AND THIS!!! Somehow this did not get published. I thought it was too good to withheld.
Normally I don’t take notice of people stating that someone doesn’t have the right anymore to say or do something, because he married someone. Yes, of course I’m talking Brooker/Huq again, but the inconsistencies and the strange way of measurement is starting to really piss me off.
This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”
What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!
Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.
I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.
Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.
Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.
Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.
If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.
Showing posts with label Charlie Brooker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Brooker. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Monday, May 16, 2011
the Nathan Barley effect
This is effectively throwing someone’s words back into his face and I like it
Source: readysteadybook
Te stolen Brookerism is really funny, especially since it’s this time about him.
The truth of this took a sadder turn recently with Brooker’s wrongcast, Nathan Barley, a sitcom he co-wrote with Chris Morris. Charlie Brooker and Chris Morris write a sitcom! How could it possibly go wrong? I don’t know, but it did. It had its moments, but after some of the poorer episodes, to nick yet more of Brooker’s images, I felt like sewing my eyelids shit with fishing wire, slicing the top of my skull off, and scooping the memories out with a spoon. A couple of good gags were stretched out into a complete Bo Selecta of a series. Not completely terrible, and better than most, but when Brooker and Morris get together, anything less than genius is a crushing disappointment.
Source: readysteadybook
Te stolen Brookerism is really funny, especially since it’s this time about him.
the Nathan Barley effect
The effect of the series, not the effect of the blithering idiots portrayed in the series.
The whole Nathan Barley thing and all the movement around it completely confuses me.
First of all is there the collaboration between Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker. How did they meet? How did that collaboration came about? Unfunny fact is that I already found out by reading the “Chris Morris biography” (I’m not sure I’m allowed to call it that, that’s why I put it in quotations, which seems a weird way to put it). Weirdly, even after reading about how they met and started working together, the fact that Charlie Brooker worked with Chris Morris still boggles my mind. I don’t know why.
Then there are the many negative reactions to the series opposed to the very few but passionate positive reactions. That I understand; it’s just regular online bickering and bitching. Though on the other hand, especially the negative reactions tend to bewilder me beyond comprehension. Here’s one (semi-negative reactions on a possible 2nd series):
Source: doctorvee.co.uk
It’s funny how both authors get things a little wrong. The doctorvee author is correct in noting that Chris Morris didn’t create the Nathan Barley character as such, though he had a big hand in making TV-Nathan Barley the way he turned out in the series. And to say Morris got his hands on the character sounds like he took it off Charlie Brooker’s hands, which he didn’t; they created the TV-series together.
Yes, I know; I’m a pedant.
Just keep reading; as much as it is confusing it’s also funny. Well, I laughed.
More later; Nathan Barley keeps creeping back into my life (like a real cunt/prick/idiot does).
The whole Nathan Barley thing and all the movement around it completely confuses me.
First of all is there the collaboration between Chris Morris and Charlie Brooker. How did they meet? How did that collaboration came about? Unfunny fact is that I already found out by reading the “Chris Morris biography” (I’m not sure I’m allowed to call it that, that’s why I put it in quotations, which seems a weird way to put it). Weirdly, even after reading about how they met and started working together, the fact that Charlie Brooker worked with Chris Morris still boggles my mind. I don’t know why.
Then there are the many negative reactions to the series opposed to the very few but passionate positive reactions. That I understand; it’s just regular online bickering and bitching. Though on the other hand, especially the negative reactions tend to bewilder me beyond comprehension. Here’s one (semi-negative reactions on a possible 2nd series):
Nathan Barley trundles on
According to Media Guardian’s Media Monkey, Chris Morris wants to do a second series of Nathan Barley, which surprises me. What’s not surprising is that Kevin Lygo doesn’t want a second series of Nathan Barley. Who said ratings weren’t important to Channel 4?
Personally, I’d rather have a speedy DVD release of Nathan Barley than a second series.
But Media Monkey continues:
“Just who, exactly did Morris base “self-facilitating media node” Nathan Barley on? Step forward Andrew Newman, a regular collaborator with Morris on the likes of Brass Eye and now head of entertainment at Channel 4.”
I think I saw Andrew Newman on Channel 4’s 50 Greatest Comedy Sketches last night, and he does seem a bit odd. Not necessarily Barley-esque though. That’s all by the by though. You see, Chris Morris didn’t create Nathan Barley. Charlie Brooker created Barley years before Morris got his hands on the character.
Source: doctorvee.co.uk
It’s funny how both authors get things a little wrong. The doctorvee author is correct in noting that Chris Morris didn’t create the Nathan Barley character as such, though he had a big hand in making TV-Nathan Barley the way he turned out in the series. And to say Morris got his hands on the character sounds like he took it off Charlie Brooker’s hands, which he didn’t; they created the TV-series together.
Yes, I know; I’m a pedant.
Just keep reading; as much as it is confusing it’s also funny. Well, I laughed.
More later; Nathan Barley keeps creeping back into my life (like a real cunt/prick/idiot does).
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Giant Charlie Brooker Terrifies London
April 13th, 2011
Breaking News: Minutes ago, Minister of Defence Liam Fox gave a stuttering, panicked statement to the press attempting to allay fears for the safety of Londoners after popular TV commentator and writer Charlie Brooker was reported bursting out of his home, glowing and screaming in pain, before growing to over 450 feet in a matter of seconds and cutting a savage path of destruction across central London.
Nuclear scientist Professor Royston Biggs-Hoson explained that the broadcaster’s long-term viewing history of banal television shows had exposed him to the unprecedented and highly volatile level of gamma radiation, causing a dramatic change to his cell structure. Brooker is currently sleeping in Hyde Park, giving experts a brief respite to assess their options.
“Make no mistake, an irascible pundit of this size could endanger us all,” Mr Fox continued, “but we are doing everything we can to take control of the situation.”
“RAF fighters have been scrambled to keep a presence in the air. We are advising anyone who has appeared on or auditioned for a reality show in the last 10 years to remain in their homes. A cordon of military vehicles is being mobilised around Shoreditch, and the offices of Sky News and Channels 4 and 5 have been evacuated.”
The minister was then barraged with questions about what the government intends to do to resolve the crisis.
“We’re looking into various options and asking for help from our allies in the US and Europe,” he said. “We considered a tranquilizer dart, but there is simply not enough available to subdue him.”
“We’ve been advised that a distracting book might prove an antidote to such damaging levels of gamma exposure – though unfortunately they’re now all too small for him to read. Right now we are assembling a large PA system on a helicopter so that someone can fly by and read him The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”
As the situation continues to change, the minister had to admit that other TV pundits are also showing alarming levels of radioactivity.
“Currently our worst-case scenario is the same fate befalling Harry Hill, who then storms into Brooker territory to claim supremacy. Who would pose the greater threat? Unfortunately there is only one way we are going to find out.”
Source: the Poke
Breaking News: Minutes ago, Minister of Defence Liam Fox gave a stuttering, panicked statement to the press attempting to allay fears for the safety of Londoners after popular TV commentator and writer Charlie Brooker was reported bursting out of his home, glowing and screaming in pain, before growing to over 450 feet in a matter of seconds and cutting a savage path of destruction across central London.
Nuclear scientist Professor Royston Biggs-Hoson explained that the broadcaster’s long-term viewing history of banal television shows had exposed him to the unprecedented and highly volatile level of gamma radiation, causing a dramatic change to his cell structure. Brooker is currently sleeping in Hyde Park, giving experts a brief respite to assess their options.
“Make no mistake, an irascible pundit of this size could endanger us all,” Mr Fox continued, “but we are doing everything we can to take control of the situation.”
“RAF fighters have been scrambled to keep a presence in the air. We are advising anyone who has appeared on or auditioned for a reality show in the last 10 years to remain in their homes. A cordon of military vehicles is being mobilised around Shoreditch, and the offices of Sky News and Channels 4 and 5 have been evacuated.”
The minister was then barraged with questions about what the government intends to do to resolve the crisis.
“We’re looking into various options and asking for help from our allies in the US and Europe,” he said. “We considered a tranquilizer dart, but there is simply not enough available to subdue him.”
“We’ve been advised that a distracting book might prove an antidote to such damaging levels of gamma exposure – though unfortunately they’re now all too small for him to read. Right now we are assembling a large PA system on a helicopter so that someone can fly by and read him The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.”
As the situation continues to change, the minister had to admit that other TV pundits are also showing alarming levels of radioactivity.
“Currently our worst-case scenario is the same fate befalling Harry Hill, who then storms into Brooker territory to claim supremacy. Who would pose the greater threat? Unfortunately there is only one way we are going to find out.”
Source: the Poke
Monday, March 28, 2011
Bit O Rant-O-Rant (13 Minutes Rant)
…because it’s Monday....and because I haven't done a '13 Minutes Rant for 2 years'.
Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:
Quoted with bad punctuation and all.
First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…
The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.
Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.
What exactly is this commentator trying to say?
The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.
Source: Radio Times article
Some comment on some article about Keith Allen (Lily’s daddy) slagging off Charlie Brooker. Utter uselessness, so I won’t go in on that.
Under the article is a comment I like to react to:
”i quite like some of charlie brookers stuff like newswipe etc tho too be fair,Chris Morris got there 1st with Brass eye & the day today.”
Quoted with bad punctuation and all.
First of all, apparently, Charlie Brooker is not worth being written with first capital letters, but Chris Morris is. Ah, well…
The point this person is making (or trying to make) is completely lost on me. We know Chris Morris was there first; what’s your point? Because Chris Morris was there first Charlie Brooker is not allowed to do it? Strange logic which if we apply it to the rest of life on earth would mean not many people should be allowed to do anything anymore, because most things most people do on a daily basis has been done by others.
Even if the point is that what Charlie Brooker does has already been done BETTER by Chris Morris, then I’m still mystified about the point. So what? Because Chris Morris did it already and did it better doesn’t mean Charlie Brooker can’t do it anymore. Even applying this theory would lay still most of life.
What exactly is this commentator trying to say?
The rest of the comment doesn’t clarify anything to me either. The only thing I’m getting from it is that this person is not a big fan of CB, prefers CM, and thinks Lily Allen made a credible addition to pop music. I don’t think that was what the article was about.
Source: Radio Times article
a Walking Contradiction
There’s another issue concerning an item in ’10 O’Clock Live’ I think I should address, if only to stay consistent with what I said a few blogs ago. It’s just that I grew so tired with tackling this issue that I didn’t really feel like it.
Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.
If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?
Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?
I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.
His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...
Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.
Anyway, one(!) of Brooker’s monologues was about the whole Twitter/Rebecca Black debacle. His monologue took a turn scowling at the tweeters who left negative comments on Black’s twitter feed. Brooker seems to think those people work in Burger King (stores) and are scum. Ewww, what a contradictions.
If I read right Mr. Brooker himself worked most of his twenties in stores. If he hadn’t been lucky he would probably still working in stores. Working in computer store is hardly any better than working in a Burger King, if it is at all. Also, wasn’t he a paid critic who spew quite a bit of bile about all kind of programs and other stuff in a fucking nationally published paper off and online?
Maybe he has seen the light (which I doubt)?
I think it’s now my turn to receive some hate mail/posts.
His column about it is nice though: my Monday Happiness disguised as a column by Charlie Brooker for the Guardian, somewhat...
Reminds me, I have a Twitter account.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Charlie Brooker - the Product
Little children will grow up and some will be big and successful. I have to admit I tend to be attracted by people who are still doing their thing in a dark corner, or who at least don’t attract as much attention as other more ‘successful’ colleagues. Jason Mraz before he became big. Things got a bit crowded and weird when he was suddenly Mr. I’m Yours. That’s all good; he deserved all that success, but it made me feel a little uncomfortable.
And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.
These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.
I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.
Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.
The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?
And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.
I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.
And now Charlie Brooker. I was late to the party, yes. The reason I was attracted to him (his work, really) was that he was quietly doing his thing in a corner of entertainment during his Screen-, News- and Gameswipe period and earlier. He was genuinely observant, witty and brutally honest. He hardly had to adhere to boundaries, because hardly anyone (sensitive) was paying attention to him. I loved that; it can’t get more real and true than that. Now he’s Mr. Big Shot and I’m a little lost.
These days his words are quoted as if he’s a prophet. These days people feel he has a lot to answer for. People also feel he became too main stream. Charlie Brooker is no longer an individual doing his thing in a dark corner hardly being heard or seen by anyone. No, Charlie Brooker is now public property, property which anyone who feels like it can piss over or put on a pedestal. Whatever you like, because Charlie Brooker became a product.
I don’t quite understand people saying he’s got a lot to answer for. For instance the Zeppotron productions like ‘8 Out of 10 Cats’. He’s not Zeppotron, he’s only one of the founders. He doesn’t even run Zeppotron, he’s only one part of it. You can’t expect him to answer for the mess other people within Zeppotron make. The only Zeppotron production he’s in that makes me frown and grimace is ‘10 O’Clock Live’ and even there, he’s not the only one working on that show and his pieces, even though a bit shallower than I would like them to be, were quite good. All other Zeppotron productions his name bear were at least of a reasonable level of quality. So that shouldn’t be the reason he has to answer for anything. What is? I have no idea.
Then his work opposed to his marriage. I still haven’t worked out what the 2 have to do with each other except that Charlie’s involved in it and in some points Konnie was and still is. Except from that, we’re talking about two different things. And like I said before in another post, Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. That he’s married doesn’t mean he can’t say anymore some show is shit; it’s just probably not the best thing to do.
Also the fact that Charlie bites the hand that’s feeding him is not entirely true. I’m still convinced that Charlie was only bitching about certain shows because of his love for the medium TV, and those shows should have been better or hidden in a closet behind some old stuff that’s never get used anymore.
The whole discussion about his hair. What the hell is that all about!? What does his hair have to do with anything of his work? Charlie Brooker never was a looker. Charlie Brooker will probably never be a looker. Charlie Brooker was never and shall never be promoted as a looker, because that’s not the point of his work. His hair, being a part of his looks, is of no importance. Can we now stop talking about his hair?
And finally the Charlie Brooker lovers. I am one, I confess that readily. I will not however, put him on a pedestal. If he screws up, I will be one of the first to point that out, as I have in the past. Yes, Charlie said things that sounded fairly true, but so have wiser men than Charlie, more often than Charlie about subjects that really matter. Charlie’s not stupid, no, but he’s not the wise, half-god prophet some people seem to hold him for. He’s just another man who appears on TV quite a bit (much) lately. That’s all fine and he deserved all the success, but let’s not overreact; there’s no need, really.
I realize I sound a bit angry in this piece. I am not. I am actually quite amused. I am also very confused, but still more amused than confused.
Friday, March 18, 2011
OMG I Found Something!!!
I love searching for collecter items. This is a Charlie Brooker one:
And this one:
And this one:
Monday, March 14, 2011
Stop the Ridiculous Accusations
Normally I don’t take notice of people stating that someone doesn’t have the right anymore to say or do something, because he married someone. Yes, of course I’m talking Brooker/Huq again, but the inconsistencies and the strange way of measurement is starting to really piss me off.
This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”
What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!
Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.
I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.
Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.
Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.
Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.
If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.
This is a many heard statement: “Charlie doesn’t have the right anymore to mock dodgy presenters, cause he’s married one.”
What? Why not? I don’t think Charlie married Konnie because she’s such a fine/dodgy presenter. I think more personal reasons lead to their marriage. This is like being rejected from a job in a fish store because your partner is not a very good fisher(wo)man. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about crosswords, because your partner sucks at solving them. Or like you’re not allowed to talk about people who don’t know anything about computers, because your partner is one of them. That is bullshit!
Maybe he doesn’t have the right, because he became a dodgy presenter himself, but not because he married Konnie Huq. He’s not responsible for her behaviour, because that Mss. Huq still is herself.
I like to point out that a work relationship is not the same as a marriage. I don’t think Konnie stands besides the bed with a mic in her hand when Charlie wakes up in the morning telling him he’s watching his own marriage and today is going to be a fine day because Konnie is horny and in for experimentation, but first, breakfast.
Sure he still has the right to mock dodgy presenters, it’s just not very smart since if he wants to remain fair he, at some point, has to mock his own wife. That can be tricky.
Charlie doesn’t owe us anything except maybe the gratitude we did read and watch his work. He doesn’t owe us new work, or work in the same vain. What he wants to do in his career is his own choice and not ours. What he wants to do in his private life is completely his own choice and none of our business. Nor does his private life hold a relation to his work unless he decides to televise his marriage to Konnie which so far I don’t think he has.
Judging Charlie’s work on how his marriage goes or who he’s married to is not only unfair, but also wrong, because his marriage doesn’t represent his work. Konnie doesn’t represent his work. Charlie is not responsible for Konnie’s work. And their marriage is a different subject all together.
If you want to blame any poor quality in his work to anything, blame it to his hair. His hair has proven to be distracting.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Can Anyone Answer Me This?
What is being reviewed in this piece? (See link) The British Comedy Awards, 10 O'Clock Live, How TV Ruined Your Life or Charlie Brooker in general? Or was this piece supposed to do something else, like bullet pointing how the British Comedy Awards could be better?
Stage Reviews
Stage Reviews
About My Disappointment in Charlie Brooker
Am I the only one thinking Charlie Brooker is losing it? I just checked Twitter and 95% of the tweets were honouring him for the “excellent” ‘How TV Ruined Your Life’ episode that went out yesterday. I’m now convinced I’ve been living and watching TV in a different Universe than those people, because I could swear I saw a lot before of what went out yesterday. Yesterday’s episode felt like a bad rehash of Screenwipe with different lines and clothes, but with the same set-up and less fresh and funny than the first time.
To be fair Brooker warned us, though he also noted it was his favourite episode of HTVRYL so far. Surely, he was joking?
Source: AOL Television – Scroll down till Brooker’s face comes in view
Must be said, his rants are still usually good; entertaining/funny. After hearing him going on about the same subject time and time again, and even using old jokes to try and make his point, it gets a bit tired and boring.
There’s a Screenwipe series, if I’m not mistaken series 5, in which in every episode the same commercial is being commented on. He does comically go from disconcerted and annoyed to insensitive to it; in every episode his attitude has changed a little due to the overload of seeing it. It did evoke my first angry and violent reaction at him. Actually, at a pie I was eating; I was blissfully eating a pie when the images were thrown in my face for the 4th time and I forked my pie violently.
I don’t like the recycling, but I seem to be the only one who’s bothered by that.
Another observation is that even though enlightening often, he doesn’t really do much more than stating the obvious that became so obvious we don’t notice it anymore. When he reminds us we go: “Yeah, you’re right; that’s how it is!” Of course he’s right, it’s painfully obvious he’s right, everyone can tell. It’s now that he’s running out of obvious errors to discuss and has to actually look at current affairs that he falls through. He knows nothing about politics. Gladly, he never claimed he did, but being one of the presenters of a show that has been advertised as an intelligent take on current affairs it’s only fair to expect more of him than observing someone is wearing jeans instead of a white sheet wrapped all around her body; her head included.
He keeps saying publicly the country (the UK) is in a bad state when people start looking at him for some guidance. That’s not exactly what he says; it comes more down to him not being that smart and him certainly not understanding what’s going on or how politics works. It’s safe to say he doesn’t know how politics works. I’m not so sure it has anything to do with him being stupid, because he’s obviously not. He has a good brain in that head of his, but his heart is not with politics or anything that even vaguely smells like it. And to say he doesn’t know what’s going on is not completely true either. He knows in certain cases very well what’s going on and he’s a master in explaining it to us. When it comes to politics he doesn’t as much dive into the subject, but rather into the shallow imaginary of what he can see on the surface. He’s not even attempting to analyze how it affects the country and the people in it. He’s not even attempting to understand it. If he’s not even trying to understand it, how on earth is he supposed to deliver an intelligent take on current affairs?
I’m not even touching the subject that he’s now on the inside still scowling at TV bobo’s. And his marriage to Konnie Huq and his haircut have nothing to do with anything that concerns the quality of his work.
He’s making me angry the way he used to be.
To be fair Brooker warned us, though he also noted it was his favourite episode of HTVRYL so far. Surely, he was joking?
Charlie Brooker: the emperor sells his clothes*snort*
Charlie Brooker is one of the most astute TV critics of the modern age. I bow at the altar of his now departed Screen Burn columns and consider Screen Wipe one of the finest television series about television to be made since Clive James turned TV criticism into a true art form. But don't look closely at the emperor of TV critics now because he's lost his clothes and got a silly haircut.
Now the problem with How TV Ruined Your Life, the latest vehicle for Brooker's rants, is not the rants themselves. Brooker is still on excellent form. The problem is that Brooker is no longer the outsider peering into the bacchanalian revelries within TV's tent and peeing into it with a scowl on his face. Now Brooker's one of the very insiders he castigates. He's doing David Frost as a hipster on 10 O'Clock Live and preparing to give Screenwipe a dust down again. And personally, he's married to Xtra Factor seat filler and auto-cutie Konnie Huq.
The emperor is still laughing at the other kings and their exposed genitals while his are swinging in the wind.
Source: AOL Television – Scroll down till Brooker’s face comes in view
Must be said, his rants are still usually good; entertaining/funny. After hearing him going on about the same subject time and time again, and even using old jokes to try and make his point, it gets a bit tired and boring.
There’s a Screenwipe series, if I’m not mistaken series 5, in which in every episode the same commercial is being commented on. He does comically go from disconcerted and annoyed to insensitive to it; in every episode his attitude has changed a little due to the overload of seeing it. It did evoke my first angry and violent reaction at him. Actually, at a pie I was eating; I was blissfully eating a pie when the images were thrown in my face for the 4th time and I forked my pie violently.
I don’t like the recycling, but I seem to be the only one who’s bothered by that.
Another observation is that even though enlightening often, he doesn’t really do much more than stating the obvious that became so obvious we don’t notice it anymore. When he reminds us we go: “Yeah, you’re right; that’s how it is!” Of course he’s right, it’s painfully obvious he’s right, everyone can tell. It’s now that he’s running out of obvious errors to discuss and has to actually look at current affairs that he falls through. He knows nothing about politics. Gladly, he never claimed he did, but being one of the presenters of a show that has been advertised as an intelligent take on current affairs it’s only fair to expect more of him than observing someone is wearing jeans instead of a white sheet wrapped all around her body; her head included.
He keeps saying publicly the country (the UK) is in a bad state when people start looking at him for some guidance. That’s not exactly what he says; it comes more down to him not being that smart and him certainly not understanding what’s going on or how politics works. It’s safe to say he doesn’t know how politics works. I’m not so sure it has anything to do with him being stupid, because he’s obviously not. He has a good brain in that head of his, but his heart is not with politics or anything that even vaguely smells like it. And to say he doesn’t know what’s going on is not completely true either. He knows in certain cases very well what’s going on and he’s a master in explaining it to us. When it comes to politics he doesn’t as much dive into the subject, but rather into the shallow imaginary of what he can see on the surface. He’s not even attempting to analyze how it affects the country and the people in it. He’s not even attempting to understand it. If he’s not even trying to understand it, how on earth is he supposed to deliver an intelligent take on current affairs?
I’m not even touching the subject that he’s now on the inside still scowling at TV bobo’s. And his marriage to Konnie Huq and his haircut have nothing to do with anything that concerns the quality of his work.
He’s making me angry the way he used to be.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Domestic Comedy's Burning Issue.
If you wonder what the current 'Domestic Comedy's Burning Issue' is look no further.
“Russell Brand, who received the Outstanding Contribution To Comedy Award, was unable to attend due to a friend's illness, though his filmed acceptance speech, mocking Newswipe presenter Charlie Brooker's celebrity wife Konnie Huq and fancy wavy celebrity haircut, showed that he is still in touch with domestic comedy's burning issues.”
Buahaha, Charlie’s hair is a domestic comedy’s burning issue.
Source: Evening Standard blogs: Bruce Dessau
To be complete, sort of, Brand wondered at Charlie: "Now you have a celebrity Blue Peter wife and a fancy wavy celebrity haircut? Come back Charlie!!!"
It looks like everybody is asking Charlie to divorce Konnie and cut his hair. I think this is the answer to Victoria Coren's question how Charlie is going to contribute to 'repeopling the globe' after apocalypse. I can see a problem with this solution.
“Russell Brand, who received the Outstanding Contribution To Comedy Award, was unable to attend due to a friend's illness, though his filmed acceptance speech, mocking Newswipe presenter Charlie Brooker's celebrity wife Konnie Huq and fancy wavy celebrity haircut, showed that he is still in touch with domestic comedy's burning issues.”
Buahaha, Charlie’s hair is a domestic comedy’s burning issue.
Source: Evening Standard blogs: Bruce Dessau
To be complete, sort of, Brand wondered at Charlie: "Now you have a celebrity Blue Peter wife and a fancy wavy celebrity haircut? Come back Charlie!!!"
It looks like everybody is asking Charlie to divorce Konnie and cut his hair. I think this is the answer to Victoria Coren's question how Charlie is going to contribute to 'repeopling the globe' after apocalypse. I can see a problem with this solution.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
To Charlie Brooker
What is this whole “sell out” accusation about? If those comments are based on how he wears his hair, then I misunderstood the meaning of “sell out”. I’m just as baffled about the hair discussions as Charlie himself is. It’s his hair and he can do with it whatever he wants to.
If the “sell out” accusations are based on him doing the “10 O’Clock Live” show, then I’m still confused. I’m not sure that’s what “selling out” is. They threw him a bone and he accepted it. It would have been impolite if he hadn’t, wouldn’t it? Unless he has a good reason, like he’s on a diet. I’m not sure bones are fattening though.
The only situation in which I would call him a “sell out” is when he decides to join Konnie on the “Xtra Factor”. But that might just be marriage counselling. Not that they have a bad marriage, I don’t think. Just a weird one. I can already hear Simon Cowell commenting on it, the bastard!
It’s not that I’m still in arse licking mode what Charlie Brooker concerns. I do think, like many others, his works from the past two months have left a bit to desire. His “2010 Wipe” was half a rehash of video material and jokes, which was disappointing. I can see how that happens in a news based program so I accept the same video’s, but still, reusing old jokes is just lazy.
Last Tuesday I watched his new program “How Television Ruined Your Life”. Even if the quality compared to a lot of other programs was better, it was below Charlie Brooker’s standard quality. Once again he rehashed old video’s and even old jokes. Charlie, you already did the whole ‘alone in the house’ gag. And the first time it was way funnier and fresher. Tell me, it really was “Screenwipe” in disguise, wasn’t it?
Maybe my expectations were too high and wrong. Maybe not getting what I expected ruined my joy. Tonight you get a new chance. Could you please try to raise the bar and not repeat what Jimmy Carr has already said, albeit he was less funny than you.
Do you think Charlie Brooker googles himself?
If the “sell out” accusations are based on him doing the “10 O’Clock Live” show, then I’m still confused. I’m not sure that’s what “selling out” is. They threw him a bone and he accepted it. It would have been impolite if he hadn’t, wouldn’t it? Unless he has a good reason, like he’s on a diet. I’m not sure bones are fattening though.
The only situation in which I would call him a “sell out” is when he decides to join Konnie on the “Xtra Factor”. But that might just be marriage counselling. Not that they have a bad marriage, I don’t think. Just a weird one. I can already hear Simon Cowell commenting on it, the bastard!
It’s not that I’m still in arse licking mode what Charlie Brooker concerns. I do think, like many others, his works from the past two months have left a bit to desire. His “2010 Wipe” was half a rehash of video material and jokes, which was disappointing. I can see how that happens in a news based program so I accept the same video’s, but still, reusing old jokes is just lazy.
Last Tuesday I watched his new program “How Television Ruined Your Life”. Even if the quality compared to a lot of other programs was better, it was below Charlie Brooker’s standard quality. Once again he rehashed old video’s and even old jokes. Charlie, you already did the whole ‘alone in the house’ gag. And the first time it was way funnier and fresher. Tell me, it really was “Screenwipe” in disguise, wasn’t it?
Maybe my expectations were too high and wrong. Maybe not getting what I expected ruined my joy. Tonight you get a new chance. Could you please try to raise the bar and not repeat what Jimmy Carr has already said, albeit he was less funny than you.
Do you think Charlie Brooker googles himself?
Monday, January 17, 2011
WHAT NOT TO SAY - the Alarm Clock (Britain) Affair
Good Morning!
Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...
This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.
Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.
I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column
I am going to be sarcastic about it though.
I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.
This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.
An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.
Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.
Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.
I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.
If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.
This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.
I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.
Yes, a good morning to you ‘Alarm Clock’ people. As if...
This morning I had the misfortune to wake up to two, yes two, ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ columns respectively by two of my favourite columnists/comedians. Unfortunately too, I am not a member of ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ and even if I was, this whole ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ affair leaves me incredibly baffled. I suppose that was the point of both columns; so they certainly didn’t miss their points.
Neither did Nick Clegg, the cause of the whole consternation. They, CB and DM, wrote about it. I am writing about it. Unfortunately (it’s a real unfortunate choice of words resulting in an unfortunate situation), he misses his goal. What the hell or rather who the hell is he talking about? I can only conclude this is the start of the apocalypse.
I am not willing to discuss the choice of words any further. Go read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s columns for that; they said it all.
Sources:
1. David Mitchell's column and
2. Charlie Brooker's column
I am going to be sarcastic about it though.
I woke up, sort of, to my alarm clock. Like on every Sunday evening I set my alarm clock to 7 am. Not with the intention to wake up or something, rather with the intention to pretend I’m going to be a good girl and get up at the first sounds of a blaring alarm. I don’t think my zombie kind of state qualifies as getting up. Beside that, the only thing I do as a reaction to the alarm is turning it off for another blissful 9 minutes to repeat the procedure. Around 8 am thoughts start to form in my head that I really should get up or I’ll be fantastically late at work.
This morning was an exceptional sleepy affair. Unlike many other mornings my mind registered the whole ‘Alarm Clock Affair’. For good measure I’m now going to explain what an ‘Alarm Clock Affair’ is.
An Alarm Clock Affair is the affair of reaching some level of consciousness, due to a blaring alarm clock, and getting into an upward position out of the bed to make my way to the alarm clock and turn it off for 9 more minutes, then I return to the bed. This procedure is repeated till 8 o’clock am. This whole procedure, from 7 am to 8 am, is the ‘Alarm Clock Affair’.
Anyway, registered but not as much as awake. I realized I needed to clean out my cats’ lavatory (or lavalibdem in this case *snigger* ergh...) which meant I needed some extra time before leaving the house for work.
Only now I reached a higher level of being awake. Nothing special, but I was very quickly aware of the dodgy state of mind of this day.
Does that make me an ‘Alarm Clock’ person? I suppose it does, yet I feel it has nothing to do with me. Not only because I’m not British, but also whenever Mr. Clegg uses that phrase I feel strangely alienated from whatever he’s trying to express. I wish he knew what he was talking about; I have the daunting suspicion he doesn’t, like no one seems to know.
I now go laugh/cry/scream in a corner.
If I had said something like ‘Alarm Clock Britain’ at work I would have received my resignation letter.
This whole 'Alarm Clock' Affair made me angrier than I should have become! That's why half of the title is in capitols.
I did however edit this piece a mere 7 times for your enjoyment. Not that I was actually counting.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Hello Charlie
There are quite a few new programs aligned to get broadcast this year. All in all quite exciting, especially since Charlie Brooker is involved. I wanted to say “people I like”, but I quickly realized it really mainly were Charlie Brooker “projects”.
However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?
Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.
For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.
I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.
Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.
Hello Charlie
For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.
Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.
Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.
Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.
Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)
And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)
And another one for Twitter?
And...
The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...
Right. That's said.
However, it seems the Bubble is not going to return, because David Mitchell choose the 10 O’Clock Live live thing over the Bubble. Maybe a shame, but I was not that big a fan of the Bubble. I felt it would get boring quite quickly with all the (fake) reports. Also, how many more times can you put the same people in a house for a week while they have busy schedules?
Look how ably I steered this blog post away from Charlie Brooker and “new programs”. I’m almost proud of myself, but this lame paragraph shot my pride in the eye and now it’s dying.
For the first time in a long time I’m excited about what’s coming to us on the airwaves of television. Right while I’m at the point of losing the ability to watch TV at all. My ex wants the TV and I get almost anything else. And even though I really want “anything else”, I’m really going to miss the TV in this time and age. Not that I was able to watch 10 O’Clock Live as it is happening live; I don’t receive C4. Another Brooker project is going out on BBC2, which I do receive. So yeah, that sort of sucks. Or I have to buy a new TV which I think I’m going to, because I really don’t want to be without at this point in this spring.
I’m still a bit deflated over my friends not liking Charlie. As usual, in my direct surroundings, no one likes him or knows him which leaves me alone to celebrate and it’s a lonely party this way.
Here’s a piece I wrote earlier, but didn’t post because it doesn’t really reflect my feelings and I felt Charlie didn’t deserved to be shouted at for handing over the Screen Burn Column. I just like the flow of words.
Hello Charlie
For years you observed the (TV) world and described it in bold capital letters, scolding people and breaking down programs, games and news items alike to the core of what things were and had become. Not in it to make friends, but to point and groan. Maybe pointing out all that is wrong and went bad made you wary and despising mankind even more than you did.
Soon people thought of you as profane, rude, crude, angry and maybe even aggressive. You started to feel bad for some people you gave a beating. You became confused by how people saw you. You thought it all went slightly worse with your own contribution, so you decided to stop.
Turns out the worse thing you’ve done so far.
Extra instructions:
Ignore the spelling and grammar mistakes.
Grace Dent took over the Screen Burn Column; Go Read It!
Screen Burn
Loads of Screen Burns of Grace Dent and Charlie Brooker alike. (scroll down for Grace)
And some more randomness:
Could have gone on Twitter (yes yes, I have a Twitter account)
I See
So that is how it all works?
And another one for Twitter?
Holla
For a while now, I have been wanting to fly.
And...
He stops Screen Burning and I saw that as the perfect sign to start following him. Bollocks!!! Another regular fixture down the drain. What am I supposed to do on Monday mornings now?
The last one is actually too big for Twitter. And Charlie-related...like I'm not, WAHahahe..ehumm...
Right. That's said.
Monday, December 20, 2010
State of Bewilderment
There are days I’m scared to death of life. Today is one such day. The nervousness is cropping up in my throat. I feel like I’m being choked, not quite to death, but swallowing sure is a bit harder than usual. My appetite is absent, though the nausea suggests my stomach is in need of food. I think I’m also dehydrating.
I’m not sure where this fear came from. It might be the tasks that have been set at work. It might have been Charlie Brooker’s column, which I read this morning. Or David Mitchell’s answers to some questions from Guardian readers(?). Either way, it didn’t help my state of being.
Also the cold is so through and through it’s pressuring on my temples and residing in my bones. It causes muscle failure in the arms and a thumping headache....and the loss of knowledge of several words. I feel quite inapt to write anything today, or read for that matter. And in my state of falling apart, it doesn’t help my confidence. Ironically, this morning I woke up with the song Confidence out of the Sound of Music in my head.
What was this about the British education fee again? Going from ‘Litter society’ to ‘Farmyard society’? Or did I dream it? I can however inform with some confidence that I forgot entirely what David Mitchell wrote in his column. Oh wait, something about nuclear weapons being paraded through the city in a golden carriage.
Anything of it all seems so far from my life. My life lately has been white, cold and sort of busy; white with a glowing centre of blackness. I refuse to believe there’s more ‘Bah’ to come, no matter how persistent the papers keep stating the opposite. Some day something should be fine again, shouldn’t it?
With my personal dictionary draining, new words and phrases should be invented. So far I came up with ‘litter society’ as used above, and with ‘fuckery’ which I have not used yet except in some internal conversation as a reaction on some situation.
I feel this blog should have a rating?
Sources: Charlie Brooker's How To Cut Tuition Fees
David Mitchell under the spotlight and David Mitchell's Catchy Titles and Nuclear Security Rant
I’m not sure where this fear came from. It might be the tasks that have been set at work. It might have been Charlie Brooker’s column, which I read this morning. Or David Mitchell’s answers to some questions from Guardian readers(?). Either way, it didn’t help my state of being.
Also the cold is so through and through it’s pressuring on my temples and residing in my bones. It causes muscle failure in the arms and a thumping headache....and the loss of knowledge of several words. I feel quite inapt to write anything today, or read for that matter. And in my state of falling apart, it doesn’t help my confidence. Ironically, this morning I woke up with the song Confidence out of the Sound of Music in my head.
What was this about the British education fee again? Going from ‘Litter society’ to ‘Farmyard society’? Or did I dream it? I can however inform with some confidence that I forgot entirely what David Mitchell wrote in his column. Oh wait, something about nuclear weapons being paraded through the city in a golden carriage.
Anything of it all seems so far from my life. My life lately has been white, cold and sort of busy; white with a glowing centre of blackness. I refuse to believe there’s more ‘Bah’ to come, no matter how persistent the papers keep stating the opposite. Some day something should be fine again, shouldn’t it?
With my personal dictionary draining, new words and phrases should be invented. So far I came up with ‘litter society’ as used above, and with ‘fuckery’ which I have not used yet except in some internal conversation as a reaction on some situation.
I feel this blog should have a rating?
Sources: Charlie Brooker's How To Cut Tuition Fees
David Mitchell under the spotlight and David Mitchell's Catchy Titles and Nuclear Security Rant
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
To Mr. Charlton Brooker
It’s not that I wanted to, I just had to. It’s really just a salute to you, Mr. Charlton Brooker, also known as Charlie Brooker. I suppose this outcry is really the echo of my fears of you not creating quite enough new stuff to keep me entertained. Mr. Charlie Brooker, you are my ghetto blaster of observation and opinion. We just agree on most things and you never cease to make me laugh. But what especially strikes me about you is you seem to try to be fair....sort of.
What’s up with the whole 10 O’Clock Live thing? Have preparations begun? What’s your part going to be? I was thinking, you could do news items like you do on Newswipe, though I’m not sure what that would mean for Newswipe as a separate series; wouldn’t want to lose it.
Also I feel you should get a bigger part than you had in the Election night special. You are a good host, sir. And I think we could do with less Jimmy Carr reading off, obviously, auto-cue. And then maybe we could let go of the ‘panic room’ organization. That would safe time and money and would provide a bit more variation (20 minutes of Jimmy Carr prescripted quips and head movements without breaks was a bit much for me).
I did read Screenwipe and Newswipe are going out on BB2 this Christmas and the coming year. Especially to me, that’s good news, since I don’t receive C4 nor BBC4.
What about You Have Been Watching? Is a new series commissioned? Even though I love to watch you, Mr. Charlton, a bit of variation of faces could be refreshing. And the proof you can actually smile is a sweet one. Beside that, I just love the idea of the TV-club.
I hope to see much more of you the coming year (and on).
My fave forum quote of the week (a quote with a reaction added, really):
“’I had a Bounty on my head.... I was showing off in the newsagents.’ Wahey!!”
Source: UKFF Forum
What’s up with the whole 10 O’Clock Live thing? Have preparations begun? What’s your part going to be? I was thinking, you could do news items like you do on Newswipe, though I’m not sure what that would mean for Newswipe as a separate series; wouldn’t want to lose it.
Also I feel you should get a bigger part than you had in the Election night special. You are a good host, sir. And I think we could do with less Jimmy Carr reading off, obviously, auto-cue. And then maybe we could let go of the ‘panic room’ organization. That would safe time and money and would provide a bit more variation (20 minutes of Jimmy Carr prescripted quips and head movements without breaks was a bit much for me).
I did read Screenwipe and Newswipe are going out on BB2 this Christmas and the coming year. Especially to me, that’s good news, since I don’t receive C4 nor BBC4.
What about You Have Been Watching? Is a new series commissioned? Even though I love to watch you, Mr. Charlton, a bit of variation of faces could be refreshing. And the proof you can actually smile is a sweet one. Beside that, I just love the idea of the TV-club.
I hope to see much more of you the coming year (and on).
My fave forum quote of the week (a quote with a reaction added, really):
“’I had a Bounty on my head.... I was showing off in the newsagents.’ Wahey!!”
Source: UKFF Forum
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Mob Development
I set myself a bit of a writing challenge. I read Charlie Brooker’s and David Mitchell’s column and decided to write something based on what they wrote ending up talking about something else entirely. I have no idea how that’s going to pan out.
Charlie wrote about the Ground Zero Mosque wondering what, according to the protesters, would be acceptable. David talked about the school/Uni system and how that is valuable for life experiences. I agree on what Charlie said, I have trouble with David’s column, though I can’t really put a finger to what I have a problem with.
How scary can mobs be? I’m seriously freaked out by a lot of them. Brainless violent protesters throwing around irony in their actions and accusations. Who are these people and where did they come from? Where and why did they pick up such contradicting ideas and opinions? Where does it stem from?
I remember in school, everybody was trying to fit in, except for me. It naturally resulted in me being an outsider and sitting alone during the breaks with the backs of others as my view. It gave me the opportunity once more to observe. I just don’t understand. I learnt to think for myself resulting in turning my back on certain ideas and finding new ones and the contacts according. It took me high school and college to get where I am now; still reasonably alone, but with more inspiring people than ever before.
I forgot a lot about my teenage years. I only remember them being uncomfortable. I feel like, when looking back, I could have missed classes more than I have. I do know I couldn’t talk nor write English properly at the time. Or so I thought. I graduated on my good grades for English; without I would have lost another year in high school. As if it mattered, there was not that much substance to pick up. Now I am wondering what would have happened had I left for a year to travel the world. I would probably have myself killed. I’m not a survivor; I’m a twat. I know I wouldn’t have it in my heart to join a radical group, but in the year loose, I might have changed so much, anything could have happened, that made me think foreigners are weird, dangerous and most of all, wrong about their convictions and therefore should die.
To me it seems, youngsters living in some sort of community have the bigger chance to end up in a radical group. Their minds are constantly fed with the foul information, especially outside school. If there’s anything or anyone who could steer them back to a more respectable and less violent life, it would be school and its teachers.
Allowing some A-list kid to go travel with her A-list famous movie star mom might seem innocent, but don’t you think it may wreck the world from its current axes and swirl into another path of destruction? It sure didn’t do Paris Hilton much good. What you have then is another brainless idiot contaminating society with its out of control life and views trying to convince the people that is what life is and their behaviour is the model to live by. That scares me to no end.
I’m sure Emma Thompson, the A-list movie star mom, has sense and will teach her daughter the goods of life in all its diversities outside of school. I just hope to god the young kid won’t meet the angry mob trying to kill everything with a darker tone of skin than theirs. She might see something in it. She might also understand how dangerous that is, but do children of 10 really? Have they lived long enough to make certain sensible choices, or should they rather go through their puberty first and get a bit more acquainted with how life also can be in a more controlled and graduate pace? All I know is, most of those kids are still so impressionable, it’s dangerous to force certain life lessons onto them already. You never know which way they will turn.
I know there will at a certain time in future again be another mob threatening society. I’d just rather not feed them with my offspring. I’ll probably keep my kids in school till they’re 18 and can consciously make their own mistakes.
Sources:
David Mitchell's "It's the only way to train for life"
Charlie Brooker's "The reality is less provocative"
I don't mean to abuse their titles, but they tend to be too long.
Charlie wrote about the Ground Zero Mosque wondering what, according to the protesters, would be acceptable. David talked about the school/Uni system and how that is valuable for life experiences. I agree on what Charlie said, I have trouble with David’s column, though I can’t really put a finger to what I have a problem with.
How scary can mobs be? I’m seriously freaked out by a lot of them. Brainless violent protesters throwing around irony in their actions and accusations. Who are these people and where did they come from? Where and why did they pick up such contradicting ideas and opinions? Where does it stem from?
I remember in school, everybody was trying to fit in, except for me. It naturally resulted in me being an outsider and sitting alone during the breaks with the backs of others as my view. It gave me the opportunity once more to observe. I just don’t understand. I learnt to think for myself resulting in turning my back on certain ideas and finding new ones and the contacts according. It took me high school and college to get where I am now; still reasonably alone, but with more inspiring people than ever before.
I forgot a lot about my teenage years. I only remember them being uncomfortable. I feel like, when looking back, I could have missed classes more than I have. I do know I couldn’t talk nor write English properly at the time. Or so I thought. I graduated on my good grades for English; without I would have lost another year in high school. As if it mattered, there was not that much substance to pick up. Now I am wondering what would have happened had I left for a year to travel the world. I would probably have myself killed. I’m not a survivor; I’m a twat. I know I wouldn’t have it in my heart to join a radical group, but in the year loose, I might have changed so much, anything could have happened, that made me think foreigners are weird, dangerous and most of all, wrong about their convictions and therefore should die.
To me it seems, youngsters living in some sort of community have the bigger chance to end up in a radical group. Their minds are constantly fed with the foul information, especially outside school. If there’s anything or anyone who could steer them back to a more respectable and less violent life, it would be school and its teachers.
Allowing some A-list kid to go travel with her A-list famous movie star mom might seem innocent, but don’t you think it may wreck the world from its current axes and swirl into another path of destruction? It sure didn’t do Paris Hilton much good. What you have then is another brainless idiot contaminating society with its out of control life and views trying to convince the people that is what life is and their behaviour is the model to live by. That scares me to no end.
I’m sure Emma Thompson, the A-list movie star mom, has sense and will teach her daughter the goods of life in all its diversities outside of school. I just hope to god the young kid won’t meet the angry mob trying to kill everything with a darker tone of skin than theirs. She might see something in it. She might also understand how dangerous that is, but do children of 10 really? Have they lived long enough to make certain sensible choices, or should they rather go through their puberty first and get a bit more acquainted with how life also can be in a more controlled and graduate pace? All I know is, most of those kids are still so impressionable, it’s dangerous to force certain life lessons onto them already. You never know which way they will turn.
I know there will at a certain time in future again be another mob threatening society. I’d just rather not feed them with my offspring. I’ll probably keep my kids in school till they’re 18 and can consciously make their own mistakes.
Sources:
David Mitchell's "It's the only way to train for life"
Charlie Brooker's "The reality is less provocative"
I don't mean to abuse their titles, but they tend to be too long.
An Apology Of Sorts
A new source of things sent me into a paradox once again. This morning I was thinking, how weird it may be, Charlie Brooker inspired me to write. This morning, in an empty attempt to write something professional and therefore not interesting and certainly not funny, I decided to check out whatever else constructed and ordered words have left Mr. Brooker’s typing fingers. There was one article about writing. Ironically Mr. Brooker sometimes has problems coming up with the order of words to make up an article and he told us how useless he is in giving advice about writing. Yet he did give an advice in the article. I understood and recognized the problem of fleeting inspiration and effects and consequences it forced.
I was looking for inspiration so a minute or more I would be feeling the racing touch of my fingers on my keyboard pounding out sentences and the pride of thoughts on paper. Instead I felt incredibly drained and never before so uninspired, it made me want to kick myself in the knees, as suggested only in a different variation. My brain transported into the other wise suggested, but yet not recommended state of nowhere and look there, two paragraphs. Admitted, the conversation evolving in between had me staring with glazed-over eyes while my brain went into overdrive to make sense of the words aimed at me. I tried to explain my unresponsive behaviour, but I couldn’t. I was sure I just lost it.
The irony keeps striking, because the two paragraphs was all that was there. Rereading it I felt satisfied, just not yet enough to call it okay to turn into a blog. Problem is, I’m stuck now. There’s not much more I can think of to write, except for the irony dangling in my face as I think of the two unfinished articles I have in my can waiting to receive an end and the send off to blogger. One belongs in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series and one inspired, or would be inspired, on something else Mr. Brooker has released not too long ago. I don’t know how to proceed with either one of the pieces of text so instead I’ll blog this dribble.
In the meantime I’ll try writing my business documents and finishing my last set challenges and raising my plastic cup to Mr. Brooker’s inspiration. See you next Monday, Mr. Brooker. Or maybe tonight on YouTube.
Source: If you want to write, get threatened
I was looking for inspiration so a minute or more I would be feeling the racing touch of my fingers on my keyboard pounding out sentences and the pride of thoughts on paper. Instead I felt incredibly drained and never before so uninspired, it made me want to kick myself in the knees, as suggested only in a different variation. My brain transported into the other wise suggested, but yet not recommended state of nowhere and look there, two paragraphs. Admitted, the conversation evolving in between had me staring with glazed-over eyes while my brain went into overdrive to make sense of the words aimed at me. I tried to explain my unresponsive behaviour, but I couldn’t. I was sure I just lost it.
The irony keeps striking, because the two paragraphs was all that was there. Rereading it I felt satisfied, just not yet enough to call it okay to turn into a blog. Problem is, I’m stuck now. There’s not much more I can think of to write, except for the irony dangling in my face as I think of the two unfinished articles I have in my can waiting to receive an end and the send off to blogger. One belongs in my “Things You Shouldn’t Say” series and one inspired, or would be inspired, on something else Mr. Brooker has released not too long ago. I don’t know how to proceed with either one of the pieces of text so instead I’ll blog this dribble.
In the meantime I’ll try writing my business documents and finishing my last set challenges and raising my plastic cup to Mr. Brooker’s inspiration. See you next Monday, Mr. Brooker. Or maybe tonight on YouTube.
Source: If you want to write, get threatened
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)