Marc’s Musings and Random Rants

I have just seen the most ridiculous advert in a newspaper for a long time:

Thinking about a Florida Vacation?
Please Ensure Your Family is Safe
A new law in the Sunshine State may encourage Floridians to "shoot first" when they feel threatened.
In Florida, avoid disputes that could escalate into violence. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads.
Police and prosecuters are concerned about the potential for uneccessary violence.

The advert is supported by the Brady Campaign "To Prevent Gun Violence" and has a link to www.shootfirstlaw.org.

There are three things that strike me about this ad: firstly, that residents are being encouraged to "shoot first" rather than sit down and discuss whatever is on their tits; secondly, that roads are the most dangerous place to argue with a "Floridian" (and accordingly to the website, eventually all Americans); and finally, that the whole campaign seems to be supported by an anti-gun group!

I can see the idea behind the campaign but I feel that this particular advert is going about it the wrong way. The details outlines in this PDF download make much more sense and are much more subtle. It does however, make you wonder why is this particular law being changed anyway, allowing the "threat to be eliminated" without (m)any repercussions.

I haven't watched The Bill in over six years, long before the ex-cast of EastEnders decided to drop in, but after the death of Tosh and the subsequent departure of most of the remaining feasible characters. I gave in tonight however, to watch the ITV (pronounced Shite-TV) 50 Year Special and the so called 'stunt filled' episode (courtesy, the Guardian Guide) was about as realistic as the cast contained therein and about as tense as test match cricket (thank heavens the Ashes is over at last). That an armed psychopath can walk into a cop shop doesn't show much for the security of today's police force, never mind the weedy attempt a PC had at an attempted apprehension of said psycho.

After seeing a boom in shot, I now realise that this is one of those special 'live' episodes. Not that that's any excuse.

I couldn't bear the tension any longer and unfortunately went flicking through the channels, only to find a program whose title wins all the points. Just what is the point of Five's Britain's Worst Celebrity Driver Live!? And is that supposed to be an ironic title? I don't think I can even come to waste any space talking about this poor excuse of a programme, nor any other reality 'TV', come to think of it. Although today's news of Dutch TV's sex & drugs 'experiment' may get a mention when it comes to Five…

My final TV mention of the night must go to the conclusion of EastEnders and an irate Peggy pushing two-expression Chrissie into Den's open grave. Oh, how I laughed! Try and catch it again on Sunday if you can.

On Saturday I went to the cinema for the first time since Attack of the Clones. There has been something about 'Hollywood' films that have been putting me off recently that Gabriel Byrne seemed to sum up very well in one of the Usual Suspects DVD special features (as well as "a million times before"):

…allied with the cynicism of the way movies are put together, the product placement and spin-offs and toys and all kinds of crap that have nothing to do with the telling of stories, they've turned movies into McMovies. …when the movie-goer gets his movie, it's like a hamburger. He doesn't want a piece of aubergine in there. He wants his onion, his tomato, his hamburger and his bun. He doesn't want the bun hard, he wants if soft, and he wants it in two minutes.

He was of course referring to the homogeneity and commercialisation of cinema rather than his seemingly personal taste for fast food, but I can see where he is coming from. Nevertheless I went, rather sceptically, to see 40-year-old Virgin and was pleasantly surprised. Of course there was the cheesy (that's one for you, Gabriel!) ending, but it was genuinely, but often subtley funny. Just the sort of humour I like, and well away from typical American gross out films such as the American Pie trilogy. Maybe I'll visit the Odeon (still not fully available to non-MSIE browsers!) more often…?

After the first episode of the new Bremner, Bird and Fortune series last night was Death of Celebrity, hosted, quite ironically, by Piers Morgan. Somehow since his demise from The Mirror (oh, how we laughed at those photos!), he has come to realise the worthlessness of celebrities who are celebrities just for being celebrities. (I am aware that makes no sense, but bear with me). The comparison of Colin Jackson as an athletics star who was (and still is) celebrated for his record-breaking achievements on the track with Rebecca Loos or George Best's son – both who only seem to be famous for sleeping with other low-brow celebrities – was highly amusing.

Piers' attempted interview with Abi 'home video' Titmuss showed how shallow she really was. "So what is it you actually do," he asks with muted anticipation. "What do you do?" comes the reply. "Who is the real Abigail Titmuss?" "Who is the real Piers Morgan?". This woman must be so insecure with herself that she cannot even attempt to answer these perfectly reasonable questions. By avoiding the answers and aggressively turning the questions around, it shows how shallow her character really is.

What was more concerning however, was the impact these sorts of characters have on the younger generation. What do they even make of these people who are famous and adored just for appearing on a reality show or getting their baps out on Page Three? The program concluded with Ms Titmuss at her booksigning ("I've got the notes at home!") with goggle-eyed children having their photos taken with her. What do you want to be when you grow up? A Celebrity!

And finally, today saw the hyped-up launch of the new look Guardian newspaper in new 'Berliner' format, as adopted by many European counterparts. "It is neither a tabloid nor a broadsheet" and is Britain's only full-colour newspaper. How long it stays at 60p weekdays is currently unknown. The paper is certainly pretty and its compacted size will certainly help commuters on the sweaty trains, but it foes feel a lot more taboid-y to me. With the large photographs and 'at a glance' panels, as well as the new Egyptian font, it seems very far away from the same paper I read just two days ago.

I am sure we will all get used to it, but personally I would have preferred an overhaul of their website as I still find it rather cumbersome to use. Navigation remains poor and there is too much whitespace leading to never-ending scrolling down the page to complete an article. Yet it is still used by over 11 million people a month, well ahead of their competitors. Maybe it is just my hatred of the Back button…

Ten percent of the UK population (15% of the TV audience) reportedly tuned into the ($10m) double-pilot of Lost on Channel 4 last night to see Jack and his fellow passengers working out where they were (it turns out they are "lost") after crash-landing on a desert island. UK reviews were mixed, with the Daily Mail taking quite a bit of flak from readers' responses to their own TV critic.

For the ninty percent who missed the show last night, Lost is ABC's attempt at a big-budget fictional version of (US) Survivor where the unsuspecting 'participants' are thrown together in the middle of knowhere to fend for themselves. This seemingly includes dealing with mysterious forces, wild animals, each other and oneself, leading to predictable conflicts between many characters (US Soldier vs. former Iraqi National Guard for example) and flashbacks of individual's past wrongdoings.

The double-pilot was predictably vague, but a lot more information about the series, and what is to be expected in 25 (!) weeks time can be found at the usual sources (1; 2; 3; 4). Without reading these spoilers/speculations, here is what I think is going on:

• The plane crashing on the island was not a natural event – somehow they were drawn to the island, possibly by its (currently undetailed) other occupants




• The island itself is some kind of military research unit from which it is impossible to escape




• The survivors of the crash were chosen to take part in the experiment. The others (un)fortunate enough to be elsewhere on the plane were not interesting (nor good looking) enough to be part of the research.




• The wild animals found on the island are results of military experiments. The missing dog will survive the whole series unharmed.
  




• Part of the research is to see how (wo)man can deal with the pressures of the island's conditions as well as each other




• Inhabitants are under Truman Show-style surveillance, probably by a research facility also placed somewhere on the island (maybe inside a James Bond style 'concealed volcano', as was suggested at work today)

These are obviously guesses and after only two hours of the show so far, are completely unfounded! But the fact that so many people are talking about Lost will mean that this will be a sure-fire hit for Channel 4, and another successful export for ABC.