Whites

It's difficult to know what to make of the BBC's new comedy 'Whites'. On one level it's a very formulaic comedy show that's utterly predictable, but it somehow just about captures your interest until the inevitable conclusion.

This is partly down to the show's underlying potential. If it were less about the clunky plots and more about the characters the show would doubtless be far stronger. Davies' character Roland White, is played subtly and has intriguing mood swings and energy changes across each episode, whilst nervous sous-chef Bib, played by Darren Boyd, is similarly watchable.

There are hints that if this show had been made less for a mainstream evening slot, it could have been darker, edgier and a cult classic.

It is co-written by Matt King, otherwise known as Peep Show's Superhans, who appears in the kitchens as dodgy meat-supplier Melvin. King has the best lines in the show ('I hit a horse on the A4. Big, beautiful bastard he was, too.') and if the plots were more dialogue-driven than the use of slapstick body-language acting, it would be quality television.

It's worth sticking with Whites to see if this early potential is developed on and realised, or whether it remains slightly too simplistic to be memorable.

'Tom English: 'The level of punditry is patronising and insulting''

Excellent article by Tom English that identifies more clearly the deficiencies in our punditry:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/sport/Tom-English-39The-level-of.6364084.jp

It raises the question of why we let ex-professionals rule our football coverage instead of having those both knowledgeable in foreign football and those prepared to do the research.

World Cup opening week review

Maybe my memory deceives me, but I don't remember a World Cup having started so slowly as the 2010 edition has. The pace with which I have rushed for a television when the games get underway has slowed noticeably with each passing day, draw, misplaced pass and over-hit cross.

It has been a tournament that has already filled its quota of dull games before even a week has passed, largely down to the conservative tactics of almost all the teams involved. Whenever a side has gone 1-0 down in their opening encounter there has, on-the-whole, been no concerted effort to attempt to draw level again, instead resigning themselves to defeat.

These tactics may be understandable when an unfancied team is losing to one of the favourites, but when sides such as Cameroon are losing to Japan, a team that they must be looking to beat to progress to the second round, it makes very little sense.

Talk of the nature of the new Adidas ball has cropped up at the World Cup once more, and whilst it is tempting to dismiss it as easily as it was once the 2006 tournament was underway, the new ball does appear to be bouncing too high, skidding too fast off the surface, and too unpredictable to strike from range.

In terms of the media coverage, it has been average at best so far. This is the first World Cup that I have made the effort to stray from the mainstream broadcast coverage to follow more respected print and online pundits, and it has made the gap between the best and the worst ever more apparent.

ITV's studio coverage has been improved immeasurably by the addition of Adrian Chiles, but still suffers from sub-standard commentary pairings. Clive Tyldesley and Andy Townsend were at their worst during the England-USA clash; praising Heskey regardless of when he played a poor pass or missed a chance, and claiming that England were asserting themselves as the Americans were playing the technically better football in the first half.

Most infuriatingly Townsend, whilst reminding the viewers that we hate to see players appealing to the referee for cards for opponents, said Wayne Rooney (of all players) had the right to complain to the referee over the treatment he felt he was receiving.

Peter Drury, a man given to hyperbole to hijack events, made the strangest comment of the opening week following Germany's opening goal against Australia: 'The German gene kicks in again!' he wailed, determined to stick rigidly to his cliched opinion of what German football should be about, despite the team providing the most skill and flair of any of the sides we have seen thus far. Sadly the co-commentator interjected at this moment, leaving us with a tantalising view of Drury's questionable racial politics that was sadly not expanded on.

ITV is not guilty alone of quality punditry paucity however. Mick McCarthy commentating on the Argentina-Nigeria clash for the BBC stubbornly maintained in increasingly uncertain tones that a challenge by a Nigerian defender was not a penalty even as replays were being shown clearly demonstrating that the Argentinian forward had been fouled.

The strange, rotating BBC studio is now filled with ex-pros to provide analysis, and aside from Alan Hansen, there is little worth listening to. Alan Shearer adds absolutely nothing of substance in his monotone drawl, and the old boys club that develops when Gary Lineker makes endless reference to his playing days is both not fulfilling his role as the anchor, and plain irritating.

Radio 5 Live have offered perhaps the best live commentary options, but this choice has to be balanced against the likes of Alan Green offering unwelcome and uneducated opinion (criticising Ivorian Gervinho's haircut), and David Pleat's inability to pronounce other people's names.

The directors in South Africa have become slightly obsessive in showing us endless slow-motion replays after the most innocuous of incidents; diving is aggravating enough when viewed live, let alone showing it frame-by-frame. Whether the showing of these replays is to promote high definition viewing, the effect on matches is to leave the viewer gasping for breath as live action is followed by replays of the same action immediately after.

So all in all it has been a frustrating opening week ruined by conservatism and petrol station quality footballs. As the second round of games begins tonight at last, we can only hope it will get better. And fast.

World Cup Daily arrives

The first edition of the Guardian's Football Weekly team's World Cup podcast has just been released. Usual informed analysis and a good preview of what to expect from the upcoming weeks:

World Cup Daily 

When a podcast opens with lines such as: 'What kind of message would it send to the world if England won the World Cup? What kind of template is that for being the best in the world? To have a bloated, over-inflated league, have a rubbish coaching structure, don't look after your youngsters and get a foreign manager in and you too can win the World Cup', it's clear that those involved don't pull their punches.

In complete contrast I made the foolish mistake of relaxing my guard enough to try watching BBC Three's 'World Cup's most shocking moments', still available for your own misery on Iplayer. Talking head shows are generally abysmal, and despite some interesting clip choices, getting in Mathew Horne from Gavin and Stacey to comment on incidents he clearly had not seen before making the show, as if recalling fond memories, was aggravating.

Any programme that can make Peter Crouch's wooden acting one of the least problematic issues of the production deserves a kicking, and getting third party 'celebrities' to repeat cliches about German efficiency is an impressive waste of money.

The programme is mildly symptomatic of a greater malaise in the general punditry knowledge base across our media as a whole. There are great analysts out there, but they are not in the mainstream. It cannot be right that we can send people like Ian Wright and Andy Townsend to such major competitions in place of pundits such as Sid Lowe and Gabriele Marcotti.

Election night BBC TV review

Election night is usually enjoyable television; as the night rolls on and the presenters become more tired, tetchy and unpredictable, it generally has the potential to create moments of unintentionally entertaining action.

The BBC coverage has been criticised in the days following the event, in some cases rightly, but some without justification.

Those who watched would largely agree that the idea of having a party boat on the Thames was very much misguided. Not only did the BBC manage to assemble a group of 'celebrities' and commentators who were very easy to detest (not to mention Andrew Neil) that by 2am most were hoping for a stray torpedo to latch onto the craft, but it added absolutely nothing of substance to the analysis.

Why would we want to hear from Joan Collins about David Cameron making the ideal next 'President' for our country, or a candidate for the most cringe-worthy moment of television for 2010 when Bruce Forsyth, drunk on a cocktail of his own ego and senility, quietened the guests behind him and attempted to engage them in his catch-phrase.

Back in a studio that featured the world's most unnecessarily large desk, David Dimbleby increasingly looked like an elderly man shrinking into the electronic scenery. In fairness however, he did a surprisingly good job in holding the presentation together for what seemed like an eternity, disappearing at 9am for what was presumably a short nap somewhere under that desk.

It boggles the mind that the BBC can somehow still manage to have communication systems with exceptional amounts of lag, so that when Dimbleby addressed presenters outside the realms of the main studio there was often a three or four second delay between question and answer.

This isn't helped when you have Dimbleby and the trigger-happy Jeremy Paxman, who frequently interrupted the silent delays to add additional questions, further complicating the resulting exchanges. Paxman finally exploded out of his patience zone when Lembit Opik lost his seat unexpectedly, leading to the first heated trading of words of the night.

Meanwhile Jeremy Vine's graphics were rendered largely redundant. The whole purpose of utilising graphics should surely be to simplify the results coming in and make the whole process more coherent. Instead, Vine had to explain every aspect of the confusing swirling mess unfolding behind him. It was as if Vine was stuck in some strange parallel universe comprised of terrifying white voids interspersed with flying coloured panels, and a House of Commons filled with computerised twitching MPs.

Back in the studio, Emily Maitlis and Peter Kellner perhaps did the best job of assessing the voting share and swing in each seat, providing some much needed brevity and clarity.

Whilst ITV were apparently quicker in both showing results and the swing in each seat, what I saw of Channel 4's alternative election night was disappointing. It felt as though the tone of the show was misjudged, not offering the expected Mitchell and Brooker led-satire as much as cheap jokes and average comedy shows. Mitchell in particular looked uncomfortable in the environment, short stand-up material broken up by a woman in the audience with a machine-gun laugh.

It would have been more productive to have had a full Channel 4 news produced show, with occasional breaks for Brooker to offer his more visceral take on the developing events.

Election overload

Whilst the media constantly asks the question of how we can engage an apathetic electorate in the run up to an election, it would be nice if they could occasionally take a look at themselves as being where the blame may lie.

On Tuesday, the day that Gordon Brown announced the date of the election that we had already known for a year, the BBC saw fit to fill the entire one o'clock news bulletin with an election preview, despite there being absolutely nothing of interest happening.

This is on day one of an exhaustive month that lies ahead. There is such as thing as election overload, and even as someone who has an avid political interest, I found it tiresome after 10 minutes.

Messi-watch
This is the week that England may finally have fully awoken to Lionel Messi's true brilliance. Although this blog can not be accused of having been guilty of such ignorance, I find it frustrating and shameful that it has taken many of our pundits this long to appreciate his ability, as did Sid Lowe. In this age where it is so easy to access foreign football coverage with such ease, it seems strange that we have waited this long to crown him as the world's best.

After all, he ran rings around Chelsea in the same competition back in 2006. It's yet another example of Britain's short-sightedness when it comes to acknowledging foreign football. This was further in evidence last night following Manchester United's exit from the Champions League. Both Mike Ingham and Alan Green trotted out the usual lines about United having fallen to an inferior team.

However you judge their relative strengths, the facts are that Bayern won and United are out. Whether Bayern are inferior has nothing to do with it. It was another case of English pundits bristling with irritation that the Premier League had failed to produce a European Cup semi-finalist.

Richard Littlejohn

It's easy to criticise, and Richard Littlejohn gave a perfect example of this on Question Time, exhibiting the expected behaviour of the obligatory right-wing columnist (see Starkey, Mackenzie, Hitchens) on the show.

While the party representatives attempted to dissect and argue the issues, every time Littlejohn assumed that the audience were getting lost in debate going over their heads, he leapt in and targeted a populist response with the familiar 'they're all the same' and 'what the British people want' rhetoric.

At one point in the aftermath of his attack on the Liberal Democrats, Littlejohn rested his hand on Sarah Teather's in a slightly sickening manner, bringing to mind the image of a lecherous news editor drooling over his new intern. Teather, to her credit, waited the moment out, although did subsequently struggle to formulate her subsequent argument, as any human would given the same position.

The most absurd moment was when Littlejohn had to bully a questioner into silence when the plausible suggestion that he was the BNP's favourite columnist was raised.

The Guardian writer Victoria Coren was also a weak link on the show however, offering meaningless throw-away points and pathetic jokes on serious issues. This does raise the question of why we need anyone other than politicians on Question Time. Why can we not have representatives from the Greens and UKIP and debate real policy instead?

The issue is that in this country we have a big problem with failing to hold our media accountable. David Dimbleby bumbles through in the manner of a Boris Johnson without the pseudo-charm, interrupting and cutting off the politicians, but consistently fails to cross-question the newspaper journalists on the points they make. When, at the end he turned on Littlejohn over the Daily Mail's reporting of Joanna Lumley, Dimbleby for a moment realised he had the columnist on the ropes, and immediately retreated.

In Treatment

In Treatment has become an instant television favourite of mine in the two weeks I have been watching it.

It's one of a few select programmes that is both so emotionally involving and moving that you feel somehow a more rounded human being for having watched it.

And because it feels such a personal discovery given that it is relatively unknown, part of you wants to keep it that way, and not let the masses hear about it or see it.

However the acting and writing is too perfectly judged, meaning that you are seriously denying yourself if you never allow yourself to become engrossed in the programme.

Gabriel Byrne plays a therapist with a life that appears to be being dramatically shaped by a select few of his patients, whose weekly visits map the course of the series.

That's all the background I feel necessary to give to you, you can discover the rest for yourself.

The first season is currently showing on Sky Arts at the moment, with a UK DVD boxset due to arrive early next year. If you can get hold of an import copy in advance however, I'd recommend you do so. It really is worth investigating.

Deadliest Catch

Deadliest Catch is oddly compelling television, given the subject is crab fishing. This is primarily because the setting is, as the programme reminds us every episode 'the vast Bering Sea', known for its cold stormy waters. And the work itself is tiring even to watch, physically demanding, and very dangerous.

There is no doubt there is a substantial amount of post-editing that goes on, as with most modern shows. You will for instance hear the same audio every other episode dubbed over new shots, but the tactical decisions, mechanical issues and daring sea rescues make up for that.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't The Sopranos of the sea, but it is cleverly made television that, for a reality show at least, remains fairly minimalist.

Irritating adverts

Yet more of those twatting adverts featuring arrogant little shites 'getting a band together' via facebook and other self-adulation sites are sprouting up all over the place.

What worries me most are the people you see in the background of these adverts, who are, I am hoping, extras brought in en-masse for the purpose of shooting the ad.

Terrifyingly though, many look as if they are general passers by who have been taken in so easily and readily by the shiny promise of minor X-factor style fame. This doesn't bode well for our political future, as if a bunch of fascists in a van turned up at this location, these people would be the first ones dancing over; jumping, smiling and waving their arms around like cretins.

For a balanced argument, here is how to do an advert properly; clever design, great Sigur Ros-esque music, and a simple premise:




Masterchefery

The judge from Masterchef (one of two, I'm not looking his name up) currently doing stilted Iplayer trailers, has a strangely distracting head shape. When viewed from the front, it raises unexpectedly in steps, like sections of pavement that you scuff your feet noisily and embarrassingly along the surface of, having turned out to be higher than you had initially judged them.

In terms of weird skull geometry he remains behind the never-ending forehead that is Evan Davies, but solidly ahead of the famed rotundity of Karl Pilkington's.

The Thick of It - Series Two continued

It seems that I have given the Thick of It a fair amount of time now to come back and impress me after my last less than enthusiastic review of the opening episodes of series 2.

I was preparing to write up an even more savage review this time around, but Saturday's episode brought me slightly back into a more favourable standpoint with the programme.

The show has fundamentally changed, and it is perhaps no longer wise to compare it to the first series and subsequent specials. It is now a comedy loosely hanging on to threads of being a plausible government satire, whereas the earlier episodes had the feel of a documentary set inside the corridors of power that happened to be unwittingly hilarious.

The most obvious example of this are the two central characters, the minister Nicola Murray, and Malcolm Tucker. Murray panics in an hysterical and not particularly amusing way whenever the inevitable disastrous event of the episode occurs, completely the opposite of the awkward shuffle and smile of her predecessor Hugh Abbott.

Meanwhile, Tucker's reputation precedes him. His character is now laughably one-dimensional, a swearing super computer fired into the plot at random moments when the pace is flagging. It wouldn't feel inappropriate to have a laughter track after Tucker's rants, as it feels as if this is the way the show is headed increasingly frequently.

However despite this, the show does still make for compelling watching. So whilst I am sad that the potential of the premise of the original concept, a serious political satire that was built around dark humour is now lost to us, the more mainstreamed comedy we are left with is still of high quality.

The last episode set within the confines of BBC Radio 5 Live was scripted perfectly, largely because it hinted at the older format, Malcolm's impact was minimised, the radio show was exactly as the real thing plays out (Richard Bacon's 'acting' was impeccable), and all of the events felt as if they could realistically happen in the real world and weren't overly exaggerated.

I'll therefore try to watch the rest of the series with a less critical eye.

The Thick of It - Series Two

I'm trying to decide whether this series of The Thick of It is living up to my admittedly high expectations yet.

In my opinion it is, alongside Generation Kill, one of the best shows we currently have on television at the moment. The first episode of the new series (BBC 2, Saturdays) left me slightly underwhelmed, as did the opening to the second, yet I couldn't quite put my finger on why this was the case.

This feeling partly stems from having watched the spin-off film 'In The Loop', which I didn't like nearly as much as I had expected to. The script felt too linear, the chaos too overplayed, and the characters, such as the geeky US government aide, seemed slightly too wacky to be plausible. Simply put, I didn't feel the show worked as well in film format.

Part of the key to the first series was the understated nature of the characters, and the contrast in pace between moments of utter listlessness and crazed frenzy.

The danger of the film, and the manner in which the second series started, is that The Thick of It could go too far down the path of slapstick humour. Moments such as Glenn smoothing his hair nervously before rushing in to meet the new female minister sat strangely out of place with how the first series played out.

The hapless Hugh Abbott will certainly be missed, as there was something still always completely human about him, despite the ridiculous nature of the situations he found himself in. The relationship between Abbott and Glenn was also fascinating to watch develop, and this will sadly be absent from the new series.

It also occasionally feels as if the reputation of Malcolm Tucker precedes him, and that each tirade must be more filled with swearing than the last for it to make it into the script. Tucker's best episodes were actually the two hour-long specials where we saw signs that he was cracking under the strain for the first time, and his subsequent attempts to wrestle back control of the situation.

However it must be said that towards the conclusion of the second episode I felt myself warming to the show again. Moments such as Malcolm reminding a Guardian writer of his 'wandering hands', and the mini-fit thrown in the car after hearing of the minister's latest error still make for great entertainment. A reappearance of curmudgeonly Tory MP Peter Mannion and PM Special Advisor Julius Nicholson will go a long way to winning me back completely.

Question Time

Following on from the topic of an old post I've decided to keep a 'Stupid Voter Alert' watch running within this blog from now until the election. If possible I'll get clips of the cretins and post them up here for your (my) own enjoyment.

The faux political opinions that I spilt my bile on before also apply when watching what should otherwise be a fantastic programme, Question Time (BBC1, Thursdays). What would, I'm sure, in years past have been a unique opportunity for citizens to hold accountable ministers and public servants has, in recent years become an embarrassing pantomime event. What typically happens goes as follows:

Member of public: You're a lying bastard. Where's the child porn?

MP: I'm sorry, but I find your question impossible to answer in the way in which you phrased-

Generic Dimbleby 3: Answer the question you kiddy fiddler!

Members of audience: howl for blood, boo MP when he speaks, cheer other members of the audience's offerings.

Unbearable.

Nick Griffin is on this Thursday's episode, which has divided opposition about the rights to free speech. Generally I am of the opinion that you have the right to speak your mind with the exception of saying anything that may be considered seriously offensive to others.

I am completely morally opposed to and repulsed by the views of the BNP, but there is a valid argument that says you should allow them to air their views in the manner of any other political party, so at least they cannot play the often recycled 'we are being repressed by the Government' line that ultimately works in their favour.

The Death of Yugoslavia

The Death of Yugoslavia is a fascinating BBC documentary from the mid-1990s that is unique in featuring the key players from all sides of the Balkan conflict reflecting on what caused the outbreak of war. This means that we hear from the late Slobodan Milošević in his most defiant and arrogant manner, as well as those later accused of war crimes such as military leader Ratko Mladić.

The combination of rare footage and talking heads adds to the tension and harrowing atmosphere of the programme. It is difficult viewing, but also documentary making at its very best, providing the evidence of the vicious outcomes that foolish indignant nationalism can lead to.

You can watch the first episode of the series here:

How objective is our television news?

I've just watched a piece by political editor Nick Robinson on the 6 o'clock BBC evening news about Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour Conference, and one of Robinson's concluding sentences stuck out:

'Do you want five more years of him as PM?'

Does that strike you as particularly impartial? Surely a simple: 'Now the public must decide whether Brown will stay at the helm' would suffice.

The Robinson example is in fact extremely common when you make an effort to listen carefully to the phrasing of sentences or intonation in voices in news programmes or even the otherwise brilliant Newsnight.

The latter is perhaps a stronger example, as when Jeremy Paxman, to quote The Thick Of It, 'pulls that horse face of mock incredulity' the audience surely can't help but be swayed one way or the other about what they are witnessing.

This ties in with my last post about the media's power to sway opinion so easily. Watch out for any stories regarding the Labour party at the moment for example. Not because I am a paranoid Labour supporter you understand, but because in the current climate anything remotely Labour party related is treated by the media as if it is diseased.

Another side to this that may be interesting to note is that Robinson and omnipresent political commentator Andrew Neil have pasts that may have a bearing on their outlook. Robinson was national chairman of the Young Conservatives for a year, following a period during his university days where he was Chairman of the Oxford University Conservative Association, facts he chooses to omit from his blog biography on the BBC website.

Neil was editor of the Sunday Times newspaper for 11 years, and has in his career worked closely with Sky, The Spectator and The Daily Mail. A balanced political slate there? I'll let you be the judge.

And all the pieces matter

Still, following on from my opening post, I guess I should make an effort to connect with you, whoever you are, AND WHATEVER you are doing with your lives that you have sunk to the low point of reading this.

I'm mostly going to be blogging about the media and politics, mixed in with a bit of sport now and again, but thought I should also link and direct you to the sites/TV programmes/interests that make my life enjoyable for no reason other than to fill this space with the same inane drivel that the rest of you have.

Still! To start with, if you are in any way a fan of The Wire you may have recognised the embarrassing hijacking of a fifth season quote for the title of the blog. This is because The Wire is the best television programme that has ever been made. I'm not even going to argue about it, unless you can show me something better. Please attempt to, but it may well be a futile exercise.

From my own personal viewing, nothing else has come close to The Wire for its content, its style and its depth. I can't explain it to you if you haven't seen it, just start watching it and give it time to grown on you. What I appreciated most was the fact that the show never forgets that you are an adult human being. that you do not need to be spoon-fed plot developments and episode recaps. Instead it focuses on realism and the simple interactions between human beings, which ultimately can be far more dramatic than any canned action sequence from a film.

I could bang on about it for years, but this is the sort of fanaticism that would also miss the serious points that the show tries to get across, and if the show can in anyway affect you as profoundly as I believe it did me, it will be worth having a shot at watching.

Will go on to discuss other stuff but BORED NOW so signing off.