The smugness of interviewer Pamela Connelly makes her tactics unconvincing, strewing terms about with a glibness that is off-putting, irresponsible if fry had taken her seriously which i doubt he did, despite his praise - amazingly despite his facial reactions, Stephen fry does not react verbally - maybe part of the people-pleasing personality trait that he is accused of engaging in - by himself and by her. she insists on connections she's made, i.e. referring to the damaging voice criticizing him that fry has inside him as his father's voice - too easy. we are not convinced of this connection and fry somewhat bridles at it, though he controls his reaction. his denial that his being buggered by another boy when he was young was "traumatic" - an overused term if there ever was one - is intriguing and if she'd been a more subtle and less self-satisfied and overly confident interrogator, she might have followed up on that. it made my skin crawl and i admired his skill and intelligence all the more. perhaps he has managed to please the world of viewers over and above this kind of sanctimonious interrogation by showing her up without her knowing it. cringe-making - but he is brilliant and makes us laugh with his wit and insight. a valuable discussion, even despite her interventions. (my own background is as an academic in the field of psychoanalytic studies; i am not an analyst however, and seeing her "performance" here puts me off even more.) imagine putting yourself into such a creature's hands - with her flicking her blond hair over her shoulder, etc. yuck.
10 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?