31 January 2007
COMIC RELIEF DOES THE PRESS LAUNCH
Some headlines (but not many, I'm tired) from this morning's Comic Relief launch, held on a boat nestling beneath the London Eye.
First, here's the bad news - Patrick Kielty's back on Fame Academy. The good news, Claudia Winkleman is his new co-presenter. "Cat doesn't give a fuck about Africa now she's gone to America," quipped Kielty. It starts on March 3.
They then played in a clip from the celebrity Apprentice, which I have to say actually looked pretty great - some business with the girls' team enlisting the help of a chef, who then reports to the boys' team by mistake - prompting Trinny Woodall to stage an invasion, yanking him back. All the while, Grant Mitchell off of EastEnders is on the mobile phone in the back of a car, "Guys, I can't hear you. What's going on?". Those teams in full - Men: Piers Morgan, Alistair Campbell, Ross Kemp, Rupert Everett and Danny Baker. Women: Cheryl Cole, Maureen Lipman, Trinny Woodall, Karen Brady and Jo Brand.
Oh, and the bit where Dennis Waterman breaks up a Little Britain "sing da feem choon" sketch demanding to know what the point of it is was quite funny.
First, here's the bad news - Patrick Kielty's back on Fame Academy. The good news, Claudia Winkleman is his new co-presenter. "Cat doesn't give a fuck about Africa now she's gone to America," quipped Kielty. It starts on March 3.
They then played in a clip from the celebrity Apprentice, which I have to say actually looked pretty great - some business with the girls' team enlisting the help of a chef, who then reports to the boys' team by mistake - prompting Trinny Woodall to stage an invasion, yanking him back. All the while, Grant Mitchell off of EastEnders is on the mobile phone in the back of a car, "Guys, I can't hear you. What's going on?". Those teams in full - Men: Piers Morgan, Alistair Campbell, Ross Kemp, Rupert Everett and Danny Baker. Women: Cheryl Cole, Maureen Lipman, Trinny Woodall, Karen Brady and Jo Brand.
Oh, and the bit where Dennis Waterman breaks up a Little Britain "sing da feem choon" sketch demanding to know what the point of it is was quite funny.
30 January 2007
LAW AND EVEN MORE DISORDER
Further to my recent New Street Law ramblings, the show fell into the BBC1 schedule for February 14. And then, today: "The BBC have now scheduled Arsenal vs Bolton on Wednesday 14 February, which means that New Street Law has now moved to Wednesday 21 February at 9pm."
Hooray!
Hooray!
28 January 2007
FINAL SCORE
The demise of Grandstand this afternoon has come as a bit of a shock, given that the BBC had initially said it would be phased out by 2009.
I'm not going to rehash the arguments I used last time I blogged about this, but it's interesting to read the responses on the BBC Sport blog, where the posts generally fall into two camps: a few people who recognise that all it effectively means is the end of a (truly great) theme tune; and the rest who seem to view it as the destruction of all they hold dear about England. I particularly liked the poster who lamented the fact that there'd be no more World Cup Grandstand, even though they haven't used that title since 1994.
But of course, for true professional Getting Grandstand Wrong, you have to turn to the press. The Daily Mail "broke" the story, with a piece which largely seems to consist of David Coleman mourning the fact that Grandstand isn't allowed to cover news any more. Admittedly the piece does quote Des Lynam's pragmatic response to the news, and acknowledges BBC Sport's strides in interactive coverage, but rounds off with the line, "So farewell Grandstand. One can't help thinking that Final Score could never come up with the romance of East Fife 4 Forfar 5." Given that Final Score was always a part of Grandstand, this is essentially meaningless. Moreover, it's 2007 and nobody cares about comedy Scottish football results.
On to the clueless Jim Shelley in The Mirror, lazily cobbling together a load of guff about how Grandstand used to cover "Wimbledon and the Grand National" (yeah, when was the last time you saw those on the BBC?), how ITV nicked the Premiership (nothing to do with Grandstand and the BBC got it back anyway) and how Grandstand was reduced to ... yes, trampolining. To cap it all off, he appears to think the April Fool fight amongst the production team was real. Mind you, Jim Shelley probably thinks the swearing Rainbow Christmas tape is real.
Best of all is this clown, Tom Little in Scotland on Sunday, and his eulogy to the glory days when Grandstand showed everything from "top-level football to Grand Slam tennis and the big horse races to Five Nations rugby." It takes some chutzpah to come up with that in a week when BBC Sport is covering, er, top-level football, Grand Slam tennis and Six Nations rugby.
For all that, it'll still be weird to look in the TV guide on a Saturday afternoon and see "1.00 Rugby". I suspect the world will still be spinning on its axis, though.
I'm not going to rehash the arguments I used last time I blogged about this, but it's interesting to read the responses on the BBC Sport blog, where the posts generally fall into two camps: a few people who recognise that all it effectively means is the end of a (truly great) theme tune; and the rest who seem to view it as the destruction of all they hold dear about England. I particularly liked the poster who lamented the fact that there'd be no more World Cup Grandstand, even though they haven't used that title since 1994.
But of course, for true professional Getting Grandstand Wrong, you have to turn to the press. The Daily Mail "broke" the story, with a piece which largely seems to consist of David Coleman mourning the fact that Grandstand isn't allowed to cover news any more. Admittedly the piece does quote Des Lynam's pragmatic response to the news, and acknowledges BBC Sport's strides in interactive coverage, but rounds off with the line, "So farewell Grandstand. One can't help thinking that Final Score could never come up with the romance of East Fife 4 Forfar 5." Given that Final Score was always a part of Grandstand, this is essentially meaningless. Moreover, it's 2007 and nobody cares about comedy Scottish football results.
On to the clueless Jim Shelley in The Mirror, lazily cobbling together a load of guff about how Grandstand used to cover "Wimbledon and the Grand National" (yeah, when was the last time you saw those on the BBC?), how ITV nicked the Premiership (nothing to do with Grandstand and the BBC got it back anyway) and how Grandstand was reduced to ... yes, trampolining. To cap it all off, he appears to think the April Fool fight amongst the production team was real. Mind you, Jim Shelley probably thinks the swearing Rainbow Christmas tape is real.
Best of all is this clown, Tom Little in Scotland on Sunday, and his eulogy to the glory days when Grandstand showed everything from "top-level football to Grand Slam tennis and the big horse races to Five Nations rugby." It takes some chutzpah to come up with that in a week when BBC Sport is covering, er, top-level football, Grand Slam tennis and Six Nations rugby.
For all that, it'll still be weird to look in the TV guide on a Saturday afternoon and see "1.00 Rugby". I suspect the world will still be spinning on its axis, though.
26 January 2007
LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION
I first heard ages ago that The Afternoon Play was coming to BBC1 when the controller was interviewed on 5Live by Simon Mayo. Despite my interest being aroused by the idea at the time, only yesterday did I get round to watching one.
What an absolutely terrific, thrilling, provocative 60 minutes of drama it was. Shakespeare specialist Jimmy Yuill played a retired vicar who, under pressure from his demanding wife, became a council tax martyr and got 28 days, during which time he was forced to share a cell with Trevor "Zig" Byfield's unscrupulous lifer. The struggle that the petrified man of God went through to get his cellmate's respect and trust culminated in his acquisition of an ill-gotten fortune via hidden diamonds, even sacrificing his greedy, vile wife along the way.
The human debate in the story was about the diamonds. Byfield's character had stashed them before his arrest, but had told anyone in jail wanting to find them that they were in the Thames, leading to pointless dredging exercises upon the re-issue of their liberty. Only when Yuill's vicar established the two attended the same school (though years apart) did he give some gently coded clues as to where the diamonds were, if they existed at all. Everyone - fellow lags, screws, the wife - just wanted the diamonds and the wealth. The vicar wanted his cellie's approval, especially when the lifer succumbed to a heart attack the day before the vicar's release.
So, by refusing to be greedy and saying a few prayers, he got posthumous approval. His wife kicked him out after he flogged the diamonds and gave all the money to an asylum hostel, but hidden in his trusty King James bible was an emergency stash.
What a wonderful yarn.
It's a shame that performances like these, conceived and delivered with absolute brilliance, aren't being shown to a wider audience. Where would the harm be in putting them on after soulless faux-drama like that ever-worsening shambles, EastEnders? I can't help but feel that for all the decent peak-time drama there may be (and none of it is on ITV except when Doc Martin is on call), the public would never object to a little bit more.
Some of this play was more suited to an adult audience too - have you ever heard the expression, "A bit of hot chocolate with the choirboys" before? The lifer used it to describe a "proper" crime the vicar could have committed, rather than failing to pay his council tax. Now I blinked at that - it was 2.30pm!
What an absolutely terrific, thrilling, provocative 60 minutes of drama it was. Shakespeare specialist Jimmy Yuill played a retired vicar who, under pressure from his demanding wife, became a council tax martyr and got 28 days, during which time he was forced to share a cell with Trevor "Zig" Byfield's unscrupulous lifer. The struggle that the petrified man of God went through to get his cellmate's respect and trust culminated in his acquisition of an ill-gotten fortune via hidden diamonds, even sacrificing his greedy, vile wife along the way.
The human debate in the story was about the diamonds. Byfield's character had stashed them before his arrest, but had told anyone in jail wanting to find them that they were in the Thames, leading to pointless dredging exercises upon the re-issue of their liberty. Only when Yuill's vicar established the two attended the same school (though years apart) did he give some gently coded clues as to where the diamonds were, if they existed at all. Everyone - fellow lags, screws, the wife - just wanted the diamonds and the wealth. The vicar wanted his cellie's approval, especially when the lifer succumbed to a heart attack the day before the vicar's release.
So, by refusing to be greedy and saying a few prayers, he got posthumous approval. His wife kicked him out after he flogged the diamonds and gave all the money to an asylum hostel, but hidden in his trusty King James bible was an emergency stash.
What a wonderful yarn.
It's a shame that performances like these, conceived and delivered with absolute brilliance, aren't being shown to a wider audience. Where would the harm be in putting them on after soulless faux-drama like that ever-worsening shambles, EastEnders? I can't help but feel that for all the decent peak-time drama there may be (and none of it is on ITV except when Doc Martin is on call), the public would never object to a little bit more.
Some of this play was more suited to an adult audience too - have you ever heard the expression, "A bit of hot chocolate with the choirboys" before? The lifer used it to describe a "proper" crime the vicar could have committed, rather than failing to pay his council tax. Now I blinked at that - it was 2.30pm!
THREE'S CONTINUITY
BBC3 has always had an appalling press, but I've always been a fan of it because I think a lot of its programmes are very good (great to see Man Stroke Woman back) and it does something different to its rivals. However, one area in which it's always been appalling is ... its dreadful continuity announcers.
Every single programme on BBC3 gets off to a thoroughly miserable start thanks to this lot, each one essaying the same excruciatingly unfunny combination of hyperbole and chumminess. So EastEnders is always "Easties", football is always "the footy" and your average link is something like, "In an hour we'll be doing that Little Britain thang - I'm a laydee!!!! - but now it's lovely Jack Harkness in super spooky Torchwood!" That sort of thing. They also appear to know absolutely nothing about any programme they introduce.
The reason I mention it now is because this week has seen surely the worst continuity announcement of all time. BBC3 announcer Keiron Elliott - the former Wish You Were Here ...? host turned Challenge TV linkman - was required to come in over the end credits of Family Guy on Tuesday to remind viewers that another episode would follow immediately. Keiron therefore said ...
"More Family Guy next, because it's a double bill - uuuuuuuuhh!!"
So, we've now reached the stage where BBC announcers are doing "spaz" voices to keep us watching. Presumably these announcements will get ever more insulting, demanding we stay tuned, and we can look forward to Keiron announcing, "Now it's the EastEnders repeat which you missed earlier, you dozy git" or "Now here's a show by and for a bunch of wankers, Two Pints of Lager."
But you know, if you can't think of anything funny to say, "More Family Guy in a moment" would suffice.
Every single programme on BBC3 gets off to a thoroughly miserable start thanks to this lot, each one essaying the same excruciatingly unfunny combination of hyperbole and chumminess. So EastEnders is always "Easties", football is always "the footy" and your average link is something like, "In an hour we'll be doing that Little Britain thang - I'm a laydee!!!! - but now it's lovely Jack Harkness in super spooky Torchwood!" That sort of thing. They also appear to know absolutely nothing about any programme they introduce.
The reason I mention it now is because this week has seen surely the worst continuity announcement of all time. BBC3 announcer Keiron Elliott - the former Wish You Were Here ...? host turned Challenge TV linkman - was required to come in over the end credits of Family Guy on Tuesday to remind viewers that another episode would follow immediately. Keiron therefore said ...
"More Family Guy next, because it's a double bill - uuuuuuuuhh!!"
So, we've now reached the stage where BBC announcers are doing "spaz" voices to keep us watching. Presumably these announcements will get ever more insulting, demanding we stay tuned, and we can look forward to Keiron announcing, "Now it's the EastEnders repeat which you missed earlier, you dozy git" or "Now here's a show by and for a bunch of wankers, Two Pints of Lager."
But you know, if you can't think of anything funny to say, "More Family Guy in a moment" would suffice.
22 January 2007
HOCUS-POCUS, DIPLODOCUS
So there's this "renowned evolutionary scientist", Nick Cutter, and some years ago his wife - Helen - disappeared while exploring reports of a strange, giant beast in the Forest of Dean. Now it transpires she stepped through what everyone's seemingly calling an "anomaly" and found herself transported back in time to prehistoric Earth. Is she still alive? Well, when Nick makes the same journey, he recovers her camera (we know it's her's, it has her initials on it - and then Nick says it is). Returning to the present day, said snaps are developed to reveal ... two shots of glamour-Helen pouting at the camera, showing off the prehistoric hills behind her.
This was my favourite bit from episode one of Primeval, ITV1's dino-infested Doctor Who beater. I laughed. The press launch for the show was this morning, and really, the series is not very good. FX-wise, yeah, it's okay, although all the creatures look like huge novelty pencil rubbers come to life. Plot and characterisation? Oh dear. Square-jawed blokes, weasely man from the ministry, kooky "girl" scientist ... and Godzooky. It's got the lot.
The worst thing, though, is that because it's aimed squarely at a family audience, we don't get to see the dinosaurs do anything dinosaur-y. No ripping of flesh, just knocking people over and running off.
But you know what, if it does go out between the two episodes of Dancing on Ice, I think it might just work.
The show is set to hit our screens on Saturday nights in February, ITV1.
This was my favourite bit from episode one of Primeval, ITV1's dino-infested Doctor Who beater. I laughed. The press launch for the show was this morning, and really, the series is not very good. FX-wise, yeah, it's okay, although all the creatures look like huge novelty pencil rubbers come to life. Plot and characterisation? Oh dear. Square-jawed blokes, weasely man from the ministry, kooky "girl" scientist ... and Godzooky. It's got the lot.
The worst thing, though, is that because it's aimed squarely at a family audience, we don't get to see the dinosaurs do anything dinosaur-y. No ripping of flesh, just knocking people over and running off.
But you know what, if it does go out between the two episodes of Dancing on Ice, I think it might just work.
The show is set to hit our screens on Saturday nights in February, ITV1.
21 January 2007
TRIALS, TRIBULATIONS
Somes I'm just too slow when it comes to getting things done. A case in point: Some days ago Paul Stump sent me a review of The Trial of Tony Blair which I only got around to putting on the site this afternoon ... at which point Ian Jones had sent me his take on the same show. I don't want to put two reviews of the same thing online, so, Ian's sadly gets consigned to the offal bin. This blog.
Here's Ian's review. Next time, I'll try and be quicker off the mark so people don't double-up inadvertently ...
THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR
Thursday 18/01/07, Channel 4
reviewed by Ian Jones
Who'd have thought Michael Murray would end up running the country?
For that is pretty much what was on offer here: the combustive, twitching, dystopian hero of GBH reborn as Prime Minister of the nation, packing just as much fury and folly as when he was first brought low all those years ago in an unnamed northern city by a gaggle of political capers.
For anyone at all familiar with Alan Bleasdale's seismically significant Channel 4 drama, it was nigh on impossible to not believe Robert Lindsay was, unconsciously or otherwise, distilling the potent essences of his earlier creation into his depiction of Tony Blair. In fact, the similarities were almost too obvious to be believed.
The sudden switching between moods of blistering wit and blustering self-pity; the waves of unimpeachable arrogance subsiding, literally in a second, into whimpers of overwhelming guilt; above all the armoury of tics and affectations and bizarre gestures growing ever more preposterous in the face of mounting crisis - they were all here, and all served to load this wholly unrelated, story with incorrigible baggage.
Which, as it turned out, was no bad thing. There was precious little else by way of substance residing within either the script or direction of The Trial of Tony Blair. Subtract Lindsay and his legacy from the proceedings and you would have been faced with slim pickings indeed.
No other big names populated the cast; none of the dozens of small names delivered anything approaching a memorable performance. The writing veered between essays into lumpen symbolism (look, there's Tony repeatedly washing his hands in a basin!) and seminars from the Clive Dunn academy of farce (oh no, Tony's fallen out of bed - again!).
The direction, to an extent beholden to such an imbalanced narrative, see-sawed between episodes of subtle sentimentality and crude operatics. The viewer, faced with all of this, just about struggled to keep up with Lindsay's seemingly infinite catalogue of contorted facial expressions.
The points the writer Alistair Beaton appeared to be making about the life and work of Tony Blair were many in number and all contradictory. This wouldn't have been an issue were the points in and of themselves sufficiently persuasive or robust; instead Beaton's scattergun tactics amounted to an assault high on quantity but low in quality.
There simply wasn't the time or space for the viewer to find a coherent way to respond to all the pot shots. Not that there might have been much within Beaton's script that passed for coherence; perhaps wisely for his sake the pace didn't let up long enough for the audience to really find out.
There was also a nagging feeling here that everyone involved in the production was treating its premise as justification enough. In other words, that the mere notion of doing a drama called The Trial of Tony Blair would somehow see them through 90 minutes of airtime. After all, with as incendiary a title as that, an audience would be bound to want to see how it ends - wouldn't they?
Well, the fact we didn't actually get to see any of the titular prosecution can't have left many thinking it was worth sticking with all the way through. In this sense the title was a complete bluff, somewhat akin to making a drama called The Assassination Of JFK then failing to include anything about Kennedy's shooting. A hypothetical staging of Blair being cross-examined in a war crimes tribunal would've made for far more absorbing viewing, besides offering the chance for a bit more sustained and lucid polemic.
The absence of any trace of the eponymous trial was the last, and greatest, miscalculation. It left you feeling desperately short-changed, even duped. At a push you could have been so inclined to tolerate all the cheap gags and pratfalls and poor impersonations of Gordon Brown and David Cameron and bludgeoning metaphors (oops, there goes another war child running through Tony's kitchen) for the chance of a glimpse of Blair in the dock. Then again, such an eventuality would have needed a production team of another level of aspiration altogether.
Instead we were left with the sight of Michael Murray being escorted into the back of a prison van to the strains of "All These Things That I've Done" by The Killers (one of David Cameron's Desert Island Discs), still wondering why he couldn't ever be a good man. And thanks to this simplistic, clunking piece of television, we, the viewers, still had no idea either.
Here's Ian's review. Next time, I'll try and be quicker off the mark so people don't double-up inadvertently ...
THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR
Thursday 18/01/07, Channel 4
reviewed by Ian Jones
Who'd have thought Michael Murray would end up running the country?
For that is pretty much what was on offer here: the combustive, twitching, dystopian hero of GBH reborn as Prime Minister of the nation, packing just as much fury and folly as when he was first brought low all those years ago in an unnamed northern city by a gaggle of political capers.
For anyone at all familiar with Alan Bleasdale's seismically significant Channel 4 drama, it was nigh on impossible to not believe Robert Lindsay was, unconsciously or otherwise, distilling the potent essences of his earlier creation into his depiction of Tony Blair. In fact, the similarities were almost too obvious to be believed.
The sudden switching between moods of blistering wit and blustering self-pity; the waves of unimpeachable arrogance subsiding, literally in a second, into whimpers of overwhelming guilt; above all the armoury of tics and affectations and bizarre gestures growing ever more preposterous in the face of mounting crisis - they were all here, and all served to load this wholly unrelated, story with incorrigible baggage.
Which, as it turned out, was no bad thing. There was precious little else by way of substance residing within either the script or direction of The Trial of Tony Blair. Subtract Lindsay and his legacy from the proceedings and you would have been faced with slim pickings indeed.
No other big names populated the cast; none of the dozens of small names delivered anything approaching a memorable performance. The writing veered between essays into lumpen symbolism (look, there's Tony repeatedly washing his hands in a basin!) and seminars from the Clive Dunn academy of farce (oh no, Tony's fallen out of bed - again!).
The direction, to an extent beholden to such an imbalanced narrative, see-sawed between episodes of subtle sentimentality and crude operatics. The viewer, faced with all of this, just about struggled to keep up with Lindsay's seemingly infinite catalogue of contorted facial expressions.
The points the writer Alistair Beaton appeared to be making about the life and work of Tony Blair were many in number and all contradictory. This wouldn't have been an issue were the points in and of themselves sufficiently persuasive or robust; instead Beaton's scattergun tactics amounted to an assault high on quantity but low in quality.
There simply wasn't the time or space for the viewer to find a coherent way to respond to all the pot shots. Not that there might have been much within Beaton's script that passed for coherence; perhaps wisely for his sake the pace didn't let up long enough for the audience to really find out.
There was also a nagging feeling here that everyone involved in the production was treating its premise as justification enough. In other words, that the mere notion of doing a drama called The Trial of Tony Blair would somehow see them through 90 minutes of airtime. After all, with as incendiary a title as that, an audience would be bound to want to see how it ends - wouldn't they?
Well, the fact we didn't actually get to see any of the titular prosecution can't have left many thinking it was worth sticking with all the way through. In this sense the title was a complete bluff, somewhat akin to making a drama called The Assassination Of JFK then failing to include anything about Kennedy's shooting. A hypothetical staging of Blair being cross-examined in a war crimes tribunal would've made for far more absorbing viewing, besides offering the chance for a bit more sustained and lucid polemic.
The absence of any trace of the eponymous trial was the last, and greatest, miscalculation. It left you feeling desperately short-changed, even duped. At a push you could have been so inclined to tolerate all the cheap gags and pratfalls and poor impersonations of Gordon Brown and David Cameron and bludgeoning metaphors (oops, there goes another war child running through Tony's kitchen) for the chance of a glimpse of Blair in the dock. Then again, such an eventuality would have needed a production team of another level of aspiration altogether.
Instead we were left with the sight of Michael Murray being escorted into the back of a prison van to the strains of "All These Things That I've Done" by The Killers (one of David Cameron's Desert Island Discs), still wondering why he couldn't ever be a good man. And thanks to this simplistic, clunking piece of television, we, the viewers, still had no idea either.
19 January 2007
ARE YOU FEELING JADE-D?
This week has been polarising for those on either side of the long running Big Brother debate. As someone who has written in recent months to support the series, it is intriguing to see how easy it is to deconstruct all of this latest controversy into further proof that Big Brother remains an important and vital element of Channel 4's public service remit. Indeed, to me, the very fact that there is conflicting opinion on whether or not Jade and her coterie's actions constitute actual racism or not, is indication that there is a complex issue being explored here, and that there is a healthy discussion to be had on what does and doesn't constitute racial abuse.
Mind you, perhaps an even more healthy use of our energies might be to spend less time trying to categorize the exact nature of Jade's brand of discrimination, and to instead take a stand against bullying in all of its forms (including accepting that a lot of bullying takes the form of subtle behaviours that are difficult to quantify but are none the less destructive - something that Big Brother has ably demonstrated over the years).
All of this stuff is very difficult to unpick, and besides, it's beyond the scope of the kinds of things we like to talk about here. One point though that I feel I can obtain some clarity about is just how much of a nonsense it is to hear politicians trotting out this line that Big Brother is simply broadcasting racism as entertainment. Well surely if you want to take that line (which to me seems to betray a lack of any real thought about the issue) then any television drama that has ever explored racism could be accused of doing the same, as could any factual programme that has covered similar ground.
You sense that these politicians have some vague, subconscious notion that in showing the footage of the last week, Big Brother is actually somehow throwing its editorial support behind Jade. But given the public reaction, this is clearly not the case, and I would challenge anyone to cite an example of when Jade and her group's behaviour has been framed in a positive light. Instead, it seems to me, that the production team has bravely (and probably not entirely without an eye on the viewing figures if we're being honest) left it up to us to pass judgement on this thorny and emotional issue. Of course tonight is the night on which we deliver our verdict.
Mind you, perhaps an even more healthy use of our energies might be to spend less time trying to categorize the exact nature of Jade's brand of discrimination, and to instead take a stand against bullying in all of its forms (including accepting that a lot of bullying takes the form of subtle behaviours that are difficult to quantify but are none the less destructive - something that Big Brother has ably demonstrated over the years).
All of this stuff is very difficult to unpick, and besides, it's beyond the scope of the kinds of things we like to talk about here. One point though that I feel I can obtain some clarity about is just how much of a nonsense it is to hear politicians trotting out this line that Big Brother is simply broadcasting racism as entertainment. Well surely if you want to take that line (which to me seems to betray a lack of any real thought about the issue) then any television drama that has ever explored racism could be accused of doing the same, as could any factual programme that has covered similar ground.
You sense that these politicians have some vague, subconscious notion that in showing the footage of the last week, Big Brother is actually somehow throwing its editorial support behind Jade. But given the public reaction, this is clearly not the case, and I would challenge anyone to cite an example of when Jade and her group's behaviour has been framed in a positive light. Instead, it seems to me, that the production team has bravely (and probably not entirely without an eye on the viewing figures if we're being honest) left it up to us to pass judgement on this thorny and emotional issue. Of course tonight is the night on which we deliver our verdict.
STAYING AWAKE THROUGH LEWIS
On Wednesday I was at the press screening for the first of three new Lewis episodes, which begin their run on ITV1 mid February. Now, my problem is I’ve always found Morse deeply soporific. I even invested in a box set of the whole lot a year or so back, but failing to get through a single episode while remaining conscious, I ended up flogging it at a loss on ebay. I was poorer in the pocket, but richer in waking hours.
So, Lewis was always going to be a challenge. Nonetheless, I thought it was OK, and managed to keep my attention focussed on the screen for most of the time. I did lose about three minutes halfway through. There’s an explicit Morse reference in there, and indeed a character who I gather was in one of the original films – Professor Gold. “You were with Morse last we met,” she says to the DI. “Shame about that”. All very beautifully shot and performed, just not my bag. It was wasted on me.
Before going into the screening, I nipped to the toilet. Standing at the urinal, I was aware of another chap beside me. As we were both doing our business, he started talking to me. At which point, I realised it was Kevin Whately. He seemed very jolly. Less so at the Q&A afterwards, where he was fairly guarded. He confirmed, though, that there’ll be a Morse reference in each of this year’s Lewis eps. Oh, and they’ll be filming more in the summer.
So, Lewis was always going to be a challenge. Nonetheless, I thought it was OK, and managed to keep my attention focussed on the screen for most of the time. I did lose about three minutes halfway through. There’s an explicit Morse reference in there, and indeed a character who I gather was in one of the original films – Professor Gold. “You were with Morse last we met,” she says to the DI. “Shame about that”. All very beautifully shot and performed, just not my bag. It was wasted on me.
Before going into the screening, I nipped to the toilet. Standing at the urinal, I was aware of another chap beside me. As we were both doing our business, he started talking to me. At which point, I realised it was Kevin Whately. He seemed very jolly. Less so at the Q&A afterwards, where he was fairly guarded. He confirmed, though, that there’ll be a Morse reference in each of this year’s Lewis eps. Oh, and they’ll be filming more in the summer.
17 January 2007
"CAN YOU ARRANGE SOME TEA, COOP?"
I really like Judge John Deed, yet I have to acknowledge there are flaws. It's deliberately political. It's riddled with legal inaccuracies. It pre-supposes that only three lawyers ever operate in the High Court.
It has also some of the most ridiculous in-breeding going on; there is no way in the real legal world that any judge would be allowed by the judiciary (or his conscience) to hear cases where his ex-wife (who is now married to his boss, the Home Secretary, natch) is the prosecution counsel, his on-off squeeze is regularly acting for the defence, and his own daughter also frequently appears before him - often as junior counsel to either his ex-wife or on-off squeeze. Everything about the programme is ludicrous.
So why do I watch it? Well, I'm a sucker for courtroom drama, irrespective of accuracy or credibility (the repeats of Crown Court on Legal TV are quite something, even when you're 33 instead of merely three years of age). And there's some kind of mediocre sport in guessing with which woman - other than or instead of the on-off squeeze - the judge will have done some illicit horizontal jogging before the 60 minutes are up. But most of all, it's simply because Jenny Seagrove is in it. And yes, she is the on-off squeeze who gets the judge to check her briefs, etc etc ...
It has also some of the most ridiculous in-breeding going on; there is no way in the real legal world that any judge would be allowed by the judiciary (or his conscience) to hear cases where his ex-wife (who is now married to his boss, the Home Secretary, natch) is the prosecution counsel, his on-off squeeze is regularly acting for the defence, and his own daughter also frequently appears before him - often as junior counsel to either his ex-wife or on-off squeeze. Everything about the programme is ludicrous.
So why do I watch it? Well, I'm a sucker for courtroom drama, irrespective of accuracy or credibility (the repeats of Crown Court on Legal TV are quite something, even when you're 33 instead of merely three years of age). And there's some kind of mediocre sport in guessing with which woman - other than or instead of the on-off squeeze - the judge will have done some illicit horizontal jogging before the 60 minutes are up. But most of all, it's simply because Jenny Seagrove is in it. And yes, she is the on-off squeeze who gets the judge to check her briefs, etc etc ...
16 January 2007
"A CERTAIN SENSE OF NORMALITY"
And so my slight Louis Theroux thread continues. This weekend I watched a preview copy of his new documentary, Louis Theroux - Gambling in Las Vegas. It's going to be on BBC2 sometime w/c 3 February.
The old iconography was there - the startled silhouette over the opening titles - but the programme itself was a tentative step forward for the documentary-maker. Unhappily, he's taking on a subject matter Hardeep Singh Kohli deals with quite entertainingly next week on Channel 4 in £50 Says You'll Watch This, but his remains the superior effort. He hangs out in a Las Vegas casino, befriending staff and punters in a windowless world of tumbling dials, electronic beeps, and men pleading, "Big, BIG!" as the cards fall.
What I found particularly interesting was the lack of any grotesques. Everyone he encounters is pretty much an ordinary Joe. I got to interview Louis yesterday, and put this to him (after tipping him off about Hardeep's show - "Oh nooooo!" he groaned). Was it a conscious decision, I wondered ...
"Was it conscious? I think it was little bit conscious and a little bit unconscious. We've tried to come back with more of a sense of scale in our show, with subjects that don't feel in anyway stitched together - that don't really hang on my journey too much. They don't have to be linked by me, you know, 'Then I decided to meet someone else'. Something big enough to fill an hour. And you could just stay with them and see things unfolding and developing.
"Perhaps with that goes a certain sense of, for want of a better word, normality. Gambling is something that isn't on the margins. It's kind of… you know, it's a picture of the mainstream cultural landscape. You could say that pornography is mainstream in certain ways. But I guess less so than gambling. Gambling is less stigmatised. It's more of an acceptable, public behaviour."
The old iconography was there - the startled silhouette over the opening titles - but the programme itself was a tentative step forward for the documentary-maker. Unhappily, he's taking on a subject matter Hardeep Singh Kohli deals with quite entertainingly next week on Channel 4 in £50 Says You'll Watch This, but his remains the superior effort. He hangs out in a Las Vegas casino, befriending staff and punters in a windowless world of tumbling dials, electronic beeps, and men pleading, "Big, BIG!" as the cards fall.
What I found particularly interesting was the lack of any grotesques. Everyone he encounters is pretty much an ordinary Joe. I got to interview Louis yesterday, and put this to him (after tipping him off about Hardeep's show - "Oh nooooo!" he groaned). Was it a conscious decision, I wondered ...
"Was it conscious? I think it was little bit conscious and a little bit unconscious. We've tried to come back with more of a sense of scale in our show, with subjects that don't feel in anyway stitched together - that don't really hang on my journey too much. They don't have to be linked by me, you know, 'Then I decided to meet someone else'. Something big enough to fill an hour. And you could just stay with them and see things unfolding and developing.
"Perhaps with that goes a certain sense of, for want of a better word, normality. Gambling is something that isn't on the margins. It's kind of… you know, it's a picture of the mainstream cultural landscape. You could say that pornography is mainstream in certain ways. But I guess less so than gambling. Gambling is less stigmatised. It's more of an acceptable, public behaviour."
PANO-DRAMA
So, the new prime time Panorama, then. Sadly, and inevitably, I didn't watch it, but it was good to know that it was there, and that it will always be there. I liked the editor saying that people were asking if they could "do" Northern Ireland in 30 minutes, as if they could "do" Northern Ireland in 40 minutes.
Anyway, this has inevitably brought about another article from Dorothy Byrne, Head of Current Affairs at Channel 4, about the new series clashing with Dispatches. She's said this before, of course, and again it's rubbish - especially as a World in Action graduate, who should be aware that for over 20 years, Panorama and World in Action were shown at the same time.
In any case, I can't buy the concept that Panorama should be more like Dispatches - it's on prime time BBC1. Yet the BBC do have an hour-long current affairs programme devoted to international issues - This World on BBC2. And this week, as in every week, it's being shown at 9pm, opposite no soaps at all.
Anyway, this has inevitably brought about another article from Dorothy Byrne, Head of Current Affairs at Channel 4, about the new series clashing with Dispatches. She's said this before, of course, and again it's rubbish - especially as a World in Action graduate, who should be aware that for over 20 years, Panorama and World in Action were shown at the same time.
In any case, I can't buy the concept that Panorama should be more like Dispatches - it's on prime time BBC1. Yet the BBC do have an hour-long current affairs programme devoted to international issues - This World on BBC2. And this week, as in every week, it's being shown at 9pm, opposite no soaps at all.
13 January 2007
CALENDAR COUNTDOWN (SLIGHT RETURN)
Now that Broadcast magazine has compiled the highest rating TV of 2006, it's time to update OTT's chart of the most watched programmes of the decade so far.
I say update; it's more a question of minute fine-tuning, as there are a grand total of just two new additions to the list. These appear at the relatively lowly positions of 29 and 32, and are both, unsurprisingly, World Cup matches.
Such a tiny tally is not unique; there are only two programmes from 2005 in the list as well. Up until then, however, the chart is still fairly balanced, with 11 shows hailing from 2000, 10 from 2001, 8 from 2002, 10 from 2003 and 7 from 2004. Here's the new countdown in full:
1) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2001) - 21.4m
2) Euro 2004: Portugal v England (BBC1, 24 June 2004) - 20.7m
3) EastEnders (5 April 2001) - 20.1m
4) Coronation Street (24 February 2003) - 19.4m
5) Coronation Street (3 January 2000) - 19.0m
6) Euro 2004: France v England (ITV1, 21 June 2004) - 17.8m
7) EastEnders (29 September 2003) - 16.7m
8) EastEnders (5 March 2001) - 16.6m
9) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2002) - 16.3m
9) EastEnders (2 January 2001) - 16.3m
9) Coronation Street (16 February 2004) - 16.3m
12) Coronation Street (1 January 2001) - 16.2m
13) Coronation Street (3 January 2001) - 16.1m
13) Who Wants to be a Millionaire?: Tonight Special (21 April 2003) - 16.1m
15) EastEnders (25 December 2002) - 16m
16) Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (19 January 2000) - 15.8m
17) Coronation Street (13 January 2003) - 15.6m
18) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2003) - 15.5m
18) Coronation Street (11 March 2001) - 15.5m
20) Michael Jackson Tonight Special (3 February 2003) - 15.3m
21) Heartbeat (6 February 2000) - 15.2m
21) EastEnders (28 December 2000) - 15.2m
23) I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! (9 February 2004) - 15m
24) Euro 2000 Portugal v England (ITV1, 12 June 2000) - 14.9m
25) Coronation Street (5 January 2001) - 14.8m
25) EastEnders (5 January 2004) - 14.8m
27) A Touch of Frost (14 January 2001) - 14.7m
28) Euro 2000 England v Romania (BBC1, 20 June 2000) - 14.6m
29) World Cup 2006: Sweden v England (ITV1, 20 June 2006) - 14.4m
30) Coronation Street (21 February 2005) - 14.4m
31) EastEnders (18 February 2005) - 14.3m
32) World Cup Match of the Day Live (BBC1, 25 June 2006) - 14.25m
33) Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (1 May 2000) - 13.9m
34) Heartbeat (21 January 2001) - 13.8m
35) Inspector Morse (15 November 2000) - 13.6m
36) Emmerdale (22 March 2000) - 13.3m
36) Pop Idol (9 February 2002) - 13.3m
38) A Touch of Frost (22 February 2004) - 13m
39) One Foot in the Grave (20 November 2000) - 12.8m
39) Heartbeat (12 January 2003) - 12.8m
41) I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! (12 May 2003) - 12.7m
41) Billy Elliot (BBC1, 1 January 2003) 12.7m
43) The Vicar of Dibley (25 December 2004) - 12.6m
44) Jubilee 2002: Party at the Palace (BBC1, 3 June 2002) - 12.5m
44) World Cup 2002: England v Brazil (BBC1, 21 June 2002) - 12.5m
44) World Cup 2002: England v Denmark (BBC1, 15 June 2002) - 12.5m
47) Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (2002) - 12.4m
47) A Touch of Frost (2002) - 12.4m
49) Rugby World Cup Final (ITV1, 22 November 2003) -12.3m
50) Casualty (12 February 2000) - 12.3m
Last year I ended my analysis of the chart with a prediction. I forecast that the only new additions to the chart come the end of 2006 would be some World Cup matches and at least a couple of soap episodes.
The former turned out to be true, but the latter did not - which, given there are no such high profile sport tournaments happening this year, makes me wonder whether 2007 will supply any new additions to this countdown whatsoever. Even the performance of those World Cup games of 2006 was fairly mediocre, failing to come close to even equalling the ratings won by matches from Euro 2000 and Euro 2004.
It seems the era of the genuinely multi-million watching TV event ended two years ago. Barring unforeseen deaths of national figures, or something like Prince William getting married, I reckon the final chart for the whole of this decade will look virtually identical to the one above.
Meantime, here are the top 10 most watched programmes of 2006. Any ideas what was so special about those soap episodes? And just why so many were watching ITV on 29th January?
1) World Cup 2006: Sweden v England (ITV1, 20 June 2006) - 14.4m
2) World Cup Match of the Day Live (BBC1, 25 June 2006) - 14.25m
3) Coronation Street (ITV1, 13 March 2006) - 12.2m
4) The Vicar of Dibley (BBC1, 25 December 2006) - 12.19m
5) EastEnders (BBC1, 2 January 2006) - 12.07m
6) Strictly Come Dancing (BBC1, 23 December 2006) - 11.96m
7) Dancing on Ice: The Bolero Results (ITV1, 4 March 2006) - 11.11m
8) Lewis (ITV1, 29 January 2006) - 11.11m
9) Wild at Heart (ITV1, 29 January 2006) - 10.63m
10) The X Factor - The Final Result (ITV1, 16 December 2006) - 10.53m
I say update; it's more a question of minute fine-tuning, as there are a grand total of just two new additions to the list. These appear at the relatively lowly positions of 29 and 32, and are both, unsurprisingly, World Cup matches.
Such a tiny tally is not unique; there are only two programmes from 2005 in the list as well. Up until then, however, the chart is still fairly balanced, with 11 shows hailing from 2000, 10 from 2001, 8 from 2002, 10 from 2003 and 7 from 2004. Here's the new countdown in full:
1) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2001) - 21.4m
2) Euro 2004: Portugal v England (BBC1, 24 June 2004) - 20.7m
3) EastEnders (5 April 2001) - 20.1m
4) Coronation Street (24 February 2003) - 19.4m
5) Coronation Street (3 January 2000) - 19.0m
6) Euro 2004: France v England (ITV1, 21 June 2004) - 17.8m
7) EastEnders (29 September 2003) - 16.7m
8) EastEnders (5 March 2001) - 16.6m
9) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2002) - 16.3m
9) EastEnders (2 January 2001) - 16.3m
9) Coronation Street (16 February 2004) - 16.3m
12) Coronation Street (1 January 2001) - 16.2m
13) Coronation Street (3 January 2001) - 16.1m
13) Who Wants to be a Millionaire?: Tonight Special (21 April 2003) - 16.1m
15) EastEnders (25 December 2002) - 16m
16) Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (19 January 2000) - 15.8m
17) Coronation Street (13 January 2003) - 15.6m
18) Only Fools and Horses (25 December 2003) - 15.5m
18) Coronation Street (11 March 2001) - 15.5m
20) Michael Jackson Tonight Special (3 February 2003) - 15.3m
21) Heartbeat (6 February 2000) - 15.2m
21) EastEnders (28 December 2000) - 15.2m
23) I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! (9 February 2004) - 15m
24) Euro 2000 Portugal v England (ITV1, 12 June 2000) - 14.9m
25) Coronation Street (5 January 2001) - 14.8m
25) EastEnders (5 January 2004) - 14.8m
27) A Touch of Frost (14 January 2001) - 14.7m
28) Euro 2000 England v Romania (BBC1, 20 June 2000) - 14.6m
29) World Cup 2006: Sweden v England (ITV1, 20 June 2006) - 14.4m
30) Coronation Street (21 February 2005) - 14.4m
31) EastEnders (18 February 2005) - 14.3m
32) World Cup Match of the Day Live (BBC1, 25 June 2006) - 14.25m
33) Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (1 May 2000) - 13.9m
34) Heartbeat (21 January 2001) - 13.8m
35) Inspector Morse (15 November 2000) - 13.6m
36) Emmerdale (22 March 2000) - 13.3m
36) Pop Idol (9 February 2002) - 13.3m
38) A Touch of Frost (22 February 2004) - 13m
39) One Foot in the Grave (20 November 2000) - 12.8m
39) Heartbeat (12 January 2003) - 12.8m
41) I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here! (12 May 2003) - 12.7m
41) Billy Elliot (BBC1, 1 January 2003) 12.7m
43) The Vicar of Dibley (25 December 2004) - 12.6m
44) Jubilee 2002: Party at the Palace (BBC1, 3 June 2002) - 12.5m
44) World Cup 2002: England v Brazil (BBC1, 21 June 2002) - 12.5m
44) World Cup 2002: England v Denmark (BBC1, 15 June 2002) - 12.5m
47) Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (2002) - 12.4m
47) A Touch of Frost (2002) - 12.4m
49) Rugby World Cup Final (ITV1, 22 November 2003) -12.3m
50) Casualty (12 February 2000) - 12.3m
Last year I ended my analysis of the chart with a prediction. I forecast that the only new additions to the chart come the end of 2006 would be some World Cup matches and at least a couple of soap episodes.
The former turned out to be true, but the latter did not - which, given there are no such high profile sport tournaments happening this year, makes me wonder whether 2007 will supply any new additions to this countdown whatsoever. Even the performance of those World Cup games of 2006 was fairly mediocre, failing to come close to even equalling the ratings won by matches from Euro 2000 and Euro 2004.
It seems the era of the genuinely multi-million watching TV event ended two years ago. Barring unforeseen deaths of national figures, or something like Prince William getting married, I reckon the final chart for the whole of this decade will look virtually identical to the one above.
Meantime, here are the top 10 most watched programmes of 2006. Any ideas what was so special about those soap episodes? And just why so many were watching ITV on 29th January?
1) World Cup 2006: Sweden v England (ITV1, 20 June 2006) - 14.4m
2) World Cup Match of the Day Live (BBC1, 25 June 2006) - 14.25m
3) Coronation Street (ITV1, 13 March 2006) - 12.2m
4) The Vicar of Dibley (BBC1, 25 December 2006) - 12.19m
5) EastEnders (BBC1, 2 January 2006) - 12.07m
6) Strictly Come Dancing (BBC1, 23 December 2006) - 11.96m
7) Dancing on Ice: The Bolero Results (ITV1, 4 March 2006) - 11.11m
8) Lewis (ITV1, 29 January 2006) - 11.11m
9) Wild at Heart (ITV1, 29 January 2006) - 10.63m
10) The X Factor - The Final Result (ITV1, 16 December 2006) - 10.53m
12 January 2007
LAW AND DISORDER
New Street Law. It's three words the TV listings industry are learning to dread as, on Wednesday, it was dropped from the schedules yet again. By my reckoning, that's the fourth time this has happened. Originally it was due last August, then September, then week two this year... and then week four. Now we're told it'll be with us some time in February.
For the PR company hired by the BBC to publicise it, the whole thing must be turning into a nightmare. With numerous NSL features scrapped since August, I can imagine there'll be few magazines trusting enough to yet again paste up those pages with John Hannah squinting at camera in his open-necked shirt.
For the PR company hired by the BBC to publicise it, the whole thing must be turning into a nightmare. With numerous NSL features scrapped since August, I can imagine there'll be few magazines trusting enough to yet again paste up those pages with John Hannah squinting at camera in his open-necked shirt.
11 January 2007
"WHAT'S A DIMELLA?"
One of the most surprising aspects of what has, up until now, been a largely dull Celebrity Big Brother has been the reinvention of Jade Goody. The transformation from the character that we were presented with four years ago, to the one that we see today is quite remarkable. Now a bona-fide celebrity in her own right, Jade has become a mature, likeable person who has had to contend not only with all that the press has thrown at her over the years, but also with being confined in the house with her loud, argumentative mother. In a moment of exasperation in the diary room, Jade admitted that for a lot of the time she feels as though she has had to act more like a mother to Jackiey than a daughter.
Jackiey's behaviour in the house has been strange to say the least. Most of the time she has seemed insensitive, and on occasions downright rude to some of the other housemates (especially in her battles with Shilpa) and it is easy to see why Jade finds herself becoming so frustrated. The other housemates all seemed to have little time for Jackiey as she was so hard to deal with. Nothing was ever straightforward with her, and just about everything seemed to turn into an argument for no good reason.
Hopefully now that her mother has been evicted from the house, Jade can stop worrying about what she might or might not do and come into her own a little more. Jade may not be the most knowledgeable in the world, but she is far from the "stupid" person that we had been led to believe she is by the papers - and she could well go on to triumph in this series.
Jackiey's behaviour in the house has been strange to say the least. Most of the time she has seemed insensitive, and on occasions downright rude to some of the other housemates (especially in her battles with Shilpa) and it is easy to see why Jade finds herself becoming so frustrated. The other housemates all seemed to have little time for Jackiey as she was so hard to deal with. Nothing was ever straightforward with her, and just about everything seemed to turn into an argument for no good reason.
Hopefully now that her mother has been evicted from the house, Jade can stop worrying about what she might or might not do and come into her own a little more. Jade may not be the most knowledgeable in the world, but she is far from the "stupid" person that we had been led to believe she is by the papers - and she could well go on to triumph in this series.
08 January 2007
"BIG CHEERS FOR THE FIRST BLUE"
For the very interested, here is a full game report for yesterday's jackpot episode of Deal or no Deal?:
"Noel introduces today's show in one of his louder shirts and expects a battle with the banker today as he is in fighting mood for 2007. Noel talks about the two shows where courage wasn't rewarded this week and also the two systems that didn't perform, he wonders what today's contestant will bring to the show."Tonight's contestant left with a tenner. Swings and roundabouts.
ACES
I rather liked Pokerface and, in fact, I was the one who wrote in OTT's 2006 in Review: "If it had aired every seven days there would have been more space for the public to discuss strategy, theorise on potential outcomes and quite possibly work up a word-of-mouth frenzy about the programme."
Well, hooray for me. As of Saturday January 20, the show is back for a new, weekly run. Apparently, last year's winner, Sarah Lang has bought a new conservatory.
Well, hooray for me. As of Saturday January 20, the show is back for a new, weekly run. Apparently, last year's winner, Sarah Lang has bought a new conservatory.
07 January 2007
"I'VE GOT NO BRIEF FOR THIS MOMENT"
Someone has finally won £250,000 on Deal or No Deal?.
The winner was, inevitably, a lady, but not a dusky one so Noel's lechering wasn't too unbearable. He did make it his business to smother her loads of times, however, and crow that, "it couldn't have happened to a more wonderful person". He also blubbed constantly. There was one awful shot when the winner was jumping up and down with all the other contestants and the camera cut back to show Noel sitting alone with big watery eyes like a rheumatic labrador.
The ticker tape came down on cue, though, just as Noel had planned it all those months ago. The show's being repeated on Tuesday on More4 at 11am, weirdly, but there'll undoubtedly be a primetime C4 repeat before the week is out.
The winner was, inevitably, a lady, but not a dusky one so Noel's lechering wasn't too unbearable. He did make it his business to smother her loads of times, however, and crow that, "it couldn't have happened to a more wonderful person". He also blubbed constantly. There was one awful shot when the winner was jumping up and down with all the other contestants and the camera cut back to show Noel sitting alone with big watery eyes like a rheumatic labrador.
The ticker tape came down on cue, though, just as Noel had planned it all those months ago. The show's being repeated on Tuesday on More4 at 11am, weirdly, but there'll undoubtedly be a primetime C4 repeat before the week is out.
05 January 2007
"I CAN ASSURE YOU THIS WORKED PERFECTLY IN REHEARSAL"
It's somewhat exciting to see Tomorrow's World being used to highlight BBC's technology reporting at the top of a BBC press release. Despite the parodying of Look Around You and the messing about with the format in later years, I still think of it fondly as it was the cornerstone of my viewing when I was growing up and really did seem like a weekly window into the future. As this wikipedia entry shows, they were often really, really accurate. TV Cream has a history of the show, with pictures.
It's a shame then that it isn't to return as a weekly programme, but as a cross-platform brand on radio, online and of course television, predominantly in BBC News. Presumably whenever a new technology story is being presented, up will pop the familiar logo - whatever one that was - and perhaps that video of the baby swimming under water (which can be downloaded as a screensaver, complete with old rainbow BBC logo, here). To this day I'm convinced that was the inspiration for the Nirvana Nevermind album cover.
The pleasant surprise is that Maggie Philbin is being brought back into service as the face of the new version of the franchise, presenting the stories and "on hand to offer analysis and extra detail". The presumed candidate would have been someone like Kate Humble or Adam Hart-Davies who presented the original show up to its cancellation in 2002. This does give the enterprise a bit of authority through seniority and after seeing Maggie on the Swap Shop nostalgia trip last week it'll be nice to see her on television a bit more regularly again. Perhaps if this takes off, Judith Hann, Howard Stapleford and Phillipa Forrester will also be recalled into active duty.
Philbin's first appearance will be on BBC Breakfast on Monday 8 January.
It's a shame then that it isn't to return as a weekly programme, but as a cross-platform brand on radio, online and of course television, predominantly in BBC News. Presumably whenever a new technology story is being presented, up will pop the familiar logo - whatever one that was - and perhaps that video of the baby swimming under water (which can be downloaded as a screensaver, complete with old rainbow BBC logo, here). To this day I'm convinced that was the inspiration for the Nirvana Nevermind album cover.
The pleasant surprise is that Maggie Philbin is being brought back into service as the face of the new version of the franchise, presenting the stories and "on hand to offer analysis and extra detail". The presumed candidate would have been someone like Kate Humble or Adam Hart-Davies who presented the original show up to its cancellation in 2002. This does give the enterprise a bit of authority through seniority and after seeing Maggie on the Swap Shop nostalgia trip last week it'll be nice to see her on television a bit more regularly again. Perhaps if this takes off, Judith Hann, Howard Stapleford and Phillipa Forrester will also be recalled into active duty.
Philbin's first appearance will be on BBC Breakfast on Monday 8 January.
GUY LYON PLAYFAIR
I think I'm always going to be interested in the Enfield poltergeist.
I first came across the case in one of those huge supernatural books from the local library. I was about 11 or so and genuinely freaked out by the pictures of Janet springing out of her bed. Not particularly because of the possibility of a malevolent spirit, more because the whole thing looked so utterly, utterly '70s. Not the '70s of glam rock and space dust, but the '70s of industrial action, council houses. Autumnal colours and huge geometric patterns on the wall. The '70s of Peter Sutcliffe and Donald 'Black Panther' Neilson.
I'm returned to that unsettling place thanks to a preview disc from Channel 4. As part of their unpromisingly-named "Occult Week" season, we have Interview With a Poltergeist a maddeningly inconclusive look at the Enfield affair some three decades on. And, oh my God, it's all here. Paranormal investigator Maurice Grosse looks every bit the be-whiskered crackpot expert you'd expect from the era. Meanwhile his co-investigator hits all the right notes simply through dint of his name: Guy Lyon Playfair. There's twin beds, a convertible Jag, a burly next door neighbour called Vic (blokes aren't called Vic anymore, are they?) and a witness statement from "the baker's roundsman".
"Maddeningly inconclusive", I said. But to be fair, that's no fault of the documentary-makers, whose even-handed efforts doom them to a hung jury.
And as for Janet herself, well, commendably the crew catch up with her today. Scarily, she's still got the most 1970s face ever. It's all too unsettling. But not as unsettling as this photo of her back in her prime. Or maybe it's just me who gets spooked by this sort of thing.
Anyway, that's Interview With a Poltergeist, Channel 4, January 24.
UPDATE: This show's now been moved back two weeks in the schedules.
I first came across the case in one of those huge supernatural books from the local library. I was about 11 or so and genuinely freaked out by the pictures of Janet springing out of her bed. Not particularly because of the possibility of a malevolent spirit, more because the whole thing looked so utterly, utterly '70s. Not the '70s of glam rock and space dust, but the '70s of industrial action, council houses. Autumnal colours and huge geometric patterns on the wall. The '70s of Peter Sutcliffe and Donald 'Black Panther' Neilson.
I'm returned to that unsettling place thanks to a preview disc from Channel 4. As part of their unpromisingly-named "Occult Week" season, we have Interview With a Poltergeist a maddeningly inconclusive look at the Enfield affair some three decades on. And, oh my God, it's all here. Paranormal investigator Maurice Grosse looks every bit the be-whiskered crackpot expert you'd expect from the era. Meanwhile his co-investigator hits all the right notes simply through dint of his name: Guy Lyon Playfair. There's twin beds, a convertible Jag, a burly next door neighbour called Vic (blokes aren't called Vic anymore, are they?) and a witness statement from "the baker's roundsman".
"Maddeningly inconclusive", I said. But to be fair, that's no fault of the documentary-makers, whose even-handed efforts doom them to a hung jury.
And as for Janet herself, well, commendably the crew catch up with her today. Scarily, she's still got the most 1970s face ever. It's all too unsettling. But not as unsettling as this photo of her back in her prime. Or maybe it's just me who gets spooked by this sort of thing.
Anyway, that's Interview With a Poltergeist, Channel 4, January 24.
UPDATE: This show's now been moved back two weeks in the schedules.
01 January 2007
HAVE YOUR SAY ON SJA
It's a new year - so let's try something new. I've just punted my review of The Sarah Jane Adventures online. But, what did you think of the show? I'd genuinely like to know, particularly as my own thoughts are so rambling.
So, use the comments thing below ...
So, use the comments thing below ...