Shopping, Seduction and Mr. Selfridge by Lindy Woodhead

I am a complete sucker for books of T.V. programs, whether they are fictional adaptations, written especially for the series or history books. So, I was delighted to find this cheap on the old Kindle. I was not that horrified to find out the amount of liberties I.T.V has taken with historical fact, after a while you get used to it and I understand that taking Downton With Shops as truth is liable to make you look rather silly. No, it’s written as entertainment and it provides that much. 

The book too, is entertaining and quite well written. You can see that it is not supposed to be ‘serious’ history in that it doesn’t really contain a great deal of analysis, but that is hardly a flaw when it has so many interesting facts and anecdotes that give you a sense of the family and the business. I loved the number of personalities that filled the pages, and sometimes it is wonderfully relaxing to be entertained by tales of rich people doing extravagant things and descriptions of crazy by-gone fashions.  The book was well researched and some of the anecdotes were quite personal. 

It did slightly nark me at times that she didn’t put references in the main body of the text, I think there is no excuse for not doing that with an ereader as it’s so easy to be able to flick back and forth between the references and the main body of the text. Also, the images and illustrations were at the end in a separate section, so I did think that they were missing until I finished the book and went ‘ah, so that’s what they looked like.’ But these were minor formatting points rather than big criticisms. 

Overall, I’m glad to have read it as it has given me a better insight into the background of the period and to a man who was such an interesting character, although in a way I am also quite sad to know how the story ends and hope that there is a happier ending for I.T.V’s Mr. Selfridge. 

What the world needs now, is hats, sweet hats

 I also enjoyed reading a little bit of history and have vowed to vary the all fiction all the time diet with some more of the historical stuff, as I know that I own a great pile of history books I haven't read either!

Moffat – What’s with the roofs?

So, it’s been a couple of weeks since the Doctor Who finale and the internet is still buzzing with angry commentators either producing ‘stfu Moffat’ blogs or getting angry with said blogs and denying that there is any problem. I’ve been interested in the feminist analysis and I’ve found myself trying to become more analytical about the portrayal of different groups in the media. After one blog analysis someone asked for people’s opinion on the use of roofs, this is my attempt to analyse why. I have thought about different aspects of the question. 

Before I start I think I should point out that although I had no problem with Reichenbach on Sherlock, I was not a huge fan of Rory and Amy leaping off the roof, nor the way that it was filmed. I thought that while Sherlock made it seem like an awful last resort and showed how it affected other people, I felt that Doctor Who made it far too romantic due to the way that it was filmed with Rory and Amy leaping off in each other’s arms and with all those magic slow motion effects .  Perhaps this could have been because of the relative ages of viewers (and I know it wasn’t really supposed to be “committing suicide” as such), but it grated.  

Inappropriately Romantic? Link

So why roofs?

• First of all, obviously falling is a terrific visual. You can dress your main character up in a big coat that swirls when they are falling against a grey, unforgiving sky or you can have a New York skyline and have your main characters hugging as they are falling with beautiful swirling hair, slow motion and even sparkly effects. The realism of the falling in a horizontal hug should not be questioned here as long as it looks good, that’s the main thing. Anybody know any good locations? Roofs perhaps.
• The Reichenbach problem, aka “there are no waterfalls in London” and Sherlock has to fall to comply with canon. You could move out of London, but it would be a shame to move Sherlock’s death out of the city which is such an important part of his life and such an important setting for the programme. Add to this considerations such as finding locations, getting permission to film, realistic (not too expensive) stunts, realistic (not too expensive) CGI and other considerations, and roofs seems the most suitable medium for jumping off.
• Same with Doctor Who, we’ve established that we’re setting the episode in New York, and seeing as we’ve spent all the budget getting there, we need to make the most of the New York skyline and not go mad getting the Williams to jump off the Statue of Liberty or anything else to expensive/unrealistic (not that realism is a major consideration here). Roofs it is.
•  We need a nice re-set button and dismissing it all with a wave of the hand as being ‘something timey-wimey to complicated for your tiny brains to worry about’ will do. Never mind the plot holes generated or the Doctor’s previous refusals to go messing up the timeline or any other issue. It worked for Sherlock, we’ve had a trial run as it were, we know the logistics, it’s romantic, find me the nearest roof (as long as it’s cheap).  
• Oh, and for the writers, it’s a lovely metaphor for the characters having to be ‘brought back down to earth’.  In Sherlock’s case this was because he was becoming too high-profile. The reason for this? The writers decided to do Reichenbach perhaps because of the great storyline but it also fits in nicely with the predicted hiatus for the Hobbit, Star Trek, Parade’s End and whatever else the cast did/are doing. Which is turn gives them the all important re-set button. JohnLockers everywhere tremble in fear that John could be married to Mary by the time Sherlock returns. It could all change. In Rory and Amy’s case it was so they could settle down an live some sort of normal life where they wouldn’t be stalked by a mad man in a blue box who kept insisting that he accompany them on madcap adventures whenever he felt like it at the most inconvenient times like in the middle of their anniversary party. And everyone has agreed it’s time for Karen and Arthur to move on, preferably without some depressing death.  So the writers make sure that they are stuck in the past in New York (shhh, shut up about the plot holes). Has anyone found a roof yet?
•  It is also linked to the theme of character choice – in Rory and Amy’s case this is Amy finally, once and for all, choosing Rory over the Doctor (and in the process choosing to ‘grow up’ and stop being Amelia Pond, the Girl Who Waited, so let’s throw all the romantic special effects we can afford at it. Sherlock seemingly has no choice, but here I think that there is this tension between Sherlock’s ‘I have no friends’ speech in Hound of the Baskerville’s and his final realisation that his friends (particularly John) are actually vitally important to him to the point where he has to fake his suicide. He has to make a horrible choice to hurt the people closest to him in order to be able to save them and it’s beautifully written and acted without this sense that it’s just one big stunt to try and tug at out heartstrings.  The Doctor will have forgotten about Rory and Amy by Christmas anyway (in all likelihood), he’ll have a new companion. Sherlock, on the other hand, will be in a shit load of trouble when John finds out.  That roof I asked for? Make it two.
• Okay, so we’re going with potential suicide on Saturday tea-time telly. Can’t scar the kiddies for life or get any complaints, this is the BBC after all. So it’s going to have to be something not too horrifying we can write ourselves out of. I know, jump off the roof, re-set everything, back to the graveyard. Sorted. As for Sherlock, he’s going to need something magnificent to do with falling that we can subsequently explain (if we need to, I’m still not sure they ever will explain how he did it). Oh good, you found the roofs I asked for.

That’s it though, I think the man has used up his quota of roofs for a long time. It’s going to get ridiculous if anybody else jumps off them. Time to look for a new re-set button.

Bret and his big mouth

Bret has been spouting off about Matt Bomer being in 50 Shades of Grey and about "crap" sitcoms. Predictably, most of the comments were from people calling him homophobic, but I could see where he was coming from, although he didn't put it in a way that endeared himself to people! Not that that is Bret's bag anyway. 

In the first article, Bret was pointing out that he didn't think that a gay actor is suitable for the part of Christian Grey. Which is fair enough when you think about it. As a woman who has discussed who should play Christian with friends, I know that we are very opinionated about who should play him, because the point of the book is for us to identify with Ana. This is a man who is supposed to make us go weak at the knees; someone who manages to evade Ana's best instincts to avoid him at all costs. 

Brett says no thanks (image). Matt does look a bit gay in some of his pics.

It says something about a director's attitude to women that he is choosing to pick someone straight over someone who is gay, because I'm sure that if Bret was casting the same film but with Alan instead of Ana, he would go looking for the hottest gay actor he could find. Bret pays us a compliment by looking for an actor who is "genuinely into women", as well as applauding our open-mindedness. But dammit, I think he's right. No offense meant to Matt or anyone who wanted him for the part, but we are supposed to be fancying straight guys here. I haven't seen White Collar but if what Bret says is right, Matt came across as "totally gay" and in some of the pics I've seen he doesn't look perfectly straight. Don't know about you, but I'd rather my supposed 'dream hunk' was totally straight thanks.  And this is not about having anything against gay actors. Bret doesn't have a problem with gay actors playing straight roles, just not as 'dream hunks' who are supposed to be every woman's dream.

I think this is part of the point that Bret is making. It would be fantastic if instead of getting gay actors to play straight roles, TV writers would just write more gay roles and get gay actors to play them. I can understand why Bret feels uncomfortable about Neil Patrick-Harris, because in a way, it's as if we are supposed to be laughing about the fact that he's gay but playing an womaniser. Perhaps this does a disservice to both him and us.Why not write him as gay? Because it would be too shocking to have a promiscuous gay character in a fluffy US sitcom. They would probably have to ramp up the camp, or settle him down with a nice camp boyfriend/life partner. 

I get similarly annoyed with the portrayal of disabled characters, who seem to be nearly always played by actors without disabilities (apparently called 'cripface'). I suppose I can see why the producers do it that way, but it is still a great shame. Glee is a big offender. Good for having a disabled character in Artie, but I notice that he never gets the girl. Coincidence?

Very nice, but should not be playing a blind man (image)

 I had a look at a Wiki list of gay characters in TV shows, particularly looking at shows that are on currently in the UK and who made them. There are a few sitcoms like Glee and Modern Family, some dramas like The Borgias, Smash, True Blood and Game of Thrones. Out of these we have the inevitable musicals and straight men playing gay roles. One production company came up a couple of times, HBO's dramas.

In the second article, Bret hates CBS sitcoms and call The Big Bang Theory 'gay'. I happen to like the show (and Modern Family), but again, I can see what he's saying here. Raj and Howard continually skirt around their big 'bromance' and the big joke on Raj is that he likes things that the other men consider 'womanly' like manicures. But then the whole show is centered around stereotypes: dumb blond, socially inept scientist, Jewish mama's boy. He's right about Modern Family too, in my opinion. It may be a bit more progressive than other sitcoms (in that it has openly gay characters), but you've still got a straight man running around playing a big ol' camp stereotype. Is that the only thing we can handle?! 

I'm not saying the UK is any better at this either. Other than in soaps and the occasional drama like Downton Abbey, we're pretty short on the gay and disabled characters too. We are not challenging stereotypes, and I think that is why Bret hates the way that homosexuality is presented. It's lazy and predictable, or hiding behind multiple layers of coyness to avoid offending anyone.  

Great quote from an article in the Guardian:

"Good depictions of disability involve characters who happen to be disabled, rather than characters who are consumed and defined by their disabilities alone."

Same for goes for homosexuality.