More Reading and Watching

I have finally finished the set of history books taking British history from 1956, with the Suez Crisis and through the following decades right up to the 1990's, through the Premierships of Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair.  I have now given history reading a rest and I've read 'Skellig' by David Almond, which I have read before, but enjoyed enormously. Initially intended as a children's book, but equally enjoyed by adults. Subtle and clever, definitely worth a read. It's not a long novel, which probably is in its favour. 

I'm currently doing an on-line course from something called Futurelearn. I've done several of these courses, a couple on William Shakespeare, another about Hadrian's Wall and this one is about The Tudors. As a result I'm reading Hilary Mantel's Booker-Prize winning novel 'Wolf Hall.' I had never imagined I'd enjoy a historical novel, but this is excellent and I'm surprised how much I am enjoying it. I watched the first episode of the BBC television adaptation, but I just couldn't get into it and didn't watch any more episodes, but the book is really good. Some books don't adapt well to television, and it seems to me that's the case with this particular book.

Martin Clunes has a new sitcom on BBC1 on Fridays, not that the day it's broadcast makes a lot of difference these days,because you can watch most television programmes either recorded on your Sky Q box (other personal recording set-top boxes are available, incidentally) or trough iPlayer. I'm not sure whether I like this new show, called 'Warren.' He's a driving instructor with a bad temper. He doesn't get on with his customers. He definitely has an attitude problem, Martin Clunes other leading character, in 'Doc Martin,' might also have an attitude problem, but at least you have sympathy for the character. The comedy springs from the fact that he's a doctor who should show some sort of empathy for his patients. On the other hand, Warren is just plain annoying. You really have no sympathy for him and it's no wonder his driving school business fails so miserably. Miserable git comedy is funny with the right character and the right script, but this just fails completely. Victor Meldrew, admirably played by Richard Wilson in 'One Foot In The Grave' does at least get your sympathy, and it has got a decent, well-written script. 'Warren' misfires on so many levels. Going back further in television comedy history, I could mention Tony Hancock, a character who was pompous as well as miserable. You could have sympathy for him and the scripts written by the legendary writing pair of Galton and Simpson almost single handedly changed the history of sitcom development and writing.

Comedy of failure is a style of comedy which can be described of many modern sitcoms. 'Fawlty Towers' isn't exactly the most successful of hotels, run by Basil Fawlty, who seems to fail and every turn. Rigsby in 'Rising Damp' is a similar sort of character. His home, which he shares with several lodgers, isn't exactly perfect. Rigsby is a failure in the sense that the can't cope with the views of his lodgers and is a somewhat disreputable character. Compare these sitcoms with 'Warren' and you see that it doesn't stand a hope of being a successful show for BBC1. I think it would have shed audience figures  over the next couple of episodesbecause of the fact it is so awful. The BBC is probably expecting the fact that it has Martin Clunes as the central character which will draw an audience. Some hope! He has done better work, particularly with 'Doc Martin.'

The BBC has done rather well with early-afternoon drama. The 2.15 slot has seen such drama series as 'The Indian Doctor,' 'Moving On,' 'Father Brown,' and now 'Shakespeare and Hathaway.' This latest is set in Stratford-On-Avon and the action revolves round two investigators, with the rather predictable names which are reminiscent of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, two former inhabitants of that town. There is a certain quirkiness in the plots and there are sly references to the plays of William Shakespeare. It is similar in style to 'Father Brown,' which period had been shifted from the 1920s-1930s setting of the original G.K.Chesterton short stories to the early 1950s and set in a fictional Cotswold village. Again, quirky and with a comic edge and with a strong cast lead by Mark Williams as the eponymous Catholic priest come crime investigator.

Returning to the theme of comedy about failure, the BBC has bought back Alan Partridge, who must surely be the best example of such a type of comedy. The new show, called 'This Time.' It's a sort of spoof version of the BBC1 early evening chat show, 'The One Show.' Partridge, played by Steve Coogan, is a character you either love or hate. He has been a presenter on a range of radio and television shows over the years, mainly on lesser-known stations, particularly the fictional North Norfolk Digital. He's a bit like Hancock, he imagines he's a success, but he's a total failure. He has grand illusions of presenting all manner of shows, but just can't hack it. The new show began shakily, but as we're currently on episode 3 it seems to have found its feet. It is really about the allusion of show business, television in particular. You see behind the scenes, cutting from Partridge and his co-host sitting on the sofa smiling inanely, to what happens when they're 'off-air.' The smiles vanish and we see beyond the surface. We see the cameras and other technical equipment, the make-up ladies who swoop on the presenters to apply powder and other make-up to their faces and tidy their hair before the cameras roll once more. This is more like satire than straightforward comedy. There is a good deal more to it than just being plain 'comedy.'

I have been watching further episodes of 'Warren,' the new sitcom which stars Martin Clunes, and which runs before the Alan Partridge spoof chat-show 'This Time' on BBC1. I will give this comedy the benefit of the doubt and probably go back on what I have said earlier on this blog post. It has needed three episodes to find its feet. By this episode it has settled down somewhat. That's doesn't mean I don't dislike the central character of Warren, but there is more plot and sub-plot and this episode does at least have some decent one-liners. It has a better story arc than the first two and does at least tie up at the end. Not brilliant, but like a lot of sitcom, it takes several episodes for the writers and actors to settle down, let the characters breathe and develop naturally. You can't always get the full set-up or what the characters are like in only one episode, so I will continue to watch and see how things develop. I can't imagine an actor of Martin Clunes accepting a poor quality script, and bearing in mind that this show is made by Hat Trick productions, known for it's success with comedy over the years, it's bound to improve and I'm sure it will and the BBC will be rewarded with audience figures to go with this.

Why On Earth?

Why on earth do so many television gameshows have to have such garish sets? 'Tenable', one of the back-to-back gameshows on ITV in the afternoon, has the most garish set design, mostly green. The green is a sort of pea-soup, even mushy pea-colour or artificial pea-colour. It's not just the bright colours used, but a lot of horrible moving lights and then that awful plunky sound (not correct in any way to describe it as 'music') every time something happens? Perhaps the set designers have a sort of design-style handbook for television gameshows, which says that the colour has to be bright and over-the-top and the sound design have horrible plunky-plunk music on the soundtrack. Can't ITV be more imaginative in it's scheduling, make and produce something different instead of gameshows? Actually, all channels in the afternoon. BBC1 has Pointless at 5.15 (the slot that used to have 'The Weakest Link' hosted by Anne Robinson.) and which now has 'The Chase' on ITV. 'Impossible' on BBC and perhaps one of the oddest of the lost, 'Tipping Point' based loosely on the old 'Shove Penny' game machine from fanfares and seaside piers.  You get sort of hypnotised by that machine, the different levels moving backwards and forwards. But lets be honest, it's not exactly gripping television. The questions are generally so easy any primary-school child could answer them. I reckon the producers are using psychology to get people hooked on these shows, rather like Pavlov's Dogs, when a bell rang, they get a dog to do a certain trick, make it drool when there was any food about. A certain sound, or light, would make you want to buy a product or do something else. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with gameshows. But when they become the main source of scheduling it does show a complete lack of imagination.

The BBC has had great success with drama in the early afternoon slot with things like 'Father Brown' and 'Moving On' which are very good considering they're made on minuscule budgets. I think 'Father Brown' has had around six series now (not sure of the exact number.) and it's built up a loyal following. It has humour at the heart of it, and the central characters are convincing. Also, the setting, a Cotswold village, also makes it worth watching. As with other television dramas, such as 'Doc Martin' and 'Morse' the setting almost becomes like another character and seems to define the show. In some ways it's difficult to separate the setting from the show. These shows wouldn't be the same if they were set elsewhere.

As for adverts on television. The current 'Mr Kipling' adverts drive me mad, the one where the daughter reveals that she has a tattoo to her father, and she only has to wave a plate of Mr Kipling cakes at him and he changes his mind.  Before he was totally against her having one, but suddenly- pow! He caves in. Ridiculous! He's an easy touch it would appear, swayed by pink and shiny confectionary. Does that mean if a robber comes into his house and threatens to steal the family silver, if they waved a plate of cakes at him, they could get away with the crime? How far could this go? I'm sure I could find plenty of other similar scenarios. Are people that easily swayed by a plateful of fancy cakes? If so, it's rather sad. The cakes look a good deal bigger than they are in real life. I've tried them, no better than any other brand. They do taste good but they are a real disappointment. You open the packet and are then disappointed by the fact that two bites and they're gone. Just small and pathetic. A bit of a con in my opinion. The way they shoot the ad they look much bigger, clever camera angles and close-ups and lighting make them appear larger than    they really are. Think of all the money they make out of this product and then add on the over-all cost of making these advertisements. A lot of adverts for food use a variety of tricks to make the food look appetising, using dry ice to create the appearance of steam, gelatine to give a shiny surface, clever lighting and other effects.

I've mentioned sofa adverts on these posts before now, but why do they think everyone is desperate to have a sofa for Christmas?  Companies such as D.F.S. and S.C.S. are two such sofa companies which comes to mind (by the way, what do D.F.S and S.C.S.. stand for?) It's the old advertising thing of getting people to buy something that they might not actually want or need, creating a sort of desperate need to have that something, and if it's in time for Christmas you can show the sofa off to friends and family. if you keep showing those ads for long enough, even if at first you didn't really feel you wanted the product, you'll sit and look around your living room (even more clever tactics, this, when you think the viewer will be sitting on a sofa or armchair which is probably past it's best, needs replacing or at least refurbishing. Shoving brand new, sparkling, fresh sofas on an ad on television, makes your tatty old cut-moquette three-piece suite look a little moth eaten, to say the least. So, you are compelled to order one and end up further in debt. But why on earth for Christmas? It doesn't actually have to be just Christmas, as it could be in the run-up to Easter, Mothering Sunday, or any holiday period where you're likely to have visitors. And when they see the lovely new sofa they feel they want one and have to go away and order their own. It's playing on the jealousy thing. If someone sees something and want it they have to go out and buy whatever it is.

Watching Doc Martin

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will have discovered that Carol and I enjoy television dramas of a wide variety. We like many of the 'whodunnits' that abound across all the channels, from Father Brown on BBC 1 to Grantchester on ITV to Broadchurch (although that was rather drawn out over three series. The first series was good and the second was just a rehash of the first and the third was reasonable, but all in all it was rather over-egged. Probably just to keep the rating high.) I have mentioned Downton Abbey in earlier posts so there's really no need to rehash what I've already said. The downstairs characters were so much more interesting than the upstairs lot. Nothing further to say on that score.

We're currently watching Doc Martin on catch-up. Fortunately all the past episodes are available through our Sky Q box as a box set. I'm not entirely sure how many series or even how many episodes there have been. We started watching through the Amazon Fire stick, when the first couple of series (seasons to American television audiences) were free. The newer episodes you suddenly had to pay for, which we somewhat objected to, so we stopped watching and then Carol found the later episodes on the ITV Hub through the Sky Q box. And, you don't have to pay for the privilege.

What I in particular enjoy about Doc Martin is that it's so quirky. The central character played by Martin Clunes has so many quirks, particularly his lack of empathy with his patients, his brusque manner with everyone he meets and indeed most of the people he comes into contact with. Then there are the locals, his patient-base, if you like. Most have some weird illness or at least have some odd quirk which makes them interesting. It certainly has a heart and soul which a good deal of modern television drama seems to lack. From the completely incompetent receptionist in Dr Ellingham's surgery to the agorophobic policeman Joe Penhale. You can identify with the characters and they are almost part of the family. Which is why you want to keep on watching. Then there's the location. Portwenn is actually Port Isaac in Cornwall. It looks such an inviting place to visit. I don't expect I'm the only viewer of this show to want to visit and I expect the show hasn't done the real place any harm by attracting visitors and greatly helped the local economy.

There are many television drama series which have managed to use the locations in which they're set to establish character and definite anchor for their storylines and character bases. Look at shows such as 'Inspector Morse,' set in and around Oxford, 'Lovejoy' in and around East Anglia or 'Bergerac' on the Channel Island of Jersey. There are, of course, many more.

Watching Amazon TV Series 'The Man In The High Castle'

Besides having Sky as our 'television provider' we also have Amazon Fire, which is linked to Amazon Prime. A couple of years ago Carol bought a Kindle Fire, and as part of the deal, we got Prime free, which meant we got anything we purchased through Amazon came with free delivery as well as Amazon's 'on demand' television service. When the first year ran out we had to decide whether to continue with it and pay £79 a year and to purchase a Fire Stick. This we did and set up the Fire Stick which connects to our Sky wifi router. You then get a wide range of 'apps' which allows you to watch television shows and films free but also some which you have to pay for through the Amazon account. There are quite a few similar services besides this Amazon service, including Netflix. We can get the main channels 'on demand' such as BBC, through their iPlayer as well as Channel 4, Channel 5, as well as a few more besides. Very good, except you can't download and keep the programmes as you can with your Sky+ box. I'm not sure whether the newer Fire box which Amazon recently introduced allows this, but it costs a good dea than the Fire Stick (which I originally bought from Argos and costs around £34 which, considering what it does seems very reasonable, particularly if you don't have Sky, Virgin or any of the other 'television providers.') We used to have Freeview at this address but found that, because we didn't have an outdoor ariel, the signal was poor. So we looked around for a solution and found that Sky was perhaps best. It was when we were searching around that we discovered that Virgin wasn't available in this area because Milton Keynes, although a modern city, didn't have a cable network to carry the Virgin television or telephone network.

It's great having Television 'catch-up' services such as iPlayer and similar as you can not only watch programmes you might otherwise miss when they are originally broadcast (usually up to a month.) but there is quite a lot of what I'd call 'back-catalogue' material. We've watched 'Doc Martin' through the Fire Stick which also means you can miss the advertising. We did start watching 'Downton Abbey,' having recorded episodes on the Sky+ box but the adverts we so annoying and irritating that we didn't bother to watch any further episodes but eventually caught up with the final series when it was on the I.T.V. 'player.' It now appears that all six series are on Sky+ 'box sets.' With Netflix producing a remake of the B.B.C. series "House of Cards" with Kevin Spacey in the lead role, and the fact you can 'binge' watch all the episodes and don't have to wait a week before the next episode is available to watch, you can see why companies such as Amazon are making their own television shows for 'instant' download or steam. (Incidentally, I was a 'Walk-On' in the BBC version of 'House of Cards.")

I am currently watching an 'Amazon Original' series called "The Man In The High Castle." It's based on a novel by Philip K. Dick, who is best know for writing the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," which was the basis for the film "Blade Runner." That film was directed by Ridley Scott, who is also Executive Producer of "The Man In The High Castle." I am enjoying this series immensely. It is set in an alternative future where the Nazis won the Second World War and rule America jointly with the Japenese. This shows that television can beat cinema when it comes to story-telling because you can the time, over 10 hour-long episodes, to allow the narrative to breathe and characters to develop over time, which you cannot possibly have with a film which for no more than three hours.

This is dark and brooding and has a real chill to it. I think it's because it's believable. We know that the Nazis obviously didn't win the war, but this could so nearly have happened. It's this that gives it the edge. Only only criticism is that many of the scenes are in almost impenetrable darkness, to such an extent that you can barely see what's going on. I realize that this under-lit quality adds to the suspense and atmosphere, but it doesn't really help that you can't see clearly what's going on. I do like the fact that you, as the audience, has to actually work hard to make out what's going on, they don't give everything away. I like being able to make conclusions for myself. A lot of modern television and cinema is far too obvious. It's almost as if the makers assume you don't have the intelligence to work things out for yourself. It have a certain cinematic look, well photographed and the set design and costumes are well executed. I would imagine they had a fairly large budget to be able to give it that 'look.'