Nick's Blog
Blog Gear
27/2/2008 @ 09:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to do something that isn't done in this day an age. Something that will have me expelled from Polite Company and the intelligensia of Britain.
I'm going to defend Jeremy Clarkson.
Clarkson bashing is becoming the liberal middle class pasttime. It's easy to see why he makes such a good target: Right wing, somewhat xenophobic, brash, wears a jacket and jeans, doesn't give too hoots for the environment, hates public transport. Oh and he smokes as well, damn him. For many, he represents a horrible strain of laddish, middle class boorishness. A lilttle Englander who likes nothing more than to annoy intellectuals.
But I say that his plus points far outweigh any minus points. For starters, he took an ailing show like Top Gear and made it the funniest comedy on TV. It's now at the point of being must-see. He himself is naturally funny and a gifted communicator. His programme for the "Greatest Britons" series, where he extolled the virtues of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, was a brilliant piece of TV and the fact that Bruney ended up coming 2nd in the contest was in large part down to a fantastically written and presented piece by Clarkson. And although he espouses opinions that are out of kilter with "received opinion", I thank God that he does. I'm not saying I agree with all of his views, but he's a poster boy for the concept of free speech.
Not a week goes by when Top Gear is on telly that someone writes in demanding that it be taken off air because it's irresponsible and promoting destruction of the world. Rubbish. If the BBC made a programme about the joys of strapping fireworks to your body then that would be irresponsible, but whizzing around a test track in Somerset does not cause Tsunamis. And neither did driving 3 cars to the North Pole either.
Then there are attacks, usually by columnists in The Guardian, on Clarkson the man and his views. Well, that's The Guardian for you...ready to espouse the cause of freedom and free speech as long as it agrees with them. Next to serial adulterers, I have the least amount of sympathy for anyone associated with The Guardian. Maybe I'm biased because the vast majority of Guardian readers I've met are self-obsessed bores and the memories of a job I once had where my colleages, every man jack of them, were Guardian readers. I walked in one day carrying a copy of The Daily Telegraph (hey, I like their sports coverage!) and I got lambasted. "Here" said one of them "we read The Guaridan". And he was one of the biggest tosspots I've ever met. I'm really tempted to tell you his name but he's the type who'd take me to court. So if The Guardian starts attacking Clarkson, I naturally feel defensive towards him. That courtesy does not extend to George W. Bush though.
When Clarkson said he thought identity fraud was a myth and put his account details in a column he wrote, and got robbed, a lot of people punched the air with delight. The same thing happened when an environmentalist put a custard pie in his face. To his credit, he shrugged his shoulders and sair "fair cop" to them both. That's what I admire about him: He can take it as well as dishing it out. When things don't go his way, he takes it on the chin (except when he bickers with James May and Richard Hammond). He doesn't shout people down, he doesn't demand that people who disagree with him be thrown in jail or ostracised. He's a walking model for the concept of free speech and freedom of expression. In fact, he's the perfect left wing idol. The Guardian shouldn't be slamming him, they should rejoice in every word he says from "global warming, bollocks!" to "Ken Livingstone is stark raving mad".
So let's raise a glass to Jeremy Clarkson: If he didn't exist, then society would have to invent him.
Freshly Blogged
25/2/2008 @ 14:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoof TV is a strange beast. By and large, it's awful and has always been awful. If you're sitting there getting all misty eyed over shows such as "The Tube", "The Word", "Club X" and anything hosted by Normski, then you're probably suffering from false memory syndrome.
Yoof TV is a strange metaphor for television itself. Teenagers cry for more freedoms and less control from adults and desperately try to convince people that they're not kids anymore and deserve proper attention. However, when they're given the freedom they crave, then tend to make a mess of things but that's OK, we've all got to learn sometime.
In the same way, Yoof TV was yelled for (mainly by 30 something producers trying to convince the world they were still like teenagers) but when given the chance, it gets ballsed up with crap camera angles, headache inducing graphics and colours and a cacophony of noise: No, I don't mean the bands that get featured but the voices of the presenters.
Take, for example, the latest of the breed of Yoof TV: Freshly Squeezed which you can catch in the mornings on Channel 4 (the network that gave us bloody Yoof TV in the first place). It's essentially a clips show featuring the latest bands and movies. The main problem seems to be the presenters. This isn't a new problem, by the way, Channel 4 have always had a problem trying to find presenters for Yoof TV that don't make you want to pick up a shovel and go hunting them down just to stove their faces in. Magenta DeVine, Terry Christian, Simon Amstell, Miquita Oliver, that Welsh bloke and now the hosts of Freshly Squeezed.
The bloke, and by extention the one who's supposed to hold the whole thing together, is Nick Grimwood. How do I describe this person to you using just the written word? If you ever saw "Saxondale" and remember the 2nd part Steve Coogan played, the pathetic rent boy who whines, can't remember anything and burgles his auntie, then that is him. Not just similar, not even quite like....EXACTLY THE SAME. Same hair done in a quiff that makes him look like the missing member of the Stray Cats, the same voice which whines and whines and whines in a Northern drone that probably makes other Northerners disown him and with the same ability to lose a train of thought 3 words into a sentence. Now I'm not sure if Steve Coogan based his character on Nick Grimshaw, or that Grimshaw himself is doing his own strange homage to the character (heck, if he did a homage to Mags then it would be a considerable improvement to him) but surely someone in Channel 4 has to sit him down and tell him, man to man or man to whiny runt, to lose the quiff and tone down the nasal whines. Please. Please all we'll kill you.
Now they don't let Nick host this show completely on his own and in the rules of TV, there's got to be a girl who represents a bit of sauce for the boys and someone aspirational for the girls. But like a game of Russian Roulette that's down to a half chance of blowing your brains out, you get two girls who take it in turns to be the co-host. The trouble is, you don't know which one you're going to get until the show starts.
On the one hand you get Alexa Chung. She's an ex-model who is naturally stick thin and the very attractive one. In fact, she's almost one of the most beautiful women on TV. I say "almost" though. I may be being picky but she does seem to have this coal dust like smudge under her nose. Sometimes I've sprayed Cillit Bang over the TV screen just to see if it's her and not some mark on my television. Her eyes veer from looking incredibly sleepy to just starting to go cross-eyed and although she's supposed to be the fashionista, she can get her dress sense woefully off beam and end up proving chaos theory just by sitting there. If I was single again, I'd waste precious time wondering if I truly fancied her or not. A similar problem I went through with Fearne Cotton.
Alexa is meant to be a teenage crush version of Cat Deeley. Whereas Cat was slick, svelte and immculately turned out wherever she went, Alexa is slightly skanky as if to, on the one hand, stick two fingers up to glamour and sophistication but on the other hand name checking other designer lables and being with the in crowd.
If you're unlucky, Nick's companion will be Zezi. She's loud, oh boy is she loud, roly poly and dripping with sassy black attitude. Sometimes that attitude comes over as forced: As if she picked up a manual of "How to do R & B Culture and Shit" and has based her media career off it. Her way of dressing indicates that every morning she dives into a vat of random clothing and surfaces dressed in whatever she managed to put on whilst swimming in it. She also has a strange way of sitting in proximity to Nick: Whereas Alexa sits there cross legged and cross armed (as if to let Nick know he is NOT to touch her in any way shape or form), Zezi drapes herself over the white cubes that suffice as seating on the Freshly Squeezed set, as if to tell the camera crew "peel me a grape". Oh, and did I say she shouts as well?
Which brings me to the banter. Yes, when two presenters have to have a "chat" or "conversation" with each other to link items. One of the problems with Yoof TV in the mornings is that it always looks like Nick and Alexa have been out partying hard the night before and have to present Freshly Squeezed after having had less than 2 hours of sleep and still coming down from whatever chemicals they've put into their bodies. Not Zezi though; I get the impression she doesn't sleep at all. The painful bit is watching them trying to have a conversation on live TV when neither of them seems to be able to master the English language. What you get is one of them on the verge of saying some great metaphor only to stumble over the words themselves before forgetting what they were going to say in the first place.
"Coming up next, the coolest British band since...erm...the last really cool one"
"They'll be here live and in the studio like ...erm a..really live thing in a studio."
And they keep interrupting each other so the links become more like a game of "No You Go First". It's nearly fun spotting one of them getting really annoyed at the other.
"After the break..."
"I was going to say that"
"Oh...sorry...no you go first"
"No...no, if you want to do the link that's fine"
"No, you do the link...I insist"
"No, you clearly want to do the link and I'm just paid to sit next to you"
"OK, after the break..."
Unless you're a bit lonely and desperate and want to check out Alexa Chung's legs, then I can't see why anyone would want to watch the links on Freshly Squeezed. Sure, it has the obligatory music clips and ad nauseum repeats of Friends but the trio of media poseurs who get in the way of that make for painful watching. Do we really need them? I'm of an age where I can remember Channel 4 doing away with the Yoof TV presenter and getting the bands to interview themselves on "Star Test". Maybe a call centre can present the show?
SACRED BLOGS #2: MAY THE BLOG BE WITH YOU
19/2/2008 @ 14:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is part two of my occasional series on the things I don't think are all they're cracked up to be....contrary to received opinion. And this one IS a biggie.
STAR WARS
Yep, I've never been a Star Wars fan (more a Trek kind of guy) and no matter how much people try to convince me otherwise, I just can't share in their enthusiasm.
More than that, I can't understand WHY people have been prepared to queue up around the corner overnight at cinemas just to see it. I mean, these people are prepared to shell out their money to see the same movies but with a few more CGI effects and 2 minutes of previously unreleased footage. And as for the merchandise...
OK, I admit the first movie...Star Wars, it's called Star Wars and NOT "Episode 4: A New Hope" and I refuse to call it that...was quite entertaining and certainly the special effects and designs were revolutionary, but the rest? Dumb script, simplistic plot, ropey acting and horrendous dialogue. The so-called main character, Luke Skywalker, turned out to be a damp squib, the so-called supporting character Han Solo turned out to be the one the fans liked best and frankly Carrie Fisher's Princess Leia never did it for me...gold bikini or not.
When George Lucas first set out to make Star Wars, he envisioned a character called Mace Windu of the Jedi Bendu. Got that? MACE FRICKIN' WINDU OF THE JEDI BENDU! This is supposed to be the creative genius behind a billion dollar saga? Just say that name one more time...fortunately the Bendy Jedis became just Jedis in the end. And there you have the main reason why I can't warm to Star Wars: George Lucas' ideas.
Blog I write, thoughts I share, people you read thoughts I type. This is Yoda-speak, and it's bollocks. We're supposed to buy into the concept that the wisest creature in the galaxy can't master syntax? Buying that I do not. There is one other person who mastered that kind of talk: The former England football manager Graham Taylor. Do I not like that, Yoda? No I frickin' don't!
When you boil it down, the plot of Star Wars and it's associated sequels and prequels is just good v evil. No shading, no moral dilemmas on the scale that James T. Kirk and the Enterprise gang dealt with every week and no depth to any of the characters. Take Boba Fett for example: He's supposed to be this bad ass villain. "Ooh, Boba Fett" the fanboys cry "he's so hard, he's got all these weapons plus a rocket pack and he's the meanest son of a bitch this site of Dantooine" but what does he do in any of the films? For the most part, he stands around, part of the posse. Within 15 minutes of Return of the Jedi he's given a lame death. That's the "break out" character? How many Boba Fett toys have been sold, how much has his image adorned lunchboxes, pens, mugs and other factory tat and what has he done to justify such attention? Nothing. I know people who would pay top dollar for a laminated turd if it had a picture of Boba Fett on it.
The other problem of Star Wars is that it promises so much but delivers so little. When I saw it in 1977 I thought it looked fantastic: X Wings, Tie Fighters, The Millenium Falcon and the Stormtrooper armour looked cool and beautiful. But a few groovy models didn't make for a complete movie. Back in 1977, I saw it and felt slightly deflated: The mass marketing campaign had shown me so much of the movie, from clips on TV to the toys in the shops, that I'd practically seen it before I went into the cinema. Nothing was a surprise to me. Even the bits I hadn't seen I was able to guess the outcome. With each sequel, it got worse. The stories were limp, I couldn't care less what happened to Luke Skywalker by the time of Return of the Jedi and with each film, there just seemed to be more and more toys up on the screen. The first half of Return of the Jedi was like the Muppets in Outer Space and the second half was the Care Bears in Outer Space.
Even the supposed best movie, The Empire Strikes Back, meanders all over the place and gives us stupid concepts and characters: Giant space worms living in asteroids? Give me a break.
People's devotion to Star Wars have led them to rush to the cinema with each new release, knowing that the movies keep getting worse with each installment (or redux version with even MORE effects crammed into an already cluttered movie) but either hoping naievely that things will turn a corner or else slavishly going to them because they've seen all the rest and they're "completionists".
But I'll leave my final rant for Darth Vader: On the one hand a legendary villain and on the other a mere cypher of a character. The mask made him less than human and it was a neat trick to get him played by Dave Prowse and James Earl Jones but within that is the problem with old Darth: We see him but can't guage his expressions so we don't really get a sense of development in his character. Yes, he's Luke's father and he has doubts about fighting Luke by The Return of the Jedi but I never got the sense of that character arc because he's all gestures and muffled voices. Not only that, he was played by 5 different actors so you don't get much consistency there either. Can I believe that Hayden Christiensen will one day morph into the Prowse/Earl Jones combo of the pudgy classical English thesp at the end of Jedi? Not really.
So here's to Star Wars, and all its stupid X Wing pilot deaths, it's "Owwww, Uncle Owwwwen! It's not faaaiiiirrrr", bleep bleep bliddyblop (so much easier than writing actual dialogue), bollocks I talk backwards, squishy puppets and of course, the Super Ewoks. Right, I'm off now to watch "Wrath of Khan".
Put Another Blog on the Barbie
11/2/2008 @ 15:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So "Neighbours" has moved from BBC1 to Channel 5. I have no big qualms about that; just like every sport the BBC used to televise, they lost out to brasher competition. But there's just one problem with the way 5 show "Neighbours": They've decided to put the 25 fps film filter on the show.
For the uninitiated, that means they've used a computer programme that you can do video effects on to give the show a more filmic look than your normal everyday video. These days, most TV is filmed in video: That harsh, bright, garish looking stuff on your box. The news uses basic video, so do the reality TV shows and soaps like Eastenders and Coronation Street. In the old days, if you wanted that grainy and less bright look, you had to shoot on film. Now, you can shoot on video and then add a filter in the editing phase to make things look like film. It's called 25 fps because film cameras crank at 24 frames per second to create a slight flicker but video can't match that exact speed and so cheat a 25 fps look.
The trouble is, "Neighbours" works best when shown in its full, lurid and brite-white glory. It got to the stage where everything was so harshly lit that no detail remained hidden: From the acne on Rachel Kaminsky covered up with layers of make up, or the individual hairs on Toadie's goatee beard (it's 2008 for goodness sake!) or even the fibres of Rosetta's tights. Add to that some of the most colourful set designs this side of Warren Beatty's movie of "Dick Tracy" and you had the perfect lunchtime antidote to workaday drudge. It was the TV equivalent to having caffeine injected into your eyeballs.
But the film filter gives "Neighbours" makes the show more moody and subtle...and if there's one word that the show has been clearly avoiding over the last 23 years it's subtle. Now every fashion nightmare displayed by the teenage male members of the cast is toned down. Harold and Lou's overacting doesn't hit you between the eyes quite like it used to and frankly Karl Kennedy looks sinister now.
If anyone from Channel 5 is reading this, I implore you to lose the filter! And while you're at it, stop shrinking the credits and putting up a "coming up next..." sign in the corner of all your shows.
I've Been Driving In My Blog
07/2/2008 @ 15:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years I've avoided having to drive a car. Living in London and failing my driving test at 17 which led to some trauma has convinced me over the years to not bother with getting my driver's licence. And to reassure myself, if not those around me, I kept telling myself that I was doing my bit for the environment and keeping traffic congestion down.
But with a baby on the way and having to share certain responsibilities with Wifey, I've decided now is the time to grow up a little bit more and get a licence. So last week I had my first driving lesson.
I practiced the night before with a 6 hour long session of playing "Driver" and "Grand Theft Auto" on my Playstation which, I found out the next day, didn't really give me the edge in driving skills that I'd been hoping for. For starters, I wasn't allowed to spin the car 180 degrees and also the steering wheel wasn't convieniently marked with a circle, cross, triangle and square.
However, they considered it a wise thing to NOT let me loose on a real car right away but instead put me in a simulator. A simulator? Yep, just like fighter pilot school, the new driver can get to log hours in a simulator first. Now, I ask you, how cool is that? It's like Top Gun without the homoerotic overtones. I looked at the simulator and I said to the instructor, "Sir, I feel the need...the need for SPEED!" Which led him to put a little mark next to my name on his clipboard.
All that practice I'd put in stealing a car, doing a wheelspin start and fleeing from a crime scene in the virtual world helped me not one bit. In fact, it took me 12 attempts to start the car, put it in 1st gear and drive off. And when it got to going from 1st to 2nd, well, let's just say thank goodness the simulator's gearbox can't be mangled. You don't get this in video games: You don't stall in Grand Tourismo 4 and you don't have to worry about hill starts and slow manoevering around parked cars using just the clutch in Street Racer X either.
I'm halfway through the time I should spend in the simulator and already I can see a career in getaway driving fast evaporating before my eyes. I'll be lucky if I can get a car to the local shops and back on a Sunday morning.
