The Voice vs BGT
Say what you like about the state of the British tabloid newspaper and what ‘it’ regards as ‘news’ currently but it doesn’t pick a front page story if it isn’t going to engross a potential reader into picking up the paper and then parting with some change to read said story.
And lo, it came to past yesterday that a dispute between a middle-aged man, a septuagenarian man, a woman that says “beautiful” a lot and two TV shows and TV channels was splashed across the front page of the Daily Mirror as the “battle of primetime, Saturday talent shows” started to warm up.
This is the TV equivalent of Blur vs Oasis back in 1995 with Amanda Holden launching a “death slur” at Sir Tom Jones (“death slur” certainly being an out of proportion description), Jones biting back about the essential purity of his show and Cowell sitting back ala Sir Alex Ferguson, pulling the strings and making his puppety rivals, and indeed his own puppety people, do exactly what he wants them to do; generate some 'buzz'.
But here’s the thing, ITV and Cowell are obviously rattled by the BBC’s challenger for two reasons. Firstly, Cowell sat out Britain’s Got Talent last year in what was widely perceived to be a failure of a series but whose launch still got more peak viewers than last night's party starter. You don’t return from the USA to bolster a show that was still pulling in the viewers if there isn’t an exterior challenge to your superiority.
Secondly, Britain’s Got Talent historically began towards the end of April, reaching a overblown conclusion as May drew to a close. This time around, it began on exactly the same day as The Voice was launched, presumably in a bid to nullify the effect of the latter reaching its final stages when the former begins in earnest. It’s all about viewer numbers of course.
But, well, actually, it isn’t now, what with on-demand services and Sky+. The figures may show that Britain’s Got Talent had a higher peak audience and that The Voice had more viewers in the 20-minute slot in which both shows were being broadcast but all of that is neither here nor there as, in the world of Sky+ and on-demand, people can and will watch both shows.
There is no real winner here. Britain’s Got Talent will inevitably get a higher peak viewing figure as it’s in the optimum slot where people are not eating dinner, the kids are still awake, people on a night out are still at home and so on.
The Voice probably got that 20-minute slot of dominance as viewers wanted to watch the end of it whilst Sky+-ing through the adverts of Britain’s Got Talent to catch up. One wonders whether advertisers will continue to pay extortionate fees to advertise on Britain’s Got Talent if so many viewers of both shows (4 million or so with some basic maths and assumptions using these figures) can Sky+ through the adverts to catch up with the broadcast (hence the peak five-minute slot being around 9pm) or go on-demand, but that’s another story.
The really interesting part to come out of last night is just how different two things that are essentially the same can be.
The Voice has made a big song and dance out of its format of the ‘coaches’ (like judges but not) not being able to see the contestant and so judging them solely on their voice (an admittedly ingeniously simple idea in marketing and pitching terms). This concept of it as a ‘nice’ alternative to Britain’s Got Talent´ is continued as very few acts are sent home and even the ones that are packed off are lavishly complimented on their talent and given a handshake from will.I.am for their troubles. Perhaps the only nasty thing about it is the logo which occasionally gets spun around over the visuals, inferring a solid “up yours” directed at Cowell in the most ostentatious attempt at subtlety ever and the balls-out lying about there being no sob-stories. There was. Lots.
On the other end of the scale, Britain’s Got Talent powers on over the seas of ordinary people’s dreams, captained by the Dark Lord Cowell, crushing the hopes of people all around the country with said people giving up their time voluntarily for the privilege. Even the good ones are ridiculed for their looks before they display their depths of talent (note Jonathan the operatic singer last night), showing how Black Mirror wasn’t a dystopian parody but actually a documentary about contemporary life (to paraphrase a Daily Mail line about 1984). But hey, come on, we don’t always like ourselves for it but we come back every week as it crushing a soul underneath a size-9 does make some good TV. Michael McIntyre was just too nice and we can’t be having that so back came Cowell and in came David Walliams who does a good line in bastardry beneath the cheeky exterior.
In many ways the two shows complement each other perfectly and in whichever order one watches them (Sky+ again) can probably provide you with an insight into what kind of person you are. If you watch The Voice first, you need the dream destroying aspect of Britain’s Got Talentto get over all of the faux-niceties of the former. Meanwhile, observing them vice versa provides you with a nice fluffy detox. It’s all up to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Social Network @9pm, Monday, BBC3- 8 out of 10
And so once again I return to a favourite reviewing ground of mine; the BBC3 documentary at 9pm on a Monday evening. Great to be back.
So, let’s run The Anti-Social Network stacks up against my BBC3 documentary checklist (patent pending). Celebrity presenter? Check. Fellow celebrity guests? Yup. Real life people like you or I interviewed? That’s there too. Content aimed at a young adult audience? Oh yeah.
Formula stuck to but that isn’t much of a problem. These days BBC3’s documentary making style has come on leaps and bounds since the bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping that was Hotter than my daughter. Hardcore issues are tackled and brought to a wider audience.
The celebrity in question hosting this show is Richard Bacon who, I’m not saying it to pander, is a talented broadcaster from the hard broadcasting of Five Live in the afternoon to the slightly less hard broadcasting of “Richard Bacon’s Beer and Pizza club” on ITV4.
Everyone in the entire country now knows what Trolling is as it isn’t a phenomenon stuck to the Internet anymore. It’s all over the national newspapers, including the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph which means old people now know what it is now and have something else to fear.
As the show explains (but we all really know), there are two types of trolling. The first is random abuse toward both celebrities and regular people over the Internet. This consists of largely mindless drivel but also real threats.
Most of us who post creative items on the Internet (whether as a writer or artist or whatever) have been there; this blog has a couple and another blog I write for takes on loads of awful, terrible, lame attempts at trolling. Easier enough to deal with but rather unpleasant to deal with.
However, other trolling of this type is seriously vindictive and includes abuse aimed at Bacon, his wife and his son. Elsewhere, it led to a 15 year-old boy hanging himself due to online abuse.
The other type is just as harrowing and involves tribute pages to young people who have tragically died being hijacked and causing distress to family and friends.
The documentary itself is, in a similar way to Britain’s Gay Footballers, the issues covered are largely common knowledge but greater exposure to the issue is always welcome, particularly when it’s done well.
And done well it is, aside from the frequent intermittent footage of iPad and Mac use (Apple had better of paid for this product placement) and Bacon on his phone to show off some modern technology to appeal to we yoof. The public infomercial element of the show isn’t too overbearing as to make it unbearable.
There are some fascinating insights into the murky world of trolling where there is something of an arms race between trollers and police going on. As the former take over innocent people’s accounts, creating fake accounts, covering their tracks and so on, the police struggle to catch up with them. They’re success is obvious as only two trollers have ever been arrested under the 2003 Communications Act.
There is also the awesome sounding passion of troll hunting, such as a man by the (fake) name of “Michael Fitzpatrick” who tracks down trolls but fears for his safety as a result. The almost military planning that goes into trolling tribute pages for children Fitzpatrick outlined was particularly disturbing.
Bacon accused suspected trollers but when they were confronted they do pretty much what they expect you to do; deny, deny, deny. Obviously it’s easier to be assertive and in your face when sat at a keyboard and not in person. Either they deny or their strange justification from trolling that largely a sympathetic comment from a random person on a tribute page isn’t right so needs readdressing. Twisted logic thy name is the Internet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three positives and three negatives from the new series of 10 O'Clock Live
We’re now four episodes into the new, streamlined version of last year’s hugely trumpeted, all-star casted 10 O’clock Live so now is probably a good time to see what’s been good so far this series and what could do with some improvement.
The Pluses
1. Streaming down to 45 minutes worth of content
The first series weighed in at only 10 minutes longer per episode than this series but the slim down has done 10 O’clock Live the world of good for three main reasons.
Firstly, the over-reliance on David Mitchell for both serious interviewing and humour has been reduced now that he anchors just the one leg of the show, instead of his previous three. Although this meant cutting the usually amusing “Listen to Mitchell” segment, it does allow a stronger debate with the experts section and means he can contribute to the roundtable discussions more (more on that later).
Secondly, as a result of the loss of “Listen to Mitchell”, Charlie Brooker now has the sole ‘ranty’ section of the show and with good reason to as it’s what he does best. Dropping his to-camera, fast-as-a-bullet-but-still-eloquent rants from two to one an episode has allowed him to refine his piece and the show is not overloaded with to-camera shouty-ness.
And thirdly, 55 minutes of live, largely unscripted television is a difficult enough task for long running programmes, let alone a new kid on the block. As such, the show felt overextended with not enough content spread too thin. Whilst the reduction in running time has meant certain positive elements of the programme have had to be cut, it is to the benefit of the show as a whole.
2. Increased frequency of group, roundtable discussions
Along with the reduction in running time, using a roundtable discussion (technically a square-table discussion I guess) to bookend each segment of the show before the ad breaks has given greater structure to 10 O’clock Live, helped bridge the gap between the political and the humour aspects of the show and given the presenters greater scope to showcase some rapport and eliminate any lingering clunkiness from the first series.
3. Better usage of Lauren Laverne
As the only presenter with real experience of how live broadcasting works, Laverne was given the role of leading the show in the first series of 10 O’clock Live and she has, rightly, been given even more responsibility this time around, being charged with leading the discussions and steering the show in the right directions.
Whilst her pieces aren’t quite as humorous as the other presenters (naturally, as she is a broadcaster by trade rather than a humorist) and she sometimes struggles to keep the discussions on the straight and narrow (in fairness, God’s own job with three men trying to out-humour each other), her role in the programme is the most important of all the presenters and she has risen to the challenge.
The Minuses
1. Questionable usage of Carr
The first series of 10 O’clock Live had a clear role for Carr which consisted of; get the show off to a flier with some near-the-knuckle topical jokes at the start and interview someone newsworthy that week (a skill which he proved surprisingly adept at). Towards the end of the first series, a strange, weekly attempt at putting Carr into a sketch came into place, an element of the show I was hoping would be quietly dropped seeing as Carr is a comedian and presenter, not a comic actor.
However, this second series, his interviews have been abandoned to be replaced solely by these weekly sketches which, if last night’s was anything to go by, are getting worse; even worse than that ill-conceived Vladimir Putin impersonation in the first episode, somehow.
Better use of Carr’s talents should be made. The ambiguity of his political leanings should be made better use of in an otherwise very left-leaning presenter line-up.
2. Equalling out the humour/politics ratio
Perhaps the biggest challenge still facing the show is consistently keeping a balance between the humour and political aspects that the programme wants to get across.
By vacating the Thursday 10pm slot, Channel 4 has rightly pulled 10 O’clock Live out of the firing line of juggernaut Question Time and so might be able to gain some politically-minded viewers from the rescheduling.
However, segments like the Putin sketch feel a bit too lightweight (almost patronising) for a show aiming to attract a more political audience, if indeed, that is the aim.
3. Continued issues around the live aspect of the show
Whilst this is less of an issue than in the first series, where the presenters lack of experience on live TV (despite their Alternative Election Night together) was clear to see, there still remains some slip-ups, whether it be with slight fluffing of lines or presenters appearing in the background of someone else’s piece.
But this might be something of a harsh criticism as it is live TV and there never will be a 100% gaffe-free live TV show as we’re all humans and we make mistakes. That’s why they put editing suites at TV studios…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain’s Gay Footballers @9pm Monday, BBC3- 7 out of 10
Over the last few years, BBC3 has managed to find a niche market in the realm of documentary making; oscillating between hard-hitting issues and trivial bollocks, often with a semi-celebrity host to add some white smiley teeth and good hair.
Without even watching the hour-long programme (seriously, I’m typing this sentence at 8.46pm),Britain’s Gay Footballers will be using the standard BBC3 documentary format; get a celebrity face, said term stretched to breaking point here it must be said, to front a look into the cutting subject of homophobia in football. Perhaps it’s for the common touch to draw in the audience figures. Or a C-list celebrity is cheaper than a journalist these days. Who knows? Not me, that’s for damn sure.
However, there is one very marked and hugely important with Britain’s Gay Footballers. A difference anyone with even a passing knowledge of either football or the fight for gay rights in the UK, not the most exclusive centre circle in a Venn diagram nowadays, will recognise the name Fashanu.
Justin Fashanu was the first openly gay British footballer, ‘coming out’ in late 1990 and, depressingly, remains the only one to have come out. He essentially became an outcast in football, with no club offering him a full time contract since he broke the story in an interview with the Sun. His brother and fellow professional John Fashanu even appeared to ostracise him; a decision he clearly deeply regrets now. Fashanu would later commit suicide in 1998 with his suicide note reading he “did not want to give any more embarrassment to my friends and family”.
This documentary follows Amal Fashanu, niece of Justin, son of John Fashanu and near subject of nominative determinism (she works in fashion), as she looks into the reasons why out of some 5000 professional footballers in the UK, none are openly gay.
Straight from the off there are some damning indictments of the football world's attitude towards the issue of homophobia in the sport. Cases in point; the outright refusal of nearly all current professional footballers to talk on camera about the issue, albeit not helped by Amal’s to-the-point-not-so-subtle interviewing technique, the generational difference of ex-professionals who still operate in the sport exemplified by John McGovern’s quotes regarding the word “poof” and the refereeing union blocking a gay assistant referee to be interviewed.
Even the players that do talk about the issue seem to treat the issue somewhat trivially and banally, occasionally slipping back into the “banter” default mode and not confronting the issue. However, credit where credit is due to people like Darren Purse and Paul Robinson at Milwall and Joey Barton to break ranks; particularly the latter who tackled the issue with now trademark intelligence and perspective. If more footballers take the stance of these three, the apparent perception from inside football that speaking about the issue means you are homosexual may well hopefully abate.
As a documentary, the show is a bit on the weak side with Amal’s lack of interview technique causing problems and irrelevant asides such as Amal chatting to her friend over coffee about their thoughts on the issue, which just smacks of filler due to a lack of cutting interviews with those in the field; the Barton and Anton Hysen interviews aside.
All in all, for anyone with a knowledge and interest in the issue of homophobia in football, there was very little new ground covered on why there are no current openly gay footballers; the fear of ridicule from both teammates and fellow professionals, abuse from fans, the culture ingrained from previous generations of players and the unfortunate precedent of Justin Fashanu's eventual fate.
However, that’s not really the point. The real point is that the subject needs coverage and to be aired in the public domain. Despite many column inches and blog bytes (that’s the phrase I’ll use for that idea) devoted to the issue, the oxygen of TV is far more important. A slightly soft documentary on the subject, but heart-wrenching on the Fashanu family level of the programme, is a great starting point but there is a long way to go yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Fielding’s Luxury Comedy @10pm, Thursdays, E4- 5 out of 10
Finally, a show that has lived up to the promise of the Channel 4 comedy sponsors’ Fosters’; “original comedy”. Let’s face it, there are very few places where you might find a Miami-based drug dealer character with a sword and shield (and a bug face) and a man with a seashell as a head dancing to a radio broadcast of a Sherlock Holmes novel.
However, the apt catchline of the sponsor is one of the few positives to come out of Noel Fielding’s latest creation, a surrealist part live-action, part animation half hour romp that even seems to be seeping into the adverts on 4OD, if Gail Porter emerging from portable toilet in Cardiff that had been dropped in by a helicopter is anything to go by.
“Luxury Comedy” brings together the cast of BBC3’s The Mighty Boosh (let the inevitable comparisons begin early), minus Julian Barratt, for a sketch show with a slight difference as characters from each sketch glide into one another’s segments, each battling for “look at me, aren’t I bizarrely unique and weird” screen time presumably.
The trademark left-Fielding (ha! Word play) ideas are in evidence from the start with outrageous concepts for sketches like a cookery show cum space mission starring Rennie and Gaviscon (who I cannot even begin to describe just exactly how they look) and Roy Circles, the teacher with a military history but happens to have the body of a chocolate finger. Clearly, no expense has been spared on the clothing and make-up departments of “Luxury Comedy”; it would appear blue or yellow are the standard colour faces for the occupants of the “Luxury Comedy” universe.
The seamless transition from live action shots to the oddly beautiful animation of Nigel Coan works a treat but, with this being surrealist comedy, inevitably, the sketches are particularly hit and miss. The Boosh worked, for me, because it had some semblance with reality (identifiable job locations of the main characters for example) and a linear structure. And having Barratt around to reign in Fielding’s wackiest ideas and to provide identifiable character traits for the audience; a middle-aged man not really going anywhere despite (and probably because of) his passions in life.
The best parts of Luxury Comedy are the pieces with the aforementioned semblance to reality. Dondylion, trapped in a zoo with nothing but a tyre on a rope, some Hula Hoops and a picture of David Lee Roth (“King of the lions”) jabbering to himself and slowly going mad is a lovely a oasis of satire about animals caged in zoos in a desert of surrealism.
Elsewhere, against the odds somewhat, Sergeant Raymond Boombox’s tales work as they also have this basis in reality (a cop doing a job) that can be subverted to add the bizarre dialogue of his talking knife wounds and the drug dealer mentioned way back in the intro (well done if you’ve stuck with me this far, incidentally).
However, elsewhere, one just got the sense that the show needed reigning in. It wasn’t a sense of surrealism for the sake of surrealism on the part of Fielding (an outstanding comedic writer and actor in the right dosage and setting) but a lack of input from the producers to keep the show just about enough on the straight and narrow.
Or my descent into premature aging has begun, coupled with not being a resident of or regular visitor to the independent Republic of Camden, and I just didn’t get “it”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s Britain- BBC1 @ 8pm Wednesdays- 3 out of 10
At the risk of sounding like an advert for stereotyping Britishness, we Brits all love a good moan. That and not making eye contact. And hiding our prejudices under a veneer of awkward politeness. Just to clarify, the first thing I said is what ‘That’s Britain’ is all about.
Fronting the show are second coolest stubble wearer in the world Nick Knowles and Julia Bradbury (of whom I have nothing to say really) who proceed to participate in awkward banter and bonhomie about Tube drivers, dog poo, recycling and why Warwickshire County Council shouldn’t make huge towers out of gold sheets.
To start with something called The Wall of Anger is introduced, which is a bit strong but then again, the Wall of Mild Annoyance isn’t quite as grabbing. It’s basically like a Tweet Clod and allows Knowles to rant, well, like an amateur really. Queues at the petrol station are caused by “turning them into supermarkets”. True, but hardly enthralling ranting their Knowlesy. Hopefully Twitter can organise some sort of campaign whereby the biggest thing on the wall is ‘That’s Britain’ itself making a paradox of embarrassment.
It’s not the only name that’s misleading. The kind of things that are investigated or the cause of annoyance are the same anywhere in the world. It probably should be called “That’s the world” or something a whole lot more imaginative than that.
Elsewhere, there are four reporters who tackle an issue each week in their own ways.
This week, first up was call centre operator’s nightmare Grainne Seoige who kicked off with a political piece on junk mail which was interesting at some points but incredibly boring at others. Not even Seoige’s Irishness (usually a surefire way to this reviewer’s heart) could redeem the feature. Oh, and it was spliced with tonnes of vox pops as why get expert opinion when you can ask the average plank on the street for a monotone monosyllable answer?
Next up, we had Shaun Williamson who looked dreadfully angry whenever he was referred to as “Eastenders’ Shaun Williamson”, which is fair enough as he left eight years ago. At least refer to him as “Extras’ Shaun Williamson”. Williamson was basically asking a question no one really wants to know the answer to; should we get bus conductors back? It would be quite nice to have bus conductors back but it would also be nice to have a house with four bathrooms but, for financial reasons, it probably isn’t going to happen. To cap it all off, a poll was conducted asking whether you would pay 25p extra on your bus fare to get said conductors back. Unsurprisingly, in a hypothetical, people went for the option that made them look good. The Pullitzer Prize is in the post.
Third on the hit list we had usually entertaining Ade Edmundson do a piece on just where our luggage goes at the airport. The report’s content was about as interesting as reading the latest issue of “Beige Magazine” on a train from Slough to Milton Keynes which couldn’t even be livened up by Edmondson’s natural sense of fun. No wonder he looked to be in a rush to get the hell out of there at the end of his piece.
Finally, Stanley Johnson, father of Boris (boy could you tell that) did a hidden camera experiment with an old fella parking his car badly and asking for help which was to investigative as Boris himself is to speech making.
You’ll notice that my description of each of the reports is getting shorter and shorter and, to be quite honest, by this point I’d lost 99% of my interest and had started to watch the clock ticking toward 9 o’clock so I could turn over and watch some Nick Robinson talking about taxation which might well tell its own story.
Interspersed with all these reports were more opportunities for Knowles to rant badly, for Bradbury to make an occasional decent quip and for Williamson to shout out nonsense from the sofa on the stage. It all felt like a really bad episode of Watchdog meets every single episode of The One Show bundled up with a lovely feeling of the BBC reaching out an olive branch to the Daily Mail with tales of local council spending and ridiculous health and safety stories
It’s not that it’s not very good, it’s just really, really, REALLY boring. If you want to make a show about current affairs, you would hire journalists to make the reports. If you want to make an entertainment show about issues, you hire well known faces to make films. ‘That’s Britain’ can’t seem to decide what it wants to be and ends up being neither. Which makes it not very good as well as boring come to think of it. And that’s what’s annoying me ‘That’s Britain’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Meat @ 10pm Wednesdays, Channel 4- 8 out of 10 (series review)
British sitcoms set in and around university life revolving around the escapades of students are few and far between. Unless you count The Young Ones. Or to an extent Rising Damp. Or recent attempts like the woeful BBC3 attempt Off the Hook and E4’s not much better Campus. Ok, so maybe a few more examples there.
Anyway, the latest attempt at making only the second ever decent British sitcom centred on student life (stick that on a trophy BAFTA) looked promising when it was announced Fresh Meatwas from the creators of Peep Show and starred the next generation British acting talent including Greg McHugh, Zawe Ashton and Kimberley Nixon.
So, was it a Richard the Third than Geoff Hurst? (See what I did there? Eh? It’s overused, outdated student slang for a Third and a First, dolt.)
The show revolves around six students (plus on mystery occupant who doesn’t appear until the last episode of the series) thrown together into a flat share for their first year at university and their various escapades, naturally involving drink, sex and all-nighters writing essays due in the next morning.
Early on, the show struggled to justify its hour (including adverts) length as the gags failed to come through consistently enough and the development of plotlines was as slow as the queue for start of year course registration. As an aside, are these university jokes working for ya? Like I care, they’re going to be a feature of this review.
However, like the member of the opposite (or same) sex on your first night out in Fresher’s week that looks better and better as the night goes on, Fresh Meat began to improve around the mid-series point, starting with wonderful Student Demo episode where the laughs kept on flowing and the story arcs began to advance.
The show certainly suffered from Channel 4’s decision to run the four episodes of Top Boy on consecutive nights, leaving the finale of Fresh Meat to air some two weeks after the penultimate episode meaning that momentum was lost somewhat with a quick Wikipedia reading required to recall the plotlines, a similar process used when writing an essay after attending all the lectures on the subject hungover.
Elsewhere, many of the complaints about the show have been centred around whether it is an accurate portrayal of student life. This isn’t really the point as of course you need to heighten the drinking, drug taking and sex as that is where the laughs come from. The important thing is that it has a firm basis in reality with regard to situations like casual sex, fancying the people you live with, drinking and studying, last and maybe least. Furthermore, even the exaggeration for comic effect isn’t overly used as none of the characters get off with someone (randomer or otherwise) every night and the characters are more often seen watching TV than drinking, a familiar enough experience for anyone who is/was at university.
A handful of the characters are pretty lazy stereotypes in their origin; the standard “we all knew one of them at uni” types. There is the up himself posh twat (JP, played surprisingly well by Whiteall albeit in a role built for him), the fake new-world kinda girl who is trying to reinvent herself (Oregon/Mellissa played by Charlotte Ritchie), the shy, young bloke (Kingsley portrayed by Joe Thomas basically carrying on his role as Simon in The Inbetweeners) and the uber-nerd Howard (McHugh). However, the characters are given enough substance to make them indie pubs as opposed to boring Liquid/Oceania generic products. Yeah, that comparison definitely works…
Elements of Peep Show can be found in two of the main characters make up. JP is the classic Bain/Armstrong character of a person who thinks he is higher up the social strata than he actually is and finding himself often screwed over by the people he sees as cooler than him in his attempts to impress them.
Meanwhile, Vod (played amazingly by Ashton) is the female version of Peep Show’s Super Hans; drug and drink addled but with her own set of sound morals. Refreshingly, she gets all the best lines in the show (along with Howard) as it is rare to see such a strong female lead in contemporary sitcoms.
However, it is the secondary characters that really stand out from Howard’s brilliantly socially psychotic on/off friend Brian, the mysterious “invisible” housemate Paul Lamb (although the cause of his absence is a bit of a letdown), the male Professor Shales for playing the part of pervy, exploitative lecturer to perfection, the female Professor Shales and her reasons for allowing her husband to have an affair with Oregon and JP’s even more exploitative posh mates, who are upper class versions of the male Only Way is Essex vessels; cocky and making up their own words.
As well as boasting, eventually, a strong series of story arcs (basically three stories; Kingsley and Josie’s relationship, Vod and Oregon’s friendship and JP’s issues), there are a number of memorable comedic scenes including JP getting emotional after his Dad’s death with Oregon’s dying horse whilst off his face on LSD, Kingsley and Josie’s confrontation over their deal to ‘cure’ Kingsley’s virginity at the student rally and the academic’s dinner evening at Oregon and Professor Shales’ flat which descends into sexually frustrated bickering.
Fresh Meat is certainly worth the extra series it has been granted (which will air next September, aptly) as the potential is there for a memorable, if not classic, example of British sitcom; well scripted, well acted, tightly directed and with sets that are lovingly made down to the last detail. The potential is certainly there as the show has demonstrated it can mix gross-out, awkwardness comedy mixed with almost touching sensitive scenes, particularly (and bizarrely) the aforementioned JP finding out his Dad died scene and Vod sticking up for JP in the final episode after he has been conned by his upper class “mates”.
And with each of the three story arcs left unanswered after last night’s finale, I find myself not being able to wait to see what the conclusions are which is a rarity for me with any sitcom.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Gear USA @ 7pm Fridays, BBC3- 7 out of 10
There has been a resolutely one way traffic flow with regard to TV shows appearing on US and UK screens; every over show on in the UK is an unchanged, American import whilst everything that goes the other way gets remade on the journey. Maybe there is an island for the process somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic with a machine for carrying out the remodelling process.
Anywho, Top Gear USA, whilst being a remake, shares enough of the genes of its British forefather to be recognisable to audiences over here in Blighty but enough differences to give it a sense of American….ness.
We’ll start off with the stuff that has been packed up from UK Top Gear and shipped over the Atlantic. Same theme music, same warehouse-style set, same combination of car reviews and challenges, same number of presenters, same dicking around, same interviewing segment with a celebrity driving around their version of the Top Gear test track. Basically what I’m getting at is the format is very, very similar. Not quite sure why that surprises me, kind of comes with the territory of “being a remake”.
One thing they haven’t tried to copy exactly like for like is the three presenters of British Top Gear. There was a larger, nerdier guy with a beard (a bit like James May at a push), a guy with a sticky up fringe (Richard Hammond-esque) and another guy with receding hair who looks a bit older and does the interviewing (Jeremy Clarkson, therefore), all of whom made such a large impression on me that none of their names stuck. And so, for the rest of their review, they shall be referred to by their British names. Oh, and another difference, the gratuitous amount of swearing.
The montage they put together at the start of the show to showcase what would be coming up over the series looked promising; similes, quips, fast cars, challenges that threaten injury, low level property damage and piss taking and the first show of the series pretty much was par for the course.
It involved “Hammond” and “May” trying to outrun a military helicopter in a Shelby Cobra through the streets of a Georgian town, “Clarkson”, “Hammond” and “May” going really, really fast on a long, straight road to find the best Lamborghini ever made and “Clarkson” interviewing Buzz Aldrin for about two and a half minutes followed by the poor old fella tootling around the track in a Suzuki. All pretty standard Top Gear fare then. Which is fine by me as each of the segments worked, if not quite as polished as their British counterparts just yet.
Now for the bad stuff; to begin with, the backing soundtrack, usually such a strong element of the Top Gear package was lacking with inappropriate music being used or it just being too quiet
Secondly, at times all three presenters suffer from a wooden on-screen style and the banter between co-presenters seems somewhat forced though, to be fair, on-screen chemistry just doesn’t happen overnight, even if the participants do happen to be perfect for each other. UK Top Gear took a good four years to develop the interchanges it has now between its presenters and there were glimmers of chemistry, particularly in the out and about, recorded segments.
Overall, I wanted to hate this show. I wanted to despise the fact it was an American remake of a British television institution. I wanted to mock its attempts to import British humour to an American audience. I wanted to belittle it’s presenters for having the gall to try to recreate it. I wanted it to blow up in an explosion of American bombast.
And yet, it was far from unwatchable; the presenters are knowledgable and passionate, the filiming is splendid and the content is thought out, if a little bit on the short side leaving things being rushed through or not fully explored. If it was called something other than Top Gear, I probably wouldn’t watch it so it’s living on its brand for the time being but it’s certainly worth sticking with, just to see what else they’ve come up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam and Evan: From Girls to Men @ 9pm Monday, BBC3- 6 out of 10
In the 21st century, you can do pretty much whatever you like when it comes to romance; just as long as it involves another human and is within the established legal and ethical framework that has been refined and developed over human history. Thus, new unusual stories pop up and that’s just what Sam and Evan is all about
The documentary follows posh southerner Sam, who at the age of 17 and after five months dating 20 year old Evan, moves 200 miles north to live together which kind of makes it sound like a cross between a buddy movie and a rom-com but in the 21st century. And set in Rochdale.
Both Sam and Evan were born girls, but are now on the way to becoming men as that is both what they feel they are and so they technically are in a gay relationship. They’re just a typical couple all things considered in the way they act and talk and relate. They probably argue like real (deliberate provocation FYI) couples too though broadcasting couples arguing is reserved for heterosexual couples on TV, it would appear.
Sometimes it gets a bit confusing when its men who are having a period and so on but modern life is quite confusing; working a Sky+ box takes some getting used to. Not that this is anything like working a Sky+ mind, the confusion bit is the only thing that would be in shared circle on a Venn diagram.
As the show continues, the viewer is show the pair undergoing the process of becoming men; starting with names and then moving on to clothes, testosterone injections, something called a “packer” to simulate a penis in one’s trousers (probably not available on Amazon) and eventually exploring gender realignment
The third key character is Evan’s very approving mother Kath who says she is so supportive as Sam “makes my son happy”. The couple live with Kath who even goes so far as to injecting Sam with the testosterone that he needs fortnightly. Other examples show of the bond of support from other members of the pair’s family and their friends; the strength of humanity.
But humanity has two faces of course. Little, (not gonna mince words here) cunty kids shouting abuse in the street and throwing eggs. That said, with only one instance of such prejudice being shown, perhaps it isn’t as prevalent as the “info” box about the show made out. Then again, an hour where every five minutes a scene of cunty kids shouting abuse isn’t exactly uplifting, inspiring TV. Unless immediately after shouting it they get immediate comeuppance in the form of a kick in the bollocks; damn this unfair world.
Things get even more confusing later on with revelations about Evan and his potential to undertake the sex change process but it only shows the couple’s strength of bond together and their support as they grow up and grow together.
The theme of growing up isn’t just to do with the participants of the show but also the BBC3 channel as a whole. BBC3 used to be more point and laugh style of documentaries but the channel is maturing. The subject matter does sadly have the point and laugh factor, that tends to come with the territory, but it’s so much more mature and refined.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not exactly award-winning documentary making but it wouldn’t be on BBC3 if it was and the fact that the show ends with a plug for the BBC Action Line for people who have similar feelings only serve to emphasise the show’s responsibility. Perhaps it would have been nice if they played the same message after Hotter than my daughter.
------------------------------------------------------------------
How to solve The Simpsons crisis
There be a crisis brewing over in the land of American television and you will never guess what it’s about. Ya huh, got it in one; money.
The main voice actors for The Simpsons, probably the single most influential television product ever and longest run US comedy series, have refused a 45% pay cut to their $8 million a season salaries and Fox are refusing to play ball. The voice actors have offered a 35% pay cut and a share of the show’s profits, the argument I may well take into my next pay discussion at the supermarket where I currently work.
Anywho, the show is expected to have enough episodes to run until May next year with the dispute being solved by December so the show’s writers can come up with a season or series finale, perhaps involving some kind of Futurama crossover but almost certainly not.
The Simpsons creates billions of dollars in syndication and merchandise for Fox so its loss would be huge to those all important Murdoch profit margins but, being the helpful sort, I’ve come up with some replacement show ideas for them. Free of charge.
1.
An animation revolving around the escapades of a white, American family that consists of the stupidest man on earth as the father, an almost as stupid son, a evil baby who has homosexual undertones, a stereotypical housewife mother, a dull as dishwater daughter and a talking, alcoholic dog. But, get this, you fill it with cutaway cultural gags and make it rather crude! Huh? Eh? Whatadyathink?
2.
Alternatively, you could run with this; a cartoon show that looks at the mundane activities in the lives of a white, working class, Methodist family from a fictional Texas town. The father can work in middle-management, there could be a fat son and a delusional mother where catchphrases are the order of the day.
3.
Or, better yet, I’ve got this. A show that, using the format of drawing, showcases a white, American family and the adventures they get up to. The father can work at the CIA and be right wing, the daughter can be something of a leftist (ooooo cue tension!), a nerdy son and a ditzy wife. Oh, and for some comic relief, a talking, alcoholic alien with a fondness of dressing up and homosexual undertones and a man trapped in the body of a fish who speaks three times a series. Boom, $$$$.
4.
Finally, if you want a branch out a bit and tamper slightly with the formula, there is this idea. Load up your animation software and take the working class family, a moustachioed father figure, the fat son, the talking baby and two generic female characters to make the wife and daughter and, now hear me out here, change their skin colour. Bingo, Yahtzee, prime time gold.
PS. I’m rather aware that this riff may have got old by the time you had read to #2 but hey, you’re the one that read this far
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hammond’s Journey to…@ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC1- 7 out of 10
First things, first, technically the name of the show isn't correct as Richard Hammond doesn’t actually journey to the bottom of the ocean, merely to a couple of hundred feet. I say merely, it’s probably about a couple of hundred feet further down than I’ll ever go seeing as my record is six feet at a beach by which time my head was submerged so I aborted, retreated to the beach and had a beer.
Anyway, there is a good reason he does not go down to the bottom of the ocean as only two men ever have been to deepest point on Earth (the Marianas Trench in the Western Pacific, 7 miles down as you asked). That’s ten less than the number of people to stand on the surface of the moon, for the record.
Perhaps the show should have been called “Richard Hammond hits you with some super-awesome CGI that will knock you for six” as that is basically what happens. In a big huge hangar somewhere is a big huge computer-generated Planet Earth. And a cherry picker, for some reason. From his cherry picker vantage point, Hammond can play God and God he does play. Drain all the water from the face of the Earth? No problem. Although he still interchanges between metric and imperial measurements and calls the Earth “The Earth Machine” for some reason. Perhaps I missed the memo on the rebranding of the Earth.
The content of the show is largely drawn from the chapter on the oceans from Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” which makes it both very interesting but also slightly well worn.
However, the addition of the graphics is welcome as it presents the information in an engaging and accessible way. This is combined with some wonderfully put together ‘classic’ documentary skills such as beautiful camera work (particularly of underground geysers and burning sulphur inside volcanoes) and interviews with one of the men who has reached the deepest point on Earth and the people who fix broken Internet cables on the ocean floor.
What is striking about the programme is the amount we still do not know about this area of our planet. Each trip to the bottom of the ocean using machines ends with half of the animals encountered being new to human scientific knowledge. The fact that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which forms a chain volcanoes and mountains 44,000 miles long, is one of the most active geological features in the Solar System begs more research to be done.
However, like the curtailing of the NASA missions, money is a problem when it comes to areas of discovery like this which is a crying shame.
Overall, despite the depressing but pointless apocalyptic ending thought (if it can’t happen, why show it?!) this is a very engaging and informative way to spend an hour. If not, gaze in wonder at Richard Hammond and his ongoing battle on the side of continuity errors. His hair changes from mid-life crisis long in some of his shows to short and vaguely sensible in others. Hell, even in this show it’s all over the place, changing dramatically from scenes shot on location to scenes short in the hangar. Really, check it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hour @ 9pm Tuesdays, BBC2- 8 out of 10
What are the two best things in the world? Not the two best individual things in the world cos sex and a toastie doesn’t really work together, let’s be honest here. The crumbs would get everywhere meaning the clean-up process would be a nightmare and what would you start with? Would you make the toastie first thus meaning that it would be cold once foreplay is completed? Or would you commence the sexual warm-ups and then take a break to make the toastie resulting in either loss of wood or forgetting the toastie making altogether? Such a conundrum.
Anyway, I digress. What I mean to say when I ask what are the two best things in the world is what two things, with their own relative individual merits, combine to make something truly awesome? For my money, it’s period journalism and conspiracy theories. Hells yes, I am a nerd. This brings me neatly on to the BBC’s latest drama attempt; ‘The Hour’.
For the unaware, ‘The Hour’ takes a dramatised look at the creation of a new BBC current affairs TV programme, and with it the dawning of the golden age of British TV journalism, in 1956 with a subplot involving intrigue and conspiracy and murder and general murky stuff presumably the fault of Russian spies. It is 1956 after all so the Russians are the go-to villains and scapegoats should something bad happen (the Muslims of today pretty much).
As dramas and conspiracy theories are a bad combination due to the overlap between fiction and reality, what follows is a short description of the plot of the show laying out what is real and what is fiction, just in case things need clarifying.
Basically, the show follows Freddie Lyon (fictional), played by Ben Whimshaw (real), a BBC current affairs journalist who, along with his long-time friend and target of his love (real/fictional), Bel Rowely (fictional), played by Romola Garat (real), are chosen to head up a new BBC (real) current affairs show based on real issues, called the “The Hour” (fictional). The show would showcase important news like the upcoming Suez Crisis (real) and the possibility of John F Kennedy being chosen as a running mate for Dwight Eisenhower (real), rather than the contemporary current affairs generally regarding the “outing” of young heiresses. Meanwhile, Lyons (fictional, remember) uncovers a sinister plot (fictional) involving the murder of a (fictional) academic on the London Underground (real), a murdered heiress (fictional, probably) and a man in a hat (fictiona/real) that arouses all kinds of suspicion as in a world where many people wear hats, a bowler hat stands out as evil. Further meanwhile, Lyon’s love for Rowley (and vice versa) cannot be expressed due to their own high-mindedness and history of friendship. This situation is compounded with the arrival of suave older gentleman Hector Madden (fictional) (Dominic West, real) as the anchor of “The Hour” to flirt lots with Rowley despite having the constraint of a marriage but hey, it’s the 50s, post-war laissez-faire-ism is all the rage baby. “We’re the greatest generation ever and we do what we wanna do.” was probably their catchphrase.
Played up as the British “Mad Men”, “The Hour” is something completely different. It is its own show. Yes, the casual alcoholism and the excessive smoking and the casting of a curvy lead woman in figure-hugging dresses and the sexism (a woman producing a current affairs television show?! Heaven forefend) is all present and the fact that the show is set in the same period leads to such comparisons but that is about it.
What “The Hour” is is a very impressive drama around a very important time for British journalism when (for better or for worse) the fourth estate started questioning the establishment. This is embellished in the character of Lyon who wants to chase stories that are out from the left-field like chasing up landlords who don’t admit “blacks or Irish” onto their premises. His character may well be hot-headed and temperamental and arrogant but hey, that’s journalism and that’s journalists. His summing up of why he hates Madden (hard work vs contacts to get where they are) is a terrific summing up of the class battle of the time and the portrayals of editorial battles is wonderfully enacted.
Whilst the linking of a conspiracy theory and journalism is a good mixture as one leads naturally to the other, my one concern so far is the balancing act between the two. Both story arcs are written and directed well enough so far but it will be interesting if this is carried on to such a high standard for the rest of the series.
But other than that, there is more than enough in this show for not just journalism nerds like this writer but for everyone. The cast for every role is perfect and the writing (from Abi Morgan) is as tight as any British drama around right now with the added bonus of the stunningly ironic/suitable/well-timed plotline of the relationship between the press, the police and the government (Hell, Lyon even gives a copper a few fivers in the first episode, albeit for a look at a corpse rather than anything really bad).
Overall, “The Hour” is well worth keeping up with whichever direction the plot looks to go in and if all else fails, marvel at the very 1950s stylings of just everything; the clothes, the hairstyles, the buildings, the transport and Rowley’s suspiciously looking modern watch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four talent shows ideas for ITV primetime
At the start of the decade, talent shows were the sole property of failing social clubs and pubs; a desperate alternative to a raffle to raise some cash to fix the roof or repair the urinal in the men’s room or to make a fully fledged ladies bathroom.
Nowadays, they are the new reality shows for TV; cheap, cheerful and clogging the airwaves of terrestrial channels like fat in the arteries of a McDonalds addict.
They come in two distinct flavours; the first features people who have appeared in the gossip pages of tabloids (no need to apply the word ‘celebrity’ here but that’s their defining feature; exaggeration; of the standing of the competitors, of the complexity of the tasks they perform, of the whiteness of the smile of everyone, all exaggerated).
The second involves ordinary people showing off their talent (or wares) to a panel of judges begging for approval with the hope of winning a prize that will further their career and give them a living in the profession. A fantastic example of how society has moved on from a time when better off people played God with the futures of desperate lower classes...
Anywho, the latest ITV creations of this format come in the forms of Penn and Teller: Fool Us and Show me the Funny which must have been pitched by the same producers who use the ‘Find and Replace’ tool on Microsoft Word a lot. Basically, the only differences are the presenters, the judges, the prize and the fact that magicians perform in the former, comedians in the latter. Similarly, BBC3 ran more shows of this kind last year where they sought to find Britain’s best young butcher or mechanic or fellatio exponent (only two of those three are true).
Using this formula, here are four more template talent shows that ITV can have, free of charge from me (not really, I’d want at this least 24 pence, a Boost bar and a Peroni-branded beer glass).
1. 1. 'Pork sword sculptors'
Judged by a panel of MPs (for the hell of it), Ross Kemp seeks to find the best sculptors of medieval weapons from meat products. The competitors have 15 minutes to make their creations, with no bug spray allowed, before the judges deduce who has the best chicken shield, turkey mace or indeed, pork sword. Winners have their products dispalyed in Reading Museum for a week before it all gets a bit smelly.
2. 2. 'I-spy'
A series of wannabe spies show off their various methods of espionage and ways of getting hold of confidential information with the aim of getting a job in the Russian secret service. It will be judged by various members of a major media corporation (executives with red, curly hair, that sort of thing) who know this area inside out but need new exponents of the arts, hosted by David Cameron who has no idea what is going in the show but his PR guy said it might get some public support back.
3. 3. 'Britain’s most incompetent'
A kind of anti-talent show where contestants attempt to do various extraordinary talents but fail magnificently for the pure entertainment value. Points are awarded for cramming in diverse acts into one performance, for example, singing and gymnastics at the same time. Judges include notables failures like John Darwin, George Bush Jnr and Kerry Katona. Winners prize; their own Youtube channel.
4. 4. 'Football bore'
Gary Lineker hosts the longest show ever recorded by man where various keepie-uppie experts from across Britain compete to who can do this act for the longest amount of time. Broadcast nonstop, the judges (consisting of Wayne Rooney, John Terry and, the brains of the panel, a banana with a crudely-drawn face on it) can do whatever they like to distract the contestants using the contents of a bag of randomly chosen products from Tesco. Fee for advertising slots in the breaks? About a quid. The winner receives some sleep and a ticket to one night with Imogen Thomas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James May’s Things You Need to Know @ 10pm Mondays- BBC2- 4 out of 10
In life, there a lot of things you need to know to get by. Some things you learn naturally like how to walk, how to talk and that some things (fire, sharp objects, corners on cabinets and so on) hurt when you come into contact with them etc. Other important things are taught to you; how to shave, how to operate a knife and fork and how to cook meat without spending the next two days losing an awful lot of weight one way or another.
This Monday night show isn’t designed to teach you these latter essentials but things in the world that you need to know. However, a show where James May teaches you how to shave (for both men and women) or showing the effects of food poisoning would be pretty awesome in my book; the natural next step on the road to TV replacing real world parents. Perhaps another presenter would be needed for a segment on haircuts and drinks that aren’t ale.
Anywho, what this show teaches you what you need to know is stuff about how the world operates, in particular, things that are very stereotypically British to have an interest in. For example, the first episode covered the effects of alcohol on the human body and the last episode in the series covers that most British of subjects; the weather.
The format of the half-hour information overload is simplistic; lots of diagrams and pictures on a green screen, some sound effects thrown in with May providing some voiceover work and occasionally appearing in front of the green screen looking ironically like a weather man or the people that do the hand signals for the blind on late night TV.
The plus side of this style of television show making is that the production values cost less than a Tesco sandwich but the downside is that it looks like it was designed on Adobe Flash by a 15 year old.
The show may well have been informative and might have had some interesting facts but I can’t really remember any right now which probably highlights the main problem with ‘Things You Need to Know’. For simple folk like me, the amount of information crammed in means it’s hard to keep up. Although after studying the water cycle about 76 times at various times in school, I might have just zoned out through the whole thing.
Summing it all up? It filled half an hour on BBC2’s schedule, it cost about £1.26 to put together and might have taught some people some things. For fans of getting value for money for their TV licence or lovers of James May, it’s a win. For fans of high quality television, it’s less of a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Men Go To Venice @9pm Tuesdays- BBC2- 8 out of 10
On BBC 2 every so often, a show is broadcast that features three middle-aged men fart arsing about, doing silly things, taking on challenges and praising the merits of a type of motorised transport. This is a show that runs along very similar lines.
The 'Three Men' series is a lot like a more refined version of Top Gear with less shouting and less casual racism. The three middle aged men who star are Dara O'Briain of 'head-like-a-potato' fame, Rory McGrath of 'being-more-cultured-than-he-lets-on' fame and Griff Rhys-Jones of 'don't-mention-Monty-bloody-Python' fame.
In previous episodes, they have punted up the River Thames, explored Ireland through its rivers and canals, sailed around the East of England in Jones' yacht, taken in the Western Isles of Scotland and travelled to the furthest Western point on the British Isles via the Isles of Scilly.
This time around, the triumvirate are going from the Balkans to Venice to compete in a gondola race. On the way, they go on some boats varying from ferries to yachts to converted oil tankers, do some deep-sea diving, travel in a plane, race some gondolas, take part in some cringey middle-aged man flirting (very Top Gear) and take in some heartbreakingly beautiful scenery that makes you look around your surroundings and feel about as annoyed as seeing an ex with someone infinitely more attractive than you'll ever be.
It's a very good travel type show as you learn lots of things like the histories of various islands in Dalmatia, the sheer number of tourists that Venice gets (annually, 60 tourists for every resident of the city) and that Rory McGrath can speak just about any language in Southern Europe and drink just about everything in the world that has alcohol in it. Alcohol has played a big part in the shows in the past and this time is no different, leaving Jones as the conspicuous teetotaller once again.
Points are knocked off for excessive use of the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack (yes, the show is set on the sea, we get it) and Jones getting naked on a boat with just a bag of nuts to cover his man place.
Next time, the show is off to Somalia for "Three Men go to Mogadishu" where the jovial mood of the show will be difficult to keep up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Marr’s Megacities @ 8pm Thursdays- BBC1- 7 out of 10
Regular readers of the TV reviewing part of this blog (all two of them) will know that I have something of a soft spot for Andrew Marr, despite the whole super injunction business, and a major soft spot for anything related with statistics and facts. I like them both because they make me feel smart.
Marr's latest series involves travelling to the world's 'megacities', those metropolises with more than 10 million people in them (there are 21 to put a number on it) and exploring how life works and how stuff happens in them. The latest episode was about safety and security from natural disasters and man made threats and the solutions we have come up with to combat them. Though when these two threats combine we are really stuffed; how do you combat a rioting mudslide for example?
Marr focuses on three cities mainly in this episode, these being Mexico City, London and Tokyo. Three cities, three contrasting sets of problems from kidnapping and murder to terrorism and earthquakes. In each city, the ways in which humans take on these problems are explored and practical demonstrations are given, like in a multi-cultural school of hard knocks.
Out in Mexico City, a place 500 kidnaps occur a month and where people are plucked from the streets or their cars, a couple of men have made money out of the whole thing and they are not kidnappers. First of all, an American fellow called Tom (ex-military so you can guess what he looks like) and some Mexican men with guns who unconvincingly act like kidnappers have set up an evasive driving school. Cue Marr learning the tricks of the trade like ramming a kidnappers car and if that fails, ram it some more.
Next up is a tailor specialising in clothing that looks normal but is, in fact, bullet proof. To prove it, he sticks one of his workers in a jacket and shoots him. Customer satisfaction is probably not an issue in his business. If the item of clothing fails, the chances of the victim/customer wanting a refund are pretty unlikely.
Onwards to London, where Marr becomes the most out of place man in the world whilst training in the ultra masculine field of riot policing. Although as it turns out, all the equipment makes anyone look big and 'ard (probably not me though). Later on, he joins an Urban Search & Rescue team on one of their training exercises. The Urban Search & Rescue team consist of some men and their dogs as it turns out, though they're very well trained I'm sure.
Finally, to Tokyo where an earthquake simulation machine is Marr's next challenge. The machine which will be familiar to anyone who watched Takeshi's Castle in the past, just a little bit more high tech. He then goes to a huge underground water storage facility designed if a typhoon strikes. The chamber resembles the Grand Hall in the Mines of Moria in The Lord of the Rings. More facts are stated about how GIGANTIC the whole thing is.
All in all, it's basically Andrew Marr takes on a serious of challenges in some cities with some facts thrown in for good measure which is nice enough but the overall point is that human beings haven't really changed; our riot control is the same as the Roman legions techniques, Mexican wrestling crowds are like the masses at the gladiator fights at the Coliseum and the architectural skills behind Tokyo's Sky Tree being exactly the same as the building ideas behind temples that are 1000 years old.
Next week on the show, lots of shit cos it's about transport in cities and the waste the urban inhabitants produce, including Marr rooting through a bin for some Pepsi and a man in an old scuba suit lowering himself into some dodgy looking liquids. Tune in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Debate- The Simpsons VS South Park VS Family Guy
The year is 1989 and revolutions are taking place in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and in the world of television; Matt Groening is about to change animation forever and this revolution will be broadcast etc.
Up until this point, all successful TV animations were aimed at children. Think The Jetsons, The Flintstones, The Looney Tunes and various Hanna-Barbara classics. The Simpsonswould be the trail blazer for the animation aimed more at adults with its own brand of political and social messages.
In the twenty-two years since, the genre has exploded. We’ve had Dilbert, The PJs, Futurama, American Dad!, Beavis and Butt-head, King of the Hill to name but six. But, in terms of longevity, The Simpsons, South Park and Family Guy are the real success stories. So, which one is best?
If we are going on pure quality of output for the longest amount of time, The Simpsons wins hands down. It has been one of the smartest shows on TV, consistently, for over 20 years now and is, arguably, the greatest cultural product television has produced. Its characters are recognisable from LA to London, Bangkok to Basra. The quality of guest-star voice acting talent it has attracted (itself an innovation in animation) is without equal.
However, unquestionably, it has peaked and said peak was well over a decade ago now, probably between seasons 8 and 12, although it has been experiencing something of a renaissance in the last couple of years. In this time, Family Guy and South Park have certainly been funnier and, in the latter case anyway, far cleverer and satirical.
South Park, for my money, started out as a very immature show that was over-reliant on swearing and fart jokes, the stigma from which, it suffered from unfairly for a number of years. From around Season 7, the show seemed to grow up immeasurably; tackling key socio-political topics (from Scientology to sex-ed at schools), successfully satirising them whilst keeping the guilty-pleasure toilet humour.
At the other end of the spectrum (as tackled in a Season 10 episode of South Park) Family Guy does not tend to take on the social commentator role that it’s two rivals do, preferring to go for straight comedy. When it works, it is absolutely glorious, as in evidence from Season 3 to 5 when the show was, by far and away, the funniest of the three shows. However, when it doesn’t work (and, in this observers opinion, it hasn’t worked for three years or so now) it becomes something of a chore to watch. It is arguable that American Dad! has overtaken it in quality in recent years.
Clearly, 500 words is nowhere near enough space to do justice to the relative merits of each of these three very good TV shows (5000 words probably isn’t enough) but a decision must be made else this exercise has been a waste of yours and mine time.
Verdict: For longevity, originality and as it is the only one of the three which I would happily watch any episode of, The Simpsons wins with South Park running a close second andFamily Guy lagging behind. As a final thought however, three years ago, I probably would have ranked The Simpsons in last with South Park topping the list; amazing how quickly perspectives can change.
This article also appeared in Issue 56 of Pugwash News
This article also appeared in Issue 56 of Pugwash News
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United@ 9pm Sunday- BBC2- 9 out of 10
Sport holds a position like no other cultural entity in the Western world as it is, at the very same time, the most important and least important activity ever to be conceived. The cynics point out that it is a trivial, banal pursuit, played by usually hugely overpaid ‘stars’ which subjugates and distracts the lower classes in the great class struggle (copyright the Extreme Left). The sportlovers say that is sport has the quality to bring people and communities together in a way nothing else can. They are both absolutely right; a lovely paradox.
Unite comes down on the side of the sport romantics, albeit at a time when sport was less corrupted by money and much simpler to love. The drama centres around Manchester United and the Munich Air Crash in February 1958 and the effect the tragedy had on the city of Manchester, the narrative being told through the eyes of a young Bobby Charlton at the start of his career and the assistant manager of United; Jimmy Murphy, a man history should certainly not forget. The story follows the rise of the Busby Babes in the middle of the 1950s, the tragic accident that tore the team (and nearly the club apart) on the frozen runway at Munich Airport and the miraculous rebuilding of the club in the aftermath of the accident to reach the 1958 FA cup final.
Whilst starting off slowly, this is essential to the overall plot. By showing the emergence of the legendary Babes, through their togetherness as a team and their connection with the people of the city they live in, this adds to the effect of the disaster later on. We see the antics of Charlton, Duncan Edwards and all of the other magnificent young footballers Murphy assembled as they destroy other football teams with boyish smiles on their faces, their post-match evenings out at dancehalls (where Charlton is too shy to ask a girl to dance with him; something of a contrast to the exploits of today’s brand of Manchester United footballer) and the charmingly quaint fact that many of the Babes all live together with a landlady.
As the deep connections between the young team and the city becomes more and more established; one knows the ending of the story will be a heartbreaker but the impact is nonetheless just as hard hitting. The expertly directed and produced scene of the crash is wonderfully put together with a fantastic, eerie, maudlin soundtrack as the clock ticks towards the time of the disaster.
The real stand out performance is David Tennant as Jimmy Murphy, providing the full set of emotions from the inspirational, dressing room orator at the beginning of the emergence of the Busby Babes, to the stiff upper lip in front of the survivors of the crash at a Munich hospital, to his emotional breakdown in the stairwell of said hospital, through to his pride and love for the rag-tag team of survivors, amateurs and loaned professionals he puts together for the last part of the season.
For football bores (much like myself) there are certain annoyances at historical inaccuracies such as the airbrushing out of other important members of the Babes such as Tommy Taylor and Roger Byrne (though for the purposes of a 90 minute TV drama this is understandable), the portrayal of Matt Busby as a slightly cold, aloof from the training pitch Scot (though this may have been dramatic licence to build up the importance of Murphy more) and the rather big mistake that Manchester United played Sheffield Wednesday, not Fulham, in the Cup final (though this may…no, that one can’t be explained).
Despite the inaccuracies, this is a wonderful, loving tribute to the exploits of extraordinary men such as Murphy, Charlton, Harry Greig (the United keeper who ignored advice and went back into the fractured hull of the plane to look for survivors), Matt Bubsy (who was twice read the Last Rites before returning to manage United) and others who were involved in one of the tragic events that helped make sport so important to society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is England was a 2006 critically-acclaimed film that examined the skinhead subculture and the adoption of black reggae and ska music by white nationalists in the 1980s and the division it caused in the skinhead movement. Similarly, This Is Britain examines the splits in British culture that is caused by the recent 2011 census; placing ethnicity, religion and nationality under the microscope. Granted, there are differences in the examination processes of each broadcast, the latter has less fat-headed, talented white child actors and no examples of someone being kicked to death in a small living room.
The show, hosted by everyone’s favourite journalist (not the biggest compliment in the world that one) Andrew Marr, seeks to explore the social, economic and political situation in Britain today, through asking questions about how the people of Britain see themselves.
It starts out a bit like celebrity, genealogy road-trip hour, also known as Who Do You Think You Are?, where Marr goes to the National Census Database (something like that, I’m tired and wasn’t paying attention, bugger off) and looks at his ancestors on the first ever census in 1801. With Andrew Marr striding around looking thoughtful, the show almost descends into your atypical documentary.
Thankfully, it steers clear of this when Marr is placed in his glass warehouse base where he does some pieces to camera whilst awesome CGI graphics going on around him (think like a primary colour version of The Matrix and you are on the right lines). From here on in, Census experts are sent out to roam around Britain, looking thoughtful in bars and football stadiums and Glasgow.
If you are a stats junkie/ nerd like me, this is a glorious programme because there is lots statistic porn such as facts like: that 90% of divorces are initiated by women, the average age of first time home-buyers is 40, the highest rate of gun crime is in the countryside and there is a 40 year gap in average life expectancy Glasgow between parts of the Glasgow, a phenomenon found nowhere else in the Western world.
The show also addresses interesting sociological quirks brought up by the last census which are examined and pondered over before we are given a frankly all too sensible answer. These questions include “why are there significantly less young men in Britain than young women?” and “Why do the largest number of remarriages occur in the South West?” and more.
Even if stats and sociology isn’t your thing, you can always laugh at the treasure trove of marvellously un-PC archaic phrases and words found on old censuses (censusi?) such as the 1901 census having a column asking about disabilities asking if a member of one’s family is “deaf/dumb/imbecile or feeble-minded”. Or, failing that, you can laugh at a terminally obese Glaswegian man in a chip shop. But don’t watch it for that, watch it for the interesting subject matter which is examined in a thought provoking manner.
Civilisation: Is the West history? @ 8pm, Sundays- Channel 4- 7 out of 10
On TV these days, historians fall in to two distinct groups. On the one side, we have the all-action historian (well, as all-action as you can get with a PhD) who demonstrate history by doing stuff that people in the past would have done, like chiselling primitive Stone Age weapons or running for miles at night time in forests in army gear or riding a horse in full battle armour or shooting a Catholic in the face with a musket or stealing people's land and giving them influenza in return and so on. These are the Dan Snows and Neil Olivers of this world, trying to impress the viewer with their manliness and ability to do what people in the past did, albeit in a sterilised environment. These are generally the younger historians on the block.
On the other side, there are the historians who demonstrate history by telling you stuff whilst stood looking thoughtful, or walking silently towards the camera, in a location that is somehow linked to the subject on which the historian is talking about. These historians have a strong sense of conviction and booming rhetoric and will hope to make you think that what they are saying is true, not their opinion, through sheer force of will. These are generally the older historians, such as Simon Schama and David Starkey.
Professor Niall Ferguson sits somewhere in between as he is young enough to do the action historian role (he even takes the replicating our ancestors bit into real life to; by having sex with many different women http://tinyurl.com/39c6vwj *warning*, link contains traces of Daily Mail) but he also does the rhetoric part rather well, as his new seriesCivilisation: Is the West History? shows.
The series revolves around Ferguson's theory that the reason why the West dominated the world for 500 years or so from the 1500s to now is due to their six 'killer apps' and now that the rest of the world can 'download' these 'apps', is this the end of Western superiority? Aside from the patronising and frankly embarrassing semantic field, the theory is an interesting one.
The 'apps' that Ferguson cites are competition, science, the property owing democracy, modern medicine, the consumer society and the Protestant work ethic with each 'app' (I'll stop saying it soon, I promise) being covered in its own episode, with each 'app' being linked to another civilisation which the West gained superiority over, for example, competition allowed the West to advance ahead of China, science ahead of Islam and so on. The theory is very convincing although shoehorning the 'apps' into six categories does seem to simplify the idea too far, as each episode tends to head off on another important tangent at times, such as the episode on medicine focused on the Scramble for Africa which also was only possible through the growth of mechanised transport, a point Ferguson concedes.
Ferguson's style of delivering his message is, at the same time, convincing and unconvincing. He displays his research well through showing off documents from centuries ago in places such as Turkey, the USA and Senegal to show examples of the decline of science in Muslim countries or the birth of property in America but, at times, neglects to tell us the source of some of the information and facts he comes out with.
His ability to bring alternative arguments to historical debates is outstanding, such as his partial justification of colonialism, particularly of West Africa by the French, by showing the benefits it bought the colony, such as the right to French citizenship and healthcare. His general emotional detachment from everything is something of a wonder too, as he casually sits next to a pile of bones from a German concentration camp in Namibia
Whilst history programmes should not be aesthetically pleasing, it does help and the production values for this series are rather high with powerful imagery from the past juxtaposed with contemporary filming of key locations and building, plus the obligatory shot of the presenter staring thoughtfully out of a train window.
Overall, Is the West history? is a well put together, thoughtful programme that is perhaps out of place on a Sunday evening that might now get some more viewers with Dancing on Icefinished as I'm sure the target market of the respective shows are largely the same.
------------------------------------------------------------
Glory Daze@ 9pm, Thursdays E4- 4 out of 10
The term 'hit and miss' was probably coined with the foresight that E4 was coming along. Every single sitcom/comedy show on E4 is hit or miss, often magically being both. For example, The Inbetweeners? Hit and then miss. Skins? Hit and then miss. Phoneshop? Tragic miss. Big Bang Theory? Hit. And so on.
The latest show to come along is centred on a group of young people (like Skins) that attend an educational establishment (like The Inbetweeners) and is an American export (like Big Bang Theory). Getting some kind of picture here about the conformity of E4's transmission?
Anywho, Glory Daze follows the exploits of a group of American guys as they head off to a college, loosely-based on every single US college show in every single American TV show or film, looking for a place in the college eco-system and documenting all the shenanigans they get up to.
You will never guess what these shenanigans involve. That's right, drinking, drugs and women. Originality is dead you say? Purlease! Though I suppose the diversity is something to applaud; Catholics, Republicans, Chinese, African Americans, Jews, women, all are represented in this equal opportunities 45 minutes of wonderment. Didn't see that in American Pie, did we?
Perhaps the one shred of originality is that the show is set in the 1980s, the pro being the viewer is treated to a killer 80s soundtrack, the con being the audience is subjected to terrible dialogue based on words that were not actually 'hip' or 'rad' back in the 80s and some horrible camerawork where it's meant to look like it was shot on 1980s recording technology but it just makes it look really bright and sunny all the time.
When a show is described in its marketing as a "hit US smash" it might as well say "endorsed by the Pope, Barack Obama and the Queen", for all the amount it's going to sway people. "Hit US smash" basically means very average show as the fact that Glory Daze was cancelled after one series kind of demonstrates. Being canned by the TBS network, that is a low.
All in all, watch Glory Daze if you were a big fan of the 80s and dated humour, avoid if you are a distinctly normal person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A History of Ancient Britain- @9pm, Wednesdays BBC2- 9 out of 10
There appears to be something of a checklist when it comes to history programmes these days that producers, directors and narrators all seek to adhere to when making these shows, like a shopping list for scene setting.
For example, a host must talk to the camera whilst walking forward in a busy high street, talk to the camera in a library or lab or museum, take on some bizarre quasi-hardman challenges such as abseiling down a cliff face or walking in some heavy snow or living 24 hours in a Mesolithic lifestyle to prove how rugged he is and there must be long establishing shots from helicopter over a rocky outcrop of land or lots of field and the host must talk about our ancestors hard lives whilst the camera pans over people in a high street for some low level contrast and so on.
However, just because something is clichéd doesn't mean to say that it isn't very good, just take a look at the Rocky movies.
Bad example perhaps. But the fact is A History of Britain is rather good.
Hosted by Neil Oliver, a member of the more rugged band of historians with his Scottish accent and long hair, the show traces the period of British history that is perhaps the most mysterious, Ancient Britain. The first show deals with Britain from around 500,000 years ago to around 8,000 years ago, encompassing the Ice Age and the emergence of modern human beings on this island of ours.
Whilst not offering a complete history, as the simple fact is that so little archaeological evidence has been found in Britain of human existence that it would be impossible to trace a definite arch of human history from much beyond 6000BC, the show is both entertaining and informative.
I didn't know it was only 9,000 years ago that Britain was occupied full time by humanity and even then, only by 1,000 people or so and it is genuinely fascinating how a few fragments of bones found in a cave in Wales or in Cheddar Gorge can be dated, discovered what species of humans they were and even what kind of lives they led and how they died.
As well as the history of people explored, geographical history of Britain is traced such as how glaciers impacted upon the landscape of Scotland and Northern England so heavily and how one of the largest tsunamis in the history of the world tore Britain from Mainland Europe around 6,300 years ago.
Always nice when the host of a show can be seen that he seriously enjoys the subject he is talking about and the amazing links he places between events and how he makes you think about them, such as amazing discovery of human footprints in Gwent left 6,000 years ago and the fact how oblivious they were to the tsunami that hit the east of the same landmass they were on at around the same time.
Seriously, give it a watch, not least of all for the way Oliver says "Scotland" in a reverential manner and the wonderful landscape shots taken of Britain's beautiful countryside.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cleveland Show @ 10pm, Tuesdays- E4- 4 out of 10
Spin off shows have a richly deserved reputation for not being particularly watchable or good or worth making and rightly so as they usually smack of trying to squeeze a few more pounds or dollars out of a franchise that's already been bled drier than a… As you may have guessed from the rating, The Cleveland Show is another show to add to this list.
For those who are unaware, The Cleveland Show follows the adventures of Cleveland Brown, Peter Griffin's erstwhile neighbour from Family Guy and his new family in the town of Stoolbend, Virginia including his new wife Donna, his son from the first series, pudgy Cleveland Jnr, and his two step kids, an uber-intelligent infant and a forgettable teenage girl, which sounds vaguely familiar. This is now the second series of the show, the first series kind of passing me by after watching the first two episodes, that was that. But now, it's the second series and is it anymore rememberable? Well, no.
Back in the days of yore, moustachioed Cleveland with his laugh like Sky Sports' Soccer Saturday's stooge Paul Merson was a loveable enough character but it's been quite comprehensively now, not enough of a character to base a series around. All that he is left with now is an insanely catchy theme tune that you couldn't get out of your head with an ice cream scoop.
Largely, the storylines are strange and with no real overarching progression of the story or sufficient enough interaction between the two story arcs per episode whilst, as can be expected from a Family Guy type show, there are jokes that hit here and there with flyers such as the David Carradine funeral gag but largely there is a severe dearth of laugh out loud moments.
Every so often references are made to the show's stablemates (Family Guy and American Dad) merely serve to remind you of the golden days of the mid-2000s when Family Guy was the edgiest and funny show on TV. Not any longer. The Cleveland Show suffers from the same problem as the later series of Family Guy and American Dad, in that it just seems very strained and forced with only the occasional high watermarks such as the third episode of this season's 'Cleveland Live!' which is a wonderfully offbeat 20 minutes of television where the show is broadcast 'live'.
Perhaps if the show wasn't so associated with Family Guy (Seth MacFarlane is the executive producer and voice actor for both shows and the animation is the same) then it might be able to stand on it's own as a show but the impact Family Guy made on the animated adult cartoon was so huge that the goalposts have shifted hugely in this genre of television that everything else just isn't quite good enough anymore. Sadly, even this review has to be concluded with a reference to Family Guy such is the shadow it casts over The Cleveland Show.
All in all, much like the more recent series of Family Guy, watching The Cleveland Show has become something of a chore, just hoping that maybe the heights will be hit again but ultimately being disappointed and the urge to watch it the next week and the next week and the next week gets duller and duller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 o’clock Live @10pm, Thursdays- Channel 4- 7 out of 10
You know what the UK television market needs? More current affairs comedy/satire programmes. I mean, there is probably only about five of them currently running at the moment across the main channels, each with their own gimmick and so on. Clearly, it's a formula that works, else there wouldn't be so many of them. But wait, what's this? A live variety? Featuring an all star line up of contemporary leftist comedic stars? And Lauren Laverne? Well, let's see.
Everyone knows that UK TV has been looking for a home grown equivalent of America's Daily Show and this is probably as close as we are going to get to it as the BBC would never be able to get away with a show like this due to impartiality rules and ITV is, well just a bit shit and it would inevitably be hosted by Adrian Chiles so would be worse than shit; something even Fiver wouldn't show.
Basically, the show's premise is like a combination of Question Time, Newsnight, Screenwipe/Newswipe and Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show but whilst at the same time trying to attract a younger demographic. Biiiiiiigggggg challenge.
Firstly, if it wants to be respected as a forum for real political debate, a balance has to be struck between being funny but also letting the experts do their thing, something David Mitchell and Jimmy Carr both struggled with at times. That said, the five guests all contributed and were allowed to articulate their points whilst Mitchell emerged as a very sharp interviewer.
Elsewhere, Charlie Brooker doing what he does, cynicism in nicely put together edited pieces but tends to struggle with live TV, perhaps because he is a far better writer as a comedian than a quick wit like Carr and Mitchell. Although his piece on Tunisia, similar in nature to his edited pieces familiar to viewers of Newswipe, was glorious rant on the Western media full of perfectly formed points and humour.
Carr, acting pretty much as the front man of the group delivered his one liners with customary aplomb but perhaps lacks the real interest in current affairs that Mitchell and Brooker, aside from making the odd layman's point in debates. Should not be allowed to interview people either due to his laughing at most left-field points which leads me on to.
Lauren Laverne doing not an awful lot it must be said which seems a bit of a waste of talent as she is a good broadcaster and occasionally comes out with some good lines. Perhaps could be given Carr's slot for interviews to both get some use out of her.
