Arts & Entertainment Journalism

…and shamed? Or perhaps not. This interesting and amusing feature analyses those critics who were outliers, going against the grain in Rotten Tomatoes’ Fresh/Rotten aggregated ratings. Do the different stories of  Kyle Smith and Owen Gleiberman, what they said, and why, tell us something illuminating about good or bad critical practice?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/03/americas-most-cantankerous-film-critic/49835/

Well, it was bound to happen, sooner or later. A new film has officially scored zero for “positive ratings” on Rotten Tomatoes, the US review rating site, based on 40 reviews. It’s a film starring Ediie Murphy. But for arts journalism, is this good news, or bad news?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9140572/Eddie-Murphy-film-gets-worst-reviews-ever.html

Who? Anthony Who? Yes, Burgess must surely be one of the fastest-forgotten names in British literature in the years after his death, but during his lifetime he seemed to bestride the critical arena like a colossus. You can maybe see why from some of the examples of his brutish, even arrogant (but always worth reading) style, quoted in Observer literary editor Robert McCrum’s introduction to the prize - which also rehearses once again that old divide between the “critic” and the “arts journalist”. Your entry though does not have to be about books. Closing date is 15 September 2012. Full details and how to enter here.

Dir. Roman Polanski

Writing by Roman Polanski and Yasmina Reza

Cast: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly.´

Roman Polanski has decided to throw to the public this brilliant film adaptation of the no-less-outstanding play by Yasmina Reza. Carnage is a pure exhibition of the meanness hidden beneath political correctness.  However, Polanski’s approach is not depressive or apocalyptic – as in the style of Lars von Trier- but ironic, cynical and in short, incredible funny.

Carnage presents the situation of two middle-class couples, Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster) and Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) that decide to meet after their sons are involved in a fight –Zachary has hit Ethan with a stick, resulting in two broken teeth. As the afternoon goes on, the civilized and polite meeting degenerates into a disaster.

In Carnage there are no sympathetic characters. There is no opportunity to support either side of the story. For the duration of the film and the story’s evolution, the conclusion is simple: all of the main players are just horrible and frustrated people. In fact, the success of Carnage is underpinned in the depiction of the four characters and their well-tuned evolution.

Yasmina Reza’s script displays finely chiselled characters. Penelope, the stiff, hypocritical art-lover with a superficial interest in charity causes. Michael; straightforward, friendly, and playing the role of “the perfect father”.  Nancy; well-educated and stylish business woman, apparently under control. And Alan; arrogant, cynical and nihilistic workaholic lawyer, more attached to his mobile phone that anything else.

Foster, Reilly, Waltz and Winslet’s performances are vibrant and well conducted. Special mention is deserved by the female characters, with Jodie Foster passing from hieratical to neurotic and Kate Winslet who evolves from posh to punk.

The film is also supported by the good rhythm of the story in crescendo. Despite the tension that can be noticed in small gestures from the very beginning, there are some inflection points that help the film go forward.

The breaking point is reached when Nancy literally vomits all over Longstreet’s coffee table, driving Penelope out of control. From this moment onward, chaos takes over and the real faces of the characters are shown. They spit out to each other their frustrations and resentments, making them wilder, more impolite but, somehow, more human.

Polanski knows how to drive the story with mastery. For example, every time that the Cowans try to get out of the house, something happens that keeps them inside. It’s a device that echoes Buñuel’s masterpiece “The exterminating angel”, in which the participants of an upper-class dinner find themselves unable to leave the mansion with no apparent reason.

Moreover, the dynamic use of the camera around the one-location scenario –the Longstreet’s flat- as well as the make-up and custom design –notice how Nancy’s perfect rouge lipstick, make up and clothes are messier and messier as the film moves forward- contribute as well to the smooth rhythm of the story.

It’s an excellent and entertaining film that Polanski, with acid irony, decides to undertake in the middle of his dramatic and not clearly solved situation with the American Justice. You will not notice that the film was actually shot in Europe, owing to Polanski’s exile, despite the New York setting.

A divorce, a suicide and a rehab stint filled the off-air activities of ‘The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills’ proving it’s not all perfect in Hollywood.

The glamorous ladies were back- with only some of their significant others in-tow for the second series which follows their privileged lifestyles in Los Angeles.

At the end of series one the celebrated ‘Frasier’ actor Kelsey Grammer had moved his forty-something wife out and 29-year-old airhostess girlfriend in.

We also discovered that the rocky relationship between Taylor and Russell Armstrong had taken an unexpected turn. Viewers were shocked to learn that Russell committed suicide, fuelling a longing for series two amongst fans.

The first few episodes will follow the break-down of Taylor’s marriage, but scenes have been adapted due to the circumstances surrounding Russell’s tragic suicide. Rumours circulating gossip websites hint at money troubles as the motive behind his death.

The suicide of a young man with many successes in life is a stark reminder that underneath the glitz and glamour unfortunately the real-life tragedies are also part of the story.

There was more trouble in paradise when the worrying behaviour of Paris Hilton’s Aunt Kim Richards drove her to spend her off-air vacation in rehab.

With ample drama happening off screen, it was guaranteed the opening episode would fulfil our need for all things catty. And the cosmetically enhanced bunch didn’t disappoint.

Adrienne played host in her lavish mansion as the episode cantered around an over-the-top dinner party. Lisa tottered to the main event in customised Louboutin heals that bordered on ridiculous in every aspect of the word.

In her first appearance since her marriage collapsed, Camille put on a brave face as a newly divorced lady while all the others managed to looked pretty, thin and emotionless (thanks to the botox).

A $20,000 magnum bottle of champagne acted as a juggernaut to the impending drama. Adrienne and her husband Paul exchanged cross words in-between Paul letting everyone know just how expensive the bottle was- the most expensive in the world by the way- as guests squirmed with discomfort while delving into miniscule salads.

This being Hollywood, it wasn’t only the Las Vegas casino tycoons muddying the atmosphere. The plethora of bubbly helped create tears at the dinner table as Kyle got involved in a cross-fire between troubled Taylor and snobby Ken.

As the drama subsided and deserts were pushed around plates, the episode seemed vanilla in comparison to what’s to come as the closing snippets of ‘coming up this season’ ran.

Teasers of physical fights, “Get your hands off my husband” snarls and a grown woman crying in a suitcase left me longing for my lifetime dose of a Fairy Godmother. I need a wish for a Beverly Hills credit card limit, the second for the name of their cosmetic surgeon and the third for a delivery of series two straight to my sky plus box.

But since Fairy Godmothers don’t exist- even in Hollywood- I placidly remain eager with anticipation.

Carnage (15)

DIRECTOR: Roman Polanski

WRITERS: Roman Polanski, Yasmina Reza

CAST: Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Christoph Waltz, John C. Reilly

Carnage is a film about breaking down the barriers of what you can and can’t say in social situations. What people really think is often not what they communicate to others publicly, and the film tackles that by throwing politeness out-the-window and scratching away the surface layers of civility.

Based on the award-winning play “Le Dieu du carnage” (God of Carnage) by Yasmina Reza and co-written and directed by Roman Polanski (The Pianist), Carnage centres on two couples, played by Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly and Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz. After a fight in the park between the two couple’s respective children, they decide to meet and civilly discuss the incident like adults. Or at least that’s the plan.

I must be clear in saying that I haven’t seen the play the film is based on, so I can’t judge the accuracy of the adaptation or how it compares in quality. But nevertheless it’s quite clear from the start that it’s based on a stage play because of the fact that – with the exception of short segments bookending the film – it’s set entirely in one apartment, and mostly in one room. To an extent this is contrived, particularly when every time one of the couple’s goes to leave they are forced to stay. However, when the performances and dialogue are this good it’s hard to care about the rather rigid set-up.

Since the movie isn’t eventful in terms of going from place to place, the film relies heavily on the performances. Luckily we’re in safe hands with some of the best actors working today, each of them giving brilliant performances in their own rights. Winslet is the obvious stand-out, not least because she gets some of the best dialogue and a particularly memorable scene which I won’t spoil here. However, for my money Foster was the real strongest point. She’s the one who gets the most emotional heavy-lifting to do as she tries to defend her son under a barrage of accusations and insults.

The women may steal the show but the boys put up a good (verbal) fight as well. Waltz, most famous for his Oscar-winning performance in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, is the most level-headed of the four, only truly wavering once he loses his precious mobile phone he never seems to be able to put down. Lastly we have Reilly, an actor unfairly associated with his comedic antics with Will Ferrell, but who is actually a fantastic dramatic actor. He gets to shine here as the husband of Foster, fed up of being told what’s what in his own home.

Polanski has always been quite a diverse film-maker, from his early work like Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown through to The Pianist and his last film The Ghost. However, if you didn’t know that Carnage was directed by him it would be hard to guess. It’s got less scope than we might expect from him, and not just because it doesn’t move from one location, which means it’s both more focused and less ambitious than some of his other work.

There’s an overall feeling that Carnage could have a lot more to say, and the general consensus is that the play very much does that. But as it stands the film is an often flat-out hilarious experience, featuring terrific performances, ultimately about four people in a room shouting the truth at each other for 80 minutes. And despite its obvious staginess, it works.

This competition has just found its way to me:

http://blogs.chi.ac.uk/shortstoryforum/?page_id=8033

Another hatchet job, from today’s Guardian GUIDE, by film writer Jonathan Patterson. Here are just some of the adjectives and adverbs he uses, in less than 500 words, to condemn Stephen Daldry’s Oscar-nominated movie of Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel: manipulative, fraudulent, twee, child-centric, whimsy, fathomless solipsism, crapulous, cutesiness, self-satisfied, worth despising, tripe, deplorable, crap. Phew! While I will admit one of the main reasons I refused to read Foer’s novel was the knowledge that any work whose title is only constituted of such elements of speech – two adjectives and two adverbs – would not be worth reading, it’s also true that two wrongs don’t make a right. Patterson’s contempt is clear, and funny in its hyperbole. But is it persuasive?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/feb/11/extremely-loud-incredibly-close-oscars

Chronicle (12A)

Directed by: Josh Trank, Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russel, and Michael B. Jordan

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have super powers? If not, then either take a second and imagine, or, stop reading.  The sci-fi action film Chronicle puts a provocative spin on the hero formula that has captured audience’s imaginations for centuries.

From the minds of Director Josh Trank and Writer Max Landis comes the story of three high school students about to make a really powerful discovery. Shot as if from the point-of-view of a handheld camera, Chronicle has a Cloverfield-like feel that is more documentary than fantasy film. Thankfully, Director of Cinematography Matthew Jensen is able to pull this technique off without giving viewers a dizzying headache.

Upon leaving a party in an abandoned warehouse intellectual Matt Garetty (Alex Russell), student body president Steven Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan), and social reject Andrew Detmer ( Dane DeHaan) stumble upon a mysterious hole. The next day all three find they have powers with unexplored potential that they are anxious to document and explore, without any regards to the consequences. Although they know their lives will be changed forever, none of them are prepared for just how fast or how drastic that change will take place.  The development of each character succeeds in drawing viewers into the adventure.

The filming technique used allows an in-depth look into each of the unlikely trio’s lives. Centered on the troubled life of tortured soul Andrew Detmer, the story watches the creation of a monster. Like the mysterious trailers each suggested, the film asks audiences the challenging question, “What are you capable of?” The dark theme makes one wonder whether or not you would be the good guy or the bad guy.

The performance of relatively young actor Dane DeHaan is terrifying, endearing, and brilliant. It is impossible not to feel the character’s pain. Both co-stars provide necessary balance with both humor and good intentions. This film successfully provides a fresh perspective on a theme that has been both well-done and butchered, time and time again.

As a film that sci-fi enthusiasts and the yet-to-be-converted can both enjoy, it is no big surprise that Chronicle has risen to the top of the box office since its release on February 1. So if you are looking to embark on an entertaining and thought-provoking adventure in an 84 minute window, Chronicle just might be for you.

Only this morning we were discussing the terrible temptation of writing a hatchet job review, how easy it is to demolish something in a review (compared to how surprisingly hard it is to write a professional review of something you admire enormously). But once in while, a demoliton job is deserved. Here’s the Guardian story on Mars-Jones’s award for a humiliating review of novelist Michael Cunningham’s recent novel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/07/michael-cunningham-review-hatchet-job

UPDATE: Adan Mars-Jones reflected on his peculiar triumph a week later in the Observer, and in so doing raised in passing his thoughts on the distinctions between “reviewers” and “critics”, which might be worth critiquing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/10/adam-mars-jones-hatchet-job

BBC 1

Sunday
29 Jan  21’00

Director:
Philip Martin.

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Lauren Lafitte, Clemence  Poésy.

The BBC co-produced this adaptation of the Sebastian Faulks’ well-known novel.  Half way between an historic epic film and a romantic tear-jerker, in two chapters this tele-film told the story of Stephen Wraysford (Eddie Redmayne), a young English
lieutenant in the French trenches of the fierce Great War.

During his period in the bloody war he will constantly remember his forbidden love affair with Isabelle Azaire (Clemence Poesy), a
married French woman who marked his life and transformed him from a lovely and naive young boy to a bitter and implacable soldier.

Part two was set in a military hospital as Wraysford recovered from his injuries. But those who had seen the first episode already
knew of his extraordinary gift to survive outrageous situations.

Due to his broken heart, once he is fully recovered, he decided to return to the trenches and fight in the harsh front near Amiens, the same location of the tragedy of his love. Stephen will embark on an internal journey to overcome the cruelty of the war and the pain of his loveless heart. With the help of Jack Firebrace (Joseph Mawle), a tunneller who saved him from death in the first episode, Wraysford will understand that he still has hope to keep breathing and live on.

The high standard of the production of this TV-movie deserves a special mention. It is obvious that the producers spared no expense to recreate the historical context of the story. The hard life in the trenches is well recreated, reminding the spectator of the intensity and immediacy of trench warfare, and marking a contrast to contemporary representations, designed as if
war could be a video-game.  The quality of the technical and special effects must be highlighted.

The cast played their roles correctly. Reidmayne performed well in his role of “handsome hero in pain”, but it is fair to say as well that he seemed to be in a constant state of dazed confusion, leading to the conclusion that his performance was a bit overacted, a bit too intense to believe. On the other hand, Clemence Poesy found her tune better, given this impression of mysterious and –perhaps- dangerous beauty.

Sebastian Faulks himself also collaborate with Abi Morgan –renowned writer for scripts as The Iron Lady or Shame- in the screenplay, making the adaptation especially accurate in relation with the original novel.

Although set against the backdrop of the hardship of the First World War, the adaptation provided entertainment as the rhythm of the story and the recreation are quite appealing. At times too gory, at times too dramatic –slightly contrived- Birdsong was
highly entertaining and a well- produced telefilm to spend a Sunday evening with.

TWITTER feeds flooded with overwhelmed fans as the new series of ‘The Only Way is Essex’ crashed onto our screens in all its trashy glory.

As tweets shrilled with glee at being reunited with their Essex TV friends, I just manage to contain myself and see past the fakery. Take away the gleaming bleached teeth, fluttering false eyelashes and you are left with utterly cheap catch phrases and beyond offensive acting.

That said, the ‘TOWIE’ crew have a way of luring you in. Favourite characters Mark Wright, Harry Derbridge and Amy Childs have all departed the show to work on other “exciting projects”. Therefore series four offers 12 newcomers in a bid to give the show
a fresh lick of lip gloss. The new kids on the Brentwood block include a Mark Wright lookalike and Joey Essex’s best mate to join in on his ‘reem’ banter.

The new characters wasted no time in stirring up the scripted drama, but even with Nanny Pat’s cheeky antics there was a definite void in the 60 minute episode.

Although I had a prominent pining for Mr Wright, the show did entertain. Ticking all the ridiculous ‘TOWIE’ boxes; monkey tea, salty girls, outrage at wearing jeans in a nightclub and a texting scandal.

In true over the top Essex style, Lydia celebrated her 21^st birthday. But problems with her childhood sweetheart Arg put a damper on the glamorous affair. It’s the on again off again relationships that often fuel the show’s drama. I foresee predictable
tantrums in other relationships as series four unfolds.

Since lighting up our screens with their orange glow in 2011, ‘The Only Way is Essex’ cast have won a BAFTA and earned enough cash to purchase some very flash cars (I’m talking white imported Range Rovers). There have been tears, laughs and cosmetic
procedures along the way but one can’t deny the sheer public hysteria surrounding the show.

The Essex crew will be sharing their ups and downs with us every Wednesday and Sunday on ITV2 over the next few weeks. The trickling introductions of the 12 newbies during the first few episodes will hopefully fill our lusting for the greats of the past.

-ENDS-

Word count: 364

…ahead of today’s assignment, for which I think quite a few of you are planning to do a TV review from this week.

TENSES:

What tense to write your reviews in? The old golden rule was, for a one-off event that has been and gone, use the PAST tense (a concert), but for something that people can still enjoy, PRESENT (a film, a book). Unfortunately, the invention of the iPlayer and other online TV on demand services has skewed this for TV reviewing, which has traditionally until recently mostly been written in the past tense. Today, TV reviews can be in either, or flip backwards and forwards between past and present in the one review. A weekly round up in a magazine or a Sunday paper will still mostly be in the past tense. So will a single-show review of a one-off programme (a big documentary film) or unrepeatable live event (X-Factor final). But everything else is up for grabs and open to negotiation.

SELECTION OF PROGRAMMES:

Generally, if reviewing two or more programmes in a review, either of one night or of the week, it’s accepted that ideally they should not be of the same type (both dramas), or on the same channel (all BBC1). But these are not golden rules. Sometimes the two things that need writing about are going to be on one channel. If not very often. The scope or palate of legitimate channels to review has widened too in the decade since Freeview, digital terrestrial, gradually became the norm. A mass market TV review can select programmes from not only the five traditional main channels – BBC1 and 2, ITV, C4 and C5 – but now also BBC 3 and 4, BBC Alba (Scotland only), ITV2/3/4, BBC NEWS, More4, E4, Film 4, and so on, although many of these are mostly repeats, so you can’t review their output anyway.

FILM AND TV REVIEWING CLOSER THAN EVER

Film reviewing requires that expertise or knowledge of at least a limited form must be shown. TV reviewing can get away without it, but that doesn’t make it right: the TV critic really should attempt to convince readers that his or her opinion is not just based on an impressionistic-only response. Where I think the two reviewing practices differ is on the status, role or expectation of explicit personal intrusion. It is still possible, if rare, to imagine and create a film reviewing voice that never or rarely slips into the first person. But with TV reviewing, the personal and informal is nigh-on obligatory at least at some place in every review. Why should this be? It’s partly to do with TV as a mass demotic, domestic medium, experienced by everyone close-up: a personal reaction is an understood element of the normal viewing relationship. But it’s also a consequence of the history and evolution of British newspaper TV reviewing practices and conventions which have emerged since the 1970s. Ever since Clive James in the Observer (his collected columns are in your reading list and in the library) invented a TV column as an opportunity for display of armchair wit and fecundity, editors, rightly or wrongly, have wanted more of the same. To argue today to your editor that your TV review should be wholly impersonal, detached and coolly authoritative, would be to invite ridicule and the end of any hope of recommission. The one exception to this rule is the great Nancy Banks-Smith of The Guardian: her voice is unmistakeably her own, and personal, but she never has to type “I”.

Hustle (BBC1)

Date: Friday January 27th

Time: 9:00pm

We’re half way into the 8th and final season of BBC’s primetime Ocean’s Eleven-esque con show Hustle, with the first two episodes bringing the series back to fine form after its break away. Last week’s episode continued the streak of quality with perhaps one of the best of the show’s entire run so far.

The third episode, entitled “Curiosity Caught the Kat,” saw the stakes just about as high as they’ve ever been, with corrupt police officer DCI Fisk (Patrick Baladi) setting his sights on our gang of hustlers and specifically on leader Mickey (Adrian Lester). Totally unaware of the fact they’re being watched, the gang target their next mark Linda Runcorn (Nina Sosanya), a corrupt internet travel guide owner. They decide to pretend she has inherited an estate and valuable jewellery from a deceased aunt she didn’t know she had.

Since the show is reaching its end point after eight years, with the first two episodes but particularly this one, you can feel that they’re really going for it as far as raising the stakes goes. Despite knowing that everything normally works out alright for the team of tricksters, the episode really turned the pressure up and made it genuinely feel like this could be the last episode ever, even if we know there are still three more cons to go before all is said and done.

This was quite a complicated episode, even for a show that thrives on being quick, witty and generally ahead of the audience until we are allowed to catch up with what’s actually being going on. When DCI Fisk throws a spanner in the works of the con by using an old friend of one of the team as a mole, things become muddy since we have so much to keep with already. But this is Hustle we’re talking about, a set of safe hands as far as necessary but not over-the-top exposition goes. By the end of the episode we’re clued in as much as we need to be but at the same time not so much that you don’t feel like you’ve done at least some of the work.

Ever since brother-sister team Emma (Kelly Adams) and Sean (Matt Di Angelo) joined the show in season 5, arguably surpassing the two previous members Stacie (Jaime Murray) and Danny (Marc Warren), there has been a lot more emphasis on humour. This has been more evident in season 8, for example last week there was a whole subplot devoted to Eddie (Rob Jarvis) keeping the gang barred from his bar until one of them owned up to defacing a prized photo of his favourite footballer . Although the comedy was less evident in episode 3 it was still there, this time it was Eddie complaining about the council forcing him to take his rubbish bags out before he opens for business each day. This gives some relief from the heavier drama and complex con going on at the same time.

The episode does everything that Hustle is known and loved for, from the usual “our next mark” con set-up to quick-witted dialogue between the team. But at the same time it throws a few more twists and turns than what we’re used to and generally gives a rare feeling that maybe things aren’t going to work out as planned by the end of the episode.

We’re almost at the finish line of Hustle and with three episodes to go the show is still as strong as ever.

BBC3 saw a whopping 50% increase for their average 9pm-10pm slot on Monday night as over 700,000 viewers tuned in to watch would-be presenter Amel Fashanu on factual documentary, “Britain’s Gay Footballers”.

The documentary explored homosexuality in football, or indeed the lack of openly gay men in British football. Homosexuality in football is still a huge taboo subject which many investigative journalists before Amel have tried, with difficulty, to explore.

It is an extremely tricky topic to effectively present to an audience for the simple fact that homosexual footballers, presuming that there are some, are unwilling to open up and be honest about their sexuality.

Upon first glance, one would be forgiven for thinking that this was just another presenter’s attempt to expose gay footballers and encourage others to show support to other footballers who may be hiding their true sexuality.

It soon became apparent, however, that Amel Fashanu had more of  a direct  relationship to this forbidden side of football as her late uncle, Justin, was one of the only openly gay players in British football history.

The documentary, for this reason, was based mainly on his life before, during and after his exposure, and until his suicide at the tender age of 37, as well as the lack of openly gay footballers in Britain.

The format of the programme was compiled mostly of interviews with various figures, including an emotional, “TV-gold” encounter with John Fashanu, where his lack of support for Justin at the time came as a shock to the 22 year old presenter.

As Justin’s only sibling and only known blood relative, John took the decision at the time not to stand by his brother’s decision to expose himself as gay to the British public.

Since the revelation in 1997, this was John’s first chance to defend his actions and allow viewers to see if he was remorseful or regretful at the treatment of his brother.  This had to be interesting, I thought.

“I’m not homophobic…I never have been.” was Fashanu’s first words to daughter Amel when she questioned the ex-footballer’s treatment of younger brother.

“But I certainly was cross with him at the time” he continued.   However, this didn’t appear to me as someone who was simply “cross” that their brother had come out so publicly.  It appeared that he definitely had more of an issue with his brother’s sexuality than he was now letting on.

As part of the documentary, she also spoke to British footballer Joey Barton, whose uncle is gay, who encouraged others to show homosexual players support.

In another part of the programme, she spoke to PR guru Max Clifford who confirmed to viewers that there are in fact homosexual footballers in Britain today who have paid for Clifford’s services to keep their truth a secret.

At the climax of the 60 minute long documentary, Clifford made a statement which, regrettably, suggests the mentality of the British football industry may never change: ”Mentally, most people in and around football go back to the Dark Ages.”

Title: David Bailey: 4 Beats to the Bar and No Cheating
Channel: BBC 4
Broadcast on: Thursday 26 January

Director: Jerome de Missolz

Mick Jagger, Lennon and McCartney, Michael Caine, The Krays. Just some of the people featured in the vast slideshow shown in documentary 4 Beats to the Bar and No Cheating, a portrait of iconic photographer David Bailey. A revealing look at the man who photographed the 1960s in the same way that the Beatles and Stones sound tracked it. When I think of Bailey, with limited knowledge, I always think of that scene in Austin Powers 2, where Powers is photographing the models and flouncing about calling everyone “darling” and “baby”. This documentary serves to dispel this impression and Bailey comes across as humble, open and well balanced individual. Most importantly however, he is shown to be an intensely creative artist.

Throughout the documentary we are given insights into the 73 year old’s artistic process, beginning with his interaction with a model in a photo shoot where he gives direction but most importantly, tries to encourage the model to be herself. No ego’s, temper tantrums, arrogance is on display, instead he puts the model at ease. Charming and eloquent, she is putty in his hands. On his own style and view on art he quotes his hero, jazz legend Count Basie, art should be “ 4 beats to the bar and no cheating.”

Art critic Martin Harrison gives a running critique of Bailey’s work, at some points with Bailey present, sitting silent next to him. This gives a surreal dimension to the documentary, giving the strange impression that Bailey has died and his ghost is sitting next to Harrison listening to a critique of his own work, the only point the documentary is in danger of straying into pretentious territory.

Bailey is arguably the most famous photographer in the world, but also shown are his sculpture and painting projects in his studio in Devon. The studio is littered with sculptures of skulls and dead flowers and strange paintings featuring both Mickey Mouse and Hitler, in jarring contrast with his iconic black and white images from the sixties.

The sixties is explored of course, his relationship with iconic model Jean Shrimpton, marriage to French actress Catherine Deneuve and friendship with Mick Jagger, best man at his wedding to Deneuve. Again though it does not encroach on the typical, “peace and love” “remember the Beatles??” territory that many documentaries covering this period do. Bailey’s survival of this decade is credited to his professional relationship with his subjects with the exception of the relationships discussed earlier.

Bailey comes across as a well-balanced, humble artist. He seems genuinely apologetic when he discusses his work in case he strays into pretentious territory. Bailey of course became as famous as the subjects he photographed, but on this he says: “I’m looking for what they have, not for what I have.”

This film managed to find what it was he has and created an intimate portrait of the 2nd most famous man in the room.

Monday January 23, 10pm, E4.

If you had hoped the gang had been conscientiously catching up with their homework in the year
they’ve spent off our screens your illusions will have been unceremoniously quashed the moment Mini announced: “Let’s get f*****.”

Chucked straight into the sensory-overdose that is Skins – with every scene drenched in bright colour and no inkling of pace – writer Bryan Elsley wasted no time wreaking havoc on teenaged lives despite losing co-creator Jamie Brittain post-series five. By the time the gang were plonked back in Bristol at the end of the episode everything already seemed broken, with medical emergencies, missing persons, potential kidnap and drug-smuggling all covered in a flash, and all with Elsley’s relatable undertone of heartache, camaraderie and coursework.

While the gang’s Moroccan expedition did seem an unnecessary excuse for a change of scenery, the episode was no less entertaining for it. The teenaged protagonists’ characteristic thrill-seeking and emotionally schizophrenic existence attracted the usual bass-pumping, drug-enhanced carnage punctuated at every natural pause by sex. Except it was sunny.

Some of the cast’s performances, including the series debut of the now formulaic evil posh one, Luke (Sam Jackson), were unremarkable. Most were simply side-lined, with their infrequent dialogue transparent as a plot device necessary to move the action forward. But in a welcome twist of fate the standout performer of the episode was Freya Mavor as Mini – the bitchy, spiteful, image-obsessed Queen Bee-type who we saw forcing Liv to down straight vodka for sleeping with her boyfriend in series five. Her new-found interest in Alo was not only funny, but sweet, yet she retained her take-no-prisoners attitude in her vicious-lipped warnings about the boys’ behaviour.

Franky (Dakota Blue Richards) however seems to have slipped from her pedestal as the token quirky-type, and was far from the intriguing, misfit girl of the series before. Instead, she immediately began what can only be described as a contrived hissy-fit – with swearing. As one of the minority of the cast who has previous acting experience (The Golden Compass, The Secret of Moonacre) I expected better, but given her worthy debut as the bullied and insular new-girl in series five it’s safe to bet she will throw off the stroppy and bored suit and strip down to some emotionally-scarred rawness soon.

Rich and Alo were just as hilarious, while the relationship between Rich and Grace following their almost-wedding had grown even more touching and infinitely more believable in their absence.

Once again, what on paper should be a recipe for disaster – insults casually blowing around like loose (fag) papers, blunt teenaged sexuality and open drug-use – actually delivered purely addictive viewing. Series six will definitely have fans coming back for their next fix.

I am indebted to my old friend Dr Ian Hunter of Leicester De Montfort University, for drawing my attention this morning via facebook to this think piece from the Guardian’s Suzanne Moore on the problems of the online “democratization” of reviewing of everything, prompted by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority’s critical report on some reviews on the travel website Trip Advisor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/tripadvisor-furore-criticism?INTCMP=SRCH

Hustle, Series 8: Episode 3 (BBC One)

Aired 9pm, 27^th Jan 2012

This week our team are set for just another con – exploiting Linda Runcorn (Nina Sosanya), CEO of an online hotel and restaurant guide, who bullies smaller businesses for profit. The plan is to trick her into believing a wealthy long-lost relative has left her a fortune and then make off with the usual briefcase of cash to pay off some ‘builders fees’. However, a spanner is thrown into the works when the team discover they are being pursued by bent copper DI Fisk (Patrick Baladi).

It’s quite difficult to watch Hustle without wanting this team of crooks to succeed. The cons are clever, the characters very likable and there’s always that one little moment where you think everything has gone pear-shaped but it turns out it was all part of the plan. But this week, is it all over?

A mystery individual has paid a police officer to hunt down and put away Mickey (Adrian Lester) for good and DI Sid Fisk is ready to use all manor of corruption to achieve his goal. Unaware of this, the team pose as representatives of an heir-hunting firm, convincing Linda Runcorn that a great aunt has left her a house, jewellery and a nice lump some. Meanwhile, Fisk blackmails Kat Farmer (Skye Lourie), an old friend of Sean and Emma (Matt Di Angelo and Kelly Adams) to infiltrate the team and pass him news on the team and their con. With this information in hand Fisk begins to pick apart the team’s plans and all seems lost when Emma herself is arrested. But of course, we’re not worried because Mickey always has a plan and will save the day… We hope…

Patrick Baladi (The Office, Mistresses) is a wonderful choice as this week’s guest star – the character seems to possess no morals whatsoever and we genuinely believe that Baladi is set on destroying the team. He is sinister, corrupt and exploits ever smidgen of power in his position. Nina Sosanya (Silk, Teachers) also provides a very well played role but you’re going to have to watch to find out why!

There is little from Ash and Albert (Robert Glenister and Robert Vaughn) this week, which is a bit disappointing as these are superb characters and often provide the best laughs of the show. However, we did see a wonderful performance from Glenister last week (which can still be viewed on the BBC iPlayer, along with the rest of the series) so perhaps we’ll get something from Vaughn soon.

The fault of Hustle is that we know everything will be ok – yes, this is the final series but lets face it, we’re only on episode three! The enjoyment, most of the time, comes from the fact that we don’t know how it will be done – perhaps this week the seasoned viewer may get an inkling, but the outcome is still pleasing. It’s clear that Hustle has returned to our screens because it is a loved show (nearly 6 million people tuned in this week) but maybe it’s best that the end is nigh – perhaps like the team, we know all the tricks now.

Top Gear

BBC2, Sunday (29^th January 2012) 8pm

With: Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May

WITH the reputation that Top Gear is getting in the press, some doubted it would even return for another series.

However, with the infamous trio returning for their 18^th series of outings, it would be an odd decision for the BBC to axe one of their more successful shows.

But being successful also means it can be quite expensive.  The short preview at the start of the episode – a parody of their segment of what’s coming up in the series featuring Jeremy cycling round the track on a bicycle – will probably be seen in some episodes as they try to balance their books to afford the supercars and other stunts featured in the real preview.

This week’s supercars in question were the Lamborghini Aventador, the McLaren MP4-12C and the Noble M600.  Billed as competitors to the Ferrari 458, the trio take to Italy for a short road trip and their usual array of “challenges”.

If you’re not really a car person but still enjoy watching Top Gear for the jokes and the banter you probably had a challenge of your own watching this – as all three of the cars were exactly the same colour.

As one of the main and regular features of the programme, if you can’t tell the cars apart (especially when cars can have very similar designs) then at least you can assign each of the presenters a colour in your head.  Not so this week, for the first half of the programme at least…

Another regular feature of the show is the “Star in a Reasonably Priced Car”, with a bit of a coup this week having Black Eyed Peas star will.I.Am in the Kia.  At first I didn’t really expect much from his interview, and I wouldn’t have believed you if you’d told me before watching that Clarkson would call the rapper an “inspiration” like I’m telling you now.  But after hearing his story, I have a bit of a new found respect for will.I.Am.

Hopefully the guests for the rest of the series are of a similar standard, with Friends star Matt LeBlanc billed for next week.

Of course amongst the aforementioned challenges is a return of the Stig – or rather one of his numerous cousins, another of which will also turn up next week.

When Top Gear is one of your more successful shows, it makes sense to keep the formula the same.  Even down to lightly releasing the gag from Clarkson’s politically incorrect mouth.  Although there are another six episodes to go, he still has plenty of time to offend.

While I’m talking about the presenters I must add that Richard Hammond continues to stare in the face of precarious driving despite his much talked about crash in 2006.

On the other hand, James May looks ridiculous in a camouflage-style hoody.  If there isn’t a “Top Gear Wardrobe Department” yet then I’m sure the BBC can find some funds to afford one – just as long as they don’t cut anything good about the show.

A welcome return from the lads, sticking to what they know best.