Mad Men – Season Two
I first stumbled across Mad Men on BBC Four early last year, but despite enjoying what little I saw, I never really invested my time or interest in it, and I ended up, after three episodes, neglecting to watch. However, after reading rave reviews and the show getting a hearty thumbs-up from Russell T Davies (and my Mum), I got myself a copy of the DVD. I’m so glad I did. I suppose the main benefit of owning a show on DVD is that you can watch the show back-to-back, and that’s just what I did. In the run-up to the second season airing (again on BBC Four), I marathoned my way through the 13 episodes, and this time, the show really grabbed me. By the time Season 2 kicked off, I was up to speed and well and truly immersed in the brilliantly realised 1960s setting.
For those who don’t know (and shame on you if you don’t), Mad Men is an American period drama created by Matthew Weiner, one of the executive producers/writers of The Sopranos. Set in the smoke-filled offices of Sterling Cooper – a fictitious advertising company based on Madison Avenue, the show is replete with observation, atmosphere and some of the most well-drawn characters to appear on television. The 1960s setting immediately allows the show to stand out from the crowd, and permits the show to do things a little bit differently in comparison to your contemporary run-of-the-mill US drama series. The first season is set in 1961, using the Presidential Election Campaign between Kennedy and Nixon as an effective backdrop, whereas the finale of the second season played out during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The music score compliments the period tremendously, employing artists of the era to help add to the “feel” of the show. Complete with authentic costume and hairstyles, the viewer is easily able to immerse themselves in the beautifully crafted Mad Men universe. The glamour of the 1960’s is gloriously realised, and although the production is remarkably polished and stylish, there is still an abundance of substance to be found.
Another appealing aspect of the show is the fact that you actually learn something too. We all have our perceptions of the 1960s, but Mad Men puts us straight. If you will, it teaches us what we thought we knew. The focus on gender roles – on the whole, women are exploited and the men are womanising is also expertly explored. The frustration, the forced silence of many of the female protagonists, the expectations of married life, the notion that a woman should know her place all come under question. Homosexuality is also touched upon in Season Two. A closeted married businessman who clearly lusts after one of his colleagues, but can’t voice his feelings because being gay was illegal in the 1960s. These scenes – predominantly in “The Golden Violin” (the seventh episode) are very emotional and affecting. Religion and the role of a Priest is also highlighted in Season Two, as is abortion, the comedy of the era, the place of children, love, and obviously, the pressures of a business environment in the world of advertising.
Mad Men without its central lead character – the enigmatic, suave and sophisticated Don Draper (Jon Hamm) would be like fish without chips. Draper is at the centre of the action. He is arguably one of the coolest, most engrossing TV characters of all-time, right up there with Tony Sopranos in the complex department. He is, in many ways, a total bastard. He constantly and remorseless cheats on his wife, and – without giving anything away – isn’t necessarily everything he claims to be. Still, he has a way with people. He is charming and, quite clearly, as irresistible to people in the show as he is to the viewer. It is to the credit of Hamm and the writers that what is, essentially, a hateful character, is brought to life with such vivid conviction that he is engrossing and, dare I say it, very likeable and attractive. There’s something about him. His manner, his demeanour, his confidence. But, beneath all the talk, Draper is clearly a desperately lonely, lost man. He uses women and drink to mask it, and the last three episodes of Season Two take the character to all-new territory.
With a stronger, more cohesive storyline, Season Two was an improvement on the first season, in my view. Maybe it’s because I was more invested in the character’s lives and the world of the show, but I think the writing stepped up a gear. Nothing short of spellbinding, quite frankly. "A Night to Remember" was just about perfection, and the Season Two finale will take some beating. The journeys of the characters were all superbly executed. Don Draper, our flawed hero, went on a voyage of discovery – combining flashbacks, a few revelations, some home truths and some rather surreal Twin Peaks-esque elements along the way. His wife, Betty, grew up and realised that she was living a lie. Fragile, cold and miserable, watching her character develop was most rewarding from a viewer’s perspective, as was the growth of Peggy, who transformed into a vibrant, strong, confident woman throughout the course of the season, in a fashion which was both totally believable and also very moving. Poor Pete Campbell was put through the mill – learning the truth about a major event that occurred at the end of the first season, standing up to his stepfather, losing his estranged Father in a plane crash and finally accepting that his marriage was a sham. And then, Duck – who ultimately got what he deserved.
From the stylish opening credits, to the ceaseless chain-smoking and drinking, to the dissection of society, Mad Men is a feast of a television series. It’s a rich tapestry, made all the more so by the fact that the drama is consistently underplayed and underwritten. With the majority of your TV drama fare, writers and actors have a habit to go over-the-top, favouring witty unrealistic dialogue in favour of genuine emotion. The emotion in Mad Men is always palpable. Even when there is no dialogue, the acting is so good that you can recognise what a character is feeling. The writing is some of the best I’ve seen – quietly gripping, if you will. The show is definitely what I'd consider to be a "slow burner" - it takes a while to adjust to the setting and characters in play. Rather like "The Wire", but ultimately, much more viewer friendly. The characterisation is sheer perfection, and the attention-to-detail and concentration on the tiniest of things is what sets this show apart from the rest. Armed with Emmys, Golden Globes, a BAFTA, a Writer’s Guild of America Award and a prestigious Peabody, the show has wowed its critics, and rightly so. There hasn’t been a television season as outstanding as Season Two of Mad Men since the third season of The Sopranos back in 2001. I eagerly await the next installment, due to air in America in August. Until then, I'll have to make do with the Season Two DVD, due out in July.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Friday, 1 May 2009
The Apprentice - or should that be The A-Bentice!
“First prize, you get to work for me. Second prize, don’t exist!”
I think if I were in that boardroom facing Sir Alan Sugar, I’d crumble like a stale digestive biscuit and run sobbing for my Mum out the door. Having said that, it’s tremendously good entertainment watching this year’s collection of candidates sweating away, trying not to crack under the pressure as they face the towering wrath of the boss. As the narrator reminds us at the start of every episode, these are “Britain’s brightest business prospects” – well, you could have fooled me! Watching them bumble and bicker, and witnessing their sheer ineptitude (in most cases) is absolutely hilarious, and the range of tasks they are set prove to be versatile and interesting. It could be said that the tasks they are set don’t really represent appropriate scenarios common in a business environment, but it hardly seems to matter because the whole process makes for such a wonderful ride. The candidates all have ego’s the size of the solar system (you’d think they’d all cancel each other out) and watching them brought down a peg or two by “Britain’s most belligerent boss” is a joy to behold.
I’ve never watched the show before (which I regret massively), having previously written it off as your standard trashy reality TV fare. But, after realising I was pretty much the only person I knew who didn’t watch it, I decided to give it a go. And now I’m hooked. Addicted. It’s easily the best thing on mainstream television in the past year. As soon as that wonderful piece of classical music from Romeo and Juliet starts up at the beginning, I get excited. I’ve started watching earlier series episodes on YouTube (Series 3 currently, which is fantastic) and I bought the Best of Series 1-4 compilation DVD. What’s happening to me? There’s no escaping the fact that the show is very much reality television, but for me, it’s reality TV with a notable difference. For one thing, it’s packaged in a much classier fashion. Sir Alan Sugar adds credibility, as (on the whole) do the bunch of contestants, who aren’t your typical brainless desperate losers who normally appear on this type of thing. Am I allowed to say that? Compared to the atrocious Britain’s Got Talent, currently airing on Saturdays (which is the televisual equivalent of a day trip to a sewage system), The Apprentice is gold standard television. Britain’s Got Talent, with its cringe-worthy so-called life-changing sob stories, smug judging panel and the never-ending bells and whistles makes me feel physically sick. The fact that it occupies so much press coverage and media fawning is simply beyond my power of comprehension.
Anyway, as I write this, we’re six weeks into Series Five, the halfway mark. So far we’ve had car-washing, catering, home fitness equipment, bodycare products, a cereal advertising campaign and bric-a-brac street selling. Six candidates have been fired (the catchphrase of the series), and I’ve agreed with all of them, bar one – which was Kimberley in Week Five. Highlights from the series for me have included Ben as Captain Squawk, the awful (and rather frightening) Pants Man, the Wake Up Call commercial jingle, lugging a skeleton around the streets of London and mixing up £5 with £700 when buying fragrances. And of course, the boardroom showdowns are always a highlight.
Anyway, for a bit of fun, I thought I’d rank the remaining contestants from best to worst;
1. Ben – I think I’m in the minority on this one, but I love him. He speaks his mind, he’s got a lovely Belfast accent and he’s very good-looking. In fact, as it happens, several people have noted that, facially, he looks very similar to me. And we share the same name, so I feel a certain bond with him. A connection, if you will. He fights his corner when he has to, and is easily the most capable of the remaining boys. It will be a travesty if he doesn’t win, quite frankly. I’ve watched a load of reality TV shows in the past, but I’ve never actually given a toss who actually wins, but with this, I do care. I think he was unfairly targeted in Weeks Three and Four.
In this week’s episode, I felt sorry for him. He got the short straw, and was made Project Manager of a horrible task, that was, in many ways, pot luck. He may be full of himself, but he has every right to be. I thought Noorul was pathetic in the boardroom when he accused Ben of being part of the show for the wrong reasons and that he was only on the programme to chase fame, and wanted to pose nude for magazines with just a rugby ball covering his modesty. For starters, what’s wrong with that? I hope he does! I really hope he does. Ahem, where was I? On the downside, Ben’s been in the boardroom 3/6 times (so 50%), but I’m cheered by the fact that he’s been saved by Sir Alan on each occasion, which must mean the boss sees something in him? Put it this way, if Ben does get fired, I’ll happily hire him as my Apprentice...
2) Kate – I think everybody, except Lorraine has had a shot at being Project Manager now, and Kate’s performance (in Week Five) was easily the most professional. She kept her team in excellent spirits and everyone worked brilliantly under her leadership. There were no arguments (which is such a rarity!), and the team produced a good strong product. She seems nice and down-to-earth, and is surely a contender to win the competition. She is, I think, the only candidate not to have been in the firing line this series.
3) Howard – So okay, granted, he’s not done much, but he seems genuinely sweet and lovely. Plus, he’s gay. I think he’s a bit of a dark horse and might come in to his own now we’ve down in numbers. Hope he does anyway. Don’t think we’ve seen the best of him yet.
4) James – Sir Alan referred to him as “the village idiot” in last week’s episode. Poor James! But there is some truth in that. He seems bemused and confused a lot of the time, and quite often what comes out of his mouth doesn’t make sense. He does however seem very enthusiastic and seems to be enjoying himself thoroughly. He’s grown on me, anyway. When he project managed in Week Three (the home fitness task), I thought he was useless and lackadaisical, but as the week’s have gone on, I’ve started to find him quite endearing, even if he doesn’t really bring much, creatively, to proceedings.
5) Yasmina – the jury’s still out on this one, to be honest. There’s no denying she acts in a professional manner, and seems level-headed and determined, but she’s hardly likeable, is she? She comes across as ruthless, callous and cold-hearted... therefore embodying all the qualities of a winner. She has an annoying habit of saying “Okay?” at the end of every sentence, which irks me. I wouldn’t like to her win, but she’s yet to put a foot wrong really, aside from the pricing cock-up in Week Four.
6) Lorraine – Or should that be Cassandra? Again, I’m undecided here. It’ll be interesting to see how she develops over the next few tasks – that is, if she survives. She comes across – or at least she has done in the last few editions as being melancholic, curmudgeonly and whinny. She has a tendency to suck all the enthusiasm out of her team mates, and never seems to have a positive word to say about anyone or anything. That said, I do often find myself agreeing with what she says, and someone has to stand up to Philip. I liked Kimberley’s description of her – “A bit like working with Eeyore!”
7) Debra – Oh dear! She’s a trouble-causer I knew she was right from Week One. Doesn't think before she opens her mouth. Fiery as a dragon, and very strong-minded. I wouldn’t like to be on the receiving end of her. Her rude tirade towards Nick (Sir Alan’s aide) on Wednesday’s episode was uncalled for, and showed her to be unprofessional, mouthy and disrespectful. I don’t think she’ll last long. At least, I don’t want her to.
8) Mona – One of those contestants that doesn’t really seem to do much, and just seems to fade into the background. Comes across as quite unlikeable and never really seems to bring anything to proceedings or offers anything useful. The reason I’m placing her so low down on my list is because of her woeful, cringe-worthy sales pitch to the Advertising Execs in Week Five. “The slogan we’ve come up with is ‘Put your pants on – the right way’, not like a superhero, ‘cos he’s the only one whose allowed to get away with it. So, when you eat our cereal, you won’t dress up like Pants Man. ‘Cos you’re not Pants Man. Only Pants Man gets away with his pants over his... clothes.” I mean, sorry... what? And then she proceeds to tell the ad execs what’s in the cereal. Okkaaayyy.
9) Philip – Bottom of the pile. Loud, arrogant and odious, I want rid of him. He’s like Ben, without the lovability. I could rant on for ages about how he rubs me up the wrong way, but I found this quote from the fantastic Charlie Brooker, who I’m sure puts it better than I ever could;
“No. The real enemy is clearly Philip, the 29-year-old former estate agent with the Durham accent. He was actually my favourite for a while. Not any more. He's flared up. He's gone horrible.
Philip seems to spend 98% of his screen time shouting his own opinions over anything anyone says. And if they're a woman, he'll shout twice as loud, for twice as long, like some previously-unseen character from Life On Mars, only less amusing because he's wearing a smart suit and some hair gel instead of a zany kipper tie. And boy does he love himself.
He looks like he throws himself roughly on to the bed each night, hungrily moving his hands all over his own body, trying to kiss himself deep in the mouth. If it were legal or even possible to do so, he'd probably marry himself, then conduct a long-term affair with himself behind himself's back, eventually fathering nine children with himself, all of whom would walk and talk like him. And then he'd lock those mini-hims in a secret underground dungeon to have his sick way with his selves, undetected, for decades.
If you asked Philip if he thought the world revolved around him, he'd blink and ask you what exactly a "world" was, then go back to staring in the mirror, drooling and smiling and pointing and saying "Philllllippp, Philllllipppp" over and over again like a mantra.”
Never truer words spoken! Anyway, I’ve just realised I’ve written 1500 words on what is essentially a reality TV show. Oh, the shame! The humiliation! What have I become. I think it’s a worrying sign of obsession when you jump up and scream “YESSS!!!” at the TV, like I did when Ben survived the boardroom this week. And I’ve always moaned about people who stand up and scream when their football team scores a goal! I’m such a hypocrite. But, for now, I’m borderline obsessed with this show. Do I need to get a life?
I think if I were in that boardroom facing Sir Alan Sugar, I’d crumble like a stale digestive biscuit and run sobbing for my Mum out the door. Having said that, it’s tremendously good entertainment watching this year’s collection of candidates sweating away, trying not to crack under the pressure as they face the towering wrath of the boss. As the narrator reminds us at the start of every episode, these are “Britain’s brightest business prospects” – well, you could have fooled me! Watching them bumble and bicker, and witnessing their sheer ineptitude (in most cases) is absolutely hilarious, and the range of tasks they are set prove to be versatile and interesting. It could be said that the tasks they are set don’t really represent appropriate scenarios common in a business environment, but it hardly seems to matter because the whole process makes for such a wonderful ride. The candidates all have ego’s the size of the solar system (you’d think they’d all cancel each other out) and watching them brought down a peg or two by “Britain’s most belligerent boss” is a joy to behold.
I’ve never watched the show before (which I regret massively), having previously written it off as your standard trashy reality TV fare. But, after realising I was pretty much the only person I knew who didn’t watch it, I decided to give it a go. And now I’m hooked. Addicted. It’s easily the best thing on mainstream television in the past year. As soon as that wonderful piece of classical music from Romeo and Juliet starts up at the beginning, I get excited. I’ve started watching earlier series episodes on YouTube (Series 3 currently, which is fantastic) and I bought the Best of Series 1-4 compilation DVD. What’s happening to me? There’s no escaping the fact that the show is very much reality television, but for me, it’s reality TV with a notable difference. For one thing, it’s packaged in a much classier fashion. Sir Alan Sugar adds credibility, as (on the whole) do the bunch of contestants, who aren’t your typical brainless desperate losers who normally appear on this type of thing. Am I allowed to say that? Compared to the atrocious Britain’s Got Talent, currently airing on Saturdays (which is the televisual equivalent of a day trip to a sewage system), The Apprentice is gold standard television. Britain’s Got Talent, with its cringe-worthy so-called life-changing sob stories, smug judging panel and the never-ending bells and whistles makes me feel physically sick. The fact that it occupies so much press coverage and media fawning is simply beyond my power of comprehension.
Anyway, as I write this, we’re six weeks into Series Five, the halfway mark. So far we’ve had car-washing, catering, home fitness equipment, bodycare products, a cereal advertising campaign and bric-a-brac street selling. Six candidates have been fired (the catchphrase of the series), and I’ve agreed with all of them, bar one – which was Kimberley in Week Five. Highlights from the series for me have included Ben as Captain Squawk, the awful (and rather frightening) Pants Man, the Wake Up Call commercial jingle, lugging a skeleton around the streets of London and mixing up £5 with £700 when buying fragrances. And of course, the boardroom showdowns are always a highlight.
Anyway, for a bit of fun, I thought I’d rank the remaining contestants from best to worst;
1. Ben – I think I’m in the minority on this one, but I love him. He speaks his mind, he’s got a lovely Belfast accent and he’s very good-looking. In fact, as it happens, several people have noted that, facially, he looks very similar to me. And we share the same name, so I feel a certain bond with him. A connection, if you will. He fights his corner when he has to, and is easily the most capable of the remaining boys. It will be a travesty if he doesn’t win, quite frankly. I’ve watched a load of reality TV shows in the past, but I’ve never actually given a toss who actually wins, but with this, I do care. I think he was unfairly targeted in Weeks Three and Four.
In this week’s episode, I felt sorry for him. He got the short straw, and was made Project Manager of a horrible task, that was, in many ways, pot luck. He may be full of himself, but he has every right to be. I thought Noorul was pathetic in the boardroom when he accused Ben of being part of the show for the wrong reasons and that he was only on the programme to chase fame, and wanted to pose nude for magazines with just a rugby ball covering his modesty. For starters, what’s wrong with that? I hope he does! I really hope he does. Ahem, where was I? On the downside, Ben’s been in the boardroom 3/6 times (so 50%), but I’m cheered by the fact that he’s been saved by Sir Alan on each occasion, which must mean the boss sees something in him? Put it this way, if Ben does get fired, I’ll happily hire him as my Apprentice...
2) Kate – I think everybody, except Lorraine has had a shot at being Project Manager now, and Kate’s performance (in Week Five) was easily the most professional. She kept her team in excellent spirits and everyone worked brilliantly under her leadership. There were no arguments (which is such a rarity!), and the team produced a good strong product. She seems nice and down-to-earth, and is surely a contender to win the competition. She is, I think, the only candidate not to have been in the firing line this series.
3) Howard – So okay, granted, he’s not done much, but he seems genuinely sweet and lovely. Plus, he’s gay. I think he’s a bit of a dark horse and might come in to his own now we’ve down in numbers. Hope he does anyway. Don’t think we’ve seen the best of him yet.
4) James – Sir Alan referred to him as “the village idiot” in last week’s episode. Poor James! But there is some truth in that. He seems bemused and confused a lot of the time, and quite often what comes out of his mouth doesn’t make sense. He does however seem very enthusiastic and seems to be enjoying himself thoroughly. He’s grown on me, anyway. When he project managed in Week Three (the home fitness task), I thought he was useless and lackadaisical, but as the week’s have gone on, I’ve started to find him quite endearing, even if he doesn’t really bring much, creatively, to proceedings.
5) Yasmina – the jury’s still out on this one, to be honest. There’s no denying she acts in a professional manner, and seems level-headed and determined, but she’s hardly likeable, is she? She comes across as ruthless, callous and cold-hearted... therefore embodying all the qualities of a winner. She has an annoying habit of saying “Okay?” at the end of every sentence, which irks me. I wouldn’t like to her win, but she’s yet to put a foot wrong really, aside from the pricing cock-up in Week Four.
6) Lorraine – Or should that be Cassandra? Again, I’m undecided here. It’ll be interesting to see how she develops over the next few tasks – that is, if she survives. She comes across – or at least she has done in the last few editions as being melancholic, curmudgeonly and whinny. She has a tendency to suck all the enthusiasm out of her team mates, and never seems to have a positive word to say about anyone or anything. That said, I do often find myself agreeing with what she says, and someone has to stand up to Philip. I liked Kimberley’s description of her – “A bit like working with Eeyore!”
7) Debra – Oh dear! She’s a trouble-causer I knew she was right from Week One. Doesn't think before she opens her mouth. Fiery as a dragon, and very strong-minded. I wouldn’t like to be on the receiving end of her. Her rude tirade towards Nick (Sir Alan’s aide) on Wednesday’s episode was uncalled for, and showed her to be unprofessional, mouthy and disrespectful. I don’t think she’ll last long. At least, I don’t want her to.
8) Mona – One of those contestants that doesn’t really seem to do much, and just seems to fade into the background. Comes across as quite unlikeable and never really seems to bring anything to proceedings or offers anything useful. The reason I’m placing her so low down on my list is because of her woeful, cringe-worthy sales pitch to the Advertising Execs in Week Five. “The slogan we’ve come up with is ‘Put your pants on – the right way’, not like a superhero, ‘cos he’s the only one whose allowed to get away with it. So, when you eat our cereal, you won’t dress up like Pants Man. ‘Cos you’re not Pants Man. Only Pants Man gets away with his pants over his... clothes.” I mean, sorry... what? And then she proceeds to tell the ad execs what’s in the cereal. Okkaaayyy.
9) Philip – Bottom of the pile. Loud, arrogant and odious, I want rid of him. He’s like Ben, without the lovability. I could rant on for ages about how he rubs me up the wrong way, but I found this quote from the fantastic Charlie Brooker, who I’m sure puts it better than I ever could;
“No. The real enemy is clearly Philip, the 29-year-old former estate agent with the Durham accent. He was actually my favourite for a while. Not any more. He's flared up. He's gone horrible.
Philip seems to spend 98% of his screen time shouting his own opinions over anything anyone says. And if they're a woman, he'll shout twice as loud, for twice as long, like some previously-unseen character from Life On Mars, only less amusing because he's wearing a smart suit and some hair gel instead of a zany kipper tie. And boy does he love himself.
He looks like he throws himself roughly on to the bed each night, hungrily moving his hands all over his own body, trying to kiss himself deep in the mouth. If it were legal or even possible to do so, he'd probably marry himself, then conduct a long-term affair with himself behind himself's back, eventually fathering nine children with himself, all of whom would walk and talk like him. And then he'd lock those mini-hims in a secret underground dungeon to have his sick way with his selves, undetected, for decades.
If you asked Philip if he thought the world revolved around him, he'd blink and ask you what exactly a "world" was, then go back to staring in the mirror, drooling and smiling and pointing and saying "Philllllippp, Philllllipppp" over and over again like a mantra.”
Never truer words spoken! Anyway, I’ve just realised I’ve written 1500 words on what is essentially a reality TV show. Oh, the shame! The humiliation! What have I become. I think it’s a worrying sign of obsession when you jump up and scream “YESSS!!!” at the TV, like I did when Ben survived the boardroom this week. And I’ve always moaned about people who stand up and scream when their football team scores a goal! I’m such a hypocrite. But, for now, I’m borderline obsessed with this show. Do I need to get a life?
South Park - the beginning of the end?
“I’m goin’ down to South Park, gonna have myself a time!”
Or not, as the case may be with the latest batch of new episodes shown recently in the US. The first seven episodes of the show’s thirteenth season ranged from the ridiculous to the stupid, and seemed devoid of the cutting-edge social commentary and satire that the show is renowned for. Since it began on Comedy Central back in 1997, South Park has earned itself a deserved reputation as being subversive and original, breaking taboos and boldly broaching controversial topical issues. Past examples include a brilliant examination of the 2008 Presidential Election (Season 12’s “About Last Night”), a unique take on the Gay Marriage Rights Bill (“Follow the Egg” from Season 9) and the show’s memorable response to the 9/11 attacks in an episode where the boys encountered Osama Bin Laden.
Perhaps it is, after almost two hundred episodes that the show is just running out of ideas? It happened long ago to The Simpsons, which has been unwatchable for the best part of a decade now, and Family Guy was never the same again after being brought back from the dead. And, to be fair, where else can Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the creators) take the show? It’s mocked every crevice of popular culture, ranging from its hilarious depictions of Michael Jackson and Jennifer Lopez to Mel Gibson and George Lucas. Christianity, Judaism, Scientology and Mormonism have all been caught in the firing line, and homosexuality, race, environmentalism, disability and war have all been tackled in the typical South Park style. What else does it have to say?
In the early years of the show, the humour was often more simplistic, relying, for the most part, on four eight-year-old boys living in Colorado. Fart jokes and swearing (the infamous “Oh my God, you killed Kenny”) were arguably what launched the show into the public consciousness, outraging certain parties (and in my case, parents), but winning critical acclaim and a loyal cult fanbase. Early adventures ranged from the surreal – mutant turkeys, Pinkeye-infected zombies, a gigantic robotic Barbara Streisand, a talking piece of poo, a gay dog and an elephant making love to a pig to the boys-will-be-boys innocence of Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny, as well as the whole “I’ve learnt something today” aspect, which saw the show conclude with a semi-serious message. The early episode may look fairly drab; the animation is rather poor, but they ooze charm, and hold up extremely well. Most importantly of all, they’re still funny.
With the South Park movie in 1999, and arguably funnier and more ambitious stories, South Park was probably (for me, anyway) at its peak in terms of quality around the third and fourth seasons. It seemed to have struck a successful balance that juggled social commentary and satire with the puerile, immature and hilarious. Who could forget the fantastic Pokemon piss-take? The introduction of Timmy? Sexual Harassment Panda? Cartman posing as a poster boy for the North American Man Boy Love Association, the revelation that God is actually a talking rat and the boys attempt at launching a boyband were all memorable highlights Рmanaging to be risqu̩, original and downright funny. But, towards the end of Season Four, the winning formula was changed. The boys were growing up. Fourth grade.
Season Five is much darker than the four proceeding years. We have Cartman turning a boy’s parents into chilli and then watching him eat it (in probably the best episode ever produced), we have Kenny dying (actually rather moving), as well as commentary on stem-cell research/abortion, terrorism, masturbation and an episodes that features the word “shit” in excess of 160 times. With Kenny absent from the sixth season, change was in the air. Gone were the days of the boy’s being boys – instead each week we’re faced with film parodies, grotesque celebrity spoofs and political satire. The murder of Jesus and Santa Claus being tortured in Iraq in the Season Six finale “Red Sleigh Down” epitomises the “new” South Park. It’s funny, but dark, and laced with undertones. Seasons Seven and Eight continued in much the same vein, offering a mixture of, on the whole, excellent episodes. Highlights included Cartman saying “Fuck Jesus”, the exposure of America’s attitude towards the Iraq war (“Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every poll”) and the brilliant metaphor for the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign where the boys had to vote between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich for their school mascot.
And then we get to Season Nine, and the show has never been what it was since, in all honesty. It’s not that Season Nine was bad, it just wasn’t as fresh or biting or innovative as previous seasons were. An over reliance on film parodies was an issue. And it seems that we must endure several spoofs per year. We’ve had lampoons on “24”, “The Day After Tomorrow”, “High School Musical”, “The Passion of the Christ”, “Indiana Jones” and most recently “The Dark Knight”. The problem with these parodies is not that they’re not well-observed and realised, but that they’re not funny. Not particularly, anyway. The ideas are good, but the execution is frequently devoid of genuine laughs. And considering South Park is a comedy, that rather defeats the object. Leading on from this is the constant inclusion of celebrities. Very hit-and-miss in recent years. We’ve had takes on Britney Spears, Oprah, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, the Jonas Brothers, Mickey Mouse, Kanye West and Paris Hilton to name but a few, and whereas the satire and mockery is often completely on the money, I’m feeling more and more like “been there, done that”. They’ve made their point on celebrity culture and there’s only a certain number of times the same idea can be re-packaged and flogged. A comparison to the Ricky Gervais’ sitcom Extras seems necessary here. In Extras, we’ve offered a garish, distorted, completely exaggerated version of an egotistical celebrity each week. First time you see it, it’s really funny. Tenth time the formula is repeated, it feels stale, predictable and repetitive. South Park is definitely in danger of falling into this trap.
South Park has always had elements of surrealism to it, right since the first episode when Cartman was abducted by aliens and given an anal probe, but in recent years, the show seems to sometimes become too surreal, and possibly even ridiculous, for it’s own good. It’s okay when the surreal elements are used sporadically throughout an episode, but when they become the dominant focus of an entire episode, alarm bells begin to sound. Need I mention the Towellie disaster from Season 10, the hideous “A Million Little Fibers”, or the Britney Spears mess from Season 12. Or the one from Season 11 with the headlice, or the recent Season 13 train wreck that featured twenty-two minutes of Terrence and Philip and two Canadian women queefing all over each other and other people. These episodes tend to be weakened all the more by the fact that the four main protagonists are often completely removed from the plot. And, what is the writer’s obsession with Randy Marsh (Stan’s father)? It seems we can’t go a whole season without at least 3 episodes given over to him to ruin? Season 13 had Randy becoming some sort of recession-preventing-God, as well as being the American (or indeed Earth) representative when it was visited by an alien. Ridiculous! Since when was South Park about the parents? Randy isn’t even a funny character, and the fact that he is constantly at the centre of storylines detracts from what the show should be about.
I guess my main issue with Season 13 (well, the first half) is the feeling that the writer’s have exhausted every possible avenue. Everything feels stale. It’s as if Trey Parker is making the show on autopilot. The enthusiasm seems to have gone. The show is no longer making relevant statements about society, but is instead pandering to the masses with it’s reliance on celebrity culture and film spoofs. We’ve had several episodes this year that have, essentially, been one-joke episodes. The “Queef” fiasco springs to mind, as does the “Fishsticks” episode, not forgetting the abysmal “Fatbeard” which saw Cartman become a pirate. We’ve had the obligatory film parody, we’ve had the obligatory surreal episodes (the Derby episode, and the Queef episode), we’ve had the obligatory set of Randy centric episodes and we’ve had the obligatory celebrity piss-take. And I’m just left feeling, we’ve seen it all before. And the show has done it better before. I think, if the show is to improve in the second half of the season (seven more episodes to air from October), then the writer’s need to strip the show down. Maybe go back to basics? More emphasis on the boys and their antics, and less focus on Randy, celebrities, film parodies and surrealism. South Park has offered the best in satire since 1997, and I’d hate to see it completely lose it’s touch. Here’s hoping the second half of Season 13 is an improvement, or else I think it’s time for Kenny to be killed for the last time.
Or not, as the case may be with the latest batch of new episodes shown recently in the US. The first seven episodes of the show’s thirteenth season ranged from the ridiculous to the stupid, and seemed devoid of the cutting-edge social commentary and satire that the show is renowned for. Since it began on Comedy Central back in 1997, South Park has earned itself a deserved reputation as being subversive and original, breaking taboos and boldly broaching controversial topical issues. Past examples include a brilliant examination of the 2008 Presidential Election (Season 12’s “About Last Night”), a unique take on the Gay Marriage Rights Bill (“Follow the Egg” from Season 9) and the show’s memorable response to the 9/11 attacks in an episode where the boys encountered Osama Bin Laden.
Perhaps it is, after almost two hundred episodes that the show is just running out of ideas? It happened long ago to The Simpsons, which has been unwatchable for the best part of a decade now, and Family Guy was never the same again after being brought back from the dead. And, to be fair, where else can Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the creators) take the show? It’s mocked every crevice of popular culture, ranging from its hilarious depictions of Michael Jackson and Jennifer Lopez to Mel Gibson and George Lucas. Christianity, Judaism, Scientology and Mormonism have all been caught in the firing line, and homosexuality, race, environmentalism, disability and war have all been tackled in the typical South Park style. What else does it have to say?
In the early years of the show, the humour was often more simplistic, relying, for the most part, on four eight-year-old boys living in Colorado. Fart jokes and swearing (the infamous “Oh my God, you killed Kenny”) were arguably what launched the show into the public consciousness, outraging certain parties (and in my case, parents), but winning critical acclaim and a loyal cult fanbase. Early adventures ranged from the surreal – mutant turkeys, Pinkeye-infected zombies, a gigantic robotic Barbara Streisand, a talking piece of poo, a gay dog and an elephant making love to a pig to the boys-will-be-boys innocence of Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny, as well as the whole “I’ve learnt something today” aspect, which saw the show conclude with a semi-serious message. The early episode may look fairly drab; the animation is rather poor, but they ooze charm, and hold up extremely well. Most importantly of all, they’re still funny.
With the South Park movie in 1999, and arguably funnier and more ambitious stories, South Park was probably (for me, anyway) at its peak in terms of quality around the third and fourth seasons. It seemed to have struck a successful balance that juggled social commentary and satire with the puerile, immature and hilarious. Who could forget the fantastic Pokemon piss-take? The introduction of Timmy? Sexual Harassment Panda? Cartman posing as a poster boy for the North American Man Boy Love Association, the revelation that God is actually a talking rat and the boys attempt at launching a boyband were all memorable highlights Рmanaging to be risqu̩, original and downright funny. But, towards the end of Season Four, the winning formula was changed. The boys were growing up. Fourth grade.
Season Five is much darker than the four proceeding years. We have Cartman turning a boy’s parents into chilli and then watching him eat it (in probably the best episode ever produced), we have Kenny dying (actually rather moving), as well as commentary on stem-cell research/abortion, terrorism, masturbation and an episodes that features the word “shit” in excess of 160 times. With Kenny absent from the sixth season, change was in the air. Gone were the days of the boy’s being boys – instead each week we’re faced with film parodies, grotesque celebrity spoofs and political satire. The murder of Jesus and Santa Claus being tortured in Iraq in the Season Six finale “Red Sleigh Down” epitomises the “new” South Park. It’s funny, but dark, and laced with undertones. Seasons Seven and Eight continued in much the same vein, offering a mixture of, on the whole, excellent episodes. Highlights included Cartman saying “Fuck Jesus”, the exposure of America’s attitude towards the Iraq war (“Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every poll”) and the brilliant metaphor for the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign where the boys had to vote between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich for their school mascot.
And then we get to Season Nine, and the show has never been what it was since, in all honesty. It’s not that Season Nine was bad, it just wasn’t as fresh or biting or innovative as previous seasons were. An over reliance on film parodies was an issue. And it seems that we must endure several spoofs per year. We’ve had lampoons on “24”, “The Day After Tomorrow”, “High School Musical”, “The Passion of the Christ”, “Indiana Jones” and most recently “The Dark Knight”. The problem with these parodies is not that they’re not well-observed and realised, but that they’re not funny. Not particularly, anyway. The ideas are good, but the execution is frequently devoid of genuine laughs. And considering South Park is a comedy, that rather defeats the object. Leading on from this is the constant inclusion of celebrities. Very hit-and-miss in recent years. We’ve had takes on Britney Spears, Oprah, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, the Jonas Brothers, Mickey Mouse, Kanye West and Paris Hilton to name but a few, and whereas the satire and mockery is often completely on the money, I’m feeling more and more like “been there, done that”. They’ve made their point on celebrity culture and there’s only a certain number of times the same idea can be re-packaged and flogged. A comparison to the Ricky Gervais’ sitcom Extras seems necessary here. In Extras, we’ve offered a garish, distorted, completely exaggerated version of an egotistical celebrity each week. First time you see it, it’s really funny. Tenth time the formula is repeated, it feels stale, predictable and repetitive. South Park is definitely in danger of falling into this trap.
South Park has always had elements of surrealism to it, right since the first episode when Cartman was abducted by aliens and given an anal probe, but in recent years, the show seems to sometimes become too surreal, and possibly even ridiculous, for it’s own good. It’s okay when the surreal elements are used sporadically throughout an episode, but when they become the dominant focus of an entire episode, alarm bells begin to sound. Need I mention the Towellie disaster from Season 10, the hideous “A Million Little Fibers”, or the Britney Spears mess from Season 12. Or the one from Season 11 with the headlice, or the recent Season 13 train wreck that featured twenty-two minutes of Terrence and Philip and two Canadian women queefing all over each other and other people. These episodes tend to be weakened all the more by the fact that the four main protagonists are often completely removed from the plot. And, what is the writer’s obsession with Randy Marsh (Stan’s father)? It seems we can’t go a whole season without at least 3 episodes given over to him to ruin? Season 13 had Randy becoming some sort of recession-preventing-God, as well as being the American (or indeed Earth) representative when it was visited by an alien. Ridiculous! Since when was South Park about the parents? Randy isn’t even a funny character, and the fact that he is constantly at the centre of storylines detracts from what the show should be about.
I guess my main issue with Season 13 (well, the first half) is the feeling that the writer’s have exhausted every possible avenue. Everything feels stale. It’s as if Trey Parker is making the show on autopilot. The enthusiasm seems to have gone. The show is no longer making relevant statements about society, but is instead pandering to the masses with it’s reliance on celebrity culture and film spoofs. We’ve had several episodes this year that have, essentially, been one-joke episodes. The “Queef” fiasco springs to mind, as does the “Fishsticks” episode, not forgetting the abysmal “Fatbeard” which saw Cartman become a pirate. We’ve had the obligatory film parody, we’ve had the obligatory surreal episodes (the Derby episode, and the Queef episode), we’ve had the obligatory set of Randy centric episodes and we’ve had the obligatory celebrity piss-take. And I’m just left feeling, we’ve seen it all before. And the show has done it better before. I think, if the show is to improve in the second half of the season (seven more episodes to air from October), then the writer’s need to strip the show down. Maybe go back to basics? More emphasis on the boys and their antics, and less focus on Randy, celebrities, film parodies and surrealism. South Park has offered the best in satire since 1997, and I’d hate to see it completely lose it’s touch. Here’s hoping the second half of Season 13 is an improvement, or else I think it’s time for Kenny to be killed for the last time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
