Reverse TV

A while ago I wrote about the idea of ‘the long sofa’ – where whilst now viewing the tele we are no longer a passive viewer, we share our experience with every other tweep in the country that has a diploma in advanced social networking or is brave enough to use a hashtag that the flickering box in the corner instructed us to. It seems though that Channel 4 have gone one further for us and now given a bunch of us the opportunity to have cameras set up in our homes to record our reactions to the TV events of the week as they happen.

Are Steph and Dom hastening the end of the world?

Gogglebox is rapidly becoming one of my favourite shows on TV. Sitting watching people watching TV sounds a little like one of the signs of the coming apocalypse, but it actually makes for some compelling viewing with the channel having found the right mixture of kookiness and character. The “stars” of the show display equal parts informative dialogue about the “issues” of the week (seeing Leon and June Bernicoff on the warpath against Cameron one week was a particular highlight, or the conservative “leaning” father on the L shaped sofa walking out on Paxman’s interview with Russell Brand uttering incantations that my own dad might mutter over the same cauldron when the “comedian” appears on screen) and comedic and tender moments where we see the friendships and relationships of those on their couches.

The show seems to be out of touch with the norm of “reality TV” with the people on screen seemingly having the discussion that will be going on up and down the country at the moment in question whether that be who is being voted off this weeks X-Factor or the dispute over the parentage of Prince Harry as his face flashes up on the news. Channel 4 are keen to stress that they wanted: “to get people who are real, not desperate to be reality TV stars” though with some of the “cast” deserving their own spin off it would be a crime if the organization didn’t look into the possibility of catapulting a few of them to fame, or at least look into a second series.

However, for the return of Gogglebox in 2014 I would like to make a request to Channel 4. Instead of showing multicultural Britain on screen in the corner reacting to a screen in the corner can they take our television to some of the more remote places in the world to see what the third world really think about the images that flash past our eyes at dinner time in one of the greatest reverse anthropological studies of our time. I think that the results would be astonishing. 

The Gadget Show

In the slums of Beijing the workers from a nearby factory learn the true value of the Ipods that they have been making for the first time. Looking down at their paycheque for the day (a bowl of rice) one stands and hurls it to the floor throwing his fist in the air with defiance demanding a workers revolution in true communist spirit. In minutes the CCP march in and turn off the camera.

X-Factor

The sob stories and “hardships” faced by the contestants don’t move the audience on the Masai-Mara to tears. Most of the children are in bed halfway through so miss their favourite act Sam Bailey as they have to be up at the crack of dawn to fetch water from the nearest well seven miles away, then go to school (fourteen miles away) and then return to the village to see if their parents have managed to kill anything for them to eat tonight. 

Made in Chelsea

Playing in the caves of Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan the structured E4 reality show has now become the new recruitment video for Al-Quead: “Look my children at the decadent West in all her glory, these ‘toffs’ arguing amongst themselves about who shall sleep with one another. It has not been the same since the Mackintosh infidel left. She is the only one to be spared on your trip to paradise.”

Newsnight

As Brand makes his assertion that voting is meaningless as Paxman sits back getting all a quiver about the ratings that this will receive and the attention that will be thrown upon his facial hair again (did you know he was the first person to invent ‘the beard’ as he is calling it?!) an elderly man in the Ural mountains lets a lone tear roll down his face. He remembers the downfall of communism when he was finally allowed his democratic right to elect his leaders and a McDonalds nearly one thousand miles away as his district turns out 101% approval ratings for Putin.

Little Miss... Bad Grampa. A review of 'Jackass Presents: Bad Grampa'

I grew up watching the Jackass crew doing things to their bodies, and each others, that equally petrified and fascinated me. Nothing it seems was off limits for the boys who regularly dared one another to do the most ludicrous things all in the name of making each other laugh. It included some of the more sensitive areas of the male anatomy that made me wince, bizarre contraptions invented solely for the reason of causing pain and going fast and putting stuff in, and then taking it out, of places that objects should never really be for an extended period of time. What was so strange though that it was oddly compelling and funny - appealing to the most basic instincts I had that make me also enjoy: UFC, eating my body weight in cheese and Michael Bay films. I cared about the cast (Johnny Knocksville, Ryan Dunn and Steveo) they seemed like well meaning guys who had found their calling, and it just happened to be falling over for my amusement.

When a wheelchair just won't do for the old man.

Ultimately the internet, and more specifically Youtube, killed off the small screen version of Jackass (and proved Darwin wrong) with an endless supply of idiots willing to do things that endanger their health on demand twenty-four hours a day and without the need to pay for cable TV. However, undeterred Jackass evolved, rolling with the times, and became Bad Grampa. It's still walking around on four legs, but at least it's out of the sea and no longer has its eyes on the side of its head but it's making an attempt to get itself upright.

In Bad Grampa 86 year-old Irving Zisman (Johnny Knocksville) is on a journey across America with the most unlikely companion, his 8 year-old Grandson Billy (Jackson Nicoll). The pair are brilliant on screen bouncing off one another like the best of buddy cops on a stake out. They have a chemistry that suggests that the pair really did get on during their little road trip, the cameras just happened to be around them and at the end they thought that they might as well cut a film out of the footage just for the hell of it. Nicoll is simply brilliant as the snotty little pre-teen who is equal amounts cheeky and charming in the right places. I predict that after returning from filming he was an absolute nightmare for his parents after being allowed to truly be a little shit for the duration of filming every day for the shoot!

Just to get this out of the way Bad Grampa is not a film. It's a series of stunts that are loosely tied together by a journey that the two are on. If you ever went into the screening hoping to see something other than a film about farting in crowded places or Knocksville falling over you're going to be disappointed, but if that is what you expected Bad Grampa delivers and then some. In another universe the film could have been a heartwarming indie comedy that would have made it big at Sundance. There are some moments when the pair are alone in the car, at the diner, or playing HORSE on a basketball court with one another where I genuinely thought that they were going to ditch the gags and let me enjoy an affectionate moment. But then someone decided that that was too much sentiment and needed another fart noise to keep things going. The one moment at the diner though had me in hysterics for some time though and the reaction from the old man sitting across from them is worth the price of admission alone.

Trying to read into the subtext of Bad Grampa a little (and if you look hard enough there is some) you are struck by just how nice people really are. No matter where they go, or even what they say to people, the general public seem to be inherently good always wanting to help what they just must see as a kooky old man and his grandson. It's not as if they are hanging around in middle class areas either, some of the places that they go look to be destitute, even a little seedy, where the threat of possible violence is very real. However, there's always a good samaritan on stand by that will either help the pair negotiate the situation they have got themselves in or resolve it for them. It also has to be said that Knocksville is fearless as Zisman, no matter where they are or who he is talking to there is never a flutter of his eyes that show he is scared. There is one bit in a bike bar, and another in a male strip club that had the potential to go south very, very rapidly but I'll leave those for you to squirm through yourself. The film leaves its final punches for the end of the film at the beauty pageant that must have been set up for the film itself delivering a damming verdict of American parenting with clever cut aways at the right time. 

It should have made me more angry than it did that the road trip storyline is basically a rip off of one of my favourite films Little Miss Sunshine but at the end I was willing to accept Bad Grampa for what it is - a great film to watch with friends that everyone doesn't take too seriously. Its also proved to me again that Knocksville has this built in charm that he's unable to switch off and I hope that he gets more serious acting work in the future. I can see him playing a very good 'Bottom' in Mid Summer Nights Dream. Your move RSC.

We're drug smugglers, not drug dealers! A review of we're the Millers

We're the Millers - the family down the street that everyone was a little worried about.

Last night I had the pleasure, and what only can be described as the pleasure, of watching We're the Millers starring Jason Sudeikis as David Burke the small time pot dealer who after a run in with "... the cast of Annie" finds himself unable to pay his boss the money that he owes him for this weeks stash and has to travel to Mexico and bring a "smidge" of the green stuff back in order to call it quits.

His plan is fool proof - create a fake family that will help him slip past the boarder guards undetected and onwards to freedom with the stash in tow. In comes Rose (Jennifer Aniston) playing either herself or Rachel Green if she had made some poor life choices after the end of Friends - I can't decide, Kenny (Will Poulter) the 18 year old with the mind of a child from the flat downstairs and Casey (Emma Roberts - who after the film finished google told me it was OK to fancy, she's actually 22!!) the likeable but stroppy homeless teen who is "between couches" as she calls it. All looks like it's going well until upon arrival at the pick-up point it turns out that it's a little more than a "smidge and a half" they're bringing back, and it might not even be theirs to take.

The family unit work well together and the chemistry flows well between them with the characters bouncing off each other as if in another universe the actors are really blood related creating the best looking family ever. The humour comes from those awkward situations that all families at one time or another find themselves in: that talk with your dad about the birds and the bees, the squabble in the RV about how fast it should be going and the disapproval of a daughters boyfriend. In any other film this might be played as straight drama but because we're in on the joke (they're not a real family don't you know) it becomes a great way that Faber and Fybel (the writers) can explore the real emotions behind the fronts that the characters put on. It's clear that they get family dynamics and slowly in the film you're rooting for Dave not only to make it back with the shipment but wake up and realise that a wife and 2.5 children might not be all that bad after all.

However, it's not without its flaws. The laugh riot slows to a crawl sometimes with the story trying to cram too much in, and often a few too many coincidences occurring to service the narrative. Usually a sign that the filmmakers are running out of ideas, but in this case I think that it's just that they had too many and couldn't decide which ones to leave out; I'm sure that there's more that will come out on the DVD extras (I'm going to be sure to buy it). The only real problem that I have with the entire film is that someone insisted that Jennifer Aniston took her clothes off as often as possible. Now I'm not complaining, as a red blooded male she's hot and it's always a draw to see some bits on show, however it's either the desperation of the producers to get more teenage bums on seats ("LOOK TITS GREAT - COME SEE THIS!") or Aniston's management trying to show that she's still got it, and you should call us if you need someone to take their kit off in the latest action film you're thinking of getting off the ground. As a side-bar, and I don't know how she'll take this, Aniston would make a great stripper.

[What is more depressing in that trying to find a picture to go with this blog typing in 'We're the Millers' to Google furnishes you with over three pages of Jennifer in her skimpies before you get any other pictures of the film - Internet you're drunk, go home!]

Though for all the huge jumps and overly toned middle aged flesh the thing that wins the film back is the supporting cast that the Millers run into on their journey. The subliminal Kathryn Hahn, that is rapidly becoming my favourite actress, playing her special brand of loveable crazy in each of the features that she is cast in, Nick Offerman bringing Ron Swanson to the big screen along with his amazing moustache and Ed Helms as the Orca owning drug baron.

Ultimately a film that picks you up and shakes you drumming in the idea that the only opportunities you don't take are the ones you regret. Whether this be the offer of being taught to kiss by your fake mom and sister in-front of your fake dad while the daughter of the family you just met rounds the corner, a chance to join a drug smuggling gang brining enough weed to kill Snoop Dog across the boarder or knocking out a world renowned criminal on the count of 1.

The ending will leave even the hardest hearts warm and fuzzy and giving you a little bit of hope that the Millers might actually become something of the weirdest neighbours in existence with just a little bit of paperwork and a few "I-do's". That is until the sequel and we'll have to revisit them five years later when someone they've crossed will be out for vengeance and the smuggling stakes have gotten even greater! I for one will be watching it!

A chicken on 'Chickens'

Today I finally got round to watching the new offering from the brains behind the wildly successful ‘The Inbetweeners’ that was a breakout hit on Channel 4 a few years ago that was a perfect antidote to ‘Skins’ and rather than cast a group of too cool for school teenagers running around taking drugs, having plenty of sex and staying up all night it showed me my own pre-university years in full glorious HD where any fun usually had to happen before midnight when I was due home and the only sex I was having was with myself and the strongest drugs that I could get my hands on were caffeine, and I didn’t even like coffee.

Simon, Will and Neil is that you?

Recently, I read the exemplary book We Will Not Fight by Will Ellsworth-Jones on the conscientious objectors during World War I and began to sympathise with the young men who although they refused to fight were embroiled in a war of their own between their conscience and the views of their communities. I consider myself a bit of a “conchie” (read coward) and hope that it a world with professional armies and peaceful democracies I will never need take up arms as I don’t think that it would sit very well with me. Wrestling with my own worries of war I became interested in the topic and began to become very interested in the men who daily had to have white feathers pressed into their hands and the lengths that they would go either for their political, religious or moral views.  So I settled in to watch what I sure would be a witty ride through a village in 1914 that would have me equally laughing and thinking about the men who couldn’t fight in the First World War seeing them in a different light. I was disappointed.

We have a problem in the UK that we seem to glorify the horrendous conflict that occurred between 1914 and 1918 on mainland Europe that killed millions and can be argued as the first time that war was performed on an industrial scale. We call it the “Great War” and remember it with the words of Siegfried Sasoon and bibles stopping snipers bullets. We reduce it to “our boys” fighting against the evil “Hun” who ate babies and worshiped the devil. If anything we were doing France a favour by driving out the “Boche” and restoring order in mainland Europe. As Winston Churchill said: “History is written by the victors” and it’s only written that way because we won. In another reality we would hear how Germany was entitled to the same great Empire that the once great nation of Britain had and because Africa was taken and America was now on its own the only place left to invade was across the border. It was only what everyone else was doing at the time. But this isn’t a history lesson, this is a review of ‘Chickens’ (but I promise that we’ll come back to this later.)

“Conchies” didn’t just not fight out of fear, or this radical idea that killing another human being for whatever reason might not sit well on his religious or moral conscience. Often socialists out of political principals refused to shoot at their fellow man because it would be possibly killing another socialist brother. They believed (like all good “pinkos” do) that wars are fought for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. The poor and well-meaning are sent to do battle against the ideologically different and brainwashed for another either to make those back at home richer or simply prove that one system is better than the other. If the “proletariat” who would form the majority of the rank and file of the army collectively laid down their weapons it would be impossible to have a war as no matter how many bullets there were with no one to fire them it would be a very quiet front line. However, this isn’t a lesson in socialist international politics this is a review of ‘Chickens’ (but I promise that we’ll come back to this later.)

Simon Bird and Joe Thomas are very, very bright guys having both graduated from Oxford and I’m sure they know all of the above. I understand that they need to make it funny but they’ve missed a huge chance to make the comedy relevant and socially biting as well. Instead they decide to recycle their tried and tested ‘Inbetweeners’ banter. Simon (oops I mean George) is still chasing after a girl who doesn’t want to be with him, Will (oops I mean Cecil) is the well-meaning looser who just really wants to be at the front but being a little flat footed and short he has to resort to darning socks with the WI in the village, and Neil (Whoops I mean Bert) is the mentally challenged idiot who just wants to get laid. You can see the formula, and don’t get me wrong it was good the first time but it’s now time to move on. Could it be that we are actually looking at the great-grandparents of the gormless teenagers from the popular show?

Some of it is funny, but not the laugh out loud funny, or the; this is getting so awkward I’m going to have to hide behind the sofa funny. It raises a titter and nothing more. The comedy comes in the treatment that the three heroes face at the hands of the female only population of the village burning effigies of them and general snide remarks of their lack of manhood at a time when their country needs them most. The milklady is a particular favourite hurling their day’s rations at the wall of their graffiti daubed house.

Maybe because I am passionate about the subject I wanted more from the show. Less knob gags and more of a look at the endlessness of war that this century finds itself in (especially relevant as it seems that we are being sold the same story of Iraq again over the current conflict in Syria, admittedly with a little more evidence this time). Comedy after all is most successful when it says something about the times we live in, and it may be 1914 in the village but I’m sure that the parallels can’t be seen in today’s conflicts. But this is “light entertainment” so we might as well just tell a couple of jokes about how men are desperate for sex and have a little misunderstanding about a hankie. Maybe if Will’s [damn it Cecil) has a hot mom – that’d be funny wouldn’t it?!

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. 

"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.

I am Superman, no I'm Superman, no I'm Superman.

Superman is without a doubt my faviourte superhero, so for this review take everything with a pinch of salt. I own the comics, the films and possibly to many clothes with the "S" proudly emblazoned from underwear to outerwear. It took a huge amount of strength during the entire film not to jump up and loudly announce that the man on the screen was a fraud and that I was the real Superman (yes my complex runs that deep!). As of late the comic book film has seen a revival with The Avengers Assemble, Thor, Captain America and The Dark Knight. But after a lackluster Superman Returns it seems that the last son of Krypton was doomed to be the forgotten superhero of earth. And let's all be honest the man in the cape with his pants over his suit is the best of them all.

In Zack Snyder's Man of Steel 'Supe' is re-imagined as a drifter without a place in the modern world bouncing around from job to job trying to find out where he came from but obviously destined for great things. All the usual suspects are involved; the Pulitzer prize winning Lois Lane (Brilliantly played by Amy Adams though criminally underused), General Zod (played with menace and malice, despite the black leotard, by Micheal Shannon) and newspaper owner Perry White (brought to life by Morpheus himself Lawrence Fishburne). However, the supporting cast are dwarfed by The Man of Steel himself Henry Cavill who is every bit Superman. It's rumored that Stan Lee said of Robert Downey Jr that when he thought of Iron Man he imagined a man just like the actor one day inside the suit, and for Shuster and Siegel I can imagine it would be a very similar experience if they could have seen Cavill flying through the air donning the cape of their own pulp fiction hero. No-one can ever hope to be Christopher Reeve sailing majestically against a green screen on a gymnasts horse, it was only after he hung up his leotard that the world truly understood why it was that he was and forever will be Superman because of what he accomplished, but Cavill is a close second.

Henry Cavill - possibly the best looking man on the silver screen right now!

It's the same story as it's always been so I won't tell it again in its entirety, but once again the son of Jor-El is sent to Earth just as Krypton begins meeting its sticky end and will obviously later be the one to save us all. However, the material is as relevant as it was when it was written; Russell Crowe's Jor-El warns the elders of Krypton that their abuse of their home planet will cause its destruction just as General Zod leads a failed coup against the hierarchical structure on the planet in the hope of reshuffling the deck. If you need the real world implications pointed out for you again turn on the news and wait ten minutes one or both will arrive pretty quickly!

I could go on and on about the film for days both the good and bad points. Good: Snyder has recovered from the terrible Sucker Punch in style, visuals at times are simply stunning and some shots look as if they should be in European art cinema rather than a blockbuster film, the scenes between Clarke and his dad hit home particularly hard. Bad: It's a little long at times and the final fight sequence drags on, Superman "purists" will dislike the moral ambiguity of this particular incarnation of their hero, the end feels a little shoehorned in and the science behind it ropy and best. Ultimately though I want you to experience the film for yourself in all its glory and enjoy it for what it is, another stab at re-imagining the greatest superhero of our time for a modern audience. What I really want to look at is what this incarnation of the man in tights is saying about our world today. 

Amy Adams as one of the only female characters in the whole film - Lois Lane

Superman for me is the greatest inspiration for young and old alike and whatever the medium I am reading/watching/wearing the "S" symbol is a marker for hope and freedom (The film goes to great lengths to make the viewer aware that in its literal translation that's what it means on Krypton). Unlike the Stars and Stripes that as of late has been tainted with Americas recent history, the flag of the "S" can be worn around the world as a marker for those who believe in the greater good. When Clarke finds his fortress of solitude in the arctic Jor-El explains the history behind the emblem and conveys the pride and responsibility that his son should feel when wearing that suit. At times it feels though as if he is not actually addressing the man in-front of him but rather us in the audience. Is it that Snyder is trying to instill in the fan boys and girls watching that they too should feel these things when donning their own Superman apparel? Transforming us all into better people through the philosophy of the man himself asking us to stand to account as individuals for what is right, each as our own 'Superman' (it brought back memories of Spartacus as each slave stood as an individual to face their fate together rather than let the man that had come to embody their ideals die alone); or is it another cheap trick to get us to buy more merchandise? I hope that it's the former.

That was the last time that Zod would have a curry before fighting Superman

However, the thing that most interested me was how the film captured the current climate surrounding the debate of surveillance and individual freedom. As Zod's craft circled Earth able to tap into any electronic device on the planet to project his warning to the world you cannot help but think of the recent NSA and GCHQ scandals where it was finally revealed to the world that our governments now more than ever are easily able to find out a little to much about us with the click of a button. Never fear though as it seems that Superman is on our side bringing down a surveillance drone that is looking for him in the closing minutes protecting both his privacy and seemingly willing to defend ours. No longer it seems that the Man of Steel is simply a pawn for American idealism but is rather his own man with his own destiny that he and he alone wishes to fulfill. Is it that the new 'Supe' might actually be a Libertarian at heart? It certainly seems that way. (Or at least I'm claiming him as one of our own!)

With a sequel already on the way get to see Man of Steel now so that you won't be the only one in the cinema that is wondering what on earth is going on! The only change that I'd have them make for the next one is to give some of the female characters something else to do other than stand around and look pretty waiting for the guys to start doing something.

A review of 'The Hangover III' - One too many hangovers

Having a hangover is no fun at all. I’m guessing that they are responsible for at least 60% of all the misery being caused throughout the lands on a Saturday morning. However, it appears that the Wolf Pack are able to do the impossible when most of us would be unable to lift our heads off the pillow through fear of being overwhelmed by the movement of the earth beneath our feet.

There seems to be a rule in Hollywood that there can either be one film or there has to be three and as every fan will tell you; the first one is always better. The Hangover was the break out success of the ultimate whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, a buddy comedy caper that was silly, surreal and at times hilariously funny. The second installment was a little samey but was at least watchable with the likable cast returning for a similar caper on the other side of the world, but with the stakes very much raised with the Bangkok the boys found themselves in feeling far more threatening than the previous adventures in Caesars palace.

However, the third film feels devoid of all the charm of the previous two. The cast feel as if they are phoning this one in, especially Bradley Cooper who at time you believe doesn't particularly want to be there and is under some hideous contractual obligation that he overlooked. At one point Alan (Zack Galifianakis) asks Phil (Bradley Cooper) “Are you coming Phil?” almost as if the cast themselves can’t believe that they've managed to rope him into this when he really should be winning Oscars or attempting to sweep Jenifer Lawrence off her feet rather than performing in what is a mediocre comedy at best.

Now don’t get me wrong there are some moments that raised a chuckle. Ken Jeong is able to make a laugh at basically anything and I could watch Galifianakis just being and I would be entertained but this particular hangover fails to deliver the belly laughs of the first two. It may be that in the third and final film from Todd Phillips there isn’t even a hangover until after the credits, the single funniest bit in the whole feature.

So dropping the alcohol induced amnesia the group must now trying to convince man child Allan that he needs to go to rehab following the death of his father. However, things begin to go awry when gangster Marshall (John Goodman) appears wanting to find super villain Chow (Ken Jeong) as he’s stolen a shipment of gold bars from him. When the group profess ignorance he takes Doug (Justin Bartha) and gives the gang a timeline to bring him back unless Doug might once again meet a sticky end.

It’s all stuff that you've seen before, and it should be funny, really funny it’s just it’s not. Everyone on the screen seems to be sick of the joke and the trouble that the wolf pack find themselves in no longer feels like an organic development of the plot rather a desperate attempt to continue the narrative. It may be that it appears so forced as the dilemmas that appeared before the group in the previous two films were far-fetched yet at the same time entirely believable. We've all awoken in a morning barely able to see wondering what on earth happened last night only to retrace our steps to find that it was a night of mystery and adventure that may have involved complete strangers, copious amounts of alcohol and on particularly strange nights anything from traffic cones to livestock. However, very few of us have ever been tasked with tracking down an international criminal and seemingly the jokes don’t quite transfer between the two situations.

In the end it had to be made because Hollywood demanded it and it was going to make everyone involved a heap of money. All I ask now is that the wolf pack give up drinking so that there might not be a chance that they ever have to do this again. 

Here’s an idea; watching “live” TV at home is now the largest social experience that we ever take part in.

If you think of the biggest crowd that you’ve ever been in most of you will probably think back to either watching a football match at a stadium or being at a large club or shopping centre but now thanks to social media sitting a home on your sofa watching a show such as Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead or even Britain’s Got Talent with your smart phone in hand or laptop in front of you now puts you in the largest gathering of like-minded people you’ll ever be in.

We might need a bigger sofa

Social media has created a phenomenon I like to think of as the metaphorical long sofa – although you may think that watching TV is quite an insular activity with at most three or four people sitting in relative silence glued to a flickering screen you can now share your living room with upwards of one million people with a simple hashtag or “@” symbol that you are able to search out the show that you are watching and find those who are watching it “alongside” you.

As people now watch the box they are constantly sharing and updating their reactions to the narrative before them, either good or bad critiques, dismay at a characters decision or even simply a reaction on the screen. Viewers can now build up a community around a show with people from all around the country from one event that they are having the same experience as. They are able to chat, agree, disagree, debate or even troll one another just as if they were sitting alongside them in the room, so long as their responses are less than 140 characters.

Tweeting pictures of your bare feet is one way to get a "certain" type of follower.

Although you could say that it is similar behaviour as fans of box sets that tweet along as you watch that you can find later there is an immediacy to the conversations that you have with people when watching a “live” event as you are experiencing these things alongside them. In that sense I would still argue that the box set is still a lonesome viewing experience as it’s a little like you’re watching them with your pretend friends rather than a community. Social media reaction to a marathon of Mad Men or 24 might have allowed the viewer a large amount of time to think about that jibe or witty retort making it lose the immediacy of a reaction that would be from someone off the long sofa.

Engagement with Twitter and Facebook is actively encouraged by broadcasters as it is obviously great free publicity. One of the greatest examples of this I have seen is Comedy Central’s Workaholic’s where after a particularly bad pun or clanger of a joke there was a hastag that popped up in the bottom right corner encouraging fans to tweet about that exact instance, it allowed for immediate reaction from viewers who could then be sought out and interacted with. A particularly witty Tweep might add further to the joke or a thoughtful one speculate on the underlying meaning behind it adding to the richness of the viewing experience.

Workaholics!

Now there are even theories as to how many “social media talking points” there should be in a show in order for it to be considered a success. Senior VP of Viacom International Media networks Phillip Bourchier O’Ferrall believes that there should be between 10 and 15 of these points during a show to ensure that they are considered a rich social TV experience as reported in The Drum (http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/04/25/tv-show-should-feature-15-social-media-talking-points-says-viacom-senior-vp)  He says that shows can now be judged on how they: “…create social media conversations.” rather than solely on traditional ratings measurements. Could it be soon that ideas of three act structures in film or 5 acts in TV will be replaced by moments woven into the narrative that will be considered Tweetable?

But what is that makes us want, nay need, to interact with others when we’re watching the TV? Psychologists talk about the term Intersubjectivity which basically means that we are social beings and to combat the terrifying philosophical idea of Solipsism (we are entirely unsure that any knowledge we hold outside our own head is actually real) we seek reinforcement of experiences by trying to deduce if others have held them to. So the outcry on social networks over the previous episode of Game of Thrones is in some way a cry for help that it wasn’t just me that thought: #OMG did that just happen on @GOT #HolyCow! Intersubjectivity emphasizes that shared cognition and consensus is essential in the shaping of our ideas and relations, basically without socializing in some way we’d all be in trouble and when you have access to the world’s largest network of people right at your fingertips you can alter you viewing experience into an experience that (without sounding too much like a multitasking The Sims player) can fulfil both your entertainment and social needs. The further beauty of it though is that no-one needs especially to interact directly with you, you are included in the conversation and that seems often to be enough to feel as one with the community.

Though it might actually even run deeper than that. Most of us on social networking sites share something of an ideal of ourselves we de-tag unflattering pictures and usually only update with information that we wish to be associated with or that will portray us in a certain way that we would like to be associated with. Interacting, on whatever level, with a TV show that we are interested in becomes an extension of our character on the social network and allows us to express ourselves to an audience of people who we will most likely want to associate with as they like similar things to us. In a sense we are “peacocking” hoping that our wit or assertions might win us followers or “friends” who we might be able to interact with further.

Anyhow, this is just me possibly over analysing what probably is just the simple act of watching TV and typing away but if anyone wants they’re welcome on my metaphorical long sofa.

'Waking Sleeping Beauty' a review

If you didn't know Disney are those guys who produce all the films from your childhood that you still know the words too. In Waking Sleeping Beauty Don Hahn (Disney producer nominated for an Oscar for Beauty and the Beast) takes us behind the scenes of what it was like to work in the animation department in the House of Mouse during the Renaissance period of Disney before every second film was about talking snow dogs that you secretly hope are now being fed large chunks of meat with suspicious pills in. What could have been a nice insight into the egos, conflicts and etchings of the artists behind the pictures that would interest those from animation aficionados to slow-Joe-in-the-back-row ends up being one and a half hours of  Don hammering home the point that Hollywood execs don't understand anything about making movies and charging around from event to event in his home movies pointing at stuff just to make sure that we understand that it's bloody brilliant working for Mickey!  

I'm a bit of an animation buff if I'm honest, I love the stuff, the magic of pencil on paper projected at the screen at 30 frames per second in vivid colour with talking animals and rousing musical numbers is my idea of a great time. In the beginning I was determined to like Waking Sleeping Beauty, I wanted to see the faces behind the magic; those that had poured their heart and soul into every frame that would fly past the screen in less than a second; the tortured loners, the eccentrics, the one's that saw beauty in every blade of grass but what I got was a rather lengthily documentary about how three old guys (Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Eisner and Roy Disney) pretended to like each other and made some films in the background at the start because they thought: "That's what Walt would have wanted." and then because it made them a boat load of money. For a movie that is supposed to be about making movies the main theme seems to be that of corporate backstabbing and office politics rather than the geniuses that actually created the films from idea to implementation. What is worse is that we never even really see any actual backstabbing, the real story comes only from what we can infer with Hahn unwilling or unable to show us the real showdowns between the three and we are left to deduce where most of the conflict comes from from sideways glances and everyone insisting that they wouldn't be invited round each others houses for Christmas.

Katzenberg constantly set up for a fall - and a mauling.

Hahn sets it up from the off that you should hate Katzenberg lining him up as a ruthless self promoter and ignorant to the artistic process of making a film only seeing the audience as walking dollar signs ("Did you know that he wanted to cut 'Part of that world' from the Little Mermaid? Only the most important song in the whole film!" Or "He flew us all to London for a meeting to tell us that we had no more money for the film, just to fly us back?" Squawk several interviewees during the documentary.) When the documentary shows a real life lion attempting to maul Katzenberg on stage during the promotion of The Lion King the camera lingers a little too long on the incident as if Hahn behind it was willing the beast on, just even to take a little chunk out. In the end though I realized that I had enough bile to be thrown at all three men and was happy enough to dislike them all equally. They were the only one's that I could see that were stopping me from seeing more of Belle, Ariel and Simba - when they shut up and went away I'd be able to see more of what Disney did best, the only problem is that they never did.

Frequent insights into the animator's minds are brilliant - and a little scary!

Spliced around the home movie footage there are interviews with various people either to camera or on the phone. The problem is that often the floating voices are speaking while their counter-part on the screen is moving their mouth making it uncertain who is speaking to the point where I was certain that the sound had to be broken on the rented disk that this was playing off. It was off-putting enough that I missed the emotional climax of the documentary with the death of Howard Ashman (Composer on The Little Mermaid) before he had ever seen the finished cut of the film he was working on at the time (Beauty and the Beast). After a quick rewind and a re-watch there were tears in my eyes as colleagues recount Ashman's battle with AIDS and how he passed away on a hospital trolley still wearing his purple Beauty and the Beast pull over. The only time that I was truly lost in the narrative and captivated by the human drama of the piece.

The film provides a solid overview of this period of Disney history but if you are already familiar with the events (and I suspect that this will be the case with virtually everyone thinking of seeing this), it doesn’t really have much to offer aside from some fascinating glimpses of the likes of John Lasseter and Tim Burton toiling away in anonymity before they got their big breaks. There's also some great artwork from the artists working on various projects lampooning their bosses or recording events in the office as little comic strips. 

For the most part it feels like a tabloid article that hash enough superficial gossip to keep audiences interested but lacks any real bite. Animation buffs are likely to find it fascinating, at least when it deals with the nuts-and-bolts of the filmmaking process, but for everyone else, Waking Sleeping Beauty is essentially a lengthy DVD extra that Disney is charging people to see.