Some thoughts on recent television

Sometimes these blog posts are hard to write. Actually, now I've set a (reasonably) strict schedule, more for myself then any one else, they're a struggle most of the time. Especially when I don't have an awful lot to say about something. This has led to Film Roundups and posts like these where I just collect comments on various shows which don't justify a post on their own. For example, new BBC show Family Tree, starring Chris O'Dowd, is really funny. There's not a lot more to say without simply listing my favourite jokes (personal highlights are the brilliant parodies of naff television genres that are used as background for the most part, proving how good the comedy is in this show). So go and watch that. Not particularly groundbreaking but it made me laugh and just a thoroughly likable show.

A programme that many, many people watched was of course, Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor. While I've only just watched it on iPlayer, even on holiday in the mystical realms of York I managed to find out Peter Capaldi was cast. (By the way, great choice, can't wait for the specials, really excited to see what he does.) To be honest, it seems like it was the best way to find out as I didn't have to put up with over twenty minutes of cheesy television just for a five minute exclusive interview. While those five minutes were great, the rest was... well it was just naff, wasn't it?

Don't get me wrong, it was nice but really, what was the point? Hype basically. The whole show was like a child shouting at you "Isn't Doctor Who the best show ever?". Which, fair enough. I mean, I love it so of course I'm inclined to forgive it for behaving like that and its famous enough to not seem utterly moronic. But honestly, I would have been happy with the way they did it with Matt Smith - a far more understated programme that had a similar message (there's not much deviation possible with an announcement like this) but wasn't shoved so much down your throat. Of course, the reason it was making so much noise was because people would have actually heard of the actor this time.

So, basically, I'm not blaming the programme for how it did the announcement but it was still pretty empty. While Bernard Cribbins is always a joy to watch and it was great to see Rufus Hound being an unashamed geek, these moments of charm didn't hide the fact that it was all just a delay tactic that probably pissed a lot of people off. They just want to know who the Doctor is goddamit! Nice enough but honestly, it really needed to settle down a bit. Yes it's all exciting but there's no need to scream it in our faces. We want to scream as loud as it did but we know that's really annoying for 30 minutes. Still, at least people seem genuinely excited about all this. That's always nice to see.

Meanwhile, a programme that doesn't seem to be quite as popular proves to be just as charming. Folk at the BBC (available on iPlayer until next Saturday)has some truly lovely performances as you'd expect, but I was surprised to see other archive material that provides some context for the reception of folk music in Britain. While I'm unashamed to admit chuckling at the pure 60s-ness of the conversations (folk musicians are genuinely described as long-haired ruffians - proof that stereotypes, no matter how ridiculous, will always be believed in by someone), it is also really fascinating to see this footage.

There is a frankness in the coverage that is refreshing in comparison to Doctor Who Live. There's no incessant fawning here, people say what they feel and with real force which often seems lacking whenever anything cultural is covered in mainstream media. With shows like The Review Show and The Culture Show being awfully treated, there is real neglect for an audience interested in learning what is new in literature, music, film, television, theatre etc. Beyond radio show Front Row and the aforementioned shows, there are few programmes that exist for this audience that I would consider myself a part of.

Obviously, it is better to give more room to cultural content rather than shows about cultural content, but I always enjoy seeing people really passionate about the arts and as such when they occur (such as Danny Baker's lambasting on the BBC selling Television Centre in Goodbye Television Centre) I feel reassured that such people do exist. But it would be nice to not have to be reassured and see them as more prominent figures instead of being shoved onto increasingly neglected BBC 4. Speaking of which, one of its final original dramas Burton and Taylor was great and demonstrates why it is a tragedy that it is no longer allowed to continue producing some of the best programmes on the BBC.

Oh, and finally my thoughts on the final three episodes of The Returned, which is still one of my favourite television shows at the moment. (Considering the amount of television I watch is pretty small, this isn't much praise, but it's still an extraordinary piece of work). Its gradual buildup of tension and horror explodes in a truly unnerving piece of horror in the final episode. In this show, though, an explosion of horror just means that the chills and shivers are more frequent as it continues to skilfully use violence as shocking rather than unpleasant as bad horror does.

The standoff in the final fifteen minutes or so is incredibly tense and the highlight of the series. Dramatic in its own right, it is also packed with thematic significance as it provides a climax to the buildup of the series. As I predicted, the first series ends on a cliffhanger but it's not frustrating but suitably enigmatic. The only frustration is for the waiting for the next series. There are resolutions here but they are not final. The series has taken the first step in its story and its one that I hope will continue to be riveting, unsettling drama.

Now I know that people read these (or I look at them more often then I realise) so I'm going to ask for some advice on a future post. I definitely intend to talk about Southcliffe soon but I've been debating whether to start with The Mlll first, as it's already aired two of its four episodes. Has anyone seen it and what did you think? It'd be nice to actually know what my audience thinks so don't be afraid to comment.

Becoming Youtube and becoming a person

There is a fascinating series on YouTube at the moment called Becoming Youtube, which allows relative newbies (such as myself) to get a brief catchup on the history of Youtube (and I mean very brief, it focuses on very specific areas, mostly due to who is available to intelligent and informative host and creator, Benjamin Cook) while also treating this influential website as an important cultural tool. By no means is it a cheerleader for the site though. Quite the contrary, it engages and challenges how its influence has grown and surpassed its original origins due to the huge growth in its audience. I'm going to be concerned with the latest episode, but every one so far has been fascinating, so here's a link to the first episode. They are fairly long but fascinating nevertheless.

The latest episode looked at fandom, with Nerdfighteria as the case study. I won't repeat the perfectly good summary in the episode (about 2.57) so just check that out and then we can continue.

You watched all of it didn't you? Don't blame you, after all I asked you to, although it was a long and lonely wait. So now we know what being a nerdfighter means we can move on.

Except.

That last sentence is wrong pretty much entirely. If you aren't a nerdfighter, surely you don't know what it is? Even if you think you do, if you were a part of it surely that definition would change. What you thought previously will be proved to be incorrect as you become more involved in the community. This is the problem that fandom has but is by no means unique - any group that encourages its participants to label themselves (fandoms are one example, as are political groups, religions, critical theorists and so on) automatically excludes themselves from those that aren't part of the group. I suppose that is the point of these groups, to find others who share your views and that aren't like everybody else. Until people who claim to be part of your group do things that act against everything that you thought the group stands for. You then have to justify your allegiance to the group to those who criticise it because of one individuals actions. Which can be quite difficult.

"Hi, I'm Kevin. I'm a big fan of the Batman films." Really? How big?
"Bit obsessive to be honest. Haha." Ha. What, like dressing up and stuff?
"Yeah, sometimes. But only when I'm out with my mates who love it as much as I do." So you're like that murderer in Colorado? Wasn't he dressed as the Joker or something?
"Oh, he's not like us." But he said he loves the films as well. He was just as big a fan as you.
"Well, not to me." So you're the representative of your group?
"Well no, there are others like me but they obviously have different views." Like the guy who killed all those people?
"Um..." Um....

Everyone is wrong aren't they? The critic is wrong to generalise a group because of an individual but the participant is similarly wrong to assume everyone in the group shares their view. Examples are evident in the documentary I mentioned above* as indeed there is in real life. And that's my problem with all these groups that encourage their fans to label themselves. They put them within a conflict that nobody wants to get involved in, but as I tried to demonstrate is automatic whenever being a fan of something appears. I'm sure many of us have experienced at some point. And probably from both sides.

Personally, I'm fond of many things and would consider myself a fan of a handful of them- Doctor Who (despite the recent increase of disappointment recently, the concept opens so many possible routes I can't abandon it), theatre and literature are the ones that dominate my life most. Both are capable of disappointing me or not doing things I like, but to me there is something about them that makes abandonment impossible. This doesn't mean you can't stop being a fan. Indeed, in some ways I would encourage it as it will generally cause less arguments. I used to be very passionate about football, but due to a gradual lack of interest and a feeling that if I said I supported Man. United I would be hated by many automatically. Similarly, I have no specific taste in music beyond being fond of certain bands (last night I went to a Two Door Cinema Club concert, who have yet to make a bad song and are incredible live. Check them out if you don't know them). The reason I like to be impartial in most of these areas is mostly because everyone is very proud and (obviously) committed to their opinions. As such, they will defend them to the bitter end, and as such can cause friendships, arguments and some parties to come to a similarly bitter end.

Obviously, being part of a group has many, many benefits which make these negative aspects somewhat bearable. I'm part of a drama society here at university, of which I'm proud of even if I don't know everyone. We all share a passion for performing and watching great shows, which triumphs over any tempestuous personal relations which arises naturally within large groups. What annoys me is those people who choose to use their group membership to be unnecessarily cruel to those who aren't part of their group and, unfortunately, other groups. Disagreement will always occur, but we can at least be respectful about it.

I have friends who like things I don't and vice versa, but crucially they are friends. If you're so committed to your group that friendships are unnecessary, then a reality check is in order. The feeling of fandom can come and go, at least in my experience. Building relationships with people outside that environment is more likely to be more rewarding and beneficial in your life - there are a significant minority of examples where that isn't the case. Even if you get successful through obsession of YouTube or Doctor Who or whatever, it won't be solely because of that. Involvement with the real world is the only way for you to actually do something, rather than just admire people who aren't just fans but able to actually do something (say running a political party or writing a script for a new TV show) that can potentially generate fandoms and group worship in the first place.

As ever, there are others out there who can summarise my posts into a one-liner and the trend continues today. In the latest episode of Becoming YouTube, Jack Howard says, "If people are Nerdfighters, then fine. Just don't be a prick about it."
Just because you are part of a group doesn't mean you are automatically a good or a bad person - you're just a person who likes something more than most people do. It's not an excuse or a justification for anything that is in and of itself morally repugnant and evil.



*I find I have to defend myself for referring to Becoming Youtube as a documentary. as it's on YouTube, associated with people falling over and funny animals, but the documentary is worthy of being shown on TV** but by being on YouTube, it feels more relevant / focused.

**which people think is somehow a better media than the Internet despite also showing people falling over and funny animals, clips of which are then put on YouTube - it's a vicious cycle the media.

The Sarah Jane Adventures - A final tribute to Elisabeth Sladen

For my money this show is a far better spin-off series from 'Doctor Who' than Torchwood. Both have had poor episodes, but Torchwood's only highpoint was 'Children of Earth'; it's first two series tried too hard to be adult and ended up being juvenile, while the recent series was ploddingly dull. The Sarah Jane Adventures however is fully aware of it's children's audience and so has always been entertaining and energetic. This has also allowed it to punch above it's weight with some very thought-provoking dramas (such as The Trickster trilogy 'Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?', 'The Temptation of Sarah Jane Smith' and 'The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith') and psychological horror like 'The Day of the Clown' and 'The Nightmare Man'.

The series came to a tragic end with the death of Elisabeth Sladen. As Sarah Jane Smith, she had created an enduring character that could have easily been a mere cypher. Sladen provided the character with charm and likability needed from a Doctor Who companion and had been developed in her role as leading lady. Thankfully despite her poor health, Sladen was involved in three episodes which would have been one half of the series. This feeling of unfinished business does not go away but it is still great to see Ms. Smith (and Sladen) being given one last hurrah.

The first of the three is 'Sky' which sums up everything right and wrong about the series. Both writer Phil Ford and director Ashley Way have established an inconsistent reputation, either making very interesting tales like The Day of the Clown (Ford) and Death of the Doctor (Way) , or forgettable works such as The Empty Planet, the other of the two Way had directed previously. As for Ford, well let's just say there's more misses than hits. Unfortunately this is a low point for both of them, resorting to patronising the young audience, completely forgetting that TSJA works best when it treats them intelligently. The dialogue is very clunky and far too often resorting to cliches ("That girl is going to get us into so much trouble"). The direction doesn't make these lines any better, making them sound more forced than they already are. As such this marrs the debut of Sinead Michael, playing the eponymous Sky. She shows much promise, and her innocent questions and behaviour are very endearing. But promising talent needs some nurturing and I don't see enough suggestion that Way can see beyond her 'child actor' status, often unfairly assumed to be substandard.

Thank god then that she is surrounded by experienced performers - Liz, Daniel Anthony (Clyde) and Anjli Mohindra (Rani) have played these characters for so long, they rise head and shoulders above the poor quality script to provide some form of excitement. Their scenes with Sky are also brilliant, as there is yet another interruption in their lives, bringing the best out of the youngster. The rest of the performance are great, just on the right side of over the top, and the monster is impressive but particularly threatening when invisible - footprints without a visible source is such a disconcerting image.

'The Curse of Clyde Langer' is a definite return to form, and unbelievably has the same writer and director team. As is traditional in TSJA, the brainless, action-packed opener is followed by a thoughtful tale with plenty of emotional punches. Ford crafts an upsetting tale for children in particular, having Clyde cursed by a spooky totem pole which makes everybody hate him. Ford captures that horrific childhood fear of everyone turning against you for seemingly no good reason - I am sure everyone can sympathise with Clyde's distress. It goes without saying that Anthony is fantastic at showing Clyde's desperation and especially his relationship with Ellie (Lily Loveless), a homeless youth. The comparison of situations may be very obvious but it does create some though-provoking situations.

Way also shows more creative in his direction here, whether it's minor moments such as a lovely overlap with the roar of a monster and a car's rumble, or the activation of the curse which is a sequence that is important and creepy. The resolution does feel sentimental and slightly unclear, but the gloomy atmosphere had been so well established, I relished any form of happy ending to the depressing situation.

And finally the series is forced to end on 'The Man Who Never Was' which, as writer Gareth Roberts pointed out on Twitter, was not intended to be the series finale but the third story as it was broadcast.

Oh the irony of watching a story about a man who inexplicably glitches on the iPlayer. There was a very odd meta fictional feel to the occasional pauses as it tried to load. This did not ruin the episode, however, which matches the high expectations from the same writer/director duo (Gareth Roberts and Joss Agnew respectively) who produced the heartbreaking 'The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith'. This is more light-hearted affair but it still pulls it's fair share of punches especially it's comments on slavery by businessmen. Rather than allow for overt sentimentality or sheer horror, the script balances between the two and also benefits from an endearing performance from Dan Starkey, the new go-to monster man, with the Skullians as a whole sympathetic and endearing race of little creatures. On the other side, James Dreyfusis clearly having a ball as the villain which makes the character all the more entertaining. As well as a great physical performance from Mark Aiken as the titular character, the regulars also get a good last run-out. Clyde and Rani, and Luke and Sky make terrific double acts with both relationships going under considerable development.

While the story does have a predictable conclusion, the first episode is very intriguing with plenty of suggestion of eerie goings on. It also has Sladen at the top of her game as she demonstrates Sarah Jane's journalistic skills which had never really been examined before. Her interview with Aiken's Joseph Serf is nothing short of sublime, with terrific humour as she playfully teases information out of him. As brilliant as she is here, it only makes her shocking death all the more tragic. Not only have we seen an actress leave before her prime, we have missed a really promising season: Sky looked to be a great character, and the return of "servants of the universe" Captain and The Shopkeeper suggested some really fascinating stories to come. Ultimately nobody would say that Liz was a bad actress - her characters were always believable, Sarah Jane being the pinnacle of all of them. So important was she to the character, you could never be sure who fed into whom.

Simply my referring to her as Liz shows how much of an impact she made on her audience - her performances always felt personal and honest. We weren't just watching a character, we were watching a well-rounded and believable person. The fact that Liz's performance has no suggestion of being diminished by her illness makes her death all the more heartbreaking. It will be a long time before her loss will be bearable or forgotten. Thank you Liz, you will be forever missed.