Review:
Titanic Parts 2 & 3
Current Affairs Editor, Joe Harker

You may be wondering why I’m reviewing two parts at the same time, even if you weren’t I’ll still tell you: because they are simply so similar to each other.


The last review of Titanic I did suggested that the collision with the iceberg was a relief as the plot advanced; this time round its confirmation of what we already saw in part one and comeuppance for a plethora of people just asking to be sunk. With moments such as, “Man might sink us, but nature can’t,” and, “We won’t need lifeboats for everybody.” Both of these episodes were just asking for the timely intervention of the ever present iceberg.


My big problem with these two episodes is that the crossover moments add nothing to the whole piece. Since we were going to see the same story three times from different perspectives these moments should have been a bit more than the same scene from a different camera angle. I was expecting that the drama would get more interesting as we saw more details and events that we might have missed simply because we were focused on something else, instead I found myself grossly disappointed.


Julian Fellowes is much better than this, his finely crafted drama Downton Abbey is testament to that. While Downton has a relatively large cast of main characters because everyone gets a turn at the spotlight, we are given the chance to understand their motivations and how they fit into a developing story. Titanic is much more rushed, throwing roomfuls of characters at us without introducing them or giving them any purpose but to be extras, milling about in the background as we revisit past scenes.


As in my review of Titanic Part 1, I criticised the speed at which relationships are formed and characters fall in love. If Part 1 was bad, 2 and 3 are infinitely worse with a few glances enough to make a woman leave her husband or allow a waiter to declare his undying love for a maid. It is unbelievable that this many people would pair off in the space of a few days or decide to abandon their spouse for a complete stranger. Stereotypes are also adhered to as the aforementioned waiter is Italian, therefore making him that supposed romantic person who quickly charms the maid.


There are some good points though, the set is beautiful and the costumes authentic, but this is a costume drama so looking the part is the expectation. The drama doesn’t really pick up the pace until the last few moments as the rush for lifeboats begins but even here Titanic is preachy and annoying. Every lifeboat going down is met with the cry of, ‘But it’s only half full!’ - which we already knew.


Titanic should be able to create tension and excitement in its last moments; but having done it in part one, we are just going through the routine twice more. I really hoped something better would come out of this, seemingly, so did many others as the show peaked at six million viewers on the first show and is now down to three million.

 

Titanic Part One - A difficult maiden voyage
Current Affairs Editor, Joe Harker
27.03.12

When Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes announced his next project, it was ambitious; he was going to tackle the Titanic.

Fellowes has always believed that James Cameron’s epic romance was too historically inaccurate and wanted to set the record straight. Doing so cost over £11 million to bring to life, building one of the largest and most expensive sets ever for a TV drama and hiring a plethora of actors and extras to populate this retelling of the famous ships doomed voyage.


The first episode is rather underwhelming though, everything and everyone may look perfect and precise but the drama itself is rather poor. Characters are confined to stereotypes, the rich are money obsessed snobs or dignified gentlemen, the poor are hardworking souls looking for a new life. Every major character we meet has their motivations and dispositions laid out instantly, the first episode mainly focuses on a lord and lady (pictured) aboard the Titanic with their daughter. Our lord is a typical dignified gentleman, he treats the poor well, is kind to a man in his employ, careful not to offend and, when disaster hits, he is concerned that lifeboats are leaving with empty spaces. In fact he rather seems to be the hero of the episode as he champions the cause of those left behind, arguing that there are not enough lifeboats and nobody is coming back to save them. He appears to be Lord Grantham transplanted into a different drama. His wife is a typical snob; she refuses to speak to second class passengers and turns her nose up at anyone not wealthy enough to own a mansion.


Titanic is a drama that tells you who to like and who to hate, who to cheer for and who to sneer at. With such clear cut characters I found it difficult to like the first episode. If Titanic is just going to tell us what to think about people then I begin longing for the iceberg to hit.


All these characters and plotlines are created but never expanded upon, we are given twenty minutes of introduction where everyone is packing their bags and saying what a fantastic time they will have (this drama is unsubtly ironic) before arriving at the Titanic and staring up at it in wonder. Almost everyone walking towards the ship stops and looks up, if any pickpockets were on the dockside it would have been a prime opportunity. We are then treated to twenty minutes of a lot of things happening but going nowhere at the same time. First class passengers drink whiskey and play cards, true love blossoms and takes root within less than a week (lots of people fall in love in Titanic, must be something in the water), a second class Irish couple speak constantly about Irish home rule, third class passengers are not as prevalent in this episode but will probably get their turn soon.


After forty minutes of rather boring costume drama we finally get to the iceberg and it is a blessing. Nothing has been happening for a long time so the collision kicks the whole thing into action. The final twenty minutes are much improved as our main characters run around the ship looking for lifeboats and saying tearful goodbyes. It is honestly liberating that something interesting is finally happening.


This poor first outing is in no way a fault of the actors; Geraldine Somerville is very good in her role as a haughty countess (pictured above) while Toby Jones puts in a wonderfully calm performance as her husband’s lawyer. The set is not at fault either, being on par or perhaps better than the Oscar winning epic’s set. In truth, the script is the big problem, too much is fit into the first episode but very little happens. Each individual story is fighting for our attention meaning there is no time for the narrative to settle on one story it is happy with. Instead we are handed a tangled mess of half-finished plotlines all waiting (just like us) for the iceberg to hit.


Overall, Titanic just spends too much of its time waiting to get to a good part. The actors and set are fantastic but given a formulaic script with stereotypical characters and tired romances while attempting to be topical at the same time. The iceberg saves the whole thing by providing a crisis, ironic isn’t it?
 

Birdsong:
You know the BBC did a fine job

Editor in Chief, Ben Franks
02.02.12




 

Birdsong – after being adapted for radio (1997) and stage (2010) – is brought to our television screens and by jolly the BBC serve up a quality delight.


Birdsong, the book that is, was written by Sebastien Faulks in 1993. It was Faulks' fourth novel, and follows a man called Stephen Wraysford at different stages of his life both before and during World War I. It twangs on your love strings and tugs on your heart for sadness. The book, in essence, is fabulous.


So when it came to the screen it would be an understatement to say that I was wary. Birdsong is my favourite book and I wanted the television to capture that. With the perfection bias on my mind I can’t say I’ve ever thought the adaptation flawless but it is nonetheless pretty fantastic.


Wonderfully transformed to screen by the writer Abi Morgan and represented through the eyes of director Philip Martin, this two-part series saw 6 million viewers tune-in for the first episode and almost 5.5 million view the second. It stars the handsome Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Wraysford, something a lot of female viewers certainly seem happy about, and the beautiful Clémence Poésy as the main love interest Isabelle.


Redmayne is excellent as Lieutenant Wraysford and shines particularly well in the war scenes. His emotion is distant, lost but focused on the revenant of his love. He plays the stare incredibly well. In fact it is the stare which is very much the essence of Redmayne’s superb portrayal – after all, he says very little throughout most of the miniseries. A critic from The Guardian commented it is as though his character is “an empty shell living only on memories” and it would be easy to agree this were the case.


Poésy as Isabelle drifts from being a likeable character to an unlikeable character. She sometimes seems irresistible and warm and loving – much like we’re sure Wraysford probably finds her, especially in the lead up to their first passionate kiss. However, now and again she’ll seem cold and distant, and with the audience inevitably taking the side of perspective, i.e. Wraysford, it is almost certain to see her as this when she runs away from him. Sympathies for her, however, occur in the final part and questions Wraysford’s decisions instead. It is very much a well-woven tale and excitably interesting to watch.


Unlike the book, the television series focuses mainly on the war and love story as two parallel events broadcasted in a twist of drama and emotional ups and downs. The book also had a third time-part following a modern day character recollecting her family line, and was also more explicitly divided into “parts”.


Despite this the television miniseries exceeds in just what it is – a television miniseries. It has steamy sex scenes (for this reason I’d recommend watching away from the family!), brutal war realism and a drawing show of sweet romance. There have been some criticisms over the actors’ diction of their lines, especially in part one, with claims some of the important ones were “mumbled”, but a backlash against the complaints come from those who sympathise with the ‘reality diction’ which appears to be an accolade of the “mumbling”.


The television miniseries certainly pioneers in creating atmosphere with plenty of scenes one could wet their eyes to. It is also a great period drama of quality and stylishness which is becoming so rare – making it fantastically inspiring to see the BBC continuing to pursue quality despite cuts.


The BBC should learn from Birdsong to create and support stylish new adaptations and original ideas. There was a time when you’d not be without a good programme on the BBC all year round; a feeling which has begun to die over recent years. Let’s revert back to the days when Spooks started, the years of The Good Life, or the superb legend of The Morecombe and Wise Show. Let’s bring back the BBC’s genius and integrity. Birdsong is by sure an excellent start.


 

Clarkson on Strikes:
“I’d have them all shot”

Editor in Chief, Ben Franks
4 Dec 2011, 17:38 GMT

Loudmouth Top Gear presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, made yet another cross-the-line blunder on Thursday 1 December’s One Show.


Clarkson is no stranger to saying the wrong things to be ‘funny’, and nor is he a stranger to the huge fan divide – one side calling for him to be sacked, the other laughing alongside him. However, once again, the world renowned presenter has been thrown back into the spotlight after his comments on the BBC’s One Show.


The BBC presenter was a guest on the show and when asked about recent strike action he replied, “Frankly, I'd have them all shot! I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they've got these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"


Of course, despite the newspaper’s instant grins of a fresh new controversial story handed to them on a plate, it is clear even when written that Clarkson’s intentions were comical – but how do we draw the line?


Many columnists, including from The Independent and The Guardian, remark that Clarkson used the ‘saying’ “I’d have them all shot”, and that such a notion is never meant literally. It has been the ideals of Clarkson’s support he is merely exaggerating, using the language, in order to be amusing.


However, much like the Sachsgate affair, the BBC instantly received a black-lash of complaints. After the show was broadcast, the corporation released an official apology and within 48 hours no less than three official corporation apologies were made. Clarkson adheres to this, saying: “I didn't for a moment intend these remarks to be taken seriously – as I believe is clear if they're seen in context. If the BBC and I have caused any offence, I'm quite happy to apologise for it alongside them."


When the complaint-total reached a staggering 21,000 – only 6,000 short of the Sachsgate affair that resulted in Jonathon Ross departing from the corporation – the BBC took a stand on Clarkson’s side. A press-release was issued saying “no massive inquest” will be instilled into “execute strikers” remark.


Clarkson’s powerful friend, Prime Minister David Cameron, was asked about the issue, at which point he had no knowledge of, and he commented it was “silly” but obviously he was sure Clarkson “didn’t mean it”. Shadow leader, Ed Miliband – who came to power due to the Unions, said the comments were “disgraceful” and “misguided”.


Despite calls for Clarkson to be sacked from the BBC – especially by Trade Union giant Unison who led the Wednesday Strike – insiders have said there is “no appetite” to do so at the corporation. He is one of the BBC’s highest paid stars and figure-head of their best-selling world format, Top Gear. Clarkson has also gained incredibly large public support for his “politically incorrect” remarks, meaning just as many complaints would probably arise with the themes of “free speech” if he were to go.


Unison had at one point threatened legal action against the star, but a solicitor commented in an interview with The Guardian that in the minefield of free speech there was “no case”.


Unison general secretary, Dave Prentis, who originally called for him to be sacked, managed to pile on pressure for the BBC to promise a “climb-down” on Clarkson’s future remarks. The Unison leader welcomed the decision and tormented the star by inviting him to spend a day on hospital wards cleaning up sick and "wiping bottoms". "We think he has many of the personal skills necessary for the job," said Prentis, perhaps ironically causing offence to those already “wiping bottoms” himself.


Though it looks unlikely Clarkson is to be sacked for his outburst on Thursday evening, it will be a while before the heat is off his head; while the papers have no news, the bad news of Clarkson’s antics seems to do.


The star was picked up on another blunder just yesterday, having called people who commit suicide by jumping in front of trains “selfish”, but is this not the kind of comedy we admire Clarkson for? Or is he really crossing the line?

 

Fresh Meat:
Channel 4 & Realism, Lolwut?

Article by Ben Franks, 29/10/11 - 02:00 GMT

Channel 4’s leading the way in comedy. Despite the amazing BBC panel shows which continue to heap on viewers surpassing the likes of most entertainment, like the gold gems Nevermind the Buzzcocks, QI and Mock the Week – and produce lovely, priceless series like Outnumbered – it is Channel 4 who keep creating the hits.


It started, realistically, with the phenomenon. That phenomenon was the original, quirky Peep Show. It was received with such joy because it was different, and maybe a little because David Mitchell was in it. Then we were blessed with something our generation fell in love with universally – most of us, anyway. The crude, rude but frankly fabulous, Inbetweeners. Nothing could quite get the “lols” rolling like watching four ‘dweebs’ compile together on the pull.


Recently though, the heroes at Channel 4 brought us Fresh Meat. This university-based sitcom is the next step of ground breaking hilarious realism, continuing the legacies of the Inbetweeners.


Jack Whitehall is posh, which is simply brilliant alone. Joe Thomas plays the virgin-for-now, Kingsley, just as well as he played awkward womaniser Simon in Inbetweeners – if not more cringe-worthily beautiful. Kingsley’s love interest, Josie, played by the attractive Kimberley Nixon gives us the ‘normal’, nice girl in with the wrong guy scenario; a cliché surprisingly common among us teens. Although, Vod – the irresponsible cherub played to perfection by Zawe Ashton – is the real ‘hang on one sec’, are you being serious? Oh you are, LOL’ king of character. I’m sure you’ve all got one in your lives. Charlotte Ritchie and Greg McHugh are also fantastic as the closet-posh lass Oregon and the nerdy big-guy in love with geology girl, Howard.


The whole set up is simply beautifully done and it’s easy to get lost in the humour of it all. Realism is becoming a more hardline path of comedy and the broadcasting kings, rightly now Channel 4 since viewers battered the BBC to death over scandals like the Jonathon Ross affair, are leading the way.


Fresh Meat’s only in its first series and the reception is pretty fantastic, although the show hasn’t had quite the publicity it deserves. If you haven’t had the pleasure of watching it, what on earth are you waiting for? A new horse. Ah, you’d have got that inside joke… had you seen it – so get your potato over to 4od!

A Tribute to Brilliant Babylon

Article by Ben Franks, 09/10/11 - 20:42 GMT

As much as we can all quite readily admit the BBC’s Hotel Babylon was easily as cheesy as Owl City’s lyrics, we all come to terms, sooner or later, with the fact that Babylon is beautifully witty, stylish and down-right brilliant.


It’s a comedy-drama – even if it would like to think of itself as a serious, everyone-come-together problem solving drama. Max Beesely is epic as Charlie, Tamzin Outhwaite fiery-cool as Manager Rebecca, Emma Pierson ever the sexy bit of eye-candy and Ray Coulthard playing the perfectly camp Restaurant chap. However, there is one real star of the show we cannot forget: Dexter Fletcher.


Fletcher’s Tony, the concierge, is one of the best characters to ever be born out of a terrestrial channel drama. Fletcher was quite clearly born for the role. No one else could’ve played the reliable, count-on-me chip-chap smiley boy at the front desk like Dexter Fletcher managed and I haven’t seen anyone come close since – though Voyager trekky on that US sitcom Samantha Who? does, surprisingly, come remarkably close.


The best thing about Babylon though was the guests. Every week you’d have guest appearances from all sorts of stars splashed out on the television in the early Noughties, coming along to play the druggy celeb who needs a cover-up, the guest who had sex with the wrong lass or lad, or even the desperate times of a potential murder.


The way the brilliantly casted hotel staff go about solving the issues is also one of those things you can’t help but admire, because as much as they always manage to solve it in the end, they really are cack-handed and crap at getting there. Yep – you guessed it, that’s where the comedy comes from too.


Now, I know this hasn’t been on in a while, but I had memories of the excellence it brought me when I used to cheekily n’ sneakily stay up late to watch it – sometimes I’d have to miss an episode because I got caught (and I hadn’t heard of iPlayer back then, even if it was around at the time).


I decided to buy Series one on DVD. It is excellent, funny and stupid. The stupid part’s the best bit and us British, if we’re honest, love stupidity. Cleese’s Fawlty Towers, Atkinson’s Blackadder, Morecombe & Wise, The Two Ronnies – all a bit clever, but all a bit slapstick and, in there raw, bare bones, elegantly stupid. Brilliant Babylon can pretty much join the classics then.


Chin, chin – I am chuffed.
 

Teachers: How a Great Sitcom Died

Review by Ben Franks (05/04/11, 21:54 GMT)

Watch now on 4oD.


Teachers launched its first series in 2001. A drama-twist sitcom about Simon, Susan, Kurt and Brian – oh and don’t forget big-bummed Jenny. Four teacher friends and one strict teacher crush functioning around an atmosphere in a Bristol secondary school. Pure genius set-up already.


The first series mostly revolves around ‘can’t be bothered’ English teacher Simon, played greatly – but rather sadistically – by Andrew Lincoln. He has relationship issues with his police officer girlfriend Maggie, who he thinks gives him a bad ‘street cred’ with the kids, and a hilarious relationship with his best mate and fellow teaching colleague, Susan – played by the fantastic Racquel Cassidy (who now stars alongside Jack Dee in Lead Balloon).


Kurt and Brian take on the roles of being two immature teachers who generally like to get drunk after work and look up women, whilst classically taking the mickey out of one another. Whilst Jenny, another English teacher who does everything ‘good n’ proper’, is the victim of the four’s pranks… until Simon gets a crush on her.


The beautiful thing about this British sitcom is the relationships; they are clever, well thought out and interesting – as well as incredibly believable. It doesn’t fall into the zone of best friends who are lovey dovey to one another, oh no, it does what best friends truly do – poke fun at one another and take the mick out of their dress sense or living habits.


The cherry on the cake are the other characters who, though starting out as extras, begin to pick up more of a role in the sitcom. For example, the irresistibly funny rumour-spreading Headteacher assistant Liz or the lazy eyed Headteacher assistant Carol – who later funnily gets with Kurt. Clare, the actual Headteacher of the school, starts off as cold but through series two we here her have a swearing marathon when something goes wrong, or sprucing up at any time rather amusingly.


But, at the end of Series two, Simon leaves and it’s here that I must change my tone for this loveable sitcom. This is because, at the start of series 3, not only has Simon disappeared – that we all knew about – but immaculately funny Susan and the strict twist of Jenny were both mysteriously gone too. With the withdrawal of these three key characters, who made the sitcom, the genius writing simply wasn’t enough to hold up the characteristics of Brian and Kurt as main characters, nor establish any relationship with the new castings of English teachers.


This is a classic example of one of the greatest British sitcoms turning on itself and becoming one of the worst. Like Only Fools and Horses, which went on for around seven series and by six or seven people were really laughing at it rather than with it anymore – the cleverness… the originality was all gone.


If Teachers stopped at the end of Series two, I’d be able to fight the argument of it being one of the greatest British sitcoms in the last decade but because it didn’t know when to stop – unlike all the best sitcoms do, such as The Vicar of Dibley or Fawlty Towers – it has fallen flat on its face.


This is how a sitcom dies.

 

Archer

Article by Charles Guthrie (16/3/11, 16:56 GMT)

Paging Dr. Loggins, you’re in the Danger Zone. Well, maybe not you, but these folks at ISIS definitely are.

Archer may only be in its second season, but it’s become a big sensation ever since the debut of its ten-episode long first season. Our hero (if you wish to call him that), a suave secret agent and extremely egotistical ladies man named Sterling Archer (voiced by Henry Jon Benjamin) is the filter of childish innocence mixed with adult humor. It may seem like an uninteresting solution, but given that he works as a secret agent for his mother’s spy agency and has quite the retinue of equally estranged co-workers, one can see how his ego can easily get him through a stressful day at the office.


The setup isn’t too far from what you would expect from an almost sitcom like take on modern day technological advances and social norms mixed with a Cold War era idea and superstition about the espionage field. Well come to think of it, maybe that isn’t too easy to picture at first. The unique feature of the series is its writing style, specifically for the dialogue, pitching its own inside-joke type memes in many episodes and dishing out its fair share of witty one-liners. For instance, one of the more prominent ongoing gags throughout the series has been the aptly timed references to Kenny Loggins hit song Danger Zone. Anytime someone is pushing their luck, or just sets themselves up for the witty reference, the opportunity is not passed up. Seriously, you’re in the DANGERRR ZONE!


The supporting cast is just as memorable as Sterling Archer himself, if not more memorable. He and his mother Mallory Archer are always bickering over something, with a conversation flow that seems more than simple routine by this point in their lives together. His ex-girlfriend and fellow secret agent Lana Kane (Aisha Tyler) are also constantly bickering, more so over Lana’s disgust at Sterling’s unhealthy connections with his mother and extremely egotistical behavior. A fair portion of the drama, as well as the plethora of witty remarks, stems from this rivalry between Sterling and Lana. They aren’t the only ones caught up in it all though, there is an entire support staff at ISIS that is included in the shenanigans. There are many worth mentioning, but I believe Dr. Krieger deserves the limelight here. He plays no real major role other than that of comic relief (needed that in a comedy show right?). It’s not a simple bit of relief however; Krieger is a…strange man. He is a very, very strange man, harboring a wide range of sexual fetishes and other related interests that serve to break the ice through extremely awkward conversations. From his hobo-erotic (yes, hobo-erotic) sexual fantasies to his extremely innovative yet quite practically useless inventions, Krieger is always bringing that awkward laugh out in the viewer, often followed by a sincere “Wtf?!” moment.


Season one set the stage for the characters and their personalities, with little real development of any long storyline or problem that takes up multiple episodes. Season two is shaping up to be a real in-depth project at drawing out more actual story and meaning from these characters, following things on a basis of development as opposed to stand alone comedy pieces. Not that the latter was bad for the first season or anything; Archer hardly needs much of a developing story to be wildly entertaining. It is nice to see that it keeps its unique style and sense of rhetoric comedy intact while shifting gears though. So far season two has been quite the development. I won’t spoil any of it for hopeful viewers out there, but it is shaping up to be ten times better than the first season. And if you haven’t seen that yet, then you are seriously missing out. This is prime meme material for the internet or your water-cooler breaks at the office. Don’t let yourself slip into…

The DANGER ZONE!

Sorry, I had to one last time.

Chuck: The Geek Gets the Girl

Article by Lauren Jones (21/2/11, 18:24 GMT Time)

Recently these past few years Hollywood has presented the nerd or geek as the iconic hero. Most of the movies, like Superbad, star Michael Cera.


Fortunately for the good of all mankind there's one TV show that doesn't star Michael Cera: Chuck (Channel One, 10pm). It is currently in its fourth season, but not losing its good natured nerdisms and agent thrashings. On a quite recent episode, Chuck vs. The Push Mix it happened. All across the nation every geek fistpumped and internet-fived when Chuck, your average 'Nerdherder' turned spy, and Sarah, his very attractive CIA girlfriend, made it official.


That's right folks, they're engaged.


Chuck Bartowski may not be the smoothest agent in the CIA, but the accidental Intersect and with the help of NSA badass John Casey, and his childhood friend Morgan, save him from becoming chopped liver. For those not familiar with the Intersect - it's a super computer in Chuck's brain chock full of criminal information and insta-KO skills like ju-jitsu and bomb defusing for dummies. Cool, eh? 


Chuck and Sarah's relationship has got to be one of the most interesting relationships on TV (save for the vampire/slayer dilemma on Buffy the Vampire Slayer - that's just...wrong?) In season one, Sarah and Casey get tasked to protect an unknowing Chuck due to the fact that he's got the government's top secrets implanted in his brain. Sarah went undercover as his girlfriend. One moment they were pretending to to exchange smooches for Chuck's family, and the next they were deep underground fighting secret organizations. Don't worry there's still a ton of kidnappings and shootouts, but the once artificial relationship has evolved. Though I'm not sure if I'm liking the way the show is domesticating this super spy; well, all it's characters. Morgan has a serious girlfriend. Casey has a strained relationship with his daughter, and well...his ruthless spy mother is now a grandmother. Maybe NBC could ease up on the family pedal. I'm all for a little geeky romance but there's a line. Sometimes I feel, but not always, that all the writers went on vacation and decided to put nerdy fanboys in charge of writing some Chuck fan fiction.


My fingers are crossed that Sarah and Chuck run away together on a seductive spy mission-AWAY from the family. Because, you know, romance and terrorists have no business being in suburbia. But congratulations to the geek and the spy though on their engagement. It'd better be one hell of a honeymoon. My suggestion? Think Tron meets James Bond.
 

Controversial Top Gear gets slammed again for Hammond's Mexican gag

Article by Ben Franks

People who watch the show Top Gear know what they’re in for. However it seems the traditional larky of stereotypical humour the majority public have grown to love has been received by people who didn’t know what they were in for. Among them were the Mexican Ambassador Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza and a Mexican-born, thirty year old London student named Iris de la Torre.

On the show, broadcast 30th January 2011, Richard Hammond remarked that Mexican cars – if representing the personalities of their nationality – were “lazy, feckless, flatulent [and] overweight”, with the other presenters making their own remarks too: James may said Mexican food was all “fried sick”, and notoriously controversialJeremy Clarkson said that they wouldn’t receive any complaints from the Ambassador because he would “be sitting there with a remote control like this” and then imitated a sleeping, slumped man in his seat with a remote control in his hand.

The Ambassador demanded an apology for what he described as “xenophobic” comments and the BBC said they’d deal with him directly, refraining from making a public apology. After all Top Gear is the BBC’s most sold show platform world wide and bears the accolade of a massive viewing audience, week in, week out. The cross-the-line comedy and lad-jokes it features are one of its most appealing factors as opposed to its more serious rivals like Five’s Fifth Gear. The BBC insisted there was no intent to cause offense and that it was merely “casual banter”.

Meanwhile, the Jewellery student from London, Miss Torre, has publicly announced she intends to sue the broadcasting company on the terms that Hammond’s comment breaks the newly instated law of Equality established in September. The law says that “anyone providing a "service to the public" is prohibited from anything that constitutes discrimination” (according to the Guardian online). Miss Torre’s lawyers had previously brought legal action against Channel 4 for broadcasting the racist remarks made against Indian actor Shilpa Shetty in Celebrity Big Brother.

Despite the media hype and the complaints it is becoming ever so clearer that our entertainment is hitting a much wider storm of media presence and politically correct criticism. The country is going mad on the desire to install equality in all areas of television, slowly picking away at our comic entertainment and rights to broadcast freely. It is easy to see that sometimes shows do cross the line but in the overwhelming number of media coverage it’s being blown out of proportion. People who don’t watch the programs are taking it too far and there’s one valuable lesson to be learnt:

Don’t watch what you don’t want to and let the rest of us enjoy watching what we do.