The Thing is... Brian Eno
TX: Channel 4, 13/05/1992
The South Bank Show 15.13: Douglas Adams
TX: ITV, 05/01/1992
Paul Morley to Brian Eno: "You're good at lying aren't you?"
Maybe you are also bored with the mind-numbing, formulaic Arts TV of our times. Maybe you just might want to take a trip back to 1992: the past they do things less diffidently there.
I was over a friend's house in Darlington and the opportunity to watch recordings fromhis VHS collection. He hadn't even used his video player in two years! It was the time for that to be remedied. In addition to the two main programmes, I was treated to side courses of Adam and Joe's Vinyl Police - installments that featured a game Gary Numan and a quarrelsome and belligerent Mark E. Smith.
Then, a programme I had heard about and been curious about seeing: a half-hour documentary-'interview' on Brian Eno, conducted by Paul Morley. Morley is a knowledgeable, irreverent figure damned by many for the cardinal sin of being in love with the English Language - and moulding it according to his own directions. Reviewing an earlier The Thing Is... in The Times, Lynne Truss attacked the 'stream of gabble' - presumably Morley's use of some polysyllabic, aka. nasty and foreign lexis. Also in The Times, Richard Morrison attacked his 'pretentious name-dropping' of writers; as if mentioning Beckett and Sartre is verboten in British culture. Perhaps it is a dig from the Oxbridge graduate to the grammar school boy Morley, who didn't go to university. He goes on, in cynical fashion:
'Sometimes Morley walked round and round in a warehouse. Sometimes he knelt in a Buddha temple. "There is a pure boredom", he mused transcendantally, "that goes with being bored with East-Enders".' (The Times, 30/04/1992)
I cannot comment on all that much of Morley's written work, other than to say that his memoir Nothing captures a deeply affecting melancholy and last year's Earthbound is a laudably concise piece of cultural analysis centering around the Bakerloo line and taking in the Sony Walkman, Maida Vale and much else. That book is incisive and inspired in identifying less than obvious cultural connections and currents.
Compared with the 1980s and early '90s, he is less commonly on television today, though did feature in an engaging BBC4 documentary, wherein he attempted to try his hand at classical music composition - and he crops up periodically as 'talking head' on music documentaries (e.g. one on John Cooper Clarke) and is a BBC4 Review Show regular. Here he is a revelation as TV host; serious when he needs to be but also humorously dispensing asides to the audience like a particularly wise Shakesperean fool. In December 1990, he had presented a thirty-minute documentary on Channel 4 looking into the cultural origins of the Christmas tree, card and decorations. The Thing Is... grew out of the Without Walls (C4, 1990-97) documentary strand and Morley helmed half-hour television disquisitions on topics such as motorways (featuring JG Ballard), money (featuring Dennis Taylor), animals, hotels and even 'an existential quest into the heart of boredom' (The Guardian, 26/04/1992).
Just over two weeks before the Eno programme, The Guardian described him as looking like a 'cast-aside teddy bear in a fashionably baggy suit'. 'Names such as Ionescu, Roland Barthes and Beckett pepper his conversations with cultural theorists and Thora Hird.' Morley as a link between the worlds of continental cultural theory and Alan Bennett?
In his anti-interview, brilliant tactics include imploring Eno, on behalf of the audience, to start singing again; Morley makes reference to the four great works of 'pop song' that Eno produced in his verdant 1970s. And then the ultra dry questioning regarding his more recent collaborations: "It must be really rewarding, helping out the small bands: U2..."
A particularly amusing sequence is where he gets Eno onto the topic of sex and the bald East Anglian gives notably detailed reflections on the merits of European and American pornography. The programme cuts away to Morley clearly filmed later on, giving a few somewhat amused looks.
There is a deadpan, European surrealism to proceedings. Eno speaks positively of the creativity that could be enabled by the karaoke phenomenon. Then we cut to Morley in a high street record shop, headphones on, listening and intensely singing along to Eno's very own 'Third Uncle'.
When his rendition has finished, there is a deliberately faked 'studio audience' 'applause' followed by a delighted reaction shot from Morley.
It's a delightful programme, getting all the more under Eno's skin by avoiding linear questioning tactics and opting for an editing strategy that plays up the oblique moments, rather pushes towards any conventional denouement.
Pleasingly, the programme can be watched in its entirety here.
"High on a rocky promentory sat an electric monk on a bored horse..."
Next was a South Bank Show from the same year, but four months earlier: broadcast before the Grey Man himself ushered in another enlightened five years of Tory rule. Its subject was the mercurial Douglas Adams, whose death before he reached fifty was a loss to British culture was of a magnitude greater than if, say, IDS were to meet with a freak ATOS inspired drubbing in Easterhouse.
It explores Adams' much publicized difficulties in finishing his writing projects; so thoroughly, that they even feature his literary agent visiting him on behalf of the publishers. Everything is in place for the fifth HH novel, Mostly Harmless, except, well, the novel itself being written! The Guardian's television listings for the day mention an abortive Hollywood script project and his involvement in computing, but strangely, these areas are barely touched on.
Like Morley's documentary, there is dry humour present in its satire of the documentary trope of focusing on his 'Cambridge Days'. The past is demystified and we even get a sense of Cambridge's present in Adams' sharply edited appearances in the city. His College - St John's - won't allow the film crew to film anything at all in the grounds of the College, so Adams philosophically sits with a pint in the Baron of Beef pub. There was filming nearby for Adams' strike-scuppered 1979 Doctor Who serial, 'Shada', recently issued on DVD.
We also get an excellent sequence of Adams ruminating on getting artistic inspiration from his post-university days as a hotel attendant, having to watch the elevators open and close all day. He relives this unusual rite of passage, appearing on screen in the situation - in the best droll Jonathan Meades style.
John Carlaw had previously directed the acclaimed eight-part series Playing Shakespeare, made by LWT in 1982. His direction here is notable in its artistry, far removed from the plodding conservatism of the South Bank Show's form and presentation in its latter years - and perhaps even its norm back then. Wittily edited, it contains actors from the HitchHikers' TV series reprising their roles and engaging in postmodernist querying of their own identity. We even have the aforementioned electric monk, well and truly part of the bizarre proceedings.
While it fails to focus - somewhat surprisingly - on DA's associations with Monty Python's Flying Circus and Doctor Who, it is the sort of genuinely satisfying arts documentary that many directors, producers and writers would do well to learn from today. Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins, now bastions of whatever remains of 'Liberal Britain', are used intelligently to make points that add to our understanding of Adams' work. His application of Wodehousian humour - to infuse potentially alienating science fiction ideas with the bathetic everyday - is discussed by Fry, who was then still immersed in making the superlative sketch series A Bit of Fry and Laurie. Dawkins is used to draw out DA's good humoured antipathy to religion, but also to helpfully explain his integration of Quantum Physics within his narratives - which were moving into the area of parallel realities and all being subject to contingency.
Most of all, there is gratifyingly little stuff of this ilk: straightforward filming of cosy chat with old uncle Melvyn. Carlaw does the Arts service by making art himself. Gratifyingly, it seems that you can see this redoubtable documentary here.
Both programmes live up to Jonathan Meades' desire to see documentaries that combined the lecture theatre with the music hall. Humorous knockabout is a much more useful tool than sombre, portentous prattle while walking around 'famous sites'. In these past exemplars, we see rounded, idiosyncratic contributors to British - and world - culture: Adams and Eno. Emblems of a sceptical, worldly liberalism that has been supplanted by the shallow neo-liberal generation of Clegg and Laws - Eno, indeed, has been a regular participant in Liberal Democrat campaigns in recent years and was bizarrely appointed a youth affairs adviser by Clegg.
These are major cultural contributors who were taken seriously by television. And this is television which avoided reverence towards them or the cardinal sin of patronising its audience. It complicated the picture by fusing registers and tones; such a dexterous approach is what people deserve, rather than neatly packaged, simple narratives peddling partial myths.
-- With thanks to John Robinson.
'The very simplicity of the concept of "giving the public what it wants", and its too frequent use by those whose professional skill is cajolery of the simple-minded, should make us suspicious.' - Sir Hugh Greene, 1962
Showing posts with label channel 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label channel 4. Show all posts
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Monday, 31 December 2012
Kangaroo Court of Love: "Peep Show" 8.6
TX: Channel 4, 24/12/2012
'Friendship is a disinterested commerce between equals; love, an abject intercourse between tyrants and slaves.'
- Oliver Goldsmith, The Good-Natured Man (1768)
To follow that 'Celtic Tiger' of a comedy (Mrs Brown's Boys), we thought we would watch a slightly different sort of sitcom, also broadcast around this Christmas period. If MBB takes a condescending view of its audience's intelligence, then Peep Show probes the absurd human frailties of its protagonists for the amusement of a no doubt smaller audience. There are aspects of Usborne and Corrigan in most of us 'young men'; MBB's figurines are barely human.
David: Anyway, this should be a pleasing antidote to that.
Tom: Episode 6. Not a bad series so far...
David: Better than Series 7, anyway. No reason why this can't go on until one of them croaks it.
Tom: Super Hans is a great character; I would've liked to see a bit more of him in this series really.
David: "Coaster? Fuck's sake, Jez, I'm not an animal!"
Tom: "There are quite a few snakes in your room".
David: Has Dobby got a black eye?
David: "Five-a-side? That's where all the men go to laugh at us".
Tom: Mark's masculinity issues coming out there...
David: Further disappointment for Mark.
David: This ongoing saga relies upon M + J's constant unhappiness.
David: "Very much the on methadone, living in a halfway house type of woman".
David: Very reflective of the 'indefinite teenage years' thing that's being imposed on those of us who are unable to achieve the tools needed to 'grow up'.
Tom: "'Jason's van'. That sounds like the sort of bullshit I'd come up with".
David: Jeremy is now a 40 year old teenager.
Tom: "I'll watch her squirm"... an altruistic view of relationships there from Corrigan! Or, a realistic depiction of love with its jealousies and insecurities...?
Tom: Mark playing 5-a-side footer... bound to elicit a few chuckles.
David: "Did you see the game the other night? The big... fixture?"
David: "Take him out" / "WHAT?!!"
David: Dobby is quite intimidating here!
Tom: This show's characters ring true as imperfect people who aren't merely looking to gain laughs from saying "fuck"...
David: Meanwhile, Mrs Brown's Boys says nothing about society other than that there are masses of people who find a swearing old woman and jokes from 1972 hysterical...
Tom: "Sure, the massive apple..."
Tom: This series seems to have a sustained story-line which runs all the way through the six episodes. I don't think many of its previous series' had that. There seem to be fewer 'different' episodes, like the musical festival one or the jury service. Or the Christmas special with Mark's family last year - I really liked that one. And the jury service one with the mentalist woman defendant from Sunderland. Unsure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that there are fewer excursions or digressions...
David: [amid the advert break] Why's Kevin Bacon pretending to give a toss about British popular culture?
Tom: Aye, Bacon is a beaming irritant.
David: Series 9 of Peep Show is already commissioned; there seem to be infinite things that they can do with the two hapless ones.
David: It must be quite cathartic for the writers to put them through whole new trends of misery; there are always twelve more months of cultural references to slip in effortlessly, too.
Tom: Yes, it is a reliable formula.
Tom: "Depressing lingerie outlet in Reading"...
Tom: Ah, the old El Dude brothers routine, ever invoked in times of crisis. I like how have they slipped in subtle references in this eighth series, such as to Super Hans' curious fixation with The Barchester Chronicles - when Jez's stuff is being cleared out.

David: They seem to have an endless supply of embarrassing situations.
Tom: The thoughts-aloud voice-overs have always been crucial to its success. Just wouldn't work as well without them.
David: "I'm sorry... what the FUCKING HELL are you talking about?" The key to it is hearing their real thoughts in conjunction with the often manipulative words they say.
Tom: Jez stuck on the train!
Tom: Speaking his mind finally - rarely a good idea!
Tom: "How can I do that when there's no such thing as elbow grease!" Great line there from Jez.
David: 10/10 dialogue - the situations often seem less important than the dialogue.
Tom: "An honourable man" again! Reference back to his flat housing committee election campaign.
David: "THAT'S your punishment of last recourse: FREE TRAVEL?!" So inappropriately pompous.
David: It's been fun watching Mark being relegated to a series of humbling jobs.
Tom: Yes, and in episode 6.1 (TX: 18/09/2009) you had a rare instance of British television responding to the economic crisis, when JLB go bust.
Tom: It's also been good to have the vocation of life-coaching relentlessly mocked in this series.
Tom: "This kangaroo court of love".
David: Editing process must be horrendous.
Tom: Mark inevitably ends up the one who is squirming...
David: Jeremy is a lovable moral vacuum.
David: "Now, time to stigmatize the mentally ill".
David: Hilariously immature. No more mature than in 2003!
David: Electric fence!
Tom: "Will you two stop electrocuting each other?"
David: "Will you two stop electrocuting each other?!"
![]() |
| 'Friendship is a disinterested commerce between equals' |
David: "If you don't throw that rock at me, I'm going to hit you with this stick".
David: How did she have time to text that?!
Tom: Indeed...
David: "You FUCKED it, not me!"
David: "Why does it say here that I'm 80% gay?!"
David: "DOBBY!!!"
David: Excellence.
Tom: Yes, a pretty good series closer.
David: Perfect antidote to Mrs Brown's Arse.
Tom: Exactly.
David: Other current comedy series' close to that standard? I'll say Him and Her, Getting On and, to a lesser extent, Friday Night Dinner. But not a lot else!
Tom: Maybe could have had more Johnson involvement (following his great cameo in 8.1), but it was a well crafted series revolving around the inevitable love triangle. Dobby has been a necessary character for the programme... to throw the 'brothers' into relief.
David: I'm certainly looking forward to the sadistic events that series 9 will hopefully have to offer. Once again, it seems that we've reached the end too quickly - I suppose there were episodes on consecutive nights, though. This series didn't run alongside when it was being shown however, unlike last series which seemed to be set around the same time of year.
Tom: Interesting to think how they'll take it from here...
David: Looks like Dobby may not return.
David: How did she have time to text that?!
Tom: Indeed...
David: "You FUCKED it, not me!"
David: "Why does it say here that I'm 80% gay?!"
David: "DOBBY!!!"
David: Excellence.
Tom: Yes, a pretty good series closer.
David: Perfect antidote to Mrs Brown's Arse.
Tom: Exactly.
David: Other current comedy series' close to that standard? I'll say Him and Her, Getting On and, to a lesser extent, Friday Night Dinner. But not a lot else!
Tom: Maybe could have had more Johnson involvement (following his great cameo in 8.1), but it was a well crafted series revolving around the inevitable love triangle. Dobby has been a necessary character for the programme... to throw the 'brothers' into relief.
David: I'm certainly looking forward to the sadistic events that series 9 will hopefully have to offer. Once again, it seems that we've reached the end too quickly - I suppose there were episodes on consecutive nights, though. This series didn't run alongside when it was being shown however, unlike last series which seemed to be set around the same time of year.
Tom: Interesting to think how they'll take it from here...
David: Looks like Dobby may not return.
'The beloved object is successively the malady and the remedy that suspends and aggravates it.'
- Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past (Cities of the Plain) (1921-2)
Tom: Good to have them in open warfare there at the end over her...
David: I'm sure there will be one or two different women ready to play with their infantile heartstrings.
David: First time they've competed for the same woman though...
Tom: Or Sarah, Mark's sister with the fringe and Fifty Shades-inspired bedroom practices...
David: I would have liked to have seen more of Mark's older woman from his course; she was nice, but then Peep Show wouldn't allow for it to have gone well.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
10 O'Clock Live (Channel 4, 15/02/2012)
I reviewed this solo last year; let's see what two of us make of it this time around... (TM)
David Lichfield:
There’s been a long lineage of regular satirical programming on British TV that stretches back through iconic shows such as Brass Eye, Have I Got News For You to the 1960s and That Was The Week That Was. Ten O’ Clock Live, which has recently returned for a second series, is television’s latest attempt to weld current affairs and comedy together. Many said that the first series was an inconsistent affair, with the output of Charlie Brooker, Jimmy Carr, David Mitchell and Lauren Laverne not hanging together entirely coherently. For me, the show was certainly too long and could have benefitted from a more robust editing process. With the Guardian-friendly image of both Channel 4 and the show’s presenters, you could easily accuse 10 O Clock Live of political bias. But then again, right-wingers aren’t known for their riotous and sharp sense of humour, and where’s the fun in pro-establishment comedy?
Frankly, 10 O Clock Live remains something of a mess, with the key highlight remaining Brooker’s own short segment. During the last series, his venom and acerbic wit were largely the only parts of the show that demanded the attention, and because they are placed so early on into the show, it’s still easy to feel your attentions wander as we move from this segment into the largely unfunny Jimmy Carr sketch carried out in full costume complete with equally mirthless accent. When Carr drops the comedy, he can actually be an engaging political debater (he has a degree in political science) but the show goes for the humorous angle too often, particularly when an interesting debate is taking place, presumably just to fulfil the ‘comedy’ aspect of the programme.
10 O Clock Live still feels somewhat confused, and the employment of four presenters with similar political views but somewhat clashing styles makes the show feel rather cluttered. Mitchell’s interviews with important political and social figures can seem rushed, and the presence of an audience somewhat distracting, whilst it’s still difficult to see Lauren Laverne as something other than a music presenter. However, she does perform a pivotal role in keeping things flowing tightly. The show ultimately could benefit from dropping Jimmy Carr’s pantomime monologues and the other sketches that it incorporates into it, emphasising the serious nature of Mitchell’s interviews and trying to move away from the whole area of people talking over each other. Otherwise, I’ll continue to stick the kettle on after crown jewel-type moments like this.
Tom May:
10 O’Clock Live remains a welcome if imperfect stab at topical satire, two weeks into its second series. The rapport between the four seems a bit more natural than in series one; their personalities are coming into clearer focus. Carr is much more effective during the roundtable discussions, displaying a quick wit that belies the often tiresomely predictable ‘shock’ tactics of his solo gags to camera. There was an interesting moment when Brooker got angry at him for a “gross misrepresentation of a fine computer game” as being all about “shooting prostitutes”.
Laverne had the easy target of Republican primary candidates and couldn’t fail to elicit laughs via Gingrich’s “delightful, whimsical ideas”, Romney’s post-death conversion of his father to Mormonism and Santorum’s backhanded compliment to gays, claiming “it’s not man on child, man on dog, y’ know”. American provincialism was easily parodied with attacks on Romney running thus: “Just like John Kerry he speaks French too...” “You sick bastard”, as Lauren said! She could have been more outspoken regarding The Sun’s page 3 girls though; Carr alluded to her dislike, yet she said nothing: missed opportunity for some arse-kicking feminism.
There is such idiocy out there in the media that there should never be a lack of material for programmes like this; e.g. the Aaron Ramsay ‘correlation’: every time he scores a goal, a celebrity dies. Plus, there was lucid highlighting of the ludicrous terminology deployed by the tabloids – ‘boasted’, ‘claimed’; absurdity in the thought of anyone uttering “performed a lewd sex act” in speech!
The highlight was undoubtedly Brooker’s poem about The Sun, a withering – and often rhyming – roll-call of the vast variety of people who have reason for grievance against that sordid rag. It echoed Jimmy’s famous ‘forces of anarchy’ rant in David Nobbs’s The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. The paper's stance, going after anyone to sell papers, is reprehensible and has coarsened and soured public life in the UK in the forty-three years since Murdoch’s takeover. He also rebuked David Cameron – with his soft-soap ‘interview’ in Now magazine coming in for suitable ire.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
10 O'Clock Live (Channel 4, 24/03/2011)
10 O'Clock Live is now in its tenth week; it is an attempt to make an up-to-the-minute satirical comedy, with a reasonably well selected team of participants. Whilst this is nominally a review of last Thursday's instalment, I have been watching this over a few weeks, so references may cover previous episodes.
The problem for me is not that it is left-wing - which it is, in a lukewarm Guardianista manner - but that it is all so predictable. Brooker's bits are very much News Wipe-lite, lacking the depth of his analysis on that fine BBC4 programme.
His recent BBC2 series, How TV Ruined Your Life, was satisfactory but tended to use very obvious clips. It worked best when he focused on the lifestyle dreams peddled by television, and the illusory view it gives of 'romance'; the public information films episode trod over very old ground without shedding much new light.
Lauren Laverne is okay, acting as a sort of likeably perky straight-woman to the others. She is rarely funny but does make some generally sensible, earnest contributions: the one on public libraries, particularly. As with any thinking and feeling person raised in Sunderland in the 1980s, she is anti-Tory and these views clearly come across. Far better her than Daisy Donovan.
Jimmy Carr is, well, Jimmy Carr - which is to say, smugly 'deadpan'. His contributions vary from the forgettable, to the inconsequential to the crass (making light of postal workers' redundancies). In Carr-world, puns are the height of wit and when the writers do give him some political lines his delivery lacks understanding and conviction. His portrayal of George Osborne the 'toff' is utterly toothless - missing the point and diverting the audience from the real nature of these Tories.
David Mitchell, however, has no end of conviction and displays more intelligence and passion than anyone else in the programme. He handles the largely serious interview sections well, mixing pointed, relevant questions with some barbed asides that are rather less cynical than Paxman's. He makes some sterling comments on housing, debunking the 5-years-out-of-date lifestyle 'aspirations' peddled by the Tory MP Grant Shapps: "Our houses are massively overvalued [....] Shouldn't we get rid of this bloody ladder!?"
Mitchell is excellent in highlighting the absurdity of Osborne's budget proposals, putting public money towards propping up house prices at their current 'value' - encouraging first-time buyers to borrow beyond their means. Politician Shapps is every bit the vacuous television property-porn salesman, an archetype that should be as popularly loathed as the reckless banker:
'People wanna get a foot on the ladder'
He also has Shapps squirming over the issue of elite public schools and their charitable status - effectively receiving a subsidy from the state. His "Eton College is taking the piss" receives gratifyingly loud applause from the seemingly 20-30-something audience. Clearly the Tories will have to face these charges now that they are in power, defending an iniquitous status quo (shamefully unchallenged by the Blair or Brown's Labour Party).
For the self-styled libertarian Tory James Delingpole to describe the programme as 'Maoist re-education' is palpably absurd. So much of the satire, Mitchell's interviews and pieces-to-camera notwithstanding, is relatively apolitical and lacking in bite; it is rather conservative television in how little it uses the format, with its solo-comedian spots and the spartanly garish sets. It would benefit from a more varied approach to its comedy: sketches, songs. Delingpole is wrong that there is no serious debate; in the interview and panel sequences, there is a reasonably high standard of debate - with guests who span the political spectrum. If it tends towards a left-of-centre perspective, this might be seen as a necessary counterbalance to the overwhelming right-wing dominance of the newspaper market - and the BBC, which, lest we forget, employs such left-wing firebrands as Nick Robinson and Andrew Neil.
This show is actually quite valuable in bringing some sober debate on issues like Libya and housing to a young audience. The Libya debate with Rory Stewart was a case in point, managing to convey many different perspectives on a complex issue - see alo the immigration debate that involved Mehdi Hasan. 10O'CL works less well as comedy, however; one can only imagine the greater depths that would be explored by a Stewart Lee. Indeed, this team of performers and writers seem unable to reach the incisive depths and vitality of Chris Morris or Armando Iannucci. Those 1960s-born satirists probe a lot deeper into the human condition and power than the following generation does here.
On balance, it is better that 10 O'Clock Live is being broadcast than not being broadcast, but there are so many missed opportunities that one is left disappointed. It should be urgent and essential viewing, but is only occasionally so. It is a significant advance on Channel 4's ghastly essay in anti-civilisation, The 11 O'Clock Show, but nowhere near the sort of satirical genius of The Day Today or even The Friday Night Armistice.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Introductory Post 2
Another Personal View
Since early boyhood, I've grown ever more conscious of the irrecoverable worlds that existed before I was born, the traces of which I sensed ebbing away on the television I watched as I grew up; a world comprised of measured and unpatronising documentaries; of children's animations voiced by theatrical actors older than either of my grandfathers, of comedies and dramas eager to challenge the medium's conventions and unafraid of broadcasting eerie, lingering silences; a world in which channels built their reputations on the quality of their broadcasting, rather than the ubiquitousnes of their logos. Although there's some validity in the claim that every generation will "catch the end" of a particular set of cultural mores, I'd contend that those born in the early eighties might well be the last generation to experience such a radical dichotomy between the first and second halves of their childhoods.
And so, aged eight, I was already growing nostalgic for qualities that seemed to be disappearing from broadcasting, poring over videotapes that demonstrated a different way of doing things, only half aware of that year's Broadcasting Act and the fact that British television would soon commence its nosedive towards the brand-driven mess of the last decade and a half.
Watching television had, as a child, simulataneously anchored me to the past and excited me about the future. Born in 1982, I grew up in parallel with Channel Four, smitten by its pluralistic remit and dazzled by the sheer oddness of much of its output. Programmes such as Citizen 2000, Absolutely, After Dark, Nightingales, Star Test, films from the 40s and 50s, adaptations of operas, the transmission of kabaddi and American football, continuity announcers who seemed to know and care about the programmes they introduced - even though still in single figures, I knew that I was in the presence of greatness. This is even before we consider the dramas of Plater and Potter that I've come to in adulthood. Channel Four and I parted company in our mid-teens, a once great network now content to wallow in perpetual adolescence.
I mention all this now because I do not want my contributions here to be mere exercises in pessimism or vaguely worded paeans to some nebulous idea of "the good old days". I'm deeply aware of the need to disentangle a sense of nostalgia for the certainties of one's early childhood with a clear-sighted appreciation of qualities specific to that period in cultural history. One of my aims in contributing here is to challenge my own instinctive preference for the television of yesteryear and subject it to logical scrutiny. This blog is, for me, as much about evaluating our present cultural milieu as it is about the televisual history of previous decades and comes with the disclaimer that there was, of course, a lot of forgettable television made before 1990, some of which I will doubtless end up anatomising herein. For what it's worth, I'm also working on a sitcom in the spirit (I hope) of the TV comedy I used to love.
My heartfelt thanks must go to Some of the Corpses are Amusing whose knowledge and erudition is enviable, and to Robin Carmody for challenging my political and aesthetic preconceptions at a time when I needed it most.
I should also mention that, far from being any kind of apology for the reign of Ivan the Terrible, my posting name is something of an in-joke with a couple of friends and I apologise in advance for the sort of image it might give of me - the polar opposite of my actual political stance, I assure you.
Since early boyhood, I've grown ever more conscious of the irrecoverable worlds that existed before I was born, the traces of which I sensed ebbing away on the television I watched as I grew up; a world comprised of measured and unpatronising documentaries; of children's animations voiced by theatrical actors older than either of my grandfathers, of comedies and dramas eager to challenge the medium's conventions and unafraid of broadcasting eerie, lingering silences; a world in which channels built their reputations on the quality of their broadcasting, rather than the ubiquitousnes of their logos. Although there's some validity in the claim that every generation will "catch the end" of a particular set of cultural mores, I'd contend that those born in the early eighties might well be the last generation to experience such a radical dichotomy between the first and second halves of their childhoods.
And so, aged eight, I was already growing nostalgic for qualities that seemed to be disappearing from broadcasting, poring over videotapes that demonstrated a different way of doing things, only half aware of that year's Broadcasting Act and the fact that British television would soon commence its nosedive towards the brand-driven mess of the last decade and a half.
Watching television had, as a child, simulataneously anchored me to the past and excited me about the future. Born in 1982, I grew up in parallel with Channel Four, smitten by its pluralistic remit and dazzled by the sheer oddness of much of its output. Programmes such as Citizen 2000, Absolutely, After Dark, Nightingales, Star Test, films from the 40s and 50s, adaptations of operas, the transmission of kabaddi and American football, continuity announcers who seemed to know and care about the programmes they introduced - even though still in single figures, I knew that I was in the presence of greatness. This is even before we consider the dramas of Plater and Potter that I've come to in adulthood. Channel Four and I parted company in our mid-teens, a once great network now content to wallow in perpetual adolescence.
I mention all this now because I do not want my contributions here to be mere exercises in pessimism or vaguely worded paeans to some nebulous idea of "the good old days". I'm deeply aware of the need to disentangle a sense of nostalgia for the certainties of one's early childhood with a clear-sighted appreciation of qualities specific to that period in cultural history. One of my aims in contributing here is to challenge my own instinctive preference for the television of yesteryear and subject it to logical scrutiny. This blog is, for me, as much about evaluating our present cultural milieu as it is about the televisual history of previous decades and comes with the disclaimer that there was, of course, a lot of forgettable television made before 1990, some of which I will doubtless end up anatomising herein. For what it's worth, I'm also working on a sitcom in the spirit (I hope) of the TV comedy I used to love.
My heartfelt thanks must go to Some of the Corpses are Amusing whose knowledge and erudition is enviable, and to Robin Carmody for challenging my political and aesthetic preconceptions at a time when I needed it most.
I should also mention that, far from being any kind of apology for the reign of Ivan the Terrible, my posting name is something of an in-joke with a couple of friends and I apologise in advance for the sort of image it might give of me - the polar opposite of my actual political stance, I assure you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






















