Thursday 30 August 2018

27 - Uniform

Okay. So I'm going to rant about school uniform. 

Now, I'm not against the actual concept of school uniform as it makes things easy for kids and parents in that there's no worry about what a child is to wear each day. Without a uniform, this can cause anxiety for children - especially teenagers - as then there's a pressure on them to ensure the outfit they wear complies with the ever-changing idea of what is "fashionable" today. With uniform everyone wear, essentially, the same things.

What twists my melon is the nature of much uniform these days, and the expense of it all. Especially given that one of the reasons often cited for uniform is that it means richer and poorer kids are wearing the same things, and don't have to worry about the costs of things.

But that's not true... so many schools - especially secondary school - insist you buy a blazer with the school's logo, jumpers with the school branding, specific school branded PE kits, the school tie, and so on. And these branded/logoed items are only available at a single store who therefore have a monopoly and can charge what they want. 

Back in the day when I was in secondary school the only things that we wore that were specific were the school tie, and a PE top; neither were branded as such. The rest of the uniform could be sourced from anywhere else as long as it was specific colours. This did lead to a bit of variety in style, but all were close enough to be recongnisably uniform. And we didn't have to wear an expensive blazer.

The sheer cost of so many branded/logoed items is ludicrous, and makes a mockery of the idea of uniform being a leveller between the well of and the less well off. 

We need a return to the old days. We do not need so many branded/logoed items of uniform; it's sheer ego and vanity on the part of the schools. And I wonder exactly what their cut of the cost of the uniform is? Must be a right little earner. The school tie is enough to identify a school. We don't need all the rest of the clothing to have so much corporacy on it. And kids don't need blazers. Simplify the uniform. Make it cheaper. 

Also; I guarantee that in the next week or so there'll be articles in the press about how kids have been sent home from school for minor uniform breaches, or some other spurious reason due to a lack of clarity in the specifications. Some of these are very badly worded and open to interpretation. Especially around things like hairstyles. 

For example, my daughter's secondary school says this about hair that it should be "Well-groomed hair (no extreme styles and not shorter than a grade 2). Long hair tied back."

Which at a first glance seems reasonable, until you look at that one word;  "extreme". Now, the problem is that what one person counts as "extreme" another may think is entirely normal. This is where ambiguity comes in to play, and where you'll get disagreements about whether something complies or does not, especially where the line between what is considered extreme, and what is not considered extreme is not clearly defined. 

And to my mind there should be no room for ambiguity in any such guidelines. But if there is ambiguity the benefit of the doubt should be given to the child/parent. 

This should apply to all elements of any uniform code. Clarity is good. Ambiguity is bad.

And uniform should be as simple as possible, with as little branding as possible...

Tuesday 28 August 2018

26 - Context

I'm going to start this piece with a simple statement; context is everything. 

Specifically here I'm going to talk about context in respect of art - and I'm using the word in its broadest definition - and how evolving attitudes mean that over the years what is acceptable shifts and things that were once deemed okay are now deemed not to be when viewed with modern eyes.

A recent example of this is a 1970s Doctor Who story called The Talons of Weng-Chiang. The official Doctor Who Magazine has a feature called The Time Team where a group of young fans sit around and watch a few old episodes - many of whom are seeing these episodes for the first time - and discuss them. In the current issue, one of the episodes they watch is the first part of Talons...

Now, the thing about Talons is that one of the mmain supporting characters is a Chinese character called Li H'sen Chang; but he's not played by a Chinese actor, he's played by a white actor made up to look Chinese. Furthermore, there are many racial stereotypes in the story. 

Understandably, the Team take umbrage with this, and express their dislike for these elements of the story. One of the team - who has seen the story before - gives a bit more context to the background of the production of the story, and helps the rest of them get to grips with it a bit more. They eventuallly come to the conclusion that it's not wrong to enjoy the story, but to understand that elements of it would not be considered appropriate today.

The editor of the magazine then gave further context to why certain production decisions were made in his editorial, which expanded on the context of how things were done in those days, and made reasonable points. 

In fact, the whole thing in the maazine itself was quite reasonable indeed. And then an obscure academic took umbrage at the article and the editorial and called for the editor to be fired, as apparently it was wrong to show this story to the Time Team, and giving more context in an edirorial was selling them out. 

It all then exploded when a former DWM editor took umbrage at these words, and replied to them; which was apparently bad Twitter etiquette by quoting her words when he has 5 times as many followers as her. Which seems odd, as if you reply to a tweet it shouldn't matter if a person has 10, 100, 10,000, a million folowers if you're engaging in debate. It then got even messier with the academic essentially sugesting that every DWM editor was a "fuckhead". 

I could quote acres of the tweets that were said, but I think it's getting too far from the point of context. The thing is, looking at Talons from a 2018 perspective it is undoubdtedly racist. If you were viewing it in 1977 you would almost certainly not have thought it racist. Times change. Opinions change. What was acceptable then is not acceptable now. This all has to be borne in mind when looking at any art, be it painting, sculpture, books, movies, TV, whatever.

[As an interlude, whilst writing this I was watching an old episode of EastEnders and that had a scene where an old white lady said to a young black boy that "you all look the same" and that she can't help her upbringing any more than "you can't help being black". It was actually a really well written, and well acted, scene and served to make a point about the character of the old lady. You'd not see similar in a 2018 episode. But; is it racist to show such a scene. I would say no.]

This is shifting all the time. We all think that right about now were are more enlightened than at any point in history. Yet, I gurantee that there are some things happening right now that will be looked back upon in 10, 20 years or so and thought to be terrible. We all thouht it was great in the 90s. But look at some of the things that happened then - the rise of lad culture, and an increased objectification of the female body by the likes of Nuts and Zoo etc - and you realise that things hadn't changed much. 

I guess the key thing is that different people's tolerance to the things that were done "wrong" in the past varies. What some will overlook will be the thing that will make others reach for the off switch. Who is right? Both. Clearly. 

There are many other examples I could cite - some may even have isues with Mr Tojamura in my beloved Twin Peaks - but then this piece would go on for much longer, and I think I've waffled enough as it is. I guess I should just end this article by repeating the point I made right at the top;

Context is everything!

Tuesday 7 August 2018

25 - Yerp

Okay. Who is the most influential UK politician of the last 20 years?

Think about it.

Depending on your political bent, I'd be willing to bet you'd be thinking of the likes of Tony Blairs, or David Cameron, or (oh) Jeremy Corbyn, or Nicola Sturgeon, or...

…well, whoever you say, you're probably wrong, as the answer to the question is someone that has never been a Member of Parliament, and has in fact failed to be elected about 57 times...

(That number might not strictly speaking be accurate, but my disdain for the person I speak of is such that I don't actually care if the number is correct or not; and hey, this whole piece is just a bit of opinion on a blog... I'm not trying to win a Purlitzer prize here...!)

...can you tell you it is yet?

The answer is that it's that moon faced poltroon, and hero to the UKIPs; Nigel Farage.

And the reason is this...

...seeing the increase in the popularity of the UKIPs, prior to the 2015 election, and after a couple of defections from the Tories to the UKIPs, in an effort to cling to power, Prime Minister David Cameron (hereafter referred to as “PMDC”) made a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the UK.

Still, it didn't stave off an increase in the UKIPs vote, from 919,456 votes in the 2010 election (no MPs) to 3,081,099 in the 2015 election (one MP. But not called “Nigel”. I forget the name of the MP; the only other one of the UKIPs whose name springs to mind is Paul Nuttalls, and I know it wasn't him.)

(Curiously, in the 2017 election, the UKIPs vote collapsed to 549,068 (no MPs); anyone would think that was a resounding snub of the party and all it stood for... And these numbers are accurate. I checked them.)

So, with Farage getting the one thing he'd always wanted, a second referendum on UK membership of Europe...

...wait, what I hear you say; SECOND referendum? Yes. Second. The first was in 1975 in which the question asked was “Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?” The result was “Yes” 67.23%, “No” 32,77%

Yes! The will of the people was clear. Remainers got over 2/3 of the vote, so all those Leaver whingers should just respect the will of the people and the likes of Farage should just hut their cakehole and accept that the will of the people had been implemented.

But no, Farage and his ilk (I accidentally typed “elk” there; might have been interesting!) ignored the will of the people and constantly harped on about a second referendum, and PMDC gave it to them.

So.

I could write reams about how rubbish the referendum campaign went, and how things were rubbish on both sides, and how there were BIG WHOPPING LIES about the NHS written on the sides of buses, and how things that people said would happen didn't happen, but that's a whole other article.

Actually before I continue there's an interesting quote that someone said the the lead up to the vote. Read it, and see if you can work out who said it;

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the [the opposing] campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

I've edited one word so that it doesn't immediately make it obvious who said it.

I'll come back to the first sentence later, when I talk about the actual result. The second sentence is very interesting as it indicates that if there were such a result that would be an end to the matter... oh, wait... of course. That 1975 result... why didn't that end it?

So, there was the day of the vote, where the question asked was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” 51.89% said “Leave”, 48.11 said “Remain”.

Then, surely the person who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way” proudly repeated this assertion? Well. no. Because the person who said this was the moon faced poltroon himself, Nigel Farage. Curiously this result went from “unfinished business” to bein a clear mandate from the people, nay, it is THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and any attempt to frustrate Brexit is anti-democratic.

Within hours of the result PMDC had quit, leading to the chain of events that led to PMTM taking over, having a disastrous (well, for her) general election, and a chaotic series of negotiations over Brexit that, with only seven months until that fateful day we leave, has a Government that can't even agree what it wants over Brexit; how can they hope to negotiate with the EU and come to an agreement when they can't even reach a consensus amongst themselves.

And all this is because of the moon faced poltroon, who now just sits back and berates people on his radio show for not doing Brexit right. Which is why he is the most powerful politician of the last twenty years...

Postscript

Given that we now have had two EU referendums – referenda – maybe we should have just one more. Like a best of three to settle it? 

Tuesday 27 February 2018

24 - Dire

I've been watching EastEnders for so many years now, and I don't think it's ever been in such a dire state as it is, and has been for about a year now, in any other point in its history. I'll spend a little time in this blog post explaining why I think this...

Before I start, though, I should probably note that the use of the word "dire" here is in no way meant to suggest that the reason why EastEnders is dire is because of Dyer... Danny's one of the best things about the show right now. I'll get to him later. 

Where did it all go wrong?

So. There is a general opinion that things started to go wrong when the previous producer, Sean O'Connor took over, and there was talk amongst the residents of the square about how bad the bin collections were. There was much wailing about why such trivial things as the bins could possibly be worth mentioning the the square. 

However, I disagree with this; whilst the bin collections were never ever going to be a main plotline, talk of them added a bit of a sense of realism to event in the square; making it appear like any other place in the country. It was a touch of kitchen sink realism that help root the Square in the real world. The bins were background detail; not main plots. 

I think the point where it all went wrong was when Roxy and Ronnie drowned in the swimming pool.

It's all too easy to kill of characters in soaps, and generally I'm of the opinion that it should only be done when there's a major plot point to be made from the death, or the nature of the character is that they just would never up and leave the life they are leading. With Ronnie & Roxy, it was just a sensationalist way to get these characters out of the show. And I groaned. 

Contrast this with the Lucy Beale death; that had huge repercussions for various characters in the square; not only the Beales themselves, but the Brannings also. Especially Max (more of whom, later). The mystery of who killed her, the eventual framing of Max, his time in jail, and his subsequent revenge plot... whether you liked that or not, it had impact; it was followed through. 

Ronnie's death admittedly made Jack in to a single dad... Roxy...? Meh...

And it went bad from there...

Behind the scenes hoo-ha

There has been all sorts of talk about behind the scenes issues. There are rumours that early last year the BBC was so unimpressed with one week's episodes that these four were edited down to just a single episode. This is not a surprise as there was a disjointed feeling to episodes late winter/early spring of last year. 

This was compounded by the bus crash week of episodes; the suggestion is that this week of episodes was intended to air later than it actually aired, but BBC higher ups insisted it be brought forward. This caused all sorts of continuity hiccups, as (for example) one week Martin's badly injured under the bus, and the next he's back on his market stall as if nothing had happened. Curiously, there was also no sign of damage to the bridge the bus hit in to, or any hint of repairs being made. 

Over the summer, the show mostly coasted, and eventually Sean O'Connor left, being replaced by John Yorke. All would be well in the world... surely?

Sadly not. 

Hitting the reset button

It's clear that as soon as Yorke arrived on the scene he swiftly set about curtailing any of O'Connor's plotlines he wasn't keen on as soon as was possible, and without taking logic in to consideration at all. 

So, Michelle's stalker plotline, building for months, is over in a single episode with a few threats from some of her friends, and all of a sudden... he's gone.

Ditto, the plotline with Bex and her teacher and the "love triangle" with her mum... one quick wrap up episode, and he's gone.

The question of Jay's parentage... done away with in a 30 second conversation with Max...

...and Max... oh, Max. When he returned to the square, we were promised a long, slow burning, revenge plot from him. O'Connor clearly had a masterplan for this, but as soon as he left, Yorke set to undoing all the damage Max and his Weyland friends had inflicted on the square. This didn't take a single episode, as it involved sorting out the chip shop, Queen Vic, the cafe, the launderette, and the car lot; but it was all brought to a head with hasty speed. Max cut off, James laughing like a comic book villain, Luke being bundled in to the back of a van never to be seen again... and... and...

And the final tie-up of the plotline was quite dreadful with James Wilmott-Brown essentially saying "oh, if anyone were to get access to that safe, it contains everything they need to bring me and Weyland down completely, and scupper all my plans for Albert Square"... by the end of the episode, just that had happened. 

It gets worse

Still, at least all this clearing out of the dead wood would mean that things can only get better, surely...?

No...

Enter Aidan. Aka JP. 

His plan to rope various of the Square's residents in to some kind of criminal job initially showed promise... until it happened. It seemed largely to be played for laughs, with Mick being locked in to the Vic, then getting to where he needed to be in his slippers... 

...and lets not forget that the location the van was actually robbed in was right outside the Arches. Phil Mitchell's Arches. One of Aidan's robbers. Robbers who all had their faces covered to hide their identities. Except Aiden. Striding around, wielding his cane, barking orders. It was a fiasco.

In the aftermath we've had the tedium of where the money ended up. Who stole it. And... oh, I'm struggling to find the words to actually give a toss about this. Which is rather similar to most of the gang who haven't even mentioned that they're missing out on their cut of the robbery for weeks now. 

I should probably also mention Halfwit, the ring, and Lady Di. But it's just so stupid. 

But Aidan... since the robbery he seems to have grown in stature from being someone Phil was banged up with to a major crime kingpin in the EastEnd. From menacing Vincent - who really needs to grow a pair - to running drugs in the Vic, it seems he's a major player. (When he was revealed as the drug runner's boss, I actually laughed out loud, it was so ludicrous.)

The problem is, we never had the build up to this, so it doesn't seem real. Johnny Allen would have eaten him for breakfast. He was a proper East End villain. 

This plotline has also, somehow, brought Melanie Owen back in to the square. Great actress, but she's wasted here. And her personality vacuum of a son... well, we might care about how she lied to you about how great a man Steve Owen was, but in your third episode (or second? we'd barely seen him) it really has no impact at all. 

EastEnders is sinking fast. And it's frustrating as amongst the rubbish there's still some absolutely brilliant things...

Max Branning

Frankly, Jake Wood is the best actor in the show right now, and every time he's on screen it's electric. It's so gutting that Max's revenge plotline was cut short, at the point it was really just getting going. 

I mentioned earlier that I didn't like it when characters are killed for the sake of it, and I stand by that; but Wood's performances as Max after Abbie fell from the roof of the Vic, and eventually died, were electric. 

My recent highlights of the show have been the fleetingly brief moments he's shared the screen with Tanya (Jo Joyner); were I in charge of EastEnders I'd be doing all I could to get Joyner back in the show permanently, or at least for a much longer stint, as the pair of them together is just absolute TV gold. 

The Carters

I love the Carters. Danny Dyer is absolutely in his element as the landlord of the Queen Vic. When he first got the role, he said he's like to do a 20 stretch in this role, and I hope he get his wish. Kellie Bright complements him perfectly as his Mrs, Linda. 

His mother Shirley is the fly in the ointment, and is gloriously sarcastic. She saw through Fi long before anyone else. 

The extended family is great fun too; I'm still hoping for the return of Annette Badland's Aunt Babe, but I fear her bridges are burned. Timothy West's all too brief run as Stan was a highlight, also.

The Taylors

I also really like the Taylors. They're an archetypical soap "bad" family like Carol Jackson and her brood before her, and like the Battersbys in Coronation Street. Karen is a really endearing character with potential, and her kids are a decent brood with many opportunities. I hope we see her sister again soon.

So, what can be done...?

Firstly, get rid of Aidan. The actor playing him is brilliant, but the character just isn't working. Having said that, it seems almost certain that they're lining up a "who killed Aidan?" plot, with multiple possible killers. Mick. Vincent. That dreadful Ciara. Mel. 

Secondly make sure that Max has decent plotlines going forward; remember, Jake Wood is the best actor in the show. Give him strong material and the show will go from strength to strength. Jo Joyner back more will also help. Any time they are on the screen...

Thirdly, do decent things with the Taylors. I'm really like the Bernadette & Ted friendship, and Keegan's showing signs he's not the irredeemable scrote he first appeared to be. Make sure you do something decent with Keanu. And give Karen the opportunity to bounce off as many of the square's residents as possible. Which means keeping her in the launderette.

And finally, remember that whilst the big events may draw in more viewers, what matters more are the smaller things. The character moments. The bits that are just a bit of fun, that add colour to the show. If you have strong characters, doing things that fit with them, it doesn't matter if it's something epic. Some of the best moments in the show have just been two characters talking. EastEnders is about ordinary East End folk getting on with their lives. That's when it's at its strongest. 



Thursday 18 January 2018

23 - Babylon

Babylon 5 was our last, best, hope for peace... so started many episodes of  this mostly brilliant show first screened in the 1990s, now getting a much deserved repeat on PickTV.

I've only caught bits of occasional episodes on the repeats (I have the whole thing on DVD) but it always reminds me of how great the show was. Here was a show that sought to eschew the story of the week model of science fiction TV; where at the end of each episode a figurative reset button was pressed, and the happenings of the episode were rarely mentioned again.

Babylon 5 had a lofty aim; to tell a single story, over 5 seasons. Beginning. Middle. End. Where the actions in one episode could have serious ramifications down the line. Where the answer to a single question could change the entire face of the universe. Where characters had realistic motivations, and were often deeply flawed. It was a breath of fresh air.

It wasn't perfect, of course, and through its run it had its share of clunkers. And some of the dialogue could be a little clunky. But I'd argue that overall, it was probably about 75% brilliant. And the heights of the brilliance in these 75% of the episodes more than made up for the times it was bad. 

Whilst there was a 5-year plan, the realities of television production got in the way; for various reasons main characters were removed, plot lines shifted around or compressed, uncertainty over whether there would even be a 5th season caused a raft of issues that showed in the early episodes of that season (a season that was more than redeemed by the plotlines forming mid-season, leading to one of the finest episodes ever).

To my mind, the aspect of the show I always return to, and always praise the most, is the relationship between two of the opposing ambassadors; Londo, and G'Kar. This relationship develops in entirely unexpected ways over the course of the show, and is never more than entirely compelling. Peter Jurasik and (the late, much missed) Andreas Katsulas light up the screen whenever they are on it. Even if these two appear in a clunker of an episode, they make it worth watching; at least in the scenes they are in. 

There is so much I could say about the show... but what I'd like to talk about is what should happen to the show in the future. Part of me would like some sort of a continuation; but the story has been told. I'd always been against remakes, but having seen the JJ Abrams Star Trek films, and Ron Moore's version of Battlestar Galactica, I think this could work for Babylon 5. 

What I'd like to see is a remake of Babylon 5 with 5 seasons of 10-13 episodes in each season; each episode lasting 45-60 minutes (depending on what length the episode needs), on Netflix. That way some of the padding can be cut out - and the necessity to do 22 episodes a season necessitated this - so that the story can be pared back a little to the essentials. 

This could also mean that the shape of the show could change a little, and some of the changes forced upon the show could be undone. So that it's not a carbon copy of what went before. Also, it could show some things that the original show should have done - like the full story of Londo & G'kar's deaths. I know this was dealt with in books; but that's not the same.

I'd also countenance a complete recasting of the whole thing; I'd maybe include some original cast members in different roles (remember how well Richard Hatch was integrated in to the Battlestar Galactica remake), but all the principal characters would be completely different. 

This would be difficult. Especially Londo and G'Kar. But not impossible. I'll admit, I have thought a lot about who should play certain characters, and I can't picture who would be a good fit.

In fact if I were in charge of recasting, the only character I can say with any certainty I'd cast would be Mr Morden. And he would have to be played by Adrian Lester. Can you imagine how wonderful that would be? 

As long as the cast was right, and JMS is in charge. I think it could work.