Stewart Lee

I will not say much except this:

Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle - Monday, 10pm, BBC2.

Tonight was the first one, it was about books, iplayer it, it was good. If I were to write about it, I would just be retelling hilarious jokes completely unhilariously.

The format is simple, it is essentially standup, think Russell Brand's 'Ponderland' (though Lee would probably kill me for ever daring to compare him with such a 'celebrity hardback' bestseller) in that it approaches a different subject each week, except it is funnier because he is funnier. It is also occasionally interspersed with little sketches to help strengthen a joke. I think they did, I thought they were very bloody funny.

I wonder, what's the point in writing anything here when I've nothing to complain about? It was beautiful, the talk on Harry Potter is basically what I've been saying for ages, only he's better, because he gets more annoyed and he has a better comeback.

Apparently there are six of these, each complaining about some other banal aspect of our everyday lives. Watch them, every single one because, to speak crudely, you will piss your pants.

This is terribly written I know, I'm too lazy to try harder, I give up, I feel powerless. I have already written too much and delayed any reader from watching it themselves.

Oversubscribed

Richard Hammond spends far too much time on my television screen and I don't like it. He's irritating and he makes me want to insult him for being short, which is absurd because I'm short. It is of course, not just his height, it is his hair, it is his teeth, it is his face, it is his stupid stupid shiny jacket. It is his unbearable voice, in short, it is EVERYTHING and I HATE HIM.

That's right, I said it, I hate him perhaps more than I hate Clarkson. Why? Because Clarkson, generally speaking only really appears on Top Gear. I don't have to read the Telegraph or wherever it is he writes and I certainly won't be getting hold of any of his books or DVD's. However, with Hammond, that orange little mole, even if I don't watch his stupid new programmes, they are still advertised every fucking where. Not only that but those Morrisons adverts need away now.

Why do people complain about such inoffensive things. I'll tell you what is offensive, it's Richard Hammond overexpressing with his mouth and his cheeks and his eyes and his voice. Why stretch your words out like that Hammond? Why stretch your mouth as you do it? If it is such effort, if it causes you pain then why do you do it to yourself all over my telly? I mean, of course I love to see you in pain, but not in a way that annoys me like this. I'd like pleasure from your pain Hammond.

Obviously, I'm getting startlingly close to expressing a wish for his accident to have, you know, been worse. Obviously I don't really want anything as close as as bad as that happen to him. Obviously, I just want him back in his little motor car and I want him to drive off wherever he likes on the condition that it is far far away from MY television. He can go off to someone elses television, someone who likes his jacket, but not mine.

The fact that he is imposing himself on the poor children with his new CBBC show is just disgusting. If I had children I would not let them watch that trash, whatever happened to How 2 or Art Attack, that's kids entertainment, and educational.

Why is he suddenly some sort of engineer? It just doesn't make any sense, and sometimes I get a little offended by his overemphasising voice overemphasising the word 'British' in his adverts about 'British' beeft, even though at the same time I completely agree that more of our food should be sourced locally. I think it offends me because it sounds racists, he just puts too much on the word 'British' and it affects my liberal values.

This calls for ACTION, he's a racist pretending to be an engineer and he's trying to teach children about how great cars are. This is not on, I'm going to complain, I want him off my screen for at least a year without pay. Forget this three month Jonathan Ross nonsense, this deserves TRUE PUNISHMENT.

Who's with me?!

Advertising

In a post about adverts I pledge NOT to refer to anything created by a particular brand of chocolate. You know the one...I just don't care.

What I do this is pure genius in its total lack of irony is the 'finallyfast.com ad I caught whilst watching 'Police Interceptors' (deserves an entry - might do one soon) tonight. It appeared towards 10pm in one of the breaks and it came across like something 'The Onion' might put together. An American lad sat at his computer wishing it would go faster. The sound, the lighting, every aspect of it so archaic you wouldn't think the types of computers people were using had even been made in this decade...or even in the last decade.

It was like watching any spoof commercial: corny American accents and wide smiles straight into the camera. It's ridiculous, and it stays ridiculous as every person, sat at every desk, with every computer (little white laptops or normal) sighs and frowns about their slow computers until suddenly FINALLY FAST DOT COM shows them the way to better performing computers. A quick-talking voice-over goes through the FACTS, speeding through his script over techno music which I thought I'd only ever get to hear on sex-text adverts. The graphics are disgusting a...it should be a joke within a tv show, not something someone paid to have appear in between actual programes (albeit police interceptors and crisis point on channel 5's digital titbit).

It does everything to a formula scrapped in the eighties and I love it, I love it most for the kid at the end: "Hey, my computer's fast...finally! Finallfast.com"

In fact...watch it:

Still Here

I promise, I still watch TV, but it seems to be concentrated in to the soap hour (two hours?) of early evenings and followed by however many episodes of 'Friends' E4 cares to throw at me.

It's not that I don't want to watch the Great British Food Fight - I did try but I got bored of Heston and all this talk of having good food at 'Little Chef', the whole premise just didn't sit well with me, IT'S A SERVICE STATION. People will stop by when they want food and that is the nearest place...surely?

I watched latest Oz and James scenario, bit of ale, bit of Yorkshire wine, a caravan, complaining, drunken train journeys, all fine.

BUT what has been really great is 'Plus One' that bizarre new comedy about some bloke's ex-girlfriend going out with Duncan from Blue. The best part is that, in the first episode when the dumped bloke was dreaming up a James Bond scenario he referred to Duncan as 'Fromblue' as though it were his last name. That was a wonderful litttle insert.

Generally it's brilliant for it's poor loser generally unheroic hero who gets himself into all sorts of scrapes and situations in order to find himself a date for the big Fromblue wedding. He tries to run a charity race but fails miserably at cheating, getting his shoes stolen and being accused of being a peadophile. Then, after his troubles, he is almost celebrated for raising the most money (the bulk of which he donated himself) and Fromblue goes ahead and trumps him again. Damn you Blue.

It's hilarious and ridiculous in the way the Inbetweeners was only this time it's straight to Friday night Channel 4....nice.

And if that wasn't all, Skins is back! I don't care about the new 90210 because I've got Bristol rich kids whose immorality is never disguised by 'issues', or at least, any issues are easily ignored as we watch SEX, DRUGS, ROCK N ROLL, FIRE, EXPLOSIONS, FRIGHTENED TEACHERS, BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE!! I was a bit wary of leaving the old cast behind, one of them now a Slumdog Millionaire and another probably not, having peaked with 'About a Boy', but the episode was as fast-paced and engaging as ever. Always ridiculous, the assembly scene in school was rather irritating but then I suppose it has to be. Enfield made a good appearance and I hope we see more high-end comedy parents. That's the other trouble with a new cast, you've got to bring in new parents and they've got a lot to compete with. Series 2 really saw them get their screen time, Enfield lead the way for Josie Lawrence and others who I've forgotten but definitely love. Not to mention Danny Dyer beind in series 1, nice one Danny.

I'm a bit miffed as to why the teachers had to change as well and why the hell that woman ever did become a post-16 educator if she's so timid. Pandora is obviously the star, she's kind of like a character Katy Brand might have created, young and loose in a whole other show...you see, I can watch ITV sometimes.

My main love affair has been slightly off-telly though still valid due to the triple bills on Channel 5 over the Christmas period: 30 Rock - I was a bit late with this one, my sister made me watch it on the plane to Japan but I'm glad she did. It's fantastic and though when described is frighteningly derivative of the classic Larry Sanders Show, and yes, there are episodes which draw on similar themes (product placement for one) but it also marks an ode as Rip Torn makes his occasional appearance as the big GE Capital boss.

Alec Baldwin is nothing but genius from start to finish, his 'making-of' info-mercial video being a personal highlight; but even the one-liners - "never go with a hippy to a second location" being my new motto for life. Tin Fey is nothing but wonderful and when I watched 'Mean Girls' recently I got extra excited, which is hard to do when watching 'Mean Girls' because it is cinematic gold.

Tracey is at his best when his entourage are around and Frank definitely gets some of the best lines. His droopy face is enough of a picture though.

In so many ways I simply cannot fault this show, each character so perfectly formed and of course Tin Fey's Liz Lemon does hold it together so well. I love the fact that she's a loser and references Star Wars constantly and eats too much takeaway - in fact - eats too much. She wins as my hero for all the things Jack might want to change about her. I also love their friendship, it's such an endearing and heartfelt one, beneath the comedy I genuinely feel the love....

Oh TV, so good to me.

Plus the new Specsavers advert with the pairs of eyes working out....BRILLIANT!

Today's 3MW

I can't avoid Channel 4 for long and the '3 Minute Wonder' this evening was definitely worth a mention. It documented an Iraqi man in America, discussing the election and his experience.

He had run a successful restaurant business in Baghdad; he left for America and, because the restaurant trade is what he knows; began a new business there. He had an interesting, American melting-pot style view of his immigration. He stated that once you move to America you become American. He appreciated the freedoms, his freedom to vote Democrat or Republican, to walk down one street or another, to live and be as he pleases.

He was voting for McCain; he explained that Obama was neither to the far left nor McCain to the far right. In his eyes both were in the middle and he chose the middle-right mainly, by the looks of it for Palin bizarrely.

He also, rather interestingly spoke of how he'd prefer it if a woman was in charge, stating that if women were in charge there would be less violence as men as driven by it. That was a surprise, though he went on to talk about how they should look good too which was quite degrading and gave a sour edge to his earlier statement.

Still, I found it an incredibly interested and unpredictable depiction of an Iraqi living in America. Obviously, he's settled and has been there a while but he was a fascinating subject. It's a shame it only gets three minutes.

I watch too much Channel 4

It's true, I rarely deviate from Channel 4. Although this evening I caught part two of John Prescott's documentary about class on BBC2 (probably the only other channel I bother with on terrestrial). He, in his jaguar (one of two as the Tabloids love to point out) travels around talking to people and asking them what class they think they're in. I missed the first part because I was on my way home from a lecture (because there is more to life than television). However, I probably didn't miss out on all that much.

This time he hung out with Jodie Marsh in an attempt to seek out and learn about the so-called 'Celebrity Class' - I'm not sure what, if anything, Prescott or us as an audience could have possibly learnt from that or any of the programme. As a result, I thought it was pretty bloody awful as a whole.

Class is obviously a highly complex issue, just last week in one of my seminars we ended up in a discussion questioning the determinants of class - the transition of classes and the idea of social mobility; that and the mobility of the very classification of class itself. It is no longer a labourer against a business owner. We are not a nation of distinct employment classifications, we suffer from a huge underclass, we suffer from a mid-range, of people who work the jobs of the so-called 'working class' yet might too be students, or recent graduates, who might have been brought up entirely middle class and yet might graduate into the benefits underclass.

The question of class first requires a distinction of how it is to be approached. Do we distinguish class person-to-person on a completely individual level. Where does family or 'class background' come in? Does it only apply when you are still living with or being supported by your family? Can you only have your individual class identity once you have cut the family cord. If a child grows and works its way out of a social class how will their class background affect them? Will they continue to impose that background and mere ghost of social class on their family?

I didn't read about the programme, or see any reviews for last week but my opinion on this second part is none more than a shrug. I didn't gain anything and frankly I found that in parts Prescott and the narrator's interpretation of what some of the children he spoke to were saying and thinking was completely off the mark. I, of course, might have misinterpreted, but the way I saw it when he was speaking to a group of school children who attended a fairly standard comprehensive school, who might consider themselves working class, either didn't see themselves that way or didn't apply class to themselves or others at all. Yet, Prescott's conclusion was that class was still, in part, holding them back from what they wanted. When did they say this?

It really didn't seem like they were of that opinion. I think it was merely to lead Prescott to a point he wanted to make about the way children get more opportunity going to private, paid-for schools. Of course the statistics are difficult to argue with and I won't doubt the programmes research that yes, a high percentage of individuals in top positions in this country were educated in private schools. Those schools and social connections are an undeniable element of the employment structure in this country. However, this does not prove or disprove individual ideas (or ideals) of class and the class system. Many of those people may too be men, but that's another debate entirely and one that is unlikely to be lead by John Prescott.

I am pretty unimpressed by a lack of interest in what could be an entirely separate class of immigrants. If class identity has an historical position in terms of family or even an extended family class identification then what are early generation immigrants? Are they a sub-underclass? Are they below those who are considered underclass merely because they are not strictly 'working'? Yet immigrants do work more often than not, unless their asylum-seeker status forces them otherwise, but they don't have the class history. If John Prescott is desperate to cling to his working class roots then a migrant worker must cling to their own. Perhaps they were part of a middle class in their original country can they not remain so? In spite of what work they may or may not undergo here?

I know that you can only raise so much in a couple of hour-long prime time documentaries. I can see that Prescott is a bit of a class puppet and has little more to say than Punch or Judy on the matter, not truly and comprehensively. You can't desperately struggle to maintain an archaic system of categorising that does not meet with the consciousness of the nation. There are classes, of course there are, there is no ignoring a clear and present segregation of people in many ways, and the programme went on and on about the transition from black/white to grey, but it is more, much more than this. One woman's opinion went quite ignored and I was astounded that she said, before making her point, something along the lines of: "This is a man's discussion" and that the others seemed to agree and thus ignore her. She said that class was a subjective and individual question and I'd be inclined to agree. The programme didn't even try to posit a new set of recognisable determinants. How could they if they ignored numerous factors.

The celebrity class as well was a completely pointless an unnecessary insert. Neither a class nor particularly relevant their social status is more interesting in their position as class idols. Perhaps their elevation in society is due to an existing cultural lower class? Would class be better defined culturally rather than economically? Of course economics do come into it and indeed appear to help create that cultural class; geography and the physical placement of people is again economic yet again, helps to create for an individual a set of cultural guidelines and norms through the surroundings.

My flatmate this evening asked, though wary of sounding snobby, why the chavs all look the same. One's identity, physical, outward or otherwise, is of course negotiated and formed by numerous factors. Surely class, as Prescott sees it as rather an important element of one's identity, has to be the same?

Dead Set 3 and 4

I'll admit, things were starting to bother me yesterday; not only the fact that zombies can run (in spite of the whole 'different types' argument - in a conversation today my friend pointed out that in 28 Days Later the running is explained by 'Rage' - in Dead Set there is no explanation as to why this whole outbreak has even happened) but my personal rage was getting further than that. I accepted the lady with the big rifle - which she might have plausably found in the country somewhere - as being some kind of Charlie Brooker fantasy woman; angry and ready to kill. However, last night we had BIG GUNS.

The police seemed to be carrying enormous machine gun things which seemed completely ridiculous. Do the police even carry guns in this country? I know there are special armed police - aren't they the ones who drive red cars? Isn't that the rule? Or is it just an urban myth? I frankly don't see why all police patrolling should have guns, no one else has a gun, they'd be better off carrying special police knives if they want an even fight with the criminals.

Anyway, this is all besides the point. Whether the police do have guns or not isn't the issue but, KILLING SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT BEEN BITTEN IS. How could they casually just let one of their own die? I know he was a complete moron but the situation surely could have been dissipated without ensuring his immanent death. Not only that but it mean the subsequent killing of his policeman friend. This thus lead to Winstone stealing one gun and the bloke with her the other. This would be fine if they'd had a little struggle trying to work it, but Winstone managed to use one discarded gun instantly in order to shoot the bloke in the leg and cause said immanent death. She seemed to have no problem working it and even less of a problem shooting one of the zombified housemates (the idiot who couldn't get herslelf out of a pool) right in between the eyes. I would have liked a little more trouble with aim please Winstone. I know you're a gangster hero's daughter but none of it is real.

Then the other bloke tonight was exceedingly comfortable with the big machine gun thing; just flapping it about like he was paintballing, ready, aim and fire...perfect every time. Bollocks.

I'm still enjoying it though, just about. I was a little miffed by last night's uninspiring ending, it all seemed a bit too nice. I don't care that Davina was still outside the door or that being trapped in the Big Brother house with a bunch of undead at the gate isn't a perfect situation but it certainly was rather a calm conclusion.

Tonight, in a lot of ways was no less frustrating. A BOAT?! A CANAL?! RIGHT BESIDE THE LOVELY HOUSE YOU FOUND?! How bloody convenient, especially when there's absolutely no way out of the front gate. I'm glad angry woman died otherwise it would have just been too irritating, boy found it very easy to axe her, probably because she was so nasty to him. Still, I don't like the way he's managed to find the Big Brother house already despite getting to it along water, with trees surrounding him (or at least it looks that way - I suppose we'll find out tomorrow).

Once again, the saving grace is always going to be producer and evictee, the greatest comedy duo I've seen for some time, the 'light machine' especially tickled me. Obviously, once they made it into the house after getting past Davina and Brian (stupid as a zombie as well as a human...what was he eating when they got past? idiot) the producers imaginative heckling didn't stop for anybody, nor did his general wanker-stature.

Final episode tomorrow and they've got a plan - will the boyfriend find them? Will they all get out alive? Might the producer finally stop being a cock and see the others as good people through the valuable bonding and relationship-building only achieved through working together to fight for your life? It's unlikely, especially as that evictee really is a foetus.

Day 2 on Dead Set

"Wifi, God knows what that does to your molecules" - the Big Brother answer to how this might have happened.

In fact, I sense a general distaste for technology across the programme: "How do you turn this thing on? (referring to a mobile phone) fucking robot's bollock."

I think I'm going to name my phone Robot Bollock from now on, just like those idiots who claim to call their remote a 'Megatron' (see a few posts back)

Indeed, day two was as magnificent as day 1, namely because the producer cunt was trapped in a room with the latest evictee; whether she is genuinely a complete idiot or not is besides the point (although the little dialogue about 'air' was pretty hilarious) - he thinks she is, therefore she is and subsequently becomes unbearable. With Davina on the hunt just outside the door, there's nowhere to go... and I mean literally, to 'go' and after too much obligatory escapism through the consumption of all available alcohol, evictee ain't best pleased.

Another highlight the boy who got trapped in the train station telling zombies to 'shut it' and then to his solo rescue party "I'm a normalite!". It's just gem after gem.

Of course, there's no point in going through the entire episode blow by blow; but I do wonder (something my flatmate pointed out on Monday) is how and why these zombies can run so bloody fast? I mean they all start running after cars and people with olympian determination. I can't imagine when all these people were alive they could run like that, with that same driven movement in their arms. One even managed to get pretty close to a van; she must have been a marathon runner when she was alive. I had always imagined zombies to be quite slow, and if they can run so fast why are they so incapable of opening doors or climbing over anything? I suppose that would ruin the whole Big Brother angle. I mean the whole point is that they can't get through the fence, crawling and clambering over each other to dog-like whistling and pot clacking. It's a good thing really, I'm certainly considering applying for Big Brother just in case of an apocalypse. Would it work for a nuclear explosion?

They're also lucky, that one of the Big Brother imbociles knows something about medicine; not just a pretty face, obviously. ..

Tune in tonight for more! Where hopefully we'll get to see whether they make it to Tesco before it's too late.

edit: I have just discovered that there are in fact, different types of zombies. Those depicted on Dead Set are a bit more modern than the old 'Night of the Living Dead' types. So, I suppose I'll have to retract the above question because, I was a bit wrong. Although, it still stands that if zombies have evolved since movies of old then could it be that in later incarnations they will be able to get through doors? Or over gates? Or even out of pools?

Dead Set

A show about zombies? The only survivors being in the Big Brother house? Charlie Brooker wrote it? I'm not sure there's anything NOT to like about this concept.

This show no doubt appeals to fans and despisers of Big Brother alike. On the one hand the excellent use of a real eviction night and Davina to 'get Pippa out' and on the other a total mockery and acknowledgement of just how miserable post-apocalyptic life would be if Big Brother house-mates were the sole survivors. Well, them and a couple of TV people though it's arguable whether they're useful (my flatmate would disagree).

I'll admit right now, I don't know a thing about zombie movies; if there were any references, I didn't spot them. Apparently the bit where the runner smashed a zombie over the head with a fire extinguisher was a rip off of 'Irreversible'? I have no idea, anyway who cares! It was amazing!

The gore!
The outrageously disgustingly sickeningly hilarious gore!
The unsentimentality when the runner stabbed the other runner she got fruity with minutes before the 'attack'.
The zombie in a wheelchair?! What?!
Davina zombie! I particularly enjoyed Davina zombie going after that arsehole; was he the producer?

He really was an arsehole, leaving everyone to die as he shut the door on them, what a shit. I like it though; I like that he has survived thus far, it makes it all the more awful. We've got the oblivious Big Brother air-heads and a selfish narcissistic bastard who has absolutely no desire to save anyone but himself at any given moment. Yes, he must live.

Obviously, the runner is a true hero; not only did she stab that guy in the neck with the scissors but once she got in the Big Brother house her fear, her threats and her eventual vomit-inducing repeated smashing the head of a zombie intruder with a fire extinguisher was suitably courageous; if only that had happened on actual Big Brother. I'd be much more inclined to watch that - imagine the headlines!

Though I'm sad that it'll all be over in a week, it's pretty exciting too, give in to the true nature of Big Brother - bombard the audience! Every night! Until we get so sick of these idiots we want to smash their faces in! Except, they might die, so you want to watch, you don't care that it's on every night because it will be really entertaining. Unlike recent Big Brother years...

This is definitely the best thing to happen to Halloween in ages. It's a night almost as pointless and depressing as any other, except you have to dress up in stupid clothes. So, stay in and watch zombies try to destroy the very base of our dispicable society - reality fucking television.

The Story of Maths

Tonight, I got excited. I got excited because a programme called 'The Story of Maths' was on. I like maths, I am fascinated by it and I loathe myself for not taking it at A Level (it was, I'll admit out of pure fear of inadequacy and thus failure so I did easy things instead). I got yet more excited when I found cool things out about the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians who discovered and used a lot of clever things which were actually put into theory much later by the Greeks and beyond. I like the philosophical element of maths which can fit comfortably with the practical; making two pieces of a whole. I like how the 'Story of Maths' demonstrated all these things with enthusiasm, encompassing the history and progression of civilisation as it is linked with maths.

Thanks to some of the things I've been reading and learning I found myself thirsty for more on the practical application and uses in Egypt. They mentioned taxation of land being calculated through measuring the area of a farmer's land. I wanted to see what mathematics and its uses gave to the formation of what we see as civilised society. I didn't really get to see that relationship, though that bit about land was an interesting point.

It concentrated (naturally) much more on the development of mathematical formulae, patterns and uses of patterns. The Egyptians discovered binary through their multiplication system. The mesopotamians figured out a way to establish the area of a circle; figured out pi. The use of Pythagoras' theory 1,000 years before it was written down in both camps and the teaching and fondness for a playful use of maths, tactical maths in old board games like Backgammon.

I might sound ridiculous for getting so excited, but maths really was one of those oddly enjoyable subjects. It was horrific when you couldn't figure it out, but once you had it, that was it, it was a rule, you could stick to it and work through the problems. The fact that maths was always about one answer and finding a method in order to achieve that answer is so appealing when so many other things are chaotic and inconclusive. The axioms that help to build up those rules are fascinating in the way they can be hidden and forgotten purely because they are axiomatic, unless you're clever and good at figuring things out.

The show has a lovely charm to it because it explains things and informs the completely useless and unknowing like me, whilst probably make actual mathematicians smile at the very idea that someone is willing to contextualise something a lot of ordinary people find terribly frightening.

It's just a shame that perhaps, because it was on BBC4 ordinary people might not have watched it. Thankfully, I'm very ordinary so I learnt a little bit at least.

See the second in the series (there are four) next Monday, 9pm, BBC4.

Politics on TV

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.

The Family

No self respecting tv-lover should have missed Wednesday night's 'The Family' a fascinating fly-on-the-wall look at the everyday life of a British family. A documentary once made, one revolutionary has been reborn in an age of cheap, desperate reality television.

Saying that, I nearly missed it, I was luckily because I came home to see it being repeated later the same evening. I was however, a little bit tipsy and though I had many a comment in my head that night, two days later it's gone.

'Why don't you 4OD it and then bother us with your thoughts' I hear you cry. Well, I can't be arsed so I'll try and piece whatever memory I have of the show and my thoughts on it together, excruciatingly.

Firstly, I remember being quite fascinated by the way they really looked like a family. I mean, they all looked alike. I found that incredible, that on our screens, on a daily basis we are faced with fake families and here they were, really, very real. It struck me and I realised just what this show was capable of: reality.

The focus was the mother's looming birthday and the eldest daughter's total irresponsibility. It was a classic scenario where the mother feels unappreciated, she feels old and disconnected, her daughter doesn't want to be around her and the rest. It reflected my own experiences in a lot of ways, in spite of the situation being completely different. No doubt I'd imagine everyone could relate and reflect each in their own special way.

My personal alliance lied with the younger siblings, the young boy who remained quiet, doing everything to please, trying to be nice but getting it thrown back in his face. It's trouble being the young one, the quiet sensible one. You get lumbered with the suspicion when you're older because your sibling lied and argued and shouted, but all the while you're honest and try to keep on the good side, not wanting to rebel. That's how I saw the boy, the way he didn't even know what to do with himself a lot of the time, quiet...silenced.

I liked it because I'm a voyeur but also because I'm human. Seeing the utterly, abysmally normal is quite satisfying. Seeing successes and failures and seeing the poignant moments where daughter and mother reconcile like the good friends they know they are inside. I feel like the family agreed to do it because they know it's not embarrassing really. They're aware that everyone in every average family will be able to read what's going on perfectly, no judgements, just sympathy.

I do wonder what happened (no, I haven't tried to research it), did they nominate themselves? Were they found for being statistically average? (wasn't that a Simpsons episode? Or Family Guy or something?). How did they agree? Did anyone kick up a fuss or did the media-whore in them get the better of them?

Then, saying that, I don't feel like that fame criticism is there, I'm not sure why but there's something else to it, perhaps the true reality aspect which nulls the whole celebrity hunger bullshit. Maybe they just saw it as important.

Is it important? Is it important for us to watch a family as they plod through their days, struggling at parenthood, struggling with adolescence, struggling with the very essence of the everyday? What does it achieve? I know I (drunkenly) felt some affection towards them through my empathy. But do we need it on our screens? And is it still revolutionary now?

I suppose it could be, because it reverts to the simple and it reminds us of what is missing, if we must be so obsessed with the reality format, then we should return to this level, the Big Brother Series 1 approach of shove some people in a a house, let them read if they want to and don't play stupid tricks on them all the time. It just brings us back to a question of purpose for television; public service or commercial. What do people needs vs what do people want?

I have no answers really, but I'll certainly keep watching, maybe I'll start to figure it out.

When Women Rule the World

What an absolute pile of shit. I've never been so utterly abhorred by a piece of programming. I like trash telly, trash telly is why I started this blog, but this is appalling. I just can't get to grips with the concept; I can't see what the idea was derived from; I can't envision a producer's desired outcome. I watched it because my flatmates told me how awful it was and I wanted to see for myself. I watched it because I couldn't begin to believe that there was no comedy in it. I can only relay, just like my flatmates did to me before, that there is no comedy, no irony, nothing.

'When Women Rule the World' is an attempt at creating a tribal 'society' on an exotic island where ten women get to tell a number of men what to do. Each woman has their own servant, she their mistress. They tend to her needs, apparently, though you see little of anything except mindless bickering and inconsequential revolts from a hand-picked bunch of prize buffoons.

It is absolutely not a sociological gender-role swapping experiment, I'm sure if it was it would be prime time Channel 4 because they like messing with things like that. I'm not sure it claims to be that anyway, but then I'm really not sure what it's doing, it's certainly not funny, a point I can't help but reiterate. It doesn't seem to want to represent any one gender as 'better' but rather depicts a whole bunch of idiots who have obviously got nothing better to do than run around in hardly any clothes. Shipwrecked does it too but at least they don't assume intelligence, they know we know they're stupid. These people perhaps, do not. No gender is winning any popularity contest by being in this show. The women at times go on a ridiculous power trip, demanding all sorts of pointless things and claim the men are condescending them, taking it all rather too seriously. Whilst the men get way too macho way too often and try to play practical jokes and talk about whether or not they'd want to sleep with any of the women, and also take it all rather too seriously.

The only hint at favouritism comes from an otherwise unnecessary Steve Jones, his pointless unfunny narration tries to play with gender stereotypes but really doesn't try very hard and fails, big time. In fact, it makes the entire programme much less funny than it previously was, which was not funny at all. He occasionally has a manly chat with the men, laughing and joking about the situation with the women and here he shows where his loyalty lies.

The 'sacrifice' is probably the most ludicrous part of the whole thing only because it is so ridiculous it merely epitomises the show in its entirety as an enormous pile of vile stinking, I-must-smash-everyone-involved-in-the-making-of-this-show, faeces. In this 'sacrifice' each woman gets to say her piece and nominate one of the men, this week Mikey an irritating young Liverpudlian with irritating blonde hair swept back with an irritating piece of elastic, lead the boys in a practical joke involving conditioner and condoms. What made him and it more irritating was that he was completely unsuccessful because one of the women went to bed before he could begin planting the seeds, so to speak. The other man on the chopping block was Steve, a muscular type who ensured the men got the booze they deserved, completely breaking the rules made by the women. The woman pick their sacrifice by slapping some paint on their chest, all tribal like, then the queen ultimately decides. In the end one of the blokes wins £30,000, I'm not really sure what for though.

I didn't give a shit who was going, I didn't give a shit because I didn't particularly want to watch the fucking piece of arse so far in, it lasts a whole hour! But I did, because I realised that I had to watch it all before I could really post a full and frank review.

If you want to know, Steve was shipped out, as declared by the idiot queen even though most nominations pointed towards Mikey.

Really though if I were you, I wouldn't go near it, I wouldn't give it enough time to get angry about it, it's not worth it. It is completely absurd, everyone is stupid and it just goes to show the complete idiocy of humankind, and by this I refer not just to the bunch of used nappies on the show, but also to writers, producers, September films or whatever the production company is and every other fucking tosspot who allowed it to be aired.

I'm all for jokes, I'm all for playing around and taking the piss out of gender stereotyping, I'm all for total irony for the sake of total trash television, but this? What the fuck was this? It does nothing, everyone takes the whole thing too seriously and now I'm left completely unable to laugh at it. I was hoping the 'writer' Richard would at least have a bit of sense but instead, he tried to be the big clever one and absolutely failed to start a strike and started talking about Animal Farm at the women, proclaiming along the way that they probably won't have read it. NEITHER HAVE I, WHO CARES? YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR BEING THERE. If you were intelligent then you would leave. Simple.

The worst part it, I can feel myself watching it again, for want of something better to do, and getting angry all over again. If I do, I hope things start to get funny, maybe that's just the nature of the show? It takes time to get the irony? No? I didn't think so either.

Generation Kill

I had initially given myself a set of rules, a guideline of what would be valid on this blog, or at least, I had imposed on myself one particular rule, that I would stick only to television programmes I watch on television. However, I've had to ignore that rule, if only in favour of cool points.

I haven't mentioned The Wire yet, partly because of my underlying blog law, but also partly because I was thinking of having an ultimate Wire special where I would allow myself to spew uncontrollably about every aspect of the show, from beginning to end. I would allow myself to break my rule, only after watching all five series'.

But, I haven't finished yet, I'm anxious about beginning series five, I know it is supposed to be conclusive, drawing together the themes and characters of the past by finally bringing in the media, but, well, I'm biding my time, at least for a weekend or so.

Instead, tonight, I took to watching 'Generation Kill' written by David Simon and starring our friend Ziggy from The Wire Series Two, it's a gritty drama delving into the sandy depths of the recent Iraq war. A hefty challenge and one that many others have undertaken, usually in feature format, and often quite easy to ignore.

It's not as instantly gratifying as The Wire, not for me anyway, perhaps because the issue is a little too close to home. I find it difficult to watch documentaries and dramas which concern themselves with the events of the past five years or so, I find little solace in any anti-war stance and sometimes I take offence too easily at any mistreatment of Iraqis.

Generation Kill does have a nice script, naturally, though perhaps verging on being a little too smart - it doesn't have the Baltimore twang that made The Wire smarts fitting and acceptable. But then perhaps, I want to be critical. It also has the satisfying difficulty of figuring out who you like and who you don't which came with the first few Wire episodes. I liked the comic relief, the gas mask situation particularly, and naturally the nazi walk. I like the ridiculous Godfather character and the reporter and even Ziggy is a bit less unbearable - not that he's called Ziggy.

In all, I could like it, but that doesn't stop me being cynical about war dramas. I worry about their ability to get the two sides of the coin quite perfectly sculpted. I wonder just how much of it really is bullshit, as I don't know how far the writers have been in all this. I suppose it is something I'll have to research.

I might be proved wrong as the ending of the episode hinted at a promising series; a group of Iraqi's who surrendered to the Americans were turned around, back towards death, the unified guilt completely erased all previous behaviour, however disgusting. Yet, the point is, they did engage in such behaviour, it's as though they don't know what they're thinking half the time; some proclaiming the Iraqi's humanity, other seeing them, dark skinned, foreign, wearing unfamiliar clothing, holding unfamiliar belongings and crying out to be mocked, face down in the mud. It needs to be sympathetic to the marines, but equally, it has to show their filthy habits, and I think, it might just be worth moving on to episode two, just to see if both heads and tails look as well drawn as the other.

Perhaps I'll break my rule again soon...

The Wrong Door

Thanks to a friend at the BBC (ha) I was made aware of BBC Three's new sketch show some time last week. Their attractive interactive website and numerous fake government organisation type sites to coincide with the show were enough pull to switch over from Charlotte Church's (olympic swimmer winner) Becky Bashing and have a gander at the sketches I didn't see online. I recommend the main site highly for its entertainment value and its quirky little games. However, exploring the Urban Zone will take you to the TIT website (Tactical and Intelligence Training) which induced real, out loud, laughter when I first saw it.

So, clearly, I had spent enough time on the website to see the destructively forgetful robot looking for his keys but it was no less amusing. The annoying little shit Nemesis III was as annoying as I could ever have imagined and Dance Mat Girl looked like she was having a whale of a time.

I was pleased to see Matt Berry pop up though he's becoming little more than a comedy cameo of late, it's almost as if putting him in will make everyone thing the show has more comic credibility. In some ways, it sort of works, he certainly manages it better than Rich Fulcher whose last effort (or at least, the last thing I saw) Trixie and Whateveritwas, was so unforgivably appalling that I barely lasted ten minutes into it before switching over in disgust.

The show made use of keeping it to a few sketches and giving each piece a little bit of a story but I know there's more to come. It felt a little bit of a slow burner but it was not entirely devoid of laughs, the bit towards the end with the car crashing into the lamppost was a personal highlight, but I don't think I'll ever get the dinosaur boyfriend bit.

Giving it that alternate universe edge is nice and it could really develop into a darkly funny bit of British comedy. I want more and just by looking at the website(s) I have no doubt I'll get more.

Start here: The Wrong Door, have fun.

I'll make this snappy

My computer's having a slow day but it's only right that I mention something I caught on BBCThree this evening. I think it was called 'Britain's Most Disgusting Food' or something to that effect.

It was presented by a charming young man by the name of Alex Riley, with his rectangular, dark rimmed glasses and rather floppy hair he looked great in a lab coat and even better in a wet suit filled with 40% his own weight in water. He was out on a mission to find the mos disgusting, crap-filled food in Britain and it was a wonder what he came across. 'Bangers with Beef' was a favourite, with only 5% beef, these 'bangers' because it's illegal to call them sausages, were fall of the most appalling, sickening, science-experiment, lab rat crap you could imagine, E numbers, 'connective tissue', pork fat, reconstructed chicken (or something) and he made it all, into a lovely sausage, and fed people with it at the Good Food Show. He even tried to ask Gordon Ramsey about his endorsements of this Cash and Carry, at a book signing; this didn't go so well.

In some ways he was the antithesis to Hugh Fearnley Whittinstall (forgive spellings, I can't be bothered to Google him) in that everything he did was concentrated on 'food' that came barely anything close to a farm. He made pies, 'meaty' and 'sweety' and tried to fob them off. He, in true journalistic fashion, got told to stop filming, asked if he had permission to be filming he said: 'no', because he's a trooper.

Of course, he wasn't really the antithesis to lovely Hugh, he plays a supporting role to his quest, look at this bad food, so Hugh can kep plugging the good food.

I'm not even fed up of these programs though, in fact I want more, I want a constant reminder that I should, wherever possible, be cooking my own food using good quality ingredients. For example, this evening, I made burgers (to Jamie Oliver's recipe on the 'feed the family for a fiver' ads) and they were delicious and all good, aside from the fact that they were fried, I FRIED THEM. Well done Jamie, well done Mr. Riley.

Of course the best part about tonight's programme on disgusting food were all the comedy interludes, he set to market his pies and made a hilarious advert with a child asking for 'more connective tissue please' then at the end he goes to his 'mum': 'can i eat one' and she slaps the pie out of his hand: 'no, they're disgusting!' Beautiful.

Maestro

I'll admit, there are a lot of reality TV shows that I only watch because of Alex James (because, let's face it, he pops up a lot, that rock band show for example, or that time he was in a jury). However, what resulted was not just his warming smile and farmer pot-belly but another reality TV veteran: GOLDIE! Not to mention some agreeable faces like: Peter Snow, cousin of news favourite Jon Snow and the delightful Sue Perkins, who, someone told me, was the Guarian readers' answer to Jodie Marsh. Nice. Such comments don't really bother me, perhaps Guardian readers need their own Jodie Marsh. Anyway, she's both intelligent and entertaining...Sue Perkins that is...not Jodie.

So, why might the BBC have brought these eight rather interesting celebrities together? (Bradley Walsh is another; balancing it out a little from the middle class-ness of it all.) Well, it's only to go and teach them all the be conductors for the BBC Concert Orchestra! What's more, they help those low-culture masses by using familiar pieces of classical music like, you know, the one that's used for the opening titles of The Apprentice, and the Fantasia one oh and err the Alton Towers tune...that way we can 'do do do do' along and flail about ourselves, really getting to grips with what the stars are going through.

It started with a demonstration of precisely why it's difficult to be a conductor, thanks to the delightful Alex James' sweetly nervous and frankly piss poor performance. Asking his orchestra for help and desperately unsure of the tempo of the piece he bumbles and stumbles and stop-starts his way through an abysmal version of 'Carmen' by Bizet (don't think the audience can't learn a thing or too as well, I learnt all about those four pieces of music, like, who they were by and, what they were called...) but it's all okay because he hasn't been taught a thing yet, we figure they will all be like that. Quite unfortunately for lovely Alex, they're not. It appears most people seem to grasp it pretty well, all considering.

It's feature-length and thanks to BBC, no loo breaks (I do find films on the BBC are just a little bit too much for my small-screen attention-span) but always absorbing as each of the eight contestants and their individual tutors support them, yell at them and laugh with them. Poor Goldie has to DJ somewhere along the way and gets a bit sleepy and David Soul enjoys acting out a silent short full of, er, passion, to his mentor. Katie Derham wiggles too much and Jane Asher is just a bit too much of a natural, not much fun to watch really I worry the women (apart from good old Sue, let us down).

The final showdown comes about and there's a royal fuck up to an unfortunate favourite character, it means an unsurprising end but a real shame. I worry that we'll lose the most entertaining individuals to stuffy, well-educated types, but at least Alex James is all over the front of the 'Maestro' webpage so I'd like to think he'll be sticking around another week or so. Not to mention Goldie's incredible final performance was an absolute treat to watch.

Great for a Tuesday evening, fun and absorbing and you can learn a thing or two about the subtleties of classical music...maybe. Hopefully they'll give the audience a bit more credit with some lesser-known pieces next time. Though, admittedly, I really have only heard the ones that are used on the telly so it's likely that if they did presume we were more intelligent, I'd certainly get lost and lose enjoyment.

Time Off

I went away from three weeks to Japan and thus had to take time off telly. I have no idea what's going on in Big Brother, who knows who's still in Beauty and the Geek. Home and Away probably had a few accidents, a wedding, three funerals and introduced a couple of new characters in a matter of days without me getting to see any of it.

But, alas, I return lost in a word of BBC dramas about Sadam Hussein. Something I caught a few minutes of last night before switching over to something more bareable: Why couldn't they either speak in an English accent or speak in Arabic?!? Why did they have to do that awful Disney style 'Arabic accent' it makes neither sense nor difference to anything. The guy looked like Sadam, wasn't that enough to demonstrate that this was a show about him and about Iraq?

I learnt a little about Japanese telly whilst I was away, not much, I'll admit, I saw no cool anime and they seemed to enjoy showing Western films dubbed in Japanese in all the hostels which was no use to anyone. However, the odd moment presented me with visual gems.

There was one riveting piece of weekday afternoon programming, presented by a woman so easily impressed and so talented at producing just the right sound to convey her awe. One episode involved a sort of magic man performing various tricks and illusions and seemingly (though, obviously I couldn't understand a word of it) he was teaching the viewers how to do them. All the while lovely lady was aaaah'ing and ooooh'ing and Japanese style 'ooaawwwaaahhh'ing' away quite wonderfully.

Another episode involved BUBBLES. Now, I think it could well be argued that just about everyone loves BUBBLES right? So, a couple of blokes were pissing about in the studio making bubbles. They demonstrated how to make the perfect bubble formula, they blew bubbles through their own hands, they made little bubbles inside big bubbles, they split big bubbles into two smaller bubbles, they even put lovely awe-struck lady IN A BUBBLE. Then, whilst she was still in said bubble, they shook her hand, bubbles in tact. Frankly, Richard and Judy need to step up with educational bubble and magic trickery. It's a winner.

The rest of my televisual experience, much like the rest of my experience in various cities of Japan involved a lot of bright coloureed and a lot of excitable Japanese talking, fast, excitable, loud, noisy talking. And more bright colours. There was also a lot of baseball, which I don't understand, oh, and some sumo.

Instant Gratification

I couldn't have two posts in a row referring to the disgraceful behvaiour of people and their televisual experiences so, here's post number two of the day, all about my favourite ever reality show (for the good reasons, not the 'it's so bad it's funny' reasons I went for with 'rock of love' below) 'BEAUTY AND THE GEEK'.

Of all those standard format shows 'Average Joe' and 'Joe Millionaire'?, the 'Age of Love' and the rest 'Beauty and the Geek' is a piece of highly commendable genius.

The US version is back for a fourth series whilst sadly it's british counterpart has stagnated at one, albeit quite beautiful, series a few years ago. (I will never forget the blossoming relationship, a kind so unheard of in our daily media experience, the kind between an unattractive man and a beautiful woman...actually...wait! I'll go into that later...)

The first episode, which began a few weeks ago, displayed the auditioning process not hiding our final 18 from the shame and embarassment. Men who have no love life and women who answer the question of 'who won the civil war?' with 'we did, we win everything'. There's an adorable professional 'Betty Boop', an aspiring playboy model, cocktail waitress and a babysitter. In the geek court there's a guy who got a 5.0 at MIT (?), an astrophysicist (probably), a who who enjoys 'LARP'ing' (Live Action Role Playing', and a software engineer. All typical components of the Beauty and the Geek sphere.

Yet, this time there's a brilliant and fascinating twist! Not only did the individuals NOT get to pick their own partners (this was decided by the most socially inept geek and the stupidest beauty following their first challenge), but, a tenth couple was introduced. That tenth couple is different, the formula changed by one variable. The beauty is a man and the geek, a woman.

This, is what I've been waiting to see, as much as I'll always adore the Beauty and the Geek format at it's most basic and heart warming, the addition of this gender-bent team will give a fascinating insight into whether this show could ever work in the opposite format. I am in no doubt that there is no shortage of male beauties and female geeks. However, how would it really work?

Instantly, in episode three, the male beauty is a freakish looking, possibly steroid-fuelled arrogant tosser. His eyes and head dart about like a pidgeon on alert and all he can talk about is how he's going to give those girls what they need. I'm not entirely sure they require anything from a man more cartoon-like than Jonny Bravo, but then that's me.

The openness of both beauties and geeks to learn and be taught in this series is quite clear. With the emphasis on personal development and progress throwing this spanner in the works, neither one of the new team has anything to say about their growth, they talk about the game, winning and the fact that they could be a potential target.

What will they gain from this experience as the lone swapped couple? If they were to do a series with a full line up of male beauties and female geeks will it be as touching? Will the men be sensitive and open to the geeks or will they barely want to know? Where the women clap and giggle at Tony's bow-tie, will men be moved by white cotton ankle socks? Something tells me it would never work and the idea that women, however beautiful are more likely to warm to a man who may be less attractive than her because of his brains (or indeed his money) remains. Whether it's because they just want the money or because they truly are the fairer sex, the opposite situation doesn't appear to meet the public eye. Is this because it never happens? Or does it say something both about men and women that doesn't adhere to the agreed standards set by society? Can a successful women have fun with a toyboy? Will she be shunned when a man is celebrated?

So far, the male beauty comes across disgustingly badly, perhaps because we're never presented with such a vacuous and idiotic male as he (except maybe, Jonny Bravo, but he's a cartoon, and perhaps Joey from 'Friends' but he had a sensitive side). This guy puts himself across, from what I've seen so far, as pure macho evil.

Definitely a required addition to the otherwise brilliant format but whether they make it very far or not, it's always going to brilliant, and this year it looks like the girls could well give the boys a run for their money in the comedy department.

Advertising Standards? What?

THIS is probably the most ridiculous news story I've ever read.

The story refers to a mayonaise advert. As I began reading it I wasn't sure if I'd seen the ad before, I couldn't even tell if it had been made in this country. The distinction of it as a 'men sharing a kiss' completely threw me. Even I felt shocked, though mostly impressed. I thought to myself, wow, what progress, what a campaign, how was it used? Was it a natural, home situation style ad which used a gay couple instead of a straight one?

No, is the answer to that. Not at all. I had seen this advert and never in my life would I have considered it, or recalled it as two men kissing, because of the set up of the ad. The article, excrutiatingly objective as it was got me so outraged I stopped reading and began writing this. Thankfully, I see they put forward the full synopsis but, why not tell the story like it is? These people who complained, who were offended, who protested that: "the ad was "unsuitable to be seen by children" and that it raised the difficult problem of parents having to discuss the issue of same-sex relationships with younger viewers" are utterly repressed, buttoned-up morons.

WHAT PROBLEM? I'm certain that there are PG comedy films with two men in hilarious predicaments due to mistaken identity, I can't think of an example, but I'm sure anyone can imagine a scenario. I've got 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' in my head, which I'm sure I saw as a young child (thought I can't be sure of its rating), whereby John Candy and Steve Martin are forced to sleep in the same bed and end up spooning by the morning. This is all for the sake of light entertainment.

The situation in the advert is hardly different, if a child was paying any attention I'm sure they'd have got the jist of it. A man in an apron is making the kids lunches, he's a big New Yorker, alluding to the fact that he might run a Deli. Queue the kids, taking their lunches in which he has used this 'Deli-style' mayonaise. THEY CALL HIM 'MUM'. They all, quite clearly do this so as to make the representation crystal clear. The use of situation comedy comes with the classic line as the husband goes to leave: 'aren't you forgetting something' with a gesture to the lips. This isn't an unrecognisable scenario to any of today's media-junkie youth. There is no need to explain the possibilities of same-sex relationships because it quite clearly isn't advocating any.

I just can't believe I continue to be surprised by the British public's pathetic reaction to just about anything. I'm sure the majority of people would not have batted any eyelid, would never have seen it as a 'gay kiss' and would have laughed, because it's a funny advert. And what of it, if there was the representation of a gay relationship on a British advertisement people ought to welcome it. Children should be informed early, just as they're informed about anything else. It is undeniable that homosexuality exists.

Our society, I thought, was finally beginning to accept it, but it's not good enough. The media is constantly bombarding us with homogenised images, heterosexual relationships, families and the like. It may well be that heterosexuality does represent the majority of people but there are instances in advertising where a better representation of the general population could well be addressed. For example, Wrigley's 'Extra', their current 'get closer' campaign, both as a regular ad and a Hollyoaks sponsor, involves various young, beautiful heterosexuals, 'getting closer' to each other. In an ad, you see numerous people getting together, in a big room, why not shove in some same-sex couples in the pack. Out of all those people, in that enormous room, are you telling me that not one of them is gay? Or even curious? I find that hard to believe.

This truly needs to stop now, the sooner they just let it out into the open, the sooner they won't think children need protecting anymore. You can't stop them from seeing it in the street can you? This is real and this happens and I daresay there is nothing wrong with it. People continue to make it wrong, make it outrageous and offensive. Why not call all pre-watershed bouts of affection offensive? Because I'd say it is, why ban one kiss when you can ban them all? Let's be completely oppressed, let's ensure that no women are ever seen with men unless they're married, oh and let's just mark out a strict 'zone' surrounding each indiviudal whereby no two people can cross.

I don't even know why I've gone on to discussing geniune gay relationships or kissing in the first place, because frankly this advert doesn't warrant that discussion, it has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. It's so separate from that that I'm actually outraged at myself for daring put the two together.