My Problem With | The Revolution Will Be Televised

This seems to be turning into a BBC3-bashing blog, but it really isn't. I think there is a place for a channel like BBC3 that doesn't have to rely on advertising revenue aimed at young people, I even signed the campaign to keep it. I just think the producers need to stop belittling the audience.

©BAFTA

The Revolution Will Be Televised is an incredible concept, Jolyon Rubinstein and Heydon Prowse come across as genuinely funny in sections and the facts are all there. A show that reveals to the young general public - a demographic constantly barraged with opinion by Sun-reading parents and faced in the newsagents with headlines of 'Immigrants on 25k a year' 'Benefit cheats ruining economy' - that gives information about real inequalities in the tax system; about giant well-known corporate entities that do not contribute; and that reveals political lies and deception, is always going to be a winner in my book. 
The huge, gaping, enormous hole of a problem is in the delivery. 

Political and economic matters are covered in a funny, cartoon-like and satirical way  which is interesting to watch. It makes the facts digestible without being heavy - a complication that being too news-centered can have on the mind. You can walk away from the programme and it won't negatively affect your day, but you'll be a little more informed.

The glaringly obvious problem is the attempt to cover widespread criminal acts with the same sweep of lighthearted humour. The segment that was most notable to me watching S3E4 was on female genital mutilation. The factual evidence was presented in typical cartoon-style, which would have been distasteful to some but understandable considering the format, if the cartoon wasn't a figure in quite distinctive middle-eastern clothing. Female Genital Mutilation is then made clear by the following map to be a predominantly African, cultural problem. Which it is. Why, then, does the pictorial evidence suggest otherwise? 

©BBC

If I didn't know, I too would assume that it was a middle-eastern problem, I would assume it was yet another horrible thing going on in that part of the world, I would assume that it was those nasty muslims at it again. And the curly sword? Who at the BBC okay-d that image? WHO?

see the cartoon in full HERE

But the worst bit was to follow. 
After making clear in the cartoon that Ethiopia and the Sudan had banned FGM and that it was illegal; there was a very odd canvassing exercise held in which a woman dressed as a 'nurse' (in non-standard, short scrubs belted around the waist) questioned men on the street if they would like to have  their own genitals cut off. This wasn't just unfunny, it was uncomfortable and cringy-ly so (not in a Peep Show way). Then there was an attempt to distract officials at the embassies of both Ethiopia and Sudan by said nurse, to ask them benign questions about having their own genitals cut off. 
Is the program really attempting to take a complex, long-standing, cultural tradition and crime deep-seated in centuries of gender politics and reveal it under the skirt of a sexy nurse and some propositions about willies? 

The second issue I will cover briefly. It was also in S3E4 and something that I had actually not heard of before. It was about sexual abuse in the holding buildings where asylum seekers stay when awaiting information about their residency. People who have experienced war, torture, the death of their children and loved ones, rape, gang and rebel occupation of their home. And guess how The Revolution Will be Televised covered this issue?

©BBC

An dutch rave-themed mock orgy wearing neon leggings and headbands under the characters 'Double Fist TV'

There is a sentiment that despite these issues being covered in an unconventional way, the program is getting the information out there, and to that I Call Bullshit.
It's not only vaguely insensitive to trivialise and sexualise these events in some insane 'ooo matron' out-dated and failed attempt at British humour, it's damaging. Young people don't need you to do that. It's offensive to everyone involved, and serves to undermine harrowing humanitarian issues in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers, and re-affirm a distance between 'that happening over there to them people' and what should concern us. 

Typing it out makes it sound even more insane than watching it, so feck knows how stuff like that got through all those grueling stages of post-production. I just hope the delivery is cleaned up before a new series, because the concept really does have solid relevance.

WHAT DO YOU THINK, READER? 
tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 
xoxoxo

New Perspective on the *Controversial* Alexander Wang Ads

I stumbled upon these ads after reading Jamie Feldman's article on Huffington Post Style with the title Alexander Wang's New Denim Ads Are More Offensive and Tired than 'Provocative'  
[Find the article here]

I see it a little differently.

Firstly, the two images in the article seem really drastically different to each other. The first of almost fully naked woman (AD 1) is pretty mainstream. I've seen an image of a toned naked blonde woman in dark moody lighting in high fashion ads before - I'm pretty immune by now - and no doubt will be seeing them for a long time yet. This one, I can agree, is pretty tired.

AD 1

BUT

The second is one I can get behind (AD 2).Wheras the first one is a passive lady possibly half asleep lounging on a chair for us all to look at, the second is one of active sexuality. This distinction is key. 

AD 2

In AD 2, the moist thighs and wandering hand are deliberately 'provocative', in a pretty unique way for this type of advertising. It connects us with a feeling most of us have experienced when a piece of clothing just makes you feel really, really, sexy. Or just empowered. It is an image of self-love and self-indulgence, and isn't that just what we want from a luxury fashion brand? 

There is a very valid argument made in the Huffington Post about the problems with commodifying naked women's bodies to sell all and any product, and this fits the first closely. The woman's body is there for our gaze, and the product is almost invalid. The female body and all its connotations are there for us to connect to the Alexander Wang brand. 
The second, however, is very obviously an advert for trousers. The jeans are the central focus, and the model is there as a participant to represent the physicality and connection to the clothing.

The contrast is of old and new ways of playing out female sexuality in advertising space, and the reason they are side by side in one campaign is unusual to me. Maybe it is just safer to retread the old ground and cover all bases. 

Whatever the case, although to some normal people and to some Helen Lovejoys it might be uncomfortable to some to see sex portrayed so overtly, an active female participant is the kind of sexuality I would rather see in public spaces, and the one which will probably sell more jeans. 

tell me what you think in the comments, or 
tweet me @bakebakebaker

BAKER 
xoxoxo

My Problem With | SNOG MARRY AVOID (originally posted April 2013)

I suppose I have to start this first blog post by confessing the most irritating, confusing and conflicting part of my general self: something that I, Charlotte Clarissa Baker, will now admit live on the internet:

I love reality tv

I LOVE IT

Until death.

Big Brother, The Kardashians (plus any spin off, TOWIE, Rachel Zoe, Made in Chelsea, The Real Housewives of ANYWHERE (In order of favs: Atlanta, Orange County, New York, Beverly Hills, Toronto), anything about New Jersey, and any other random documentary about unusual people or habits (I particularly liked the Channel 4 one about dogging the other week- those weird masks D:)

I’m an addict. One of the many (many, many, many) things I don’t understand about the world is snobbery towards reality TV. While shows like The Walking Dead and Homeland are heralded by everyone who’s holy as inspired, with interesting believable characters and relatable themes- I just don’t understand how fantasy measures up to the real thing. I don’t find Hollywood attractive. I don’t want polished toned women walking about with clean bouncy hair and men with rugged good looks and crafted biceps in the midst of a three year zombie Apocalypse.  I want them to all become malnourished and die horribly of scurvy and body lice. That’s just how I am. 

BUT

©BBC

My latest interest- Snog Marry Avoid- is a confusing one for me. While I appreciate TV that involves observing those who dress and act different to me (TOWIE, Jersey Shore) I understand that is as far as it goes- they are different. That is what is interesting, and I suppose the reason why I sat down to watch SMA (Snog Marry Avoid – I’m going to shorten it to that now because I’m getting bored of typing it out).

I have had problems with BBC three in the past, I think some of the programming has a strange agenda: Don’t just stand there… I’m having your baby! (“I don’t want to watch when the baby comes out of your arse”- classic line) which creates general fear of pregnancy and contempt for young parents. Bluestone 42- because the war in Afghanistan is funny; and Barely Legal Drivers- making both new and old drivers terrified of the newly passed (who-from my experience- are the most careful. They’ve only just got that shit).

I take SMA to be aimed at beauty-conscious girls who like looking at those who take the idea of what is beautiful a little too far. The ‘War on Fakery’ as SMA puts it so eloquently is interesting because it is aimed squarely at common people. The lovely Ellie takes to the streets of (mostly northern) ordinary towns - Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester - satirises the local trends, and then shoves the people into a white box in which their every aesthetic decision is questioned by her putting on a funny voice in the form of POD. 

Mainstream media outlets (TV series, Hollywood films, Magazines) aimed at the beauty conscious public feature a barrage of doctored (fake) images containing celebrities wearing very little clothing, with glorious St Tropez tans and a wedge of MAC pro longwear. So why the double standards?

Snog marry avoid tells us:

A: Celebrities are on a magazine cover for thousands to see. Dressing like that for a night out in Leeds is simply revolting and will make you look like a prostitute- which is why Snog Marry Avoid will turn you from 'slapper' ‘street walker’ or ‘wench’ back into a viable member of society.

B: Celebrities obviously need to attract attention to the magazines through their lack of clothing and sculpted buttocks to make MONEY. Mere mortals wanting attention in the streets is desperate, unsightly- and prostitute-y.

C:They are wearing expensive makeup/clothing. A Dolce black lacy bra and knicker set is massively different to a Primark black lacy bra and knicker set- ew. Cheap makeup that was either not applied by a trained professional or matched by a specialist is wrong. Poor people will be barefaced or wear minimal makeup at all times. 

D: The same goes for fake tan. Body sculpting St Tropez or nothing- peasant. 

E: If you have not DARED to lose that extra protecting and insulating layer of fat around your middle, because you have a life, or the human instinct to eat, you MUST NOT wear said black lacy bra top in public. That is wrong. Or even if you have, you are only allowed to expose yourself after you make over 100k a year.

But it isn't all bad, the general concept of Snog Marry Avoid is one I can get behind. Making women drop insecurities and accept themselves and their looks without spending so much time and money is commendable- I just have a problem with the showboating them around like they’re a godless freak for doing the same as every heralded pop cultural figure of our time. 

I also have a problem with the effect of calling any woman a 'slapper' on national television- but that's a whole other blog post

                                                                     

What do you think?! let me know in the comments  vvv

BAKER 

xoxoxo