web
counter
 

All I See Is These Vampires and Bloodsuckers

By Caspar Salmon | Posted Under TV Reviews | Comments (23)



beinghuman_uk.jpg

Hello everyone, and haven’t I got some great television for you this week! Oh I’m sorry, I meant: I haven’t got some great television for you this week! I’m going to be wittering on about two OK programs (one of which I hate) and one outright disappointment. And now, with your appetites all fully whetted for this stellar line-up, let’s proceed to the shows!

Being Human

dbeinghuma.jpg

I’m new to “Being Human,” so I’ve got a little bit to catch up on, but as far as I was able to make out from hearsay it’s about a ghost, a werewolf and a vampire who all live together in the normal world. You know: the world that you and I live in, like normal people. Wouldn’t it be wack if there were supernatural beings walking around amongst us? Eh? God that would be wild.

In this opening episode to Series 3, the hunky Mitchell (the vampire one), played by hunky Aiden Turner, is hunkily trying to save Annie (the ghost one, played by Lenora Crichlow) from Purgatory, where she got dragged to at the end of last series. Meanwhile, the werewolf one (Russell Tovey, playing his character with all the usual Toveyisms) and his werewolf girlfriend are — er — well, they don’t have much of a plot this week. Bad luck guys! In summary: he gets arrested at one point, in an unhilarious misunderstanding whereby the cops mistake him for a dogger in the forest, and his girlfriend comes to rescue him as they’re both about to transform; it’s not a wonderful storyline. There’s also a completely bizarre cage-fighting subplot, which looks like it’ll bleed into future episodes; I’m not sure it has that much potential.

The whole vampire-going-to-Purgatory bit gave hunky Mitchell the chance to broodingly reflect on his past misdemeanors, in the company of a perky cockney Beatrice to his hunky brooding Dante de nos jours, played by Lacey Turner from “Eastenders” with the endearing air of someone who’s only just learnt how to act after years of being held in an Afghan prison. It was quite a good storyline which confronted hunky Mitchell with his past blood victims, and one which gave hunky Aiden Turner multiple chances to peer through his hilarious hairdo with his trademark troubled gaze, and look as if his character were going through some emotions.

I wasn’t that impressed with it, especially after falling for the zippy take on paranormal shiz in “Misfits” late last year. I thought that there was a fair amount of overacting (Tovey) and an equal amount of underacting (Turner), and the script didn’t always sparkle, particularly in the ‘comedy’ moments. There were a few sharp lines (“He went to Purgatory for you! Puts my boyfriend’s tattoo in perspective.”) and some nice visuals, but I can’t say it had me howling (werewolf pun) for more or that I’m dying (ghost pun) to sink my teeth (vampire pun) into past episodes.

Ten O’Clock Live

David-Mitchell-Charlie-Br-007.jpg


The most widely trumpeted programme of the year, which debuted last Thursday evening, was the new comedians-do-the-news show “10 O’Clock Live.” Seemingly taking its cues from such shows as “Have I Got News For You,” “The Day Today,” “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and the not terribly missed “The 11 O’Clock Show” (which nevertheless launched Ricky Gervais and Sacha Baron Cohen), this new prog aimed to skewer the news and all those lying bastard snooty sneering politicians and all those oily impardonable bankers, with well-aimed barbs and caustic, punchy vitriol. In the end, it turned out to be a rather underwhelming sort of awkward confection consisting of a couple of sketches (a dreadful “Come To Tunisia For Your Holidays” piece, for instance; oh ha ha ha, yeah, that really is the funniest that a sharp-eyed current affairs programme can do on the topic of a whole continent thrillingly starting to tear itself away from dictatorship; keep the incisive comedy coming guys) , two interviews (nervously handled by two people who have never interviewed someone before), a crap debate about banking bonuses, and lame ‘bits’ to camera by the three various men (such as Charlie Brooker’s oddly uninspired take on Sarah Palin), all competing to out-funny each other, with desperately chirpy segues and cement from Lauren Laverne who had thankfully been sidelined in her capacity as a dumb broad, so that the men could bring the lolz. The worst bits came when all four cohorts sat at an overly large table with their backs to a large proportion of the audience, awkwardly discussing current events like four not particularly learned mates chatting about monetarism down at the pub. It was mortifying at its worst and mildly discomfiting at its best.


The worst thing for me was the braying audience, upbraided on two occasions by a harried-looking David Mitchell (who really should stick to “Peep Show,” in my view) for bringing a pantomime vibe to proceedings. It was all about populist booing and clapping, jeering at fucking bankers and cheering at the brave vigilantes fighting for our plain, decent, upstanding rights. I can only hope the show relaxes a little, allowing the four comedians to banter in a more easy way with each other and getting some unscripted loveliness to bubble about in the mix, because this first outing was cripplingly rigid and self-satisfied.

Top Gear

topgear-2011_38.jpg


Finally, starting an umpteenth series this week, the ever popular “Top Gear” returned to our screens, fronted as ever by Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May, those three well-known men, happily passing judgment on style, aesthetics and coolness while sporting, in this instance, a green velour jacket, light blue jeans and moccasins (Clarkson), a Topman jacket, bad jeans, bad hair and a wooden necklace (Hammond) and a brown leather jacket, a mauve paisley shirt and the worst hair of all (May). They all look extraordinary. I have lived in this world for thirty years now, and have never met a single man who looks anything like these three.

So yes, my secret is out: I am not “Top Gear“‘s target audience, and I find the whole thing fairly bemusing when I don’t find it outright offensive (of which more in just a second). Since I don’t drive a car and never have done, and never had as a boy that fascination with cars that most boys do have, I don’t even understand what these guys are talking about most of the time. Horsepower? I have no idea what that is; I would guess the force of the engine, but it’s a close thing. I’d guess a chassis is the car’s arse, mostly from terrible innuendo by bad stand-up comedians, and I would have no idea which pedal was which. So I hope you all appreciate my sacrifice.

I found this first episode alright. It did the trick, just about, although as I understand it the “Top gear” formula is well-worn: get at least one of the men to do something silly; do a big stunt race; get their weird anonymous driver in a mask to test drive something; deride a minority; announce some ‘news’ about cars coming out soon; get a celeb to drive something. I’ve seen it before and often found things to infuriate me, and this episode didn’t fail in that respect - as Clarkson et al aren’t thick and take a mean pleasure in troll-baiting effete, well-thinking, middle-class liberals like me - but there were also some bits to enjoy. The three buffoons look berserk but they do enjoy a real camaraderie and seem to delight in each other’s company; their banter feels extremely scripted (as are SO many of the show’s gags), but they are quite a genial team, overall. Clarkson is a massive prick, of course, but that can’t be helped. Another thing I found to enjoy was a pleasingly anarchic style to the show, particularly in a wildly surreal sequence where Clarkson tested the new Skoda (a subject of much derision, but which looked to me like it probably served its main function of getting from A to B very well). This bit saw him riding it over bumpy terrain while a tattoo artist attempted to draw a rose on a poor fellow’s shoulder, which was quite funny, and they also landed a helicopter on the car to test its endurance. But the best bit came when Clarkson said, “But is there room for Sienna Miller in the glove compartment?” - which is already a good enough line on its own - and opened up the compartment to reveal a smiling Sienna Miller for a split second cameo. Very good.


Where the show falls down — for me, that is; I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t hold its charms for people who like driving or who can look beyond some heavily contrived comedic set-ups - is in its terrible unreconstructed politics. Some of it is deliberately done to anger - well, to anger me, basically - but some of it is entirely unintentional, such as an astonishing moment today when Clarkson, fawning over a car that costs £105,000 (!), said, “”You’ll actually be able to say to your wife, shall we take the Interceptor tonight darling?” He honestly didn’t do it on purpose: his boyish, gleeful instinct, and the best scenario he could possibly think of, was being a man driving a woman around in a car. He didn’t consider women driving, or men driving men, or men driving on their own; it was pure unadulterated old sexism. Women don’t get a look-in on the show, and why should they? Women come in three categories on “Top Gear”: fun girls who drive wildly, enigmatic girls who drive sexily, and wives.

There was a dreadful bit, too, where the presenters gamely discussed for two embarrassing minutes, whether there was an alternative to cars in today’s world, and found that - phew - there isn’t. Take that, icebergs! Having accepted this totally dubious premise without batting an eyelid - disgustingly dismissing public transport as the province of murderers (which is revolting, even as a joke) - they then briefly discussed how to save the planet, and didn’t come up with anything. Oh god, it was so cringe-worthy. I bet in 50 years’ time, as the world is crumbling about our ears, we’ll watch this debate on terrible TV screens like in “Wall-E”, and shake our heads at these fools who were singing while the ship went down.

Caspar Salmon got chatted up on public transport just last night, which has never happened to him on a car journey.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Conspirator Trailer | Wild And Bereft, Assassin Is Born | And You're Going To Put The Rabbit Back In Its Container | Pajiba Love









Comments

I think you have to understand that Top Gear is not intended to be a serious political statement. I'm sure Clarkson believes a fair amount of what he says, at least the basic concepts, but he's turning it all up to 11 for a laugh. If you don't find it funny, that's fine, but if your reaction is disbelief that anyone could actually feel that way that strongly... well they don't; they're hamming it up for the camera. Playing the part. By doing that they're acknowledging the very flaws that you're eager to point out. It's all part of it. Taking a flawed viewpoint to the nth degree is a great source of humor if you're not convinced that the humorist is serious.

Also, that show isn't really about cars. They hardly know that much themselves. It's about the guys and their relationship and antics. And yes, it is frustratingly canned these days. That criticism I am definitely on-board with, but still it's kind of a wink-and-a-nod campy kind of canned, which can still have its moments although it does tend to wear on you.

Posted by: Eep at January 27, 2011 11:28 AM

Also, a quick side note to the people with whom I was discussing Spaced--I gave the first series a second chance and finished it and ultimately enjoyed it and have enjoyed the second series as well. I really like that British model of kicking a series out whenever you have the material, not just to satisfy a contract. Also having American stars do commentary with the cast was genius.

Posted by: Eep at January 27, 2011 11:30 AM

Top Gear sort of grows on you over time, or it doesn't. It's like sake that way.

To be fair, they've done a few episodes where they've raced against public transportation and lost. They're car lovers, so a lot of riffing they do is probably just their way of justifying the love of owning and driving one, while admittedly not exploring alternatives or pros and cons. But then again it's an auto show, not a get around England show.

And in the end, I don't think anyone can really explain away the occassional mysogenistic / sexual / racist remarks. I sort of wish they'd get away from using that to fill out the show, but that might be like asking Howard Stern to be nicer to people.

Posted by: Markus at January 27, 2011 11:32 AM

To put my original point another way, Jeremy Clarkson isn't saying misogynistic things, Jeremy-Clarkson-the-idiot-loudmouth is saying misogynistic things. Does that make sense? So he's not even advocating that position, he's saying it from the position of knowing that he is seen, particularly in character, as a loudmouth lout, so when he takes a position in that character he's also at least partly making fun of that position.

Posted by: Eep at January 27, 2011 11:36 AM

Haven't watched any of the things this week. Am not a Top Gear person at all. All of them need to sort their hair out.

Need more Gypsy Weddings! Did you see this week? They had to carry a fire extinguisher around in case the bride went up in flames.

Posted by: Carrie at January 27, 2011 11:36 AM

Brooker for Master of the Universe!

..But he needs to get rid of that hair..

Old Brooker for Master of the Universe!

Top Gear is fun and funny when not talking about cars. Jeremy's character is him exaggerating his dick self, but it works in the context of the show.

Posted by: zeke the pig at January 27, 2011 11:43 AM

Yeah, I'm with Zeke on this one. Brooker FTW. Minus the hair. That thing was an affront to the laws of physics.

I thought Ten O'Clock live showed some promise, though it was all handled rather awkwardly.

Speaking of British television - am I the only one who watched Silent Witness last Monday and Tuesday? I kept veering between "God, this is amazingly stupid" and "God, this is amazingly entertaining."

Posted by: Zirze at January 27, 2011 12:03 PM

I have yet to see a totally crappy episode of Top Gear UK, but I have the feeling that said totally crappy episode would be head and shoulders above the American spinoff.

Posted by: The Wanderer at January 27, 2011 12:16 PM

Being Human - Yes, it was a bit so-so. Also the casting of Paul Kaye and Robson Green took me out of the story. They were decent enough but are too recognisable. It's a shame you didn't see the first series Caspar, as it was quite excellent. The second series went off the rails somewhat when it abandoned any notion of internal logic. Each week it was a competition to see which character would act most out-of-character just to advance the plot.

The 10 O'Clock Show - I'm a big fan of Mitchell, Brooker and Carr, but that show was a heck of a disappointment. I'll give it a few more episodes to bed in, but it had better improve. For a start they need to hide the pantomime audience, have just one interview and don't rush it, give Lauren Laverne something to do or get rid of her; and even consider recording it earlier in the evening to sort out the atrocious timing.

Top Gear - It's TV for people who think The Sun is a valid source of news. It's TV for people who think it acceptable to wear football shirts anywhere else but on a football pitch. It's TV for people who would only read a book if they were forced.
In short, it's 3 men participating in completely staged-managed escapades, in between masturbating over sports cars.
I don't believe Clarkson is that good an actor. He is simply a massive cock.

Posted by: Simon at January 27, 2011 12:56 PM

I'm not sure how others feel about this but since Being Human S3 hasn't aired in the colonies yet, perhaps we could not cover it in this column since some of us like our eps even a little spoiler-free?
I'm not bitching: just wondering if anyone else feels the same way?

Spoil Top Gear all you want. I was over Clarkson and crew years ago.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 27, 2011 1:04 PM

Clarkson et al are dicks, but like Eep said, that's kind of the point. I'm willing to concede that they're probably not as self-aware as they could be, but I do think that by espousing totally ridiculous opinions, like "public transport is for murderers", they're mostly mocking the kinds of people who hold those opinions, (like anyone who actually looks down on public transport). I'd also add that top gear has been a pretty great source, at least for me (an American), of info on real fuel efficiency. Who knew that VW had a car that could do 72 mpg? Are hydrogen cars amazing, or what? Agreed that it would be fantastic if this was something they did more of.

The occasional racism and misogyny are indefensible, although that was a pretty innocuous example. He's clearly speaking out of his own experience, which is certainly heteronormative and limited, but not really insulting, I don't think.

And Simon, really? Maybe in the UK the audience is different, but I know all kinds of people stateside who watch this show. This description of the audience was as gleefully narrow-minded as anything that ever gets said on Top Gear.

Posted by: AnaC at January 27, 2011 1:50 PM

Let me add here that Stephen Fry's quiz show QI is one of the highlights of my BBC week.
Thank you.

Posted by: Raouldukejr at January 27, 2011 2:11 PM

I have nothing to say about any of these shows, as I've never seen them.

But that headline is badass, and I commend you for using it.

Posted by: ChristianH at January 27, 2011 2:25 PM

Perfect timing, since I watched S1 and 2 of Being Human in 4 days, and caught 3.1 last night (Paddy, you can find it online, in decent quality if you're feeling impatient).

So. S1 made me fall in love. I'm helpless against a brooding, tall male with an Irish accent (Adian Turner is totally my new pretend boyfriend!) and George's combination of random ass-kicking with an overall dorkiness is charming. And Annie doesn't always register for me, but they give her some great lines and interaction with the other 2. I was hooked.

S2 was . . . well, it was odd. But I still liked it.

S3 is starting out a bit shaky. However, I'm willing to forgive a lot of things because some of the writing is just clever enough to keep me there.

That was the best thing about S1, honestly. It's supposed to be this kind of dark, twisted monster story. But some lines would send me screeching into laughter. I just adore that.

Posted by: MyySharona at January 27, 2011 2:58 PM

Nice Kanye/Jay-Z reference in the headline!

Posted by: groovekiller at January 27, 2011 5:17 PM

I really like Being Human. OK maybe this wasn't the best episode - I found Lacey Turner really distracting (not in a good way) - but George and Nina are brilliant and I will take anything I can get of them.

The 10 'o' clock show was quite disappointing. I found it was satisfactory to record and fast forward through the boring bits though e.g. all of Jimmy Carr (who I really dislike). Charlie Brooker still keeps his place in my affection though - he can rant all he likes.

Posted by: TS at January 27, 2011 5:46 PM

AnaC - yes really.

This description of the audience was as gleefully narrow-minded as anything that ever gets said on Top Gear.

I beg to differ. I am berating those who make a conscious choice to watch a show that panders to the lowest common denominator.
Clarkson berates people because of where they are born or what they are born into. It's not just an act he puts on for Top Gear - he is just as objectionable in his newspaper columns and his chat show appearances.

Saying that, he did punch Piers Morgan in the face once, so he's not 100% terrible.

Posted by: Simon at January 27, 2011 6:39 PM

Simon- My experience of him is limited to just Top Gear (luckily!), so I had always assumed the whole thing was pretty tongue in cheek, kind of like Stephen Colbert. If he's really an enormous douche I take back everything I wrote...although I also can't help but cheer a little for anyone who would punch Piers Morgan in the face. That guy should get punched in the face every minute of his life.

Maybe they should've replaced the whole cast, instead of just the Stig. Also, someone should design a better car. Also also, I'd really like my dog to grow thumbs and learn to cook for me, but what can you do?

Posted by: AnaC at January 27, 2011 8:09 PM

Simon, I make a conscious choice to watch Top Gear. I am a member of the UK audience. I hate football, preferring rugby (P.S. will you review the Six Nations?). I, therefore, have never worn a football shirt. I frequently read books, mainly Pratchett and Wodehouse. I love Stephen Fry. I wear pearls and live in Royal Deeside.

I choose to watch Top Gear because I like cars, I like the challenges and I like The Stig (although, they didn't bring him back as they ought to have done - so many new legends of The Stig missed).

I watch it knowing that it is all staged and James May has bad hair. For me, it is harmless humour with cars thrown in.

I do not like being lumped into 'The Sun Reedrz Rulz, OK?' category. There are some middle-class viewers who have the same views as Clarkson (for the most part) and enjoy his outspoken ways.

And Caspar, as for them not finding an alternative to cars, they clearly said that science has just not caught up yet, and until it does there will be no alternative than petrol/diesel cars. For me, public transport is not an option, because I live in the middle of an estate in the Cairngorms. I happen to agree with them.

Sorry to rant, but not all Top Gear viewers say 'Innit' and drive in a Golf GTI with 'V-DUBS' graphics. I leave that to my brother.

Also, in general, I have always and will always love Being Human. Nice to see the werewolves get a look in.

Posted by: Limey Bastard at January 28, 2011 5:20 AM

Yes, I might review one 'episode' of the Six Nations; we'll see.

I did say in my review that I appreciate that a lot of what Clarkson and his two gimps say is tongue in cheek and specifically designed to annoy; I appreciate that, and they do it well. I don't think everyone who watches it is an idiot, but I do think that it's editorially very ambiguous in blurring the lines between 'harmless fun' and some really sexist/heteronormative/climate change-denying content, and I'm not sure everyone understands the difference. Clarkson's views on some things are quite extreme - witness his column in the Sun and his various books - and I think he sometimes sounds off on the programme in rather dangerous ways (for instance on the subject of speed cameras, which he deems an impediment to comfortable driving, rather than a successful measure to stop kids being killed).

Posted by: Caspar at January 28, 2011 6:06 AM

Thanks for the response, Caspar. It was mainly Simon's generalisation of Top Gear audiences that got me riled up.

And true enough, you should never use Clarkson as your inspiration. It doesn't help that a new report out over here states that 90% of speed cameras aren't even working. It adds fuel to the Clarkson fire.

I think as long as you can see that blurry line, and realise that it is a fine line, Top Gear can be quite fun to watch. Just don't try this at home, kids.

Also, if you remove the three hosts, the production and photography of a lot of the car reviews are beautiful.

Posted by: Limey Bastard at January 28, 2011 6:19 AM

Limey Bastard - I find it odd that you should take such umbrage at my generalisation, whilst defending a show which spouts out much more offensive generalisations and much more frequently.

Me talking about The Sun and football tops surely pales into insignificance against Clarkson joking about Malaysian car workers living in the jungle and wearing leaves for shoes?
How about the time he joked about truck drivers routinely murdering prostitutes? Did you complain about that generalisation? Are you ok with him referring to modern day Germans as Nazis?

Oh no, I've hurt the feelings of someone who likes the show fronted by homophobic, misogynistic rascist - although only in a post-modern ironic sort of way. How ever will I sleep tonight...


Posted by: Simon at January 29, 2011 10:05 AM

Simon,

Okay, I should not take such umbrage at your generalisation. I will admit that.

You could say that all generalisations are offensive, but it is how they are presented to you that influences how you perceive them, such as the generalisations in TV adverts, sitcoms and even the news. It is just the same as people finding stereotypes and first impressions offensive, but those are human nature to help our brains deal with any given scenario.

To just pick on Clarkson, who is just a middle-aged Tory who happens to know a wee bit about cars and is controversial enough to get the viewing ratings favoured by the BBC, is to ignore every stand-up comedian, nearly every TV show, every single advert and pretty much all current affairs, and your own psychology.

I simply do not understand why I cannot simply like Top Gear, view Clarkson as any other stand-up comedian (none of which I take seriously), and enjoy something that is not a crap comedy show, singing show or a celebrity v. celebrity contest, without being lumped in with your generalisation of a Top Gear audience.

Also, there are two other hosts of that programme. It was May and Hammond being racist against Mexicans last night, and I never see them in the news or being criticised for spouting off at the mouth about offensive generalisations.

I’m not saying you should be upset that I found your generalisation offensive (or that you need to mock being upset) or that I’m particularly upset by it. It’s my opinion and you have your opinion, to which we both entitled.

Why find Clarkson upsetting, when there’s Frankie Boyle in the world?

Posted by: Limey Bastard at January 31, 2011 5:21 AM