Oh how I'd love to be a Viking!! A review of 'Vikings' on LoveFilm

I always thought that being a Viking would be a right laugh. Plundering and pillaging all day in some far off lands with my mates dressed up in a various array of animal skins and pointy helmets swinging an oversized axe and not fearing death one bit as it meant that I got to go to what might be the greatest party in the skies with all you can eat and drink at a never-ending table with the Gods. Then by night I could sit round the fire in a great hall and tell tales of my conquesting and looting drinking myself into a stupor before heading to my chamber with a buxom wench only to wake up the next morning to do it all over again. Forget free healthcare, this is the life I’d be lobbying for.

You've got a little something on your face Lagertha

However, Vikings, the new series from Love Film tells a very different tale of events and has shattered my illusion of what it would have been to Norseman. Yes there is plenty of the two P’s going on but that’s only amongst the scenes of backstabbings and betrayals and also having watched what is actually was like to be on a raiding party I have reconsidered how great the experience might have been.

Though shattering dreams aside Vikings is rapidly becoming one of my favourite shows at the moment, and has momentarily healed the rift that LoveFilm and I were suffering. It’s a little like this is the part in the relationship were we’ve just started exploring a few new things that has really spiced things up, and LoveFilm’s sister Netflix isn’t really all that appealing anymore, though come Christmas when the family get together if her hands wander under the table like they did last year I might be tempted.

The show is inspired by the tales about Ragnar Lodbrok, one of the best-known Norse heroes and notorious as the scourge of France and Britain. It portrays Ragnar as a Viking farmer who pioneers the first daring raids into Britain with the support of fellow warriors, his brother Rollo, and his wife, the shieldmaiden Lagertha. He appears the ultimate man; attentive to his wife and family, a good provider and brave warrior. The first few episodes give us the picture of a maverick who come hell or high water is going to prove himself as an adventurer sailing “West” to new undiscovered lands with their untapped treasure that will make him and his crew rich. The only thing that stands in his way is the evil Earl Haraldson who tries to tarnish Ragnar’s efforts at every turn insisting that he is in charge and they will sail to the “East”, a much safer option for them. Once Ragnar has proved himself able to go “West” bringing the plunder back with him, including the monk Athelstan, the conflict between the two escalates into violence during episode 5 (as far as I’ve got at the moment, but can’t wait to see more!).

The album cover shoot was going well.

Recently there’s been a trend in fantasy/historical dramas with Game Of Thrones the most recent success that is an obvious comparison to Vikings. At times it is painful to see the show try and pander to the viewers of the HBO series with all the uncovered bits and such that come with it. Being originally aired on the History channel in the USA they can’t go as far as their cable network cousin and it ends up being rather sad that they feel the need to try and draw attention to itself with being another show with actual CHEBS in, I mean look at them they’re out on TV! Unless you’re a thirteen year old boy that has rather malevolent parents who cloak your internet in a filter it’s now just become a little sad that shows think that the only way to compete is to show us some wobbly bits to keep us interested. But if you are a thirteen year old boy with the Stasi monitoring your web searches go nuts with Vikings, there’s nothing you won’t love about it.

What Vikings does do well it does very well. The human relationships and interactions between characters are brilliant each exchange adding something new a titillating to the story. The scenes between Ragnar and Athelstan are a particular favourite with both of the men blindly defending their own beliefs but at the same time doubting them with each conversation learning more and more about the others world. I half expect at the end of the series Ragnar a celibate Christian monk and Athelstan taking the Viking way of life too far simply swinging an axe into the faces of people he meets in the street. Other highlights are Floki, the crazy shipbuilder who is half Heath Ledgers the joker and the other half Jim Carrey in The Mask and the beautiful way that the violence and brutality of Viking life is captured, each chop and stab framed with such purpose, choreographed so thoughtfully that the blunt instruments of battle become a ballet when it could have been a cumbersome exercise.

Aside from the insistence of pointing out that: yes she’s naked; here look at her there’s boobs! Vikings only downfalls are small enough to forgive. The sets at times look a little like those that were left over after a cheap looking history docudrama was shut down because in a PC world Vikings are surely off the cards now, but the breath-taking scenery of Ireland more than makes up for it. Also, often you are pulled out of the action by a historical inaccuracy such as:  Ragnar insisting on helping to wash the clothes, his wife Lagertha joining them in battle and the raiders forming a “turtle” with their shields when fired upon (A Roman trait not a Viking one). Each done for a plot point rather than to ring true to history with entertainment and advancing the script obviously the first priority and things that the average viewer might easily skip over but torture for a history buff. The only other time that I fell out with the series was when the raiding party chopped their way through a room full of defenseless monks at a monastery, historically accurate now but not getting me to identify much with a group of characters who are happy to get on-board with that.  

In the end Vikings is a great watch and I can’t wait to get to the end of the 9 episode first season, most likely this week in time for season 2 early next year. I just hope that the writers do less of the diet Game of Thrones stuff and focus on more of what makes the show so great; showing the tender side of a time in history where we focus far too much on the hacking and slashing. Maybe being a Viking wouldn't be all that bad after all.

The rise of the internet video show - from VHS to MP4

There’s a current trend at the moment on TV, especially on the main channels, to try and produce the cheapest shows that will appeal to the widest possible audiences. There’s the structured reality TV show where you fill a house/town/family full of the in-between stages of human evolution and ply them with booze hoping that they get up to naughty stuff and fall out while some sort of basic arc appears that in no way was driven by the producer stirring the pot and ensuring that certain “characters” arrive at specific places at the right time when the cameras are on. And there’s the internet video show.

No one is safe from some Daniel Tosh ribbing.

 The internet video show is best described as a modern update of You’ve Been Framed. Rather than kill off the “post your funny videos to us and we’ll put them on TV” genre the internet has actually supplied the new breed of the show with a gold mine of material. One of my favourites at the moment has to be Tosh.0 where comedian and host Daniel Tosh takes you through his picks of the videos from Youtube with a sarcastic commentary and a camp persona that gives what is essentially something as mundane as a sick prank gone wrong, a panda sneezing or "the Star Wars kid" so much more depth that you previously thought.

But why does this genre work and why do they keep getting commissioned, and why do people keep watching? The internet is there filled with videos that you can access, for much cheaper than you can a satellite TV channel, any time of the day with little effort. Here are a few ideas why:

Tosh.0 unlocking the depths of the internet to find you the best puking grandmas possible.

1 – The internet is fricking huge! With over 100’s of hours of footage uploaded every minute on Youtube there is no way that you can see everything and even some viral videos might get missed unless you’re plugged into the net twenty-four hours a day. Show’s like this can draw your attention to the stuff that you might have missed and act almost like a filter finding you the stuff that is worth seeing and ensuring that you can avoid the stuff that isn’t.

2 – They’re so cheap to produce. All you need is an audience to come and watch, a warehouse, green screen and comedian with a few writers. There’s a few sketches that happen on the likes of Tosh.0 and Russell Howard’s Good News but they’re mostly in the car-park out the back and don’t require all that much to make.

3 – We like seeing people falling over. It’s simple comedy, man/woman/dog/cat/grandma falls down, it gets a laugh. Now repeat, but this time grandma is carrying a chainsaw/flaming bag of excrement/granddad. Also, there’s a lot of puking on Tosh.0 which is funny, very funny!

4 – Once again the internet is fricking huge! There seems to be an unlimited supply of videos out there and with 100’s of hours of footage uploaded every minute to Youtube they’re never going to run out of material to comment on.

5 – Transmedia. A bit of a buzz word at the moment, and often mistakenly used (probably in this case too). We like to share stuff with our friends on social networks and be the first to “discover” something. Once we’ve seen something on Tosh.0 that our friends might not have we can post it to them on Twitter/Facebook etc… and appear in the know, or even show it to them to have the experience of watching the video all over again with friends.

6 – We’re in on the act. You could end up on Tosh.0 a variety of ways which is both exciting and possibly a little scary, which we enjoy the feeling of. There are a variety of ways that you can end up being on the show; as a guest on the “web-redemption” segment (he brought the Star Wars kid on to hit back at the haters and trolls the one time), via skype as a guest (Tosh had thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of fans that won the opportunity) or even on the videos themselves that are part of the act. In the book What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis states that the most successful media productions in the age of the internet build a community around their main product. Tosh.0 has its own blog that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors and Daniel interacts with his fans via Twitter personally when the show is on (and sometimes on the show goading them the week before to send something to him that he uses as part of the act) and is constantly referencing his stand up acts and other ventures (such has the hilarious Brickleberry) we, as viewer, feel as if we are as close to being part of the show as we possibly can, and thus take ownership over it.

7 – Finally the internet is fricking huge! At the moment the internet is big business. Everyone knows about it and there aren’t many people who can’t access it. People are interested in what’s out there and like being shown the stuff that they might have missed and seeing the people who are involved in creating the content that they are consuming on Youtube, they're slowly becoming the new "stars" of our age.

The internet video show is here to stay so long as the internet is the main medium that the world uses to interact with one another. But even when it is eventually superseded by something else the internet video show will live on just in another incarnation, possibly with Tosh beamed directly into your mind - now that's a scary prospect.

Looking “Behind the Filter”

Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. – Harry Emerson Fosdick

The Conservatives, single handily (no pun intended) trying to dismantle the "man sized" tissue production industry. 

I enjoy a good debate, hearing the other side of the story is an all important part of politics and coming to a full considered opinion. However, when someone looks like these words are going to fall out of their mouth: “Speaking as a mother” I secretly try to choke them using the force.

Basically Claire Perry is on a mission, she wants to stop young children looking at what could be potentially damaging and degrading pornography on the internet. The problem is that the block on ‘adult content’ will not just stop children from arousing their curiosities but will be the first time that a part of the internet will be effectively censored by the British government. She’s on a mission to stop horny teenagers and lonely old men from doing what comes naturally when they’ve got five minutes spare. Doesn’t she realize that this will destroy the disposable tissue industry in this country? The issue now is that David Cameron seems unable to ban smoking or drinking so in a vain attempt to win the middle class voters back who need something to worry about corrupting their darling children that the government must be doing something about – he’s decided that wanking is what he needs to crusade against.

The problem with all of this though is that the war is already won, you can actively censor parts of the internet with a radical new technology called ‘Norton internet security’ (other brands are available) it comes on this thing call a CD, or compact disk, and after a few windows of installation you can create your own tiny censorship programme while, although imperfect, will be able to stop your little rascals seeing something that might worry a middle class mother, or worse yet a Daily Mail ‘columnist’. If they work out how to get round it, congratulations you have yourself one intelligent tott that, heaven forbid, might need to you sit down and have a little chat about the basics of the birds and the bees.

Leaving aside Ms Perry’s oversight of existing ‘advanced’ technologies that already can do what she proposes should be forced upon every home, at an expense to the taxpayer we can imagine, the main objection that I have with the proposals is it is another example of government interference in people’s lives that is both un-needed and un-wanted by large droves of the population. Although she claims on the BBC that the plans are “common-sensical” and that 6/10 people agree that blocks are needed on certain parts of the internet you have to wonder who they are asking these questions too? Asking hard-line conservative groups I would imagine that they agreed with the filter, ask those working in the adult film industry and methinks that the blocks might be less well received.

Then there is the issue of what truly is offensive to children, and most importantly who is going to decide the things that most corrupt our little darlings? Are we going to block homosexual pornography from the internet? Sodomy? Inter-racial? BBW? Fetish? (I worry that readers might be getting a little too much information about my private time in this blog, but I promise you that this was all in the name of research) Questions that you think might be obvious from a liberal standpoint, but there will be various pressure groups attempting to lobby for what they find offensive to be included behind the filter.

So you’ve finally stopped us looking at naked flesh on the internet and have proven that the filter works, but where will it stop? Will we see unsavoury political websites blocked? Justin Beiber tribute pages? This blog? All offensive to some, I’m sure, but not to all. Before you think it’s ludicrous to suggest that this could happen in the UK there are already some phone service providers who have blocked the BNP website from their mobile web-service. Although a racist and contemptuous organization they are part of the British political system and have just as much right to a presence on the web as any other organization (This will be the last time I hope that I have to stand up for the BNP – stop making me!)

These ideas are another example of the government dealing with the symptoms, not the illness. Children are naturally inquisitive beings, inquisitiveness and the internet make for a dangerous combination I agree; you only have to look at my own search engine to see that I have a various points in my life ended up on the ‘weird’ part of Youtube and regret it more and more each time. However, to stifle their inquisitiveness would be wrong. It is up to parents, teachers and community leaders to ensure that children are safe when browsing the web and helping the child interpret what they see and hear. Blocks are not the answer, adequate parenting is. It seems that the right not only doesn’t trust children, but doesn’t trust parents either.

Britain is leading the way on campaigns for a free internet. However, the current proposed reforms are being praised by China, not a nation known for its tolerance of free speech, showing the absurdities of current attitudes to the World Wide Web that certain sections of this country have. Simply putting up a filter to stop the children seeing what you don’t want them too is not the answer. It’s a-kin to stuffing your fingers in your ears and screaming to drown out the sound of a falling atom bomb, it’s still going to blow up in your face – so you might as well know that it’s coming. 

Filming the 'Chasing Chuck' sizzle reel and a little advice for people filming an "on the street" documentary.

For the past two days I’ve been filming for a sizzle reel for a documentary that I’ve wanted to make for a long time called Chasing Chuck (See previous posts for the full expose; but basically we want to take aspiring comedian Dave to prove his manliness by fighting Chuck Norris and writing his set for this year’s Edinburgh show and in the process examining what it means to be a modern man.) The shoot went amazingly well, the crew were great what we got in the can was perfect and everything seemed to run smoothly, I just can’t wait to see the edit now.

But instead of praising everything and everyone that was involved with the adventure of getting the thing made (which would be easy, everyone that we ended up working with and actually interviewing was a blast it’d possibly be a little boring to read) I’ve decided to talk about just a few things that I noticed while filming during the day that might be of use to people who are looking to make an “on the street” documentary.

Firstly, this experience has made me realize that “people” are a funny bunch, and it seems that without any prompting they have a predisposition to hate me. I’m sure that in normal circumstances I could get on with just about anyone; crazy racists and shoe bombers aside I would quite happily have a pint with anyone and enjoy their company but when I have a camera in my hands all of a sudden it seems that I have the inability to like anyone because of the way they seem to behave around it. I’m not talking about the nice people who agreed to be filmed in the interviews, they were great, (thanks again to everyone who did get involved) but “the general public” that we harangued off the streets of London for just a few minutes of their time to talk about something.

It seems that people no longer trust anything that can make an exact replica of their face and record precisely what they’re saying. They seem to think that once the magic box has recorded reality we’re going to somehow doctor it to make it appear that they’re stupid or alter things around them to take the mickey. Not only was the box going to capture their soul and make it look ridiculous but I was the one operating it and I should be ashamed of interrupting their busy day of going from the trainport to their desk to ask them some very simple questions. In one case it was even me asking politely for them to sign something after the interview to say that they were happy to be filmed because it would obviously lead to more interaction with me and potentially have them agree to supporting genocide if you were to believe the questions I got asked for what was simply making a mark on a piece of paper.

After some deliberation in my own head I realized that it wasn’t anything that we’d particularly done; we were approachable, friendly and polite to anyone that we found and didn’t even start the camera rolling until we’d got the all clear from any subject. The blame solely lied with the TV crews that have been before us and how popular a certain media sharing website with more videos of cats on it than a crazy old ladies phone.

For years now we have slowly seen the creep of more and more shocking reality TV that ‘forces’ the viewer to watch the camera pan across various scenes full of mostly idiots arguing in grunts, slurs and half-finished sentences with one another; that with some “clever” editing make it “appear” that they aren’t awfully bright (one could argue that the damage had already been done and no amount of pre-warning could make them anything other than what appears on our screen). Anyone that we went up to seemed obsessed with the idea that they were going to fall victim to this curse and they would just be the next in a long line of people who would have scorn heaped upon them with witty twitter hashtags and even possibly a full page spread in some red top paper if they tried particularly hard to say something moronic.

What was also of interest was that some participants that we found were entirely genuine and often insightful into the issues when off camera, or didn’t know that they were being filmed (but had agreed to it). When they saw the little red light flickering they became a “character” of themselves, either deciding that this was going to be their chance of a fifteen minutes of fame or again wanting to ‘play’ and idealised version of themselves where they would come across how they wanted to be seen rather than how they actually are when nothing is being made into a permanent record.  There was a strange mix of a hatred and distrust of the camera to a longing to be in front of one, sometimes within the same person. This distrust ranged from the suspicious: “Where’s this going to be shown?” to the outright indignant: “F**k you putting that camera in my face.” (At this point the camera was trained on a rather attractive looking pigeon on the floor that at least one hundred meters away from the aggrieved party). My favourite of the day was one Dave approached one “yoof” and introduced himself and told him the project was all about masculinity, the wittiest and most charming response that he could utter was: “Well that’s gay.”

But it wasn’t just the people in front of the camera that sometimes wanted to ‘play’ at being themselves. Sometimes people couldn’t help but wander behind the interview to flick a hearty and well-earned finger at the camera, after all they had altered their route to do just that for all the banter that it was worth. I wondered about the Lumier brothers when they first filmed workers leaving their factory after a hard day’s work completely oblivious to the birth of one of the greatest inventions of the last century, and now I had someone dancing behind my shot who given the chance would expose his genitals if he had more beer in him. For this I again entirely blame the rise of reality TV.

Although there seems to be some vitriol being poured on the general public my beef is not with them but society in general. We’ve made us like this. In the age of the sound bite and constant access to information the image lives on regardless of how small the screen you’re watching. This project will most likely end up on a website and Youtube with additional footage shot when/if we get the cash to turn it into a feature documentary that will be a great success for everyone involved and be the first feature film that I will have made, but it will at best make the festival circuit and get a limited release on DVD.  However, even then people seem uncertain at how they might be portrayed and what responses they might possibly receive from even the lowliest of internet trolls.

Another possibility of this distrust might be the rise of the mockumentary where a presenter starts proposing questions of an altogether irrelevant nature that are designed to make the participant look silly. Borat, Trigger Happy TV, however Keith Lemon is trying to entertain people who watch ITV 3, the list goes on. Is it that this brand of humours stunt has spoilt the possibility for other filmmakers to gain genuine and insightful comments from the man (or woman) on the street through fear that this might all be a set up?

It may also hark back to previous statements that I’ve made about social media. Our life online is something that we like to keep as an idealised version of ourselves; detagging unflattering pictures on nights out, affiliating only with groups and pages that will further our online persona (regardless of how far from our real-life one) and only talking about things that will further convey the “idealised” us. If well in the future finally an alien race descends on the charred remains of our planet with huge “B&L” logos littering the landscape with the lone Waste Allocation Load Lifter – Earth class being there to welcome them, and the only records they have of our existence are the servers at Facebook they might think that we lived a life of complete hedonism and blissful happiness, and just happened to enjoy pictures of cats being amusing as a side gig. Those who were none participants in our documentary might have wanted to ensure that although they might (most likely would) have never see the collected footage of them they were uncertain if anyone else might have a chortle of their representation. 

So after this little rant how would I advise you dear reader on getting the most out of on-street interviews when filming your own documentary?

1 – Be professional at all times. This includes what you wear, who you bring with you and how you act. If you have some kind of uniform wear it (just a polo shirt with the logo of your production company on will do or even simply the word “crew”). Don’t bring your mate who’s a bit of a dick on the shoot, only have the people around you that you trust and know will act responsibly and respectfully around people. Finally, act like a film crew. Most silently watch the monitor and let the presenter do their job while you do yours.

2 – Once you’ve got permission to film just start rolling. Brief your presenter that once they’ve got someone agreeing to be filmed get them to start asking a few questions that seem entirely innocent but are actually more to do with the documentary than first appear, just a: “What do you think of…” will do, it’ll come across as more of a chat than an interview. On the flip side of that make sure that once permission has been granted you need to start rolling straight away. Dave would often have some brilliant back and fourths with some subjects about the project before we’d even hit record that we missed. We got everything that we needed but there were some nuggets that would have been nice additions to the piece.

3 – Get a production manager/assistant that will do the release forms for you. On the shoot we had an amazing PA called Elspeth who we could not have done the shoot without. She was able to get all of the legal stuff done as we were off filming the next interview that we had secured so that we could maximise our time filming.

4 – The three “R’s” Reassure, Reassure, Reassure – Make sure that your participants know what they’re getting into but keep telling them that this is something serious that you’re doing, you have passion for the project and are not out to make them look silly. After the interview be entirely transparent, give them your details and ask them to get in touch so that you can send them the link of the finished thing and ask them to contact you if they’ve said something that they’d rather not show (you might decide that it’s gold and you’re not going to take it out but at least have the dialogue with them and practice the 3 “R’s” again.

5 – Get more than you need – It’s better to have and not need and need and not have. You might interview twenty people in an hour period but only some of them (3 at most) might have some golden lines that drive the project forward and give you insight into the topic that you’re looking at. Don’t settle for someone just muttering a phrase that you want to hear get that extrovert that will talk at length about a topic that’s close to their heart!

6 – If the topic is something risky start with a few warm-up questions and then hit them with the biggie in-between another set of easy ones. It’s called “the shit sandwich” in management terms I believe.

7 – Get someone amazing in front of the camera to begin with. I cannot stress how important this is. We had Dave on camera for two days and he didn’t put a foot wrong. He was professional, passionate and a great performer. We could have had him narrating paint dry and it’d be interesting.

Anyhow, I think that I’ve ranted enough for today. I want to thank everyone who did end up speaking to us and hope to get the edit done by the end of August. Watch this space.

"Mr Hoppy noooo..." How Monkey Dust still rings true

I'm sorry that there's been no updates recently, I've been away in the Land down under following the Lions tests.

Mr Hoppy noooo...

In 2003 BBC 3 was a little known satellite channel that was yet to fully appeal to the "yoof"of today with documentaries about the evils of smoking the wacky backy, in case you were thinking about it, Stacey Dooley sauntering around foreign countries with her big sexy eyes and annoying Northern twang and it was the job of ITV1 and E4 to produce sub-par British drama about inner city kids struggling to come to terms with who they were in entirely unconvincing narratives that were dredged from the nightmares of middle class parents who saw the decline of middle England every day in their morning Times. We were yet to have the POD on Snog Marry Avoid being the queen of the bitches on the Great British high street telling an assortment of escaped mental patients and students at clown college that their outfit really wasn't working and there weren't incessant re-runs of Family Guy for those of you who didn't heed Dooley's warnings and were sparking up late at night and are the only household in the world that don't have the DVD's or access to the internet.

However, the channel had one saving grace at the time; Monkey Dust. When it first came out I wasn't really old enough to appreciate it but I knew that it was dark and it had dirty stories about men meeting in public toilets and a psychopathic space hopper that went around killing people in the name of its owner so I was hooked. I haven't thought about it since Harry Thompson decided to take his own life ion 2005 (for those of you who watched Monkey Dust it shouldn't really come as a surprise that the man had problems!) and there were no more of the show made. However, after returning from Australia the other night and needing something to watch as I couldn't sleep from the jet lag I stumbled upon the DVD of the first series and immediately watched the whole thing and could easily do it again.

The Paedofinder General

Sure that I must have missed its re-run dates that had to have been happening over the last few years I had a look on the internet about the obvious plans there would be to have a repeat viewing in the near future on the channel. The content still rang true (a possible last damming inditement from Thompson  below us that we are yet to progress as a society) Tony Blair's smug face poking out of a TV in a shop window grinning like the only shit eater that is allowed cream with his turd pie, The Paedofinder General character being given power by the "...tabloid reading masses..." handing down a death sentence to a suspected pedophile and a marketing corporation named 'Labia' *giggle* improving the image of state services like the fire service and NHS with some expensive rebranding that has emphasis on profit over everything else. It seems that many agree with me, in 2003 The Observer listed Harry Thompson as one of the 50 funniest and most influential people in British comedy citing Monkey Dust as evidence calling it:

"... the most subversive show on television. The topical animated series is dark and unafraid to tackle taboo subjects such as paedophilla, taking us to Cruel Britannia, a creepy place where the public are hoodwinked by arrogant politicians and celebrities. This edgy show doesn't always work, but when it does there's nothing quite like it." 

I was dismayed to find out this wasn't the case and it might even be that the politically correct beeb might want to forget the whole thing. In a Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/sep/05/howimournformonkeydust) a BBC spokesperson states that the reason that Monkey Dust hasn't been repeated is nothing to do with its controversial nature it has followed the pattern of "all" shows being shown on BBC 3 then heading to BBC 2 then onward to the shelves with all the other forgotten shows. Upon looking on the BBC Iplayer it appears that even there the more controversial seasons 2 and 3 of Monkey Dust is no longer allowed to languish in semi obscurity as the servers obviously have to make room for Two Pints of Lager And A Packet of Crisps or Eggheads. More inspirational British television that will change the world one viewer at a time.

The "cast" of 'Monkey Dust' assemble.

Being further inquisitive I had a look at some of the comments on the article to find this from DemetriusBreedLove:

"It's great to see such Monkey Dust getting some recognition. I remember seeing the first season and being absolutely hooked. The feeling was one of "I'm not alone, other people feel this way too!".

It's hard to pinpoint any one element that made Monkey Dust such a superb piece of television. The format was brilliant for a start: different animation styles all inhabitating one consistent world, with stories bleeding into one another across an episode. The sketches themselves were sheer brilliance too: acutely observed satire which frequently unafraid to toe the line of what is seen as good taste in pursuit of making a point. No matter how outrageous, farcical and shocking the program often was, however, it never lost that sense of being obviously, painfully British.

I'll always see it as a perfect illustration of Blair's Britain. The whole show drips with a national self-loathing and that recognisably British sense of disappointment. For me the most poignant sketch was always the introduction to the 'Clive' segments, where our bald-headed loser shuffles his way past council estates, homogenous high streets and distorted sound bites from Labour Party conferences. Absolutely genius television."

And in that I cannot think of a more compelling argument for them to bring it back one series after another over the next six months. All you have to do is replace Blair with Cameron and Labour with coalition and you have satire that keeps on giving.