mmoa_writes

Arrived in London yesterday for Maugrim's second b-day party. One of the first things that struck me was the change in the 91 bus route (as of February the 7th). I found it rather amusing that my automatic response was 'why did nobody tell me about this?', rather than, well, one shouldn't really react to something as petty as a minor alteration in a bus route whilst one was away. It's not as if the Supreme Megafalump of London (or Bojo as he's called on the streets) is on my f-list or something...


I was also surprised to see some 'There definitely is a God. Don't worry, enjoy your life!' bus adverts around. I was a bit disappointed to note they were all from Christian organizations - I'm sure the other monotheists deserve a peek in (or maybe they're just not so insecure that they need to get into EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION ABOUT GOD/RELIGION), and I'd love to see something from the Dianic Wiccans/Celtic pagans - but I rather like the idea of making public statements of belief (if we must have them, which it seems we do) that don't descend into the usual rigamarole of proof, the necessity and lack thereof. It's a shame that the 'atheist' bus campaign seems to have declined: there aren't any more going round in Manchester for one thing, and I was half-hoping to see an 'atheist' and 'theist' bus jam in central London.

The wording also struck me as somewhat problematic. Apparently, the 'atheist' bus campaign had to use 'probably' because one can't make absolute claims in advertising. Now, unless they're making some sort of a statement about the difficulties in proving a negative, it seems a bit odd that there's a 'definitely' in the 'theist' bus campaigns. Just saying.

Or maybe the 'probably' is more to do with the fact that the 'atheist' campaign was sponsored by the Humanist association/NSS, which also includes agnostics, untheists, otherists, radical theists and goodness knows what else. Perhaps it's understandably harder to get a unified slogan for such diversity.



Finished watching Friday's 'Newsnight Review', in which they discussed whether television is dead. It wasn't great, some of the questions raised were a bit... daft and I felt sorry for the glorious Ms Haynes (amongst others) who had to make do with such little material.



What annoyed me was when Wark asked a question as to why British TV couldn't produce something like 'The Wire', after all 'there's a huge interest in crime!', which struck me as a particularly clueless and shallow thing to say (this is no comment on Wark herself: I frequently suspect she and the other Review presenters have a guideline that the debate has to follow, so they always end up asking/raising at least one stupid question/dilemma that often has nothing to do with the interesting discussion/debate that was going on before).

I think that's the wrong angle to approach good drama. I highly doubt 'The Wire' was conceived because there's a 'huge interest in crime' in the US. If that was the case, it wouldn't have been made: there's a bunch of TV cop/detective series going on already. If it was as simple as an interest in crime, they've already got plenty to whet the appetite. To produce a British version of 'The Wire' would give a scenario similar to the US version of 'The Office'. I personally enjoy it, but I can't take it seriously, because it's blatantly a copy of the original. Likewise the US 'Life on Mars'. We don't need British copies, we just need British originals. They don't have to be about the same thing or have the same concerns, but they do have to have the same quality which is what makes US television - when it's good - so great. It's the seriousness that allows you to immerse yourself into a show, without being jolted out again by the knowing ironic wink of the director/scriptwriter. We can mock such 'American' earnestness all we like once we've finished an episode, but you can guarantee we'll be there same time next week to watch the next one.

Furthermore, I always thought that we do have some good stuff going on. Unfortunately, it's labelled as 'teenage' or some other dismissive term. Skins isn't going to win any awards, but the latest series is making a pretty good attempt to move away from it's previous tone and towards serious character writing. Being Human, from what I've heard as I've yet to watch it (I fail, I fail, I fail...), works hard enough to overcome the viewer's initial wtf-ness at the set-up, and usually succeeds. Maybe we just need longer series' so we can have more stuff like the original BBC4 drama season, which gave us 'The Curse of Comedy' series, or the feature concerning Beau Brummel of all people (I've never like Purefoy so much as in that production - put his Mark Antony to shame...). So often when I watch television, it feels like something that has to be done, rather than something that loves to be done, if that makes any sense.


It's not all about cash, it's not all about a 'thick' audience. It's about ditching the silly excuses, learning from other TV failures and successes, mixing it all up and having a good time. The real problem with British TV when compared to the US? It just doesn't taste of love.