Eurovision 2018

View fullsize

I have watched the Eurovision Song Contest regularly throughout my life. As a very young child I enjoyed it purely as an opportunity to stay up late. In my teens I loathed it as it appeared to be the antithesis of my own musical tastes at the time. So I watched it purely to mock and deride. It is only in recent years that I have learned to love it for what it is and have finally understood its purpose. Sadly, the UK has a somewhat skewed outlook on many things, due to it’s history and island mentality. We’re often too blinded by our national achievements as well as burdened with a sense of pride and “self-importance by proxy”. As a nation our accomplishments our prodigious, so subsequently we have a tendency to over think matters. With regard to Eurovision we seem to focus on a “killer song”, rather than embrace the spirit of the competition. And that spirit is camp, kitsch and frivolous. Eurovision is theatrical. It’s about tapping into your countries heritage and expressing it as a light hearted, theatrical vocal meme.

Last night, I watched Eurovision 2018 while chatting with friends on Discord. Last year I had an equally good time doing similar but via Twitter. Eurovision is so much better if treated as a fun communal experience. It is not a song contest in the traditional sense, in so far that it is not the most technically excellent, or most intelligently written composition that wins. It’s about delighting the audience with a flamboyant performance and an insanely catchy hook. That is why Netta won and SuRie didn’t. The former gave a suitably over the top and colourful performance of a song that had a refrain not to dissimilar to Seven Nation Army. A perfect “earworm”. It simply wasn’t something you were going to forget. The latter, however, was hindered by a far more formal pop song written by people that seemed to be oblivious to the core tenets of Eurovision. Although I admire SuRie for continuing her performance despite the stage invasion, song wise it was very much a case of “bringing a knife to a gunfight”. Frankly my favourite songs from this year’s show were the silliest and most ostentatious, like Moldova’s entry. Oh, and as an aside, Moldova were robbed in 2017.

View fullsize

In recent years Eurovision has transcended its traditional geographical boundaries and started finding a truly international audience. It’s nice to see American colleague’s reaction to the unique nature of the show. The contest has become sufficiently well known globally, that 20th Century Fox have decided to make it one of the many subjects of the Deadpool 2 marketing campaign. Frankly, if Canada wants to participate I won’t object, but it’s not down to me. On a less cordial note, due to Brexit, knee jerk nationalism and misplaced anti-European sentiment, there are many in the UK who are naturally hostile toward Eurovision by default. Such individuals even manage to leech the enjoyment out of this glorious international pantomime by muddying the waters with their petulant politics of hatred. However, the best solution to such “rage” is simply to mute the appropriate twitter feeds, ignore the tabloid press and focus on the business in-hand, namely having fun. So, I will no doubt find myself back again in twelve months’ time, marvelling on social media with like minded friends at the delicious awfulness that is Eurovision. I may even put a tenner on Moldova in advance.

Classic TV Themes: Hawaii Five-O

View fullsize

I grew up during the seventies when network TV shows still put a lot of thought and effort into such things as their theme tune. It was a decade littered with memorable tracks that captured the essence of the shows they came from. Many have now become integral aspects of popular culture, leading to countless internet memes as well as becoming the ringtones of choice for many a fortysomething. However, things are very different now. You can have a staggeringly good theme for your show, but it can't possibly be longer than thirty seconds. And don’t think for a moment that viewers can listen to it again at the end, as it has now become standard practice to compress the credits into a third of the TV screen and preview what's coming next, while some link announcer spouts inanities. Mercifully, cable and streaming companies tend to treat their TV shows with greater respect. The lack of commercial advertising ensures a longer program duration and hence more focus on a theme tune. However, network TV still commands big audiences, yet hasn’t in recent years produced any TV show themes of note.

For me the track that embodies the traditional notion of the TV theme tune and elevates it to an art form, is Morton Steven's Hawaii Five-O theme. I cannot think of a piece of music, born of a TV show that is quite as evocative and inspirational. For years there has not been an original recording available so fans and enthusiasts have had to slum it with indifferent cover versions (which I hate). However, in 2012 the only legitimate soundtrack album was finally re-released on CD. It contains a studio extended version of the main theme along with incidental music from one the episode Operation Smash. It is a crisp and tight arrangement of the theme and superior to all previous version in circulation.

View fullsize

In 2010 the show was rebooted and has proven to be surprisingly popular. It is currently in its 8th season. However, at the time the question on everyone’s lips was would the main theme be retained, or would it be jettisoned for something else? Luckily common sense prevailed so the classic iconic theme and title credits were cleverly recreated. But the process was not exactly problem free. Brian Tyler, a composer with a respectable pedigree in film and TV, was brought on-board to manage the soundtrack production. He initially toyed with idea of re-arranging Stevens seminal theme tune. Let it suffice to say that test audiences did not warm to it and after some overtly negative feedback the it was replaced with a more traditional arrangement. This recording even included some of the session musicians that worked on the original track in 1968. Sadly, the demands of modern TV broadcasting still had an impact on the completed piece of music. Modern title sequences on popular network shows are now no more than thirty second and so the theme was shortened to meet this requirement. However, the full version can be found on the official soundtrack album to season one and is version posted below along with the original from 1968.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 8

View fullsize

In recent week’s Joe McFadden has been widely tipped to win Strictly Come Dancing 2017, having crept up the leader board with a series technically polished and spirited performances. Labelled by head judge Shirley Ballas as a “dark horse” he has quickly become a thoroughbred in the eyes of most bookies’ to become this evenings favourite to win. Joes has proven not only to be a consistently good performer but a popular one too, as he was the only one of tonight’s finalist never to have been in the bottom two. He has in many ways been a classic example of the celebrity that embarks upon the “Strictly journey” and this evening, all the hard work paid off as he lifted the glitterball trophy for this years show. Let us not forget that this is also Katya Jones night as well. She has choreographed some incredible artistic and intelligent routines this season and has clearly understood what works best for her partner.

All that remains now is for the tabloid press to pick over the bones of the last 13 weeks in tomorrow’s newspapers. I’m sure they’ll still manage to dredge up some alleged sexual improprieties or imply that certain contestants where sabotaged. I’m sure they’ll be claims of bias, vote tampering and racism, as per usual. It’s a shame that every year when this show arrives to entertain a somewhat drained and fatigued British public, quarters of the UK press blight it with their “journalistic” race to the bottom and need to sell newspapers. But berating a parasite for being parasitical is foolhardy. Let us therefore put aside this unseemly facet of Strictly culture and focus on the wealth of good cheers that can be found online regarding the show. Like myself, there are countless of thousands of fans who have been thoroughly entertained this year.

View fullsize

Which leads me neatly to my final points. It is not a cliché but a fact to say that each year, the standard of celebrity dancing improves significantly on Strictly. 2017 has once again raised the bar even higher and it does make you stop and pause when considering where we go from here? Will we ever see a season where the standard of contestant is considerably lower and exactly how would the public react to such a situation. Also, will the producers and showrunners tweak with the format again, as they have this year? The four-pair finale worked well but would get a little clumsier if expanded any further. And it would be remiss of me not to mention Head Judge Shirley Ballas. I have enjoyed her measured, fair and supportive input this year and hope she does return in 2018. She compliments the existing team perfectly and has dispelled the memories of Len Goodman and his pickling proclivities. So as this year’s Strictly Come Dancing ends, it just remains for me to say “rest” and “shake it all out”. Or if you prefer “keep dancing”.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 7

View fullsize

Singer Mollie King went into this week’s semi-final as the bookies' favourite to be voted off the show, and it has proven so. I appreciate that Mollie has been training hard and applied herself to the advice given to her by the judges. However, it would appear that she has plateaued with regard to her level of skill and performance several weeks agao. Sadly, nerves and the pressure of the night got the better of her on Saturday and her Samba was not well received. It was hesitant and lacked polish. She partially redeemed herself with an elegant waltz, although it is fair to say that she simply wasn’t in the same league as the other celebrity dancers. The judges seemed to be a little too generous with their marks for this dance, possibly to spare her any further distress because Mollie was visibly upset.

But this is the nature of Strictly Come Dancing. Although not a true dance competition, it still is a very demanding experience both physically and mentally. It also comes with a great deal of tabloid scrutiny. The rumours and gossip that stem from the show fuel a great deal of hyperbole and sensationalism in the popular press. Mollie’s alleged relationship with her professional dance partner AJ Pritchard has been a major “talking point” this year. Now this is not a problem as long as it remains external from the show. One can choose whether to read such tittle tattle or ignore it. Yet this year, the so-called “showmance” between the couple has bled through into the live show, being referenced by both hosts on several occasions. Was this done to try and gain leverage with the viewers and boost her support? If that was the case, it strikes me as being somewhat crass and arbitrary. A bit like playing the terminally ill grandparent card on The X Factor.

View fullsize

Either way, it’s a redundant point now as Mollie faced Gemma in the dance off and it became immediately clear that the judges would vote her off the show. Cue a tearful farewell and the standard claims that Mollie is an “amazing person” or some such other superlative. How that label has lost its value in recent decades. Now it’s just a case of preparing for next week’s final. Although I have a lot of time and respect for Debbie McGee and would be happy to see her win, I think Joe and Katya are in a strong position to take this year’s trophy. Katya has a knack for creative choreography that provides Joe with a character to explore and project. I have a suspicion that their show dance will be something spectacular and will win the hearts of viewers. Then again, I could be completely wrong. That is the nature of the show and the public vote.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 6

View fullsize

Strictly Come Dancing 2017 is proving to be quite the rollercoaster ride. Each week it seems that there is potential for an upset and Saturday night proved no different. The fact that Davood and Nadiya scored poorly with their Argentine Tango was quite a surprise. The relatively low spread of points put them squarely at the bottom of the leader board and made them prime candidates for the dance off.  Personally, I thought this was a damn shame because Davood has significantly improved in recent weeks and has embraced the Strictly journey. However, it was a shock to see Alexandra and Gorka fighting to stay on the show once again. Sadly, the outcome of the dance off was a forgone conclusion. Alexandra was technically outstanding and gave a spirited performance. She had something to prove after last week's difficult Rhumba and I thought she came back with a vengeance. Sadly, the public thought otherwise. I’m sure being in the dance off yet again will be a disappointment for her. However, for the present she is safe.

I'm of the opinion that despite being favoured by the judges and quarters of the press, Alexandra doesn't enjoy as big a fan base as some would surmise. The fact that she has been consistently good since week one may actually be working against her. Viewers like the narrative of progression and growing artistically. They want to champion a celebrity who blossoms and tire quickly of those who are good from the get go. It's a pattern we have seen before. There is also a school of thought that those at the top of the leader board will automatically attract votes, although this theory is often wrong. So, after considering the foibles of viewer voting and the precedents set by previous shows I think it is unlikely that Miss Burke will win Strictly Come Dancing 2017. I fully expect her to be a finalist but not lift the trophy. But winning is not necessarily everything. I would not be surprised to see her starring in a hit West End show a year from now.

View fullsize

Certainly, the dynamics of the remaining two episodes has now changed considerably. Davood’s departure is potentially good news for Debbie and Giovanni as well as Joe and Katya. Both of these pairs are now strong contenders to win. Voting by the public tends to increase in the final stages of the competition as people realise the importance of their vote. As for Mollie and A J, as well as Gemma and Alijaz, there future is somewhat less predictable. Mollie is steadily improving but still seems to lack a degree of stamina and more importantly confidence. Gemma has veered between exceptionally good performances and those that have been problematic. It is this inconsistency that presents a weakness. Can she put her own doubts behind her and produce a more polished performance? This is why It Takes Two is such essential viewing, during the week, as I believe it provides a good indication of how well the celebrities are taking to their new dances. It’s also a litmus test as to their state of mind, which is integral to their success.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 5

View fullsize

No one is safe. I’m sure it’s a thought that all remaining contestants on Strictly Come Dancing are currently thinking. Week 10 has been and gone and found front runner Alexandra Burke in the dance off against the delightful Susan Calman. Obviously, the moment this was announced, the outcome was a forgone conclusion. But it proves as I said last week that the spread of public votes may not be that wide and if a celebrity finds themselves in the middle of the linerboard then they are at serious risk. There can be no “bad weeks for the remaining contestants, from now on. Every dance now has to be undertaken with as much confidence and technical accuracy as possible. I suspect that unless Gemma raises her game and Mollie continues to improve they too may be potential dance off candidates next week. As for Alexandra, I would hazard a guess that she will focus very much on ironing out any technical issues and will return with a show stopping performance, next Saturday. The lady is extremely motivated and competitive.

However, let us take a moment to reflect upon the departure of Susan Calman. Susan was one of the reasons I have returned to actively watching Strictly Come Dancing. Unlike other celebrities Susan has absolutely no prior dance experience and at first glance could have been labelled the “fun” contestant. Yet she has surprised us all, as well as herself, by her progression and improvement. Not only has she learnt how to dance but she has brought an unbridled joy to the show. In many respects she has embodied the essence of Strictly and represent all that is good and rewarding about the journey. Each year, the public will champion a celebrity that they perceive as an underdog and keep them in the show. Sometimes this is done for entertainment value and on occasions I believe this is done simply as pushback against the judge’s formal approach to marking performances. But I believe this year that Susan stayed on the show for so long simply because the public loved her and her genuine outlook. She will be missed.

View fullsize

Next Saturday is the Quarter Final of Strictly Come Dancing as well as being Musical Week. It presents the celebrities with an opportunity to really to sell themselves. Up and till now I’ve been voting intermittently, for those who have impressed me. But I haven’t consistently supported a specific couple. I believe from now that the voting will start to get very tribal and if you have a favourite celebrity, then your support will be essential for them. As I’ve said time and again over the years, Strictly Come Dancing is an entertainment show and the winner does not lift the trophy purely buy being technically the best. It often comes down to who the public thinks deserve to win, which puts a very different complexion on things. Both Joe and Davood are potential champions, whose good nature and self-improvement could prove a challenge to technically excellent front runner, Alexandra. Yet I still feel that Debbie McGee is a wild card and personally I would like to see her succeed and shatter the myth about Strictly always being the prerogative of the young. Roll on next Saturday.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 4

View fullsize

Blackpool always brings out the best in the celebrity dancers, due to its immense entertainment heritage and standing within the world of professional dancers. So, it wasn’t surprising to see some couples raise their game and make significant improvements with their routines. Gemma showed that she had listened to the judges’ comments and delivered a polished and elegant performance. She also appeared to have noticeably rediscovered her confidence. Mollie also delivered a far better routine which corrected many of the issues that have plagued her in previous weeks. I would argue that it was her best dance of the series. And once again, Susan poured her heart and soul into her time on the dance floor, delivering another spirited performance that found favour once again with the public, if not the judges.

And once again there was an element of surprise when recent front runner Debbie McGee found herself in the dance off with people’s favourite Jonnie Peacock. However, I did feel that the outcome was somewhat arbitrary so didn’t feel that Debbie’s place on week ten’s show was under threat. But what this situation does demonstrate is the importance of public votes and that the potential distribution of them is possibly far closer than what people imagine. I suspect that although fans and supporters vote in large numbers there may not be anyone who has a demonstrable lead. I also suspect that some members of the public vote for multiple celebrities, having a clear favourite yet also acknowledging those who have done well and those they feel are being “picked on” by the judges. Public votes are often driven by emotion rather than an adherence to technical dance quality.

View fullsize

In the last few years, the BBC have been asked several times as to why they don’t release details of the public voting figures. I must admit, it would be very interesting to see such an analysis and to determine whether there is a clear pattern or whether it’s a far more reactionary process. However, when this question was last raised in 2016, a spokesperson for the show said “releasing voting figures could affect the way that people vote, and also have an impact on the participants. We therefore do not disclose the exact voting figures”. Both are good points. Knowing a contestant’s standing in a voting league table could indeed lead to tactical voting, plus it would add an additional layer of pressure for the celebrities to deal with. Ultimately, it is probably a sound decision to withhold this kind of information, at least during the duration of the current season.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 3

View fullsize

Well I said it last week that there was scope for a surprise elimination from Strictly Come Dancing and surely enough it has happened. Aston Merrygold, despite being tipped as a contender for the final, scored poorly with the judges last night and also failed to garner sufficient public support. He subsequently found himself in the dance off with Mollie King and despite correcting some of the technical issues that were present in his initial performance, he failed to sway the majority of the judges in his favour. Darcey and Bruno both voted to save him but Craig and Shirley (who as head judge has the casting vote) opted to save Mollie. Hence, bookies favourite Aston Merrygold has left the show, proving that no one can rest on the laurels. As you’d expect, there were vocal complaints from fans and supporters who felt that the judges had been unfair with their marks. However, I believe if anyone is to blame then it is Aston’s professional partner Janette Manrara.

Last week, Aston and Janette were second from the top of the leader board with a robust score of 38 out of 40. Janette had cleverly choreographed a Paso Doble that blended traditional dance moves with more contemporary techniques. It was well received because it was a bold move that found the right balance between old and new. However, head judge Shirley Ballas did remark that she would have liked a little more traditional content, which is an important point to note. This week Janette took a similar gamble with a Viennese Waltz to Who’s Loving You by The Jackson 5. Again, she created a routine that placed a somewhat modern spin upon what is seen by some as a formal, traditional dance. If it was performed as a show dance, then I’m sure it would have fared better but as ever the judges scrutinised it on its technical merits. Both Craig and Shirley were not happy about its lack of Viennese Waltz content and thus marked accordingly. A view that the public may have also shared if you consider their votes.

View fullsize

So, Aston had little room to manoeuvre when he found himself in the dance off. He could obviously address some of the technical aspects of the routine but he couldn’t change the choreography. Mollie did give an improved performance second time round and the mistake that was made on Saturday’s show was not repeated. Furthermore, AJ wisely elected to keep her in-hold for as much of the routine as possible and minimised the potential for mistakes. Thus, there was no major reason when it came to decision time for judges Craig and Shirley to change their mind regarding Aston. I’m sure there will be those who disagree and even those who will trot out the usual arguments of subterfuge and prejudice. However, I believe the reality of the matter lies in the fact that approaching the Viennese Waltz in such a fashion was a fundamental mistake. Certainly, Aston’s departure at this stage alters the potential outcome of Strictly Come Dancing 2017. I’m thinking the smart money may should perhaps now be on Debbie McGee.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 2

View fullsize

I could be very philosophical about Strictly Come Dancing and describe how the judges scrutinise and mark the contestants on technique, viewing their performances through the prism of their own professional experiences. Conversely, the public react and elect to support the celebrities far more emotively; championing potential underdogs and showing solidarity with those they feel have been poorly treated. However, such Janusian analogies are unnecessary and ultimately pointless, because the show is primarily for entertainment and not a dancing competition, although the professional dancers may not see it that way. Also, as we saw demonstrated once again tonight, Strictly Come Dancing is a popularity contest and the only thing that really matters is convincing the public to vote for you.

This evening (well technically the show was recorded Saturday night), Mollie and AJ found themselves in the dance off along with Simon and Karen. Simon’s presence was far from a surprise. Despite his steadfast “have a go” attitude and pleasant manner, his level of attainment has plateaued of late, so it was only right, being bottom of the leader board, for him to be up for elimination. However, Mollie had scored a healthy 27 points, with her Cha Cha to "Better the Devil You Know" by Kylie Minogue. Furthermore, Mollie has shown improvement in her technique and is by no means one of the weakest celebrities in the show at present. Hence, the judges were somewhat surprised to see her in the dance off, although it can be clearly attributed to the public vote. However, this does raise the question why did the public not support her?

View fullsize

There are numerous reasons and potential theories as to why celebrities that perform well, still find themselves in the dance off. It has happened often enough over the last 15 seasons of the show for it not to be such a surprise, although it can still be quite jarring. The most obvious one that comes to mind is that the public assumes that those celebrities that perform well also have a strong fan base that will naturally support them. “I don’t need to vote for [insert series front runner here], they’ll be alright. I’ll vote for [insert name of alternative, possible underdog here], co’s they deserve a helping hand”. Then if we consider broader and possibly less charitable possibilities, people may vote tactically because they do not want someone to succeed. As I mentioned earlier a lot of viewers do react to the show very emotively. Furthermore, Strictly Come Dancing is reported heavily in the tabloid press which is happy perpetuate rumours and gossip. It could be a case that Mollie King doesn’t find favour with certain core viewer demographics.

I heard some people argue that Strictly Come Dancing is skewed by the public voting and it would be fairer if the judges to simply decide. I won’t discount such ideas but if that were the case, then the show would be far less popular. It is the public vote and audience interaction that is part of the program’s success and appeal. At a time when many people feel marginalised and having little control over their lives, the importance of a tangible public vote that demonstrably delivers results should not be discounted. The other thing that we shouldn’t ignore is the significance of the “journey”. Although it is great to see celebrities that take to dancing quickly, it does make for dull viewing if someone is habitually great every week. People like to see the celebrities grow and blossom. It’s a winning formula and accounts why some of the winners haven’t always been the bookies favourite. So, I suspect we may see a few more upsets like tonight’s in the weeks to come.

Peanuts, Charlie Brown and Vince Guaraldi

View fullsize

Growing up in the seventies, although a great deal of US pop culture bled through into British life through the medium of television, much of it remained abstract and somewhat obscure. Common place mainstays of American life such as Thanksgiving, Halloween, Baseball and Proms were social curiosities to many Brits. International travel beyond Europe was still not common place at the time and England still had one foot very much in its past and was loyal to its own parochial traditions. As a child, although explanations could be found in books for all these cultural “differences”, they seldom provided a sense of context or understanding. For me, that came via the medium of another child, albeit a fictitious one. Namely Charlie Brown and his friends, courtesy of Charles M. Schulz.

Peanuts was syndicated in several UK newspapers and one of these was delivered to my home every day of the week. This was how I was introduced to the iconic, four panel, cartoon strip. It depicted a world from the children’s perspective; adults existed but were usually only alluded to, rather than shown. The trials and tribulations of Charlie Brown and all the other characters showed me that there was a universal commonality to childhood throughout the world. We all struggled with the complex social dynamics of school and the way we interact with our peers. There was and remains a wholesome honesty about Peanuts. It doesn’t shy away from childhood trauma but wisely depicts the profound significance and restorative value of friendship.

View fullsize

Because Peanuts reflected the daily lives of its central characters it naturally embraced the zeitgeist of the times. It was here I discovered the significance of Thanksgiving and the customs associated with Halloween. To my surprise these were far from esoteric and not too dissimilar to some of the festivals found in British life. Because of the foibles of UK broadcasting at the time, I specifically associate the television adaptations of Peanuts, with the summer TV schedule and the winter holidays. Even as a child, I enjoyed the minimalist visual style of the animation. Although this was most likely driven by costs, it captured the matter of fact style of the cartoon strip and allowed for focus on the central characters. I always thought these shows benefitted greatly by using child voice actors. As for the sequences depicting the interactions between Snoopy and Woodstock, they’re sublime.

View fullsize

And of course, it would be utterly remiss of me to reference the sixties and seventies television adaptations, without mentioning the indispensable soundtracks by Jazz Pianist, Vince Guaraldi. His musical interpretation of Charlie Brown’s world left a profound impression upon me as a child, which remains to this day. I recently discovered that all his work from these shows is available to buy. Let it suffice to say that music is indeed a touchstone for memories and nostalgia. Within seconds of listening to the track Linus and Lucy, I was transported back to the seventies, my mind awash with thoughts and feeling from that time. So, thank you Peanuts, Charlie Brown and Vince Guaraldi. I am indebted to you Charles M. Schulz. You provided me with a wider view of the world and helped a child understand it.

Read the Label

View fullsize

Despite living in an age where access to information has never been easier, the concept of an informed choice still seems to elude a substantial percentage of the population. Take for example the new television show Gunpowder, which was broadcast last night at 9:10 PM on BBC One in the UK. The very fact that it is being broadcast after nine o’clock at night should be indicative of adult content. Otherwise it would have been broadcast prior to that time. The next logical step for any potential viewer, should have been to at the very least, to consult a TV Guide. This would have informed the audience of the show’s content. And being a drama set in a period of history in which Catholics were persecuted and publicly tortured, it would be logical to conclude that there may well be scenes of this nature. Furthermore, the first episode of the drama was prefixed by a warning about its content prior to broadcast. However, a small percentage of viewers were still surprised by the violent content and saw fit to complain about in either directly to the BBC or via twitter.

It would appear that even in this day and age, there are still a lot of people that decide to watch programs blind. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is this group that frequently holds up their hands in horror at being exposed to something they do not care for. The fact that they brought the situation upon themselves seems to be conveniently ignored and typically the displeased viewer immediately seeks to find someone else to blame for this outrage. Take for example the latest series of the historical drama Victoria, currently being broadcast in the UK on ITV. A gay kiss prompted a small quantity of complaints that the tabloid newspapers were quick to capitalise on. We won’t stray into debating the homophobia but what amazes me is the fact that the inclusion of these scenes upset some people. Yet despite the scene being justifiable within the context of the drama, we still find a few voices claiming moral outrage and an erosion of “family values”. All too often one gets the sense that some folk are simply looking to be “offended” and that it’s become a national pastime.

View fullsize

Although we do live in broadly more tolerant times than we did forty years ago, a cursory trawl of the Internet shows a wealth of similar situations. There seems to be someone getting upset by what they’ve seen, read or heard, every day. Most of these incidences stem from the fact that people simply haven’t bothered to check what they are watching or what website they were visiting beforehand. This problem has reached such large proportions, that some organisations have seen fit to add an extra layer of consumer information in attempt to inform the public. One such example is the British Board of Film Classification, which are responsible for classifying and rating all cinema and video related material available in the UK. They call this additional tier of consumer advice on their website, “insight”. Often the detailed description of the movie’s content will include plot spoilers but once read a viewer would be under no illusion about the material included in the film. Below is the “insight” details for the horror movie Jigsaw.

View fullsize

Returning to the subject of television and the regulation of its content, people will argue that video on demand services such as Netflix negate the concept of the watershed. That is a valid point. Streaming allows continuous access to a broad range of material. This shift in viewing habits increasingly places the onus on the viewer to be even more aware of exactly what they are watching. It also demonstrates the importance of parental control over children’s viewing, a functionality that is built into most streaming platforms. Sadly, in an age where family and communal viewing is in decline and a television in every room is commonplace, too often such parental duties are neglected. “Will someone please think of the children” is a common refrain often heard after a child is upset by something they shouldn’t have seen. Yet if the parent or guardian had exercised their duties correctly to begin with, then the entire situation could have been avoided.

Of course, this problem also manifests itself in the world of video games. How often do we hear about parents who have gone to a retail outlet, purchased a game that clearly has a rating on the packaging stating that its intended for a mature audience, only to hand it over to a child? The fact that they have technically breached the law is always conspicuously overshadowed by their misplaced shock and indignation, when they subsequently see the nature of the game that their child is playing! The resultant outrage never ceases to amaze me. But of course, it’s always somebody else’s fault these days, isn’t it? And then the same problem spills out into music. A good many parents will have absolutely no idea of what their children may be listening to. Dare I mention reading material as well?

View fullsize

And therein lies the problem. You can provide the public with an indefinite amount of consumer advice but you cannot ensure that they’ll actually take heed of it. In a democratic society, there really isn’t an alternative way to tackle such problems. I do not like Draconian laws that favour the stupid minority at the inconvenience of the sensible majority. So, the only tactic we are left with is to continue to reiterate the message and to trust in attrition. In the meantime, next time some dumb ass complains in the public in the fashion I’ve described, I would strongly advocate that rather than give that missed guided individual the oxygen of publicity, we should simply point and laugh as loudly as we can. Stupidity may not be a crime but it is the ruination of Western civilisation and should be challenged wherever it appears.

Strictly Come Dancing 2017: Part 1

View fullsize

Yes, we’re three weeks into this year’s season of the BBC’s flagship entertainment show, Strictly Come Dancing (that’s the UK version of Dancing with the Stars for the benefit of US readers). The tabloid press has already started obsessing, dissecting and outright lying about the antics of a handful of minor celebrities as they struggle with the rigours of learning to dance. From now until Christmas, prime time Saturday night viewing on the Beeb will be suffused with the superficial glamour of showbiz, a barrage of camp innuendo and a mixture of well-honed muscles and wayward flesh as well as far too much make-up. You also get to choose whether to laugh along with heavily scripted and contrived comments from the professional judges. If we’re particularly fortunate we may even be blessed with a professional dancer meltdown as they balk at a “ill deserved” poor score (yes, we’re looking at you Brendan Cole).

Now I have watched Strictly Come Dancing since 2005. It is ideal family viewing and is better than other reality shows because at its core, it's about people learning a very difficult artistic skill. As long as you accept it for what it is, which is an entertainment show rather than a straight dance contest, there is a great deal of fun to be had. Or that's the theory. I’ve been somewhat burned out on Strictly Come Dancing for the last three years and the prospects of watching another season was not especially appealing earlier on in the year. Because of the nature and more importantly, the popularity of the show, it has become a somewhat slickly oiled machine which follows an established formula. As a result, the last few seasons have left very little impression on me. There have been some outstanding dances but the celebrities have been somewhat bland and there has been a lack of anyone having a distinctive “journey”.

View fullsize

The judges until recently, have all become caricatures of themselves, which is exactly what the audience wants. However, the recent replacement of Len Goodman with Shirley Ballas has somewhat redressed the balance. Shirley seems to be both technically astute, as well as understanding of the human factor.  So far, she has shown no penchant for pickling walnuts. However, we have seen in the last three shows, a broad spectrum of scores. And as ever the judges tend to have their favourites and seem to be encouraged to show this. So, if you’re expecting a broadly non-partisan experience from Strictly Come Dancing then you’re barking up the wrong tree. Nothing goes down better with the Great British public than binary choices and believe me, this show can get very tribal when it comes to public support of the dancing couples.

Another facet of the Strictly formula are the celebrity contestants, who also seem to follow a clear pattern. To date, those from a sporting, musical or TV background seem to have the best chances of claiming the trophy. Age and physical fitness is also plays a key part. So, it becomes very easy to guess which specific role each of the celebrities will play. Who will be the front runner (s) exhibiting a natural ability right from the get go. Who is wild card and which non-professional will assume the role of the self-improver. It is these individuals who often have the best “journey”. Then there is the pivotal position of the crowd-pleasing fool with no sense of rhythm. As long as they give it their all they usually remain on the show as far as Blackpool. And of course, let us not forget those who just can't dance and aren't even amusing. Plus, the show offers a great opportunity to judge people for the heinous crime of ageing without due care and attention.

View fullsize

Until this year, I thought that even Schadenfreude has its limits, so I was expecting to end my love affair with Strictly Come Dancing. But we live in proverbial “interesting times” and the world of late has become a very bleak and dark place. Hope is a scarce commodity at present and it is in such circumstances that I see the virtue in populist entertainment. That and the fact I absolutely adore Susan Calman and her entire approach to the Strictly phenomenon. Plus, I have a gut feeling that we’re going to have a controversy of some kind, shortly. I do like a controversy, especially if it’s of the magnitude of Sargent-gate. If a crap performer is kept on the show by the public at the expense of a more talented dancer, then there is scope for a national tabloid meltdown. Questions may well be asked in parliament. Then there’s the whole celebrity tittle-tattle of who’s having a sordid sexual dalliance with whom. It’s worryingly entertaining. So just to re-iterate, I'm not yet done with Strictly Come Dancing despite what I initially thought. I look forward to this year’s wardrobe choice that pushes the boundaries of "public decency" and live in the pious hope that someone will slap the smug grin of A J Pritchard’s face. Long live prime time, Saturday night, light entertainment.

The Vietnam War (2017)

View fullsize

After watching several hours of the documentary, The Vietnam War, one has to wonder at the utter inability of the US government of the time, to think outside the box during the period of that conflict. Seldom does a military, political, and social analysis of an historical event go this deep. During its eighteen hour running time directors Ken Burns and Lynn Novick cover a wealth of issues associated with this conflict, exploring it from multiple perspectives. Not only do they shine a light upon the hubris and folly of both respective governments, they manage to keep a very intimate and human perspective. Personal stories from both sides are told and if there is a common theme, it is sadly one of tragedy and regret.

The Vietnam War attempts to seek answers and to do so, starts the tale with the French colonization of Indochina. Burns and Novick then progress through the policies of three U.S. Presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. But they also ensure that a Vietnamese perspective is maintained so they do not neglect the political turmoil and machinations of both North and South Vietnamese governments. There are numerous talking heads, both great and small during the course of the narrative. Soldiers, politicians and families provide candid insights into how the war impacted upon their lives. The documentary doesn’t forget the wider history of the time and there is much screen time dedicated to the US protest movement and how the war was greeted internationally.

View fullsize

There is a wealth of original news footage from the conflict, wisely chosen to highlight each point of discussion. It is often quite graphic and bleak. Yet this is how the news played out each night in homes around the world. The Vietnam War is not only a documentary about a military conflict but also one of how rolling news reshaped public opinion and brought an abstract, remote war starkly to the attention of the world. Something the US government did it best to contain but due to social and technological change, ultimately failed to do. There’s also a lot of audio recordings made by the US government, detailing meeting between the President LB Johnson, The secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and such like. These are utterly chilling because you soon get a sense that events have gone beyond their control, yet political considerations tie their hands and predetermine their course of action.

For me, what makes The Vietnam War stand out is the way it maintains a human perspective, despite the international nature of events. The story of Denton “Mogie” Crocker Jr runs throughout several episodes, following the honest dreams of a young man who believed in the moral rectitude of the war. Sadly, the reality of the situation soon became apparent to him and his tale ends in tragedy; just one tragedy among thousands on both sides. It’s a reoccurring theme, that so many soldiers were conscripted from small towns, frequently chosen from a specific social economic background and sent into a “no win” situation. Their commendable honesty and wholesome naivety is sharply contrasted by the hubris and obstinacy of both governments.

View fullsize

The Vietnam War is presented in ten substantial episodes. Like that definitive World War II documentary, The World at War, each strives to cover and explore a specific period of time and a particular milestone in the conflict. The events of the time are seen from multiple views and the documentary endeavours to be as even handed as it can. The soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross embellishes the proceeding without being too intrusive. There is also a healthy mix of popular music from the era, as well as news footage and commercials that help give the viewer a sense of the times. It would be remiss of me not to mention Peter Coyote’s narration, which never descends into melodrama. He clearly and succinctly describes the history of the war, subtly conveying the magnitude of events, allowing their own significance to give them weight. Overall, a major and often ignored part of American history is finally given the scrutiny that it deserves. It’s far from easy viewing but then again, the truth seldom is.

Star Trek: Discovery

View fullsize

Finally, it’s arrived. The first new Star Trek TV show for twelve years. Star Trek: Discovery became available for Netflix UK customers to watch at 8:00 AM this morning. Needless to say, I cleared my schedule in advance so I could sit down and watch this much-anticipated show. Furthermore, I made it my business to avoid Twitter and the internet until I had finished viewing the first two episodes because I knew in advance that Star Trek: Discovery was going to be controversial and divide fans. Having now seen The Vulcan Hello and Battle at the Binary Stars and taken time to reflect upon both episodes, I have reached the following conclusion. From what we’ve seen so far, the spirit and emotional heart of Star Trek, is reflected in the new show. I found the characters to be interesting and well defined. Lead performances by Michelle Yeoh, Sonequa Martin-Green and Doug Jones were good and there’s an intriguing crew dynamic. The story has already touched upon numerous canonical themes and I am eager to learn more about the main characters and the universe they inhabit. I therefore shall continue to watch Star Trek: Discovery. However, not everyone feels the same, as my subsequent forays online have shown. Much has changed in this new iteration of Star Trek and as we know, some fans do not like change in any way, shape, or form.

View fullsize

Two standout alterations that become very apparent after watching Star Trek: Discovery are its narrative format and visual aesthetics. This new show has opted for longer-form, serialised storytelling, rather than the traditional, self-contained, story per episode format. Star Trek has always had long term narrative arcs, especially in later shows such as Deep Space Nine and Enterprise but this is different. Star Trek: Discovery has chosen to take a different route, opting to pitch a single and hopefully multi-faceted narrative split over fifteen episodes. However, it is the decision to deviate from the established aesthetic style that is proving to be the biggest stumbling block for purist fans. The visual design of specific races, ships, uniforms and period technology has been clearly established and maintained since the eighties. Thus, fans have specific pre-existing notions of what this period in Star Trek history should look like. This is the era of Christopher Pike, Captain of the Enterprise a decade before James T. Kirk. However, all of this has been effectively jettisoned. Klingons have been redesigned and look far more alien now. The aesthetic of the ships and technology looks far more like that seen in the Kelvin Timeline, despite the new show being set in the prime universe.

Star Trek: Discovery has had a troubled journey to our screens. Show runner Bryan Fuller left after a “difficult relationship” with CBS. The production was delayed and there have been constant rumours about arguments over what direction the story should take. Certain executives have balked at being restrained by the established canon and it would appear that they have won the argument because Star Trek: Discovery has a very different look. However, there is a counter argument to be had for creating a show with a broader appeal, so as to guarantee the future of the franchise. Core Star Trek fans are ageing. New blood can revitalise a declining show. Take Doctor Who for example. From what we’ve seen so far from Star Trek: Discovery it has certainly not set the barrier to entry to high. The show is accessible to those who are not overly familiar with the lore. In fact, I have spoken to several colleagues who have opted to watch out of curiosity. So far, their feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. However, it is unrealistic to expect those purist fans who are unhappy about the changes that have been made, to simply shrug their shoulders and leave quietly. There will be social media drama.

View fullsize

I have always enjoyed Star Trek in all its manifestations. However, as a fan of this and other genre franchises, I find myself becoming less zealous in towing the perceived status quo, the older I get. If I was given a preference, then I would have liked to have seen a new Star Trek show set after The Next Generation. But I wasn’t and so I’ll content myself with what’s on offer. I consider myself, sufficiently mature and emotionally literate to be able to accommodate the stylistic changes the producers wish to make. As long as their current vision of Star Trek stays true to Gene Roddenberry’s ideals, as well as the socio-political tone that the show established throughout the eighties and nineties, then I can be flexible. Jettisoning the established aesthetic is a big ask but ultimately for me it is not a deal breaker. Sadly, for some it will be. Once again, we return us to the thorny issue of fandom and whether it does have any moral claim of influence over an intellectual property. Should a new show be made with fans in mind first and then a wider audience second, or vice versa? The answers to these and other questions are ultimately dependent on what audience figures are like. If Star Trek: Discovery proves to be a critical and commercial success, then the complaints of naysayers will fall upon stony ground. If the show alternatively bombs, then the future of Star Trek may well be in jeopardy.

Moral Relativism in Popular Culture

View fullsize

Contemporary Western culture is far from perfect. Although major positive changes have been made with regard to social attitudes, equality and tolerance, there is still much work to be done. Privilege is still rife, be it financial, political or societal. Just to put one’s cards on the table right from the outset, I am a white, middle class, British male in his late forties. I do not feel in any way, shape or form marginalised. At present I am in one of the most advantageous social economic groups in the UK. That statement is devoid of any emotional connotation. It is simply a statement of fact and a means of providing some context for this post. Although I am acutely aware of discrimination, I have seldom personally experienced it. I mention this because this post is about moral relativism in popular culture and thus it is only fair that I define the prism through which I experience the world. 

For most of history, there have been hierarchies that have perpetuated discrimination for personal advantage. The church, nations states and all manner of other social institutions have done this in the past and continue to do so to varying degrees today. Therefore, it is foolish and factually inaccurate to try and avoid depicting this in any narrative medium. The quasi medieval world of Game of Thrones is therefore potentially justified in depicting the unpleasantness of its faux era. However, accuracy is one thing, exploitation is another. The latter often sites the former as a reason to justify "showing all". Sadly, authenticity is not really the real motivation here. It's purely a case of sex and violence sells. So, it is important to consider context. The harsh realities of slavery are shown without titillation in a movie such a 12 Years A Slave. Can the same be said about Mandingo? 

View fullsize

There is a difficult line to tread here. Sometimes showing the stark reality of something abhorrent is the best way to make a point and to inform your audience or start a debate on a specific matter. On other occasions, depicting the specific details may not necessarily achieve this. I am of an age where I still remember the debate as to whether the rape scene in the 1988 movie The Accused actually needed to be shown, to make the film’s point about the treatment of women by the US judicial system of the time. On mature reflection, I believe that it did. Showing the assault puts a human face upon the crime and brings home its magnitude. However, can the same be said for “sensational” airport massacre scene in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? Its primary inclusion seems to be to titillate, rather than to make any wider dramatic point.

Some people have very strong moral and ethical world views. These may be driven by faith or politics and they are also shaped by the prevailing social ideas and customs of the times. For example I have very different views on some subjects compared to my eighty year old parents. They are very much products of their era, as I am of mine. As a result, I believe that it is simply illogical to deny the concept of moral relativism. There are some broad common concepts that most cultures can agree upon, such as murder and theft being wrong. However, there is not a globally accepted moral equivalent of the Beaufort Scale or Periodic Table. Hence, we see disparities between men and women’s status and rites in certain cultures and religions.

View fullsize

As a result of this diversity of opinion, it's pretty difficult to deal in absolutes (unless you are the tabloid press). Yet that doesn't stop people from trying. Some folk feel that there are limits on the exploration of specific subjects or that certain things are just taboo. You mustn’t joke about this, never be disrespectful about that, the list can get pretty long. I cautiously take the opposite view. I don't believe anything is truly out of bounds to explore in a democracy as long as it’s done within the confines of the law. However, one must question what ones motivations are for doing so and straying in to such minefields. For me, I use the litmus test that comedian Reginald D. Hunter suggested. "Was there hate in your heart" when the controversial statement in question was said. It may not be the most sophisticated of tools but I believe it is a strong starting point.

Because so much of our perception of the world around us is visual, humans have a strong tendency towards voyeurism; thus, many people find depictions of sex and violence alluring. This is not necessarily in a sinister or unwholesome sense but possibly more due to the cultural attraction of anything designated taboo. In the UK during the early eighties, the home video market was unregulated. Hysteria and panic lead to ill-conceived legislation, namely the 1984 Video Recordings Act, resulting in lot of movies gaining notoriety as they were removed from shelves. Let it suffice to say that this state of affairs made a lot of these titles essential viewing for many teenagers. It became a rite of passage to try to seek them out and endure them. In many respects this is no different from placing an age based embargo upon smoking, drinking and other sundry vices. There is some truth in the clichés regarding forbidden fruit. It's a curious thing that the appeal of such extreme material often wanes with age. Teenagers are still drawn to such movies such as The Human Centipede and A Serbian Film. I however recognise that there is no real benefit in seeing such unpleasant and extreme material. Subsequently I now have self-imposed limitations. 

View fullsize

Gender is also an important factor within this debate. Reactions between the sexes can differ drastically on matters such as the depiction of sexual violence and the use of pejorative language. Sadly, most media based industries are far from a level playing field and there is often gender bias when dealing with certain material. Often it is this sort of content that proves most financially viable, regardless of its moral rectitude. It’s a matter that seems to be the bane of video games industry at present. Consider the debacles over Tracer’s sexuality in Overwatch and the aesthetics of female characters in Mass Effect: Andromeda. With regard to TV and specifically Game of Thrones which has often been criticised over its lurid content, I would love to have an accurate age and gender based break down of the viewing figures to determine what aspects of the show appealed to whom. Do you think there would be any major surprises? No, neither do I.

Following on from this, I think that we need to focus on the inherent duality of contemporary society with regard to current social issues. There is still a huge gulf between what people say in public when they’re conscious of maintaining an equitable moral and ethical position, as opposed to what they may think personally. We’re all guilty of this to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps modern life exacerbates this phenomenon. For instance, most places of employment have clear policies regarding equality and discrimination these days and usually staff publicly endorse them. However, do all employees genuinely support such ideals or is it just expedient to do so? Until recently, the prevailing politically correct mindset has silenced certain quarters. In this post Trump, post Brexit world, a lot of people who previous kept their less inclusive views to themselves now are more comfortable sharing them publicly.

View fullsize

Then of course there is the fact that as a species we just seem to have a knack for failing to live up to our finer principles. Consider a commonly held notion such as not judging a person by their looks. Most people will strongly advocate such an ideal, again to possible project an acceptable public image. Yet despite this, so many of us still do the complete opposite, possibly because the ideal is contrary to our genetic imperatives. I'll freely admit that I regularly fail to live up to the standards that society and more importantly myself set. We live in a world where many of us embrace concepts and ideas in principle only; because we've realised that actually acting upon them requires effort, self-denial or having to step outside of our own personal comfort zone. Morality and ethics often go hand in hand with cognitive dissonance.

There is still much more to say and explore about moral relativism and its impact upon numerous social and ethical issues. It's interesting that many of these subjects manifest themselves in genres that are appealing to gamers, geeks and nerds. Games and comics still court controversy at times with the way they depict women or ethnic groups. The debate over the casting of the first female Doctor Who still rages on. The level of sexual content in shows as American Gods still causes tongues wagging. The BBC is about to embark upon its Gay Britannia season, celebrating 50th anniversary of The Sexual Offences Act 1967, which partially decriminalised gay sex. Expect outrage from specific newspapers. There are still mutterings from some fans over both the critical and financial success of Wonder woman at the box office. This is why we see push back as some see progressive ideals as threatening and don’t want them in their social spheres.

View fullsize

Context and the prevailing Zeitgeist have a bearing on representation of all subjects. Why should popular culture be any different? Therefore, we should not carte blanche deny the reality of moral relativism. However, we should not just use it as a “get out of jail” card to justify an “anything goes” mentality. Moral relativism is an academic debating tool and not a life defining philosophy. Just because something taboo can be shown on TV or a controversial subject used as a plot device, doesn’t mean that it automatically should. I would hope that such a decision was tempered by the application of a good many other criteria first. Because despite what some academics, critics and pundits may think, popular culture is not necessarily trivial by default. It is accessible to swathes of the population and can shape a great many opinions. As such it can be a very powerful medium. Whether it is a force for good or not, is down to us.

The Stone Tape (1972)

View fullsize

The Stone Tape is a television play directed by Peter Sasdy and starring Michael Bryant, Jane Asher, Michael Bates and Iain Cuthbertson. It was first broadcast on BBC Two at Christmas 1972. Combining aspects of science fiction and horror, the story concerns a team of research scientists who move into their new facility, a renovated Victorian mansion that is allegedly haunted. Upon investigation, they learn that the haunting is a recording of a past event held within the very fabric of the structure. Believing that this may be the key to the development of a new recording medium, they throw all their expertise technology into learning how the stones preserves its recording. However, their investigations lead to more sinister and tragic events. 

The Stone Tape was written by Nigel Kneale, best known as the writer of the Quatermass series. Its juxtaposition of science and superstition is a common theme in much of Kneale's work; in particular, his 1952 radio play "You Must Listen", about a haunted telephone line. The Stone Tape was also influenced by a visit Kneale paid to the BBC's research and development department, which was based in an old Victorian house in Kingswood, Surrey. Critically acclaimed at time, The Stone Tape remains well regarded to this day as one of Kneale's best and most disturbing works. Since its broadcast, the hypothesis that residual hauntings are recordings of past events made by the natural environment, has come to be known as the “Stone Tape Theory”.

View fullsize

Nearly half a century on, certain aspects of The Stone Tape have dated. It's production design and soundtrack reflect seventies pop culture. The imperialist attitudes displayed along with the lead male characters inherent misogyny seem very archaic now. Yet the plot themes and underlying scientific premise are very contemporary. The lack of visual effects enhances the atmosphere as well as the growing tension and unease. It should also be noted that this was a drama made for television in the editorial style of the time. By today’s standards this is a slow burn but frankly all the better for it. The play was obviously an influence on such films as John carpenter’s Prince of Darkness and Tobe Hooper's Poltergeist and is a prime example of Nigel Kneale's best work. In an age when spectacle and aesthetics tend to drown out narrative in genre productions, The Stone Tape remains a true milestone, demonstrating that it is ideas and character that sustain a quality drama.

Doctor Who: BBC Cast Jodie Whittaker

View fullsize

This afternoon, the BBC announced that Jodie Whittaker would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Time Lord, Doctor Who; the first woman to be given the role. Quite predictably, the internet went into meltdown, with cheers from some quarters and howls of derision from others. I make no bones about the fact that I got a great deal of Schadenfreude from this. Why exactly? Well we’ll come back to that point a little later. First off let me say that I really don’t mind about this casting decision. From what I’ve seen, Jodie Whittaker is an extremely competent actor and if given robust and engaging material, will excel as the new Doctor. I have no axe to grind here, either from a lore or a socio-political perspective. If the shit fits, wear it, is what I say.

What I do find fascinating are some of the objections raised on Twitter and on the comments section of most major online news outlets. As there’s a lot of ground to cover I’ll try and keep it brief. Everyone, as ever, is entitled to their opinion but let us not forget that opinions are not of equal value. First off, if you object to the casting of Jodie Whittaker out of personal preference, IE there’s another actor you’d have rather seen play the role, then fine. That’s a perfectly okay stance to have. I got a Sainbury’s delivery the other day and they substituted toffee and vanilla ice cream cones with chocolate and nut ones. I prefer the former to the latter. Life is all about preferences of some kind, is it not?

However, there are objections being made which betray a mindset that there are clear gender roles within both fiction and real life and that a woman cannot be “The Doctor”. There are also certain fans who feel that the object of their affections should have some sort of protected status, define specifically by them. If they don’t like something, their fan status should be able to veto the offending decision. It is also not uncommon these days to see push back towards any sort of progressive socio-political decision. Culturally and politically, the west seems to be regressing with regard to social change. And let us not forget that incredulous notion, that a much loved worked of fiction can be “ruined” and that your fond memories can be sullied in some way. I guess this is some variant of the IPCRESS process.

View fullsize

All the above are frankly spurious objections. Some are born of sexism, some of fans intransigence or of outdated cultural conditioning and ideological baggage. Some protest are puerile, others mendacious and sadly a percentage are driven by pure hatred of any sort of social progression. What is important to bear in mind at present, is in the UK specifically, there is no clear majority mindset or consensus on political or social issues. We live in a very divided country and there is no prevailing moral stance. Recent political “surprises” such as Brexit have emboldened certain groups, who previously have kept their specific views hidden. Hence, we see claims that casting a woman is pandering to minority, despite the fact that women are hardly such a demographic. Yet sufficient people feel this way and are happy to express such an opinion.

I have no doubt that be it through personal preference, deep help beliefs or good old-fashioned prejudice, the next season of Doctor Who may well see some old school viewers refrain from watching. However, it is also very likely that this Doctor will also attract a new audience. And before we get into a debate about gender specific role models, can I put forward the rather quaint notion that a role model can potentially appeal to all, irrespective of gender, race, religion and shoe size. Yet despite the ongoing positivity in some quarters and the scope to broaden the viewer base for Doctor Who, it would be foolish to ignore certain practical business criteria. The BBC is a unique organisation but it is not immune from market forces. If for whatever reason they fumble the ball on the next season of Doctor Who and we see a substantial drop in global viewing figures and more importantly, sales, then this casting decision may well be reviewed. We do not yet live in an age where doing the right thing exclusively trumps business.

View fullsize

Finally, I want to return to my early point about Schadenfreude. Fellow blogger Syp (AKA Justin Olivetti) and all round nice guy tweeted this evening “It's like some people are genuinely excited that the new Doctor Who will upset others. Can't just be happy for what it is? I am”. I understand where this sentiment comes from and in principle, it is sound. Sadly, I do not think it is so easy to apply to many situations these days. This entire debacle over the thirteenth Doctor is in many ways a microcosm of the ongoing socio-political culture war. There is no overall prevailing ideology for change at present and politics is extremely sectarian. A percentage of the public have no appetite for further equality and would frankly like to see much of the progress of the recent decades rolled back. I do not wish to see this worldview fill the political vacuum. Sometimes you cannot steer the middle course and have to choose a side. You also have to robustly refute those views you feel are counterproductive. That at times means mocking and using humour, as it an effective political tool.

In the meantime, I shall await with a degree of excitement for the new season of Doctor Who that comes in 2018. I’m sure that the there’s a good chance that the current brouhaha will die down and if a good writing standard are maintained, the thirteenth Doctor will find her audience and keep the franchise popular and on course. Success in this instance would be the best way to counter future arguments along similar lines. Life is essentially about change and we need as a species to get better at dealing with it. Because the rancour that stems from resisting it, is frankly damaging to society.

Becoming Bond (2017)

View fullsize

Becoming Bond is a curious documentary in so far as it’s totally dependent on whether the viewer believes the story that George Lazenby tells. Because George is obviously a well-practised raconteur one gets the impression that many of the anecdotes and vignettes he recounts have been embellished for artistic effect. He has that easy going, informal Australian charm and frequently smiles ironically, as director Josh Greenbaum, quizzes him off camera over the voracity of his tale. Mr. Lazenby also treads that fine line between being a likeable rogue and a bit of a dick, especially when he focuses on his youth. Yet he broadly keeps to the right side of this and maintains the audiences’ good will.

As he recounts his life story from his impoverished youth in Australia, to his days as a car salesman then a male model, the vignettes play out as an episodic drama. Josh Lawson (Superstore, House of Lies) plays Lazenby and there are several high-profile cameos from the likes of Jeff Garlin as Bond movie producer Harry Saltzman, former Bond Girl Jane Seymour as George's agent. These scenes usually have a comic tone, which at times come dangerously close to undermining the credibility of George’s story. Yet as soon as the narrative approaches such a tipping point, it’s reined in with a smile and a nod from Mr. Lazenby. There’s also a curiously melancholic streak in the proceeding with a reoccurring tale of a love lost.

View fullsize

George Lazenby is certainly not afraid of sharing his faults, making no attempt to dodge some of the less edifying aspects of his life and personality. He is also candid about his perceived arrogance which may be more of a failure by others to understand and appreciate Australian cultural foibles. When the story finally arrives at 1968 when Eon Productions were recasting the role of Bond, things become a lot clearer. Lazenby simply didn’t fully appreciate the consequences of taking onboard the most prodigious movie role of the time. He approached it in good faith and seemed to have fun making the actual film, yet he couldn’t cope with the requirements of stardom both leading up to and after the shoot. Certainly, the slave contract he was offered by Saltzman and Broccoli was iniquitous and would have driven any sane actor mad.

By the end of Becoming Bond, although I cannot say that I was fully conversant with the exact reasons why this man walked away from a six-movie contract and a million pounds in cash, I had a good idea. George Lazenby just wanted to be himself and not forever in the shadow of James Bond. Curiously enough, the late Roger Moore felt quite the opposite but that’s folk for you. No two are exactly alike. I genuinely felt sorry for the way that Lazenby was effectively hounded out of the movie industry, never having been a fan of closed shops or those with a strangle holds over certain businesses. Yet he found contentment in real estate, subsequently raised a family and seems to have come to terms with it all. Whether it all played out the way he tells it is debatable but he certainly offers viewers an entertaining autobiography to consider.

City of Vice (2008)

View fullsize

After recently catching up with Ripper Street, I felt the need for more period set crime drama so decided to revisit City of Vice. This Channel 4 series from 2008 explores the true story of Henry and Sir John Fielding, the crime-fighting magistrate brothers who created Britain’s first police force. Eighteenth century London was a violent den of brothels, murderers and street gangs. The city endured crime rates of epidemic proportion. It fell to Henry Fielding, the author of the novel Tom Jones and his half-brother Sir John, a leading social reformer, to bring order to the streets. In 1749 Parliament permitted the magistrate brothers to put together a small constabulary to clean up London.

City of Vice luridly shows that the criminal activity of contemporary London is nothing compared to the 18th century. Gangs of cut throats roam the streets, robbing, raping and murdering with impunity. Home invasions are common place. Prostitution and pedophilia are rife. The inequalities between the rich and the poor are starkly shown and crime was an unpleasant reality that many just accepted.  Based on Henry Fielding’s diaries and contemporary sources such as the Old Bailey Sessions Papers, City of Vice is designed to provide a lurid counterpoint to rival period dramas. The world of Jane Austen is violently contrasted.

The lead performances by Ian McDiarmid and Iain Glen are strong and carry the stories well. The five episodes are suitably grim and have a very dour tone to them but given the subject matter there's no other viable way to portray them. Yet despite the nature of the series, it found favour with both critics and the UK audience, achieving nearly three million viewers. The Times described it as "an antidote to the current spate of twee costume dramas" and "more likely to resonate with cynical modern audiences". However, the exploration of certain subjects did not find praise from all quarters leading to complaints from Mediawatch-UK.

City of Vice has taken certain historical liberties for the sake of drama, as so many TV shows do but the basic historical premise is sound. It is interesting to see that human vice is universal and that it’s not just the product of the modern world. Furthermore, it is paradoxical that the judicial system of the time is seen to be equally as cruel as the criminal element that it seeks to eradicate. Overall this was a very good show, yet despite both critical acclaim and good ratings, there has not been a second series to date. The production costs were more than likely a contributing factor. Unlike other costume drama's there are no suitable Georgian slums that can be used for filming. So, for those who did not see City of Vice first time round, the DVD is recommended. 

Christianity and the Easter TV Schedules

View fullsize

As a child growing up in the seventies, Sundays had a distinctly different feel to the other days of the week. The entire pace was more sedate and there was atmosphere of restraint. My parents would chide me for excessive noise. Activities such as reading or drawing where favoured over playing outside. The TV schedules reflected this as well. At the time, there were three terrestrial channels and only one of them was a commercial business. However, Sunday mornings would always have a televised service and there would often be a show offering some moral or ethical debate around midday. The early evening saw a similar broadcast of worship. Christianity was still an integral part of the television. 

Unlike the US, the UK does not have (and never has had) a direct separation of Church and State. For centuries the Church has had a direct influence over the political agenda and has shaped the cultural landscape. During the seventies, nothing was open on a Sunday, as the trading laws were still subject to a strong Christian lobby. Obviously due to my age at the time, I didn't see or understand the integral role Christianity played within UK society. Yet it was always there, be it at school, on TV or in the newspapers. Any vox pop at the time would always have a member of the clergy contributing. The ubiquitous presence of Christianity was such that it became reflected in popular culture. Most sitcoms would include a vicar at some point. I have fond memories of The Reverend Timothy Farthing (Frank Williams) in Dad's Army.

View fullsize

Roll on forty years and much has changed. The Church of England is in decline and certainly the lobbying power of the Christian community has diminished. The UK has become a far more secular nation and Sundays feel pretty much like any other day of the week nowadays. As a result of this shift, religious content on terrestrial network TV has similarly been reduced. As it is currently Easter, I made a cursory check of the TV guide for faith based content and apart from a few broadcasts of church services, there is precious little on to celebrate Easter. Even the traditional Hollywood religious epics such as The King of Kings with Jeffrey Hunter or George Stevens’ The Greatest Story Ever Told, with its distinctly Caucasian depiction of the Holy Lands, are missing from the schedules.

Since the advent of digital satellite, cable services, VOD and You Tube, is that faith based programming has moved to these new platforms and has to compete with the sheer volume of alternative TV that is available. Something that many other TV genres has had to do. I will leave it to you to decide whether this is a good or a bad thing. However, I would like to make this point. One of the most important weekly shows for me as a child was Top of the Pops. It featured a selection of artists every Thursday, depending on what was doing well in the UK singles. Due to the lack of alternative shows, viewers would watch thirty minutes of a variety of different music. Not all of it would be to their taste but it exposed the public to a broad cross section of musical genres. Nowadays there are niche market channels that provide audience with just the music they want, thus insulating them from anything else. It is this very proliferation of choice that means that many people are simply no longer exposed to any religious content on TV. 

View fullsize

I think that it’s beneficial for people to have a broad knowledge of multiple belief systems. There is a great deal of misinformation about the Christian faith and other faiths. The public as well as a lot of Christians themselves are not very well informed about the doctrines and fundamental underpinnings of Christianity. Perhaps at times such as Easter, rather than just showing traditional TV fodder such as church services or re-enactment of The Passion, perhaps it would be wiser to have more documentaries and current affairs programs that explore what it is to be a Christian in the in the twenty first century. What it can and cannot offer.  In the meantime, Happy Easter to all, whether you enjoy it as a public holiday or whether it is the focal point of your religious calendar. As for me, I'm off to watch Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ. A challenging and intelligent exploration of Christ's final hours. And don’t forget, chocolate eggs will be half price on Tuesday.