London Fields # 49
First published Inpress, Melbourne on 27 February 2008
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
In the UK it’s not your 8 cents a day, but rather your £135 a year to fund Auntie. The compulsory TV Licence funds 75% of the BBC’s costs, from TV & radio to the news-gathers & websites. There’s huge pressure to show that this revenue is being used wisely; and the biggest visible shake up recently has been to digital station BBC Three. It’s aimed at the 18-35 market, is the UK home of Man Stoke Woman and The Mighty Boosh, and has just gone through a major revamp. With the BBC cutting back on its news services, questions are being asked about how the licence fee is being spent. Some may say the station is fighting for its very existence.
Spearheading the re-launch was Lily Allen and Friends, a chat show that was sadly awkward and uncomfortable to watch, and not because of the host. Elsewhere, the ‘light’ documentaries, which may cover serious issues, but tread a fine line with reality TV, continue as a mainstay. These have included the series Freaky Eaters, Sex With Mum and Dad and Can Fat Teens Hunt, and one-offs like My Big Breasts And Me, My Small Breasts And I, Me And My Man Breasts, Dawn Goes Naked, Dawn Goes Lesbian… Yeah, I know these sound made-up – sadly they’re all real.
Amongst all this mire, Being Human - the tale of a ghost, a werewolf and a vampire sharing a house in Bristol - shone. Although it had its light moments, it was no comedy. While it is post-Buffy, but in some ways it feels more like it could be a successor to the fabulous Ultraviolet, the 1998 series in which the Vatican were out to stop vampires (referred to as Code Fives or leeches) from creating a nuclear winter to claim the earth. The vampires of Being Human also feel that they’ve been living in the shadows for too long and, under the leadership of Adrian Lester, things are going to change. At a gathering he chillingly uses a little Blake to question whether evolution gives man any superiority: "Did he who made the Lamb make thee?" I couldn’t wait for the next episode; sadly at the moment they’re isn’t one. Hopefully the powers that be at the Beeb will see sense and commission this as a series. It was written by Toby Whithouse, who has also written for Doctor Who (the one with Giles, K-9 and Sarah Jane at the school), and for Torchwood.
Yes, Torchwood is also back, but it’s been rebooted so savagely you can almost see the tread-mark on the face. While the first series was almost Doctor Who without the Doctor but with added sex and swearing, the new series is about relationships. It’s like when James Bond briefly became a one-woman guy in the aftermath of AIDS. There’s romance, but very little sleeping around – it’s more about the yearning. The series began with the addition of James Marsters (Spike from Buffy The Vampire Slayer) playing, well, Spike from Buffy, except in name. It really doesn’t quite know if it’s Arthur or Martha. Speaking of which, Martha Jones has jumped from the TARDIS to appear in it too. There is an underlying story that a major invasion is underway, but as a story arc it’s suspiciously absent. So far it still fails to involve me; it’s lacking the emotion range of the revamped Who. But I’m still watching.
Over on ITV, Primeval returned, and it too has gone through a major reboot, this time by taking the central conceit of Ray Bradbury’s time-travel classic A Sound Of Thunder. For stepping into the past has changed the present, and only Cutter knows things are not the same. This has allowed the makers to tweak with the story elements, while keeping the core. But the problem with high concepts is that they can wear out rather quickly. The second season of Life On Mars showed strain, but sequel Ashes To Ashes has broken the towrope. This time it’s Keeley Hawes as DI Drake - sent back to London 1981 with a bullet (literally). It’s lacking the charm of its predecessor, kills any ambiguity of the conclusion of Mars in the first few minutes, and just feels forced. Sure it’s fun to visit the Blitz club, but would Steve Strange (playing himself) have worn ear monitors fronting Visage in 1981? But there’s a way out - it’s not the real 80’s, but Drake’s idea of it. But who do we blame for the squandering of the wonderful character of Gene Hunt? Or the soundtrack that feels trowelled on? And, worse of all, for it being dull??
Thanks then for Channel 4’s 18-35 channel, E4, and the second season of Skins. The first series went from the humorous to the very dark, but managed to maintain reality. Its high concept was the weekly baton changing of the focus of the unfolding narrative. The second season is darker, and so far has been telling character’s stories in doubles. If the arc of the first season was the fall of Tony, maybe the key to this one is his rehabilitation? Bill Bailey (complete with his dancing dog) appears as Maxxie’s father (continuing the theme of parents played by comics, mostly in non-comedic roles), while the school is presenting Osama The Musical. Once again, it’s a joy to behold intelligent programmes that don’t talk down to their audience. Why can’t all drama be like this?
© James McGalliard 2008
Showing posts with label E4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label E4. Show all posts
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
We're Just Talking To The Kids
London Fields # 36
First published Inpress, Melbourne on 21 February 2007
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
You can’t open a newspaper or turn on the TV in the UK at the moment without some new revelation about the state of youth in Britain today. So is there really something worrying about the environment that society has created for those growing up in urban areas?
Well, there are two big stories over the past fortnight that have given this discussion renewed vigour; firstly a series of inner city shootings, and secondly a report from UNICEF which placed the well-being of children in the UK at the bottom of a list of 21 industrialised nations.
The outward signs are that the UK is a gun-free nation. Bobbies still patrol the streets unarmed [if you don’t include nightsticks, pepper spray or bullet-proof vests] and unlike Australia, you’d never see a store security guard with a gun. In fact it’s a bit of a shock when you do see armed coppers, even if the sight has become more common in the post-9/11 society. Sadly though, this is becoming a dangerous anachronism. In South London, three teenagers have died from gunshot injuries over the past few weeks. The official response was a call to lower the minimum age for mandatory sentencing of five years if found guilty of being in possession of a firearm, but nothing much is said about the reasons for the behaviour.
None of this will change while guns are seen as a fashion statement. One summer’s afternoon while walking in Hackney, a kid of about fifteen caught my eye and then winked as he lifted his t-shirt to reveal a gun stuffed into the waistband of his jeans. And this was just a few days after an execution shooting in roughly the same spot. If they’re trying to frighten, they’ve succeeded.
The UNICEF report, Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries, used forty indicators from 2000-2003 to determine "…whether children feel loved, cherished, special and supported, within the family and community, and whether the family and community are being supported in this task by public policy and resources". Sadly, its findings were used as a political mallet, rather than as a tool for much-needed change.
There was also a bit of an outcry about the content of new E4 television series Skins, which follows a group of fifteen and sixteen year old friends from Bristol, who quite possibly attend the school from Teachers. The furore was that teenagers were shown to drink, take drugs, have sex and generally try to enjoy being alive. The wowsers couldn’t see past this to find a fairly accurate picture of mainly likeable characters facing issues about discovering who they are and how they fit.
It’s an extremely well considered and intelligent piece of television, at a time when the dearth of new ideas in British dramas (see Robin Hood, Hotel Babylon, New Street Law, Party Animals, etc.) is more evident than any exciting developments. The audacious part of the series is that each episode is seen from the viewpoint of a different character. But instead of the hackneyed device of telling the same story over again from a different perspective, Skins has an ongoing narrative that is like a relay race, where each week one of them takes the story and runs with it for a few days. Clever too is the viral element behind the show. There is a MySpace page for each of the characters, and these are all ‘in character’. And you do get to care about them too; the unfolding story of Cassie is heartbreaking.
Maybe a lot of fuss can be written off as stereotyping or political football. But the other side is that you’re not reading stories about shenanigans on the streets of Somerset towns; no it’s Manchester and London. Because it’s true that there’s not much to do in the inner city; areas are heavily built up; it’s grey and brick with few parklands or leisure facilities. I suppose you can watch telly, or play computer games or even kick a ball round on the street if you can avoid the traffic. Even going to see a film will put you back about $25 so you may as well hang around with your mates and kill the time looking for something to do.
There are pressures to grown-up quickly too. The National Curriculum Assessments (SATs) has children and schools being graded and compared nationally at the ages of seven, eleven and fourteen. Maybe part of the problem is that there is no time left to be kids?
Day-after-day I hear of people leaving London as "it’s no place to raise a family"; but isn’t a society a reflection of its members? Things aren’t as bad as they are painted, but saying ‘things are OK but could be better’ is not going to win anyone’s vote. I don’t have the answers to any of the questions I’ve raised. But simply abandoning the ship will leave it to sink with many still onboard…
© James McGalliard 2007
First published Inpress, Melbourne on 21 February 2007
NB: Each column has a name, but these do not appear in print; printed versions may differ slightly to those displayed here
You can’t open a newspaper or turn on the TV in the UK at the moment without some new revelation about the state of youth in Britain today. So is there really something worrying about the environment that society has created for those growing up in urban areas?
Well, there are two big stories over the past fortnight that have given this discussion renewed vigour; firstly a series of inner city shootings, and secondly a report from UNICEF which placed the well-being of children in the UK at the bottom of a list of 21 industrialised nations.
The outward signs are that the UK is a gun-free nation. Bobbies still patrol the streets unarmed [if you don’t include nightsticks, pepper spray or bullet-proof vests] and unlike Australia, you’d never see a store security guard with a gun. In fact it’s a bit of a shock when you do see armed coppers, even if the sight has become more common in the post-9/11 society. Sadly though, this is becoming a dangerous anachronism. In South London, three teenagers have died from gunshot injuries over the past few weeks. The official response was a call to lower the minimum age for mandatory sentencing of five years if found guilty of being in possession of a firearm, but nothing much is said about the reasons for the behaviour.
None of this will change while guns are seen as a fashion statement. One summer’s afternoon while walking in Hackney, a kid of about fifteen caught my eye and then winked as he lifted his t-shirt to reveal a gun stuffed into the waistband of his jeans. And this was just a few days after an execution shooting in roughly the same spot. If they’re trying to frighten, they’ve succeeded.
The UNICEF report, Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries, used forty indicators from 2000-2003 to determine "…whether children feel loved, cherished, special and supported, within the family and community, and whether the family and community are being supported in this task by public policy and resources". Sadly, its findings were used as a political mallet, rather than as a tool for much-needed change.
There was also a bit of an outcry about the content of new E4 television series Skins, which follows a group of fifteen and sixteen year old friends from Bristol, who quite possibly attend the school from Teachers. The furore was that teenagers were shown to drink, take drugs, have sex and generally try to enjoy being alive. The wowsers couldn’t see past this to find a fairly accurate picture of mainly likeable characters facing issues about discovering who they are and how they fit.
It’s an extremely well considered and intelligent piece of television, at a time when the dearth of new ideas in British dramas (see Robin Hood, Hotel Babylon, New Street Law, Party Animals, etc.) is more evident than any exciting developments. The audacious part of the series is that each episode is seen from the viewpoint of a different character. But instead of the hackneyed device of telling the same story over again from a different perspective, Skins has an ongoing narrative that is like a relay race, where each week one of them takes the story and runs with it for a few days. Clever too is the viral element behind the show. There is a MySpace page for each of the characters, and these are all ‘in character’. And you do get to care about them too; the unfolding story of Cassie is heartbreaking.
Maybe a lot of fuss can be written off as stereotyping or political football. But the other side is that you’re not reading stories about shenanigans on the streets of Somerset towns; no it’s Manchester and London. Because it’s true that there’s not much to do in the inner city; areas are heavily built up; it’s grey and brick with few parklands or leisure facilities. I suppose you can watch telly, or play computer games or even kick a ball round on the street if you can avoid the traffic. Even going to see a film will put you back about $25 so you may as well hang around with your mates and kill the time looking for something to do.
There are pressures to grown-up quickly too. The National Curriculum Assessments (SATs) has children and schools being graded and compared nationally at the ages of seven, eleven and fourteen. Maybe part of the problem is that there is no time left to be kids?
Day-after-day I hear of people leaving London as "it’s no place to raise a family"; but isn’t a society a reflection of its members? Things aren’t as bad as they are painted, but saying ‘things are OK but could be better’ is not going to win anyone’s vote. I don’t have the answers to any of the questions I’ve raised. But simply abandoning the ship will leave it to sink with many still onboard…
© James McGalliard 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
