Crime and Punishment vs Footballers' Wives - Which Is Better?

At least the way John Simm plays him.

I have not really watched either but if we drop the caps then this question can easily be turned into a 'would you prefer to be boiled or roasted' type thing. Crime? Bad! Punishment? Rotten! Footballers' wives? Dreadful!

Well OK then, what about crime and punishment BY footballers' wives?

Oh bugger I'm coming over all Chingford T . . .

I liked C&P but then I never got round to reading the book.

i watch neither as both are too depressing for words, though i was initially a bit of a fan of FW. but then the chardonnay and "you look like a bleedin' lesbian" jokes started to pall. oh dear.

You can read the book in the ad breaks. There are three ad breaks in FW at two minutes each. this adds up to six minutes per episode. So how many episodes would we need for us to read all of Crime & Punishment during Footie Wives. = Number of episodes they should make.

Guests on Radio 4 said it falied to convey Rashkolnikow's psychology (hard without narration, which directors see as a cop out); that there were lots of close ups that told you nothing; that it was a shame its cinematography failed to exploit the powerful (and integral to the novel) atmosphere of St Petersburg; and that it had excised almost all the religiousity of the book, presumably because modern audiences aren't interested.

I have never read it. I'm just reporting.

There's no dramatic tension in Footballers' Wives. Scummy people leading scummy lives. At least C&P has a central character who commits a despicable act in the mistaken belief that he is doing something noble. Now there's an angle.

I suppose that both are rather damning indictments of the greed and injustice of their time, though.

Scummy people leading scummy lives! How very judgmental. And Donna is quite noble really.

But I suppose just cos something is 'Russian' and on the BBC it has to be better than something English on ITV.

ipso facto

the stories are surprisingly identical: woman kills fat football manager for minor personal gain, and because as an FW she is entitled; to her surprise the act haunts her (yes yes because he is not dead)

i wd imagine FW deals with the other issues bettah also: since in C&P everyone calls raskolnikov by his full name all the time, whereas in FW chardonnay is (quite korrektly) called "char"... this leaves more time for psychological exploration

admittedly the only bhit of C&P i saw went thus:
[character A]: "You look like a man of the world. With your hair parted in the centre..."
[character B]: *mark s thumb spasm flicks him back to propah television"

I can't sit still long enough to watch most tv programmes. Even Fat Club is getting a bit dull too, it needs some new hate figures.

"Scummy people leading scummy lives! How very judgmental. And Donna is quite noble really."

There's nothing wrong with being judgemental, although I suppose Private Eye's "Couch Potato" put it rather more articulately than I managed: "These are all appalling people - stupid, greedy, self- absorbed and rolling in cash. You wouldn't want to look like them, you wouldn't want to meet them, but you are happy to watch them every Tuesday night at 9 and confirm all your prejudices."

"But I suppose just cos something is 'Russian' and on the BBC it has to be better than something English on ITV."

Given the current saturation level of inverted snobbery in the media, I thought C&P was a very brave and well commissioned piece of drama.

There's nothing particularly daring or engaging about Footballers' Wives, is there? You may as well go down yer local Ritzy's and watch drunken overpaid footy players misbehaving in the flesh. You might even get lucky.

I've not seen either cause I don't have a TV. BUT how can a piece of fiction confirm anyone's prejudices? Surely it's built around the writer's prejudices? This kind of lazy shite is why I gave up on Private Eye.

Trevor it is TELLY if I wanted daring or engaging I would be white water rafting. And I didn't say there was anything wrong with being judgmental. I just said you were being it.

blimey taking sides: inverted snobbery vs the um right-way-up kind

ok i can hardly "prove" what i say above when i haven't bothered watching C&P, but as pointed out above, they cover exactly the same ethical territory, except one sets it in a context where we might actually have prejudices to shake about and moral- aesthetic-diversion interests which are at odds with one another and need thinking about a bit

the other is set in russia a long time ago

I have no preference but this is all a bit contrary isn't it?

heh tom emma and i all jump in to bop trevor and in fact end up in total disagreement

ronan it is business as usual except i haf not mentioned buffy yet which is superior to everything evah

Not really Ronan - as a non TV watcher it amazes me how little the conventions of TV dramas - period and otherwise - and acting styles are questioned. What is "good" about the "good acting" in a BBC teatime drama? What is "realistic" about the "realism" of a soap striving for same?

(ps what is a "teatime" drama? as a kneejerk contrarian i take my tea at 4 in the morning obv; sarah have you been watching stig of the dump?)

Yes I suppose you're right. TV is quite underanalysed. But then that's probably because most people, myself included, read TV magazines to find quick capsule reviews of things before they decide to watch them or not.

And when are they going to start reviewing the news?

Well Tom, I would suggest you read this well constructed article yourself, but given that you're too prejudiced to buy Private Eye, I realise the futility of such a suggestion.

Speaking of "lazy shite", has anyone read Freaky Trigger recently?

i wrote for it quite recently

(taking sides: me vs private eye)

Yes Trevor buying a magazine regularly and then stopping because it got repetitive and unfunny is "prejudice".

Tom are you some kind of magazinalist? (Or journalist, har har).

When I said made my "contrary" comment above it was cos I thought this thread was heading in a snarky direction.

I never buy magazines anymore or watch TV. I don't really know why, I'm not exactly a cultural elitist or anything. I barely read the paper anymore except the letters about the abortion referendum in the Irish Times for light amusement.

However I will amend what I said. You CAN watch a drama and have your prejudices confirmed, i.e. presumably thing "footballers and there wives are as stupid and horrible as I thought". But IF you do this you are thick because the people on the screen are made-up.

Look look at my two howling typos above - Emma I *could* be a proper journalist like Ronan and Anna I could I could (sorry Ronanna)

actually practically speaking tv analysis is quite difficult (at S&S we try and institute it abt once every two years): there's a mismatch between how you and how you read eg a mag like S&S, or indeed PE

most "official" TV reviewing/analysis is lamentable

First the duvet remark and now this.

I owe you some cranky witty comebacks Tom. I just can't think of any.

"When I said made my "contrary" comment above it was cos I thought this thread was heading in a snarky direction."

I noticed that too, Ronan.

Mark S - a good friend of mine also called Mark contributes regularly to Private Eye. Is there a Mark mafia at the PE? I think we should be told.

It's certainly comforting to know those unpleasant Bowyer and Woodgate characters are totally made up. I hear they get their just desserts in episode 12.

Well, y'know, tv's not actually that underanalysed; people talk about it all the time, daily tv reviews are an ongoing conversation (albeit a pretty one-sided one and of dubious quality), and on the genre conventions and modes of watching stuff Tom refers to there's a sizeable body of (often derided) brit cult studs (its preoccupation with soap in particular may be one of the reasons it's much derided). Of all media, I think it might be the one people are least prepared to engage with critically and analytically, that we maybe want to reserve unreflexive /unexamined pleasure for. (I'm saying that's an interesting thing, not a bad thing, btw). F'rinstance, I've found that students are often prepared to get into the iconography and conditions of production of horror movies, even engage with pretty scary and complex psychoanalytic readings, but on soaps, they're adamant that it's just mindless entertainment. This is supposed to close the discussion, but they nonetheless seem remarkably keen on scrupulously unpicking recent plot twists or character development.

oops; posted that before mark s got to it.

If FW has Bowyer and Woodgate analogues then surely it's the real B & W who have already confirmed prejudices not their fictional doubles.

My snarky PE comment was a snarky comment about PE - my apologies Trevor if you took it personally as a big PE fan.

I think the state of TV review/analysis out there suffers from the same analysis that most film review/analysis does. I was going to say Sight & Sound excepted, but even that hasn't impressed me too much.

I am not sure why this is as people are quite happy to over-analyse certain TV ad nauseum (ahem - Buffy and other so called cult artifacts).

For news reviewing it is instructive to watch the two 10 O'Clock News to compare and contrast the running orders, editorial slant etc. Good to place bets on too (which one will get to Kosovo first).

My prejudices were confirmed. I saw an ad for "Footballers Wives" ITVs new drama and well, it didn't take a genius to see what direction it would head in. Whether this reflects on the quality I can't say, I haven't watched it any more than once.

Whether this is what Trevor is saying or not I'm unsure.

there's a mark mafia of ppl my age, trevor: ie everyone is called it — however despite implication of my sub-literate post above i have never worked for PE

point i was making wrt s&s/pe is really this: that it comes out monthly/biweekly and gives over a spread/a mere quarterpage to TV — i do usually read this, because it occasionally makes forays into backroom business (the internal politics of why [x] is the trend etc, which i'm interested in), but i don't rate it at the level of "artistic analysis" (the LITCRIT section is more awful, tho); is C&P discush in yesterday's, I haven't seen that yet

but then as i said, most written stuff of TV is poor: AS FOR EXAMPLE THIS BUFFY BOOK ABOUT WHICH ALL I CAN SAY IS — [*all ile flees*]

I should add, all you Buffy fans make me feel like I'm some kind of freak not watching it, being 18 and all.

You're just a bit young for it Ronan.

It must be shit being old and liking things like Buffy. On an unrelated note can we start some valentines day hysteria. I just made my first use of "nice r0und number of cards" in an email. I hate it and all but for some reason I'm really into the idea of making a fuss about it to people.

I don't think I'm old enough for it either, Ronan. Do you make that r0und joke in speech too and if so, how do you replicate the '0' - nudge nudge geddit element?

I always used to pronounce Se7en with an overexagerated V sound.

Yeah I say "a nice ROUND number of cards huh".

Actually perhaps it speaks volumes that it seems hard to replicate that element but I do it effortlessly. I have a history of smart assed self mockery I guess. That and the fact everyone knows I didnt get any cards. sniff.

"If FW has Bowyer and Woodgate analogues then surely it's the real B & W who have already confirmed prejudices not their fictional doubles."

I think you took my analogy a little too literally. I think it's rather churlish to deny that FW isn't to some extent a product of its time, or rather, a satire of its time. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark by the way, when he suggests that both FW and C&P explore ethical territory. "My snarky PE comment was a snarky comment about PE - my apologies Trevor if you took it personally as a big PE fan."

It's no big deal. A good friend of mine contributes regularly to PE. His articles are neither lazy nor shite. Incidentally, the article on FW appearing in issue 1047 of PE was actually full of praise for the show. Perhaps you should read it!

To summarise the PE article on FW: it's a great piece of drama but unfortunately misses its target audience. It panders to the prejudices of people who already have a low opinion of the sport and the players, yet these are precisely the people who are least likely to watch the programme, 'cos they automatically assume it's going to be all about football. Which is quite an ironic twist, I thought.

Yeah I think it's very much a product of its time which is probably what's valuable about it - the use of "confirmed prejudices" re. fiction is just one of those things that anally annoys me. And of course it's not impossible that in the ten years since I stopped buying it Private Eye has hired the country's finest writers. Its book review pieces were actually (after the occasional investigative bits) the best things about it, or so I thought at the time - nowhere else seemed to be quite so mean about the books getting puffed everywhere else.

Fucks sake Buffy isn't aimed at the tweenage market Ronan! Am I officially old for watching it at 20? IT SPANS THE AGES and you don't watch it as you are too busy RAVING and quite frankly you can have yore blippy noises PAH! They don't let me in with my orthepedic shoes and anyway I don't want to bust my hearing aid!

i am older than angel

but not anya

Actually Sarah is completely otm. Buffy is on Thursdays which is officially my night of rave.

I can reassure Tom that the "Literary Review" pages haven't changed. Fantastic assassination of Iris Murdoch's entire career in the current issue. Also a friend of mine writes "Books and Bookmen"!

I don't think "Coach Potato" (actually Marcus Berkmann, I think) is a snob, though I get the feeling "Square Eyes" is.

"actually Marcus Berkmann"
Did he used to write for 'Your Sinclair'?

Marcus Berkmann writes a hilarious 'pop' music column for The Spectator. He likes The Lilac Time, Love and Money and Steely Dan. The Spec also has the theatre critic Charles Spencer writing a 'Golden Oldies' column; he liked the Ken Burns 'Jazz' box set, and 'Happy Trails' by Quicksilver Messenger Service. The Spectator jazz column is surprisingly good, tho'.

Robin - in the current PE there is a letter which I swear could've been written by yr good friend Mr. Sanderson. Typical sentence: "I am concerned impressionable viewers the world over, who do not take the Telegraph, will have been given an entirely misleading impression of so-called Bloody Sunday."

The books pages in PE - which I sort've assumed were written mainly by D.J.Taylor - ARE very antagonistic to pop lit fic, but they also do a good job of demolishing literary sacred cows - as mentioned, that Murdoch hatchet job was spot on. Of course, as with most of PE, you're left thinking "well what DO they like or believe in"? Its satire without purpose.

Telly reviewing is piss-poor in this country - as Mark sez, at least 'Square Eyes' attempts to put progs/trends into some kind of insidery- industry context. Unlike w/ film reviews, we get to read the crit AFTER we've seen the prog, which makes you realise just how little ppl like K. Flett or the pisspoor G. Maclean actually have to SAY abt tv. I suppose Clive James turned tv reviewing into an excuse to make gags, and much as I like Nancy Banks-Smith (and Charlie Booker in The Guide) this style of reviewing just reinforces the idea that telly is NOT to be taken seriously - bah!

Jim Shelley is a genius though. Interference was the funniest book I read last year by a fucking mile.

I like Victor Lewis-Smith re TV reviews because he manages to juggle both the gags and a reletively serious look at the ethos behind the program making. TV reviewing for a Daily must be a bit of a grind, as you are generally writing after the fact you both ahve to describe the program to those who did not see it (and possibly will never have another chance) while engaging with it critically. That said film crticism is equally as narrative, whilst tainting the potential viewers value judgements with often half-arsed pop culture soundbytes. You can't win it seems.

Re PE's position (what does it like) - satire with no reason. Does it have to like anything and how does knowing what it likes alter your take on what is being said.

I love PE's critical analysis, because the writers so often throw up angles or fresh perspectives hitherto ignored in the media. But it's not gospel, y'know, each article is written from one individual's perspective. I can accept it as wisdom, or dismiss it as tripe, either way it's effect is positive because it leads me to think more deeply about a given subject than I otherwise would have done.

I was somewhat surprised that Tom dismissed PE as "lazy shite" yesterday, even more so after he admitted to not being a reader for over ten years. A touch of the ol' green eyes, perhaps?

Jim Shelley very funny indeed. It was a sad day when he was replaced by Charlie Brooker. VLS goes for cheap gags too often and is fatally comprised for me by his own piss poor ventures into TV (gay daleks anyone?).

Somebody should anthologise Maul Poorly's telecide column from Blitz 1986-88.

Trevor - I didn't call current PE lazy shite cos I dont read it. I said that one comment - taken in isolation out of a review which when you summarised it sounded fine - struck me as the sort of lazy shite that got me to give up on PE. I don't not read the mag out of any principle, either, I just don't read it on the same basis as I don't read the Spectator much, or Punch if that's still going, or Horse And Hound for that matter.

I think Private Eye discussion needs its own thread to be honest.

what have you got against gay daleks?

The square eyes review of Shackleton was very silly.

I liked C+P. I thort it brung the book alive. Quite moving. Not sure why. Still its a while since I read the book. Pluse, I am amused by how much like Thom Yorke looks John Simm. I am having troubles with the written language today. Didn't see FW as couldn't be arsed set to video corderre. Bum.

Yes, I was going to mention that Spectator column Berkmann writes: though I've only seen it once (just seeing the Spec makes me sick - the entire staff of any magazine that publishes an editorial likening that Tory cunt John "mongel race" Townend to the anti-capitalist left in Oxford Street on May Day last year simply because neither are as uncritically pro-globalisation as Blair is, or declares that the government thinks that the city of Winchester is institutionally racist because not enough British Asians live there, need shooting) it makes Robert Sandall read like, I dunno, peak-era Paul Morley or something. Berkmann also used to be TV critic for the Daily Mail and referred to, I think, the Norwegian production team Stargate as "chart-meister Hurdie Ho and his eleven bearded reindeer". A man to avoid, in other words.

I saw the letter Andrew mentions and assumed it was a pisstake, though rest assured it wasn't my work, but OTOH Christopher Booker ("barking mad, but a nice bloke" - my friend who writes for the Eye) would probably totally agree with it. The Eye not really believing in anything - I've already explained my views on the thread Tom started, but suffice it to say I think that while it infuriates me all the time, the Eye's lack of allegiance to any particular worldview is fundamental to its very existence IMHO.

I was right, Berkmann did used to write for Your Sinclair. Blimey, YS to the Spectator, what a leap.

my friend got all the bbc crew filming c&p fucked on e in st petersburg. then two of them blagged extra's parts.

my girlfriend pointed out the suspicious use of only 1 street in st petersburg being used, due to problems of getting rid of the Ladas,zhigulis, adverts for nescafe, trolley bus wires, and mcdonalds etc in nevsky. they might have well filmed it in....somewhere closer to home, at any rate.

Hence why "Victorian London" on British TV is usually King's Lynn.

I have all of the last season of FW downloaded from Bittorrent. I don't really have much to say beyond that yet, but this is really such a milestone for me personally. What can I expect?

Oh my god, it's amazing!

Howe realistic did you find it?

I'm not really party the reality it attempts to portray, but nonetheless I trust it implicitly.

SF Chronicle on FW Season 3:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/17/DDGEGH9KOC15.DTL

Apparently the new series of FW (starting next week) features Joan Collins alongside Zoe Lucker's Tanya Turner. I rather like this idea - one famous TV bitch "handing down the torch" to another if you like.