Good news - in the lead up to the ITV/AMC remake of The Prisoner appearing on our screens later this year, AMC is making the original series available to stream, free of charge, on their website.
Bad news - it's only available in the US. ITV doesn't seem to have done the same deal (Although it should be said that ITV does have an enormous raft of classic programming available to stream online, they just don't shout about it much).
Anyway, for something like The Prisoner you should go out and get the wonderful Network DVD set
BBC1 is stripping The Diary of Anne Frank at 7pm this week in place of The One Show, and I must say that after yesterday's lambasting of poor TV, this is a refreshing change. It's fabulous. Ellie Kendrick plays Anne herself, and is wonderfully naturalistic in her performance. After a few exterior scenes to convey Amsterdam, with Anne's parents (a very dour Tamsin Grieg and a practically unrecognisable Iain Glen as her upstanding father) bustling her across the city, stars stitched into their coats, the action moves into a claustrophobic interior set as the family settle in for the long haul.
I'll freely admit that I've never read the book, but you really feel that a teenager is talking to you as life goes on. It may be up against Emmerdale, but this is a finely made drama that I'll be looking forward to throughout this week.
Meanwhile, if you've not been watching Underbelly on FX, you're missing out on an absolute treat. Telling the story of the gangs of Melbourne over a ten-year period, the series is reaching its conclusion. Last night's episode saw an horrific killing of an otherwise nasty piece of work in front of his children. This actually happened.
Underbelly aired in Australia a while ago, but the UK DVD is out in a few weeks if you've not watched this great miniseries.
And if, for some reason, you're not able to use the iPlayer, The Diary of Anne Frank is out on DVD next week.
If there's one thing clear in recent times, it's that ITV really needs to up its drama quotient. So I watched Demons at the weekend - effectively ITV's sister programme to Primeval, and competing with the BBC's Doctor Who, Merlin and Robin Hood. I don't know when that latter programme is due to return, but the early evening scheduling of Demons means that it has the family-friendly Saturday night drama slot to itself at the moment.
But this was a mess. First of all, Philip (Gene Hunt) Glenister has an abysmal American accent that seems to serve no purpose at all. Aside from the haughty air that he carries which could be symptomatic of being an American (at least in the eyes of a hackneyed scriptwriter), his character could have originated anywhere. If, for international sales purposes, there had to be an American in the cast, then get an American actor - we've lent them enough of ours.
At Christmas, I was given a DVD set of Neverwhere, the 1996 Neil Gaiman penned series. Now while I wouldn't say that this was a rip-off of that programme (and subsequent novelisations and comics), there was certainly inspiration coming from it. That's not necessarily bad (I'd probably say that the fine BBC Radio 7 drama, Undone, also shares more than a little with Neverwhere), and there are also aspects of the BBC adaptation of Gormenghast in the make-up and style of the programmes humanesque beasts. But mostly, the show's creators have been watching Buffy. And Primeval. I heard a recent radio interview with Glenister promoting a book he'd helped with (I hesitate to say "written" since it sounded like a Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes unofficial cash-in), and he managed to barely mention this series at all. I suspect that unless things improve, we won't be seeing series 2. I quite liked Zoe Tapper in the recent Survivors, itself a little hit and miss, and she's obviously going places, but here she plays a blind concert pianist. Well - we know that there's no other profession for blind people than music don't we?
Neither of these two are the main character or his girlfriend. But they were perfunctory, yet otherwise forgettable. I can't remember their characters' names, and I can't be bothered to look them up.
The best character was Mackenzie Crook's who had a nice air of menace. Unless he reincarnates next week, they seem to have killed him off in the first episode though. I'm really not at all sure I'll bother with episode two.
Over on BBC1 we got an overlong monstrosity called Total Wipeout. A complete rip-off of Takeshi's Castle (as seen on Challenge TV), this programme saw twenty or so over-hyped contestants attempting an obstacle course, with a high likelihood of falling into mud, water or both. For reasons completely unexplained, the Endemol production is taped in Argentina, in an area with over-green turfed area making it look not dissimilar to the sets of Teletubbies or In The Night Garden. Indeed, the key three to six-years old audience is likely to find this funniest.
The main presenter is Top Gear's Richard Hammond, but he's sat by himself in front of a large screen reading scripting sarcastic ad-libs over the action unfurling in far away Argentina. Indeed, it's not clear whether he was brought in late in the day, because the show has flown out its own presenter in Amanda Byram, who also takes a fairly sarcastic attitude to precedings. That's probably not helped by the fact that each contestant was evidently forced to drink five litres of espresso before being asked to get over-excited on camera. In any case, Craig Charles was much better making stuff up for Takeshi's Castle when you knew that he little to no idea what was going on. Hammond is just snidish, and that's unfair given that this is a BBC commission. Laughing at funny foreigners can just about work, but laughing at people you've asked to do something for you doesn't.
The overall effect is that, all of a sudden, you're looking forward to series two of Hole in the Wall.
There's perhaps a half hour show in here, but instead, the limited obstacle course is seen again and again with all the contestants going through. Then we get slow motion replays and so on ad nauseum. By the time we get to the final where there's lots of fire in the background of the set for no good reason, and enormous towers of scaffolding that similarly take no part in the proceedings, we're worn down. The three finalists compete against the clock, but since the editing is all over the place with HD super-slomos abounding, the clock is on screen for an arbitrary length of time. Thus, the final competitor has no clock at all in-vision, so that some kind of false tension is built up. In the end the last contestant finishes something like 30 seconds after slower than the previous contestant, so leaving the clock on screen would have removed "suspense" in the result.
Still, I'm sure all the contestants had a lovely time in sunny Argentina. I don't suppose that there's any chance of having a new gameshow that - you know - asked questions or something?
[In fairness, I should point out that ITV brought back The Krypton Factor this week, and aside from replacing Gordon Burns with the anodyne Ben Shepherd who wasn't seemingly even able to ask his own questions, it was reasonable. At least there was a certain level of skill involved.]
Well don't bother. Instead, just lead a healthy lifestyle (I know, I know: pot, kettle, black, etc.).
The word "detox" really annoys me. It's pretty meaningless in the sense that it's most used. This morning, free newspaper Metro had a wraparound sponsored by Evian. They're once again asking us to "Detox with Evian" which makes no sense whatsoever. Drink bottled water if you like the taste, but it's no more or less healthy than any other kind of water in the western world.
On Radio 4 and Five Live this morning, a lady from a company who sell something called "a detox in a box" (nice aliteration), was roundly trounced by different people on both channels. Ben Goldacre of The Guardian's Bad Science was on Radio 4. You can read about the fun he had here, including the palpable untruths spouted by the detox defender.
Senese About Science has more, including a dossier that investigates many individual detoxing claims and a leaflet explaining all the nonsense.
I was right down in the corner today watching Wasps beat Harlequins 24-18. To be honest, my lens is too slow for the high shutter speed you really need for rugby. Hence, even though there was a try right in the corner where I was sitting, the shots were blurred because I should have been shooting at something like 1/1000 sec instead of 1/250. That meant needing to use a high ISO later in the game when I caught the action a little better. No wonder all the pros use such expensive lenses. More photos here.
Sorry - been a bit lapse with this. I had to take the opportunity to "do" the final day of the double Christmas edition. Best viewed large so you can read it.
No - I'm not talking about next week's adaption of The Diary of Anne Frank, but books and their authors on TV.
There's an interesting little discussion over at The Guardian about whether or not the Richard & Judy effect will continue with their new selection of titles now that they're hidden away on Watch getting a fraction of their Channel 4 audience. I suspect it'll make some difference, but sales won't fall through the floor of selected titles.
But it does highlight the lack of book coverage on mainstream television. Aside from South Bank Shows or Imagines on authors, and the discussion of big new books on Newsnight Review or The Culture Show, where books are mixed in with other art forms, there really isn't anything left.
Griff Rhys Jones once presented Bookworm for the BBC, but that finished in 2000. Sky Arts has The Book Show presented by Mariella Frostrop, but the ratings for it must be miniscule. Their sponsorship of the Hay festival means a nightly programme on during that too.
Radio is where there is plenty of book coverage with Open Book, again presented by Frostrop, and there's also A Good Read and Bookclub. And the BBC World Service has the World Book Club. That's aside from regular readings in daily slots of things like A Book At Bedtime and Book of the Week, as well as dramatisations, and opportunities to talk about books on a myriad of programmes from Start The Week to Simon Mayo (and his excellent weekly book segment).
But why is there nothing on television? With Richard & Judy out of sight, there's an opportunity for someone else to fly that flag.
It's now January, and that means that the films you can see in the cinema are suddenly good. On the other hand, the releases will come and go so fast, that you probably won't be able to see all them.
I both understand and really don't understand why the cinema industry treats films in this way. It's essentially because of awards. It's Oscar season, and Golden Globe season and BAFTA season, et al. The people who get to vote have memories like sieves seemingly, and can't be trusted to remember a film that came out in April by the time the nomination forms come around. So studios hold back films until the last possible minute, give them a limited release (the proper releases often only coming after a film has achieved a few gongs or nominations), and let them stack up on top of one another.
If you're even quite a regular cinema goer, you're going to find it hard to keep up. Of the serious films, this week sees Che: Part One and The Reader. Then coming up we have Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Milk and Valkyrie. That's just January, and the list probably isn't inclusive.
Still awards season does mean one good thing for the eager film fan - the "For Your Consideration" websites. If nominees can't be bothered to watch the personalised DVDs of these films that drop through their letterboxes (and immediately find themselves released on the internet as a result), then the film companies spend lots advertising in trade magazine and on their websites. They helpfully list all the locations (like Aspen) where you can catch screenings. But of late, they've also started including scripts for films up for writing awards, and it's nice to be able to legally download these.
So here's my list of what's currently available should you also want to read through a few screenplays:
http://www.universalpicturesawards.com/ has screenplays for Frost/Nixon and Changeling.
http://www.miramaxhighlights.com/ has screenplays for Mike Leigh's Happy Go Lucky and Doubt which I know nothing about.
http://www.paramount2008.com/ doesn't have anything apart from screening details.
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/awards/ has nothing just yet beyond screening details and a note that you should see their films in cinemas as they were meant to be shown - but curiously has a "screener disposal form" to certify that you've duly destroyed the screener that they have in fact sent you. I'm really looking forward to Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire next week.
http://www.vantageguilds.com/ has The Duchess, Defiance and Revolutionary Road the new Sam Mendes film.
http://warnerbros2008.warnerbros.com/hfpa/ has The Dark Knight and will have Gran Torino and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
http://www.filminfocus.com/awards08/index.php has Burn After Reading and Milk.
http://www.weinsteincohighlights.com/ has The Reader and Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
I hope this helps. Obviously, I wouldn't recommend actually reading the things until you've seen the films, but there's nothing like getting in early is there?
PS Just noticed that there's a script site that helpfully does all this work for you, so I needn't have spent ages trawling about hitting refresh at Variety. They've got loads more!
Listening to the New Year's Day Concert from Vienna is my preferred way of dealing with any hangover. There's something about The Blue Danube and The Radetzky March that's intrinsically linked with the day.
If you missed it, tune in tonight on BBC Four...
Wow. Channel 4 has an interesting and incredibly timely programme on next Monday. I assume it'll detail how to survive on the Gaza Strip when you're being bombed daily by the Israelis.
Wait a minute... My mistake.
It's actually called "Surviving Gazza", and is about the famously off-the-rails footballer.
Of course this is scheduled after an episode of the returning Celebrity B** B******. The fact is that Channel 4 can't survive without the ratings that this garbage gives them. We all know that they're in trouble, and are desperately short of cash. BB doesn't rock my boat. The people they sign up are "celebrities" in the loosest sense, largely doing it to reignite their waning careers (there's no other real reason to go on). But as I've said before, the downside is that C4 is effectively off limits for me for the next x-weeks - I neither know nor care how long it lasts.
So what's the answer? C4 needs BB to at least attempt to balance the books. E4, More 4 and even Film Four are appreciated by their respective audiences, but overall the station is haemorrhaging cash, and has recently made quite a large proportion of its staff redundant. It's unable to really benefit from international sales or DVD revenues because it doesn't its own programming - it's all made by independent production companies. And its news is facing problems as ITV cuts ever back, perhaps even leaving news behind altogether. As it is, the channel relies on ITV's regional news divisions.
Is it time for the end of Channel 4? I'm not sure that its is, but I worry that the direction it's headed is doing it no good in the long term.
Well one article and two blog posts really.
First off, Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, writes at length about how the media is effectively now unable to examine things like whether corporations are avoiding tax legally. We know that the UK's libel laws are absurd and encourage libel tourism (everything is effectively "published" in the UK either via the internet or through online booksales), but even more scary are the vast sums that journalists must pay tax lawyers to write articles. The piece itself cost "several thousand dollars" just to be cleared to publish. Nobody else followed up Private Eye's stories about Tesco in the summer, not because it wasn't a story, but it's just too expensive (and Tesco is a major advertiser, who nobody's in a hurry to annoy).
Charles Arthur on what a devastating effect Zavvi and Woolie's closures (or imminent closures) are likely to have on the music industry, with the supermarkets taking control of physical sales. Their tastes are somewhat blander than might be liked...
And finally author Max Barry on the stupidity of Warners who have somehow prevented purchasers of The Dark Knight on DVD from playing it on their PC. Such is their concern about anti-piracy, that they make pirates out of honest consumers. Film companies really need a kick up the backside.
In just four days, we could begin to see the first of Cliff Richard's singles re-released without Richard himself either profiting or having any say over what's released.
That could happen, although as I write, I can't see any forthcoming releases at Amazon. Indeed he's recently released a celebratory 50 years anthology, and gave away an album with the Mail on Sunday recently covering much the same.
His first two singles came out in 1958 and were Move It and High Class Baby.
Because copyright on current performers extends over 50 years, those songs drop out of copyright from Jan 1 2009.
Richard's problem is that he performed, but did not write most of his hits. Move It, Wikipedia tells me, was written by Ian Samwell (Aaron Schroeder wrote the B-Side - Schoolboy Crush). Samwell died in 2003, but his estate continues to profit from the song he wrote, and will do so until 2073 under current UK copyright legislation.
But Richards isn't happy, and he's not alone. In 2012 early Beatles songs will also go out of copyright, and thousands of other songs are going out of copyright every year.
There's a massive push amongst the UK music industry to get this period increased from 50 years to 95 years.
The reason is simple. These songs currently earn money, and with recorded sales declining, the industry is trying to recoup every penny it possibly can from wherever it can.
Is this a problem? Doesn't Cliff et al deserve a few quid for their work? Well in fact, Cliff's profited quite nicely. The major problem the industry has is that all the people who stand up for them seem to be well-known multi-millionaires. I can look at my own work in 50 years time and know that it won't be earning me any cash. But then I know that because I went in knowing it. If I perform a song today and it's in some way successful (I know this is a stretch, but stay with me), then I know that I have but 50 years to recoup some cash. A struggle I know.
Andy Burnham recently stood up in front of the music industry and gave a speech which suggested that the UK government was backing down from the conclusions of its own report.
Gowers, the author of the report, has a fantastic riposte in the FT:
Copyright is an economic instrument, not a moral one, and if you consider the economic arguments - as I did two years ago at the request of Gordon Brown - you will find that they do not stack up. All the respectable research shows that copyright extension has high costs to the public and negligible benefits for the creative community.
Consumers find themselves paying more for old works or unable to access "orphan works" where copyright ownership is unclear. Small businesses that play recorded music such as hairdressing salons and local radio stations face a hidden extra "tax" in the form of higher music-licence fees. Do they really need this at this time?
Gowers goes on to point out that no musician has ever decided not to record a song because it'll be out of copyright in 50 years.
The orphan works argument is also important. Most recorded music is not available today. It was largely disposable at the time, and even if it wasn't, unless it was recorded by a big enough star, it has long gone out of print. It's worth nobody's time putting it back in print if there are unnecessary copyright payments making the project unworkable.
And if you can't even trace the copyright owners, then you can expect the works to remain out of print until that copyright period is up completely. Currently that's 50 years from then, but it could reach 70 or even 95 if we mimic the States where Walt Disney has had such a sway.
As ever, it's the Open Rights Group that looks out for this kind of thing, because the music industry sings from one voice.
As it points out: the record industry will roll out some needy musicians - and there undoubtedly are many. But they won't be the real beneficiaries of increasing the term: many of those performance rights are owned by the large labels. I don't doubt that they're suffering. Look at EMI after all. But that's not reason to tax the public.
[Regular readers may know that I've written a lot on this subject before. Here, here and here for example. These views, are of course my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.]
