuts to the version PBS aired.

I've seen it twice and I really wanted to like it.

Acting and directing were very uneven. The 1st part was better. The story lacked character development and depth. But, it was poignant and believable.

The 2nd part was not good at all. The story and characters felt very artificial.

It would have been better if they had just focused on part 1.

The American DVD is released on Tuesday, 19 June. I assume that will be uncut, like the stars.

[quote] I assume that will be uncut, like the stars.

Morris and Cohen uncut? I laugh in your face. And at your foreskin.

sexy!

Aren't Mamas Cohen and Morris shiksas? I wouldn't be too sure about circumcision as a given for those two.

I believe we have seen enough of Julian's penis to know that he is cut. If he were uncut, shrieking would already have occurred.

I don't think I've ever seen a clear pic of Julian's dick, only old VHS quality pics.

BIphobic revisionism where bisexuals are re-classified as closeted gays by “enlightened but essentialist” Kinsey Six offspring (see Fun Homeby Alison Bechdel for another example(.

I didn't say they were good pictures, r231, or clear pictures, but I believe a foreskin would have shown up, had one existed. Also, he identifies as Jewish. Is it certain his mother's not?

If they're not clear and close up, how would a foreskin... appear?

You're right, r234. It neither appears nor fails to appear. Happy now?

No, I'm not happy. Blurry dick shots irk me. Props to him for not fluffing, though. Fassbender wasn't so brave.

[quote]It would have been better if they had just focused on part 1.

My understanding is that the show was initially supposed to be 3 different parts but they ended up hacking the 2nd part out.

Which totally made sense since it felt like we had missed a lot between part 1 and part 2.

I love him regardless of foreskin status. I guess I didn't worry about there not being an ECU of his schlong. What movie is that from, R234?

I think it's from Donkey Punch.

R211 I'm pretty sure the shower scene where the Julian Morris character is scrubbing his body was manipulated-blurred, so you couldn't see his delicious ass. I remember when watching the British broadcast, how visible it was. (i.e. The gif someone made from the original broadcast up at R183 is much clearer than what I saw on PBS last night.)

Part 2 seemed to have nothing to do with Part 1.

Vanessa Redgrave was indeed miscast as an 90-something uptight homophobic biddy but she also looked NOTHING like the actress who portrayed her as a younger woman.

[quote]Part 2 seemed to have nothing to do with Part 1.

Except for the same lead female character, the grandfather-grandson connection of the two lead male characters and the cottage that played a pivotal role in both tales.

Well, yes, r242, except that the same female lead character and the plot lines all came from a totally different sensibility and aesthetic. And honestly, it never seemed like the plot machinations of Part 1 influenced the outcome of Part 2 at all.

Well, getting duped by a gay husband might fuck a woman up a bit.

[quote]Well, getting duped by a gay husband might fuck a woman up a bit.

How did she find out? I fell asleep and woke up to her shrieking about his gayness.

My issue with the Flora/Vanessa Redgrave storyline was that she had accepted her husband's gayness pretty early on and lived with him for years after that.

It's rather unlikely she'd be surprised and angry about her grandson in his 30's who still lives with her coming out in 2017. She'd had a long time to come to terms with the fact someone in her family might be gay and it's absurd to think she hadn't suspected it before since she had experience of finding out someone she loved was gay so long ago.

I get that she was probably still angry with her husband after 60 years or whatever, but taking that anger out on her grandson seemed a bit far-fetched.

Weren't there love letters locked in a drawer?

[quote]My issue with the Flora/Vanessa Redgrave storyline was that she had accepted her husband's gayness pretty early on and lived with him for years after that.

I had no problem at all believing that a woman who had been trapped in a false marriage and decided to endure it the best she could would grow ever more bitter and resentful, not just of her husband, but also the entire concept of homosexuality.

[quote]How did she find out? I fell asleep and woke up to her shrieking about his gayness.

She found the love letters that Thomas wrote to him.  Someone tweeted that it was cliched or ridiculous that a closeted man would leave his letters to be found and Patrick Gale responded that it's what happened with his father.

[quote]My issue with the Flora/Vanessa Redgrave storyline was that she had accepted her husband's gayness pretty early on and lived with him for years after that.

I get that she was probably still angry with her husband after 60 years or whatever, but taking that anger out on her grandson seemed a bit far-fetched.

I think because I read about Patrick Gale's family's experience that I didn't question her reaction.  When Patrick Gale's mother found out she made her husband sleep in a separate room and never allowed him to be alone with their children because she equated homosexuality with pederasty.  To me, Flora accepted but not embraced Michael's being gay because she was being a dutiful wife as women did back then; also she want him to go to jail so I can see her giving him a wide berth so that he can be discreet - which is why she offered to let him go off with Thomas at the mall.

Thinking about how her husband was in that cottage with March and now her grandson carrying on in the cottage with someone else brought all of her anger forth.

R248 - It's believable for someone living at the time of her first marriage when homosexuality was still illegal and highly shameful.

It's not so believable for someone of her means in 2017. They would have divorced later in life. You think she hasn't met a single gay person in all those years apart from her husband? And that after such an early introduction to the idea that someone in her life might be gay, she didn't suspect her grandson?

I really enjoyed it but that part just didn't work for me.

She stated outright she was not a liberal, though, r250.

You seem to be disregarding the culture in which Redgrave's character was raised. Gays were seen as beneath contempt. Not everyone mellows with age.

[quote]You think she hasn't met a single gay person in all those years apart from her husband?

You think meeting another gay person automatically erases the pain and disgust of living with a husband who has never desired you sexually and the fear of him (and your life) being exposed by his latest men's room assignation?

Was it stated that they got divorced? I missed that.

People can still be closed off and live in their own bigoted bubble in 2017.

I'm not suggesting there aren't still people who are bigoted in 2017. I'm suggesting it was unrealistic for someone to be 'liberal' enough to accept her husband's homosexuality in the 40's to then not accept her grandson's homosexuality in 2017.

By that kind of age, people have seen it all. Especially someone who lives in London. I understand she was hurt by her husband but she stayed with him regardless. If she was that bigoted she would have demanded a divorce and would have come out of it pretty well. The shame would have been on her husband, not her.

I just think someone 'strong' enough to accept her husband's homosexuality in the 40's would have been strong enough to accept her grandson's homosexuality in 2017. Plus he was in his 30's and still lives with her... It's not like he's coming out to her in his early teens before she's had a chance to think about it.

She didn't "accept" her husband's homosexuality. She hated it with every fiber of her being. You are analyzing the situation from a very contemporary point of view.

She 'accepted' it in the way of the time; she told him he could do what he wanted but didn't want to hear about it.

She could have called the police. She could have accepted the divorce he offered her. They could have divorced later in life when the son was grown up, if that's what she was worried about. She didn't.

I understand she hated her husband's homosexuality but that doesn't translate well to someone who's brought up a child and a grandchild hating her grandchild's homosexuality however many decades later. I'll say again - I really enjoyed the whole thing so I'm not being a 'hater'. That was my only issue with it as it didn't ring true.

I wish they'd been able to take more time with the whole issue of her acceptance (or not) of Michael's gayness. It felt rushed, almost as if we were watching "Previously on Man in an Orange Shirt" instead of the actual program.

I'd rather have a longer "part one" than the whole of episode two. The second part was just not very good, while part one felt too short. They should have expanded on that story instead.

In case you haven't seen it: here an in interesting article where Patrick Gale discusses the real story behind what he wrote about his life.

The Christian thing Gale cites in the Guardian piece is very important contributor that mindset. I don't recall if Redgrave's character appeared religious.

I think the whole issue was exacerbated enormously by Vanessa playing the role. As an audience we simply can't believe Vanessa as such a small-minded and homophobic person.......and she certainly didn't play the character that way until she suddenly lashed out at her grandson. She was essentially dressed and made up to look like Vanessa Redgrave, like the elderly but liberated, sensitive and intelligent woman she is in real life. Any of the actresses who played her old biddy friends would have been more believable.

[quote]Aren't Mamas Cohen and Morris shiksas? I wouldn't be too sure about circumcision as a given for those two.

Julian's mother & father are both Jewish.

Julian is cut.

You can see his cut cock in this close up from the film "Kelly & Victor".

Thank you, R263.

R262: Redgrave is perfectly believeable as someone who came of age in the 40s., her vagina as dusty as Micheal's family cottage. Frances de la Tour shines, though, by having the smaller but livelier part--she loves her son, knows about Michael, approaches things pragmatically, knows her place, but has her limits (the hissy, catty Lucien). She's just as sad as Redgrave and stuck in circumstances that make her unhappy, but she doesn't just wallow in it or try to cause others unhappiness.

"She could have called the police. She could have accepted the divorce he offered her. They could have divorced later in life when the son was grown up, if that's what she was worried about. She didn't."

She NEVER would have called the police - that would have caused a scandal. And divorces were frowned upon back then.

r265: How is Redgrave believable as someone who came of age in the 1940s when the story is set in the 2010s? Part 2 is set then, right?

That's like saying Jane Fonda would have been believable as someone who came of age in the 1940s.

We have too many clear recollections of the those actresses when they were young in the 1960s to be able to get over those images, no matter how good they are as actresses. Perhaps if I'd never seen Vanessa before, she would have been effective in the role and believable as a 90-something conservative, but it was not to be, at least for me.

I do agree that the age felt slightly off - Vanessa was born in the 30s and looks it, they didn't really make any attempt to make her look older. Didn't have any problems buying her as a conservative - people can play characters who have different beliefs, that's what acting is all about.

The story would have worked better if the contemporary version had been set about 14-15 years ago.

Let's say Michael and Flora were 25 in 1945, then had their son Robert the next year in 1946.

In 2004, if Adam was 34, he would have been born in 1970, which would have made his father 24, probably pretty realistic.

In 2004, Flora would have been 84, which seems much more realistic than having her be in her late 90s. She would have been 50 when her grandson was born, and young enough to have stepped in to take care of him after his parents died.

That time period would have also worked better with people not being quite as open about being gay as today, and old standards still being clung to. Adam obviously wouldn't have been on phone apps but he still would have been prowling the bars looking for anonymous sex.

If I were Thomas, I would have been a little upset, too, if I'd just spent an idyllic week nuzzling on Oliver Jackson-Cohen's chest hair and then be told he was getting married to a woman and that I should just suck it up and come to the wedding.

Was that a street person Julian's character sucks off? And was that cum he spits up? That was rather gross.

Does "street person" = someone he picked up on the street? Then maybe. But I'd assumed all his pickups were prearranged on "Gruff."

I saw it last year but I assumed it was a drug dealer. Wasn't he wearing a hoodie?

The blowjob street scene was meant to be gross.

I don't remember, r273. I'll have to look at it again.

I was told once that European gays of that WWII era were not so much into oral sex, that it was almost always anal sex. Is this true? Was it a matter of hygiene or just the prevailing trend?

[quote]Frances de la Tour shines

Frances de la Tour was also in "Vicious" with Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi.

Why on earth do PBS censor shows? Why buy them if they are going to censor it

The idea that Redgrave character would have changed a lot with the times is preposterous. Of course, she continued to have difficulty with homosexuality and probably with sexuality in general. She came of age when homosexuality was dirty and illegal and, for that matter, straight sex was dirty but a duty. She probably could have become some spinster teacher but to give up her status a a middle class wife and to "horrors" divorce would have been bad, too. Her parents died in the blitz--she had no where to go unless it meant living with her slightly more free spirited sister, of whom she's a bit disapproving. She doesn't want to talk about sex...she knew she had trouble with her grandson's sexuality and so she acted like it wasn't there. Redgrave carries this off well--I'm sure it was difficult figuring out her father was bisexual and God knows how her mother lived with that (probably with a lot of compartmentalizing). Redgrave herself is at her best playing these repressed types which is probably consistent with her own class background.

Oliver Jackson Cohen the next Bond?

I've read that Michael Redgrave opened up to Rachel Kempson about his sexuality before they married. My recollection is a little hazy but I believe he eventually moved his male lover into the family home or to a house down the road.

Gale's sketch in The Guardian of his parents' relationship is far more interesting than the script we saw put up onscreen. The fact that his mother thought herself worldly but assumed her husband's sexuality made him a paedophile so she hobbled his relationship with his children... it's horrifying. One wonders what Gale's father, seemingly in the dark about how much his wife knew about (and twisted) his sexuality, felt about his marriage and relationship witg his children... the mind reels.

Gale should write that story.

I think Gale is sexy. Oliver Jacksen-Cohen is very very hot.

I thought the same thing R279, he’s very sexy and masculine.

[quote]Why on earth do PBS censor shows? Why buy them if they are going to censor it

Which scenes did PBS censor?

Dear R279 and R282, i am completely in agreement with you both. He would make a fine Bond. Barbara Broccoli the producer of the Bond Films probably has here eyes on him already. Sam Heughan was hoping for a shot at Bond, as was Jamie Dornan but OJC is a much better actor and has more elegance which Bond requires. He is also tougher looking.

Why does every actor think he can be James Bond?

bump

We need a gay James Bond - go Luke Evans!!!!

What does Luke Evans have to do with this thread?

I wish I could find out the brand of Bomber jacket that Julian Morris wears in the movie. Really like It.

Never noticed the jacket, R289.

I was more curious about Julian's choice of underwear.

He wore old-fashioned blue briefs. Not sure why.

Usually he wears black briefs in his other productions.

Speaking of fashion, GQ did an article last year with the costume designer, Ian Fulcher. It's primarily about the period costumes, but Julian's character is mentioned. Does the one photo they chose of Morris have him in the jacket you're referring to?

Is this the jacket that R289 is referring to?

R292 yes that is the jacket. He wore it for the majority of the movie.

Julian looks good in anything!

Yes, R294, although he looks a little scruffy these days.

Would be nice to see him clean shaven again.

R289 R293 imho ... It looks like this jacket by THEORY.

Furg HL Neoteric Bomber Jacket - Color: Victory

Nordstrom showing price of GBP 412.14 for my location (UK).

Thanks R296 It does look to be the same one. But that’s way out of my price range ha

I’m actually now thinking it’s not the same one. There is stitching on the Furg jacket that isn’t there on the tv jacket.

The Furg jacket has raglan sleeves, while the jacket Julian wears is cut straight across the shoulder.

Another shot of the jacket, from costume designer Ian Fulcher's website.

The two main actors look very similar, like twins. I can't tell them apart in certain shots.

That happens frequently to me when I watch military movies, r301. It's the uniforms.

It's not the uniforms. These two guys look uncannily similar. Brown hair, light eyes, very thin lips, long noses.

They look like biological brothers.

One has a very round head, the other a long, oval head. Their thin-lippedness is the only point of great similarity I see. And their hair. They don't look at all related.

What is your ethnicity, r303?

They are nothing alike.

My ethnicity is of no relevance, R304. They are indeed very similar looks-wise and look closely related. If you show someone the photo @ R303 - many people would assume it's 2 brothers.

Just like most people keep confusing Jessica Chastain and Bryce Dallas Howard. Those females actually have very different face shapes - one more round, one more oval. But that's a minor detail - because they do indeed look very similar and many think they're either closely related or the same person.

It was interesting, but not remarkable.

[quote]My ethnicity is of no relevance, [R304].

I disagree. I worked with some Vietnamese people once, who thought this white guy and I looked identical. There's something in the genes that makes us see other races, or even nationalities, as being more similar than we see members of our own race as being. I am white, and I perceive more similarities among black people and blond white people than I do among people who look like me. If you are not white, you may see these two white men as being more similar than I perceive them as being.

[quote]But that’s way out of my price range ha

Isn't Julian's character a Veterinarian?

Why would he be wearing an expensive jacket?

[quote] There's something in the genes that makes us see other races, or even nationalities, as being more similar than we see members of our own race as being.

R308, one's genes are irrelevant. You're "white", but I bet you can still spot the difference between Whoopi Goldberg and Whitney Houston, right? They have radically different looks. Just like Obama vs Kevin Hart.

Obviously it's often easier to tell apart certain Caucasians than e.g. Asians and Africans. This is not because of your white genes, but for the simple reason that there's more frequent eye colour and hair colour variation among Caucasians than among Asians and Africans. E.g. Tom Cruise vs. Prince Harry: one is a green-eyed brunette and the other is a blue-eyed redhead - so the difference jumps out at you, even if you're looking at them from afar. With e.g. Asians it's less frequently as immediately obvious (at first glance at least), because the majority have similar straight jet-black hair and dark brown eyes. So one has to look more carefully at less obvious things like bone structure, etc to tell some apart.

I'm mixed-race, Caucasian-Asian. I'm far more attuned to facial nuances among Caucasians than Asians - for the simple reason that I was born and raised among Caucasians and European culture. Even though I have half-Asian genes, I very often can't tell Asians apart (at least at first glance), since I never lived in a majority Asian country and because most Asians confusingly have exactly the same hair and eye colour. So it's not one's DNA / genes that matter - it's what kind of population you grow up with (and what type of people you're more used to seeing and observing in daily life).

The 2 guys in this show objectively look very similar, like brothers. If one looked like Brad Pitt and the other looked like Johnny Depp - then I would agree that they'd look nothing alike.

R309 He doesn't wear the jacket on his job. .. He's always seen dressed in a scrubs-like uniform there.

And if you mean a vet wouldn't be able to afford an expensive jacket, we heard he has money from his father (inheritance, I imagine). .. Plus, I wouldn't doubt Grandma Flora lets him live in the basement rent free.

If he has inheritance money, you wonder why he wouldn't prefer to live in his own flat, rather than with his grandmother.

Although I guess they need the two of them living in the same house so that they can have those dramatic scenes about being gay . . .

The author of the book, Patrick Gale, is hot, too.

R313, and I notice that Patrick Gale is quite taken with Julian.

He fawned over him a lot while he was working with him on the production.

I bet Patrick licked his shitter.

I'm pretty sure that Patrick Gale knows Julian is with Landon, since guess who Patrick follows on IG:

He seems happily married.