6 Reasons Why Masterchef is Good for You

So it's that time of year again. Masterchef: The Professionals is running riot on BBC Two. Although I can hardly allude to Masterchef being annual - it is ALWAYS on, which is great for someone like me, an obsessive-complusive watcher and avid admirer of Michel Roux.

Here are 6 really good reasons as to why Masterchef is good for you.

1. Laughter
We all know that laughter is healthy. It adds on years to our lives if we laugh often enough. And what better way to get some laughs than watch a bunch of professional chefs suck at the thing their supposed to be good at? Yes you may think I'm being rude, callous and harsh even, but there is nothing funnier than a chef believing he's the next Michel Roux and then messing up his souffle. Add into the mix a few of Monica's expressions and you've got yourself a laughter concoction.

2. Michel Roux Jr
Michel Roux is good for the soul. I know I'm slightly biased in my opinion of him (j'adorrrreeee), but his little quips, God-like cooking skills and cheeky little smile will turn anyone's frown upside down.

3. Cooking
I'm a firm believer in the benfits of an understanding of good food (I guess you could call me a 'foodie'). Having a good knowledge of ingredients and processes can only enable you to put good things into your body, and enjoy doing it. What better way to learn about the processes of a kitchen, flavour combinations and the French classics than watching a hearty episode of Masterchef? And you can always laugh if they get it wrong...

4. Drama
One of the things I love about Masterchef is the drama. It's like watcing a crime series - constantly on edge, wondering who's going to get killed next. Okay, a possible exaggeration, but being gripped is definitely good for the heart (I think). And jumping up and down during the elimination is a clear calorie-burner.

5. Critics
Daydreaming is good for you right? Floating off into another world of joy and sunshine can turn a gross day into a fabulous one. My favourite daydream? Being a critic! Their jobs sound FANTASTIC. Their actual skills are eating food and having opinions. I already have those skills! Pick me!

6. Relieves any boredom
Masterchef the Professionals is on 4 days a week. That's 3 and a half hours of watching time. Bored after work one evening and don't fancy doing sociable things? Watch Masterchef! It's like comfort eating without actually eating anything. And if you are cool with lots of things to do all evening, its a great hangover cure and has definite omnibus potential.

So there we have it. The ultimate programme with added health benefits. Do something amazing for yourself this week.... watch Masterchef.

Musings on... The Escape Artist (contains spoilers)

I'm always on the lookout for BBC dramas, and I've usually been very impressed with them (The Fall springs to mind). This one had all the right components on the tin... stunning lead actor (David Tennant - I'm quite a big fan, he was definitely the best Doctor), mystery and suspense, a baddie, blood and guts, and a serious amount of tension. It was written by the guy who wrote Spooks, and as a MASSIVE fan I dutifully tuned in. 

This week was the second episode of the three part drama, and the third airs next Tuesday at 9pm. It follows Will Burton, a hot shot defence lawyer who's never lost a case. Tennant manages to portray a man quietly confident in his ability, but without arrogance - he walks around with just an air of humility. He goes home to his massive London flat with glass everywhere, to his gorgeous wife (Ashley Jensen), who should win wife of the year the amount of time Will has to work - and to his beautiful son. They have an idyllic cottage that they go to on weekends. Basically the perfect life. 

In dramas, all good things come to an end.  In court, Will defends a creepy bird man, Liam Foyle (Toby Kebbell), who was charged with sadistically murdering a young woman. Just FYI, he's a bird man because he has loads of birds in his house, in case you were wondering...Will gets him off, because "everyone deserves a defence". But, our hero does have a moral compass, shown when he refuses to shake Foyles hand on leaving court. 

** Spoiler **

Let's cut to the chase. Creepy Foyle turns up at the cottage while Kate (Will's wife) is alone and in the bath. She's murdered in a brutal way, while the son hides in a box. Will arrives too late and weeps while sat in her blood. Bad times. 

All this happens in the space of about 45 minutes. As a result, I felt so emotionally assaulted I nearly cried. At the time, I felt it was too quick - I wasn't ready for the ensuing trauma. But on watching the second episode, I realised why what felt like the drama 'punch line' of the series was in the first episode. The real strength lies in the aftermath. Will is suddenly and dramatically bereaved, with Tennant's portrayal instantly changing. He's now a desperately sad man, frantically seeking justice for his wife in the only way he knows how - by actually being really good at law and stuff. Except now he's on the prosecution's side, an interesting insight that I feel embellishes Will's new topsy-turvy character. 

Despite the thrills (of which there are many- heart rate was well above average), there are some strange choices made in the script. Like Will's Chambers taking on his wife's case (which surely wouldn't be allowed?) and the worst guy being assigned the job. I imagine if you're a barrister and were watching the court scenes, you'd be laughing at the ineptitude of the lawyers/judges/evidence etc (according to some lawyer writing for the Telegraph). But thankfully, I am not a lawyer, and I don't care about the court scenes. Being ignorant suits me.

What I do care about, however, are the times the drama errs on the side of sensationalism, going for cheap 'horror' shots. Specifically the time in episode two when Will is watching his wedding video. The scene cuts instantly to the forensic photographs of Kate's slit throat and a pool of blood. We get that murder is tragic and sad, as the point was laboriously made in the first episode (and it also being a fact of life) - we don't need it hammering home in such aggressive ways. Also WHAT is with the 'oh yeah and she was pregnant when she was murdered' thing? It's like they're saying a woman being murdered isn't tragic enough on its own. That definitely pushed the wrong kind of buttons for me - but it is possible I am being too sensitive. 

Despite all those things, I will definitely be tuning into the last episode. It's extremely difficult to turn off, the punches are quick and often. The cast are truly carrying the show. Tennant is fab at always, with Toby Keddall (who I've never seen before) almost outshining him. The character is wonderfully terrifying in a subtle kind of way, and Keddall portrays it brilliantly. I must also mention Sophie Okonedo, who is right up there with her portrayal of Will's bitchy but vulnerable intellectual rival. It's almost worth just watching it for these three actors. 

So there's my extremely long (sorry) list of thoughts about The Escape Artist. If you like David Tennant, and aren't clued up on being a barrister, then I duly recommend this to you! 

Musings on... The Great British Bake Off

So. It's Bake Off season again. And thank the lord. The summer of TV hasn't been massively inspiring in all honesty (apart from the documentary 'Crazy About One Direction' - that was classic) so it is with glee, joy, and admittedly some very happy tears, that I welcomed it back to my weekly TV schedule.

Despite Mary and Paul's blossoming on-screen romance, and Sue and Mel's hilarious quips, it is contestants that are the life and soul.

Here is my take on the remaining Bake Off contestants:

1. Beca: The Joker

Welsh people always crack me up (I think it's the accent?), and her I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-doing attitude makes her hilarious to watch. Apparently she has a roast dinner  every day of the week, and has a trifle for pud. Ahhh the Welsh.

2. Christine: The Older Lady/Mary Berry's Double

She's the Older Lady of the competition, wise and measured, with some serious skills in the kitchen. Her twists on the classics are very Berry-esque, and they even look alike. I like to think that they are best friends.

3. Frances: Teacher's Pet/Swot

Every reality series has to have one, and Frances is taking her role very seriously. It appears to be her life mission to be as swotty as possible, with her matchstick breadsticks, Nutcracker inspired petit fours and James and the Giant Peach pie. She has been accused of putting style before substance, so now I don't even crave her bakes, and her cakes do not make me want to gorge. Give me a slice of Glenn's "grotesque" tray bake any day... and don't worry, I didn't punch the air when her biscuit tower collapsed... that's too mean. (Of course I was gleeful. I'm not sorry).

4. Glenn: The Loveable Rogue

My favourite by a million miles. Kinda a bit crap at times (and insists on baking the biggest bakes in the world... although I'm not sure that's a bad thing Paul) but always pulls it off, and does it with the cuuuuutest smile. Team Glenn for life. I just want to hug him. Can I attend the school where he's head of Sixth Form? Pleease?

5. Howard: Geeky man that you can't help feeling sorry for (Brendan take two)

Remember Brendan from last series, who had an obsession with 70s decoration and made that sickly gingerbread house? Howard is Brendan take two. He's quite a geeky guy, and therefore I expect him to do really well. When he does badly, which is quite often, I cringe. Or when he's the victim of baking espionage. And he cries in episode 4.... can't really add much to that.
Best quote: "I'm not a great fan of jelly, it's just not my cup of tea."

6. Kimberley: The Quiet and Smiley One

Positive, enthusiastic, very good at baking, humble and extremely calm. I think that's because of her pyschologist background in my completely amateur and uneducated opinion. She'd be good in a crisis. My advice to the Bake Off contestants is to befriend her, then use her for her calmness and talent (for their own gain, obviously. Maybe steal her custard).

7. Ruby: Eye Candy+Really Clever

Ruby is stunning. I think I probably fancy her. But not only that, she's extremely smart and her honesty is very funny. She seems to have no idea what she's doing most of time, and appears frazzled all the time. It makes me glad not to be on Bake Off, because unlike Ruby, I wouldn't pull it off.
Best quote: "Each time I get good feedback, it just proves to me that I'm not an idiot".

So there's my slightly random take on the remaining members of the Bakers Dozen. A job well done, Love Productions, as per usual.

Musings on... Extreme OCD Camp

I'm always a bit wary when it comes to programming about things like OCD. Of course, challenging stereotypes and driving change is extremely important, but sometimes I fear these programmes do more harm than good. Such an example is 'Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners', shown Channel 4 a few months back.  The premise of the series was to take people 'obsessed with cleaning' and get them to clean a dirty house. What I found difficult about it (as did many commentators) was the fact that the whole programme was based on negative assumptions about OCD. The condition covers a variety of different mental health issues and the assumed connection with cleaning trivialises sufferers, but also does nothing to help the general public's understanding of the condition. Moreover, it parades sufferers in front of millions like a show pony. 

I guess Channel 4 were trying to show OCD as something less sombre, a sort of positive twist on a negative experience. But there are so many dangerous assumptions associated with all kinds of mental health (see BBC Three's It's a Mad World season), and I feel it is far more positive to address these, before we start poking fun at them. 

Extreme OCD Camp is, in my mind, a positive exploration of the condition from my position of someone without OCD, wanting to understand more. It is cautious and humble, with none of the jaunty tone of 'Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners'. The people who take part are teenagers or in their early 20s, their conditions completely different. Jack has a type of contamination OCD, paralysed by the thought of germs and disease. Imogen has a fear of something bad happening to her family, which she controls by tapping things around her and eating certain foods. Josh has symmetry OCD, where his life revolves around doing everything with both his right and left hand, or right and left foot. They went to Seattle, USA for an OCD therapy camp, the idea being to create and trigger exposures, and to fight their want to ritualise their anxiety away. This premise, the aim being to help the sufferers control OCD, means that the programme instantly has a serious focus and an ability to penetrate deeper into the anxiety and pain felt by sufferers, rather than poking fun at their subsequent behaviour.

I think one of the best things about television is its power to communicate different experiences across all the divides and prejudices of the world. From an non-OCD sufferer, I learnt so much about the condition - how a mental condition can become so physical, not just in their ritualising actions, but also the pain etched in their faces. I learnt how debilitating it can be - its not just an obsession with cleanliness or a hatred of germs, it is a deep seated fear of something bad happening as a result of their actions. For people already suffering, it strikes a chord. The young people out on the trip speak of their 'unique connection', something portrayed so well by the programme, and instantly hints at a wide community of sufferers, each with the ability to do something about their condition. You can help but wish them all the luck in the world, and hope that they manage to gain control of their lives. An emotional watch (as you can probably tell) and I wholeheartedly recommend it. 

Musings on... The White Queen

Now, as life has FINALLY slowed down, I can get back to blogging! As a history graduate (eek), this drama is right up my street. The White Queen portrays three of Phillipa Gregory's books, and tell the tale of the Wars of the Roses during the fifteenth century through the lives of three extraordinary women. From my understanding, the books are based as much as possible on the evidence, which is far from complete, and with some embellishment here and there. A 'historical novel' as a concept does confuse me though. I read Hilary Mantel's first book Wolf Hall, about Thomas Cromwell, and honestly couldn't stop the voice in my head screaming "but how does she know they said that?!"

The White Queen centers on Elizabeth Woodville, a widow of a lesser knight, who marries the new King Edward. The story of a commoner rising to royalty is something of a soft spot for us Brits after Prince William's wedding (or maybe that's just me), and is a hint of a brilliant continuity that spans centuries often found in history - something I love about the subject. Within Elizabeth's story is that of Anne Neville, the youngest daughter of the most powerful noble in England, Earl of Warwick - 'the Kingmaker', and Margaret Beaufort, married at 12 and a mother and widowed at 13. These powerful female characters highlight the position of women in the fifteenth century - passed from pillar to post, small pieces in a larger picture. It's almost a dichotomy - powerful women trying to control their own lives and those of the people around them, but always with the overhanging threat (and execution) of patriarchy.  

The main problem with this drama is, however, the level of historical knowledge that is needed in order to understand what is going on. I'm no fifteenth century expert and had to wikipedia most of the families in order to understand the lineages and claims to the throne. Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort's son, is destined to be King according to his mother, and it took some research to understand why. This is quite distracting when trying to get into the drama from episode one. This could just be a problem I found, as I have an insatiable need to understand who is who ALL the time. But, there is a new series on BBC 2 that looks at this period of history from the point of view of a documentary, presented by Phillipa Gregory. If you're struggling with who's who, I recommend you watch it. They marry well together and explain some of the more intricate historical details (perhaps why they're on at the same time?)

Moreover, it is striking how much time is skipped over, without much notice. Elizabeth was married to Edward for over six years before the Earl of Warwick swapped sides, but this isn't stressed enough. Whilst the drama doesn't have to depict the 'boring' middle years, it's important to understand exactly how long things took in order to fully appreciate the history. 

From a production point of view, it has pretty much been slated in the press. There are modern drainpipes in shot, zips on costumes and plastic railings on staircases. I confess I didn't notice them, but I was disappointed to read about them. One would hope that an expensive project like this would have covered all bases. 

These mistakes are made up for by sheer captivation. There is so much drama - the fact that it is based on real events over 500 years ago adds to the thrill. The characters are fascinating, portrayed by very talented actors and actresses. Complaints similar to the ones I've highlighted above seemed to have stopped many people enjoying the series, but in my mind, it is important to take historical costume dramas with a pinch of salt. They're bringing alive a time that is poorly documented, and whilst historical novels are a bit too far for the history graduate within me, a historical drama sits perfectly in the middle. 

Elizabeth Woodville (Rebecca Ferguson)

Musings on... The United States of Television: America in Primetime

Firstly, SORRY for being rubbish to all you regular blog readers (not entirely how many regulars there are out there, apart from my Dad. Hi Dad). Dissertation is in and I'm now embarking on the mundane chore of revision, which obviously means the TV has been on non-stop. I've got an interview on Wednesday at the BBC and was looking around for a bit of inspiration when I came across The United States of Television on iPlayer. Being a history student combined with my interest in the power and function of TV, it's not surprising that this little gem got me thinking. 

The episode I watched was 'The Independent Woman'. It recognised the ability of TV not only to reflect society, but to create and drive change, something I've been fascinated with for a while now. The argument is that in America, television played a part in the alteration of the portrayal and role of women in society. The documentary went right back to the 50s, with 'I Love Lucy', a sitcom exploring the idea that women had their own dreams, and that it was okay to pursue them. Also mentioned was 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show', a programme following the life of Mary in her workplace, and 'Roseanne', a show about a women-dominated household where appearance was not the basis of her likability. An interesting point picked up about shows in the 50s and 60s was that on commercial channels like CBS, advertising often became the glass ceiling in female representation at a time when women's liberation was picking up speed. Commercial broadcasters had to be sensitive to the advertisers, and in many cases that meant reigning in the direction of female portrayal. Apparently Americans needed not to be riled up and/or made to think, in case it rendered them unsusceptible to advertising products. I feel that is a slight patronisation, but never mind... 

The programme then moved on to talk about more familiar shows, like 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', 'The Good Wife' and 'Grey's Anatomy'. I forget how groundbreaking SATC was - it's such a fixture on all the repeat channels nowadays and I failed to see it as anything more than a funny, slightly raunchy and entertaining programme. The reality is that it is a show about the relationships of four women, and that relationship is paramount. The objectification is turned onto the men, and it is in that respect that it paved another, different way for women's representation. Likewise, Grey's Anatomy portrayed women as cut-throat, competitive and above all, smart. Interestingly, the creator of SATC spoke of how the premise of the show wasn't to make a social statement, but to be funny. It's an example of the ability of TV to reflect the interests and opinions of society, and sharpens the fact that I, as a viewer, I take it for granted than women can, and are being, portrayed in this way. 

The dominant theme throughout is the idea that women began to care less about what others think, and more about being themselves. Desperate Housewives explored the idea of a woman who hated being a mother through the character of Lynette. Rather than the show being about women who tell each other everything (SATC), Desperate Housewives is about women who keep secrets. The idea of a woman hating being a mother is not such a crazy idea in many women's minds. 

And then there's the idea of the stay at home mother. Often these days, women don't respect others that stay at home and devote their lives to their children. Why do that when in the 21st century, we can have it all? Arguably, having it all isn't real anymore, an idea explored at the end of the programme. The challenge now is to recognise the pressure to be the perfect woman as an arbitrary one, one that shouldn't dictate what a woman should do in her life. Isn't feminism all about choice anyway? 

It was a humbling watch, and a reminder of the power of television in shaping, reflecting and spurring change. From a production point of view, the best thing about it was the numerous interviews with cast members, writers and producers of all the shows mentioned. Turned out to be quite an all-star cast, and it's fascinating to hear what they think about the place their programmes have taken in the cultural development of the United States, and in many cases, Britain as well. 

Lucille Ball in 'I Love Lucy'

Musings on... The Great British Sewing Bee

Hello all, sorry for the SERIOUS delay in posting. I blame it on my dissertation (and also some super work experience at a TV production company... so really it's a lack of dissertation...) But I doubt many of you are waiting with baited breath. Here it is anyway. 

So The Great British Sewing Bee is a thing. I saw it advertised and was seriously sceptical. SURELY there can't be another Bake-Off spin-off? What with Paul Hollywood on our screens with his sexy bread programme (if you don't believe the sexy part, watch it... trust me) and Bake Off specials all over the shop, I felt like we had enough wholesome Great British-ness on our screens. 

The premise is the same as Bake Off, except now its 'makes' instead of 'bakes'. The experts are the sewing equivalent of Mary and Paul - Mary Martin,"the best sewing teacher in the world" and Patrick Grant from Savile Row, with Claudia Winkleman in the Mel/Sue role. Not impressed with them so far... these guys just aren't that funny and nothing quite beats Mary's cheeky 'soggy bottom' line. Each week, the contestants (mainly women and gay men - also a token bearded/pierced guy) have to do a series of 'makes'. This week, they had to make an A line skirt from scratch, customise a neckline of a t-shirt and make a day dress, again from scratch. Now this is where the complaining ends. 

It's SO addictive. Ten minutes in I was ashamedly engrossed in the A line skirts (how do they cut in straight lines? Why do sewing machines have pedals? How can they see those tiny tiny stitches? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ZIP IS WRONG?!) and then realised that being ashamed is silly. This show will make sewing cool! Just like Bake Off, everyone will now be setting up a sewing machine and making their own clothes. Perhaps an exaggeration, but sewing is officially cool, thanks to the BBC. 

The equivalent of the Bake Off tent/gazebo thing is an East End sewing workshop, an Aladdin's cave of fabric, ribbon, sewing machines, scissors etc. It's a shabby chic kind of thing... which is SO in at the moment (don't you know) with the added brilliance of a balcony thing round the top, enabling some creative and interesting shots of the sewers down below.

I think what makes this show brilliant is its reality. These people are normal, nervous, and trying to do their best (although beasts on a sewing machine), encouraging the feeling that maybe my future career lies in sewing - if they can do it, I can too! 

But let's be realistic here. I am crap at sewing. But watching others do it gives me a virtual ability to judge (that scalloped edge is RUBBISH) which is infinitely more fun. There's tension, there's tears and there's pressure, and when people are ironing pleats one minute before the end of the challenge, you know it's all going to unravel...

Musings on... The Big Reunion

This show is my guilty pleasure. I honestly love it, and am fresh from watching two episodes back to back. I'm ready to declare my love.

The Big Reunion is pretty much what it says on the tin. Six bands from the 90s and 00s reunite for a gig at the Hammersmith Apollo (and now a venue tour... who saw that coming?) The line up is pretty incredible... Liberty X, 911,  B*Witched, Honeyz, Atomic Kitten and 5ive... I told you! And it's made all the better by the fact that I can remember all of these bands from their heyday - I can remember each one of their suffocatingly embarrassing outfits (B*Witched's obsession with denim is a personal favourite), their hilarious flops (Liberty X ring any bells?) and my severe crush on Abs from 5ive. Whyyyyy...

All of these bands have been off the all-singing, all-dancing pop treadmill for a decade or so, and watching them trying to get back on it is entertaining viewing. It's a trip down memory lane for the members, but also for me as I struggle to justify the hots I had for Abs. But the best thing (BY FAR) are the bits that talk about their falls from stardom. In all seriousness, its quite an interesting look into the industry at the time I was growing up - my memories of it are looking at them in awe, thinking they had the perfect lives, and coveting the denim flares from B*Witched. The reality, as it emerges, is very different.

The first few episodes chart the bands' history individually, with 5ive being the most volatile because of the characters within the band - they were pretty much a nightmare the whole time they were famous in terms of management. It's actually quite shocking to hear the stories of depression, bankruptcy, drugs and serious identity crises/breakdowns from members across all bands.

The next few episodes films the bands getting back into rehearsals for the concert - it basically just records how crap they are, which is obviously hilarious. The most recent episode had A TWIST... the producers of the concert decided to add BLUE to the line up. AS IF IT COULD GET ANY BETTER! The best thing about this was that the other bands got really annoyed - 'it's been such a tough road to get here and we've worked so hard, and then Blue just waltz in and take over'. Alright, calm down. Blue come across as dicks, especially when Simon goes, 'you wouldn't want to go on after us...' AND THEN HE WINKS. Idiot. But, they are still pretty good, given that they did Eurovision a couple of years ago (always the mark of a great 'band'... although I'm told finishing 11th was pretty good. Whatever).

My advice to you is this: go and get your computer. Get up ITV player. Set aside 7 hours (who needs to do a dissertation anyway) and watch ALL of the episodes. You won't be disappointed. Now I'm trying to figure out whether I should buy a ticket for their tour... anyone want to come with me? 

Musings on... Oscar Pistorius: What Really Happened?

Apologies for my lack of posts recently, my dissertation has evolved into a crying, needy and sometimes aggressive baby that needs constant attention. Only 2 months to go... 

I read about this film yesterday on the BBC College of Journalism website, where producer Steve Anderson wrote that the film was transmitted 19 days after commission. That's a seriously fast turnaround. For someone interested in the physical making of films and the people that make them, this was something that really caught my eye - how on earth did they manage to get a team together, fly them out to South Africa, get all the interviews and then edit it all together to make an hour long film in 19 days?! 

It seems that the team were picked because of their experience in fast turnarounds. They all jumped on a plane to Cape Town, and by using their contacts from the Dispatches programme on the Anni Dewani murder case, managed to pull together the people they needed to have worthwhile content for the film. 

The documentary is led by Rick Edwards. I was a bit dubious about this choice - all I can see Rick Edwards doing in my mind is Tool Academy, but to his credit he was actually pretty good, and well placed and knowledgeable about Oscar due to his coverage of the Paralympic Games in the summer. He's also the new face of BBC Free Speech programme, perhaps suggesting his presenting of shows like Tool Academy are over... (I actually loved that programme - don't judge me). 

The first few minutes were a bit hard - there were clips of Reeva on the reality TV show shown in South Africa a few days after she died, with the permission of her family. It weirded me out a bit, as it always does when there are people brought back to life on screen. It felt quite raw, especially when Reeva was talking about leaving something memorable behind 'on your way out'. 

The story of this incident is arguably the 'biggest story to come out of South Africa since the release of Mandela 20 years ago' and the press coverage reflects that. In the confusion over whether he is guilty of murder, or the victim of a tragic accident, Heat Magazine (ironically) is the voice of reason. The editor argues that the suspicious incidents before Reeva's death, and Oscar's apparent 'dark side' doesn't make him capable of murder. Innocent until proven guilty. 

The documentary, to my knowledge, presented all the information surrounding the case pretty fairly. It spent a long time on Reeva herself, placing her in the celebrity social circles and calling 2012 her 'breakout year'. This made the account all the more tragic - for once the focus was on Reeva for a bit, not Oscar (although the millions of references to her being beautiful started to annoy me - just because she was beautiful doesn't make her death inherently more tragic).

The focus did eventually move on to Oscar and the events of that night, and the account of what happened seems pretty weak. It's only to be expected though - the defence and prosecution cases appear to be a bit of a mess. The film doesn't actually answer the question 'What Really Happened?' and doesn't conclude either way in true BBC style, but then I guess that anyone expecting it to would have had some seriously high expectations. An interesting part was when Rick visited students at a Law school, who gave their opinions about the case. Noticeably, they spoke about how quick South Africans were to assume his guilt in premeditated murder. I wonder whether this is because of a general fixation on scandal and a preoccupation with violence in South Africa, or whether they believe his alleged 'dark side'. They didn't have a problem with worshipping him when he was a hero... 

Credit where credit's due - a pretty damn good documentary considering it's turnaround. It's impressive that they managed to gain interviews with so many of the couple's friends - I would have thought that it's nearly impossible to gain access due to the crazy global attention. 

Jury's out on Oscar Pistorius though.... although that catchy ending doesn't even work, there will be no jury at his trial. Damn. 

Musings on... Searching for Sugar Man (contains spoilers)

Yes I know I'm waaaay behind the times with regards to Searching for Sugar Man, especially since it got Best Documentary at the BAFTAs and the Oscars (and a whole host of other important awards). It went on my list of things to watch in January, and I've only just got round to setting aside an hour and a half to sit down and watch it. And maaaan, was it worth it. 

The film tells the story of Rodriguez, a 70s music icon that never was. He was spotted by a couple of successful producers playing in bars around Detroit, was signed to a label and recorded an album called Cold Fact, released in 1970. Interviews with the producers in the film convey a feeling of excitement - they were sure they'd just uncovered the sound of their generation. But it, and the follow up album Coming from Reality, bombed in America. He was dumped from the label and went back to obscurity. 

Somehow (and I would really like to know more about this) a copy of Cold Fact made its way to South Africa, which was in the grip of apartheid. It became the sound track to the white liberal anti-apartheid movement, to whom his lyrics struck a rebellious chord. South African record labels picked up the distribution rights from Rodriguez's ex-American label, and went on to sell somewhere in the region of half a million copies. He was bigger in South Africa than the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Everyone had a copy, and some of his songs were even banned on the radio due to their provocative nature. 

South Africans Stephen Segerman, a record shop manager and Craig Bartholomew-Strydom, a music journalist, decided to find out more about the elusive Rodriguez. All the information that South African had on him were the record sleeves, and of course, his lyrics. Rumours circulated that he was dead, and that he committed suicide on stage. 

*** Warning.... I'm about to massively spoil this, it's the best part of the film so if you're planning on watching it, please look away now! ***

To cut a long search short, they were rewarded when in 1998, Rodriguez's daughter gets in touch via a website dedicated to gathering information about him. She confirms an increasing suspicion developed through the film that Rodriguez was indeed alive and well, and still living in Detroit. When Stephen and Craig recount the feeling of finding him alive, it's instantly one of the best moments of the film. They speak as if at that moment, their lives were complete.

It transpires that Rodriguez knows nothing of his intense fame in South Africa, and never received any of the royalties from the sales of his albums. It's a tragic part, especially when it is revealed that Rodriguez and his family are poor, and work hard to make ends meet. The best interview in my opinion was that of Clarence Avant, the owner of his US record label, who becomes increasingly hostile and aggressive in response to leading questions. The film doesn't investigate this side of the story beyond the interview, which I think was a bit of a shame. 

But, it is clear why this film is so popular, and has done so well during awards season. It is powerful and humble at the same time, telling a story of the strength of music and its ability to become a voice of a people. The way it was shot was stunning - the best were panned shots of crumbling Detroit in the 70s with Rodriguez's music in the background, as if it were a modern music video, but crucially without him there - a clear reference to his elusiveness. Once the film has rediscovered him, there are similar panned shots to his music, but with Rodriguez walking in shot, put back where he belongs. There's also a powerful shot of a window with some faint moving hands, again with his music in the background. The window opens, and out comes Rodriguez, emerging from the shadows.

The most interesting aspect for me wasn't really the nature of the music industry. Having said this, although the film was never explicit, I did wonder whether his records flopped in America in part due to his Mexican nationality. Instead, I saw it more as an addition to the history of apartheid South Africa. Too often is the classic black vs white view promulgated, and this film serves to remind us of the important white anti-apartheid South Africans desperate for change. But the star of the show was Rodriguez himself - unassuming, humble and seemingly happy, but ultimately the writer of some life-changing music. 

The producer, Simon Chinn (responsible for Oscar winning film Man of Wire in 2009), said that in his mind the secret of a great documentary is a powerful narrative - a film that is greater than the sum of its parts - it's about "delivering something intangible." After watching this film, I can really see what he means. 

Musings on... Food & Drink

Michel Roux Jr is a god and his word is law. Because of this doctrine (I also really fancy him), these musings about Food & Drink may be biased. Just a teeny bit. 

Food & Drink is a long running British classic, first broadcast in 1982. This rerun means the show is now in its 24TH SERIES and has apparently been successful throughout. The idea is to show some recipes for dishes, chat to food writers and to match lots of food with wine/other drinks. The first episode I saw was quite awkward, but this recent one on comfort food (I should have a degree in it) was less so. It featured Monica Galetti, La Gavroche's Sous Chef and a regular on Masterchef as a judge. I think I like Monica, and since I've got over my insane jealousy at her proximity to Michel, she's really started to grow on me. It was like having the Masterchef team back again - except Greg Wallace was replaced by a sightly annoying blonde woman who knew too much about wine to be healthy. 

The show featured food writer William Sitwell. He made a very convincing case for the world going nostalgia mad - at worst the foods we crave didn't exist back in the day, and at best, it's still a bit crap. It was pretty much a segment of him just complaining, but it was funny and very British. Our national sport, according to him, was ruining vegetables. Journalist Matthew Fort then took us to the Great British puddings, and made it seem okay to want to eat a pudding made of just butter and brown sugar. 

The programme is a little bit confused - I'm not really sure what the point of it is, but I personally don't think that matters. Here comes the bias! They all sit at the table and discuss the food and drink, and I feel like I'm sitting with them having a chat (potentially as a result of my overactive imagination). The food looks delicious and the drink choices make me want to go out and buy a faaabulous Cairanne Côtes. And there's definitely nothing wrong with watching Michel look down the camera with cheeky smile and tell you that yes, you can make meringues. 

Best pic ever 

Musings on... 7/7: One Day in London

I was recently filling out an application for the Sheffield Doc/Fest, which reminded me of a film I saw quite a while ago that was shown there last year. It is a film that records the human loss and the personal stories from those who were affected by the bombings in London on the 7th July 2005. 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured. I can't remember where I first saw this film, it might have been on the BBC, but I decided to watch it again (if only to procrastinate for a bit). 

First off, with a subject matter so mournful and tragic, the film doesn't open in the way you'd expect. The first clips of testimony are about London: the Olympics, their dreams of London, their lives in London. These are both positive and negative, and represent the busy and individual lives that they all led. Each person has a story to tell about why they were on those trains that day. Martine describes how she'd been up celebrating the win of the bid the night before, and had five extra minutes in bed. Kathy went to work half an hour earlier because of a big deadline at work. 

The film is comprised of very careful and thoughtful interviews, and edited so it takes the individual stories and produces a common experience amongst strangers. There was no melodrama, there wasn't a fussy style that served to draw your attention away and there was no recon. It was really all about the words. 

There were interviews with people who had survived, and there were interviews with the families of those who died. Those of the families were situated in their homes, and served to draw attention to the fact that there was a person missing. One stood out for me. A very polite and well-spoken mother sent Mr Blair numerous letters, determined to hear back an acknowledgment of culpability for the death of her daughter. In some of the later letters, she enclosed a stamped envelope and a pen, because she "thought he might need them". She seemed exhausted and her polite hate for the Prime Minister only served to show how much she was grieving for her daughter. 

The film also examines the emergency services' role on the day, and quite strongly notes the time it took for them to get into the tunnels. The injured were waiting 40 minutes for help. It becomes clear that the tube workers had no clue what happened just before 9am, suggesting a possible power surge or something similar, portrayed by the recordings of the calls made on the network. It was only when the walking wounded began emerging from the tunnels that it became clear the severity of the situation - but still, no mention of a terrorist attack. 

The focus shifts from the tube to the number 30 bus. One father was on the phone to his daughter, trying to get her to work on time as the tubes had ground to a halt. He told her to get on to the bus a stop early. 10 minutes later, while still on the phone, he heard an explosion and the phone went dead. He clearly blames himself, which is heartbreaking. 

The most haunting phrase comes from a tube worker who went into the tunnels to help the wounded. He found a man in a hole in the ground, still alive, and went to pull him out. He realised that his torso had been clean separated from his lower half. On the man's death a few minutes later, he "closed his eyelids for him, just because it felt... incongruous to me to still be looking at a world he was no longer part off". Tissues please. 

The overwhelming sense I got from watching this film was, weirdly, a sense of normality. I sensed an individual normality destroyed in one moment, and replaced with a common tragedy. It is a fitting tribute to those whose lives were changed on that day, and to those who lost them. 

Musings on... Black Mirror: Be Right Back

If you haven't caught the first series of Black Mirror, then you really should, it's a dark, satirical and a thought-provoking look at the place technology has in contemporary life. While the first series was depressing and disgusting in parts (but brilliant), this episode has a different feel to it. 

The episode begins with a couple, Ash and Martha (played by Domhnall Gleeson - Bill Weasley (!) and Hayley Atwell) and in the process of moving in to a new house in the countryside. Immediately it is clear that this is set in some sort of technological parallel universe (or just the future) with crazy touch technology in the van they are driving, and on their phones. There's also a weird singing pregnancy test and a cool technological easel type thing (it's probably obvious technology isn't my strong point). From the start, a point is made that Ash is addicted to his phone, highlighting the current obsession with social networks and technology, and  crucially that it is accepted as the norm. To cut a short story shorter, Ash is killed in a car accident when returning the van. 

This is where series two has a slightly different feel. It's moving, and human, despite the futuristic technology. Having said that, the technology doesn't feel that far off. The idea of a digital footprint, all our online activity being stored somewhere cataloging our life, is a very current one. As Martha is grieving for Ash, her friend suggests a software program than can create a fake Ash by assimilating all of his online activity to form Ash's personality (or a veneer of it). 

She is clearly struggling to move on, made even worse when she discovers that she is pregnant with Ash's child. She becomes isolated, talking to 'Ash' via messages on her phone and computer. Then she updates the software and recreates his voice. She drops her phone one day, smashing the screen and goes into full on panic mode, thinking that she'd 'broken him'. One thing leads to another (via some technology-y stuff that is pretty futuristic, but still seems potentially viable in my uninformed opinion) and things get out of hand. Before long she's got a reincarnated, half Ash-like, real synthetic man. 

It really struck a chord with me - if someone I loved passed away and I had the chance to chat to them and pretend they're still here, I can't say that I would be strong enough to ignore it. There was a strange scene where she succumbs to her desire to have sex with the weird fake Ash, and he is completely blank as his online life doesn't contain a 'sexual response'. 

It becomes apparent that the resurrected Ash is really only Ash has he represented himself online. Fake Ash notes that the pictures we upload on the internet are always the better version of ourselves, hence his smoother skin. It made me wonder what the online version of me would look and sound like... not so sure it would be a better version... 

All in all, a really interesting look at the effect of technology in the most human of relationships: love. Charlie Brooker's script is fab - the episode is pretty much just carried by both Martha and Ash and this, along with the isolated country setting and simple style, really portrays Martha's loneliness. 

This episode seems to have connected to me personally, more so than those of the last series. I think this is because, although a parody to normal life, the first three episodes were quite detached, and I couldn't help feeling that the Prime Minister having sex with a pig would never happen. This episode feels more real, and is more thought-provoking as a result. Some critics have linked this with Charlie Brooker's recent entry into fatherhood, and the softy in me would like to think that's true.

Martha chatting to fake Ash

Musings on... My Big Fat Gypsy Valentine

You'd have to be living under a stone not to have heard about/watched My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, and it has been a favourite of mine ever since it fired aired in 2010. It's Channel 4's eighth highest rated programme ever with the second episode pulling in 8.7 million (thankyou Wikipedia). 

Danielle

This episode follows two teen brides as they prepare to marry - Ina is 16 and Danielle is 15, and Danielle has to wait until her 16th birthday because being married at 15 is against the law! Once married, they girls would move away from the family home to live among their husband's family, and would be expected to maintain a traditional wifely role. 

I had always found the aspect of love interesting in gypsy and traveler culture. The idea of love is so important to them, and girls dream of their perfect husbands from a really young age. I can't believe how young they are when they decide on their lifetime partner - girls are expected to marry their first loves, as to have more than one boyfriend was frowned upon. Having said that, there were some girls who commented that marrying young was a bad idea... "he could be an eejit" - a valid point! Fabulous dresses as per usual (WHERE WAS THELMA... not the same without her) and I particularly liked the dress made out of wallpaper (why why why). 

Its hard to talk about this series without facing the criticism against it. While it's great for entertainment and is clearly very popular, it does make me wonder how accurate this representation is of Gypsies. Is it trying to be sensationalist? Are the families on screen really a representation of the culture as a whole? A major issue leveled against the show is of racism, particularly the advertisement for the second series... "BIGGER, FATTER, GYPSIER". What strikes me is that the series (at least the first one) clearly highlighted the inequality that many experience on a daily basis. That can only be a good thing, right? But adverts like that seem to side with that inequality.

Its a shame that a programme designed to shed light on a different world, and to better educate people on traveler and gypsy culture, has fallen into what seems to me as a pressure for ratings. As a history student, I would definitely like to see some historical and political context of both Romani Gypsies and Irish travelers, but I guess those aren't the issues of importance - it's about big dresses and crazy weddings. I find it hard to equate my personal entertainment with such a clear problem in the representation of the gypsies and travelers, and it leaves me feeling uneasy. I will always take the programme with a pinch of salt, but if you're a traveler or gypsy, I expect that's hard to do. 

Musings on... Dreams of a Life

I'm aware this wasn't on my list of things to watch from Monday but I discovered this on twitter a couple of nights ago - the story was completely unbelievable.

The film follows the story of Joyce Carol Vincent, whose remains were found in a bedsit in 2006, three years after she died, surrounded by wrapped Christmas presents with the TV still on. Nobody had noticed, nobody checked up on her and nobody missed her. When the newspapers reported the story, there was a noticeable lack of information about Joyce - no photograph and seemingly no previous life. How could someone, in the age of communication, slip through the cracks? This thought prompted Carol Morley to make a film, which coincidently refused to let Joyce be forgotten.

From a structural point of view, it's an interesting mix between a drama and a documentary. There are headshot interviews with people who knew her, or were involved in the case, and (mostly silent) dramatised reconstruction, with Zawe Ashton (Vod in Fresh Meat) as Joyce. This combines to form an extremely powerful, imaginative film, forcing you to think of Joyce as a very real person, not just a skeleton found on a sofa. 

Carol Morley gathered the people who used to be Joyce's friends and revealed aspects about the circumstances of her death and other bits of information to them on screen. Many of the interview shots at the beginning of the film had a feeling of disbelief, as those who were once close to Joyce began to understand how her life changed in order for her to die alone. There were loads of little quirky bits like that - all of which made it a film I couldn't stop watching. 

One aspect I liked was the image of Joyce's timeline. It had many of the landmark events, from close to 2003 (the year she died) and much further back. It was recurring, and zoomed in to show specific events, but was written in such a chaotic and disorderly way, it personified the story it was trying to tell. It painted an extremely tragic picture. Yet, she was not a drug addict, or an alcoholic. As a viewer, you can't help but wonder - would anyone miss you?

It was touching to listen to people talk about her. Morley had managed to track down a couple of Joyce's boyfriends, and one, named Martin, made me full-on sob. At the beginning of the film, he spoke fondly of her and shared some memories, but towards the end he was increasingly distressed, finally breaking down in the last few scenes. He couldn't understand why Joyce hadn't got in touch. 

Through the dramatisation, and Zawe Ashton's brilliant performance, it is difficult to forget a person so vividly described and portrayed is no longer here. There are photos in the beginning of the film of Joyce, but they disappear as Zawe comes into the film, almost like Joyce is being resuscitated. Having spent an hour and a half watching a portrayal of Joyce, the moving footage of her at the end brings home the issue in such clarity. She looked full of life, surrounded by people and importantly, she looked happy. 

This film is the product of amazing research - Morley spent years tracking down people linked to Joyce and the authorities that might have come into contact with her. She never offers a definitive version of Joyce's life and honours the idea that we can never really know what goes on in another person's life. The one problem was the very noticeable absence of testimony from Joyce's sisters, and we can only guess why they refused to comment. The film isn't suggesting that her lonely death is because of anyone in particular, and the blame never settles, but it does seem to touch on the opinion that she had withdrawn from her life for some reason, and consequently became difficult to find. 

Many people argue that the unanswered questions that this film throws up about Joyce and her life makes it more frustrating than intriguing. I disagree. The obvious fact is that there is no right answer - there is no way of telling how Joyce actually died (skeletons aren't useful for that), nor can we read her mind posthumously. Clearly one of the points of the film is to provoke thought about how little we know one another, which would be difficult to achieve if we knew everything about Joyce. It also commemorates her, with the upmost sensitivity. 

Overall, it's the best film I've seen in a very long time and I sincerely recommend you watch it. It's on 4od at the moment and it's also available on DVD.  

Musings on... Henia Bryer: Prisoner Number A26188

As I mentioned here, I have a (severe) fascination with the history of the Holocaust and the transmission of its memory into contemporary politics and culture. Sunday 27th January was the UK’s Holocaust Memorial Day - a time to reflect on the Holocaust itself, and to commemorate other genocides around the world. For those interested, the 27th of January is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. 

The BBC commissioned a documentary to mark the day, which I heard about via Radio 4. Henia Bryer, a survivor of four separate concentration camps, including Auschwitz, spoke to John Humphrys of the Today Programme. She explained that she wanted to keep her Holocaust tattoo “as a witness” to what she had suffered. With my brain full of Holocaust denial-related stuff, it was a must-see. (You can listen to the specific interview here)

One of the first things I noticed was the dedication at the beginning, which read “For Henia, from her niece Lisa.” Turns out her niece directed and produced it. The film is all about hers and her family’s survival, and it was made all the more real in that it was directed by a family member. It also became clear that Henia was not one to talk about her experiences and her suffering, and neither were her family. To this day, Henia does not know what her brother did during the war when they were separated. The documentary seemed to be portrayed as a gift, somewhere that Henia could express that episode of her life. 

It is different, in my mind, from some other Holocaust documentaries. In purely aesthetic terms, there is a lot of archive material that I have personally never seen before, which considering the subject topic, can be interesting and revolting in equal measure. But, it was also very successful in concentrating solely on Henia’s experiences, and what she saw and felt throughout her time in the concentration camps. There was no ‘factual’ voice verifying her dialogue (aside from archive material) and she was simply just given her platform to speak. Apart from short additions by a couple of members of her family, it was only her voice. It was focused on short anecdotes that gave brief but pertinent insights into her experiences, an example of which is the day the officers came to her barracks to collect the prisoners to give blood. Because of the nature of their diets and the physical labour they were forced to do, those that gave blood (we're talking many pints) didn't survive long. She managed to survive, by convincing an officer that she had Typhus. A close shave. 

With Holocaust denial an obvious influence in the way I interpreted this documentary, this focus on her personal and raw testimony is an important one. The personalisation of the Holocaust is important in its translation into history, and is a crucial focus in the generalised notion of the six million. Soon there will be no survivors to tell us their tales. 

All in all, I thought it was a moving and sensitive documentary, one that really drove home the human and emotional implications of such a tragic historical events. After the war, Henia found her mother in Germany, and moved to Paris with her uncle in an attempt to rebuild their lives. They made it to Israel, where she managed to find her brother. She met her husband there and emigrated with him to South Africa, where she has had a happy and fulfilled life She has so much dignity and so little anger, and tells her story in such a matter-of-fact way. An inspiring watch. 

Henia after the war

Musings on... The Mary Berry Story

Here's a little light relief from the morbid tone of the last few posts. (Don't fret, got one on the Holocaust coming up...)

Anyone that knows me will be aware of my serious infatuation with all things Mary Berry. Imagine my sheer delight at the discovery that there is a two part documentary about her life! And what a joy it was. She is such a fantastic woman, humble and gentle, with a rich life and career spanning many decades. She beat the war, she beat polio and (coming up next week) she suffered tragedy in the death of her 19 year-old son. AND she makes cakes. Is there anything she can’t do?!

N'aaaaawwwwwww

The documentary mainly followed Mary around as she revisited the places of her childhood and adolescence, including her family home and school. It is voiced by Mel Giedroyc (Mel from Mel & Sue) which I thought was a nice touch - I like to think they’re best friends. Interspersed with her interviews were archive material relating to the war and after, and most interestingly, recreations of recipes she used back in the day. Aside from the fact that the recipes were a little bland in comparison to the things she makes on the Bake Off Masterclasses, we got to go to her kitchen (!!!!!!) 

But, (and there’s usually a but, even with Mary Berry), it seems that this could possibly be one British Bake Off related thing too far. I imagine that if you’re not a fan of Mary Berry then this documentary will probably seem a bit bonkers. But most people love her, so that’s alright.