alt.guardian.die.die.die

[Sebastian Cobb]

I read a wee snippet of an interview with Dara "EEEEEEEEEH" O'Brien where he mentioned Baddiel coming up to him 3 separate times during his stint on Taskmaster to say "I am intelligent, you know." Didn't see it myself but i understand he may have behaved like what he would have termed a 'spanner' in his early TV days.

lol that's basically what monkey dust sent him up for about 20 years ago

[Jockice]

It has a bit of a reputation as a crap, girly American TV show, and there's that joke about how seeing the SATC boxset in a woman's house is a sure-fire sign that she's not a keeper. This is perhaps unfair-people possibly assume it's crap because it's a show about women, for women.

I used to hate-watch it as an undergrad, with my flatmates, and we'd all be discussing it ("oh my god, what the hell is SJP wearing?"; "How do these horrible women get so many dates?" etc). For all that we hated it we also couldn't stop watching it, and looking back it is a well-written show with four complex (as opposed to "strong") female characters. The four leads are also pretty unsympathetic, which doesn't seem so unusual after Curb, The Thick Of It, It's Always Sunny but was back then. Before SATC Seinfeld was a pretty rare example of a sitcom with a cast of horrible characters. I'm still not a fan and I have no desire to revisit it, but I wonder if it's better than I remember, or if my older self would find more to appreciate. I'm not that curious though.

I have suggested before that SATC could be considered an all-female Seinfeld- a show about four New Yorkers who are serial daters and horrible people, who are constantly getting fixated on minor flaws and quirks in the men they date before Hilarity Ensues. In Seinfeld Elaine was meant to be "one of the guys" rather than the token woman so I think the comparison works.

Now please don't crucify me, CaBbers...

It tells me fuck all about my existence. As Morrissey once sang.

[shiftwork2]

I was briefly a journalist, but the last series was a bit duff for my liking.

Bit duff?  It was like seeing a kindly relative pump their pants with shit and not notice.

Wire / Sopranos chat yeeeesssss

[Ferris]

It's certainly a favourite of mine (certainly more than the Sopranos, which I couldn't get into) - this despite my not being a drug addict, drug dealer, policeman, dockworker or corrupt politician.

I was briefly a journalist, but the last series was a bit duff for my liking.

I came up steady slingin' in the 'jects, but on the East side of Baltimore so unfortunately the series says nothing to me about my life.

(I think I've been doing a rolling rewatching of The Wire since about 2014 - every time I finish it, I go back and watch it again over a period of about a year or so. It is a staggeringly brilliant piece of work. Season 5 was a bit shit compared to the rest of the show, but that says more about how good 1-4 is than anything else.)

[mr. logic]

Bit duff?  It was like seeing a kindly relative pump their pants with shit and not notice.

Wire / Sopranos chat yeeeesssss

Was it though? I agree it wasn't great compared to 4- which I would personally put up against any work of fiction ever- but still plenty of good stuff. I remember watching it in real time and the online community were all pretty much still well into it. It never truly jumped off the cliff. Funnily enough, it's the Omar stuff that doesn't really work for me.

[Endicott]

I came up steady slingin' in the 'jects, but on the East side of Baltimore so unfortunately the series says nothing to me about my life.

(I think I've been doing a rolling rewatching of The Wire since about 2014 - every time I finish it, I go back and watch it again over a period of about a year or so. It is a staggeringly brilliant piece of work. Season 5 was a bit shit compared to the rest of the show, but that says more about how good 1-4 is than anything else.)

Aha! So you've only re-watched it about 6 times? Amateur.[nb]mind you I did start doing this about 5 years before you.[/nb]

[idunnosomename]

should've started a new thread for this sorry

[bgmnts]

Was it though? I agree it wasn't great compared to 4- which I would personally put up against any work of fiction ever- but still plenty of good stuff. I remember watching it in real time and the online community were all pretty much still well into it. It never truly jumped off the cliff. Funnily enough, it's the Omar stuff that doesn't really work for me.

Omar is weird because he is undoubtedly the coolest character on the show but, for a series heavily doused in stark reality, he is such a fantasy it almost doesn't work. But it just about does because he's Omar.

[Paul Calf]

I watched series 1 and it was ok but series 2 was so dull I couldn't get to the end, so I just dropped out.

[Mister Six]

Although all the Omar stuff is an amalgamation of real mad shit actual stickup men did. The problem is having just the one guy do it, really.

I used to hate-watch it as an undergrad, with my flatmates, and we'd all be discussing it ("oh my god, what the hell is SJP wearing?"; "How do these horrible women get so many dates?" etc). For all that we hated it we also couldn't stop watching it, and looking back it is a well-written show with four complex (as opposed to "strong") female characters. The four leads are also pretty unsympathetic, which doesn't seem so unusual after Curb, The Thick Of It, It's Always Sunny but was back then. Before SATC Seinfeld was a pretty rare example of a sitcom with a cast of horrible characters. I'm still not a fan and I have no desire to revisit it, but I wonder if it's better than I remember, or if my older self would find more to appreciate. I'm not that curious though.

Mrs Six watched about three seasons of it at the start of lockdown, before deciding she'd had enough. Overhearing bits and watching a few episodes, I can confirm that it wasn't bad, and could be quite amusing. I'm not sure that the characters are really supposed to be as unempathetic/monstrous as those in Seinfeld and Sunny though.

SJP's character seems to be a deranged narcissist but is never upbraided for it, by other characters or (mostly) the narrative, and the other women seem all right and fairly justified in their complaints and decisions.

Indeed.

+++++Karma

[H-O-W-L]

I was just wondering what Hadley Freeman thinks of the whole Breaking Bad universe, what with it featuring an Irish-American with a Catholic name who practices law under a Jewish name because people supposedly trust Jewish lawyers more, and one of the most fascinating and complex female characters ever:

I know you're referring to Mad Men with that last part, probably, but I will say that oh my fuck Kim Wexler is probably the best female character I've seen on TV in the last few years. Such a wonderfully complex, slow-burning character that comes into her own gradually, methodically, and over time with an insanely good payoff and an all-round fantastic and consistent personality even if she's a bit rum.

And I wonder what she'd have to say about Deadwood. I bet she'd write it off as over-complicated sweary men who say #cancelled words rather than the more nuanced and bitter deconstruction of evil and power it presents.

[Blue Jam]

I know you're referring to Mad Men with that last part, probably, but I will say that oh my fuck Kim Wexler is probably the best female character I've seen on TV in the last few years.

Nope- sorry if it wasn't clear, but I was referring to Kim Wexler! Amazing character (and performance by Rhea Seehorn), one of my favourites too! Kim Wexler is a bit of a style icon too, shame Hadley Freeman didn't bother to find this out.

Of course Peggy Olson is the best character in Mad Men, and characters like Betty, Sally and even Joan aren't just there as window dressing or love interests for the male characters. They're three-dimensional characters in their own right, affected by the social changes of the 1960s even more than the men. "That show about the men who drink where everyone wears pretty clothes" my arse.

I still can't get over her knocking Breaking Bad for the wardrobe choices- that show must have the most carefully-considered costume design of any show ever, someone could write an entire PhD thesis on it (and I bet someone actually has). And Better Call Saul has probably had more praise for its visual style than even Mad Men- but hey, it's a show which mentions a man in the title, and it's a spin-off of that other show about a man, you know, that one where the characters dress badly, it can't possibly be worth a watch.

Imagine judging shows by how stylish the characters look, regardless of whether or not this fits with the character's background, income etc. What a sad way to choose what you watch of an evening. And how the hell does this crap get published? Charlie Brooker, who praised Mad Men and The Wire when he was still writing his Screen Burn column for the Graun, must be shaking his head in disbelief at what passes for their TV criticism now.

[Icehaven]

I've never seen SATC, The Wire, The Sopranos or Breaking Bad but anyone saying Mad Men is just men drinking and pretty clothes or whatever the hell she said is only showing their complete inability to look past the most tertiary understanding of something and actually pay some attention to it. I loved it obviously, and if someone's watched enough of it to fairly decide they don't then fine, but if the sum total of their argument is reducing it to what someone who's only ever watched a carefully selected 30 seconds of it would say then it doesn't exactly smack of decent analysis

[NoSleep]

I think you're expecting way too much from a writer for a newspaper.

[dissolute ocelot]

Sex and the City is an entertaining and often funny show, but it's obvious that a show about dating, the relationship between the sexes, homosexuality, fashion, urban life, and the arts, is going to date a lot more quickly than a show about suburban Catholic gangsters killing each other and hating their mothers. SatC didn't even have Tinder, what's it going to say to David Baddiel about his life now.

[NoSleep]

That's his life that is.

[petril]

Sex and the City is an entertaining and often funny show, but it's obvious that a show about dating, the relationship between the sexes, homosexuality, fashion, urban life, and the arts, is going to date a lot more quickly than a show about suburban Catholic gangsters killing each other and hating their mothers. SatC didn't even have Tinder, what's it going to say to David Baddiel about his life now.

"oh chinny RECK-on"

[TrenterPercenter]

I've watched the Wire which is obviously brilliant; I've not watched the Sopranos but it is considered pretty much the best ever series alongside The Wire (and I've no reason to doubt it).  No idea about Mad Men but again I imagine it is probably good but is a bit glossy (purely down to what Noir stylistically means).  I've seen bits of Breaking Bad and well its not for me.

SATC was always shit for cunts; it not hard to see why someone like Freeman would feel it spoke to her; it was aimed at being a liberating female oriented program - in a kind of oooh women have/like sex and can be horrid, or predatory or whatever (what an incredible and radical thought!).  Fundamentally it is a show about rich white women acting like cunts but getting away with it because of their privilege; it is a show about Hadley and people that aspire to be like her (of which there are many).  It's main problem is it is class deaf (as is Friends and Harry Potter) but try telling anyone this over the last 20 years and you were just assumed an arse.

[Bazooka]

Well yes, but it's intentionally 'class deaf' the premise isn't built upon a broad societal spectrum. It didn't harbour a fan base solely from the upper escellons of young professionals.

[Blue Jam]

Anyone remember that Frankie Boyle joke that goes along the lines of "Why is it that when my missus buys a vibrator that makes her liberated and empowered, but my inflatable sex doll makes me a disgusting pervert?" I'm not googling "Frankie Boyle sex doll" but that idea is often cited more seriously as an MRA argument, with MRA types claiming male sexuality is demonised while female sexuality is celebrated.

In reality I think the whole thing of women being promiscuous, using sex toys etc and being very open about it all is only seen as liberating and empowering for a tiny but vocal sector of middle-class bohemian women- perhaps the kind who will go to Coco de Mer to buy a £200 glass dildo and then write about it for Comment Is Free. What about women attending an Ann Summers party, a hen party carrying an inflatable penis as they walk between bars, the audience at a Chippendales show, glamour models, NHS Boob Job Lady... do people look at them and think "Wow, you go girl! Girl Power!"? I think a lot of people are still more likely to look at them and think they're a bit disgusting and low-class and so very unladylike. The same goes for upper class women and the kind of people who would still prefer the women to retire to the drawing room so the men can smoke cigars and make bawdy jokes away from their delicate ears.

The whole SATC world of sexual liberation seems very very middle class and maybe it is class-blind but I don't think it's aimed at such a narrow audience. It's aspirational stuff, a fantasy, and I think that's the a big part of the appeal. Just as I can watch Mad Men and admire the pretty clothes even though I would never wear stuff like that to my own workplace.

EDIT: I won't post the link because it's ruuuuuude and Neil would not approve, but I have just learned that Coco de Mer sell a £95 vibrator designed by Lily Allen. That's one of the most Guardian things I've ever seen... and I doubt they'd sell a range designed by Katie Price. She was flogging bras at ASDA- and for what it's worth I bought two and they were very comfy.

[non capisco]

The Sopranos has A.J, a character with no practical intelligence who moans about how crap everything is all the time and becomes a bit pretentious. There you go, David Baddiel, that's you, that is.

[Sebastian Cobb]

EDIT: I won't post the link because it's ruuuuuude and Neil would not approve, but I have just learned that Coco de Mer sell a £95 vibrator designed by Lily Allen. That's one of the most Guardian things I've ever seen... and I doubt they'd sell a range designed by Katie Price. She was flogging bras at ASDA- and for what it's worth I bought two and they were very comfy.

You say it's very Guardian but it was the BBC that were doing client journalism to promote it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201028160048/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54712504

They must've got dragged for it because the article has now been re-written as being about sex positivity from a 21 year old woman who was 'empowered' by Lily.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-54712504

Shenanigans eh.

[Sebastian Cobb]

The Sopranos has A.J, a character with no practical intelligence who moans about how crap everything is all the time and becomes a bit pretentious. There you go, David Baddiel, that's you, that is.

hahaha!

[Blue Jam]

I've watched the Wire which is obviously brilliant; I've not watched the Sopranos but it is considered pretty much the best ever series alongside The Wire (and I've no reason to doubt it).  No idea about Mad Men but again I imagine it is probably good but is a bit glossy (purely down to what Noir stylistically means).  I've seen bits of Breaking Bad and well its not for me.

Hadley Freeman hasn't watched Mad Men but she agreed when she was arguing that it was the boxset for the Obama era *headdesk*:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/miami-vice-curb-your-enthusiasm-box-set-political-era

The Obama era: Mad Men
This is gold chip stuff, no question. The highest of high quality, the standard to which everything that comes afterwards will be compared. How amazing, we cried, that a politician and TV show should possess both style and substance! But maybe (she says, in a tiny voice) there was, after all, just a little more of the former than the latter.

;)

She's wrong of course- essentially it's a show about the political and social changes happening across a decade, seen through the eyes of a group of people who were working in the media and in a big city, at the heart of it all. It happens to look amazing but there is much more to it than that. I watched seasons 1-5 around on BBC2, or on DVD, and then forgot about it until lockdown, when I finally decided to see if that ending was as perfect as people here said it was. I'm glad I did.

I enjoyed Breaking Bad but I do think it's a bit overrated- the "teacher becomes drug kingpin" premise is absolutely ludicrous for a start. It's well-written, beautifully shot and the acting is good (it's worth watching for Bryan Cranston's performance alone) but it's really an enjoyably action-packed OTT romp. As for Better Call Saul, I know it sounds pretentious to say it's by far the more grown-up and sophisticated show don't you know, but it just is. I think it works as a standalone thing but you might get more out of it if you watch BrBa first, partly because the callbacks are fun but mainly because the two main characters really work as foils for one another.

Now you've mentioned the class-blindness thing, there is some interesting exploration of class in the whole Breaking Bad universe. The characters include a high school teacher, a radiographer, a law enforcer and numerous lawyers who are all really struggling to make ends meet. They're all in jobs which once guaranteed a decent income and a comfortable life, and they're all struggling because the world has changed and having a degree is no longer a guarantee of a decent job. One of the official podcasts mentioned this, it's apparently deliberate. I think that's a situation a lot of people now find themselves in, univeristy educated but underemployed and underpaid. That's certainly more relatable than Friends, a show in which a coffee shop worker can afford a massive apartment in Manhatan.

[Famous Mortimer]

I feel like that tweet, plus a photoshop, could be the hot new meme. Put Baddiel's face into "A Serbian Film" and paste over the bit at the end where he says "SATC" and you've got comedy gold. But he'd probably like it if that happened so I don't want to.

[dissolute ocelot]

Horribly off topic for this thread, but re class-blindness and income blindness, I think it's interesting that it tends to be shows about youngish unmarried urban professionals that attract this criticism. I think there's a sense that if you're a young person living in the city, then whether you're living in a flat-share hovel or a huge loft with a kitchen the size of Paris, then as long as you're dating, hanging out with friends, getting drunk, and trying to decide what to do with your life, it's all basically the same, whether you're in Friends, SatC, Broad City, Made in Chelsea, Jersey Shore, etc. Obviously this isn't entirely true - and even less true if you're black or disabled. But if it's a show about people working at jobs, raising a family, etc, then class and income becomes much more obvious, and there's no way to pretend that we're all just Carrie/Samantha/Rachel/Monica when a few of us might be in Dallas but most of us are living more like Roseanne pre-series 9.

[TrenterPercenter]

Well yes, but it's intentionally 'class deaf' the premise isn't built upon a broad societal spectrum. It didn't harbour a fan base solely from the upper escellons of young professionals.

I'm not sure I'm with you; something can be intentional and still be damaging? This is dangerously close to saying, for example, programming that might be self-consciously racist is immune from criticism (or Derek was fine because it is intentionally offensive to people with learning difficulties).  I not following on fan base either; I'm not sure what it has to do with whether the program is bad or not but surely corrosive programming can attract individuals outside of it's character base? That is precisely what might be problematic (as I said it for people like Hadley and people that aspire to be like her).

You seem to be doing a very shallow assessment of what being class deaf is. Most class deaf programming is intentional and aimed at working class people, that is the whole point of some of it, to portray an idealised version of affluence detached from the realities of what affluence means in society writ large. There is lots going on here working class portrayal/absence/gratuity etc... and of is not as simple as the representation of poor people even in programming that isn't about them.  The program is not made for affluent people it is made to give an idealistic impression of affluent people to viewers; just like Downton Abbey doesn't have any accurate portrayal of its times rampant racism or sexism; and holds a charitable portrayal of master and servant dynamic.  Programming doesn't need to be a costume drama in order to struggle with this; in fact all programming could be subject to costume dramas of the future.  SATC (like Friends) holds damaging affluent (and very white) stereotypes that it communicates to its audience; it allows it's characters to get away with things and has them exist in unrealistic worlds yet claim them to be relatable.  These programs then influence and shape those who engage with them regardless of their own personal economic situation.  SATC and Friends absolutely did and those influences are arguably not for the betterment of people.  It is completely possible to do this kind of program and avoid these problems Absolutely Fabulous managed to do this because it grossly lampooned its narcissists.

Things are much more complicated and insidious than you are making out; and needless to say not as one dimensional as you seem to be alluding too.

[TrenterPercenter]

Horribly off topic for this thread, but re class-blindness and income blindness, I think it's interesting that it tends to be shows about youngish unmarried urban professionals that attract this criticism. I think there's a sense that if you're a young person living in the city, then whether you're living in a flat-share hovel or a huge loft with a kitchen the size of Paris, then as long as you're dating, hanging out with friends, getting drunk, and trying to decide what to do with your life, it's all basically the same, whether you're in Friends, SatC, Broad City, Made in Chelsea, Jersey Shore, etc. Obviously this isn't entirely true - and even less true if you're black or disabled. But if it's a show about people working at jobs, raising a family, etc, then class and income becomes much more obvious, and there's no way to pretend that we're all just Carrie/Samantha/Rachel/Monica when a few of us might be in Dallas but most of us are living more like Roseanne pre-series 9.

Yes you've hit the nail on the head it's pretend.  Some people use media to pretend to be the characters in it as it is preferable to the real world.  What is amazing is the naivety in the belief that they are the only people privy to this and not the writers/producers/marketing team and all the rest of people involved in creating what is a commodity to sell advertising space between the breaks.

It is a very interesting area "relatability", we can be drawn in and focus on relatable individual aspects of someones personality, somewhat selectively, and depending on how you approach things, you can defend interacting with the bits you don't want to have too much of an influence on you.  From a creative aspect whether you are creating a program or writing a political speech you can essentially drop relatable characteristics into otherwise horrid characters and have people effectively relating to and merge with more than they consciously would agree to..........a good example being on how a lot of Guardian writers operate.

[Mister Six]

I enjoyed Breaking Bad but I do think it's a bit overrated- the "teacher becomes drug kingpin" premise is absolutely ludicrous

You say that like it's a negative! :)

For me, the ludicrousness is what makes the show. I don't think series have to be "grown up" or even particularly plausible to be capital-G Great.

Although it is interesting how the show with the more superficially wacky and "big" character ended up being the most mature of the two.

[Bazooka]

I'm not sure I'm with you; something can be intentional and still be damaging? This is dangerously close to saying, for example, programming that might be self-consciously racist is immune from criticism (or Derek was fine because it is intentionally offensive to people with learning difficulties).  I not following on fan base either; I'm not sure what it has to do with whether the program is bad or not but surely corrosive programming can attract individuals outside of it's character base? That is precisely what might be problematic (as I said it for people like Hadley and people that aspire to be like her).

You seem to be doing a very shallow assessment of what being class deaf is. Most class deaf programming is intentional and aimed at working class people, that is the whole point of some of it, to portray an idealised version of affluence detached from the realities of what affluence means in society writ large. There is lots going on here working class portrayal/absence/gratuity etc... and of is not as simple as the representation of poor people even in programming that isn't about them.  The program is not made for affluent people it is made to give an idealistic impression of affluent people to viewers; just like Downton Abbey doesn't have any accurate portrayal of its times rampant racism or sexism; and holds a charitable portrayal of master and servant dynamic.  Programming doesn't need to be a costume drama in order to struggle with this; in fact all programming could be subject to costume dramas of the future.  SATC (like Friends) holds damaging affluent (and very white) stereotypes that it communicates to its audience

You have a very low opinion of the audiences mental capacity in separating fact from fiction, nobody is making the point it is made for affluent people,and missing any level of cynism that exists within these show's characters. Your argument boils down to a  concept that fiction is insidious if it fails to mirror a more accurate portrayal of life, I mean well that is a long bloody game, you are actually in the realm of critical thinking as both Freeman and Baddiel.  She brought the 'bullet proof' identity marker of 'white men' as a pointless foundation for criticism, because she is already comparing apples with oranges when juxtaposing The Sopranos with Sex & The City. It's not 'somewhat' selectively, how the audience identify with character traits, it's entirely selectively as part of all identification based on what the character is doing.

programming that might be self-consciously racist is immune from criticism (or Derek was fine because it is intentionally offensive to people with learning difficulties).

I see nobody making any such point or even dancing with the suggestion.