Thu 8 Jan 2015
A British TV Series Review: LINE OF DUTY (Series One, 2012).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , TV mysteries[25] Comments
LINE OF DUTY. BBC-2, five 60-minute episodes, 26 June to 24 July 2012. Lennie James, Martin Compston, Vicky McClure, Neil Morrissey, Craig Parkinson, Gina McKee, Kate Ashfield. Screenwriter: Jed Mercurio. Directors: Douglas Mackinnon & David Caffrey.
Lennie James plays DCI Tony Gates in this first series of a well-written police procedural drama produced by BBC Two in England. Gates is a highly decorated and widely admired police officer, a black bespectacled man, almost professorial in nature, happily married with two young daughters whom he adores. He has his place in the sun, and yet.
As in all good noir dramas, for that is exactly what this is, what goes wrong? Firstly, Gates is having an affair with a former lover, who (we learn later) once jilted him but has come back into his life, with a vengeance. But secondly, what it isattracts the attention of AC-12, the British anti-corruption unit that’s the equivalent of Internal Affairs in the US, is merely a free sandwich at a lunch counter.
From this small beginning, things escalate faster than Gates can control them. His extramarital lover asks him to cover up a hit-and-run accident she has had. A dog, she says at first, but Gates soon learns that it was her accountant who is dead. AC-12 also suspects that Gates’s success is due to “laddering,” which means he has been adding charges to criminals already in custody, thereby boosting his conviction numbers.
Hot on Gates’s trail from the outside is DS Steve Arnott (Martin Compston) while working undercover at the same time from the inside is DC Kate Fleming (Vicky McClure), and soon the previously unshakeable Gates has fewer and fewer options, especially once it is learned that his lover had made some bad enemies, enemies who begin targeting Gates as well.
There are lots of twists and turns in the plot before the five episodes are finished, with biggest surprises coming (not surprisingly) almost every time the 60 minutes allotted per episodes are up. One might think that DS Arnott, as the leading protagonist, would be the one the viewer is meant to side up with, but the young bantam-sized and policeman, newly transferred from an anti-terrorist squad which made a terrible mistake in a recent would-be raid, besides his obsession to bring down Gates, has issues of his own to work through, .
It is Gates, really, whose fate is slowly twisting in the wind, who is the more fascinating, and yes, sympathetic character. The story has several layers, all of which are very well developed. It is difficult to not start the next episode in recently released set of DVDs as soon as the previous one has finished.
The police work as shown seems real. Policemen need approval from superiors at each step of the way — there is little room for mavericks to go out on their own — paperwork is always there to be done, and risk assessment and the cost of overtime always have to be considered.
But it’s the story of good versus evil, and the people who are caught up in it on a daily basis, that makes this series a success, and when it gets personal, as it does in also every minute of this 300 minute production, so much the better.
January 8th, 2015 at 9:43 pm
I don’t know why American attempts at this sort of thing don’t work as well, but the Brits have a surfeit of trained actors who are more than faces, the writing is always adult, and they give themselves time to let you discover the characters and walk around in their head a bit.
American series will usually feel the need to make a character like Gates more appealing rather than show him for his flaws and strengths. Even when they do keep a character dark they end up making a cartoon of them like JR on DALLAS or the equally entertaining James Spader in BLACKLIST.
Of course some of the cable series are different, but even there they seem to offer more excuses than to actually explore the dark side.
January 9th, 2015 at 12:11 am
First, anyone who wishes to watch this series can find it at Acorn TV, a streaming service with a monthly fee.
Steve is right, noir fans will most likely enjoy this series. I was bored. It went from one tired cliche after another. Immediately it establishes the first character in a shooting gone wrong caused by a number mistake on the apartment door. To bludgeon any possible sign of subtlety lets toss a baby into the scene. We meet cute the other main character as he has lunch with a former lover that is interrupted so the character can save a woman and child from a mugging.
David, cable is where America TV competes with this type of program. The major networks have the FCC to answer to so have problems getting too gritty. You want dark noir characters better than this watch FX from just ended SONS OF ANARCHY to returning this month JUSTIFIED.
January 9th, 2015 at 12:30 am
Cliches, maybe, Michael, but did you watch the series all the way through to the end? All of the incidents you refer to in the opening segment are referred back to all series long, especially the interrupted lunch, a key scene for several of the characters, and the characters are what made the story for me.
I think I might have quit myself after one episode, but since I’d paid real money for the DVDs, I kept watching and found I couldn’t stop.
Tastes differ though. I found I had no interest in SONS OF ANARCHY, but perhaps I didn’t watch long enough.
January 9th, 2015 at 12:38 am
I haven’t started watching JUSTIFIED yet, and I’m looking forward it. You’re not the only one who’s recommended it to me.
It’s just occurred to me that I’ve forgotten to mention why the review appeared today, rather than staying stuck in a big backlog of unpublished posts that’s been building up for the past three weeks or so.
The NEW YORK TIMES had an article earlier this year that I caught up with yesterday, in which the writer compared LINE OF DUTY with DOWNTON ABBEY, both excellent, in her opinion, but polar opposites to each other. After reading I realized that I’d never posted my own review of DUTY, so I pried it loose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/arts/television/line-of-duty-compared-with-downton-abbey.html?_r=0
January 9th, 2015 at 1:29 am
Steve, I watched the first episode and found it boring and predictable. To keep me entertained the story has to interest me, do something I didn’t expect that I should have, have characters I enjoy watching. I have too many episodes from series I enjoy still to watch. If I had bought the DVD I would have watched the ending and moved on. But lucky you are not me:).
I didn’t like SOA either but it was a quality noir tale from American TV. And I am sure all will forgive both of us if we leave it at that and don’t force ourselves to watch it again.
I am feeling deju vu from when you picked up FRINGE, remember? This is JUSTIFIED sixth and final season.
As for the review from the NYT, I found the connection baffling.
Oh, and for fans of British police series with dark characters and a corrupt world (which could be nearly every police series the British have made since Thatcher), BABYLON is airing on the Sundance Channel for a few more weeks. This six part series is a dark comedy with typical dry awkward British humor mixed with drama. The series attacks serious issues yet never involves us enough to care.
January 9th, 2015 at 1:37 am
Oops, time for more editing Steve. In my comment above I failed to make clear I didn’t find your connection to this review to that one at the NYT baffling, but the NYT finding a connection between this series and DOWNTON ABBEY was really stretching it for no apparent reason. The writer could have found so many better examples.
But anything that gets one of your reviews to the head of the line is a good thing.
January 9th, 2015 at 9:27 am
I just got the first two series of LINE OF DUTY from Britain – it continues without James but with most of the other characters in series 2 – but haven’t watched it yet so I’m not reading your details. James certainly is a busy actor, what with his appearance is several American series (Jericho, The Walking Dead) as well as British shows.
As for BABYLON we tried the first episode a month or so ago and quickly discovered it was not for us, within the first 10 minutes.
January 9th, 2015 at 12:18 pm
One of the reason I think Steve and most viewers will be drawn to Gates rather than the hero Arnott is the actors. Lennie James gives Gates layers of emotion that gives the character depth and makes Gates human. Martin Compston emotionless Arnott seems to be sleepwalking through the part.
January 9th, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Michael,
I understand and agree about the restrictions caused by the FCC, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do characterization and nuance in series television, they just don’t have to for audiences who will buy what’s out there.
It’s not that network drama is bad, some is quite good, my problem is that it is juvenile when it doesn’t have to be. No one expects CASTLE or BONES or even CSI to go that deep into character, but there are more serious drama, and they stick to the same old cliché characters.
SOA is certainly dark, in some ways it has the feel of the Cohen Brother’s BLOOD SIMPLE, but my problem is I’d just as soon every character in it got hit by a semi.
JUSTIFIED, BREAKING BAD, and a few others do have the complex characters and noir attitude, but there has to be a violent climax every episode where British drama will let a series build to eventually having more impact.
British drama often unfolds like a multi act play or a novel and most American drama unfolds like a comic book.
January 9th, 2015 at 8:57 pm
David, I don’t think the difference between countries means as much as the series format. The short series with 6-13 episodes will focus on character growth and depth because there is an ending to the story. While the weekly 22 episodes plus series remains open-ended.
NCIS is the most popular scripted TV series in America because it appeals to the why most Americans watch TV, for mindless escapism. Oddly enough American dramas are usually the most popular TV series in countries all over the World. Hollywood remains one of America’s most successful exports.
But American TV is changing. The networks know cable is catching up by using the short form the British uses. AMC’s WALKING DEAD has repeatedly beat network shows in the ratings. Because of this you will begin to see more American short form series and more characters such as you enjoy.
But the mass audience likes shows such as BLUE BLOODS so the American networks will keep churning them out while the rest of the World wishes it could discover American’s magic for themselves.
I don’t watch much of network TV. My favorite format is the series with weekly episodes supporting a season long arc such as PERSON OF INTEREST, BLACKLIST, JUSTIFIED and ARCHER. The British do this as well with such series as DOCTOR WHO.
The Australians are producing some good TV now, from mindless fun of MR AND MRS MURDER and MISS FISHER’S MURDER MYSTERIES to the dark noir period piece of SERANGOON ROAD.
To me the flaw of the short term series such as LINE OF DUTY is its suffers from padding, stretching its one central plot to its limits. JUSTIFIED always has one or two episodes that drag simply to set up the exposition of that season’s plot (similar to the first half hour of PERRY MASON or COLUMBO).
Beyond SHERLOCK and DOCTOR WHO there really is not much British TV that interests me any more than American TV. My favorite TV is mystery with wit and weirdness. I have been enjoying BULMAN, MR ROSE, ADAM ADAMANT LIVES. ITV from the sixties will never be called noir.
January 9th, 2015 at 9:12 pm
The last American series in which I had interest was Law and Order during the Jerry Orbach Chris Noth run. The other series, outside of the Raymond Burr and Company playing Perry Mason, are a pair of British mysteries: Judge John Deed, with a stellar cast headed by Martin Shaw, Donald Sinden and Simon Ward and The Lovejoy Mysteries, with another talented ensemble, with Ian McShane and Dudley Sutton, leading the way. What these have in common, and the stories in my view do not matter much, is the comradeship of old friends. People to spend time with hour after hour. The Gable’s and Tracy’s of our time. And in my view, with or without violence, explosions and chases across city and country landscapes, the good company is what sells around the world.
January 9th, 2015 at 10:47 pm
Barry, it has long been believed that characters must be likable to make a successful TV series. But shows such as JUDGE JOHN DEED and LOVEJOY show characters don’t have to be likable but instead need to be interesting. The viewer has to have a reason to tune in next week. Watching how scamp Lovejoy outsmarts everyone including the police is most the fun of the series.
With limited series the premise generally take the forefront. But characters and who plays them always matters and that is one of the problems with LINE OF DUTY for me, none of the characters made me want to find out what happens to them.
January 9th, 2015 at 11:19 pm
And here’s where we differ, Michael. I did want to know what happened to Tony Gates, and Lennie James was a primary reason for that. The two main cops on his trail, not so much, they really could have been any two cops.
January 9th, 2015 at 11:27 pm
Michael,
Do Not confuse likability with your own interpretation of morality. Lovejoy is a scamp, but on the series does nothing even remotely wicked. As for the judge, he’s a ladies man. Not a rapist. And, an upholder of justice. Obviously, and especially with McShane and Lovejoy, audiences warm to them. Good company.
January 10th, 2015 at 10:46 am
14. Barry, my point was the anti-hero can be someone viewers wants to watch not because they like him/her but they find the character interesting or fun. I am not a fan of Judge Deed, but I enjoy watching Lovejoy lie, cheat and sell fakes as real antiques. I have talked to women who hate the books where Lovejoy’s womanizing is more annoying but enjoy the series because McShane is at his best making the anti-hero sympathetic despite or because of his character’s flaws.
Me, I like the books and the series. But I am old and male. I grew up in a period when men thought and treated women differently from today. Lovejoy in the series has a weakness for all women. If I remember the books correctedly the character is much meaner to women in thought and deed.
January 10th, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Michael,
You are right to point out the differences between the Lovejoy of literature and television. My references are only for the series with McShane — and in that, he does not ever do anything reprehensible.
January 10th, 2015 at 6:11 pm
I do think there is a valid point here Barry and Michael are both making that does go to British drama versus American drama, and it is that characters in British drama are not necessarily always going to be total good guys or even have those traits. They are more likely to have warts, moral qualms, difficult personalities, and failures due to those factors.
I understand Barry likes unadulterated heroes and that is his right. I like that too in some fare, I just want more variety.
Certainly Thaw never softened Morse from the books, he remained a fairly raw nerve. Same thing with Andy Dalziel in Dalziel and Pascoe. In an American television series they would have delivered a baby or taken flowers to a injured child in a hospital like they had William Conrad’s Nero Wolfe does in the adaptation of THE MOTHER HUNT. In the book Wolfe solves the case because the boy paid him — it didn’t matter how much — and at one point has to be guilted by Archie not to forget the dead boy was his client because he is offered more money. In short he remains Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe. The Conrad series was threatening to have him out chasing down bad guys by the end.
That is typical of American television. If they made a series of TREASURE ISLAND by the end Long John Silver would be the king’s secret agent of something.
I have no problem with American series television. CASTLE is the latest version of Nick and Nora or even Ellery Queen. The plots and mysteries aren’t really surprising any more than the ones on NCIS or CSI or CRIMINAL MINDS. The shows are about likable personalities.
There are exceptions, GOTHAM is doing some things not often done with American series, but it is one exception and is coming off a valuable dark movie franchise.
There are many British series that aren’t that far off their American counterparts though I would argue the mystery element isn’t always as obvious as NCIS, BONES, or CASTLE (it’s the first person they interview after the crime who they don’t come back to until the end, the one with no motive and a solid alibi the least likely suspect that they haven’t just pulled out of a hat at the last minute). I watch those shows for the ensemble casts, but the characters have no depth they have no sense of living between episodes.
But even a series like JUSTIFIED is still going to whitewash the hero more than many British series would. And I would argue that the pool of actors for British drama features more talented professionals playing non regulars than on American series if only because to make it there you have to do theater, radio, and films as well. They have more actors and fewer waiters hoping for an acting job.
They also don’t have to produce anywhere near as much product so they can be written and directed by a single person who may only do five episodes a season (or three like SHERLOCK).
But SHERLOCK is a good example. Look at it compared to ELEMENTARY. The Holmes of ELEMENTARY looks like a homeless person, and often plays second fiddle to his female Watson. Most episodes are the same old least likely suspect nonsense, and it feels as if they skimmed Conan Doyle rather than read him though a few things worked (I like Irene Adler turning out to be Moriarity).
But SHERLOCK soars. It is sly, inventive, obviously knows its Doyle when it plays with the stories, presents Holmes as exasperating, self involved, not entirely stable, and as unpredictable as a nuclear core with the rods out. It is playful about the running gag of everyone thinking Holmes and Watson are gay, and allows the characters interplay to develop within the plot and not as ‘business’ extraneous to it.
Benedict Cumberbatch is an attractive and believable contemporary update of the character as outrageous as Doyle’s original. Johnny Lee Miller looks and often is written as if he was released on the streets without his schizo effective meds.
ELEMENTARY isn’t bad by any means, it’s actually one I usually watch, but it’s a wan product next to SHERLOCK.
And, yes, I know American television demands more product, I know advertisers give it less time to develop story in an hour format, and I know there have been exceptions (they haven’t turned CONSTANTINE into a virtual saint as yet or improved his personality) and there have been bad British series. But my point is American Network series drama doesn’t really try. It knows the formula of soap, drama, character, and wickedness the audience will allow for and it gives them that every week, and if a character gets too dark he’ll show a good or human side for the audience to identify with. They come up with high concept ideas (she’s seeking revenge for her father, she’s the Secretary of State, she’s a CIA agent working with a female President, each episode covers 24 hours …) and then it does the same old thing over and over.
When an audience resigns itself to get pap all you ever get is pap. They aren’t going to serve you sirloin if you will settle for pap. Ideas go to television to die because we settle for that. But just resigning ourselves to take what they give us is our contribution to the problem. There ought to be something that a twelve year old wouldn’t understand available on network television other than a few racy gags in comedies.
January 10th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
I don’t believe I expressed a preference for pure heroes but only that likability is the key to success. I maintain that, while disagreeing that British talent is in any way superior to classic American performers, but the British look and sound sets them apart. It is always a pleasure to listen when someone from East Anglia, Cornwall or the Belgravia neighborhood speaks, about anything, whereas, the North of England leaves me stone, cold dead to the drama.
January 10th, 2015 at 11:32 pm
Barry,
Better, maybe not, but for the most part better trained and more seasoned as actors I would say. For most actors to make it in England they have to do something more than television and huge numbers come from theatrical backgrounds or even acting families like Benedict Cumberbatch.
But I was really talking about actors in the smaller roles being generally more professional actors than many we see on American television. It’s not the Americans are bad it’s just I doubt most of them are as experienced or versatile. The pay is better, there is more work, and they don’t have to do theater to survive always.
I just think the system gives British actors more range in general.
I lived in London two years, short of Glasgow (and even the Scots need subtitles for that one) most of the accents don’t bother me either the sound or understanding them though the Brits go on a bit about Manchester and the Midlands.
January 11th, 2015 at 3:09 pm
#17. Wow, David I can not possibly disagree more. You keep thinking a handful of TV series on the Big Three is all America TV offers.
Flawed heroes? The good girl lead in BLACKLIST held her ex-husband against his will and tortured him this season. The first time we met Raylan in JUSTIFIED he killed a man. MAD MEN, GAMES OF THRONES, BREAKING BAD, SOA, ARCHER, etc are not filled with nice people. Remember Elmore Leonard approve and was involved with JUSTIFIED. American TV retains its successful white wash character past, but there are more than 3 networks. Find a series with less likable characters than Showtime’s SHAMELESS. HBO, not the British, gave us TRUE DETECTIVE. There was FARGO, THE BRIDGE, MATADOR, RECTIFY, BULLET IN THE FACE, BANSHEE, LEGENDS and on and on, all on America TV.
Did you know Johnny Lee Miller is a London trained actor? He and Cumberbatch once acted in the same play, switching roles from night to night.
As for America TV having the unlikable character “deliver a baby or taken flowers to a injured child…,” this British series LINE OF DUTY introduces us to these characters with one scene featuring a father and baby and another with a mother and young child. The British pander to cheap emotions too.
January 11th, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Mike
I was limiting myself to the Networks not the fine stuff available on cable. The networks tend to bland everything down and we tend to excuse them with oh, they are catering to a mass audience, and frankly that is no excuse for anyone. I don’t think Sturgeon’s law has ever been a legitimate excuse for the audience or the producers. It’s a cynical statement made as a smart crack by a somewhat disappointed if brilliant writer and not a rule that has to be followed or obeyed. I suspect he would be horrified we use it as an excuse for mediocre entertainment.
And look how many British and Australian actors are playing American characters on the Networks and cable. There is a reason they are turning to other countries for actors.
I admired Johnny Lee Miller in BYRON, and several other things, he is okay on ELEMENTARY, and if I didn’t have SHERLOCK doing the same thing I might be more forgiving, but nonetheless he looks and behaves as if he is a schizo effective homeless person (that idiot haircut is enough to make it hard to watch — and yes, I reserve the right to count an actor’s appearance against him in a role)and if flights of brilliance and observation are surpassed by THE MENTALIST. It’s what passes as clever on network television. He’s the Ronald Howard Holmes compared to the Basil Rathbone of Jeremy Brett models. He and everyone in the cast are capable of more, but even Holmes is turned into a lovable eccentric with a heart of gold crusty and pawkish, but a good old boy to the core.
And for many people there is no access to cable. Those of us lucky enough to have cable and Netflix, and Hulu and such are relatively few. For many people other than buying expensive DVD sets most of these fine shows will never be seen by them. Even many of us with cable can’t afford Showtime, HBO, or STARZ. We don’t see BANSHEE, GAME OF THRONES, HOMELAND, or much of that fare and we don’t have the time to rent an entire season and watch it overnight to catch up. I live somewhere that the only option for rental is a Redbox. That’s pretty limiting.
That’s fine, that’s the market, so be it. But there could be more worthy fare on the networks if the public wasn’t willing to be spoon fed pap.
And I never said any drama anywhere didn’t pander to cheap emotions or that everyone on network television was nice all the time, but BLACKLIST went out of its way to justify what the protagonist did as did 24. I have no problem with ruthless, I have a problem with the general need to always go for the lowest emotional response, to whitewash the protagonist to come oh so close to complexity and then always chicken out for conformity.
Audiences will watch better, look at the Daniel Craig Bond films compared to OCTOPUSSY and VIEW TO A KILL, the nadir of the series and of Moore’s Bonds. Making the effort can pay off. Network television can do better than make deliberately bad versions of THE SOUND OF MUSIC or PETER PAN hoping the audience will tune in to see how bad it is — and both were simply awful. If they are giving us the best they have then Lord help us all.
I admire all the programs you mention, HOUSE OF CARDS is brilliant on NETFLIX, but how many people really see these shows compared to network fare? Those British programs we are discussing are available to a wider audience than only those with cable access.
I’m critiquing the audience as much as the shows. Complacency and passivity are at the heart of many societal ills from bad television to bad government from the right or left top to bottom.
I enjoy many programs on now, more than for many years. but everyone of them settles rather than reaches and I think we deserve more.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:50 pm
#21. David, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? If the majority does not watch quality American programs, does it exist?
Why are you limiting yourself to the networks because that is what most American’s watch and not doing the same for the British? British ratings for week of Nov. 23, 2014 had STRICTLY COME DANCING the number one show beating out DOWNTON ABBEY. January 15, 2015 the Guardian reported the Nielsen ratings for the British had sitcom STILL OPEN ALL HOURS beat FOYLE’S WAR in the ratings. The audience in Britain is as common as the American audience.
According to Nielsen, 90% of Americans with televisions pay for their TV. In 2013 a CEA study found only seven percent of Americans get over the air (free) TV only. That last fact is rising as people cut the cable cord but most have turned to the internet streaming services, not returned to the over-rated Big Four.
I am not going to criticize the American audience and ignore the British audience that favors commercial crap just as much as American’s do. VARIETY reviewed TNT’s THE LIBRARIANS claiming it would get lost among all the quality programs. My comment was never criticize a TV program that just wants to entertain its audience. The masses needs mindless fun entertainment at times because they spend most of their time trying to survive life’s challenges. My Dad was a brilliant scientist who just wanted to escape and relax his brain for a few hours in front of the TV. As long as there is so much quality TV available for me to watch I am happy for them. Next you will criticize those who read cheap mystery paperbacks instead of quality literature.
As for acting, I see too much crossover to claim either side the winner.
January 12th, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Thanks, guys, for the long and well-stated arguments on both sides. To get back to my opinion, because it was my review of LINE OF DUTY that began all this, perhaps I shouldn’t admit it, but I will anyway.
I happen to like CASTLE, NCIS and BLUE BLOODS. I don’t care to watch the edgier shows that have been mentioned: MAD MEN, GAMES OF THRONES, BREAKING BAD, TRUE DETECTIVE and so on.
I can’t identity with the characters in them, don’t care what happens to them, and I don’t watch them.
I did care for Tony Gates, the primary character in LINE OF DUTY. I did care what happened to him, and the creators of the show made me feel that if the circumstances were the same, I could be in the same predicament he was.
The series of five episodes was not padded. There were several twists I did not see coming, and even the guys in the smaller parts had character enough that I could easily distinguish between them and think I knew what kind of lives they had out of the office.
I don’t watch ELEMENTARY, even though I’ve tried several times. David in an earlier comment said: “Johnny Lee Miller looks and often is written as if he was released on the streets without his schizo effective meds.”
Exactly. I’m not interested in the character he’s portraying, and I don’t watch the series. I’m happy that the program is a success, but so far, the appeal has been lost on me.
January 12th, 2015 at 8:30 pm
I always enjoy hearing Da Boss chime in here with his opinion. And a defender of the “common people” TV taste as well!
Oh, ELEMENTARY was a success last year but it has had its problems losing to ABC’s HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER in the ratings most weeks. It still will get renewed this season unless NBC moving its most popular scripted series BLACKLIST to Thursday weakens CBS lineup even more.
Now HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER, there is a TV mystery we can all agree on!
March 4th, 2016 at 3:23 pm
Line of Duty collapses after 3 episodes into endless plot twists and surreptitious conversations that lead absolutely nowhere.I felt like a “viewer in a maze” and the last scene is just gratuitous legerdermain. ..