• Following Us

  • Categories

  • Check out the Archives









  • Awards & Nominations

Non-Review Review: The Reader

Posted on May 16, 2009 by Darren

The first of the big Oscar nominees to be released on DVD/Blu Ray in Ireland, it’s little surprise that Dad came home with The Reader this weekend.

I like to think I’m an open-minded sort of guy. I can watch controversial films without blinking. I can even stomach the occassional political diatribe and acknowledge its well-crafted artistry (I enjoyed Lions for Lambs despite its hamfistedness). Yet The Reader just irks me. Perhaps it’s the way the film tries so hard to pass itself off as a ‘big idea’ film (and evidentally succeeded, securing a Best Picture nod). Perhaps it’s the way that it acts like it has got guts, asking tough questions when all it does is dance around them and undermine them with shameless Oscar-baiting (let’s look at german post-war guilt – but let’s make the subject of this examination an illiterate, uglied-up, pedophilic Kate Winslet).

Continue reading →

Filed under: Movies, Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Start Spreadin’ the News…

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Darren

It appears that Martin Scorsese’s on-again, off-again, on-again, off-again, on-again biopic of Frank Sinatra is back on again. I’ve been following the project during it’s languished history in, if not development hell, at least development limbo.

To be honest, I was most excited about the Robert deNiro iteration of the project. That supporting cast sounded fantastic. Now it’s been confirmed, how do I feel? Well, good, to be honest.
It’s odd that the end of a director’s career would show more breadth than the early years, but the last decade has seen an astonishing broadening of Scrocese’s pallete. We’ve had a Hollywood biopic (The Aviator), a historical epic (Gangs of New York), spiritual drama (Silence), a conventional thriller (Shutter Island) and even an old-style mob yarn (The Departed). Sure he’s experimented before – the seemingly anomolous Age of Innocence now makes sense as a precursor to Gangs of New York, The Doors still stands out as an odd choice in his career – but that string of wildly-variable-in-genre films seems unprecedented. Even the most conventional choice in that lineup (The Departed) seems oddly out of sync with his early mob exploits (Goodfellas, Casino). So, why is this relevant?

After so much variety, I look forward to a bit of vintage Scorsese. A biography of a Los Vegas lounge singer with ties to the mob seems to be relatively familiar ground. This doesn’t mean I’m writing off any of his impressive slate of Oscar-buzz-generating releases already on the horizon – the release of any Scorsese film is cause to celebrate – but this film has been discussed and talked about for so long that it’s hard not to especially anticipate it. Sure, his last “dream project” was Gangs of New York that met with a somewhat muted critical reception, but I felt the director’s love with the material in every frame.

The casting rumours have begun again with many media outlets suggesting Johnny Depp or Leonardo diCarpio. I’m happy with either – I trust Scorcese on this. Both are incredibly competent actors who would do the material proud. I think diCaprio has done his best work with Scorsese – though he did deserve an Oscar nod for Revolutionary Road – and I think that Depp and Scorsese would make a fantastic team. Hell, I’d even trust the director with John Travolta.

It is Scorsese’s dream project after all. I’m just tagging along for the ride.

Filed under: Movies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Non-Review Review: Chaplin

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Darren

I caught Chaplin for the first time last night on Sky Anytime. I was quite impressed for a film I’d heard next to nothing about – always a bad sign.

I quite enjoyed it. As much a love letter to the ghost of Hollywood past as to its lead character, it managed to successfully evoke the slow dwindling of the Hollywood dream. Director Richard Attenborough manages a number of inspired touches (my favourite being the scene where Charlie theatrically claims that The Tramp called out to him (the first hat he tried on, the cane flew to his hand), only to be called out by his editor, leading to the much more mundane days of searching for props and the character’s voice). You almost believe you’re there in the golden age of Hollywood, thanks to costume and set design, as well as staging. In particular, the film works well emulating famous bits of Chaplin schtick (an extended sequence where they flee his wife’s lawyers while editting the film, playing with a volleyball so as to remind viewers of The Great Dictator). It realises that there’s more to Charlie than the life that he lived, and manages to recreate an air of magical non-realism around him. Somehow I imagine his life was much more mundane, but it feels good to imagine it wasn’t.

While we’re on the strengths of the film, three words: Robert Downey Jnr. He was only twenty-eight years old when he played the role, but the audience could be forgiven for being unsure – the film traverses Charlie’s life and, while the later makeup mighty be a bit ropey by today’s standards, it ages Downey relatively well through the bulk of the film. It’s a difficult performance, but one that works. As imagined by Downey, Chaplin is a flawed human being. Not so tragically flawed as the more recent Oscar-nominated performances in recent biopictures (Johnny Cash or Ray Charles are easier to sympathise with), in that he is openly condescending and bitchy about the people close to him, without ever seeming to need to apologise (check out his blithe summary of “America’s Sweetheart”). On the other hand, it’s hard not to feel proud of a man so unwilling to compromise his humanism, even when he knows it will land him in hot water.

It’s to Downey’s credit we neither love nor hate the man, but feel a little like we understand him. It’s also to the performer’s credit that his schtick embodies Chaplin so well that Attenborough can play clips of the man himself (who plays himself on celluloid, save a recreation of the finale of The Great Dictator where Downey steps in) without shattering the illusion.

The rest of the performances are hit-or-miss. Very few supporting characters get screentime, so the really great actors make their mark with that time. Traditionally underrated players, like Dan Ackroyd, Kevin Kline and Diane Lane, in particular make the most of small roles. Veteran performers like James Woods and Marisa Tomei seem criminally underused. The parade of women in Charlie’s life seem like little more than extended cameos, despite being played by Penelope Ann-Miller, Milla Jovovich and Moira Kelly among others. At this point I should reflect that Moira Kelly’s Oirish accent is terrible. It’s painful to hear, but it’s not there for long and is worth soldering through.

There are the usual complaints about biopics to be made here. It does lack focus and suffers from confused priorities. Does Charlie’s sex life deserve the attention is receives at the expense of his career? Is the handling of his politics deep enough, or is it lost amid the tragedy of Douglas Fairbanks? The truth is that – at least in films of this scale – it’s nearly impossible to strike a balance. This film lands squarely in the middle of the pile – landing with W. or Beyond The Sea rather than Nixon or Walk the Line – but is elevated slightly be those inspired director’s touches, a genuine love for the material and a fantastic leading performance.

Call this one a cautious recommendation, though I’m always biased for a love letter to the golden age of Hollywood.

____________________________________________________

Chaplin is directed by Richard Attenborough (Ghandi), based on the life of film maker and comedian Charlie Chaplin. It stars Robert Downey Jnr. (Iron Man, Tropic Thunder) and a huge ensemble cast featuring Kevin Kline (A Fish Called Wanda, The Pink Panther), Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs, Fracture), Marisa Tomei (My Cousin Vinny, The Wrestler), Dan Ackroyd (Ghostbusters, Evolution), Diane Lane (Nights in Rhodesia), Penelope Ann-Miller (Carlito’s Way), Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil, UltraViolet), James Woods (Videodrome, Nixon) and David Duchovney (The X-Files, Californication). It was released in the US on 8th January 1993, but was actually released earlier in the UK and Ireland on 18th December 1992.

Filed under: Movies, Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Hair-Raising Thriller

Posted on May 14, 2009 by Darren

As the release of Angels & Demons approaches, I have one question. Just one question about Tom Hanks’ intrepid symbologist’s symbologist, Robert Langdon. It’s not why everyone seems to turn to him when they have a problem probably more suited to… well, the police. Or how he never seems to need to look anything up, ever. Or what he does when he’s not uncovering the seemingly endless array of underground Catholic-themed conspiracies (I reckon it’s a niche market). Nope, but I sense it may be related to the above. My question is this: what the hell is going on with his hair?

Seriously, who convinced Tom Hanks, let alone Ron Howard it was good idea? In hindsight maybe it was, as perhaps it distracted me away from the poor plotting, pacing and action in The DaVinci Code – indeed, I dislike it a lot less than most critics. Perhaps it’s designed to hide the movie’s plot hole, like some sort of plot-hole-cloaking device. Hell, the Angels & Demons features a plot to destroy the Vatican with dark matter (you gotta give those plotters props for creativity – not even the laws of physics can stop them! Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!).

langdonhair

"This is so awkward... We've all got the same hair..."

In fairness, Hanks is doing his best to downplay the hair – perhaps he’s afraid be being upstaged? – placing the blame on stylist Manny Miller, who tells the movie’s stories through hair apparently. Though, it that’s the case, Hanks really didn’t need the hair upgrade – thinning seems rather adequate for the movie on hand. Perhaps they should have George-Lucas-ed the recent box set edition of the first movie to tone the hair down a bit. I can’t think of any other reason people might consider having a DaVinci Code boxset. Perhaps if it came with your own Robert Langdon wig…

I apologise if I’m being flippant, but it really is quite distracting. It looks greasy and sleazy – two things that Hanks couldn’t be if he tried. Langdon looks like he’s selling pills at an disco, not a world-renowned expert in symbology. Even the news that the ponytail is gone doesn’t relax me none, though it is a good sign that even the screenwriter thought the hair was a bit too much. Maybe for the inevitable third part of the trilogy.

The film looks like a by-the-numbers thriller, and is getting pasted by critics. I’ll admit I haven’t read the book (The DeVinci Code was enough Dan Brown for me), but I didn’t find The DaVinci Code film too offending (it managed to be less patronising than the book). Not stellar, but not terrible. I imagine I’ll catch this sometime, but probably not in the cinema.

________________________________________________

Angels & Demons is the new film from Ron Howard (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon), starring Tom Hanks (Cast Away, Forrest Gump), Ewan McGregor (the Star Wars prequels, Shallow Grave) and Tom Hanks’ hair. It opens worldwide tomorrow, 14th May 2009.

Filed under: Movies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Non-Review Review: Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Posted on May 14, 2009 by Darren

In short, if the title doesn’t offend you, give it a go. There are worse things to do with your time.

Kevin Smith has come on miles as a director. What’s really notable about the film is that Smith manages to draw fantastic performances from just about every member of the ensemble. This is particularly evident with performers who have worked alongside Smith over a long period of time – Jason Mewes and Brian O’Halloran – both of whom give better performances than I’d have thought they could. It helps that Smith knows them both well enough to hide their weaknesses (O’Halloran does better as a supporting player than a lead) and play to their strengths. The performances in the film are all top-tier. Not one performance feels forced or awkward. True, some like Seth Rogan or Brandon Routh play within their comfort margins, but it’s Elizabeth Banks, Jason Mewes and a scene-stealing Justin Long that are revelations.

The film is populated with the kind of uniquely crazy individuals that seem to inhabit Kevin Smith movies, but he writes them and casts them so well that we don’t consider their money-generating scheme as bizarre as we should (given I doubt it would have occurred to anyone watching in similar dire straits – otherwise Ireland would be a low budget porno haven at this stage). It’s odd when the inevitable “emotional complications” that always pop in on Smith’s third act seem more oddly out of place than the two acts of audacity that proceeded it, but it feels a little out of place here. Maybe it’s because while we expect Smith to mix the crass and the romantic, we don’t expect the extremes to be so far apart. In a comparison to crass-comedy forefather The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zach and Miri manages to be both cruder and sweeter. It’s jarring mix that doesn’t necessarily work, but the comedy is fantastic.

So, yep, if you’re not too prudish for it, it’s a damn funny film that maybe gets a little too sacchrine towards the end, but features several fantastic performances (Long’s extended cameo as an actor who star in productions with “all-male casts” is too amazing for words). Banks in particular shows a growing range which makes her one to watch in the years to come.

________________________________________________

Zach and Miri Make a Porno is a film directed by Kevin Smith (Chasing Amy, Clerks). It’s on his second major film (after Jersey Girl) not to feature his trademark characters Jay and Silent Bob. It stars Seth Rogan (Observe and Report, Knocked Up) and Elizabeth Banks (Scrubs, W.) with supporting turns from Jason Mewes (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Dogma), Brian O’Halloran (Clerks, Clerks 2), Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) and Justin Long (Live Free and Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0).

Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Will Inception land Christopher Nolan an Oscar Nomination (or Two)?

Posted on May 13, 2009 by Darren

I loved Christopher Nolan before The Dark Knight made it cool to do so. My love affair dates back to the relative indie Momento, the backwards-staged thriller in which a wronged insurance salesman attempts to find out who killed his wife, but is blocked by his inability to form memories. So, our hero makes studious notes and tattoos himself with all the pertinent information before he forgets it. A hokey premise to be sure, but it worked. The film went on to receive a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay for Nolan and his brother. This is, despite critically-praised hit after critically-praised hit, Nolan’s only Oscar nomination.

There was a lot of Oscar buzz around The Dark Knight, with commentators suggesting that even if the genre film was locked out of the Best Picture category Nolan would be guarunteed a nod as Best Director. He’d made a geek property the biggest summer blockbuster ever, proved that Imax was a viable filming method and assembled a cast full of folks that Hollywood loved (Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman). He’d delivered one of those rare pop cultre masterpieces. Alas, it was not to be. He couldn’t even get a nomination in the Best Adapted Screenplay, despite the most concise distilling of seventy-years’ worth of comic book history on to celluloid.

I’m not bitter, and had expected the snub – though I had anticipated Darren Aaronoski or Clint Eastwood to take the fabled fifth spot.

Nolan films Batman to the max... the (i)Max...

Nolan films Batman to the max... the (i)Max...

Anyway, Oscar prognosticators, clearly not allured by the whallop-crash-bang movies flooding into cinemas at the moment, have already started looking at next year’s awards. There are are all the usual suspects – Clint Eastwood’s untitled-as-of-yet Mandela biopic starring Morgan Freeman, Daniel Day-Lewis in a musical based on Fellini’s 8 1/2 (creatively titled “Nine”), and Martin Scorcese’s Shutter Island with Leonardo diCaprio and former Watchman Jackie Earle Haley. Ever one to follow fads, I’ll be taking a closer look at these in the coming days.

I’m going to one-up these tea-leaf-readers and ask whether Christopher Nolan’s next film might earn him that coveted (but deserved) director’s nomination. The movie won’t be released until 2010, so it’ll be February 2011 before we know for sure (sooner based on advanced word and actually seeing the film – but that’d take the fun out of this), but let’s have a bit of fun with this. If I get it right, I’m a box office guru. If I get it wrong, well, there was no way I could reasonably get it right, right?

We don’t know much about Inception except that it’s loosely science-fiction – it takes place within “the architecture of the mind”. That bodes badly for a Best Picture Nomination, but doesn’t rule out a nomination in the Director category, not least of which for an established director. Look at Peter Weir (The Truman Show) or Stanly Kubrick (2001). So, not as solid gold as a Nelson Mandela biopic or a damned holocaust film, but not a dealbreaker.

Guy Pearce, Used Car Salesman

Guy Pearce, Used Car Salesman

The cast is pretty solid. Leonardo diCaprio and Ellen Page have received Oscar nominations, but never won. This will mark Michael Caine’s fourth consecutive film with Nolan. And there’s some pretty solid support there from Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who has always been a respectable performer, if not a box office giant – though he is filling in from the increasingly-taken-seriously James Franco) and Cillian Murphy (who has yet to give a performance for an American audience that establishes him as a bona fides actor – The Wind That Shakes the Barley, Breakfast on Pluto, 28 Days Later and Intermission were all Irish or English films). So, a very respectable cast, if not quite Oscar-laiden. There’s also the release date to be considered – based on filming news and the guestimated scheduling of other films (read: Warner Brothers will want Batman 3 for Summer 2011), fate would seem to point to an early 2010 release date. Which is good for those of us dying to see it, but bad for the film’s Oscar chances.

And now the moment of truth. My best guess: no Best Picture nomination, no Best Director nomination, possibly a Screenplay nomination. The film will be out of Hollywood’s very short-term memory come the 2010/2011 awards season. It’s that simple. Over the past few years, every Best Picture nominee has been released in the last three months of the year. This has led to a ridiulous glut of awardsfare over a ridiculously cramped period, but as long as it continues to happen, the powers that be will continue to take it for granted. And as long as the powers that be take it for granted, the longer studios will continue to release in that narrow window. It’s a viscious cycle.

Besides, edgy films in underappreciated genres tend to have better luck in the writing categories (both winning and acheiving nominations).I readily admit that I might be getting ahead of myself here – it’s quite possible that the film may suck, but I doubt it. Besides, it’s just as likely that Daniel Day-Lewis’ next film could be a dud or that Clint Eastwood could forgt how to direct drama. Nolan’s record (Momento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight) stands to him, and at least gives him the benefit of the doubt. I’m looking forward to the film as one of the highlights of 2010.

Well, that was fun. Now I don’t feel so bad speculating about the 2010 Oscar ceremony!

Filed under: Movies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The Late, Late Gets a New Host

Posted on May 12, 2009 by Darren

Ryan Tubridy will host the Late, Late Show.

Admittedly, having caught him on Newstalk this morning, I’m not as ticked as I was last night. He actually came across as charming, sincere and a genuinely nice guy. On the other hand, he comes across as a bit of a gombeen on his Saturday night show, though something about the faux-Americana vibe just rubs me the wrong way.

Hopefully if someone can talk him out of bringing the house band – I love the Quartet, but they don’t suit a primetime talk show – and convince him that “poor man’s Conan O’Brien” is not a great design style, then he might do well. I attended a filming of the show a few year back and Tuberty worked well off camera. He was witty and charming, but the moment the camera hit somehow that charm became smarm. I hear he’s much better on the radio, but I’m in work, so I can’t listen.

So, maybe if he’s the only member of staff carried over from Saturday night it could work. He rightly points out that Gay Byrne had relatively little current affairs experience before he took the job (he worked behind-the-scenes in Britain), and we all know how that turned out. So maybe this constantly upwardly-mobile favourite son can pull it off. The Late, Late really needs a good, challenging host after a stale few years. Maybe Tubridy’s change we can believe in.

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but will be watching very closely.

Filed under: Opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

It was the summer of 2009…

Posted on May 12, 2009 by Darren

Lately I’ve taken a bit of interest in Box Office numbers – I figure that might distract me from the fact Ryan Tuberty is hosting the Late Late. And looking at the few months ahead of us, I can see this being a very big summer for the US box office. In fact, I can see the film industry beating the recession with a large stick (cinema generally does quite well during recessions as it’s well, cheap), thanks to a fairly epic and broad lineup of blockbuster films.

It seems that just about every film this year is a sequel or prequel. Some (Angels & Demons) are both – it’s complicated (the book is a prequel the film is a sequel). We’ve had a relatively strong introduction to the season with the two prequels on offer. Neither Star Trek nor Wolverine broke any major records (though the Imax thing is pretty neat, as is the biggest second-week in May ever). I can see Star Trek having the legs to last in the background at least a month (which, given the onslaught of bigger movies and the disappointing staying power of other would be blockbusters, is really something).

Even before we reach the end of the month, we’ll have the second Dan Brown film, which can’t do too badly with a cast like Ewan McGregor and Tom Hanks and a cult following among a slightly older demographic usually ignored, the fourth Terminator film, which should do big business despite all the reasons that geeks have to worry, and the kid-friendly A Night at the Museum. Rounding off the month’s smaller (pbut possibly slow-burning) releases are Pixar’s Up and Sam Raimi’s return to cult horror with Drag Me to Hell. Again, neither should set opening weekend alight, but I’d expect a decent amount of business from either or both.

Then we have the traditional summer months. Summer movies have been creeping in earlier and earlier (Watchmen was arguably better suited to a summer release; Iron Man last year set the official start-of-season bell back at least a few weeks), but your meat-and-potatoes are here. These are the movies that cannot possibly fail, they are just that wired-in to cheesy pop sentiment. Michale Bay will confirm his title to the throne of summer blockbusters with a brainless sequel to a feature-length toy commercial with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but even he will likely have to stand in the shade created by what most commentators have settled on as the biggest money-spinner of the year, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. The series has built in devotees that Star Trek can only dream about, and they will be out in full force along with any parent looking to entertain a child over the summer months. This and the fact that my sources within the fan community tell me this is the best book points to a right to print money.

I think that GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra may falter as a brand with relatively little name recognition, despite the most over-qualified cast ever – Christopher Eccleston, people! On the other hand, I really hope that Michael Mann’s Public Enemies can do at least respectably, as the man generally delivers and has an amazing cast at his disposal.

All that said, I wouldn’t expect anyone to dethrone The Dark Knight or Titanic. I just think that culminatively the box office should be huge, but it could hugely backfire and lead to blockbuster fatigue, though I doubt it. It’ll be interesting to read the end-of-year numbers.

After that there’s the lonely Autumn followed by the glut of awards-bait. I’m already hyped about some of the movies we won’t be seeing on this side of the Atlantic for another nine months, but I’ll talk about them some other time.

Filed under: Movies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Non-Review Review: What Just Happened

Posted on May 10, 2009 by Darren

I’m going to lay it on the line and confess that I do not worship at the alter of Barry Levinson. Some of his stuff is amazing – Good Morning Vietnam and Rain Man come to mind – some of his stuff is less-so – Wag The Dog and Man of the Year are two more recent examples. When I discovered that he’d paired with Robert deNiro – another actor whose more recent work cannot hold a torch to his output from even a decade ago – I had a feeling the movie could go either way.

The Saturday night movie got a consensus opinion form all who watched it. It was a movie nowhere near as good as the sum of its parts, but was never painful or boring to watch. Individual sequences worked, whereas other plot threads vanished. Not in the sense of getting lost in the kenetic energy of the protagonist’s producer lifestyle, but lost as though the film didn’t have the energy to wrap it up. We never discover the deal with the agent and the daughter, nor with the writer and the wife, nor with the lady from the restaurant. Maybe we’re to believe these are all threads lost in the main character’s zoom-zoom lifestyle, but the movie never gives us any reason to believe it’s that smart. Not least of which given the time spent on sofas.

As a Hollywood satire, there are funnier and more acerbic pieces of celluloid out there (Bowfinger is far more cynical; the late TV show Action is borderline acidic). The movie says nothing new about the movie business. We’ve all heard the stories of the onset tantrums and rows over nothing, ridiculous inflated egoes and outrageous creative differences. All credit to Sean Penn and Bruce Willis for a willingness to lampoon themselves, but there’s nothing too shocking here.

Maybe I’m being too harsh. Robert deNiro is better than he’s been in a while here, even if he seems on autopilot. He hasn’t quite imploded in on himself in the way that scenery-chewing Al Pacino has lately. Catherine Keener, Stanley Tucci, Michael Wincott and John Turtorro are competent as the two-dimensional archetypes of a cynical producer, a desperate writer, an arthouse director and a spineless agent respectively.

The comedy is light and broad, and rarely in bad taste. Even the ‘fun in funeral’ scene is relatively low key. In the era of rude and crude comedies, its good to see a bit of dignity in the genre. So, in conclsion, the movie comes with a cautious recommendation. It might make you chuckle every once a while, but there’s little of substance here.

It seems I’m just a little more positive than most.

______________________________________________________

What Just Happened is a satirical look at the Hollywood machine from director Barry Levinston, starring Robert deNiro, Michael Wincott, Catherine Keener, Robin Wright Penn, John Torturro and Stanley Tucci, with appearances from Sean Penn and Bruce Willis as themselves. It was released in the United States on the 17th October 2008 and in the UK and Ireland on the 28th November 2008.

Filed under: Non-Review Reviews | Tagged: , , , | Leave a comment »

Irish television…

Posted on May 9, 2009 by Darren

Why can’t RTE produce a standard thirteen-part drama once a year? I am a huge television fan and I can’t wrap my head around it. I know they aren’t the BBC – nor should they or could they – but it’s incredibly hard to justify given that the station has possibly the best current affairs department in the world and an above-average record with comedies (though they never should have passed on Father Ted).

I flick over to the ever-reliable Beeb and I see any number of highly-watchable drama shows that run once-a-year every year – Doctor Who, Torchwood, Spooks, Hustle, Ashes to Ashes, New Tricks to name but a few. Wow. And for my irish television licence, what do I get? Raw. A show about a restaurant that is reviewing terribly. Still, we get a second season, so that’s good, right? Maybe they’ll commission a second season of something good.

(Very) Raw talent

(Very) Raw talent

We have the talent in the country – The Abbey and The Gate see to our acting talent, many of whom emigrate to find work; there’s a rapidly emerging Irish film circuit that provides the directors; we’re a nation highly respected as writers – so why hasn’t it happened yet? I have dozens of TV shows on DVD, but not one of them is Irish, save the crappy Reeling in The Years compilation RTE produced. No Irish drama. (And the show is amazing… due to rights issues, the DVD less so.)

We have room in the schedule – a disturbing proportion of RTE’s broadcasts are imports – and we also have the money, we’re just spending it wrong. Why do I need RTE to show Lost when I can see it in higher quality on Sky? What’s the point of getting Desperate Housewives on RTE when there are 101 other boland import-filled channels on my digibox? Sure, it might garner ratings and advertising revenue by acquiring exclusive rights, but what’s the point of having a state broadcaster to do that for us?

It made sense before the internet allowed us to see anything anywhere almost simultaneously. It made sense before digital made it possible for ordinary households to see anything we wanted. What is the purpose of a public-service broadcaster that doesn’t offer anything we can’t get anywhere else? Even if you could argue that Irish drama isn’t financial lucrative, there’s a reason we fund the public arts. And it’s not to see 30 Rock (awesome as it may be) a few weeks early.

Sure, you counter, RTE does original programming. I’ll give you current affairs. I love Prime Time and I want to run away and marry Brian Dobson. I’ll accept comedy like Bachelors Walk, as it is high quality entertainment. Hell, even the one off drams can be good (Whistleblower), but they can also be so bad it’s horrible (Butter Sweat). I am disgusted with the amount of crass reality television knockoffs we produce as a nation. I makes my physically sick. Sure, every other station in the world does it, but the good ones offset it with something good and smart and brave (or at least better and smarter and braver), instead of patting the audience on the head with some American sitcom.

I want to love RTE, I really do. It’s all there, ready and waiting to be used. They don’t seem to be willing to use it though. And that really ticks me off.

I’m going to go watch the BBC.

Filed under: Opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »