Radiation by Fiona Rae

Read Post

Radiation: It had a dog

24 Responses

  • Danielle,

    I love TV to the very depths of my soul, and I watch more of it than anyone I know. But I just don't get Ugly Betty. It's 'wacky', but not wacky enough to be fun. It's sentimental, but not actually moving. Or maybe it's that overdone music, which drives me crazy. (Damn Danny Elfman has a lot to answer for.) Yet everyone adores it! I am missing something crucial, clearly. Please explain, fans! Do I have to approach it in a certain way to feel the love?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3661 posts Report Reply

  • Jackie Clark,

    I'm of the opinion that you either get something or you don't. And if you don't, you just don't. No need to fuss, or worry. Gad, I don't watch Grey's Anatomy or CSI or anything like that - just not me. You like what you like, and you know what you like. Good for you!

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3123 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Mmm. To a certain extent I do agree with that. But a) I don't want to be an inflexible person who never changes her mind about anything, even given a really persuasive argument to the contrary and b) there are some things I don't 'get' which I actually think reflect poorly on me (eg my inability to truly love the music of Bob Dylan, despite his objective genius. It's a personal failing!). So I do like to hear the reasons why people like pop-cultural things.

    Um, yeah. That paragraph got somewhat more philosophical than a conversation about Ugly Betty ever should, I think. Heh. (Particularly from someone whose Gravatar is Charo holding a chihuahua. :))

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3661 posts Report Reply

  • Venetia King,

    Heh, I was trying to work out who that was in the picture. God I'd totally forgotten about Charo but I can almost hear her voice in my head now. Although I can't remember what I would've seen her on...

    I hope Fiona's right about One switching its Saturday & Sunday Brit dramas - could do with having the longer show before Simon Schama's Power of Art so it isn't up against Jericho. Our appalling tv reception usually means we can only have one channel at a time (via Sky decoder). The non-Sky version of TV1's generally better than the other channels, so if the schedule's unchanged I'll have my fingers crossed for still weather on Sunday night. That's also my main reason for ignoring Ugly Betty - Hugh Laurie as House wins every time. Damned if I know why, when the character's so nasty.

    Hurrah for Dead Like Me returning, it's a bit of a sleeper but I got quite attached. Jewel Staite's guest appearance at the end of season 1 was cute.

    That doco on the Conchords a while back was superb and their new show sounds great, I'll definitely be watching it (even if it's up against House).

    I'll have to record Wait Until Dark tomorrow - it's on a bit late but I haven't seen it for ages. I always list it as my favourite "old" film, hope it lives up to the memories.

    Oh and Fiona - top marks for managing to keep up the posts when your internet's gone funny :)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    Television appears to me to be the modern version of the Roman "Panem et circenses". A diversion of public consciencesness into trivial and unimportant pastimes.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 215 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Heh, I was trying to work out who that was in the picture. God I'd totally forgotten about Charo but I can almost hear her voice in my head now. Although I can't remember what I would've seen her on...

    'Love, exciting and new...' She guested on The Love Boat with monotonous regularity. I can't remember where she's from... Venezuela? I saw her on some show recently and she still had the same hair and face! I was amazed.

    Television appears to me to be the modern version of the Roman "Panem et circenses". A diversion of public consciencesness into trivial and unimportant pastimes.

    O RLY?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3661 posts Report Reply

  • David Slack,

    Another reason to watch Dead Letters:
    It's based on a short story by a mother of two who can still boogie like a sixth former if you give her enough Steinlager

    Devonport • Since Nov 2006 • 599 posts Report Reply

  • James Griffin,

    I don't know much about history pre-__I Love Lucy__ so how did this "Panem et circenses" thing turn out for the Romans, then? And was it in the series of the same name or did I miss that bit?

    It sounds like fun, though.

    Since Nov 2006 • 28 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I don't know much about history pre-I Love Lucy so how did this "Panem et circenses" thing turn out for the Romans, then?

    Kind of shitty for the Christians and the lions and whatnot. Then again, I'm sure my habit of re-reading Jane Austen every year could be deemed "trivial and unimportant" - just before I threw something hard at your head.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • James Griffin,

    I'm not sure I like the sound of something hard being thrown at my head - and I'd probably like the feel of it even less. And I don't think Jane would approve either.

    Since Nov 2006 • 28 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Heh... you're quite right, Mr. Griffin, I'm sure the shade of Miss Austen would not be amused. :) But I just get a wee bit irritated at born-again Puritans who think every damn thing has to be 'important' - because, as Kingsley Amis wrote in another context, 'importance' isn't important, good writing is. At the risk of sounding like a wretched bum kisser, was Outrageous Fortune the most significant drama to ever see the light of the cathode ray tube? Stuff off, but it was an entertainment produced with some wit, style and heart and I don't think that's anything to be sniffed at.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Bell,

    It's a bit late to get into this show now but if you haven't already done so, it's worth trying to catch Shameless on UKTV on Wednesday night.

    The Channel Four microsite for it is here

    David Threlfall (a former onstage Riddley Walker, incidentally) is superbly awful as Frank Gallagher, and this family is guaranteed to make anyone feel better about being dysfunctional.

    The newish Documentary Channel has some reasonable programming, but is anyone else getting thoroughly sick of many of the Sky channels' self-serving promotion? You might as well suffer the regular ads. At least the repeat-cycle is longer.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 47 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    It's a bit late to get into this show now but if you haven't already done so, it's worth trying to catch Shameless on UKTV on Wednesday night.

    Jeez... is there some law that James McAvoy has to be in everything? Not that I mind, but there has to be some other adorably scruffy British actor under the age of 90 needing work.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • Heather Gaye,

    is there some law that James McAvoy has to be in everything?

    WELL, if there isn't there should be. What else has he been in? Aside from that great version of Macbeth? (oh...and Children of Dune, less said the better, methinks)
    (starts rampant search of IMDB)

    Under the western motorwa… • Since Nov 2006 • 523 posts Report Reply

  • Beatrix,

    I'm seething! Did anyone else just get stung by the Sopranos spoiler in the Herald article on the Clinton Campaign Song? Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention but I definitely did not expect a retelling of the ending to sneak in there!

    And I'm with Heather! He should be in everything! Am looking forward to the University Challenge-y film he has coming out...

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Bell,

    Craig Ranapia wrote:

    Jeez... is there some law that James McAvoy has to be in everything?

    He's not in the second season so much; which is good, as he wasn't very good in the first, putting on an unconvincing Laa-ndan accent. Much better in Early Doors, which is also being shown again on UKTV currently.

    Did anyone else think Andy Serkis was brilliant as Vincent van Gogh in the Simon Schama art documtary on TV One on Sunday night, which Fiona also referenced?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 47 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    First, one for the Cultural Cringe File :) - Flight of the Conchords got nice review from Tom Shales in the WashPo.

    Money quote - with kinda-spoiler excised:

    The whole show is winningly offbeat, really -- especially in how it never grovels, begs or exploits unpleasant bodily functions to get laughs. [...] "Flight of the Conchords" might not have you slapping a knee in hysterics, but it may well cause contented chortling inside -- the kind of laughter that's probably good for the soul, good for the digestion and, in this case, good TV.

    Kewl...

    Heather wrote:

    WELL, if there isn't there should be

    Definitely in the amen corner on that one. :) I'm probably going to get stoned by fundamentalist Janeites for saying this, but I rather enjoyed Becoming Jane, he holds his own again in The Last King of Scotland, and State of Play gets an occasional spin through the VCR. And I rather liked Children of Dune - though there's always going to be a hell of a lot lost in translation where Frank Herbert's Dune books are concerned.

    Did anyone else think Andy Serkis was brilliant as Vincent van Gogh in the Simon Schama art documtary on TV One on Sunday night, which Fiona also referenced?

    Yes, but there's always a ripe odour of cheese when you have actors... well, acting. (It got annoying in his History of Britian as well.)

    While I wouldn't put The Power of Art quite up there with Kenneth Clark's Civilization or The Shock of the New, Schama isn't so hard on the eye or the ear I really need a bit of half-arsed panto.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12040 posts Report Reply

  • Bevan Shortridge,

    Really trying not to see anything on the interweb that will spoil the end of The Sopranos

    Hmmmm. TV1 and others might not be happy - neither am I - when I happened across an article in the NZ Herald Online this week about the US political campaign which I dutifully read - but right at the end of the article it managed to include what happens in the last scene of the last episode of the Sopranos!!! I presume it was overseas copy but couldn't the Herald have edited that last bit out? Sheesh.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 116 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    It is possible they don't read stuff before they post it, and if they do, perhaps they need to do that old forums trick *SPOILERS AHEAD LOL*

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 896 posts Report Reply

  • InternationalObserver,

    and is the part-owner of a 29-inch, flat screen television

    yeah, but let me guess who owns 100% of the remote ...

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • InternationalObserver,

    et tu Fiona?

    the 1967 thriller starring Audrey Hepburn, Wait Until Dark on TV1 gets an eight.

    Omigod! I just watched this finally and it was CRAP!!
    The Herald said it was a 'classic' but no, it was drivel.

    Hepburn is blind and her husband (its convoluted) was given a doll stuffed full of Heroin. So while he's out at working (all hours, as a photographer) the baddies conduct an elaborate subterfuge to fool her into handing it over. Neither she nor her husband know what's in it but they don't have it anyway (cos the girl next door nicked it - off blind Audrey!).

    But even when the girl gives back the doll Hepburn won't hand it over!! And the badddie doesn't even resort to slapping her 'round - he just gives up!! Luckily the other baddie isn't so nice and kills the wimp and then tries to burn/stab Audrey. And still she won't hand over this frikken doll! Why not?? AAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

    The only good coming from watching this movie is knowing that it probably inspired the Scorsese's and Coppolla's to believe there must be better actors/scripts/ways to make movies ...

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • 3410,

    I/O,
    She won't hand it over because the guy's a bullying scumbag, and she refuses to bow to that. Obviously, that movie comes from the tail end of the 'Old Hollywood' era, but I'd say it's notable for not falling prey to many of the cinematic horrors that that implies (pointless gargantuanism, meaningless sentimentality, musicals - yuck!). I saw it about 20 years ago and again on One recently and, while it's not perfect, it's pretty tight, pretty tense, and IMO still very watchable though, being 40 years old, unsurprisigly a bit old-fashioned.

    Scorcese, Coppola, etc. obviously did look at what Hollywood was doing in the late '60s and say "this could be done better" (and then *did* do it much better), but the other side of the coin is that within a decade the film school crew had invented "blockbusters" and, creatively, Hollywood's been mostly complete shit ever since.

    PS. Life don't make sense; why should films? ;)

    Auckland • Since Jan 2007 • 2618 posts Report Reply

  • InternationalObserver,

    I think we'll have to differ on this. I thought Hepburn's acting was overwrought and there was (IMO) no real reason why she wouldn't have handed the doll over asap; since she was obviously so keen to protect her hubby. I think the movie fell prey to the 'noble' idea that blind people aren't handicapped at all and are quite capable of taking on 3 bad people ...

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    musicals - yuck!

    There is nothing inherently wrong with musicals.

    That is all. :)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3661 posts Report Reply

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.