I love big, epic dramas; it's certainly the genre I most enjoy (closely followed by comedy and sci-fi, if anyone cared to know). So I've really enjoyed getting my teeth stuck into Channel 4's latest TV drama, Indian Summers. The show follows the intertwining lives of those living in India in the lead up to Partition. I studied the partition of India and Pakistan last year as one of my final History modules, so that definitely impacted on my intrigue when I heard the show was airing.

Let me start with the good. I think the show had a great premise and an excellent cast too! Julie Walters as the deceptively sly Cynthia is arguably the biggest name, but Nikesh Patelb and Alyy Khan who played Aafrin and Ramu Sood respectively were stellar castings. Alexander Cobb was also excellent as Ian Mcleod, although I took a little time to actually warm to his character! I also liked the developing relationship between Aafrin and Alice Whelan, which was perfectly drawn out across the episodes. I can't wait to see where the show takes their relationship in the future - I'm hoping it's to a good place! In complete opposition, but equally as compelling, was the disintegration of the relationship between Sarah and Dougie Raworth. Both were complex characters but it worked in great contrast to the budding relationship of Aafrin and Alice.

It may be because I haven't watched many dramas based in or around India, but I did feel some similarities in overtone with a 1997 film called Earth. There was a screening at my university for students and the community alike, and it was my first foray into this period of time that wasn't wholly Western. As Indian Summers progressed, the similarities lessened but I distinctly remember learning from both how, broadly speaking, Parsis were the most neutral in what came to be a battle between Hindus and Muslims as India fought for independence. There drama did not wholly focus on the political situation of course, bringing in the romantic elements to balance out the episodes and add dramatic intrigue. I'm thinking the lead up to the partitioning of India will perhaps be explored more deeply in the second series, although those who were affected most in reality are not those who are focused upon in the show. The poorer people, the women who were not as fierce as Aafrin's sister Sooni, were the ultimate victims and I'm interested to see what occurs in the second series in relation to that.

There were obvious differences between the native Indians and the British, which circumvent far deeper than skin colour. It is known that the British felt themselves to be of far greater intelligence than the Indians and this arrogance was portrayed brilliantly a number of times.The sense of injustice ran deeply in the veins of this show and of course some scenes made for uncomfortable viewing. Purposefully so, I'd imagine, which I think makes the drama all the more important. For instance, when Ramu Sood's life literally hangs in the balance, Ralph Whelan abuses his position and lets Sood hang despite knowing the man to be innocent. Whilst it may have been in support of his life-long friend, Whelan's actions essentially killed an innocent man. In the lead up to the verdict, the treatment of Sood in the court by other Brits made for some important scenes, demonstrating the widely held opinion that the British felt superior is every way possible.

The final episode was significant because it demonstrated with perfect awkwardness how the British then struggled to lessen their authority. When Cynthia's social club is to be opened to Indians as well as British members, there is uproar. There was also, in my mind, an unnecessary use of language that I think we could have done without. There had already been so many portrayals of the injustice faced by Indians at the hands of the British, so I personally feel there was no need to add in the n- word in the final episode, especially when it hadn't been referenced all series. The acting, the performances, the plot all proved how poorly the British could treat Indians, and I feel like it was used more as a shock factor than anything else. Watching the scene where Aafrin tries to order two drinks at the social club only to be ignored and the club to fall in to a deathly silence was a far greater demonstration of the void the British wanted to cement between themselves and Indians. In fact, I think that was one of the most poignant and important scenes of the final episode.

Jade x

As Broadchurch has finally finished (for this series anyway), I thought it would be timely to write a few words on the program that has gripped the nation. I've watched both series and have nothing but praise for David Tennant, Olivia Colman and of course Chris Chibnall, the man responsible for such terrific TV. 

In season two, we've seen the arrival of several new characters, all in charge of fleshing out an old case that's been haunting Alec Hardy (Tennant). I have absolutely relished the Sandbrook case and, even with only the final episode to air, cannot figure out who was actually responsible for the murders. James D'Arcy has been positively coercive as Lee Ashworth but I think the stand out performance has to be that of Eve Myles. Her performance as Claire Ripley was just exceptional. I've been accustomed with Myles since the early Torchwood days, so had no doubts about her acting ability. She has nonetheless surpassed any of my expectations by playing the one character I simply cannot figure out! I'm sure much of this is down the unquestionably good writing Broadchurch is based upon but I think Myles has given stellar performances in every single episode, encapsulating the myriad of emotions a woman in Claire's position might easily be experiencing. 

I also really liked the back stories of  Sharon Bishop and Jocelyn Knight, two new characters who are long-time acquaintances appearing in opposition over the Latimer case, although I am somewhat less keen on Abby Thompson and all that she has to offer. I still have my reservations about Arthur Darvill's vicar, though. There have been criticisms that some of the plotlines have been somewhat implausible; to that I say that it is, first and foremost, a fictional drama. Whilst being based in reality, its premise is not that of education. Broadchurch is not a documentary. Does it need to be 100% wholeheartedly realistic? If so, then why do we still watch the long-running soaps, which are way more far-fetched than anything we've seen on-screen during Broadchurch. So whilst the implausibilities could perhaps have been straightened out, I still think it's one of the best British shows on the TV right now. I think there is, not surprisingly, a tendency to compare the second series to the first and of course there is a noticeably much slower pace in comparison (although my heart rate did not agree when episode seven left us on that almighty cliffhanger).

As we know now for certain that a third series has been commissioned, I hope what remains is it's intrinsic Britishness. Too many of my favourite British shows have become commercialised, with bigger budgets and unnecessary effects. I love American TV and many of my favourite boxsets are American, but I like that British TV can still be quieter, less shouty. Broadchurch showcased some brilliant lighting and incredible capturing of scenic shots but most importantly for me, it remained quietly confident and full of grit. Whatever the plotline of the next series of Broadchurch, I hope it never loses what makes the series so good. As long as we get some answers after that slightly underwhelming taxi exit, I'm all for whatever Series 3 entails.

Has there ever been a vicar I was like to jump in a lake with more than James Norton's Sidney Chambers? The answer is definitely no. You see, I have this problem whereby I spiral into terrible obsessions with ruthless, wretched male TV villains. It happened on Homeland with Nicholas Brody and again on Happy Valley with James Norton's portrayal of Tommy Lee Royce. Although I will admit that it was James more that Tommy who caught my eye, so finding out he was starring in new ITV drama Grantchester essentially ensured I'd be tuning in.

Norton doesn't play a villain this time, but  a local vicar in the 1950s, who loves good jazz and women a little more than he should. He is given the cutest little dog (who he names Dickens - even cuter), which more or less assures I'll love the character whatever he does. Yesterday's episode followed a supposed suicide, which Sidney Chambers is led to believe was more suspicious than it first seemed. Chambers teams up with reluctant copper played excellently by Robson Green, who discover that a string of affairs marred the deceased gentleman's life; something Chambers can perhaps relate to. As a vicar who easily succumbs to the affections of beautiful women - or rather one woman in particular who has recently married someone else - Chambers isn't your usual religious figure.

And Grantchester is not exactly your usual crime drama. It was certainly intriguing, that's for sure. The use of flashback often and aptly was quite a bold visual move, and certainly helped to drive the audience directly into the drama. Not to mention a certain infatuation with specifics: whether it's Jameson's whisky, the game of backgammon or the long-standing disappointment with England's footballing performance, Grantchester was a great expose of good British Drama