My Addiction - Part 4

I remembered what else I had planned to say yesterday: It was on the point of the 'presenters'.

Basically, I was going to say that there are some presenters who can do no (or very little, anyway) wrong. For my money, Andrew Denton is one of these, which is made all-the-more amusing by his stereotypical nerdy little school boy appearance. If you don't know him, don't be fooled by how he looks. He's actually a very sharp, witty and skilled interviewer. Dame Edna Everage is another of these people, but only if you exclude her appearance on Ally McBeal towards the end of that show's run. Tragic mistake for all. However, The Dame Edna Experience from the 80s was one of the most hilarious television shows produced by a purple-wig-adorned, ridiculous-frock-wearing man pretending to be a woman. Whatever else Dame Edna has appeared on has been a ripper. To a lesser extent, 'Rampaging' Roy Slaven and H.G. Nelson are also fine examples of this phenomenon. Perhaps looking past The Monday Dump and the less-exciting Ice Dream, etc, their other shows are great value, and it's their approach to their unique style of humour that impresses me most. I loved the Clive James year-in-review specials from the 1980s as well, in which beloved ex-patriot Australian comedian / presenter James would show snippets of news footage from the preceding year and put bogus stories around them, making them truly hysterical. They used to air here on New Year's Eve or something, as I recall, which means we were getting them at about the same time they were airing in England. He sort of went downhill in my opinion after he stopped making these specials, but at the time they were gold. Garry McDonald is also an Aussie gem. Fooling international guests into thinking his bumbling idiot of a character Norman Gunston was a real interviewer - and not knowing what to think of him and his absurd questions - made it so much fun to watch a celebrity interview! I'd have loved to see him do more on television with his Gunston persona ... but also leaving the shackles of Norman behind, as I've seen him act in life drama before as well, and he's fantastic. Going back a bit, Graham Kennedy could always make an event out of any TV show he touched, and in my humble opinion, Bert Newton does it now. Say what you like about the size of his head and his very obvious hairpiece, he has a razor-sharp wit and doesn't mind taking the mickey out of himself (an essential Australian trait). The team from Frontline, whom I've spoken of already, are another group whose Midas touch can't be beat. From their early days with The D-Generation, to The Late Show and Frontline, almost every TV show they've been involved with has sparkled. The possible exceptions to this would be their ill-fated Funky Squad (which I actually thought could have been made a bit better - and been given a better chance by viewers) and the once-trendy but now more-often-than-not-scorned The Panel (currently MIA with no official word on a return date).

I admit to having an affection of sorts with the above-mentioned presenters / comedians, but their choice in TV projects has largely shown excellent decision-making abilities, superb talent and skill, or maybe a bit of a combination of both. As always, there are exceptions to the rule - but in general terms, these examples make great TV.

Now, onto what a show has to do to get on my 'Bad' list:

First, it has to be a lame testosterone-based pseudo-scientific show with a crap sense of humour that replaces a good quality sci-fi show I was really enjoying watching when presumably low ratings get it pulled off the air. That's the number one thing it has to do, which is why I'm so amazed that I forgot to put Brainiac on my list of hated shows. But that's a bit of a personal view, and I don't expect everyone to agree with my reasoning, there! ...

As Peter was saying in the comments section yesterday: Slagging Home and Away for a crappy looking car crash is missing the point. It's a soap. The only question you should ask of it is "is it good soap?" If you want more out of a show that what that show aims to give, then you're going to be disappointed every single time.

Peter makes a great point - I absolutely agree that no one's going to come out a winner (not you or the show) if you go into the experience of watching it expecting it to be something it's not. This is the same in all facets of life, of course, but for some reason most of us forget about this when we sit down to watch TV. I'm not sure why this is; perhaps the grand choice of styles to choose from has spoilt us, and once we see something we love, we unfairly use that as a gauge by which to measure all other shows (despite them not trying to be like the first show at all - in fact, often they're running in completely different directions on purpose).

Let's pretend I buy an apple and an orange* and I choose to eat the apple first. I love the apple; it tastes fantastic; it was just what I wanted. Then I eat the orange. This orange is sweet, juicy and delicious. It doesn't taste bitter, it has no bad aftertaste - I don't even have any hassles with pips, rind or bits of orange flesh getting stuck between my teeth. But if I screw my face up and say "Eww, this doesn't taste anything like an apple!", then I am a gigantic idiot.

That said, however, we're all human. You probably all have shows that you just don't like, and I know I have them as well (the above example of Brainiac being a good example of one of mine). As stated in Part 2 of this multi-post, there are shows I just don't like at all. I've explained why Survivor is one of them, and it has the dual-reason of a personal memory being resurfaced (which is clearly restricted purely to myself), and the notion of the angry gossiping and bitchiness that goes on not being appealing to me (perhaps something I share with others, I don't know). As for Home and Away, Peter is right when he says it's a soapie, and we can't judge it as anything else. However, soapies can be done well (or reasonably well at best, anyway!), and overacting, poor scripting, obvious plot developments, and stale or stagnant characters / events / storyarcs, etc, are elements of a bad soapie. I feel that (in the past two years, anyway), Neighbours has been a surprisingly good soapie, judged purely on its own merits, for going with strong characters, interesting plot developments, and for having a distinct lack (at least compared with other soapies) of overacting actors. I can name them if you want to debate this last point, which I know many people may want to do. I'm not saying they could be using more realistic actors, but it's better in Ramsey Street than it is in Summer Bay (or certainly any American soapie you care to name). As for the storyarcs on Neighbours, I've been somewhat impressed that the typical "everyone's life on this plane is in jeopardy - and somebody will die" storyline has been handled well, with the gradual retrieval of most survivors / bodies / runaways, etc, and it was never 100% clear who would die (unlike at other times, when the outcome is already general knowledge or obvious from the credits, etc). It's still pretty unlikely that people would inter-marry and really only have friendships with other people who lived within four doors of each other, but that's part of the nit-picking I was referring to yesterday that simply doesn't wash with me.

Let's talk Dancing with the Stars. Actually, let's not. It's just a poor excuse for watching C- and D-grade celebrities potentially embarrass themselves learning ballroom dancing in front of the nation and being roasted by so-called judges afterwards - not to mention the easy money it makes by getting people to ring in their favourites. And don't get me started on Daryl Somers. He was bearable on Hey Hey, but this resurgence of his career is just a joke. (Oh, and Sonia who-now?)

Looking to the dramas I included on my list, unfortunately all three of them Australian, I find myself wondering if I'm being too critical of local products. The answer is no. I'm supporting plenty of Australian-made stuff, but only the good stuff. For all its faults and the incredibly high crime rate for such a small country town, Blue Heelers is a great Aussie drama - particularly over the past year or so. I've talked about Neighbours already. Last Man Standing was a hopeful new fave, but was slaughtered by its own network (in my opinion). I've mentioned Frontline enough times, but put that together with Kath & Kim and you've got some brilliant Aussie comedies as well. However, The Alice just didn't cut it for me (it was nothing more than a glorified cross between Always Greener and McLeod's Daughters for mine), McLeod's Daughters itself is aimed at chicks (so I can't honestly be expected to have warmed to it), and All Saints is just one of those "ho-hum, another medical drama" things (to say nothing of the new Aussie show The Surgeon, which comes hot on the heels of America's Grey's Anatomy and isn't anything like it at all!). The characters and situations and events on All Saints just don't appeal to me. I think their over-dependance on Georgie Parker earlier on in the series turned me off it, as well.

Current affairs shows are a disgrace more often than not, and American talk shows are simply unhealthy for everyone. The only thing left to discuss from my 'Bad' list is Hey, Dad! - and anyone who's ever seen it will back me up on this: I don't need to justify why it's on this list.

Part 5 will come next week. Have a good weekend, people. Enjoy your televisions. They're part of the family too, you know.

"Tune in and tune out."



* This is clearly a fictitious example, as I would never buy fruit.