Peanuts, Charlie Brown and Vince Guaraldi
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 it 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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).
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”.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 S01E02 Battle at the Binary Stars.mkv_snapshot_21.38_[2017.09.25_18.01.26].jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54e310f0e4b0f4a6ba3ac899/1506359677594-87VFFU39Q5TUG5SO42RX/Star+Trek+Discovery+S01E02+Battle+at+the+Binary+Stars.mkv_snapshot_21.38_%5B2017.09.25_18.01.26%5D.jpg)
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.
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.
![Star Trek Discovery S01E01 The Vulcan Hello.mkv_snapshot_07.19_[2017.09.25_17.54.13].jpg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/54e310f0e4b0f4a6ba3ac899/1506359625650-D976K1OBW47HSSSFN2S2/Star+Trek+Discovery+S01E01+The+Vulcan+Hello.mkv_snapshot_07.19_%5B2017.09.25_17.54.13%5D.jpg)
Moral Relativism in Popular Culture
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 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”.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Five Came Back (2017)
Five Came Back is a fascinating documentary about five remarkable Hollywood film directors who put themselves in harm’s way to film World War II for the US War Department. William Wyler, Frank Capra, George Stevens, John Ford and John Huston were in many ways a diverse bunch, yet the all represented a different facet of “America”. Certainly, all were idealists who felt it was their duty to use their talents to create accessible propaganda for the US public and more importantly, the 12 million men who were drafted. Despite the factual accuracy of this three-part documentary, there is an inherent romance to the tale and the way these Hollywood mavericks took on first American Isolationism, then the Third Reich and US military politics.
Five Came Back is a fascinating documentary about five remarkable Hollywood film directors who put themselves in harm’s way to film World War II for the US War Department. William Wyler, Frank Capra, George Stevens, John Ford and John Huston were in many ways a diverse bunch, yet the all represented a different facet of “America”. Certainly, all were idealists who felt it was their duty to use their talents to create accessible propaganda for the US public and more importantly, the 12 million men who were drafted. Despite the factual accuracy of this three-part documentary, there is an inherent romance to the tale and the way these Hollywood mavericks took on first American Isolationism, then the Third Reich and US military politics.
Narrated by Meryl Streep and based upon the Mark Harris Five Came Back: A Story of Hollywood and the Second World War, this Netflix documentary cleverly intercuts the story of these five legendary film makers, with soundbites from contemporary Hollywood luminaries, Steven Spielberg, Paul Greengrass, Guillermo del Toro, Francis Ford Coppola and Laurence Kasdan. It is here that the show excels itself, as these modern film makers clearly have a great deal of love and reverence for their predecessors and how they advanced the craft of film making. Greengrass, who comes from a documentary film making background is especially observant and analytical of John Ford’s urgent style. His genuine use of shaking footage, sprocket jumps and loss of focus has now become a mainstay of film makers trying to capture the authenticity he experienced.
Five Came Back these focuses on how these directors changed the public perception of the war in the US. There personal heritage played heavily on their motivation and creative output. Ford was a traditional American conservative, where Wyler and Capra were both immigrants, yet they all clearly saw the threat of Fascism and wished to contribute to the war effort. It was the fact that they were all old school film directors that gave them their specific edge. They were natural leaders, autocratic and skilled in marshalling logistics and people. George Stevens made films for the US Army Signal Corps and William Wyler made documentaries for the US Air Force. Frank Capra, was tasked with creating the documentary series Why We Fight to boost US troop morale. His master stroke was to take Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will and to lampoon and satirise it, making it look foolish and puerile.
Five Came Back explores the nature of propaganda and how cinema and newsreels played a key role during World War II. Over half of the US population went to the movie theatre every week and so the medium became the logical means to convey information and boost morale. Wyler, Ford, Capra, Stevens and Huston all experienced war via some of the most ferocious campaigns. North Africa, the landings in Southern Italy, D-Day and the Battle of Midway. They produced films that still pack an emotional punch today and each came home changed men. Curiously enough it can be argued that their personal experiences fuelled their finest work. Consider Shane (1953), It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), The Searchers (1956), The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948).
How Long Should a TV Show Run For?
Over the course of a year I tend to try five or six new TV shows. Like everyone else I have a finite amount of leisure time and I therefore try to split it evenly among my various interests. Overall, I watch no more than ten shows regularly. I like to do some research before selecting something new to watch and I also consider recommendations from my peers very important. Once I’ve decided upon what I shall try, I tend to give each new show a fighting chance to build up a head of steam. Not all shows hit the mark immediately. Some need at least half a dozen episodes. Some need several seasons. So far Designated Survivor has proven gripping and well-conceived. It also doesn’t make the usual mistake that densely-plotted dramas so often do, in continuously taking one step forward and another two back.
Over the course of a year I tend to try five or six new TV shows. Like everyone else I have a finite amount of leisure time and I therefore try to split it evenly among my various interests. Overall, I watch no more than ten shows regularly. I like to do some research before selecting something new to watch and I also consider recommendations from my peers very important. Once I’ve decided upon what I shall try, I tend to give each new show a fighting chance to build up a head of steam. Not all shows hit the mark immediately. Some need at least half a dozen episodes. Some need several seasons. So far Designated Survivor has proven gripping and well-conceived. It also doesn’t make the usual mistake that densely-plotted dramas so often do, in continuously taking one step forward and another two back.
Another show I’ve started watching on a whim that turned out to be far more entertaining than anticipated is Timeless. Although time travel is a somewhat hackneyed concept dramatically, this show flies in the face of the traditional “non-interference” trope. History is altered regularly in both positive and negative ways. The main characters are also very engaging. However, the show obviously is an expensive production due to the constantly changing period setting. Timeless also has a plot that cannot be indefinitely sustained. There is far too much scope for temporal paradoxes and for the storyline to ties itself in knots. Therefore, I've been pondering the question "how long should a TV show run for"?
I think a shows premise and central plot ultimately determines the overall answer. Police procedural dramas or those set-in Hospitals, Courts or other permanent institutions, have the luxury of being able to carry on ad infinitum. You only have to look at shows like Law and Order SVU or the NCIS franchise for successful examples. Characters and cast members may come and go but the central plot device provides an inexhaustible supply of material. Furthermore, apart from some minor story arcs usually associated with the lead actors, it is not always essential to watch these sorts of shows continuously. You can return to them as and when you like. It is this undemanding quality that often contributes to a shows success.
However, this is not the case with dramas with a more traditional linear storyline. Producers are faced with the dilemma of maintaining an audience and the need to expedite the plot. Lost is a classic example of a show that out stayed its welcome, as far as I'm concerned. I initially enjoyed the convoluted scenario and air of intrigue that was perpetuated but soon I got exhausted by the lack of narrative advancement. I sat through several seasons during which nothing discernible happened to illuminate me as to what was going on. So eventually I abandoned Lost. TV is a time intensive pastime and I don’t like for mine to be wasted. So, I’ll happily abandon any show that fails to meet my viewing criteria. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of competing material.
It is interesting to note that several cable companies are now opting to produce shows with shorter season lengths. Naturally, cost is a factor in this situation but market research seems to indicate that viewers prefer more succinct and concise story arcs. Twenty plus episodes are being replaced with anything between eight and thirteen episodes. The recent trend towards binge viewing may also be a factor in this gradual cultural shift. Netflix and Amazon Prime by their very nature have a great deal of consumer data at their disposal. This has led them to produce some exceptionally good quality shows that seem to have extremely equitable running times and season lengths. Stranger Things, The Crown and The Man in the High Castle are just some examples that came to mind.
Overall, I think for mainstream US network television, a maximum of five to six seasons can sustain a good show to its maximum potential. Person of Interest managed to maintain a complex and entertaining plot, with multiple personal story arcs, for over five years. It also managed to deliver a satisfactory conclusion, without disappointing fans or cutting any narrative corners. Elementary, another show I watched on a whim that’s proved to be well written and topical. It is currently in its six season and doesn’t seem to have boxed itself in or exhausted its creativity. However, for such shows driven by their lead actors the biggest issue is how long will they be content to play the same role? With so many factors to consider, it is extremely difficult know when exactly is the right time to end a TV show. Financial success and ratings are a big incentive to continue but there is a great deal of artistic credibility in quitting while your ahead. There’s also an old adage about leaving your audience wanting more.
New Captain Scarlet (2005-6)
I’m not usually a big fan of “re-boots” and “re-imaginings” of classic material. There have been some successful examples in recent years, such as the Bond franchise and Doctor Who but many others have failed. Jonathan Frakes 2004 feature film Thunderbirds was the epitome of this. It total misjudged the target audience, completely failed to grasp the key aspects that made the original series so appealing and excluded the man himself, Gerry Anderson, from any involvement. It also failed to make use of any of Barry Grays sublime back catalogue of music, apart from the main theme. Conversely, the 2015 TV show Thunderbirds Are Go, managed to not only provide a suitable homage to the original show but successfully update the concept for a contemporary audience.
I’m not usually a big fan of “re-boots” and “re-imaginings” of classic material. There have been some successful examples in recent years, such as the Bond franchise and Doctor Who but many others have failed. Jonathan Frakes 2004 feature film Thunderbirds was the epitome of this. It total misjudged the target audience, completely failed to grasp the key aspects that made the original series so appealing and excluded the man himself, Gerry Anderson, from any involvement. It also failed to make use of any of Barry Grays sublime back catalogue of music, apart from the main theme. Conversely, the 2015 TV show Thunderbirds Are Go, managed to not only provide a suitable homage to the original show but successfully update the concept for a contemporary audience.
Yet Thunderbirds Are Go was not the first of Gerry Anderson’s shows to be remade. Anderson himself created New Captain Scarlet in 2005; a computer animated reworking of his original show Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. Sadly, due to a catalogue of problems that occurred with the shows distribution, New Captain Scarlet is often overlooked. Twenty-six episodes where made in total and New Captain Scarlet premiered on ITV's children show The Ministry of Mayhem in February 2006. Despite Anderson's long business association with ITV, the programs were not treated with any semblance of respect. They were cut for violence (something Anderson has never shied away from) and each episode was split into three, seven minute segments, to be broadcast during The Ministry of Mayhem three hour running time. The end credits were also conspicuous by their absence. The viewers were not engaged and the critics simply passed on by.
Subsequently the series did not really get the attention or praise it deserved. I recently caught up with the seasons 1 & 2 on DVD and saw them as they were intended to be seen. The results are very good. The series holds true to the 1967 original. All the main members of Spectrum are present, although some such as Lieutenant Green have changed gender. Characters are expanded and their backstories are often quite adult. There are complex love triangles, moral dilemmas and as stated earlier, a surprising amount of violence. The stories are often morally ambiguous and do not always have a happy resolution. Each episode manages to cover a lot of ground in their twenty-five-minute running time. The iconic hardware from the original show has been updated obviously with an eye to the toy franchise. For example, the Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle has now become the Rhino.
My opinions on TV based computer animation are mainly based on the 1999 animated series Roughnecks:Starship Trooper Chronicles. That was a fine show for the times with very good graphics from Foundation Studios. Similarly, New Captain Scarlet, produced by British animators Indestructible Production Company, is also outstanding by the standards of the 2005. The main characters move fluidly due to the use of motion capture and are well rendered with a high level of detail. The action sequences are surprisingly good with a focus on hand to hand combat. Because of the current genre tastes, there is a propensity for the men to be somewhat buff and the female characters tend to be voluptuous. Terrain and lighting are also surprisingly detailed. As ever it is hair that is the major weakness. However, it is not obtrusive enough to spoil the proceedings.
There are a few negatives aspects to the show though. The contemporary soundtrack by Crispin Merrell is adequate but not in the league of the original iconic music by Barry Grey. This reduces the creepy ambience that made the 1967 series such a pleasure. There is also a lot more concessions made to the international market. As a result, there is a slight loss of “Britishness” from the proceedings. But these do not in any way out weight the positive aspects of New Captain Scarlet. All things considered, this is a very enjoyable production that maintains the style and substance of all Gerry Anderson's work. As with the original show the storylines are often a lot more adult than expected and there is a pleasingly dark tone to the narrative. At present New Captain Scarlet is only available on DVD, however the original masters for the show have recently been reclaimed and so fans remain hopeful of a full HD release on Blu-ray in the future.
The Secret Service (1968)
The Secret Service is somewhat of an enigma, being the last Supermarionation show that Gerry Anderson produced. It was poorly received not only by critics but also by its own financier, Sir Lew Grade and was therefore given a limited broadcast upon its initial release. However, it marked the end of an era for Century 21 productions as they turned their creative attentions to film and live action TV after a decade of puppets shows. Subsequently, The Secret Service fell into obscurity over the following years and never gained the same degree of attention from the public, as previous Supermarionation shows had.
The Secret Service is somewhat of an enigma, being the last Supermarionation show that Gerry Anderson produced. It was poorly received not only by critics but also by its own financier, Sir Lew Grade and was therefore given a limited broadcast upon its initial release. However, it marked the end of an era for Century 21 productions as they turned their creative attentions to film and live action TV after a decade of puppets shows. Subsequently, The Secret Service fell into obscurity over the following years and never gained the same degree of attention from the public, as previous Supermarionation shows had.
Having recently caught up with the entire series and being a consummate Gerry Anderson fan, it is hard for me to be excessively critical of the show. I have a lot of love for his earlier work, especially Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet. The Secret Service has many of the aspect that made previous shows enjoyable and unique. There are quirky and amusing characters, a rich and detailed production design and superb miniature effects by the legendary Derek Meddings. Once again, the score and ambient sounds created by Barry Gray play an integral role in the show. Yet even I must admit that two major flaws standout and validate why this final series was Anderson’s weakest.
Firstly, from Four Feathers Fall to Joe 90, there had always been an element of substituting human footage for material that puppets could not do. This was usually limited to shots of hands. However in The Secret Service this technique was greatly expanded upon. There are long shots of characters walking into building, along with footage of them driving vehicles down country lanes. The central character Reverend Stanley Unwin, is directly modelled on its voice actor Stanley Unwin. Furthermore, live footage of the said actor is frequently intercut into each episode. Although it can be argued that this innovative approach covered some of the puppets technical deficiencies, it also breaks the shows immersion. Is this a puppet or live action drama?
Secondly, Stanley Unwin himself was a comedian who became well known for his use of “Unwinese”, a faux comic language of his own creation. It was an odd choice to cast such an actor with a uniquely English comic trait, namely our love of linguistic humour and word play, into a television show destined for international distribution. Gerry Anderson’s argument was that Stanley Unwin’s occasional lapse into this verbal slapstick was to purposely confound all viewers. However, I think that rather than amuse the viewers it simply perplexed them. It was sufficient for Sir Lew Grade to lose confidence in the production and pull the plug.
If like me you have been raised on Gerry Anderson’s back catalogue, The Secret Service, despite its shortcomings, is still engaging and quality entertainment. It is yet another example of Century 21 Productions refining their process. However, for the more casual viewer, who is broadly familiar with Thunderbirds, this may be a little too niche market and obscure. The show also seems to have a somewhat nebulous view on Christian denominations. Stanley Unwin seems to frequently alternate between the Anglican and Roman Catholic faiths. Therefore, I can really only recommend The Secret Service to hardcore Anderson fans and those who are simply curious and forgiving.
Historically, the failure of The Secret Service although marking the end of Supermarionation ultimately led to Century 21 productions first live action TV series, UFO. A show that was a possibly five years ahead of its time. With regard to The Secret Service, after a consistently successful decade, the concept of the puppet series had run its natural course by the late sixities. One of Gerry Anderson’s great strength from this era was his capacity to experiment. The Secret Service shows us that not all experiment work, but even those which are deemed failures can still be or merit and quality.
The TGEN Tribunal #6
The Gaming and Entertainment Network was set up in 2014 by several podcasters as a way to promote each other’s shows and reach a wider audience. All the networks members have strong views regarding creating and maintaining communities. Hence it was decided to produce a quarterly roundtable podcast made up of network contributors to discuss and explore a wide variety of subjects. The shows are lively and informal in nature, although there’s often a lot of passion when it comes to the topics being discussed. Frequently the shows are based around questions that our network listeners have asked and the idea of the tribunal is to reflect the feedback we receive.
The Gaming and Entertainment Network was set up in 2014 by several podcasters as a way to promote each other’s shows and reach a wider audience. All the networks members have strong views regarding creating and maintaining communities. Hence it was decided to produce a quarterly roundtable podcast made up of network contributors to discuss and explore a wide variety of subjects. The shows are lively and informal in nature, although there’s often a lot of passion when it comes to the topics being discussed. Frequently the shows are based around questions that our network listeners have asked and the idea of the tribunal is to reflect the feedback we receive.
Due to the realities of day to day life, the TGEN tribunal was somewhat irregular in 2016. This is something that we hope to address this year, so here is the first show of 2017. The panel includes myself, Syl, Braxwolf and Brian and was recorded on Saturday 4th February. Despite some technical difficulties during post production, a coherent (well relatively coherent) podcast has been edited together for our listener’s enjoyment. We hope you find the discussions interesting and would welcome feedback or potential questions for the next TGEN Tribunal which is scheduled for April/May.
TV, Streaming & VOD. Starting a new MMO vs returning to an old one. The Warcraft movie, fans & box office returns.
Who Will be the Next Doctor?
Idle speculation is a national pastime in the UK. Be it about the gender of the next royal baby or who’ll be managing some ailing football club, we’ll happily spend an inordinate amount of time and energy pondering such matters. Is such conjecture based on factually accurate data and a knowledgeable insight of the matter in hand? Unfortunately, not. The only requirements necessary to express an opinion are a rudimentary grasp of the English language, access to a web enabled device and a pulse. The latest matter to arise that offers the public an opportunity to indulge in some fevered speculation, is the news that Peter Capaldi will be quitting the role of Doctor Who at the end of the year. Therefore, who exactly would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Doctor.
Idle speculation is a national pastime in the UK. Be it about the gender of the next royal baby or who’ll be managing some ailing football club, we’ll happily spend an inordinate amount of time and energy pondering such matters. Is such conjecture based on factually accurate data and a knowledgeable insight of the matter in hand? Unfortunately, not. The only requirements necessary to express an opinion are a rudimentary grasp of the English language, access to a web enabled device and a pulse. The latest matter to arise that offers the public an opportunity to indulge in some fevered speculation, is the news that Peter Capaldi will be quitting the role of Doctor Who at the end of the year. Therefore, who exactly would be the thirteenth incarnation of the Doctor.
Now in the past, the pundits and those who work in the industry have favoured rather obvious, existing "stars". This was the case when David Tennant left the show. Such names as James Nesbitt, Catherine Tate, Catherine Zeta Jones and even David Walliams where bandied about. Then the BBC completely wrong footed everyone by casting Mr. Smith. This time round the press are considering a mixture of mainstream contenders as well as a few more obscure and outlandish candidates. So far, the following names seem to come up. Ben Whishaw, Richard Ayoade, David Harewood, Olivia Colman, Maxine Peake, Rory Kinnear, Sacha Dhawan, Emma Watson, Hayley Atwell, Tim Roth, Colin Morgan.
"Well you die and she leaves me and marries Richard Dawkins"
Now many may think that the debate regarding the next Doctor, is nothing more than a discussion about pop culture. It may even be labelled trivial by some. However, I think it also reveals a lot more about society and indicates wider views held by parts of the population. Because some people still find the idea of the Doctor being a woman or non-white unpalatable. It was something that first emerged in 2013 prior to Peter Capaldi getting the role. Similar objections have also surfaced in recent years when speculating about the next James Bond. Because of the current political climate, people are less reticent about expressing such views. Furthermore, such opinions may indicate that not everyone believes in such “shared values” as equality. Perhaps it is time to consider that societal norms are far more fluid.
Now there may well be individuals who object to such things purely for reasons of racism or misogyny. I don’t see the point of dwelling upon the like, because prejudice of this nature is simply irrational and illogical. Call it such and move on. However, I don’t think that all such objections are driven by bigotry. There are other factors in play here. Namely, fan’s misplaced sense of ownership. Fans tend to invest in a franchise, product or concept to the point where they feel that their boundless love gives them a degree of collective involvement or even ownership. This point can be argued philosophically until one is blue in the mouth but the reality of the situation is driven be the law. Fans despite what they may feel, are passive observers and financial donors and nothing more.
"It wasn't my fault, blame John Nathan-Turner"
Doctor Who, like any other intellectual property, belongs to a specific owner. In this case, it is the BBC. Therefore, it is very much their bat and ball to use an old phrase. They hire specific writers who are then given relative creative freedom to develop the character of the Doctor. The process is not driven by the will of the fan base. The self-appointed label of “fan” doesn’t give you any additional status or rights over than that of a casual viewer. If a show such as Doctor Who pursues a narrative direction that some fans do not like or cast an actor that a percentage object to, then it is simply a matter of differing opinions between creator and consumer. To frame such objections in any other way is spurious. Therefore, if don’t like the next actor to play the Doctor and feel that you’ve suffered a personal slight or grievance as a result, may I refer you to the wise words of Marcus Aurelius. “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears”.
The great thing about Doctor Who is that it's Science fiction. The very nature of the genre affords it a far greater degree of artistic freedom. Effectively, if the show ever paints itself into a corner, they can via the means of some clever pseudo-science, easily produce a get out of jail card and be back on track in no time. Therefore, issues such as race and gender can easily be explained, explored and accommodated by the lore, if there is the political will to do so by the show’s producers. Let us not forget that the biggest issues here are not complex social and philosophical ones but the simple fact that people often struggle with change. Yet it was change that saved Doctor Who to begin with and gave us single episode story-lines, less running up and down corridors and a sexier Doctor himself. The show simply had to evolve to remain relevant.
So, while this matter is being hotly debated, I see no reason why Contains Moderate Peril shouldn't contribute to the speculation and offer some of our own well-conceived suggestions. All our recommended actors have the potential to bring something unique and special to the role. I wonder what odds William Hill are giving?
- Grace Jones. This would see a return to a more eccentric.
- Jason Isaacs. Cool, suave, sexy etc.
- Meera Syal. A fine actress and a funny lady. I’m certain she’d bring something of note to the role.
- Susan Calman. She has already put herself forward on twitter with the caveat that Tom Hardy is her companion.
- Michael Ironside. Because he would just be bat-shit crazy and make the Daleks soil themselves.
Crooked House (2008)
The BBC has a history of supernatural dramas broadcast over the festive season. During the seventies and eighties, they have frequently adapted classic ghost stories by such authors as M. R. James, Charles Dickens, and Hector Hugh Munro aka Saki. In late 2008 BBC Four broadcast Crooked House; a three-part ghost story shown on consecutive nights from 22nd to 24th December. It was written and co-produced by actor and writer Mark Gatiss, of The League of Gentlemen fame. The three inter-linked episodes form a portmanteau story, influenced by the works of M. R. James and Amicus compendium horror films of the seventies.
The BBC has a history of supernatural dramas broadcast over the festive season. During the seventies and eighties, they have frequently adapted classic ghost stories by such authors as M. R. James, Charles Dickens, and Hector Hugh Munro aka Saki. In late 2008 BBC Four broadcast Crooked House; a three-part ghost story shown on consecutive nights from 22nd to 24th December. It was written and co-produced by actor and writer Mark Gatiss, of The League of Gentlemen fame. The three inter-linked episodes form a portmanteau story, influenced by the works of M. R. James and Amicus compendium horror films of the seventies.
The plot centres on the ghostly history of Geap Manor, a recently demolished Tudor mansion. The stories are relayed by local Historian (Mark Gatiss) to local resident Ben (Lee Ingleby), who has discovered an old door knocker from the manor house. The first story, "The Wainscoting", set in the late 18th century, centres around Joseph Bloxham (Philip Jackson), who has boughtand started renovating the Manor. It would appear that he has greatly profited from an investment which ruined his fellow speculators. Strange noises are heard behind the newly installed wainscoting, along spectral blood stains. Is this due to the timber coming from the gallows known as “Tyburn Tree”?
The second vignette, "Something Old", takes place in the twenties, while Geap Manor hosts a decadent costume party. During the evening Felix de Momery announces his engagement to Ruth, much to the surprise and annoyance of his Grandmother (Jean Marsh) and his friends, Billy and Katherine. It is not long before a ghostly bride stalks young Ruth, forcing a long-kept family secret in to the open. In the final contemporary set tale, "The Knocker", Ben foolishly puts the knocker from demolished Geap Manor on his own door. Recently split from his partner, his modern suburban home proves no protection from sinister forces from the past and the spirit of Sir Roger Widdowson.
Writer and actor Mark Gatiss has produced not only a loving homage to the portmanteau genre but constructed a thoroughly creepy and unsettling drama. Crooked House displays a sound knowledge of history with a lot of detail and period slang which embellishing the proceedings. However, unlike other writers, he successfully balances narrative ambiguity with the need to shows enough of the supernatural to appeal to a broader audience. Performances, production design, soundtrack and visual effects are all of the calibre audiences expect from the BBC. Crooked House is a throwback to a genre that has become quite a rarity in recent years. I was strongly reminded of the TV series Hammer House of Horror. Crooked House successfully bridges the divide between old and new producing a drama that is pitched perfectly for a modern audience.
A Year in Multimedia
In the past, I’ve often written a summary of my experiences with gaming, movies and TV at the end of each year. Similarly, I usually reflect upon my activities in podcasting and blogging as well. However, 2016 has been unique in many respects. Political and social tides have changed in the West and there is much to reflect upon in the real world. Certainly, my appetite for creating content has taken a knock and I have at times stopped and wondered if it really is all worth the bother. But after such moments of introspection I still see the benefits of the written word or bellowing in to a microphone, so here we are once again. The only difference this time is rather than multiple posts, I can pretty much distil my thought on 2016 in one simple account.
In the past, I’ve often written a summary of my experiences with gaming, movies and TV at the end of each year. Similarly, I usually reflect upon my activities in podcasting and blogging as well. However, 2016 has been unique in many respects. Political and social tides have changed in the West and there is much to reflect upon in the real world. Certainly, my appetite for creating content has taken a knock and I have at times stopped and wondered if it really is all worth the bother. But after such moments of introspection I still see the benefits of the written word or bellowing in to a microphone, so here we are once again. The only difference this time is rather than multiple posts, I can pretty much distil my thought on 2016 in one simple account.
Gaming:
To things have had a major impact upon my gaming this year. A lack of time and too few new titles that aroused my interest. I started the year playing through Hearts of Stone, the first DLC for The Witcher III: Wild Hunt and continued with the second expansion, Blood and Wine when it was released in May. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this RPG last year and will continue to do so this time. The last DLC not only added yet another superbly crafted narrative but refined the game mechanics and system even further. I think it will be a long time before I find another game from this genre that offers anywhere near a comparable experience.
MMO wise I have continued to regularly log into Star Trek Online during 2016 as it has frequently had new content to explore. This year being the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek, the new expansion, Agents of Yesterday, offered an appropriate homage to the original series. The new lighting system has improved the overall aesthetic of the game and it’s clear that developers Cryptic have plenty more in store for the MMO. It’s recent port to consoles clearly indicates that the game is in a healthy state.
LOTRO has had a curious year. I took a six-month break from the game due to the repetitive and formulaic nature of the new content. Yet the Battle of Pelennor Fields brought me back, being surprisingly well realised given the restrictions of the ageing game engine. Update 19 released in October took the game one step closer to Mordor. As ever the epic central story continues to be written to a high standard and certainly compensates for other more pedestrian regional quests. Recent news that ex Turbine staff have formed a new independent company and taken over the development of the game does seem to have renewed interest in the MMO. I remain cautiously optimistic for LOTRO’s future.
It would be remiss of me if I didn’t mention Overwatch. I played the open beta out of idle curiosity and was greatly surprised by how accessible the game is. It has now become my game of choice whenever I want a quick fix of entertainment. I’m still amazed at how equitable this team based, first person shooter is and how anyone can find a role to play, regardless of the style or abilities. It continues to add content and new characters ensuring longevity. Something that Pokémon Go has failed to do. This was another title that I was drawn to out of nostalgia and curiosity but it quickly became apparent that it was unsustainable.
TV and Movies:
I only went to my local multiplex to see movies upon their release, six time this year, which is unusual for me. This is mainly due to there being precious little of interest for me these days. Cinemas seem choked with Blockbusters and Super Hero movies. A lot of the more niche market, independent films have limited releases and tend to be available on-demand very quickly. Those movies I did see were suitably entertaining. Deadpool provided audiences with exactly what they expected and proved that the R rating could still be economically viable. Star Trek Beyond finally saw the new stories set in the Kelvin Timeline hit their stride. It offered a good character driven story that finally tapped in to the soul of the original series. Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them also proved to be a crowd pleaser with excellent production values and a decent storyline. I have high hopes for this off shoot of the Wizarding World franchise. Rogue One certainly met with my approval and filled a suitable gap in the Star Wars lore. I almost got as much fun out of the fan driven debates about the story as the film itself.
TV once again proved to be the home of more cerebral and densely plotted drama. Stranger Things was a wonderful homage to eighties genre cinema and popular culture. Finally embracing both Amazon Prime and Netflix certainly afforded our household with more choice and provided a respite from the scourge of advertising which just seems to become increasingly preposterous and crass. The Man in the High Castle provided a suitable bookend to the start and end of the year and continues to be both intriguing and entertaining. It has also been beneficial to have access to all previous series of Star Trek and work my way through those shows I’m less familiar with.
Network TV on both sides of the Atlantic has been entertaining. There are still far too many shows to keep up with and I’m constantly amazed at how many shows bite the dust after one lacklustre season. Elementary still maintains a high standard of writing and the central characters of Holmes and Watson still have engaging story arcs. The final season of Person of Interest was both succinct and fitting, providing a bitter sweet, yet plausible ending for the show. Blindpsot somehow made it to a second season and completely reinvented itself to try and escape the narrative knot it had go itself in to. Back in the UK, Endeavour once again proved to be both superbly acted and well written. It’s sedate pace and introspective themes continue to be captivating.
As a grandparent, I also watch a great deal of children’s television, especially those aimed at the pre-school demographic. Therefore, I would like to praise CBeebies for their continued quality programming and point out that Hey Duggee is a sublime show. If you are thirtysomething, then you’ll love the pop culture references that litter every episode. Plus, in the last few days, I also been caught up in the hype surrounding Guillermo del Toro’s Trollhunters. Let it suffice to say that it is charming and entertaining. It’s curious how some creative talents can handle sentimentality without tipping in to emotional overkill.
Blogging and Podcasting:
I stopped writing daily in 2016. I simply ran out of steam after five years and then real world changes meant that such a schedule was off the table for the immediate future. However, I managed to contribute to this year’s NBI and Blaugust, so I guess content creation wasn’t a complete write off (no pun intended). The Burton & Scrooge Podcast became The Burton & Scrooge Uncut Podcast and followed a somewhat erratic release pattern. I enjoy recording with my co-host Brian but I’m thinking we need to either seriously rethink the show format for 2017 or take a break for a while. I’m determined to get my movie related show in to production next year and I also need to return to writing my book, which ground to a halt this summer.
It would appear that real life and all that it contains caught up with many of my blogging and podcasting colleagues this year. Thus, there was reduced output from certain quarters and some went so far as to take a break. It’s sad but totally understandable. Yet it was not all doom and gloom. Syp over at Bio Break continues to write and podcast with great enthusiasm. The year also saw the launch of the Geek to Geek Podcast with Void and Beej. Their dedication and focus has been a source of inspiration and the show itself is thoroughly entertaining. It also reacquainted me with the concept that you can agree to disagree, cordially. Pam over at Cannot be Tamed also produced lots of quality content via blog post, podcast and You Tube. Joseph (formerly known as the MMO troll) kept creating his own unique brand of content with the Pthppt! podcast. It always raises a wry smile and I’ll happily listen to topics that I usually wouldn’t consider exploring.
Valedictory Remarks:
For me the overwhelming impression that 2016 leaves is ones of change. This has been reflected in politics, world events, within the entertainment industry per se and even my personal life. Yet change is an inherent part of life and cannot be avoided. Therefore, I intend to start 2017 with a positive outlook and rather than focus on what I can’t do, explore what can be achieved with the time and resources that I have. I’m also sure there will still be good content available in all mediums. It may simply be a case of having to broaden one’s search. I recently discovered to my surprise that there’s a fourth instalment of Sniper Elite arriving in spring and I’m still greatly looking forward to Star Trek Discovery. I shall also continue to blog and podcast in my own peculiar way. Perhaps I may even encourage others to do so. After all, you’ve got to have a project.
Westworld (2016)
Considering the pace of technological change since the early seventies, Michael Crichton’s Westworld was ripe for a reboot. Where the original movie simply pondered the notion of robots designed by computers becoming psychotic, HBO’s recent ten-part series has opted for a broader exploration of the subject matter. Show creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy reflect upon the nature of sentience, the moral ambiguity of an amusement park such as Westworld and whether fictitious emotions created through programming are any less real than those genuinely experienced. Over ten and a half hours Westworld certainly covers a lot of ground. Its $100 million production cost is also very apparent.
Considering the pace of technological change since the early seventies, Michael Crichton’s Westworld was ripe for a reboot. Where the original movie simply pondered the notion of robots designed by computers becoming psychotic, HBO’s recent ten-part series has opted for a broader exploration of the subject matter. Show creators Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy reflect upon the nature of sentience, the moral ambiguity of an amusement park such as Westworld and whether fictitious emotions created through programming are any less real than those genuinely experienced. Over ten and a half hours Westworld certainly covers a lot of ground. Its $100 million production cost is also very apparent.
When it was announced in early 2014 that Westworld was to be rebooted by HBO, many media commentators agreed that this was a good match. HBO being free from the content restrictions of network television and enjoying larger production budgets. Due to the scope of the show HBO shared financing with Warner Bros. Television who currently hold the copyright to the franchise. As further details emerged over the following months regarding casting and other production details, Westworld became one of the most eagerly awaited shows of 2016. It was broadly expected by many critics, that a show with such a pedigree was bound to be a hit.
HBO have had a lot of experience with large productions of this nature. Band of Brothers and The Pacific are good examples, both of which maintained a high standard of writing and narrative vision. However, there is also the more recent success of Game of Thrones to consider. This sprawling epic has found an audience not only because of its densely plotted narrative but due to the liberal quantities of violence, nudity and abhorrent behaviour featured in each season. It cannot be denied that the more salacious elements of George R. R. Martin’s fiction are a contributory element to the shows appeal and popularity. Furthermore, these elements may now be considered an integral part of HBOs formula for success because they are also present in Westworld. Whether they are beneficial or not is a hotly debated question.
Westworld is a story that unfolds from the point of view of the hosts, the artificial lifeforms that populate an amusement park owned by the fictitious company Delos. Because the hosts memories and experiences are constantly manipulated, erased or altered by their creators, the narrative is complex and often deliberately confusing. As a concept and a way of telling a story this is a great idea. However, there is a very fine line to tread between intriguing complexity and excessive, even self-indulgent intricacy. There is also a very old maxim regarding telling a story via a visual medium that it’s better to show rather than tell. Westworld seems to struggle to commit to either of these two courses of action over its story arc.
The shows substantial budget can be seen in every facet of the production. The visual effects are very good and the cinematography is well conceived. Costumes, props and locations all contribute to making the Westworld a credible amusement park. The cast is universally good with Evan Rachel Wood, Thandie Newton and Jeffrey Wright especially standing out. Ed Harris is also a very compelling on screen presence. Frequently sub-plots involving these actors are the high point of each episode. The writers should also be commended for some of the philosophical ideas the narrative explores. Television seldom becomes so contemplative. Yet despite so many positive aspects Westworld often slows down as it attempts to tie itself up in unnecessary dramatic Gordian knots. Furthermore, at times it exudes an air of smug satisfaction at its own “cleverness”. A prime example being the weekly use of contemporary songs being played on the Pianola.
A good screenplay can draw on a broad range of dramatic devices if it is well written and the said devices are intelligently used. Thus, physical, psychological and sexual violence can be utilised successfully beyond mere titillation. Because Westworld is a story about an amusement park that allows customers to indulge in such activities, it is natural to assume that they will be depicted. However, I feel that the spectre of Game of Thrones has impacted upon the production. Therefore, on several occasions I felt that the writers were including a degree of profane language or acts of violence because they felt obliged to. Sadly, it did not always work and stood out quite noticeably and the net result was somewhat immersion breaking.
The season finale of Westworld did manage to draw many of the plot element together and upon mature reflection, some of the more esoteric aspects of the previous episodes did now have a clear purpose. Although one should not directly compare HBOs show with the 1973 feature film, as they are very different beasts, there is broadly a comparable story arc. Effectively after ten hours plus of convoluted and at times frustrating drama, Westworld arrived at a point in the narrative that the feature film reached in about forty minutes. The journey has been far from dull but not exactly the rollercoaster ride the producers intended. For every good point of the production there is a negative one. Thought provoking themes give way to arbitrary plot twists and intriguing ideas get lost in a mire of pretentious intellectual posturing. I therefore hope that season two of Westworld manages to keep the cerebral elements of the story but jettisons the pompous tone and the deliberately pedestrian pacing.