Some have been waiting for the Avengers, others for the final of The Game of Thrones yet others waited for the next episode of the Chernobyl disaster series. But let's not hide in 2019 there is only one important premiere (except for Detective Pikachu) - a TV adaptation of the Good Omen. In my little corner of the Internet, one could get the impression that nothing more important has been shot yet.
For many, Prachetta and Gaimana's book is one of those items that introduced readers to the world of two popular authors. Of course there are those who learned at the Equal Rites and Gaiman at Sandman or Neverwhere but I have the impression that still a group of people who have been acquainted with the Angel and Demon during the Apocalypse is quite big. At the same time, there have been discussions among the fans for some time - is it possible to film the prose of Prachetta at all? While in the case of Gaiman we have several successful attempts - like a bit better than the original book Stardust or booming American Gods (the first season I love the second somehow did not trigger my interest), at the moment Pratchett's prose was filmed mainly by British television. And to make it clear - we all know that the British are doing the best television, but at the same time - a lot of people were convinced that maybe a slightly larger budget and a little more opportunities would make the prose of one of the most beloved British authors come to life on the screen. No wonder that expectations for Good Omens were really high. So high that it was possible to assume that many people would be dissatisfied.
In many discussions on how to transfer the humor and brilliance of the Pratchett's to the language of the film, a similar reflection appears. In Pratchett's prose, many humorous elements do not result from what he writes about, but how he writes. Especially all the footnotes and casually cast reflections on human nature make the author's books always read with pleasure and at the same time, with the feeling that he moves freely in the world he creates (of which he knows a lot more than he tells us what creates wonderful sense, a world that really lives). Unfortunately, this element of style and building the world can not be transferred to the screen. Anyway, some kind of absurd humour has a problem when you move them to the screen. I have the impression that I have not seen, for example, any 100% satisfying filming of the prose of Douglas Adams, who, after all, also used ironic humor in his books. Of course, I remember that Good Omens is not just a book by Pratchett and that much, if not most of the work, was put on by Gaiman. No less in the case of the Gaimana style there is nothing that would not be easily transferred on the screen. At least I did not find such elements in his prose. While during the reflection on Pratchett's prose often came to mind. In any case - in a TV or film screening, a bit of Pratchett must be killed. The question is whether we get enough in return.
The answer in my opinion is positive. Of course - it is not that when the TV series appears, we should close the book and never return to it. Nobody seems to suggest a vision in which the joy of adaptation is to obscure the joy of reading a novel. Here is such a digression - I am always puzzled by this anger at adaptations, underlied with some conviction that they spoil the book. I do not know how bad adaptation can spoil a book. On the contrary, it can only prove its value. Good end of digression, let's go back to Good Omens. What rewards him in some impossibility of translating everything into a film tape? Acting. It is here first class and is the heart of the whole story, making even slightly less-written elements become interesting for the viewer and charged with emotions. David Tennant as Crowley moves as the originator of the stage presence of Mick Jagger (who probably sold his soul to the devil somewhere in the time of building his career in exchange for a long life). He smiles demonically, he turns his eyes on demons who do not understand his brilliant plan to gain another millions of souls, and he is the best nanny in the whole world. Above all, in moments when he does not look a bit like the Doctor Who, he is an unimaginably faithful friend of an Angel. In turn, Michael Sheen who is perfectly able to play ruthless and emotionally closed people, here puts on his face his most charming smile and plays the pure innocent good of Aziraphale. While Tennant plays here one of those British rockers who have a society somewhere, Sheen is perfectly in his version of a British embarrassed by his own existence. Together, they form not only a comedic but above all a perfect acting duo, which allows us to believe that the only thing that will save the world from destruction is friendship.
In the background, Jon Hamm acts as a Gabriel perfectly. Hamm, although endowed with the beauty of a man who could play Superman in the 1950s, is in fact a great comedic actor, which he uses when playing one of those nightmarish asshole people who annoy you with their perfect existence. In the background of the series there is still a whole crowd of British (not only) actors who came for a while, such as Mark Gatiss to play the Nazis, Nick Offerman as American ambassador or Derek Jacobi as Metatron. However, whoever deserves praise is kids who play kids. Especially Sam Tylkor Buck playing Adam made an impression on me, because his role is very difficult in all. He must play a completely normal friendly kid until he become an Antichrist. The fact that all children's actors did a good job restores my faith in watching TV series with kids - something that I always have a problem with. In any case, it is hard to fault anyone - the whole thing is polished and even managed to get Cumberbatch to say two words as Satan, completing the circle of Britishness of the whole story. In general, I have the impression that this is exactly the series that we would all watch on the BBC (which is probably a co-producer), but thanks God is Amazon Prime.
The thing that Good Omens in the series edition is a bit limping is the story itself. To make it clear - a bit changed from the original (the worst, in my opinion, the scenes are coming to an end) but in general the spirit and mechanism of the story remained the same. The story of the Apocalypse somewhere in a small British town and the Angel and Demon trying to stop it is fun - as I wrote earlier - more or less to what extent it was written in a funny way. Here, transferred to the screen reveals some of your shortcomings, or longevity, and sometimes gives the impression of being superficial - especially closer to the end. On the other hand, history defends itself where it should, i.e. the vision of the impending apocalypse sounds more disturbingly more timely today than in the ’90s, while the story of friendship over good and evil still grasps the heart. Ultimately, the great struggle to save mankind is a private struggle to save this sweet place between hell and heaven, where an angel with a demon can occasionally go to lunch at the Ritz. And even if people do not always support humanity, they can always cheer on it.
Anyway, you know, this is an issue that is worth bending over, that the greater the threat is on the horizon, the more a man as a viewer ceases to be emotionally involved in it. Because either - the threat is too big to be able to do anything with it, or we remind ourselves that we are watching comedy production and rather all humanity will not disappear from the face of the earth. Apocalypse is a really difficult topic to properly bite him, whenever a series or movies with Angels and Demons in the background try to take care of it, while the story begins to sit down. Of course, this is not a big flaw, the back of the head we are aware that everything will end well (after all, we are familiar with the mechanisms that operate a popular narrative) but usually two days to the Apocalypse are more interesting than the Apocalypse itself. At the same time, I have the impression that it is more visible in movies than in books. Perhaps because in the book the pace of the narrative is much more shaped by the reader himself, and in the series he must give in to the pace that imposes on him. Another thing is that in the show much more able to disturb the extensive and sometimes nowhere leading side stories, which in the book allow you to better build the presented world.
I read a few comments regarding the issue of production quality. I must admit that indeed - it is in production terms a series that resembles the latest BBC achievements rather than The Games of Thrones. At the same time - I will not hide that it does not bother me at all. The economical use of special effects, putting more on the costumes and interior design, and on the actors performance than on the beautiful and realistic rendering of a wall of fire or demonic eyes, is something I'm used to and I have no problem with it. Especially that just to enjoy this story, perfect special effects are not really needed. They definitely have more fun moments when we manage to catch a joke left from the footnote in the book. I have another impression that everything that should play here played perfectly.
Good Omens however, has something that at least in my world puts it much higher than potentially better production. It is nice. Sitting down to watch the next episodes (miraculously managed to spread out for two days), I had the feeling that I would watch a story that will not offend me, played by actors who really know their profession and humor, which will be a bit more sophisticated than in American sitcoms. I love this feeling and I would not give it away for anything in the world. And this is probably the place where I put Good Omens in my head. The next time someone will be looking for a good entertainment that will not upset him and will provide a few hours in the world where he wants to be I told him to watch a Good Omens. And I will know that both Angels and Demons will be pleased.