Jay Hunt is a woman?
Seriously how did I miss that one...
30 July 2009
This is news?
Isn't this the whole point of Ramsey's American shows?
If you have ever watched them you'll know every single one of Hell's Kitchen or Kitchen Nightmares US ends up with a very angry yank somewhere along the line - but the Mail decide that this guy is his 'match', because he's a marine
Big headline - I was expecting a giant Stephen Seagal figure but the guy was pretty skinny and Ramsey is a big bloke, not saying the marine probably couldn't deck him, but I doubt Ramsey was intimidated
So in reality this is no different to any other episode and is further proof of the complete pointlessness of the conventional media, who peddle unimportant bilge and fabricate stories to fill their pages
But it did get me thinking - why are the Americans always so much more emotional? When I actually bother to watch the show, the highlight for me is the inevitable flare up as some arrogant yank gets in a mighty strop and requests to go outside
Now far be it for me to promote the stiff-upper-lip stereotype - the producers may well deliberately pick complete nutjobs and edit the show differently (that's the 18 mins of actual content in the hour, not the various shots of the outside and 5-minute recaps) but regardless there is a definite difference in tone - either they actually do it, or they just want to see it
It is a rather different mood to the British versions, where Ramsey used to try and start fights just as readily, but rarely got a real rise out of people, there were a few notable cases, but usually the worst offenders simply ignored him and then just deliberately disobeyed him rather than shouting their mouths off
Are we a much more quiet and reserved people? It's not really about what's 'better' - of course I prefer the British self-derision and dry humour in the face of conflict, because I am a Brit myself and I hate the heart-on-the-sleeve attitude of the yanks and their faux-politeness, again, because I am a Brit (and they have no sense of humour) - I'm as biased as anyone
I merely just find it interesting that there is quite a different mentality to the way that two cultures, with pretty similar roots, behave, particularly in public
If you have ever watched them you'll know every single one of Hell's Kitchen or Kitchen Nightmares US ends up with a very angry yank somewhere along the line - but the Mail decide that this guy is his 'match', because he's a marine
Big headline - I was expecting a giant Stephen Seagal figure but the guy was pretty skinny and Ramsey is a big bloke, not saying the marine probably couldn't deck him, but I doubt Ramsey was intimidated
So in reality this is no different to any other episode and is further proof of the complete pointlessness of the conventional media, who peddle unimportant bilge and fabricate stories to fill their pages
But it did get me thinking - why are the Americans always so much more emotional? When I actually bother to watch the show, the highlight for me is the inevitable flare up as some arrogant yank gets in a mighty strop and requests to go outside
Now far be it for me to promote the stiff-upper-lip stereotype - the producers may well deliberately pick complete nutjobs and edit the show differently (that's the 18 mins of actual content in the hour, not the various shots of the outside and 5-minute recaps) but regardless there is a definite difference in tone - either they actually do it, or they just want to see it
It is a rather different mood to the British versions, where Ramsey used to try and start fights just as readily, but rarely got a real rise out of people, there were a few notable cases, but usually the worst offenders simply ignored him and then just deliberately disobeyed him rather than shouting their mouths off
Are we a much more quiet and reserved people? It's not really about what's 'better' - of course I prefer the British self-derision and dry humour in the face of conflict, because I am a Brit myself and I hate the heart-on-the-sleeve attitude of the yanks and their faux-politeness, again, because I am a Brit (and they have no sense of humour) - I'm as biased as anyone
I merely just find it interesting that there is quite a different mentality to the way that two cultures, with pretty similar roots, behave, particularly in public
29 July 2009
Is it obvious?
Looking over this report on the widening social gap which has been doing the rounds of late, I can't help feeling there's a very obvious answer to the issue
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
At the risk of being labelled a Tory elitist I'm going to say this - Grammar schools anyone?As an example, the report shows that doctors and lawyers who are in their late-30s today are drawn from a more affluent slice of society than their colleagues in their 50s.
Why should this be the case? Why should the gap be widening
It does seem to be a noticeable trend that those educated during or prior to the 70s are from a wider section of society than those in their thirties - i.e. educated in the 80s - more or less consistent with the removal of Grammar schools
I don't claim this is the only factor, I am merely noticing a rather obvious correlation between the decline of Grammar schools and the increase in privilege in the professional classes - it may be nothing to do with it, but I think it's hard to ignore when it was such an important change in schooling
I can understand some of the arguments against them, even if I don't agree - but it's pretty clear that all forcing the poor and bright into comprehensives did was worsen their chances and left the opportunities to only the wealthy...the Grammar school system may not have been perfect but simply removing them made it worse if you ask me
I never got the chance to go to Grammar school, I only had the option of my two local comps - fortunately I was eligible for the Grammar school replacement - the Assisted Places Scheme, which basically gave those who would pass the 11+ a subsidised or free entry to independent schools
Had I been a year younger I would not have been eligible for this, because Tony Blair scrapped it because it was 'elitist' (this...from a Fettes man) - so I would have gone to one of those comps
Now I'm not knocking state education as a whole, there are many excellent comps - just none of them happened to be where I lived, I would've been sent to one of the underachieving pits where my local friends went, none of whom did A-levels or went to university, only one teacher was ever murdered though..
It does sound elitist, I admit - but the government are insistent on giving the poorest of us better chances, I don't see how forcing us to go to the local comps did that - unless of course the removal of both Grammar schools and the AP scheme meant that state education considerably improved - and I'm not aware that it did?
From the few socialists that I've met they seem to think that the complete removal of private schools and total use of state education would somehow create a better system - it's a pipedream, and the rich would still use their influence to play the postcode lottery, go abroad, or hire tutors - you can never remove the influence of the wealthy, unless we head down the communist route...
All that happened was the brightest were sent to the comps, while the richest got the best education - in principle maybe it was unfair to pay for the brightest to go to 'posh' schools, but the reality was it was a much more effective system than some grandiose dream about brilliant state education - all that has happened is the rich now get more opportunities while the rest of us form part of the mediocre average
Basically the government want more people from poor backgrounds to have the best they can achieve, i.e. on merit - and yet to classify people by their intelligence (a fairly big part of 'merit' if you ask me) is 'elitist' - seems a bit of a conundrum to me - they would rather just get more poor people in, regardless of talent, to fill their quotas - seems like another form of discrimination to me, just as bad as the rich paying for their kids achievements
Two things stand out to me: Firstly look at the last two Tory Prime Ministers: both Grammar school educated and with working-class origins, now compare that to the current Tory leader and his band of Eton educated cronies, from a demographic coincidentally educated mostly in the late 70s and 80s - maybe it's nothing to do with it, but I always find it quite a striking comparison (and I didn't even need to swing at Labour's last two)
Then, on a more personal note, and I can give no evidence of this, note my school's performance after my year group - it dipped considerably and the few long-term teachers I occasionally see whinge no end about falling standards - I accept that this may well be down to the growing class sizes in the school's pursuit of money, and also the fact that my teachers are old and naturally regard everything as being worse now - but I choose to see the decline as having a link to the removal of academic qualification and the allowing of all those whose parents merely pay up, in
I don't claim it's a valid study, I may well be wrong, but that's my life experience and I'll stick to it until otherwise proved
Atheist Brainwashing Bootcamp!!@1!!1!!!
The Mail asks should we be worried about Britain's first atheist summer camp?
Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?
Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?
Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?
Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?
As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed
In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...
Well, ummm, no, not really - why should we be worried about it when most camps are already run by Church groups or the Christian Scouts/Guides?
Are we particularly worried about camps run by those with a specific religious agenda attempting to place their ideas about God and what-not on our kids?
Not really...so why should I be any more worried about one that doesn't preach any religious dogma?
Even if a case is made that they do promote an agenda, how is it any different from what Christian (or other faith) camps do?
As far as I'm concerned this is just a feeble defence from the Christian-minded who think their religion should be the only viewpoint allowed
In fact it's such a weak jibe that I don't even need to rant about it, which is a shame really because I need a good rant...
27 July 2009
A Comedic Dilemma?
Upon hearing the news that the Beeb are in a bit of a pickle over pre-watershed comedy on BBC One (via From the North) it got me thinking: how can you make good comedy for the general audience?
I suddenly started thinking of current good comedies - Lead Balloon, Gavin and Stacey, even Saxondale - almost all decent comedies are on after 9pm, or on BBC2
The only shows praised have been Outnumbered, which is brilliant, and curiously, My Family - which I think went stale years ago
But that is what they actually want - banal comedy that your mum or grandparents will happily sit down and watch with the younger kids - the BBC still produces very good comedy (such as Mock the Week) - but invariably good comedies are rarely suitable for pre-watershed slots
Even Gavin and Stacey, which is(/possibly was) an excellent family comedy, is too edgy for the watershed - so basically the task of comedy at BBC One is to find an innocuous, mildly funny show that doesn't offend anyone - preferably comparable to Only Fools and Horses
The ironic thing is, finding this rather bland style of programme is incredibly hard - harder than finding the best comedies, because decent comedy doesn't have huge numbers of restrictions placed upon it
So what we have now is tripe like The Green, Green Grass, and After You've Gone (weirdly both linked to OFAH) - propped up by the strangely popular My Family - and apparently it simply isn't good enough...
But here is the problem - you cannot experiment with comedy on BBC One (pre-watershed anyway) - for if you were to show one of the odd pilots you get on BBC3 people would not be impressed, the flagship channel has standards, you know
Throw in the fact that viewers of the other channels will not be impressed by lame sitcoms with no swearing or sexual references and we have a right dilemma - BBC One cannot take the risk and 2 and 3 don't have the audience
So where do you find these sitcoms? Well the truth is, unlike with good comedy, where you gamble recklessly, you play it cautious - stick to established writers and performers and use a familiar concept - My Family is a continuation of 2point4 Children and it's no coincidence that primetime comedies feature well-known faces such as Nicholas Lyndhurst and a spin-off from OFAH, nor is it surprising that these shows go on for years - because they are inane drivel
But to find good inane drivel is an artform and a very hard ask in this day and age - it seems to be mostly luck - finding a show that jumps through enough hoops to not be a risk in the evening slot on the flagship channel and then be found funny by those odd people who actually watch primetime comedy - it's no wonder they want at least 10 years out of one when they find it
I suddenly started thinking of current good comedies - Lead Balloon, Gavin and Stacey, even Saxondale - almost all decent comedies are on after 9pm, or on BBC2
The only shows praised have been Outnumbered, which is brilliant, and curiously, My Family - which I think went stale years ago
But that is what they actually want - banal comedy that your mum or grandparents will happily sit down and watch with the younger kids - the BBC still produces very good comedy (such as Mock the Week) - but invariably good comedies are rarely suitable for pre-watershed slots
Even Gavin and Stacey, which is(/possibly was) an excellent family comedy, is too edgy for the watershed - so basically the task of comedy at BBC One is to find an innocuous, mildly funny show that doesn't offend anyone - preferably comparable to Only Fools and Horses
The ironic thing is, finding this rather bland style of programme is incredibly hard - harder than finding the best comedies, because decent comedy doesn't have huge numbers of restrictions placed upon it
So what we have now is tripe like The Green, Green Grass, and After You've Gone (weirdly both linked to OFAH) - propped up by the strangely popular My Family - and apparently it simply isn't good enough...
But here is the problem - you cannot experiment with comedy on BBC One (pre-watershed anyway) - for if you were to show one of the odd pilots you get on BBC3 people would not be impressed, the flagship channel has standards, you know
Throw in the fact that viewers of the other channels will not be impressed by lame sitcoms with no swearing or sexual references and we have a right dilemma - BBC One cannot take the risk and 2 and 3 don't have the audience
So where do you find these sitcoms? Well the truth is, unlike with good comedy, where you gamble recklessly, you play it cautious - stick to established writers and performers and use a familiar concept - My Family is a continuation of 2point4 Children and it's no coincidence that primetime comedies feature well-known faces such as Nicholas Lyndhurst and a spin-off from OFAH, nor is it surprising that these shows go on for years - because they are inane drivel
But to find good inane drivel is an artform and a very hard ask in this day and age - it seems to be mostly luck - finding a show that jumps through enough hoops to not be a risk in the evening slot on the flagship channel and then be found funny by those odd people who actually watch primetime comedy - it's no wonder they want at least 10 years out of one when they find it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
