~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
*
*
My Belated but Eventual Love of The Beautiful Game
I return to this, my column, over a year later with the most personal entry yet. This is the tale of how I went from totally uninterested, negligent and ignorant to interested, passionate and proud. And the focus of this new interest - football.
You might be thinking - what's the issue here? Millions worldwide follow football, millions have a team they enthusiastically support; they have their own allegiances, favourites and opinions. And even millions more who do not follow football with such a passion have a passing glance to spare, or a few choice remarks to look mildly interested, particularly in Britain I find. In Britain it is certainly not a cardinal sin today to either hate or remain disinterested in football, but this feels like a rather new phenomenon and generations have been brought up defined by their team.
What's more, for years now, if you refuse to follow football, by default it is often expected that you do this because your heart lies with the devotion to another sport. The amount of times I've heard conversations where someone says something like - "Oh I'm not really into football, I'm into rugby though, I really get into that." or - "No, not really interested in football, but I play cricket; I get addicted to the Ashes".
Do not misunderstand me - I am not here to promote the idea that football is automatically or deservedly superior to any other sport. Yet it is an inescapable fact that in the UK and beyond the game of twenty two people kicking an air filled circular sack around is biblically popular. It has well and truly captured hearts and minds, it always has and probably always will.
You might also be thinking, and rightly so, that there is almost nothing on this blog in three years of writing (barring a review of The National Football Museum) to suggest anything like an interest in sport at all, let alone football. And you would be right. The arts, theatre, cinema, television, writing, stand-up comedy, sci-fi...there is still perhaps some sort of stereotypical mindset you might have of a person who takes an interest in and writes about these things, and this person does not usually have time for the likes of football. Again you might be right. It is true that throughout my childhood, adolescence, teenage years and even into my twenties I had no interest in football at all, and I never conceded to entertain any future when I would be.
I know now, and I knew then that I was letting the years go by without taking an interest in sport generally for the most part. Yes I played the odd game of rounders etc at school, and I did discover slightly more niche sports and hobbies such as skiing and sailing, which I enjoyed and certainly don't regret at all.
Yet I was not for the most part a sporty child or teenager. Sometimes this was because I was not very good at it, and sometimes it was because I just did not get at all interested or inclined to show any interest at all. Football probably straddled both these criteria and both became good solid reasons I think, for me to subconsciously and consciously not pay the game a second thought.
I realize that it is often those important formative years when young children start to bond with the game of football. When they start to bridge the gap between older generations, often with support of their elder family and friends among the legions of fans of the game, all split and sectioned off into their own burgeoning alliances with each different colour, crest, country and club.
I did not.
When I look back at those times when I briefly came into contact with football (outside the simple outlets of school and the local boys' kick-about etc) I do wonder in awe about how such a change could have occurred. I was not interested, but it wasn't for lack of trying from my father. A life long Red Devil, like his father before him (and like I am now becoming) he desperately tried to spark an interest. Despite my complete lack of enthusiasm, he took me to several games at Old Trafford, as well as Manchester City on one occasion (memories of which are totally nondescript and uninspiring - I seem to recall just disliking all the noise) and even trying to hark back to more basic northern roots with a couple of trips to Gigg Lane (the home of a more local Lancastrian team - Bury FC.). All distributed over several years, and all heavily interwoven with occasions I remember when he used to try in vain to tempt me to watch either a live game or the great institution that is Match of the Day on the telly (the theme tune of which we now often whistle in unison together as it broadcasts of a Saturday evening).
All endearingly fought on his behalf, and all to no avail. Nope, not my father, not my school, not any football mad freinds nor the outside world as a whole could remotely tempt or cajole me at all to take an interest.
This total and complete disregard continued completely and steadfastly until I was over 20. Now, at the age of 24, I watch every Manchester United game I can (either on TV or quite a few live at Old Trafford with my dad). I regularly check the league tables, transfers and footie gossip. I often look up the history of the game, of the legends that no longer play and the legacy of the clubs playing today, including Manchester United. I often watch various games of football (not just United) live on telly, as well as Match of the Day, and often Match of the Day 2 every weekend with my dad. And I now proudly call myself not only a football fan but a Red Devil.
Granted, you might say I immediately fall into a stereotype of "glory-supporting" Man United, one of the biggest clubs in the world (though not on recent form it must be said). And yes I freely admit I still do not throw myself into the passionate support with quite as much manic gusto as many others do (at live games I think you could say I am definitely one of the quieter ones). But I readily enjoy it, I actively seek out to further my knowledge and appreciation of the game and I can comfortably and solidly enjoy a conversation with anyone about football (although this is often denouncing Louis van Gaal to my dad) which I thought would never happen. In fact, even just four years ago let alone at the age of 13, if you told me I could happily and easily remark on United's form this season, speak of the class of 92, of the merits of defence over attack, of 4 4 2 formations, of the offside rule, or of Leicester City's recent meteoric rise up the Premier League...well not only would I have laughed in your face I would have thought you were playing a very cruel joke.
I still do not categorically know how this drastic and relatively sudden change came about. But if I had to try and nail it down I think I would attribute it to two main factors.
The first is quite an unlikely source and a game of a very different kind - PlayStation football. Like my interest in the actual game, my video-gaming credentials were quite stunted and a bit backward in coming forward. I enjoyed from the off playing on the old PlayStation One as a child, and right up until a few months ago I enjoyed my PS2. But in terms of progression that is kind of where it ended for some time. Now die-hard gamers amongst you would laugh and scorn at such a moderate immersion into the gaming world, and you'd be right. In fact, when I went to uni for three years, the now traditional time where hardcore gamers often thrive, I refused to take a console with me. It was only when I returned for the holidays and after uni, when I occasionally took up my PS2 controller and started to buy old games secondhand (as the PS2 was becoming increasingly vintage thanks to newer models) that I discovered PES, and latterly FIFA games.
Staring with FIFA07 on PS2 for 99p from a charity shop, I gradually grew obsessed, buying FIFA08 for PS2 (again for a pittance) then skipping a few second-hand generations to FIFA11, which was the last PS2 game I bought. With the belated but welcome purchase of a PS3, I went to FIFA13, then most recently FIFA15. All second-hand, all very much behind the vast core of on-the-ball gamers who worship such things, but all highly addictive and enjoyable.
Suddenly this world of teams, points, transfers, commentary, grounds, players and managers that I had been so separated from and even desperate to ignore for two decades had burst into my consciousness. Yes it was heavily stylized, visualized, virtualized and at the end of the day not the real thing, but I found it good. However, though the humble video-game finally opened my eyes to football, it was a big ask and a big step to suddenly and totally dive into appreciating a spectacle I had for so long ignored.
That's where the second factor came in. Virtual play with controller in hand had opened the door, and now before I stepped inside and immersed myself I tentatively peered through and looked around. And I discovered something. A simple truth that seemed to course through the populace of football fans yet had remained aloofly unknown to me. You do not have to be good at football, nor do you actually have to be at all sporty, to be a football fan.
Think about it...you look around a stadium that holds thousands, of any Premier League club of a Saturday. You look at the telly coverage and those crowd shots and fan close-ups. Most are regular people of all shapes and sizes, all colours and creeds, all different backgrounds and lives. And without being rude, probably half of them have never kicked a ball in their lives.
This I think, is part of what held me back in my more formative years. Because I never really took interest in playing football, because I distanced myself from learning about it and (barring the likes of sailing and skiing etc) I never really engaged with any other sport much at all, I didn't feel I would be at home in a football stadium. I did not feel I had the right to weigh in with the rest of the fans, and because I did not naturally gravitate to football, due to habit and the idea of staying true to myself and my other separate interests, I did not feel inclined to ever take an interest. Do not get me wrong, at no point do I ever remember this rendering me particularly unhappy because football was not part of my life. I did not hanker after it, and I did not feel an empty gap when it wasn't there. It is only now, after arriving the long way round, that I truly appreciate it.
But getting back to the fans as a whole. As I said, they do not go to Old Trafford, The Emirates, Anfield, St. James' Park, The King Power, Turf Moor or Gigg Lane because they all play football too, professionally, or even semi-professionally or as a hobby or even barely once a decade. Many probably do, but it is certainly not a requirement.
What unites them is the love of the game; of seeing their team play it out week-on-week. Of seeing them kicking a ball around and into a net between two sticks. Whether they could even attempt to do the same is academic. They do not have to be accomplished at something to enjoy it.
I cannot paint worth a damn; a two year old could do better. But I am still moved by van Gogh's Starry Night Over the Rhone, or the Mona Lisa, and I still enjoy a trip to the National Gallery. I cannot really sing, or play any instrument but I enjoy various types of music and there are thousands of songs on my iPod.
So, the PlayStation led the way, but the revelation that I can be accepted, that I can easily become interested and enjoy the spectacle that is football with no real previous or any specific devotion or requirement are what I feel led me to this point.
I do not actually know that had I come to these conclusions sooner that I would still appreciate them and the game as I do. It sounds like I am lamenting over lost time and my painfully slow uptake. But actually, I am sort of glad I came about this the long way round. I certainly would not have liked football forced on me (which occasionally as a child did feel to be the case) and I don't think I would have the appreciation I have now. Football would be ingrained and possibly even part of my youth sure, but it would be more habit, more something I just picked up and continued.
I'm glad I went through all the trials and tribulations, all the ups and downs of life as a child and teenager, before and separate from finding football. Now, still enduring the trials and tribulations of life, the fact that I actually have chosen to divert some focus to football is actually more rewarding than if I just grew up with it, I think. Of course, who is to say what might have been? I know my football journey is an odd, retrospective and quite disjointed one. Even to be still a fledgling fan at 24 will probably be quite unusual. Yet I am still happy it turned out that way, and hopefully I will have no cause to revert or look back.
Now as I say, I enjoy the games of the English Premier League and beyond. I appreciate the history and legacy and current affairs of Man United (possibly with my first season report due to be written soon here - watch this space!). I know what it means when legends like Johan Cruyff pass away. I appreciate the unprecedented year Leicester have had. And I truly tingle when I hear the phrase - "they think it's all over...it is now!"
26/04/2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE DEMISE OF THE ENGLISH CHIPPY
OK, I freely admit, I have neglected this here column section of the blog for quite some time. To those of you who have in the past enjoyed my ramblings about something and nothing - I apologise and shall try to keep a more steady update in future.
To start off on another column, quite a few months after the last, I am not really kicking off with anything particularly radical, nor particularly opinionated come to that. It all begins with a short tale, which took place a couple of weeks back. Driving back from late night shopping one Friday night, for whatever reason my Dad decided he wanted fish and chips for tea, and wanted to drive to a fish and chip shop close by. I, who am partial to this classic, was amiable to this and agreed.
Now, a quick word at this point. My Dad for his own reasons was and is a bit "picky"/"snobbish" about his ideal chippy. He insisted it was to be a traditional, English chippy; not a Chinese takeaway who professes to do fish and chips - a salt of the Earth old school chippy.
However, try as we might, we couldn't find an open one. From about 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on a Friday night we drove around what felt like most of the county looking for an example of the traditional chippy, yet all we found was the aforementioned Asian imported takeaway types. We found the odd one that looked appropriate, but each time it was shut.
This frustrated my Dad and it puzzled me. According to him, and anyone else you ask who was around in the 60s, 70s and 80s - this was not how it used to be. Apparently in most towns in the county, and indeed the country, there was a chippy on every corner (and a "traditional" chippy at that). Now, they have died out- indeed such a thing today could even be considered a novelty. I mean it is not like these chippies are not out there, its just that they seem to close at five o'clock sharp. It seems that the influence and volume of the likes of Chinese, Indian, Pizza, Kebabs and who knows what else has indeed cornered and overrun the market of Friday night revelers and irate fathers and sons looking for days gone by.
Though I may not be quite as against the culinary alternatives as my Dad, and though I might not be so prone to lamenting the demise of the English chippy, I do think its a shame that the owners of these places do not wish to broaden their horizons, and their opening hours a wee bit more.
Whatever else may be out there, and no matter what preferences others have, I still believe the demand and the love of the good ol' fashioned English chippy is still alive and kicking.
14/12/2014
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHILD ACTORS
Obnoxious, Annoying, Untalented Jump-starts or Heartwarming, Emotive, Powerfully Brilliant Performers?
It is undeniable, child actors are absolutely necessary, nay essential, and they have been for some time. You try imagining films or episodes of various TV shows without actors and characters under the age of 18 and I'd wager you shall soon discover a few gaping plot holes. These days, the ratio of child:adult actors and actresses is getting more and more balanced, and this do not get me wrong, is a very good thing. What I do find slightly odd however, is that the notion of "bad acting" or even "lack of acting ability" seems to fall on much more deaf ears when it comes to child actors. Most actors of the adult variety are many and varied in terms of talent; some stratospheric in there splendidness, some middle of the road, some capable of good and bad performances, and some catastrophically bad. What's more, people are pretty quick to criticize if adult performances drift toward the negative, and more importantly, producers, directors and all others behind the scenes are generally quite adept at spotting such poor performances and are swift in dealing with the issue, or preventing the issue entirely. Yet in my opinion, there seems to be a lack of filtering if you will, of truly poor quality performances when it comes to child actors. Of course there are brilliant actors and actresses who started out young, as well as there being wooden and awful ones. But for whatever reason (maybe it's a sense of not wanting to hurt children's feelings, or thinking a cute kid will fool an audience into thinking anything is cinematic gold, who knows?) there are noticeably dire performances from child actors, as well as profoundly great ones. (Be forewarned: this may transcend into one of my rants that are perhaps found far too often on this column. Remember, this is the opinion column section, and I did just warn you!).
Perhaps the catalyst that brought this all home for me and set my mind thinking of the good the bad and the ugly in terms of child actor performances, is when I re-watched Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace on telly recently. Though not a hardcore, die-hard Star Wars obsessive, I am quite the fan of the movies and the mythology, so of course I am aware of the general consensus that this is the worst Star Wars film of the lot, and sadly I have to agree. It is a shame because re-watching it reminded me how dissapointed I was, as I thought this film had massive potential and a lot of plus-points. To name but a few: a whole host of great and now iconic characters that were introduced in this film such as Mace Windu, Darth Maul and Chancellor Palpatine. Note too Ewan McGregor, who re-vitalized the classic character of Obi-Wan Kenobi. And last but not least, the brilliant Liam Neeson and his brilliantly conceived character of Qui Gon Jinn. Sadly though, all these plus points were dwarfed for me, and many others, by the great many negatives. Yes there was Natalie Portman's indecisiveness when it came to her accent, yes there were the poorly conceived characters such as JarJar Binks. But for me, the WORST element by far was the incredibly irritating, woefully blunt, totally untalented "performance" of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. As I am sure Star Wars fans will agree, this character is quite an important one, so why oh why didn't George Lucas even attempt to get someone with even a remote sense of what they were doing?! Almost every line spouted from that boy's lips comes off as horribly exaggerated with not a thought given to his character at all, and most of his mannerisms come across as either woefully wooden or incredibly arrogant. I think you get the point with regards to what, for me, was a terrible mistake in the story of Star Wars.
I know this next one might cause uproar among legions of fans of this cult classic, but yes I am going to criticize the boy from Home Alone. As a kid I loved Home Alone and Home Alone 2, and even now I have fond memories of the rather simple formula that left a young Macaulay Culkin alone in various circumstances, and the chaos that then ensued. So this is not perhaps as damning as "Skywalker-gate". However, if you look again at the fondly remembered childhood film, you will probably see that the young star's acting is very wooden and forced indeed. The cult status of these movies have probably dwarfed this, which is possibly a positive thing, but again this is the star of the show, and we get quite a poor performance. On the other hand, Culkin is definitely better than the kid they brought in for Home Alone 3 (don't get me started) but I'm not sure whether that is saying much.
So two cases of quite big budget, big franchise movies that are loved by millions globally (I mean - you can't get much bigger than Star Wars!) and we have two child actors that deliver performances so woeful that they impact heavily and negatively on the films themselves. What's more, the minds behind each film did not seem to spot the problem and let each actor sour each film (in Culkin's case they even brought him back for a sequel).
But it is not just on the big screen where this happens, oh no. Avid readers of this blog may know that I am quite the House MD fan. Here was a series that blitzed ratings, TV audiences and fans around the globe for years and, as I have said before, I am totally and completely sure that it will go on to achieve "classic TV" status, if it has not already done so. Yet even here, among the plethora of House guest stars (adult and child alike) there are poor performances from young actors that spring to mind. Season 7 (a point when House was well and truly into its stride) saw an episode entitled "Two Stories". There was a lot to like about this episode, but it featured two crucial guest stars - Haley Pullos and Austin Michael Coleman, as two central school children to the innovative story line. The characters were interesting, the performances were anything but. Both incredibly stunted and stereotyped to the extreme, both uppity and pretentious by far, and both a total let down in so many ways.
But again, do not presume I am being unfairly biased against American productions and actors, as I do believe this happens over here on the British side of the pond too. Another long-running and hugely popular series I enjoyed was the slick and stylish BBC One show Hustle which, like House lasted for 8 great seasons. In the penultimate episode of the whole series however, a young character called Alfie waltzed in as a guest star, and he was played by a young actor called Sammy Williams. Ugh. UGH! It is extremely rare that I am watching anything where I am physically shaking with frustration and loathing at a performance (though this piece certainly has featured a couple so far it seems!) Out of all the bad child actor performances I've listed, this to my mind is the worst by far. Cocky, arrogant, idiotic, blunt and totally one-dimensional. I could go on, but I really do not want to give this woefully black stain on an otherwise great piece of TV more of my time.
I really am baffled, as you can probably tell, and indeed at times quite incensed, which you can also probably tell, at the sheer fact that some of these children and characters were put before audiences. As I said at the beginning, it is not as if there haven't been great actors and actresses that have started young, because there certainly have. I adore the film The Kid, as it really is a coming of age tale with a unique difference, and key to its appeal is the rapport and talent of the two main stars; Bruce Willis and Spencer Breslin. The Kid was one of Spencer Breslin's break-out film performances, and he is full of authenticity, humour, sincerity and charm. On the strength of this film alone, I would say he utterly deserves the career he has had and still continues to develop and enjoy. His sister Abigail is another example of an extremely talented figure who came to the attention of audiences very young, and has gone on from strength to strength. Her adorable, charming persona was winning people over at the age of 6 with films such as Signs and The Princess Diaries 2, and she has gone on to truly develop before our very eyes into a supremely talented, and now A-List actress.
Another young star of note is Asa Butterfield, who captivated audiences very early on in BBC One hit series Merlin (another favourite of mine) as Mordred. Butterfield was a series regular for numerous Merlin episodes before going on to star in the Hollywood hit Hugo alongside Chloe Grace Mortez (another example of a very talented young actress). Like the Breslin siblings, the talent of both Butterfield and Mortez has seen their careers go from strength to strength. Despite my bitter loathing of the Hustle child actor issue, another of my iconic favorites Doctor Who, brought alongside Matt Smith and Karen Gillan a superb young actress by the name of Caitlin Blackwood, who played a young Amelia Pond on and off for several years and was consistently a hit with fans and non-fans alike. I have no doubt that all these very positive and very talented young actors and actresses have the potential to have long and varied careers, perhaps following the most famous case of Drew Barrymore, who stole our hearts in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial at the age of 7 back in 1982,and who now is one of the most watchable and sought-after actresses in Hollywood.
So yes, in essence, this is me having another moan. But it is a uniquely baffled and artistic kind of moan that I think raises a key issue within the media and entertainment industry as we know it. What's more, I do feel that my views are definitely shared by many. With the sheer amount of acting talent out there, why oh why are we subjected to such mind-numbingly awful performances of the likes of Jake Lloyd? Yes, I know acting like anything else takes all kinds, but I do think that film and TV producers need to be just as stringent when it comes to the talent, or lack of, of their younger cast members, as they are with the more mature cast.
01/05/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ARENA VS. THE THEATRE
Embrace the next very big thing or return to our roots?
Recently I posted a review of my experience watching Beyoncé during her Mrs Carter tour, at the Manchester Arena. I praised the spectacle, the atmosphere broadly speaking, and most of the content involved. Yet I did encounter some issues that I believe were due in no small part to the venue in question. The Arena in Manchester (currently sponsored by Phones4U) is vast. Apparently it can take a crowd of 21,000 people, and it often does. The first picture above is of the venue interior; I think you'll agree it is fairly colossal to behold. Whilst this is now the venue of choice for many stars of music, TV, comedy and various other media forms in which to sell tickets, I postulate that in some cases, it might not be the best thing for the audiences involved.
For instance, almost every one of these "arenas" or "domes" or generally mahoosive places, are equipped with many large screens in which to show the audience what is going on in whichever act they are supposed to be watching. This is quite obviously because there are a great number of people who would not be able to see clearly otherwise, and would thus probably not feel their money was well spent. There is even the potential school of thought that asks- why would you spend good money, often venturing into the extortionate sums, to sit and/or stand with thousands of others, and watch a big telly? Many comedians now tour in these arenas, and even record their DVDs in them, and many laugh at the vast legions of people stretched out in front of them, many probably questioning their sanity when paying to sit miles away from the stage and those upon it.
It is not just the visual, but the audio aspect as well. Especially with music acts, the amount of amplification needed to fill such a venue and reach each person is biblical. With Beyoncé, the noise coming out of the gigantically powerful speakers, combined with the thousands of screaming fans was deafening.
This I feel, is where we might do well to slightly tone it down a notch, and have all these acts return to the theatres. Of course I realise that theatres are certainly not a dying breed of venue, even faced with such massive arenas. And quite rightly so; if they were it would be an utter travesty. What's more most of the many many theatres up and down the UK, and indeed the world, provide all manner of variety and entertainment, just as these arenas do and probably more so. Yet I feel that the theatre in essence, despite some being larger/smaller than others, is the perfect venue for all these entertainments. And that's an end of it. The theatre has been developed and has evolved over thousands of years, a perfect bastion of humanity's love of spectacle, the arts, and the sheer wonderful business of entertaining. What's more, everyone is comfortable, thousands of audience members are not too far away, screens showing what is going on are not needed, acoustics are good, and whatever you go to the theatre to see, atmosphere in spades can be produced and subsequently enjoyed. The theatre pictured above (below another vast UK arena - The 02) is the Lowry Theatre in Salford, which you will see is not tiny by any means, and a venue in which many enjoy various entertaining acts, without having to resort to binoculars.
Ah, you may say, but the "arena-style" venue, like the theatre, has been with us since the time of the ancients. Indeed, the famous Colosseum of Rome is reputed to have had a seating capacity of around 50,000, rendering the Manchester Arena positively tame. All this is of course perfectly valid, and I am sure that the citizens of Ancient Rome loved and were in awe of the spectacles presented in their "arenas", just as I and many many others can appreciate and enjoy an arena show and spectacle today.
My point however, is that for the sake of the most amount of people, to enjoy the optimum amount of entertainment in the best and most pleasurable fashion, the theatre (both in its ancient and modern forms) is the way to go. Not many will have to suffer and question their position and enjoyment factor, and a great many will have a fabulous hour or two, as they observe whatever wonderful magic is occurring on stage.
Again like many of my blog postings, especially in this opinion column, this may be just another case of me being increasingly old fashioned, traditionalist, and perhaps even ignorant of the ever moving times in which we live. But I just thought it might be something to think about. In the end though I suppose - "All the world's a stage".
01/03/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tragic case of a WAG getting the same amount of praise as a recovering stroke victim
Viewers of last Saturday's edition of The Jonathan Ross show on ITV surely had plenty to enjoy. I confess I am not automatically glued to this programme, for me with many chat shows it all depends upon the guests of each particular week. But as I say, plenty to watch and discuss with this one. The TV staple was joined by musician John Newman, lovable rogue and great actor James Corden, Hollywood legend and superb actress Uma Thurman, along with model Abbey Clancey and presenter and political commentator Andrew Marr.
A lot of things were discussed, promoted and laughed about, but one issue more than most that was raised on the show has been hence commentated upon quite a lot by the popular press since. No it was not Uma Thurman's potentially controversial new film Nymphomaniac, nor more importantly Andrew Marr's miraculous recovery from a stroke. No, what's got everybody gossiping is Abbey Clancy insisting she isn't having an affair with her Strictly Come Dancing 2013 partner and is faithful to her husband.
Do not get me wrong, I am all for marital fidelity, that is certainly no bad thing. And yes, Andrew Marr's rather touching speech about his recovery (including quite a nice moment where he cited Uma Thurman's classic film Kill Bill Vol.1 as motivation for recovery) was greatly picked up on. However, a slight mismatch of priorities, and of perceived worthiness of celebration from the show's audience, came from when Clancy's declaration that she is still happily married received the same level of praise and applause, if not more so, then Andrew Marr's recovery when he was interviewed.
This has certainly not gone unnoticed. True whilst many newspapers and magazines are focusing upon Clancy's fidelity insistences, there are some, such as Ian Hyland of the Mirror in his TV round up of the night, who expressed confusion and dismay that the studio audience treated and applauded both instances from both guests equally. I of course support his qualms, yet sadly I fear that the behaviour of the programme's audience may seemingly be a reflection of the attitude of modern TV audiences generally. Of course I am not saying that audiences are so callous as to disregard Andrew Marr's recovery completely. No indeed, I am sure many rightfully took it to their hearts, expressed their good will and wished, and still wish him a swift and speedy further recovery. I do fear however, that when push comes to shove, people like Abbey Clancy and those who watch her, might feel that the affairs of WAGs, reality stars, whatever you want to call them, are overbearing in terms of importance.
Shows like Strictly, X-Factor, all of those type of programmes generate massive popularity from viewers, hence why there are so many probably. These may well be entertaining, but people seem to be following them and their stars with such passion that it seems in my view, they are sometimes blinkered to more important issues. Yet sticking with this example, yes of course Abbey Clancy and her partner Aliaz Skorjanec showed great talent in Strictly, leading to their victory in the Final (though I personally was rooting for Natalie and Sophie but that is by the by) and of course there is a big proportion of popularity to consider in such a show (otherwise how would a public vote work?). Yet I truly feel that such enthusiasm should be reigned in to just appreciating and/or voting for celebrities within the confines of each series or programme, whatever that may be. The obsession with celebrity lifestyle that seems to me to be woefully fast-paced, erratic, skin deep and rampant in many instances, is what leads to issues like this in the first place. I may at this point be labelled as hypocritical (among other things) for making such a big deal of all this, and even tyrannical and bigoted for having a perhaps more constrained view. I feel this is a relatively minor issue, and that with regards to the chat show, the only major thing people should have taken away from it, if anything, was the remarkable story of Andrew Marr, as I say. Yet I realise I have no control over what people pay attention to, write and talk about, follow, and show interest in.
I would however, in conclusion, just try to remind people that the lives and relationships of celebrities (which again in my view have become far too plastered into the public view, even becoming 'anti-private' in some instances) are not that relevant to most of us at the end of the day. Appreciate these singers, actors, models, dancers, presenters and their work by all means, but also recognize that their lives are their own and try to retain a sense of perspective. But again, that's just me.
19/02/2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET SMART! GET A SMARTPHONE!
SOD OFF!
I know, another seemingly torrid rant (as a break from tradition). But this time, I feel there is a genuine point, and some truly important views to get across. Smartphones. They are everywhere. Blackberrys, iPhones, Lumias, SC4059, Lumixes...Domino,s,Cheerios, WD40, M606,PMT. Absolutely everywhere, in all sorts of forms and guises. It says something that there is no longer such a simple technological phenomenon as "the mobile phone" anymore (or "cell phone" for any friends in the states) but The Smartphone has become the replacement noun when referring to one's portable tele-communications device. What's more, as hinted at earlier, like a lot of these things in the modern age, branding is incredibly important to smartphone people. Not only have we gone from mobile phone, to smartphone, but now people (and I am naming no names) of a certain disposition, feel the need to say things like - "I BlackBerry-ed you" or "Apple me" or whatever the new, ultra-modern, youthful vernacular happens to be.
This may sound like me being old fart-ish yet again, but I just find it ludicrously nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, I am a great admirer most of the time of new technology, and that certainly applies to phones. I mostly believe it all to be remarkably clever. Yet I have never ever, nor have I any plans, of even remotely desiring a smartphone of my own. Again I may be old fashioned, but during day to day life I cannot be doing with all this ultra-sleek, ultra-thin, ultra-fashion, highly breakable, touchscreen, fluorescent malarky. I want simply to have a phone (that's mobile phone) which is simple, robust, not too cumbersome, relatively easy to use, with buttons, that I can use to phone people, with the occasional texts and the odd photo taken maybe. That I feel is not too much to ask. What's more nowadays, again thanks to leaps and bounds of technology, most mobile phones, even at their most basic, are available with most of these qualities in the common high street shop. Which I think is a huge plus, and should not be overly ignored. If you go into any branch of Phones4U, Carphone Warehouse, or Orange (which has now been amalgamated into EE along with T-Mobile, much to my chagrin) or whatever, you shall notice, or fail to notice, a dying breed. I refer of course, to a phone available for purchase, with buttons. Touch screen smartphones are dominating the displays and saturating the market. The future is apparently arriving at a most rapid rate; I imagine the smartphone tycoons and mighty moguls are up there on high constantly updating their dastardly master plan to eradicate buttoned phones from the face of the Earth. But consider the elderly, the manual worker, the avid texter, the double jointed, the not too technical, the traditionalists, and the overly fussy and blog-opinionated 22 year olds of this world who perhaps stubbornly refuse to move with the times. All people who might, and indeed probably do prefer to have a non-smartphone.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the whole point of a phone in it's purest form is surely to communicate vocally with people, but when one has said all one is going to say, the point is also to hang up and each individual is to go on with his or her lives. Not possible at all in the world of the smartphone. Now we may be venturing into realms way beyond my understanding, I don't even like nor understand the point of using my phone to access the internet. Yet as far as I understand it, smartphones have only boosted enormously the ever-growing trends of social media, rendering constant technological connections tethering people to each other 24/7. Smartphone Twittering for example, is rife. Not to mention the hordes upon hordes of apps and God knows what else (such as BBMs, Instagrams, Whatsapp, Snapchat etc) allowing people to transmit globally a never-ending stream, nay flood, of constant, inane, woeful drivel.
I feel I must stress again how I marvel at the ways people connect with each other at any time. Yet there surely comes a point when you get sick of seeing what people had for breakfast, thought-to smartphone-to internet-transcriptions that are not thought through very often, and some weird phenomenon called "memes"? I could go on. So I shall, as I haven't even got to the incredibly infuriating and ludicrous deluge of #hashtags. Not to mention the legions upon legions of celebrities, pseudo-celebrities, wannabe-celebrities and deluded teenage girls(along with actually boys, men, and women nowadays) who believe the world wants to see a picture of them every 5 minutes just staring down the lens (if we're lucky with the occasional different facial expression) aka - the "selfie".
GARGH! It's times like these I despair of the modern world. Maybe I am overreacting, and maybe I am confusing my irritation and anger with smartphones with anger and irritation with other aspects of modern life today. But I willingly concede, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, as they are entitled to buy the latest piece of technology and find the most insanely ridiculous things to do with it. I would merely ask the millions who have subscribed to the smartphone phenomenon to try to adhere to the following:- Do not flash your smartphones around so much; you'd think you'd discovered gold. Do not fix those without smartphones with that withering and pitying gaze as if they were one of the homeless. Do not believe that the world is obligated to know what you and your smartphone get up to every minute of the day. And above all please do not try and ostracize and purge from society the people, for they are many, who still prefer a simple, honest-to-goodness, mobile phone. Thank you. That is all.
17/02/2014
The True Spirit of Christmas...Cards
My mother has been winging, about Christmas. In essence, she says she may as well make her own Christmas cards this year as none of them have any representations of Jesus Christ or the Nativity adorning them. Since that is supposedly what Christmas is all about ("Christ-mass = Christmas" apparently) she feels this is wrong in its entirety. The legitimacy of her religious habits and credentials aside, it did get me thinking... is this true? Is the Christian core once so prevalent in this time of year fading away to nothing? What's more, are Christ and Christianity, ignored or not, the essence of Christmas, and should they be?
A few questions there, let's look at the first one to begin with. In essence, no of course it's not. Christianity is certainly not forgotten at this time of year, no matter who you are. Or should I say, if you are aware of Christmas and/or celebrate it, then you are probably aware at least partially, of the whole Christ our saviour/Nativity thing. Also, referring back to the original topic, of course there are religious Christmas cards out there. I'm sure you know as well as I that it's not hard to find Christian (or even Jewish or other religious denominations) card efforts wherever there are any other festive cards.
No, I'm sure all rational minded people can agree that Christianity is still there at Christmas time, whenever you want to find it. However I will say, both in terms of cards and everything else Christmas, I don't think it's as there as it used to be. Nowadays I feel Christmas also encompasses so much more. In days and years gone by, "the good old days, times of old, Dickensian days ("God bless us, everyone") or anything in modern history up until about mid-20th century-ish maybe, in Britain at least, Christianity, the main and domineering religion without any real alternative, was pretty synonymous with Christmas. Now however, Christmas, along with everything else is multi-cultural to say the least. Yes of course there are still many and merrily religious people who celebrate Christmas, but the true "spirit of Christmas", if there is such a thing, can mean a lot more, and a lot different, for others.
Interestingly if you Google "the spirit of Christmas" you might struggle to find a complete and chaste religious image for a while. Though you will find the charming scene above, which is what I associate the spirit of Christmas "in days of old" with in many ways. Not particularly religious or holy; just charming, pleasurable, innocent, homely, and happy. But that's just me. As I said, creed and culture have to come into this I am sure. For years people have harked on about the commercialism of Christmas and, for better or worse, I agree there is no real getting away from it in the Western world. Whether that is different for some groups of people than others, I don't know. The conception of Christmas in America for example springs to mind, which is apparently incredibly glitzy, flash, brash and vulgar in some instances. Mind you, over here we're not doing too badly either, as demonstrated to me today at the Trafford Centre in Manchester, where the decorations included a fifty foot personified, singing Christmas tree! Despite this I feel the perhaps more purist (or maybe the more snobbish) amongst us may still claim we have slightly more class.
Commercialism, capitalism, modernity...all terms that might be applied to today's conceptions of Christmas. Christ aside, another Christmas "icon" who endures to this day, rather better that Jesus, is of course Santa Claus/Father Christmas. Again a commercial, capitalist and modern-day Christmas is not complete without a plethora of Father Christmas depictions, from statues, to pictures, to inflatables, to jumpers, to cards. It's true, Santa Claus may be perfectly qualified to be "the true spirit of Christmas", if such a thing could or should be represented in a person, or figure. Of course, it is said by some that Santa Claus was based on a Christian saint, St.Nicholas or Saint Nick. Whether this is true or not, few people associate it with Santa now, and I don't think that is too great a shame. Where I think Santa succeeds, where Christ and his religion may fail, is that he does not come with any baggage. You don't have to follow Santa in a cult form, he is not the son of God (though some theories actually do link Santa with God but hey ho), you do not have to follow ten commandments, and at no point are you ever forced to read a book about him (unless you're a fan of something like the Night Before Christmas) and are "encouraged" to live as he lived. No, the wonderful myth of Santa is a simple one...a jolly old man who works around the year so that on one night, he may bring gifts, joy, laughter, and happiness to people throughout the world. And that's it. Of course when I say people, a more specific version may be the children of the world, and another idea of Christmas is that "it's really for the children isn't it?" Personally I'd much rather think of Christmas as a time of joy and wonder for the children of the world, or even just a time of happiness, warmth and togetherness for people generally, than just about the birth of one child that may or may not have happened. Interestingly as an aside, scholars now believe that if Jesus did exist, he certainly wasn't born anywhere near December the 25th, more likely in the Summer, and that this was just brought in to fit in with other pagan festivals.
But anywho, I'm digressing. I'm an atheist really, so of course I advocate a more universal and all-embracing spirit of Christmas than one based on just one religion, or at least I try to. I have absolutely no problem with Christianity, or religion generally, at Christmas or otherwise. I would simply ask that, at this time of year if no time else, that those who follow a Christian festive season, stop trying to blinker people into thinking it is all about their belief, and recognize that most wonderful of things...that Christmas at it's core is, if anything, about love, happiness, peace on Earth, and good will to all men. Cliched as that is. I now simply leave you with another "spirit of Christmas" Google image, one that I feel rather nicely sums it all up - Father Christmas himself, holding and considering Nativity icons, perhaps an attempt to unite the two? Who knows?
Merry Christmas to you all, and to all, a good night...
19/12/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK BENTON'S STORMING STRUT OFF STRICTLY
This guy should not be chastised - he should be celebrated!
This current series of Strictly Come Dancing is the first one I've actually got into really. Of course I am aware of its massive popularity, which is constant and on the rise seemingly all the time now. I also believe it is the best "reality" show on mainstream telly today, just because it has a simple and sterling premise - to take a group of celebrity novices, and week-by-week attempt to teach them how to dance and to improve their skills on the floor. That's it, and it is extremely watchable, not like this X-Factor, juicy jungle, take my juice out crap.
I freely admit, one of the great pulls in the line up this year was the incomparable Mark Benton. He is someone who I have followed for many a year and someone I just love watching. Ever since he appeared as Howard in Northern Lights/City Lights, which I loved and is still widely recognised as one of his best pieces of work to date, but he is been in many other programmes including Doctor Who, Hustle and Waterloo Road to name but a few. I believe he is a fantastic actor and seems to be a genuinely lovely guy.
I think from the outset of Strictly this time, people were generally expecting Mark and his partner Iveta to be the bumbling, comedic act, with no real dancing skill from the actor, myself among them I am ashamed to admit. How wrong, how wrong! From day one, Mark demonstrated he knew what he was doing. He had a sublime grasp of rhythm, knew his steps and worked well with his partner. Not only that but week upon week the massive amounts of performance and emotion he squeezed into every dance was noted and celebrated. I was tempted to say there 'massive amounts of fun and comedy', but though this was the case sometimes, he knew how to extract sadness, seriousness, passion and mania too, in a truly fantastic way. When his oodles of character was commented on, some of the judges often said in passing "it's 'cause you're an actor'. Well yes, but I'm sure we all know there is such a thing as a bad actor, never mind an actor who can't dance worth a damn. I think the fact that Mark Benton is used to performing was used as a sort of excuse for his progression in the competition which I completely disagree with. Yes performance is an important aspect of the show, for everyone, but there is so much more - the ability to dance for one thing! Plus the skill to improve, and something else Mark had in spades; like-ability. I truly feel the audience loved him, or else why would they vote for him all these weeks?
Now, at week 10, Mark Benton and Iveta, have finally danced their last, after what I feel was a fantastic run.
Again, though most people clearly celebrated him on the show, others, as seems to be always the way, were being horribly vindictive. They were claiming he was a long-running joke, that he should step down and that he shouldn't be there, especially last week when he stayed and rugby player Ben Cohen went home (though I imagine that might be a load of shallow, over-sexed idiots who liked ogling the sportsman). If Mark Benton didn't have the support or the ability to get him so far in Strictly, then he would have gone out sooner, it's as simple as that. But the people kept voting for him, and the judges kept keeping him. I think it is utterly deplorable to attempt to snap at Mark Benton's heels, just because he is not as athletic, or is more comedic than others. Yes no one is to everyone's taste and I do not deny there are several brilliantly talented other dancers in the competition, but for ten weeks Mark was one of them, and he deserved to get as far as he did whole-heartedly. What's more, he did not break down and give up at all this un-deserved criticism, he simply kept buggering on, and did it with a huge smile on his face, performing week after week with everything he had, being the totally lovable life and soul of the party.
OK, I think I've made my point. Sufficed to say, I feel a hearty well done is in order for Mark Benton, I'm sure a great many will miss you moving and grooving on a Saturday night, I know I will. If I make it to the end of this series of Strictly, which is not far off at all, I might have a bit more to say about it generally, but for now I shall leave you with a choice selection of all of Mark's wonderful performances, great costumes, and fantastic facial expressions.
02/12/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Business of Blogging
Samuel Jackson
So...blogging. Blog. My Blog. To have a blog. To be blogging one's self to death. To be blogging from sun up to sun down. To be updating a blog, to be checking a blog, to be thinking about a blog. To be blogging here and then to be blogging there. What to have in a blog, and what not to have in a blog? To be blogging away 'til dawn...
I confess I was at a bit of a quandary when considering all this blogging malarky (technical term - if you live north of Oxford). I wasn't at all sure. Yet now, as I reach the age of 22, here I am with one of my very own. I have been part of this seemingly widespread online phenomenon of the people before (as you will see if you have perused the information on my blog - and if you've been paying attention!). Yet often that was out of association, and out of necessity. That is not to say however, that it was not enjoyable.
The Thespian Slayers was my first real blogging experience. Last year, in the winter of 2012, three lovely girls by the names of Alice, Ana and Paige were sadly lumbered with me during a project for one of our Drama courses at university. In a nutshell the aim was to establish a creative and themed theatre blog, whereby we would post various reviews, features and other bits and pieces to do with theatre and the arts throughout the country. Though in actuality administration wasn't really my assigned responsibility in this case (I mostly contributed pieces and ramblings when required) it was nevertheless the first time I was associated with such a thing. There it was. My name. On a blog. Eeee by 'eck!
In the end I enjoyed my first foray into the blogging world. Academically we were marked high for it, it involved some enjoyable theatre trips and I could not have asked for a better team to be working with.
Fine. Yet the second rubbing I've had with a blog is quite less involved. Writing reviews and features for The Thespian Slayers had sort of jump started my liking for such so, at the behest of friends and relatives, I contacted various publications, both small and larger scale, to see if they'd be so kind as to publish some of my stuff. At the time, though I was slightly thrilled to see my name potentially in print (or pixelated on a screen at least) I was quite resigned to not getting anywhere with it. To my surprise Big Lens, the magazine of my university's Film Society, said they'd be happy to look at my stuff and publish it on their blog. I was very gratified of course and was very humbled to see them publish five of my pieces. To be quite honest, I sent them more than that, the backlog of which can be seen on my blog. I suspect the reason they did not all end up on Big Lens was a combination of swamped inboxes of the editors and/or a slight nonchalance towards the end of the academic year about what went up and when, possibly culminating in a breakdown of organisation int' mill. I do not know for sure of course, I can only guess because the only contact I ever had with anyone at Big Lens was via email, so I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes. Currently the last post they put up was in May, and it is the last review I sent them. Regardless I am of course incredibly greatful to whomever it may concern within Big Lens for their time, and their publishing of me stuff.
So there we are, my blogging past. Yet I was still reluctant to continue into the blogging future. Call me bigoted or old fashioned, but I simply don't feel entitled to foist my wild musings and opinions upon the online public. I realise of course that everyone who may or may not come across this blog is within their rights to dismiss it as a load of tosh, and I am not promising that for a majority of the time they will be mistaken. Yet again, thanks to some external encouragement, and finally taking the plunge, it is here in black and white, and currently various shades of blue and red. I do not know what the future may hold for me and my little blog. It may crash and burn, start well intended but slowly decline, or rise to dizzying world-shattering heights (well, we can dream can't we?). I do not know; I do not know if it or I shall be any good at all. I shall simply put things out there when I think of them, and if I deem it worthy of typing, and I shall see what occurs.
Now...to end on an enigmatic, cryptic, exciting and original note..." Live long and prosper!"
20/11/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAS “THEATRE” NOW ENCOMPASSED STAND UP COMEDY?
Samuel Jackson
Stand up comedy is massive. There is no doubt about it; in
this country alone the whole concept of stand up has moved on incredibly from
the little comedy clubs in back alleys from a few decades ago to producing
comedians who present huge sell-out tours and show-stopping television
programmes. What’s more, the panel show has now also encompassed massively
stand up comedians and their work, such as Mock the Week and Would I Lie to
You, wrapping topical panel shows around incredibly funny material. The names are
now endless – Michael McIntyre, Dara O’Briain, Peter Kay, Lee Evans, Sarah
Millican; to name but an incredibly select few.
As well as being able to watch a plethora of stand up
comedians strut their stuff on television, in programmes such as Live at the
Apollo or Michael McIntyre’s Comedy Roadshow, there is now huge scope for going
to see live comedy too. Yes successful comedians are now selling out Wembley
and the like, and yes there are still many specialised comedy clubs and events
where one can see up-and-coming talent (often before seeing them on
television). Yet it is now commonplace to see established theatres offer
comedic entertainment, the average stand up’s tour dates including many
theatres as well. Indeed just in Canterbury the Marlowe theatre are due to host
Harry Hill and Sarah Millican, as well as performances of Birdsong and The Taming Of The Shrew. At the Gulbenkian
Theatre I have seen wonderful performances of works by Oscar Wilde, Henrik
Ibsen and William Shakespeare. I have also seen, often billed on the same
programme, the marvellous Miles Jupp and the hilarious Hugh Dennis, both well
known and respected comedians.
It is fairly clear-cut common knowledge, that theatres
themselves often have no compunction about presenting stand up comedy as well
as the more traditional performances of “theatre”. Moreover the general public
have no qualms to go to watch them. I for one am extremely contented to know
that at some point in our recent history we seem to have entered something of a
“golden age”, where often seeing a barn-storming stand up stands side by side
with seeing a most powerful dramatic piece at the theatre.
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment