Politics on TV
Labels:
anger,
BBC2,
channel 4,
griff rhys jones,
jame oliver,
ministry of food,
politics
Jamie Oliver doesn't really do it for me and it has been a while since I've watched one of his bothersome programmes. I cook for myself a lot of the time, try to eat well, yet he still manages to make me feel shit, in some way. There's never any sense of pride when watching Jamie, he just goads and goads. So, last night I watched Griff Rhys Jones getting angry on BBC2. I missed the first episode and I wonder perhaps, if I missed him getting really really enraged? Last night he was reflective, trying to hone his anger with boxing and the like (a little bit like the kids and that ex-con on The Wire).
On a personal level, it was great. It taught me that I'm not as angry as I think I am. I mean, I don't proper lash out at anyone (even though I think about it). I don't have the physical onslaught of anger, the 'seeing red', the boiling up inside. I think, actually, I only ever get angry at myself. I certainly have the insecurity problem of anger. However, I don't direct it at anyone. I'm acutely aware of my low self-esteem, the way I can change it, the things I should be doing, I just don't do it. I get frustrated at myself, I often vent and complain and whine but I'm pretty sure I don't actually get aggressive towards anyone else. Good one me.
Griff however, isn't like that. He gets pissed off, but then, I found it rather amusing and ridiculous when he talked about the way he got angry; the things he got angry about. So petty, for example - the problem with getting to GMTV (or whatever) for 7am only for Ben Fogle to be on the earlier slot and for him to be waiting around until after the news. His story at the group therapy session in LA about some director in a theatre production annoying him because he knew what he was doing, he'd done it before. It all seemed so pathetic. What is there to be annoyed about? He doesn't have to work, sure he probably wants to, and no doubt he works incredibly hard, but as he complained about not having the time for this and that I think: surely Griff, surely you can just quit something? I mean, there are people out there stressed out, on low wage who can barely keep up with daily expenses and children and problems and they are very much entitled to lash out. It's probably those exact people pictured on CCTV lashed and really aggressive. Where do they hone their anger? Except on the streets, on strangers, in booze.
Anger, I think, is culturally dependent. Depending as well, of course, on you as a person and your individual behaviour; whether you're passive aggressive or indeed simply aggressive. Those who are aggressive, I believe in this country are more likely to direct that aggression, as they've got the freedom to be, in some ways. I think, there are a lot of things that happen more in countries like ours because of the freedom and wealth that we have. Even if we're not all that wealthy. It's the notion that we expect so much yet do so little about it, I think, that makes us angry. We expect it all to happen and when it doesn't, when it's a bit hard, we get frustrated. I always go for this theory, with just about everything that is a bit wrong in this country but I do believe it plays a part.
I'd like to compare and contrast anger in different countries, different worlds. Has capitalism helped to make us angry? I wonder.
Jamie got angry, I saw that, because I did watch it in the end, albeit after reading G2 today. The article on class and food was really not a surprise and if anyone read it and was surprised then they obviously live in Jamie's bubble. It has clearly been an issue in all his crusades, in all these health freakouts and not to mention environmental ones. Organic this and that; why do you think all these guys are on Channel 4? People like me watch it; people with money (or parents with money) who have been taught to cook and know good recipes and delicious food and are willing to spend their money on it. Channel 4 is not there for those benefit folk from Rotherham, young mothers with no time or money. Those people that deserve to get angry but probably don't because they've got too many other things to worry about.
It's interesting how G2 referred to the programme as being an important comment on our culture because I'm pretty sure all the other programmes have alluded to the same issue; You Are What You Eat for one. Didn't that constantly demonstrate the type of people facing this food/class struggle?
It's funny, thinking we live in a classless society when clearly it's there in red, been there all along, it's on Wife Swap and all those other Channel 4 reality/documentary crossover shows. This is not new, this is simply giving the issue its worth.
Yet, I don't think it is enough. Aside from the part where the woman was crying about her debts Jamie did nothing to try and comprehend the real financial strain these people are under. Not just that, but time constraint. It's a real life problem and what the programme needs to do is focus on money, focus on the price of the food they are using and keep going for simpler, disgustingly simple ways to cook decent hearty food. I don't know the answer, if it was up to me I'd give them a slab of mackerel (ready to eat), a few fillets are less than £2 in Tesco but then that's not something kids would enjoy and goodness knows is probably still too expensive. How Jamie got them to buy salmon I don't know. He really should have been giving them something cheaper like Rainbow Trout to cook with. Even I don't buy salmon and I'm a big fan.
It's still brushing over it really, this is not the social food revolution, this is not the working class struggle. They were showing the good a little more than the bad, and no doubt they'll continue to show the good but then when the show is over it will all go back to normal. I just don't think it has the depth it ought to have.
I also think it could do a lot to show the rest of the working class - the immigrant class. The great majority of Jamie's pupils were white, partially because it was in Rotherham but partially, I think because there is a very different culture in many of our immigrant communities in this country. Whether working or middle class the relational culture is hugely related to food, having dinner together, cooking decent meals and passing that recipe on. Why is it such a white British issue? Why is the family so prevalent in other cultures but not the white British culture? Or at least not anymore.
I've been learning about individualist capitalist societies in the West in relation to relational Eastern ones; they are the growing success, they are emerging out of the economic crisis. Is that individualism part of every aspect of this culture? Including food and meal times? That's a scary thought, that even family has lost out to capitalism and its greed.
On a personal level, it was great. It taught me that I'm not as angry as I think I am. I mean, I don't proper lash out at anyone (even though I think about it). I don't have the physical onslaught of anger, the 'seeing red', the boiling up inside. I think, actually, I only ever get angry at myself. I certainly have the insecurity problem of anger. However, I don't direct it at anyone. I'm acutely aware of my low self-esteem, the way I can change it, the things I should be doing, I just don't do it. I get frustrated at myself, I often vent and complain and whine but I'm pretty sure I don't actually get aggressive towards anyone else. Good one me.
Griff however, isn't like that. He gets pissed off, but then, I found it rather amusing and ridiculous when he talked about the way he got angry; the things he got angry about. So petty, for example - the problem with getting to GMTV (or whatever) for 7am only for Ben Fogle to be on the earlier slot and for him to be waiting around until after the news. His story at the group therapy session in LA about some director in a theatre production annoying him because he knew what he was doing, he'd done it before. It all seemed so pathetic. What is there to be annoyed about? He doesn't have to work, sure he probably wants to, and no doubt he works incredibly hard, but as he complained about not having the time for this and that I think: surely Griff, surely you can just quit something? I mean, there are people out there stressed out, on low wage who can barely keep up with daily expenses and children and problems and they are very much entitled to lash out. It's probably those exact people pictured on CCTV lashed and really aggressive. Where do they hone their anger? Except on the streets, on strangers, in booze.
Anger, I think, is culturally dependent. Depending as well, of course, on you as a person and your individual behaviour; whether you're passive aggressive or indeed simply aggressive. Those who are aggressive, I believe in this country are more likely to direct that aggression, as they've got the freedom to be, in some ways. I think, there are a lot of things that happen more in countries like ours because of the freedom and wealth that we have. Even if we're not all that wealthy. It's the notion that we expect so much yet do so little about it, I think, that makes us angry. We expect it all to happen and when it doesn't, when it's a bit hard, we get frustrated. I always go for this theory, with just about everything that is a bit wrong in this country but I do believe it plays a part.
I'd like to compare and contrast anger in different countries, different worlds. Has capitalism helped to make us angry? I wonder.
Jamie got angry, I saw that, because I did watch it in the end, albeit after reading G2 today. The article on class and food was really not a surprise and if anyone read it and was surprised then they obviously live in Jamie's bubble. It has clearly been an issue in all his crusades, in all these health freakouts and not to mention environmental ones. Organic this and that; why do you think all these guys are on Channel 4? People like me watch it; people with money (or parents with money) who have been taught to cook and know good recipes and delicious food and are willing to spend their money on it. Channel 4 is not there for those benefit folk from Rotherham, young mothers with no time or money. Those people that deserve to get angry but probably don't because they've got too many other things to worry about.
It's interesting how G2 referred to the programme as being an important comment on our culture because I'm pretty sure all the other programmes have alluded to the same issue; You Are What You Eat for one. Didn't that constantly demonstrate the type of people facing this food/class struggle?
It's funny, thinking we live in a classless society when clearly it's there in red, been there all along, it's on Wife Swap and all those other Channel 4 reality/documentary crossover shows. This is not new, this is simply giving the issue its worth.
Yet, I don't think it is enough. Aside from the part where the woman was crying about her debts Jamie did nothing to try and comprehend the real financial strain these people are under. Not just that, but time constraint. It's a real life problem and what the programme needs to do is focus on money, focus on the price of the food they are using and keep going for simpler, disgustingly simple ways to cook decent hearty food. I don't know the answer, if it was up to me I'd give them a slab of mackerel (ready to eat), a few fillets are less than £2 in Tesco but then that's not something kids would enjoy and goodness knows is probably still too expensive. How Jamie got them to buy salmon I don't know. He really should have been giving them something cheaper like Rainbow Trout to cook with. Even I don't buy salmon and I'm a big fan.
It's still brushing over it really, this is not the social food revolution, this is not the working class struggle. They were showing the good a little more than the bad, and no doubt they'll continue to show the good but then when the show is over it will all go back to normal. I just don't think it has the depth it ought to have.
I also think it could do a lot to show the rest of the working class - the immigrant class. The great majority of Jamie's pupils were white, partially because it was in Rotherham but partially, I think because there is a very different culture in many of our immigrant communities in this country. Whether working or middle class the relational culture is hugely related to food, having dinner together, cooking decent meals and passing that recipe on. Why is it such a white British issue? Why is the family so prevalent in other cultures but not the white British culture? Or at least not anymore.
I've been learning about individualist capitalist societies in the West in relation to relational Eastern ones; they are the growing success, they are emerging out of the economic crisis. Is that individualism part of every aspect of this culture? Including food and meal times? That's a scary thought, that even family has lost out to capitalism and its greed.
No comments:
Post a Comment