A Load More Daft and Cliched Things in Soap and Movies

Why is it that generally speaking, if a character has a posh accent, they are generally not to be trusted,  that they get to be a villain in a soap (or any other drama)? In American films generally, if they want to cast an actor as the 'bad guy' then they will go out and find a British actor to play the part. In 'The Lion King,' the voice of Scar, the villain of the piece, is voiced by Jeremy Irons. What is it about a Britsh actor's voice that suggests 'villainy'? In soap-land, if you cast an actor with a middle-class accent, you can bet your bottom dollar he'll be untrustworthy, and either be a landlord, businessman, accountant or have a similar job. Cockneys, in general are cast as being 'the salt of the earth,' hard working, good parents, loyal and so on (or in shows such as 'Only Fools and Horses.') that is, unless they live in Walford, and in particular in and around the streets near Albert Square.

Getting away from soaps, it's occurred to me that super heroes (and heroines) costumes are just plain silly. Well, thinking about them in general, super heroes are pretty stupid. I know it will upset a lot of people, but that's my opinion. A load of stupid characters dressed in ridiculous costumes, roaming about the world. For example,Wonder Woman's costume is really impractical. Does she never get cold? How does she manage if she goes shopping? How does she manage at work?  In fact, what does she do for money? Does she have a paid job? Does her boss mind if she shoots off and saves the world? Then, of course, where do you purchase such an outfit? They never seem to get dirty, when you've saved the world from some evil monster or villainous character. After jumping all over the place, smashing down brick walls, swinging on ropes and scrambling down the side of skyscrapers, how come their costumes never get dirty, or get torn on nails, caught on splinters of wood? Where does Wonder woman get her clothes repaired? Not just her, of course. There's the age-old thing about Superman wearing his underpants over his trousers. How does he manage to get from the Clark Kent garb into the Superman costume so fast? Then, how does Lois Lane never realise that Superman is actually Clark Kent. All he has to do is take off his glasses and he changes into his ridiculous costume and he's his alter ego. Why does it take Lois Lane so long to catch on to who he is? Is it because Clark Kent is such a geek and Superman the complete opposite. Not very convincing. It's not just Lois Lane who has never caught on who Clark Kent is really. Nobody else notices. Even if they peer at his face closely, wouldn't they see he's Superman?

Hollywood seems to be obsessed with making more and more films based on super heroes. There is obviously a certain section of the audience who love these characters and the movies which are based on them, but generally I think they would be in the teens and twenties. As a result they are ignoring those of us who prefer something with a bit more depth, not all about fighting villains and daft stunts like flying about on the end of bits of rope and climbing up the side of sky scrapers. Most are what you'd call 'Summer Blockbusters,' noisy and action-packed. Although there's nothing wrong with 'action-packed' movies, it annoys me that they take up so much space in the multiplexes up and down the country and then there are countless sequels. It's really no wonder that television seems to be the place for really good stories to be told. So many actors and directors are now turning to television because they can tell stories over seasons or series, have a longer time frame to really get to grips with characters in more depth. We have directors such as Ridley Scott investing time and energy on projects such as 'The Man In The High Castle' on Amazon and with series like 'Taboo' on BBC 1 with actors like Tom Hardy involved in not only acting but having a say on the writing and producing. 

Crazy Advertising

You're watching television, probably your favourite drama series. It's on a channel which has advertising. The action gets exciting and then suddenly- bang!- there's a commercial break. The whole storyline is interrupted by stupid advertising for sofas, car insurance or shampoo. So why do these advertisements have to be so facile? I'm not saying that every advert on television is poor, because there are one or two which are actually very clever and creative. But around 95% are just downright insulting and embarrassing. I realise that companies like ITV rely on advertising for their funding, but why do so many adverts have to be so awful? There are a few that have become classics, such as the Guinness one which has horses representing waves in the sea and perhaps the one for Hovis shot on a hill and spoofed by The Two Ronnies and made by Ridley Scott the director. But those are few and far between.  It can be said that making a television commercial is a very good way for a director to learn his craft. You have to be able to tell a story in a very short space of time, probably no more than 30 seconds. And make sure the viewer knows what brand your advert is for. Otherwise it's not going to be much use in selling that product.

Why do companies like Compare The Market and Confused.com have to use stupid characters to draw you in? The Alexander The Meerkat maybe a funny cuddly character and the animation may be clever and witty but it really has very little to do with car insurance or any other insurance. The annoying operatic singer who heads up the Confused.com advertising is little more than an annoyance and, frankly, would put me off using their products. Do they really think people will flock to them if they use this sort of tactic? If you buy Compere The Market and take whatever product it is they sell you're supposed to get a free meerkat toy or free cinema tickets. Do you necessarily get a good deal on these comparison websites? I can't work out how these companies make their money, but it must be something to do with getting some commission from the actual insurance companies if you buy insurance from them. They don't actually provide the insurance themselves. I think the fact that there's a funny furry character and that you can get a toy if you sign up is just to appeal to children who are supposed to have quite a lot of influence on what product people buy. Look along the breakfast cereal aisle in any supermarket and it seems that most breakfast cereals are aimed at children. Full of sugar, many of them, but if you look at the packaging they have free gifts quite obviously aimed at children. The same with companies such as McDonald's who seem to aim a lot of their fast food at children with lots of free gifts if you buy such-and-such a meal. No wonder there's a real problem with child obesity.

Sofa adverts are another bugbear we have in this household. How is it these companies are always having sales? Do they ever sell their sofas at full price and why are they always advertising just before Christmas or Easter and then say 'order now in time for Christmas?' Does it mean that their customers buy a new sofa (what happens to the old one? Is there a huge pile of ancient sofas in a warehouse somewhere? Redundant, unwanted, unloved? All because their former owners don't want them any more and need a new one 'just in time for Christmas?') Are their owners so fickle and pathetic that they have to show off with a new sofa at Christmas? And why, from seeing these adverts, are the sofas they show, so awful and ugly? Why do they always have a stupid woman advertising who has a high-pitched voice that drives you nuts and probably attracts all the dogs in the neighbourhood? Is she a former R.A.D.A. student-actress who can't find a better acting job? Although I imagine doing a television ad like that pays quite well, but it wouldn't look good on her C.V. when she applies for work at the National Theatre or R.S.C.

A Sunny and Cold Day

It wasn't quite as cold as it was yesterday morning. I was expecting there to be quite a hard frost, but only actually a light icing on the car so not as bad as it might have been. As I write this the sun is making a valiant attempt to shine. When it's sunny the lounge can become quite warm, and it is then that you don't need the central heating on.

I was supposed to have gone into the City centre this morning to get my eyes re-tested at Spec Savers. I got my eyes tested by Boot's Opticians a couple of months ago, but then I saw that Spec Savers had a good offer whereby you got two pairs of specs made up for £69. You just take your prescription from one company to another and they make up the specs accordingly. When I got the glasses back around a week later I found that the distance pair were fine, but when I got home and tried the reading glasses, they weren't correct for reading at a fairly close distance, such as a book or newspaper or when working on the laptop computer, as I am at this moment. The pair I am currently using are an 'off the shelf' pair bought from Boots. I managed to book a re-test appointment on line and it was going to be today, but they rang this morning to say it couldn't go ahead as the optician was unwell. It is re-booked for this Tuesday morning. I suppose if a member of staff is ill there isn't much I can do about it. I was offered an alternative appointment but I really didn't fancy driving in to the city centre this afternoon, so I chose to have the Tuesday alternative.

I'm currently watching "The Man In The High Castle," The Amazon series which is available on Amazon Fire Television.  It's one of those series which keeps you guessing, and it certainly has that 'I must see the next episode' feel to it, which I suppose is essential when you have all the episodes available to view 'on line.' You could 'binge' view this quite well, if you were that way inclined. This sort of thing has certainly change the way people watch television. Gone are the days when you had to wait a full week before you got the next episode of a series. I'm on series 2 which began just before Christmas. It is based on a Philip K. Dick novel and takes the 'what if' concept of what would have happened if the Nazis had won the Second World War. They have divided the U.S.A. in to 'zones' and are in charge of the country in partnership, although it's an uneasy partnership, with the Japanese. It is co-produced by Ridley Scott, who is also responsible, in part, for the new BBC 1 drama 'Taboo" which stars Tom Hardy. It makes a change to have some television drama with a bit of bite to it. Not for those of a nervous disposition as this one in particular is dark and grimy. Why on earth is it that the BBC can commission this sort of stuff, yet insist on going on with pap like "Holby City" and "Casualty" which are both well past their 'sell-by' dates? Well, I suppose it gives someone work, even if it's a few actors and writers.

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.'