One of the staples of my childhood television viewing was the British/European version of the multi-sports competition "Superstars". Just recently I have been revisiting the history and the essence of this programme, and I was reminded what an entertaining, worthwhile and intriguing show it was.
I have vague and misty memories of watching the likes of David Hemery and John Conteh appear on "Superstars" when I was very young, and of course the Kevin Keegan cycling incident from 1976 is almost etched into the collective consciousness of the British nation.
The BBC's "Superstars" coverage was presented by David Vine and Ron Pickering, two of the most capable and likeable sports broadcasters of that era. Vine was authoritative, urbane even, and could paint great pictures with words. Ron Pickering, on the other hand, was enthusiasm personified, and his passion for sport and its benefits always shone through in his contributions.
For the uninitiated, "Superstars" pitted competitors from various different sports against each other in a succession of events, including sprinting, cycling, canoeing, weightlifting and the famous (or infamous) gym tests. Points were awarded according to the positions attained in each event. National series thrived in the USA, Britain and elsewhere, and European, International and World championships took place.
As a boy, the European superstars finals held a particular mystique and pull and, funny though it seems now, a taste of the exotic. Vine and Pickering were very adept at conveying the atmosphere in Rotterdam's Ahoy Stadium, where the European showpiece was stage. Special emphasis was placed on the banked cycling track there. Impressionable as I was, I almost gained the perception that "Superstars" was the most important and prestigious sporting event in the world, perhaps even surpassing the Olympics!
It has become a cliche, but a large part of the charm and appeal of "Superstars" was its propensity to propel comparatively little-known sportspeople into the spotlight, allowing them to exhibit their talents to a wider audience, way beyond the confines of their chosen speciality. Classic examples of this were Kjell Isaksson, the Swedish pole vaulter, Ties Kruize, the Dutch field hockey player, and the British judoka Brian Jacks. These men regularly outshone more famous and renowned athletes in this test of all-round sporting prowess.
I vividly remember the performances of Isaksson, the remarkable little pole vaulter. His feats in weightlifting were staggering from some one of his slight build. He was also formidable in the gym tests (parallel bar drips and squat thrusts).
Of course, Brian Jacks became a national celebrity in Britain in the late Seventies and early Eighties, and appeared to receive far more recognition for his "Superstars" achievements than he did for his accomplishments in the world of judo, which were themselves considerable. Jacks' counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic was the remarkable Canadian soccer player Brian Budd, who notched up three World Superstars titles, not to mention three Canadian titles! Budd was a formidable competitor in most of the events on the schedule, and he was also quite a character.
Another hallmark of the UK version of the show was in allowing older athletes such as Hemery, Lynn Davies and John Sherwood to prolong or extend their careers in the competitive arena. Many who grew up with "Superstars" possibly knew little of their respective careers and feats in track and field athletics.
It is interesting to analyze which sports appeared best suited to supplying successful "Superstars" participants. Pole vaulting provided Bob Seagren, Kjell Isaksson, as well as Brian Hooper, who shone at the tail end of the franchise's golden age in Britain.
What made pole vaulters so ideally suited to the challenge of "Superstars" and its format? I guess it had something to do with agility, "pound-for-pound" strength, speed, all-round athleticism and technical aptitude. This ensured that they were consistently good across most of the disciplines contained in the schedule.
Amongst football (soccer) players, the aforementioned Brian Budd was perhaps the exception which proved the rule. Generally, practitioners of "the beautiful game" seemed to lack the power and the strength to compete for outright honours, although they fared very well in areas such as sprinting - Malcolm McDonald famously broke the eleven-second barrier in the 100 metres in 1975. The extra power and muscle of rugby players (from both codes) appeared to make them more suited to the rigours and the nature of the "Superstars" test.
Were there any flaws in the make-up of the "Superstars" event? To me, the UK version seems to have placed undue emphasis on strength and brawn. More skill-orientated sports, such as racquet games or even something like ten-pin bowling or snooker, might have counter-balanced things in favour of those possessing finesse as well as muscle.
The rules barring or handicapping some competitors in their alleged "specialities" also seemed nonsensical and anomalously applied. Handicapping pole vaulters in sprints and 400-metre hurdlers in a steeplechase? It made matters unnecessarily complicated and I think that a "swings and roundabouts" argument could be justifiably made here.
Allowing people to "opt out" of some events was also wrong in my opinion. I would have just required everyone to take part in every event. This was supposed to be a test of all-round proficiency, after all. Brian Jacks in the sprints and steeplechase would have been very interesting to watch!
But these are very minor gripes. To me "Superstars" in its prime was emblematic of its time, when the innocence of the era allowed such an enterprise to thrive. A great series!
Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 September 2017
Thursday, 27 April 2017
The Russians Are Coming - (Only Fools and Horses episode)
Another notable episode from the first series of "Only Fools and Horses" is "The Russians Are Coming", in which the Trotters build their own nuclear fall-out shelter.
The premise of "The Russians Are Coming" is not exactly original, as lots of movies, television shows, comedies and the like were eagerly tapping into unease and paranoia about the Cold War and nuclear weapons in the early and mid-1980s. In the event, this episode contains some of the most affecting observations and passages of any of the show's plot-lines. Their impact and poignancy is perhaps heightened by the humour with which they are surrounded and occasionally clothed.
The plot stems from a business deal concluded by Del, a by-product of which results in him inadvertently "acquiring" an experimental "do it yourself" atomic fall-out shelter. The family decides to assemble it and spend some time living in it, as their own form of emergency planning.
Following an amusing effort to replicate the panic of the four-minute warning, and a simulation of the journey to a prospective location of refuge, the story really takes off when Del, Rodney and Grandad are safely ensconced in the shelter itself. The logistics and practicalities of surviving Armageddon are the source of some good, strong material. The highlight is perhaps Grandad's monologue about the true nature and horrors of war, delivered to chastise and rebuke Del for some of his excessively gung-ho and glib talk on the subject.
Whenever the subject matter threatens to become too serious and heavy, John Sullivan's comedic genius kicks in, and the mood lightens. The "captive" situation in the shelter creates an atmosphere conducive to sharp, taut and rich exchanges, and all three of the actors are on fine form, with great use of lighting to accentuate the intimacy. There is a noticeable absence of filler or padding in the script, and the shelter sequences are indeed very concentrated, fluent and absorbing. A real high point of the early days of OFAH, on more than one level.
Some speculation on the likely social consequences of a nuclear war adds to this episode's resonance and charm. Besides the humorous ruminations on the likely effects of the feared catastrophe, this is an intelligent and finely judged piece of work, addressing a difficult and emotive topic with more simplicity ,honesty and acuity than many more "serious" works arising from that era. It is also highly entertaining and funny.
The premise of "The Russians Are Coming" is not exactly original, as lots of movies, television shows, comedies and the like were eagerly tapping into unease and paranoia about the Cold War and nuclear weapons in the early and mid-1980s. In the event, this episode contains some of the most affecting observations and passages of any of the show's plot-lines. Their impact and poignancy is perhaps heightened by the humour with which they are surrounded and occasionally clothed.
The plot stems from a business deal concluded by Del, a by-product of which results in him inadvertently "acquiring" an experimental "do it yourself" atomic fall-out shelter. The family decides to assemble it and spend some time living in it, as their own form of emergency planning.
Following an amusing effort to replicate the panic of the four-minute warning, and a simulation of the journey to a prospective location of refuge, the story really takes off when Del, Rodney and Grandad are safely ensconced in the shelter itself. The logistics and practicalities of surviving Armageddon are the source of some good, strong material. The highlight is perhaps Grandad's monologue about the true nature and horrors of war, delivered to chastise and rebuke Del for some of his excessively gung-ho and glib talk on the subject.
Whenever the subject matter threatens to become too serious and heavy, John Sullivan's comedic genius kicks in, and the mood lightens. The "captive" situation in the shelter creates an atmosphere conducive to sharp, taut and rich exchanges, and all three of the actors are on fine form, with great use of lighting to accentuate the intimacy. There is a noticeable absence of filler or padding in the script, and the shelter sequences are indeed very concentrated, fluent and absorbing. A real high point of the early days of OFAH, on more than one level.
Some speculation on the likely social consequences of a nuclear war adds to this episode's resonance and charm. Besides the humorous ruminations on the likely effects of the feared catastrophe, this is an intelligent and finely judged piece of work, addressing a difficult and emotive topic with more simplicity ,honesty and acuity than many more "serious" works arising from that era. It is also highly entertaining and funny.
Wednesday, 26 April 2017
Go West Young Man (Only Fools and Horses episode)
Following on from my "review" of "Big Brother", let's take a look at the episode which followed it in the first series of "Only Fools and Horses", namely "Go West Young Man".
This episode sees Del (and Rodney) venturing into the second-hand automobile arena, and also looking after Boycie's Jaguar E-Type, with fairly predictable outcomes!
The dialogue in this episode has much more charm to it, and in addition it is delivered more naturally. There is a more confident air generally, with Del's contribution feeling more rounded and convincing. Perhaps the actors were beginning to find their roles? There are a few signs of the Del Boy who we would come to know and love.
The jokes are more vibrant and potent, and the mood more relaxed, possibly because there was less pressure to introduce the characters and the back-story? It is also true that the plot of "Go West Young Man" offered more possibilities, and was more conducive to a flowing and invigorating slice of situation comedy.
Here we also witness the writer John Sullivan, and the production team, acquiring the knack for delivering "set-piece" scenes with truly memorable lines. The two night-club scenes in this episode are right up there in the OFAH pantheon, as is Rodney's assertion that he had "never smoked astro-turf". Some of the most effective humour,as in later episodes, stems from their feeble attempts to impress women.
It is also possible to argue that the inclusion of more locations in this one imbues it with greater verve. The action is not confined to the Trotter flat and The Nag's Head. The aforementioned sequences in the night-clubs provide a more colourful edge, and help to diminish the "austerity" which characterizes other early episodes of the show.
Boycie is introduced, but the character does not make as deep an impression as he would in, for example, "A Losing Streak", where we are exposed to more of his personality traits. It really needed the appearance of Marlene as a visible presence, and the "tension" which went with this, for Boycie to become a truly prominent and important character.
This episode is not perfect, as it meanders and goes flat a little at times, but it has some impetus and atmosphere of its own. The magic formula was just on the horizon....
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Big Brother (Only Fools and Horses episode)
Recently, I have started re-watching episodes of the great British sitcom "Only Fools and Horses", and thought I would put together some articles on noteworthy or important episodes.
For the uninitiated, "Only Fools And Horses" followed the lives, loves, fortunes and misfortunes of the Trotter family from London. They eke out a living by market-trading and assorted black-market activities, engaging in various "schemes" which they hope will make them into millionaires. The two main characters are Derek "Del Boy" Trotter (played by David Jason) and his younger brother Rodney (Nicholas Lyndhurst).
Starting from the beginning, let's take a look at the very first episode of the first series, entitled "Big Brother".....
The first thing which I noticed was the state of the characters. Del Boy in particular is nowhere near as rounded and subtle an entity in these early days as he would later become. Del even displays signs of "sophistication", and there is not always the requisite dose of bathos to balance things out. Traits which would become familiar are under-cooked and undeveloped. There were rough edges to smooth over before the character found its comforting, natural and pleasing equilibrium. The same applies to the character of Trigger. The path to the "polished" characterizations would be uneven.
It is perhaps unsurprising that these early episodes were erratic in quality and atmosphere, as any ambitious brand new concept has to be given time to find its feet and evolve. Even the talents of David Jason and Nicholas Lyndhurst don't always transcend the issues.
The tone in these early days was darker and grittier than the later seasons, and the humour was not as homely. As others have observed, some of the dialogue, and its delivery, seemed forced at times, at odds with the seamlessness, freshness and naturalness which would later become one of the hallmarks of "Only Fools and Horses".
Although the plot of this opening episode ostensibly concerns a batch of "dodgy" briefcases, it is really a vehicle for introducing us to some of the elements of the "situation" in the sitcom, and to the relationship between Del and Rodney in particular. Bits of exposition and back-story are liberally sprinkled amongst the narrative.
"Big Brother" invokes one of the strands which permeates the show through all its incarnations - Rodney's yearning to escape from the shadow of Del, to achieve more independence, in this case by running away. However, Rodney usually ends up returning to "the fold". By the same token, Del, although on the surface confident and self-reliant, is somehow incomplete and lacking in zest without his brother as his sidekick. Expediency and brotherly love both have a bearing on this.
The "Grandad" character, so beautifully played by Lennard Pearce, hits the ground running, fully formed, more than the other participants, partly because of the nature of the actor's performance, and partly because the Grandad persona was less complicated and intricate.
Making some allowances, this is still quite a weak and unsatisfying episode, not as watchable even as some of the other episodes in the first season, which betray more of the OFAH charm and depth. This is "Only Fools and Horses" in raw, incipient, prototype form.
You would have been hard pressed in 1981 to envisage it achieving classic and culturally iconic status in the UK. It must have seemed like something which might be confined to a cult following or a niche. "Big Brother" is still worth seeing, for curiosity value, and as a measure of just how far John Sullivan and his creation traveled in the years which followed.
For the uninitiated, "Only Fools And Horses" followed the lives, loves, fortunes and misfortunes of the Trotter family from London. They eke out a living by market-trading and assorted black-market activities, engaging in various "schemes" which they hope will make them into millionaires. The two main characters are Derek "Del Boy" Trotter (played by David Jason) and his younger brother Rodney (Nicholas Lyndhurst).
Starting from the beginning, let's take a look at the very first episode of the first series, entitled "Big Brother".....
The first thing which I noticed was the state of the characters. Del Boy in particular is nowhere near as rounded and subtle an entity in these early days as he would later become. Del even displays signs of "sophistication", and there is not always the requisite dose of bathos to balance things out. Traits which would become familiar are under-cooked and undeveloped. There were rough edges to smooth over before the character found its comforting, natural and pleasing equilibrium. The same applies to the character of Trigger. The path to the "polished" characterizations would be uneven.
It is perhaps unsurprising that these early episodes were erratic in quality and atmosphere, as any ambitious brand new concept has to be given time to find its feet and evolve. Even the talents of David Jason and Nicholas Lyndhurst don't always transcend the issues.
The tone in these early days was darker and grittier than the later seasons, and the humour was not as homely. As others have observed, some of the dialogue, and its delivery, seemed forced at times, at odds with the seamlessness, freshness and naturalness which would later become one of the hallmarks of "Only Fools and Horses".
Although the plot of this opening episode ostensibly concerns a batch of "dodgy" briefcases, it is really a vehicle for introducing us to some of the elements of the "situation" in the sitcom, and to the relationship between Del and Rodney in particular. Bits of exposition and back-story are liberally sprinkled amongst the narrative.
"Big Brother" invokes one of the strands which permeates the show through all its incarnations - Rodney's yearning to escape from the shadow of Del, to achieve more independence, in this case by running away. However, Rodney usually ends up returning to "the fold". By the same token, Del, although on the surface confident and self-reliant, is somehow incomplete and lacking in zest without his brother as his sidekick. Expediency and brotherly love both have a bearing on this.
The "Grandad" character, so beautifully played by Lennard Pearce, hits the ground running, fully formed, more than the other participants, partly because of the nature of the actor's performance, and partly because the Grandad persona was less complicated and intricate.
Making some allowances, this is still quite a weak and unsatisfying episode, not as watchable even as some of the other episodes in the first season, which betray more of the OFAH charm and depth. This is "Only Fools and Horses" in raw, incipient, prototype form.
You would have been hard pressed in 1981 to envisage it achieving classic and culturally iconic status in the UK. It must have seemed like something which might be confined to a cult following or a niche. "Big Brother" is still worth seeing, for curiosity value, and as a measure of just how far John Sullivan and his creation traveled in the years which followed.
Monday, 21 December 2015
Formula 1 on Channel 4
Earlier today it was announced that UK terrestrial television coverage of Formula 1 racing will be taken over by Channel 4 in 2016, as they assume the role previously performed by the BBC. Under the three-year deal, 10 races per season will be broadcast live.
The reaction to this news among British F1 followers appears to have been mixed, but I am more sanguine than most about the announcement. It has been confirmed that under the new agreement there will be no advertisement breaks during the actual races to be shown live on Channel 4. The ad breaks were a bugbear of some fans when the sport was previously shown on commercial terrestrial TV (ITV) in the UK.
I have generally quite enjoyed Channel 4's coverage of sports, a good example being their presentation of Test Match cricket a few years back. They have a reputation for doing things slightly differently in comparison to other British broadcasters, so with luck this ethos will help to ensure that their Formula 1 coverage introduces some innovations and a fresh approach.
Much will depend on the personnel recruited to act as presenters, commentators and pundits on Channel 4's show. My ideal scenario would be for some of those on the previous BBC team to be involved, with a few fresh faces to spice things up.
It is good that F1 will remain on terrestrial TV in Britain. Interesting times ahead....
The reaction to this news among British F1 followers appears to have been mixed, but I am more sanguine than most about the announcement. It has been confirmed that under the new agreement there will be no advertisement breaks during the actual races to be shown live on Channel 4. The ad breaks were a bugbear of some fans when the sport was previously shown on commercial terrestrial TV (ITV) in the UK.
I have generally quite enjoyed Channel 4's coverage of sports, a good example being their presentation of Test Match cricket a few years back. They have a reputation for doing things slightly differently in comparison to other British broadcasters, so with luck this ethos will help to ensure that their Formula 1 coverage introduces some innovations and a fresh approach.
Much will depend on the personnel recruited to act as presenters, commentators and pundits on Channel 4's show. My ideal scenario would be for some of those on the previous BBC team to be involved, with a few fresh faces to spice things up.
It is good that F1 will remain on terrestrial TV in Britain. Interesting times ahead....
Saturday, 12 July 2014
2014 World Cup - Greatest Ever?
Readers of BBC Sport have voted the 2014 World Cup the greatest ever....
One does have to wonder what criteria people are employing in making their selection. On the surface, it would seem that patriotic considerations and immediacy in the memory are the prime factors involved in this particular process.
Don't misunderstand me, I have greatly enjoyed this year's tournament, but I would hardly describe it as the best ever. Not the worst, certainly, but not the greatest by an stretch of the imagination. Yes, the group stages got proceedings off to an interesting start, with surprises and goals aplenty. However, I would also contend that some of the "surprises" were due to overall mediocrity and the disinterestedness of some players. There have been spectacular and exciting moments, but not to excess.
Some of the other results in the poll are disappointing, but not surprising. Italia 1990, widely perceived by experts as one of the drabbest, least entertaining World Cups ever, somehow gets voted second best, presumably on account of the Gazza/Pavarotti/England doing well combo. 1966 was another tournament characterised by much negativity and cynicism, but because England emerged triumphant, it must be absolutely great, right?
How the 1974 World Cup, technically and tactically one of the most fascinating and accomplished ever staged, only comes in 13th place is beyond me, even when taking account of the likely average age of the people who participated in the vote. Switzerland 1954, which had similar delights and attributes to 1974, is similarly largely ignored, despite the brilliance of the Hungarians, the high goalscoring rate, and the earth-shaking surprise in the final.
Of course, this is only a poll, and it's not the end of the world, but people do need to think critically and dispassionately. Either that, or they need to start studying the football history books...
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Computing Back Then
Over the past day or two, I have been watching a few documentaries pertaining to "old school" computing, and it got me thinking about the nature of my own computing experiences in far off days.
My computing days began, as for so many others of my age, with the home computer boom of the early 1980s. Up until 1982/83, I had no real idea that "ordinary people" had computers in their own homes. My eyes were opened after seeing a friend using his Sinclair ZX81 (called a Timex in the USA, I believe?). At Christmas 1983, after the usual "hard sell" to my mother, extolling the "educational benefits" to be derived, I received my first computer, the iconic ZX Spectrum.
The computers of that era were hugely limited and primitive by today's standards, but they had a magic and a fallibility that was strangely endearing, and a stark contrast to today's "templated" world. The technical limitations were part of the magic. There was no social element to the 1980s boom, from my perspective. The only "networking" was a bit of desultory schoolyard chatter about the machines and games themselves.
As with other youth sub-cultures, in the early to mid 1980s teenagers split into factions, owing their allegiance to a particular computer, and vehemently defending them against the contempt of others. As a Spectrum owner, the main "rival" groups were those people who favoured either the Commodore 64 or the BBC Micro.
C64 users tended to denigrate us because of the "superior" specification of their machine. It even had a proper keyboard! The BBC clique, on the other hand, evinced a different kind of "superiority", based on the notion that the Micro was more suited to intellectual and erudite pursuits, unsullied by what they viewed as our juvenile inclinations. This "tribalism" seems foolish and petty now, although I guess it was innocuous enough when pursued by adolescents. I wish the same could be said about similar antagonisms practised in the 21st century by "grown ups"...
By about 1985/86, the appeal of computers was beginning to diminish, as other distractions intervened. My computer was consigned to a dusty corner, and fell into disuse, looking increasingly forlorn. I can't even precisely recall what became of it. It must have fall victim to some "spring cleaning" in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Apart from using PCs at work, my only contact with the IT world came with a brief flirtation with the idea of buying an Amiga...
It was only eight or nine years ago that I got another computer, and this was only because it was virtually given to me by a relative. Yes, the internet is wonderful, and I couldn't live without it, but I still look back with fondness and nostalgia at those far off days of miniscule memory, erratic power supply units and programs loaded by cassette....
My computing days began, as for so many others of my age, with the home computer boom of the early 1980s. Up until 1982/83, I had no real idea that "ordinary people" had computers in their own homes. My eyes were opened after seeing a friend using his Sinclair ZX81 (called a Timex in the USA, I believe?). At Christmas 1983, after the usual "hard sell" to my mother, extolling the "educational benefits" to be derived, I received my first computer, the iconic ZX Spectrum.
The computers of that era were hugely limited and primitive by today's standards, but they had a magic and a fallibility that was strangely endearing, and a stark contrast to today's "templated" world. The technical limitations were part of the magic. There was no social element to the 1980s boom, from my perspective. The only "networking" was a bit of desultory schoolyard chatter about the machines and games themselves.
As with other youth sub-cultures, in the early to mid 1980s teenagers split into factions, owing their allegiance to a particular computer, and vehemently defending them against the contempt of others. As a Spectrum owner, the main "rival" groups were those people who favoured either the Commodore 64 or the BBC Micro.
C64 users tended to denigrate us because of the "superior" specification of their machine. It even had a proper keyboard! The BBC clique, on the other hand, evinced a different kind of "superiority", based on the notion that the Micro was more suited to intellectual and erudite pursuits, unsullied by what they viewed as our juvenile inclinations. This "tribalism" seems foolish and petty now, although I guess it was innocuous enough when pursued by adolescents. I wish the same could be said about similar antagonisms practised in the 21st century by "grown ups"...
By about 1985/86, the appeal of computers was beginning to diminish, as other distractions intervened. My computer was consigned to a dusty corner, and fell into disuse, looking increasingly forlorn. I can't even precisely recall what became of it. It must have fall victim to some "spring cleaning" in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Apart from using PCs at work, my only contact with the IT world came with a brief flirtation with the idea of buying an Amiga...
It was only eight or nine years ago that I got another computer, and this was only because it was virtually given to me by a relative. Yes, the internet is wonderful, and I couldn't live without it, but I still look back with fondness and nostalgia at those far off days of miniscule memory, erratic power supply units and programs loaded by cassette....
Monday, 23 September 2013
Hunt versus Lauda - BBC documentary
Unsurprisingly, the release of Ron Howard's motion picture "Rush" has triggered much media coverage of the rivalry between the 1970s Grand Prix drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. Last night BBC television rescreened its documentary entitled "Hunt vs Lauda - F1's Greatest Racing Rivals". Some enthusiasts might dispute the accuracy of the second half of that title, but I thought it was an entertaining documentary, with some rare footage, and cutting and amusing analysis by those who were close to the action.
It was superior I think to the BBC's similar effort of years gone by, which was part of the "Clash of the Titans" series. Some additional but revealing snippets of footage have naturally come out of the woodwork in the intervening years, and a broader list of contributors was on to hand to offer its memories and observations.
I thought that the producers did a good job of highlighting the differences in personality, without distorting the truth for dramatic effect. The relationship between the the two men was by all accounts a good deal more complex than is often made out. It seems that they were on good terms even before they reached F1, and remained so thereafter, but the maelstrom of 1976 inevitably gave rise to tensions.
It would have been good to have more of the programme devoted to the lives of the drivers in their formative racing years, but I guess that the remit of the documentary, and time limitations, dictated that the main focus would be on the dramatic season of 1976. In all honesty, there is more than enough interest and intrigue in that year to justify three hours of running time, let alone one hour.
One of the things which continues to come through in all material about him is the web of contradictions which made up James Hunt. A highly intelligent but unconventional character, who lived life to the full. I still think that the definitive documentary about Hunt himself has yet to be made, one which fully examines his upbringing, his relatively short but tempestuous racing career, and his later life. More emphasis on the Hesketh years would be particularly revealing!
I was also impressed by the way in which Niki Lauda's Nurburgring accident, and his recovery from it, were handled. Again, no resorting to sensationalism or mawkishness, but some very useful and penetrating insights. Lauda's honesty and courage shone through both in the 1976 footage, and in his later recollections.
The footage in this documentary amply illustrated the crossroads or watershed which 1976 represented for the sport. Informality was still very much in evidence, as was diversity in aesthetics and car design. At the same time, commercialism and professionalism were increasingly making their presence felt. The Hunt/Lauda dynamic became, if quite briefly, central to these processes. The changes being undergone by F1 definitely influenced how their relationship evolved, but by the same token they themselves acted as a catalyst for the further upheavals on the horizon.
Now, I just need to get myself to the cinema to watch the "Rush" movie myself....
It was superior I think to the BBC's similar effort of years gone by, which was part of the "Clash of the Titans" series. Some additional but revealing snippets of footage have naturally come out of the woodwork in the intervening years, and a broader list of contributors was on to hand to offer its memories and observations.
I thought that the producers did a good job of highlighting the differences in personality, without distorting the truth for dramatic effect. The relationship between the the two men was by all accounts a good deal more complex than is often made out. It seems that they were on good terms even before they reached F1, and remained so thereafter, but the maelstrom of 1976 inevitably gave rise to tensions.
It would have been good to have more of the programme devoted to the lives of the drivers in their formative racing years, but I guess that the remit of the documentary, and time limitations, dictated that the main focus would be on the dramatic season of 1976. In all honesty, there is more than enough interest and intrigue in that year to justify three hours of running time, let alone one hour.
One of the things which continues to come through in all material about him is the web of contradictions which made up James Hunt. A highly intelligent but unconventional character, who lived life to the full. I still think that the definitive documentary about Hunt himself has yet to be made, one which fully examines his upbringing, his relatively short but tempestuous racing career, and his later life. More emphasis on the Hesketh years would be particularly revealing!
I was also impressed by the way in which Niki Lauda's Nurburgring accident, and his recovery from it, were handled. Again, no resorting to sensationalism or mawkishness, but some very useful and penetrating insights. Lauda's honesty and courage shone through both in the 1976 footage, and in his later recollections.
The footage in this documentary amply illustrated the crossroads or watershed which 1976 represented for the sport. Informality was still very much in evidence, as was diversity in aesthetics and car design. At the same time, commercialism and professionalism were increasingly making their presence felt. The Hunt/Lauda dynamic became, if quite briefly, central to these processes. The changes being undergone by F1 definitely influenced how their relationship evolved, but by the same token they themselves acted as a catalyst for the further upheavals on the horizon.
Now, I just need to get myself to the cinema to watch the "Rush" movie myself....
Thursday, 6 September 2012
Going Straight
Spin-offs or sequels to celebrated situation comedies have a chequered history, to put it mildly. However, one which merits some attention and praise is Going Straight, which followed on from the immense Porridge.
The basic premise of Going Straight was the struggle of Norman Stanley Fletcher, played by Ronnie Barker, to re-adjust and reintegrate into society following his release from Slade Prison. However, to me the series, brief though its tenure was, was so much more than that. Direct comparisons with its illustrious predecessor were also unfair, for several reasons.
The "situation" was one of the prime factors which made Porridge such an endearing and effectual situation comedy. This element is not as pervasive or concentrated in Going Straight, the arena being the big, bad outside world, and not the confines of a prison. This would inevitably mean that the follow-up would seem more disparate by comparison. It does have pronounced virtues and hallmarks of its own, though.
The tone is markedly less outwardly comedic, and more dark, than Porridge, with much more in the way of poignancy and pathos. I will admit that Going Straight is not always a comfortable watch, because of the predicament in which Norman Stanley Fletcher finds himself, and the vulnerability which this evokes. The certainties of incarcertation have been stripped away, and he is at the mercy of the more varied and unpredictable vagaries of wider society. The priority in prison was short-term bucking of the system, whereas on the outside one perhaps has to accept that the oppressive forces are too diffuse and powerful.
One of the great strengths of the series is its subject matter, which transcends time, and never grows stale. Temptation, honour, dignity, perseverance, resolve, integrity and resilience are all tested and scrutinised. Despite the 1970s cultural references which abound in Going Straight, the themes raised are still startlingly relevent today.
The subject matter is, of course, expertly collated and deployed by the peerless writing team of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. Their scripts for Going Straight were sharp and fresh, and possessed their uniquely appealing combination of warmth, incisiveness and empathy.
Of course, one of the departures of Going Straight was its wider diversity of major characters. In this respect, the performance of Patricia Brake as Fletch's daughter Ingrid was particularly impressive, if under-rated. Torn between love and sympathy for her father, concern for the welfare of her wider family, and a sense of right and wrong.
To varying degrees, the six episodes chronicle the never-ending struggles of life, the ongoing battle to balance expediency with morality and integrity. By and large the righteous honest course wins out, if only just. This ensures that some hope does at least emerge from the somewhat gloomy tenor.
We are left with a keen sense of the underlying decency of most ordinary people, trying constantly to "do the right thing", often when confronted by insurmountable odds.
One of the most intriguing sub-plots is the apparent role reversal involving Fletch and his erstwhile cellmate Lennie Godber, played by Richard Beckinsale. In prison, Fletch was the mentor, but Godber, with the advantage of youth, finds it much easier to adapt to "civilian" life. The world has moved on, and Fletch feels left behind. In striving to overcome these obstacles, he feels tempted to resort to skullduggery in order to put himself on a more solid footing. The old chestnut about "ends" and "means" rears its head. This time it is Godber, and other younger characters, who are dispensing the guidance and advice.
During the series, optimism and promise flicker fitfully for Fletch, as he searches for inspiration and direction. He tries his best, but faces cynicism from others, some of which is born of a lack of understanding. At least the series ended on a positive note, as he curtails involvement in a criminal enterprise in order to be at Ingrid and Lennie's wedding.
In portraying the changing role and fortunes of Fletcher, Ronnie Barker displayed his real versatility and mastery of characterisation.
When engineering the "set-piece" scenarios in the series, plausibility was stretched at times, with several coincidences, and old acquaintances of Fletch coming out of the woodwork in a relatively brief timescale. However, to me this never felt really contrived, and the quality of the writing and acting always tended to win out and prevail.
Of course, further series of Going Straight were precluded by the tragic death of Richard Beckinsale in 1979. It is intriguing to extrapolate things, and imagine how the story could have panned out. Fletch's efforts and challenges, and brushes with temptation, would doubtless have continued. Perhaps Godber's own situation might have altered, and the "balance of power" between himself and Fletch shifted once more?
Whatever, the speculation, my view remains that Going Straight is worthy of inclusion in a list of great British sitcoms of its era. If anything, it gets better with the passing of time...
The basic premise of Going Straight was the struggle of Norman Stanley Fletcher, played by Ronnie Barker, to re-adjust and reintegrate into society following his release from Slade Prison. However, to me the series, brief though its tenure was, was so much more than that. Direct comparisons with its illustrious predecessor were also unfair, for several reasons.
The "situation" was one of the prime factors which made Porridge such an endearing and effectual situation comedy. This element is not as pervasive or concentrated in Going Straight, the arena being the big, bad outside world, and not the confines of a prison. This would inevitably mean that the follow-up would seem more disparate by comparison. It does have pronounced virtues and hallmarks of its own, though.
The tone is markedly less outwardly comedic, and more dark, than Porridge, with much more in the way of poignancy and pathos. I will admit that Going Straight is not always a comfortable watch, because of the predicament in which Norman Stanley Fletcher finds himself, and the vulnerability which this evokes. The certainties of incarcertation have been stripped away, and he is at the mercy of the more varied and unpredictable vagaries of wider society. The priority in prison was short-term bucking of the system, whereas on the outside one perhaps has to accept that the oppressive forces are too diffuse and powerful.
One of the great strengths of the series is its subject matter, which transcends time, and never grows stale. Temptation, honour, dignity, perseverance, resolve, integrity and resilience are all tested and scrutinised. Despite the 1970s cultural references which abound in Going Straight, the themes raised are still startlingly relevent today.
The subject matter is, of course, expertly collated and deployed by the peerless writing team of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. Their scripts for Going Straight were sharp and fresh, and possessed their uniquely appealing combination of warmth, incisiveness and empathy.
Of course, one of the departures of Going Straight was its wider diversity of major characters. In this respect, the performance of Patricia Brake as Fletch's daughter Ingrid was particularly impressive, if under-rated. Torn between love and sympathy for her father, concern for the welfare of her wider family, and a sense of right and wrong.
To varying degrees, the six episodes chronicle the never-ending struggles of life, the ongoing battle to balance expediency with morality and integrity. By and large the righteous honest course wins out, if only just. This ensures that some hope does at least emerge from the somewhat gloomy tenor.
We are left with a keen sense of the underlying decency of most ordinary people, trying constantly to "do the right thing", often when confronted by insurmountable odds.
One of the most intriguing sub-plots is the apparent role reversal involving Fletch and his erstwhile cellmate Lennie Godber, played by Richard Beckinsale. In prison, Fletch was the mentor, but Godber, with the advantage of youth, finds it much easier to adapt to "civilian" life. The world has moved on, and Fletch feels left behind. In striving to overcome these obstacles, he feels tempted to resort to skullduggery in order to put himself on a more solid footing. The old chestnut about "ends" and "means" rears its head. This time it is Godber, and other younger characters, who are dispensing the guidance and advice.
During the series, optimism and promise flicker fitfully for Fletch, as he searches for inspiration and direction. He tries his best, but faces cynicism from others, some of which is born of a lack of understanding. At least the series ended on a positive note, as he curtails involvement in a criminal enterprise in order to be at Ingrid and Lennie's wedding.
In portraying the changing role and fortunes of Fletcher, Ronnie Barker displayed his real versatility and mastery of characterisation.
When engineering the "set-piece" scenarios in the series, plausibility was stretched at times, with several coincidences, and old acquaintances of Fletch coming out of the woodwork in a relatively brief timescale. However, to me this never felt really contrived, and the quality of the writing and acting always tended to win out and prevail.
Of course, further series of Going Straight were precluded by the tragic death of Richard Beckinsale in 1979. It is intriguing to extrapolate things, and imagine how the story could have panned out. Fletch's efforts and challenges, and brushes with temptation, would doubtless have continued. Perhaps Godber's own situation might have altered, and the "balance of power" between himself and Fletch shifted once more?
Whatever, the speculation, my view remains that Going Straight is worthy of inclusion in a list of great British sitcoms of its era. If anything, it gets better with the passing of time...
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
James May
I watch very little television these days, but one person who occasionally makes it worthwhile is the British broadcaster James May. Just recently I have been studying his work closely.
Best known as part of the Top Gear presentation team, he has also made numerous educational and science-orientated programmes for the BBC. Cultured, and with an infectious enthusiasm about technology and science, and a keen appreciation of history, he manages to combine the erudite and eloquent with a common touch, a rare achievement indeed.
True, he occasionally exaggerates one facet or other of his on-screen persona, to suit the demands of particular circumstances, but he is never less than entertaining and endearing. He has probably enthused more young people about science and related subjects than any number of officially-sanctioned "experts". He has certainly had that effect on me....
Best known as part of the Top Gear presentation team, he has also made numerous educational and science-orientated programmes for the BBC. Cultured, and with an infectious enthusiasm about technology and science, and a keen appreciation of history, he manages to combine the erudite and eloquent with a common touch, a rare achievement indeed.
True, he occasionally exaggerates one facet or other of his on-screen persona, to suit the demands of particular circumstances, but he is never less than entertaining and endearing. He has probably enthused more young people about science and related subjects than any number of officially-sanctioned "experts". He has certainly had that effect on me....
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Top Gear
In recent days, I have been viewing lots of episodes and features from the UK version of Top Gear.
For me this TV programme is one of the few redeeming pop-cultural features of modern Britain, especially its latter-day incarnation starring the triumvirate of Clarkson, Hammond and May. Not only is it great, high-quality entertainment, but it also annoys, irritates and infuriates all the right people.
The way in which the show was allowed to evolve was masterly, even though some of the banter and scenarios were clearly contrived. My view is that the show peaked about three or four years ago, in terms of the spontaneity of the dialogue, and overall inventiveness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it runs the risk nowadays of appearing a little stale and repetitive.
One thing which does surprise me somewhat is that the current format, and its agenda, have been allowed to survive and flourish amidst the world-view of those who run and/or control the BBC. If the revenue generated was not so lucrative, it would likely have been jettisoned on the grounds that it does not conform to the Glorious Five Year Plan.
My theory as to the appeal of Top Gear in recent years is that, in addition to its sense of fun and technical gloss, it represents an oasis of non-conformism and extravagance, in an ever more controlled and legislated world. It is perhaps no coincidence that much of the humour in the show pokes fun at the Nanny State and officialdom generally. For a libertarian-minded person like myself, the show ticks many of the right boxes....
For me this TV programme is one of the few redeeming pop-cultural features of modern Britain, especially its latter-day incarnation starring the triumvirate of Clarkson, Hammond and May. Not only is it great, high-quality entertainment, but it also annoys, irritates and infuriates all the right people.
The way in which the show was allowed to evolve was masterly, even though some of the banter and scenarios were clearly contrived. My view is that the show peaked about three or four years ago, in terms of the spontaneity of the dialogue, and overall inventiveness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it runs the risk nowadays of appearing a little stale and repetitive.
One thing which does surprise me somewhat is that the current format, and its agenda, have been allowed to survive and flourish amidst the world-view of those who run and/or control the BBC. If the revenue generated was not so lucrative, it would likely have been jettisoned on the grounds that it does not conform to the Glorious Five Year Plan.
My theory as to the appeal of Top Gear in recent years is that, in addition to its sense of fun and technical gloss, it represents an oasis of non-conformism and extravagance, in an ever more controlled and legislated world. It is perhaps no coincidence that much of the humour in the show pokes fun at the Nanny State and officialdom generally. For a libertarian-minded person like myself, the show ticks many of the right boxes....
Thursday, 12 January 2012
BBC 2012 F1 Commentators Announced
After much feverish speculation and rumour, the BBC has announced its commentary line-up on both television and radio for the 2012 season.
As expected, Ben Edwards is confirmed as the main commentator for the TV coverage. As I have previously blogged, this appointment meets with my wholehearted approval, based on my experience of Ben's work in the past, in F1 and other areas of motorsport. I think that "casual" fans, who perhaps are not too familiar with him, will find his commentary style to be both entertaining and informative.
It was crucial, in the interests of continuity and credibility, that the BBC retained the services of the trio of Jake Humphrey, David Coulthard and Eddie Jordan, and their presence in the coverage will give some re-assurance that this is "business as usual", despite the revised rights deal.
The hiring of Gary Anderson as technical analyst is also an intriguing move, and perhaps a sign that the BBC is looking to balance up the easy-going accessibility of the show with some content which appeals to the F1 "anoraks" out there.
I appreciate that this view may place me in a distinct minority, in the UK at least, but I also warmly welcome James Allen's appointment as the lead commentator for the Radio 5 Live coverage. The tendency of many F1 fans to constantly denigrate James has always slightly mystified me. I have always liked him, and his enthusiasm and knowledge always shines through. Next year, I hope that listeners will approach things with an open mind, and at least give James a chance to prove himself.
As expected, Ben Edwards is confirmed as the main commentator for the TV coverage. As I have previously blogged, this appointment meets with my wholehearted approval, based on my experience of Ben's work in the past, in F1 and other areas of motorsport. I think that "casual" fans, who perhaps are not too familiar with him, will find his commentary style to be both entertaining and informative.
It was crucial, in the interests of continuity and credibility, that the BBC retained the services of the trio of Jake Humphrey, David Coulthard and Eddie Jordan, and their presence in the coverage will give some re-assurance that this is "business as usual", despite the revised rights deal.
The hiring of Gary Anderson as technical analyst is also an intriguing move, and perhaps a sign that the BBC is looking to balance up the easy-going accessibility of the show with some content which appeals to the F1 "anoraks" out there.
I appreciate that this view may place me in a distinct minority, in the UK at least, but I also warmly welcome James Allen's appointment as the lead commentator for the Radio 5 Live coverage. The tendency of many F1 fans to constantly denigrate James has always slightly mystified me. I have always liked him, and his enthusiasm and knowledge always shines through. Next year, I hope that listeners will approach things with an open mind, and at least give James a chance to prove himself.
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
BBC 2012 F1 coverage
There has been much speculation about the composition of the BBC's commentary and punditry team for its F1 coverage in 2012, following the defection of several high-profile figures to Sky.
Today, however, there were media reports which should give some reassurance to real F1 enthusiasts. It seems that Ben Edwards is being lined up to be the main commentator alongside David Coulthard for next season.
My main memory of Ben is of his partnership with John Watson on Eurosport's commentary team in the mid-1990s, and I gained a favourable impression. As a racing driver himself, he knew what he was talking about, but also had the ability to communicate his knowledge in a friendly, natural style. It remains to be seen, of course, whether he can establish the same chemistry with DC as he had with Wattie.
Although the loss of Martin Brundle and Ted Kravitz is a blow, it is encouraging that Jake Humphrey will stay as main presenter. I must admit that I was sceptical when Jake was first appointed, but I have been forced to eat humble pie and admit that he has done a first-rate job. From a purely personal point of view I hope also that the delightful Lee McKenzie plays an enhanced role in the coverage!
I am often critical of some aspects of the BBC, and in particular the licence fee system, but I wish them well in their efforts to maintain the high standards of their Formula 1 coverage. The portents thus far are good.
Today, however, there were media reports which should give some reassurance to real F1 enthusiasts. It seems that Ben Edwards is being lined up to be the main commentator alongside David Coulthard for next season.
My main memory of Ben is of his partnership with John Watson on Eurosport's commentary team in the mid-1990s, and I gained a favourable impression. As a racing driver himself, he knew what he was talking about, but also had the ability to communicate his knowledge in a friendly, natural style. It remains to be seen, of course, whether he can establish the same chemistry with DC as he had with Wattie.
Although the loss of Martin Brundle and Ted Kravitz is a blow, it is encouraging that Jake Humphrey will stay as main presenter. I must admit that I was sceptical when Jake was first appointed, but I have been forced to eat humble pie and admit that he has done a first-rate job. From a purely personal point of view I hope also that the delightful Lee McKenzie plays an enhanced role in the coverage!
I am often critical of some aspects of the BBC, and in particular the licence fee system, but I wish them well in their efforts to maintain the high standards of their Formula 1 coverage. The portents thus far are good.
Friday, 29 July 2011
New Formula 1 TV deal
I awoke this morning to news of the UK F1 television deal for 2012 onwards.
Given the recent speculation about the threat hanging over the BBC's coverage, such an announcement comes as no great surprise. What is surprising, perhaps, is the nature of the deal, with the BBC retaining some of the rights to coverage.
The reaction from F1 fans has been predictably hostile and confused, and in some cases shrill and hysterical. The fact is that the BBC is under pressure to make economies, and although F1 often regards itself as the centre of the universe, the Corporation has to balance its sports commitments with other "public-service" interests and duties. They cannot please everyone.
There is little doubt that Sky's coverage of the sport will be comprehensive and technically excellent, if their treatment of such sports as football, cricket and both rugby codes is any guide. However, I do emphathise with those who, for whatever reason, will not be able to watch all of the races live.
Of course, some of us feel that cases such as this throw into sharp relief the flaws and absurdities of the "compulsory" BBC licence fee, but that is another debate....
Given the recent speculation about the threat hanging over the BBC's coverage, such an announcement comes as no great surprise. What is surprising, perhaps, is the nature of the deal, with the BBC retaining some of the rights to coverage.
The reaction from F1 fans has been predictably hostile and confused, and in some cases shrill and hysterical. The fact is that the BBC is under pressure to make economies, and although F1 often regards itself as the centre of the universe, the Corporation has to balance its sports commitments with other "public-service" interests and duties. They cannot please everyone.
There is little doubt that Sky's coverage of the sport will be comprehensive and technically excellent, if their treatment of such sports as football, cricket and both rugby codes is any guide. However, I do emphathise with those who, for whatever reason, will not be able to watch all of the races live.
Of course, some of us feel that cases such as this throw into sharp relief the flaws and absurdities of the "compulsory" BBC licence fee, but that is another debate....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)