Making A Murderer

Gone Girl was the best movie I watched at the cinema in 2014, a movie which was almost flawless in every regard. It boasted brilliant performances, especially by Rosamund Pike, a superb score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross and David Fincher’s always impeccable directorial style. But movie’s greatest strength in my opinion was the story. It was shocking, both in terms of the actions of certain characters and the twists which emerged throughout the movie, yet always seemed believable. And I loved the injustice of the ending because so it was so far removed from the happy ending conventions of Hollywood.

There were multiple moments during the Netflix documentary series Making A Murderer which reminded me of Gone Girl. Yet whilst I loved the ending of Gone Girl, that was purely because I could remind myself that these were fictional characters, so ultimately it didn’t matter whether justice prevailed or not. That certainly isn’t the case with Making A Murderer. These are real people, and what makes the stakes even higher is the fact that the main suspect in the case, Steven Avery, had already served 18 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. Was he at risk of history repeating again, or was he using the previous injustice to deflect the evidence pointing to him being Teresa Halbach’s murder?

The weakest part of the documentary in my opinion is that throughout the series, the story seems to be told from Avery’s perspective. This doesn’t make the documentary any less fascinating to watch – if anything it makes it more gripping, as you watch his struggles in the face of a justice system he feels is stacked against him. But making any judgements about his guilt or innocence based purely on this documentary would be something I would warn against due to this bias.

Documentaries on such a specific topic are rarely more than 2 hours in duration, yet Making A Murderer is around 10 hours. You would expect plenty of padding, yet this documentary is engrossing throughout. The longer run time allows more time to go into the details of the case (and previous case), and everyone featured is interesting, whether you like or dislike them. The journalists covering Avery’s trial even become people who grab your attention (well, two in particular – if you’ve watched the series you’ll know which two). Even though the subject matter is very dark, I binge-watched the series in around 27 hours.

As I have mentioned, drawing conclusions about the case based purely on the documentary is something I wouldn’t advise. The evidence presented here suggests Avery is the most likely person to killed Halbach, but there is evidence pointing to a potential framing too. To pick out just one, let’s look at Teresa’s car. If Avery did murder her, he had three days to get rid of it as a potential source of evidence, and he was in possession of a car crusher as his family owned a car scrapyard. Why leave it fully intact, and still on your yard? It was one of several pieces of the case which didn’t add up, so there must have been plenty of doubt as to whether he was the killer. Enough doubt to qualify as reasonable doubt and return a not guilty verdict? Sadly, I cannot say.

Despite suffering his previous injustice, it wasn’t Steven Avery’s story which I found most compelling. It was that of his nephew, Brendan Dassey, who was 16 at the time of Halbach’s murder and convicted of being Avery’s accomplice. This was based mainly on a confession he provided which didn’t line up with any of the physical evidence which had been crucial in securing Avery’s conviction. It was also a confession obtained during a highly suspect police interview.

Dassey had clear learning difficulties and an IQ around 70. He might have been 16 at the time, but his mental capacity was far lower than that. I remember a rare occasion at primary school when I got in trouble. I remember considering whether to tell the truth, a part-truth or a complete fabrication and utilise my good reputation amongst the teachers at our school. I was considering my options and calculating the consequences for each course of action. I was 10. Dassey wasn’t able to do any of this. He thought by telling the police what they wanted to hear, he would be allowed to go home, despite the fact that what he was saying made him a murderer. Legally it might have been okay to interview him without either his mother or a lawyer present, but it showed an investigation more concerned with obtaining a confession and securing a conviction than learning the true circumstances of Teresa’s death.

My final thoughts about the documentary surround the justice system. One of the most powerful moments in the documentary comes when one of Avery’s lawyers, Dean Strang, reminds everyone in the courtroom that his client sat in the room innocent, and would remain so until proven guilty. It was powerful because in the build up to that moment, the police and the media had been portraying Avery as guilty at every opportunity, which at that moment he wasn’t. The presumption of innocence didn’t seem to apply, and indeed rarely does in high-profile cases. How many times have the media and public, not just in the U.S. but in the U.K. and I’m sure around the world too labelled someone as a ‘rapist’ or other type of criminal long before any conviction, sometimes even before they have been charged? Such terms cloud the mind of jurors who are supposed to be unbiased, and stick with someone even if they are subsequently found not guilty. In our 21st Century society, I’m not sure what the solution is. I guess just don’t commit any crimes, and hope that you don’t get wrongfully accused of one either. And on that merry note, it’s time to end.

Drain of Thrones

Warning: The following contains spoilers from the first 5 series of Game of Thrones.

I’m an odd person. Nothing winds me up more than seeing adults on the bus pressing the stop button after someone else has already done it and I won’t send a friend request on Facebook unless I’m drunk. I’m also ‘that guy’ who routes for the hero to die in most movies or TV shows, though I’m willing to defend myself on that point. After all, we’re talking about fictional characters here, and when you’ve seen the hero overcome seemingly insurmountable odds in almost every movie ever, seeing them bite the bullet can seem refreshing. So it should come as little surprise that Game of Thrones quickly became one of my favourite TV shows. However, with season 5 killing off yet more major characters, even I’m now starting to ask whether George R.R. Martin’s penchant for death risks derailing the show?

The fact that this particular plot device is underused across the industry as a whole doesn’t mean it cannot be overused in a particular show, and this creates a number of problems. Firstly, the power of the unexpected death is diminished because now we’re expecting our favourite characters to die at every turn. The Red Wedding was incredibly gruesome, but incredibly powerful too because it was a plot twist a lot of us didn’t see coming. But take away the unexpected and death scenes just become gratuitously gory, which isn’t fun on any level.

Secondly, the show is rapidly running out of characters interesting enough to kill of and still draw an emotional response from the audience. Take Ser Barristan for example. Maybe fans of the books had a different impression, but having only watched the show, he was just another old guy in a show not lacking in that demographic. He made little impression on me to the point where I needed Wikipedia to help me spell his name correctly, and even though he had a noble death, I didn’t feel any sadness watching it.

If you wanted to take the counter-argument, you could point out that the show constantly introduces new characters to compensate for the loss of others. However, I’m not sure I really connected with any of the new characters in series 5. Possibly the Sand sisters in Dorne, but most made no impression. Maybe they were just weaker characters, but I can’t help but feel that the scars of the previous series’ have contributed to this too. The last new character I really connected with was Prince Oberyn, and we all know how that turned out.

When a new character pops up on screen, I don’t want to become emotionally invested in their story anymore because I know it will be all the more disappointing when they inevitably die if I do. I’m even trying to distance myself from characters who I like and are still alive in the show for the same reason, because it will make their deaths easier to handle. I find myself watching the show in a very emotionally distant manner, which is clearly a problem.

The biggest problem though comes in the form of the eventual payoff. Every story needs to be resolved eventually, and that resolution must satisfy what came before it. I think that was the ultimate problem with Lost. It wasn’t that the ending of the show was particularly bad, but given how long and confusing the show could be at times, it just wasn’t clever or interesting enough to provide the satisfying payoff the fans were hoping for.

The same could eventually be true of Game of Thrones. Winter is coming, white walkers are approaching and most of our favourite characters are either dead or in a bad predicament at the moment. The world of the Seven Kingdoms is very bleak right now and as fans we’ve been intentionally upset on numerous occasions now. What sort of ending could turn all of that around and leave us with a positive feeling towards the show? A couple of seasons back, the possibilities seemed plentiful, but they are dwindling by the episode. Even if you favourite character eventually becomes King or Queen, given the bloodshed which will have led up to that, will that feel rewarding?

So, to anyone working on the storylines of Game of Thrones, I say this – thank you for daring to be different, but don’t forget we still need a little hope in the world too.

Richie Benuad – A Commentator For The Ages

Whilst TV coverage of live sport has improved in so many ways during my lifetime, I would argue that the standard of commentary has fallen considerably. Broadcasters seem to think that unless the commentators make every event sound like it is the most exciting and most important event ever, the viewing public will get bored and switch over. One of the commentators who highlights this trend better than anyone is actually a commentator I like, Martin Tyler. If you can find a video of him commentating from the 1980s, you’d only be able to identify him from the voice. The style is very different, calling the play in a slower and much quieter way.

However, one sport where I think the quality of the commentary is still high is Cricket. There are many great voices in Cricket, but today we lost the voice of Cricket, Richie Benaud. Rest in peace.

There are a few things you can point to which highlight just how good Benaud was as a commentator. Firstly, when people think of the likes of Ian Botham or David Gower, they think of the Cricketer first and the commentator second. With Benaud it was the other way round, yet don’t be fooled into thinking he was an average player. Benaud is arguably Australia’s second greatest spinner ever, with only the greatest of all time Shane Warne eclipsing him. He was a decent batsman with three Test centuries to his name. He was also an aggressive captain in an era of conservatism. Anyone can be an attacking captain though, and what stands out with Benaud is that he was a successful one too. He never lost a series as captain, despite inheriting an Australian team which certainly wasn’t one of the strongest.

To eclipse his own playing career through his work in the commentary box is a major achievement of itself. He was just as popular in the U.K. as he was in Australia, and you can’t say that about many Australian captains in any sports. His career as a commentator finished more than 40 years after his playing career ended, yet never once did he seem out of touch with the modern game.

Cricket is a sport which perhaps lends itself to a style of commentary that I enjoy, in particular Test cricket. The matches are so long that there is little value in getting too overexcited about a single moment, and the pauses in between deliveries lend themselves to considered discussion and debate. Yet I believe another reason why Cricket commentary is in a good place at the moment is because of the influence of Benaud and his quiet, considered style. Michael Atherton, who worked with Benaud at Channel 4 before moving to Sky, is a prime example. He has his own style, but you can clearly see that he learned a lot from listening to Benaud and ultimately working with him.

Sadly we will never hear Richie behind the microphone again and a generation of kids will appoint someone else as the ‘voice of Cricket.’ Hopefully whoever that is stays true to Benaud’s style and allow the older generations to continue to enjoy listening to commentators in at least one sport for years to come.

What Next For Top Gear?

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘fracas’ with one of Top Gear’s producers will be seen as the final straw which led to the end of his time on the show. Whatever you think about Top Gear, it is a global phenomenon, but sadly I think this news will be the beginning of the end for the show.

There are many options open to the BBC should they terminate Clarkson’s contract, but sadly none look too appealing in terms of the show’s future. For example, they could look for a replacement presenter. Yet for all his many faults, there is only one Clarkson. When he left old Top Gear, his star was much smaller and he was a smaller part of the show as a whole. Nevertheless, when Clarkson left, it wasn’t long before producers decided the show needed a completely new identity and Top Gear went off the air, albeit briefly. Any replacement presenter would not only have to forge a good working chemistry with Richard Hammond and James May almost instantly, whilst also dealing with the pressure of constant comparisons to Clarkson. It’s not an impossible task for the BBC to find someone the public responds well to, but if the public response is negative it would be hard to see how the show can recover.

Another option would be to allow Hammond and May to present the show on their own. They already have a good chemistry on-screen, but there would always be a sense that something, or rather someone, was missing. And would they even want to carry on presenting the show on their own? From what both of them have been saying on Twitter over the last week, it looks like they don’t expect to continue to present Top Gear either.

If the BBC need a new presenting team, they also have the option of replacing Top Gear with a different type of car show. Critics of the show have often claimed that there is a section of the population who want a sensible motoring show offering relevant consumer advice for the modern motorist. I however disagree. Such a show would be boring, particularly with the inevitable comparisons with Top Gear. Top Gear was successful because of the challenges and the chance to see exotic cars most of us could only dream of owning. Even people like me, someone who doesn’t drive and these days is only mildly interested in cars, could enjoy the show, but other motoring shows just haven’t appealed to me.

The option I would like the BBC to take would be to replace Top Gear with a show which would be a cross between Top Gear and The Gadget Show. Effectively it would retain the style of Top Gear but would feature a much broader range of vehicles and other consumer technologies. By not being specifically a car show (though new cars would be featured), it wouldn’t suffer the same direct comparisons with Top Gear whilst still having the potential to attract the same type of audience.

So, in a nutshell, my message to the BBC is this – don’t try to replace Clarkson. Instead, let Top Gear die with his departure, and then try to go after the same audience with a show which isn’t just about cars.

Analysing the BBC Comedy Quota System

When I first read the news about a quota ensuring a minimum of one woman on every BBC comedy panel show, I thought it was a very bad idea. We are now 5 episodes into the current series of Have I Got News For You and my opinion hasn’t changed. The episodes haven’t been bad, but the flaws in the system have been apparent.

One of the flaws in the system is that by stipulating that at least one woman must be on each show, you are in fact reducing the chances of more than one woman appearing on the show. On a show like Have I Got News For You, this is a problem as they do not like to have the same guests appear multiple times in the same series. Put two women on the same episode and that is one more woman to find to put on another episode. This might not be something people want to hear, but the reality is this poses a problem to casting agents. As a result, they are less likely to book multiple female guests for the same episode.

Why is this a problem? Because a good comedy panel show is not about the individual talent but how that talent interacts with each other. QI occasionally had three female guests, other times they would have an all-male panel. The producers worked on getting the mix right as often as possible, and it was a show where all the guests got a fair chance to contribute.

As soon as you start imposing quotas, finding the right blend of guests is no longer the sole objective, and therefore becomes harder to achieve. Having just one woman on a panel can be a difficult situation. At times it will be difficult for them to have their say on a topic (something Mock the Week has fairly been criticised for). On other occasions, such as last week with Bridget Christie, the female guest will go too far the other way and speak lots without really adding to the quality of the show. If you are going to have quotas, make it an even split or don’t bother. Either of these solutions would produce a better product than the tokenism of the single female guest.

Another flaw is why have they drawn the line at gender? After 5 episodes, so 15 guests, there has been 1 non-white guest, Mr Sadiq Khan MP. According to Wikipedia, the panel for the next two shows will be all-white too. How is this representative?  Why are there no quotas to ensure other groups are not under-represented too?

The under-representation of women in comedy is a problem and it is not caused by a lack of talent. I am all for the BBC setting targets to increase the number of female guests, presenters and regular panelists on their comedy shows and I think that no show should be barred from that. But I don’t think imposing a strict quota system for every episode of every show is the right way to go about it. It prevents casting agents from having the full freedom to do their job properly and ultimately will hurt the product.

US v UK Sitcoms

This week, and for the past few weeks, the undisputed best show on TV in my opinion has been Suits. Despite the fact that you can only watch it on Dave in the U.K., it’s a quality programme. The first series scored highly in terms of the comedy, but the plots always seemed like ways of getting from one joke to the next rather than something to enjoy of itself, but things have changed in Series 2. Characters such as Jessica, Donna and Louis have been developed extensively and the introduction of David Costabile is not only a treat for fellow Flight of the Conchords fans but has also added a new level of ‘political’ intrigue to the show. Most importantly though, the show has not mastered the trick of making you laugh one minute and then be on the verge of tears the next. And once you have an emotional attachment to the characters in a TV show, your hooked forever. I can’t see myself missing an episode until the programme finally ends, hopefully in many years time (season 3 has already been confirmed).

The show is the very epitome of what good U.S. sitcom is about. The jokes are crisp, and almost all of the intended jokes are a success. The delivery is slick from all of the actors, and the quality is consistently high throughout both the individual episodes and the series as a whole.

Yet like almost all U.S. sitcoms, it never feels very real. Sure, it’s set in a real city (New York). It features a real profession (lawyers). And they reference real people on a regular basis. Yet it never feels real because everything is just that bit more slick than would be possible in the real world. In the real world, from time to time people mess up the delivery of their joke, or think of it too slowly to achieve perfect comic timing, or simply aren’t that funny. You’ve almost certainly never met anyone as sharp with their jokes as the character of Donna, yet alone Mike or Harvey. Some professional comedians aren’t even that sharp. This doesn’t make the show any less enjoyable, but it does characterise it as distinctly American.

The American process for writing a sitcom is generally via a large team of writers. This process allows for a wider range of ideas, allows for the jokes to be honed and perfected and also helps the longevity of the show as new writers can be brought in to the team without changing the characteristics of the show. Yet the process is invariably one where truly innovative ideas generally get watered down or phased out altogether. The result is that you end up with very enjoyable, but ultimately quite safe comedy.

British sitcoms by contrast are generally written by much smaller teams of writers. The drawbacks of this the consistency of the programmes is not as strong as in the U.S. – something like Green Wing for example was at times hilarious but too many of the episodes were weak for it to be regarded as a classic. Those that do achieve consistently high standards rarely run for many episodes – there were only 12 episodes of Fawlty Towers, 16 episodes of The Office, 21 of Porridge and 25 of Father Ted. By contrast, by the end of series 2 there are already 28 episodes of Suits. Even a long-running programme such as Peep Show is hardly long-running compared to something like Friends, with just 48 episodes to date compared to 236.

Yet the British system has its benefits too. Writers and broadcasters are generally less afraid to take risks, which means that programmes such as The Royle Family, which on paper shouldn’t work at all, can end up becoming a huge success. British sitcoms also do surreal comedy at its finest, a concept seemingly lost in America. A programme like Monty Python could only have been created in Britain.

On balance, it’s difficult to say which I prefer. At their best, I think British sitcoms surpass the best that the US has to offer. The problem is that because they are so short-lived, you constantly have to trial new shows to see which ones are promising and which ones are best avoided. Where as with the US system, if you find a comedy that you like (and other people like too), chances are that it’ll be around for a while, meaning you can enjoy the show for many years. I can still enjoy episodes of Frasier today, 9 years after the show finished, without constantly re-watching the same few episodes. Thankfully, in this multi-channel world we now live in, you can enjoy both.

Sky Go

You’re probably as tired of listening to me whingeing about the fact that I haven’t got Sky as I am about not having it. Or rather, that should read as I was about not having it. With Game of Thrones season 3 less than a month away, the domestic cricket season on the horizon and the denouement of domestic and European football and rugby over the next few months, I decided that I had lived without Sky for long enough.

The problem I have is that I live in a shared house, and therefore any installation of Sky would have to go through the landlord. My experiences to date suggests that approaching them would be unlikely to be successful, so I decided that getting Sky TV installed was not a viable option.

Thankfully the days of needing a TV to watch Sky are over thanks to Sky Go. Now, in theory since my parents have the full Sky package at home, I could have registered my laptop as one of the portable devices on their account even though I’m no longer living at home. I’ve heard of people doing exactly that. However, even though it is a loophole I could probably have gotten away with, it didn’t feel comfortable morally. I’m living in London permanently, barring the odd weekend back in Coventry, and pretending otherwise to save a bit of money didn’t feel right. After all, TV is not an essential good for life – if you don’t have the money to pay for it yourself, go without is always my philosophy, something that means I’ve never illegally downloaded any music or films either.

There are four account options to consider if you go for Sky Go without a Sky TV package, but to be honest the first two didn’t interest me as they didn’t include sports. Therefore the choices were the £35 per month package, which comes with the Sports and Entertainment channels, or the £40 per month package, that gives you Movies as well. I was tempted to go for the full package, but went for the £35 package instead in the end. Rather than pay £5 per month simply for Sky Movies, I’d rather save that money for trips to the cinema for any new release that I really want to see.

What you get for your money is live streaming of the channels on your package, plus a wealth of On Demand features. Which pretty much covers everything you would actually want to watch when added to your Freeview TV, and all for considerably less per month than you’d pay for a Sky TV package. Clearly though, because it costs less money, there are a few drawbacks that you have to put up with.

The first is the picture quality. To be honest, on a small screen, it really isn’t too bad. The framerate is decent and the clarity of the image makes it completely watchable – I was watching the Liverpool v Spurs game on my laptop at the same time as the Manchester United v Chelsea game on my TV, and the difference was negligible. However, that was with the screen only a couple of feet away from me. Any further away and the clarity and size of the image might become an issue. Therefore for communal viewing it’s not really a viable option, but if you spend your time watching TV alone the screen size and image resolution really isn’t a problem.

What is a problem is that you are entirely dependent on your internet connection to watch your programmes. If you’ve got a speedy and reliable internet connection, then this won’t be a concern. If you’ve got one of the more erratic connections though, it might be a problem. I haven’t run into any difficulties so far, but given my experiences streaming on iPlayer since my move, it can only be a matter of time. I might find myself in the future having to choose between higher resolution images or a stream free from buffering, which is never ideal.

But then again, it is certainly more ideal than relying purely on pubs and other public venues in order to watch Sky Sports, which whilst fine, even enjoyable for big events can be severely limiting when you watch as much sport as I do. So all things considered, Sky Go is shaping up to be an excellent purchase. And given that over the next 6 months I’ll be buying a tablet (almost certainly an iPad) and upgrading my phone to 4G at the end of my current contract means I can look forward to regular access to Sky Sports, even if the next place I move into doesn’t have Sky either.

Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe

I’ve often been critical of TV schedulers on Scorpo Stories, so I think it is only fair that I give credit when it is due for a good piece of TV scheduling. And as TV scheduling decisions go, the decision to broadcast Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe on Thursday nights, 10pm on BBC 2 is something of a masterstroke. Here’s a few of the reasons why.

1. It’s an established show

It might technically be a new show, but Weekly Wipe is an evolution of the shows like Screenwipe that Brooker has been doing since 2006. This evolutionary period has cultivated a show which is far more evolved than the majority of ‘new’ comedies, which typically have a few moments of real quality but too many weak sections over the entirety of the show. By contrast, Weekly Wipe is a quality show from start to finish, with a range of different features that complement each other well. You never find yourself checking your watch during the show, which is always a good indicator that a show is well structured and entertaining.

2. It’s an established show

Whilst the fact that it’s an established show has clear benefits for the viewer, it also brings benefits from the broadcaster’s perspective too. Brooker’s shows have developed a following that new shows cannot offer, giving the show a healthy minimum audience from which new viewers can be gained by giving the show a more prominent time-slot on a more prestigious, and more importantly more viewed, channel.

3. Harry Hill’s TV Burp is no more

TV Burp was a great success on ITV for many years, and was based around the concept that if you pay close enough attention to TV, you will notice how ludicrously absurd it can be. Since it finished however, TV schedules have been crying out of a suitable replacement for that niche. Weekly Wipe is the perfect candidate. It follows the same basic concept, but doesn’t try to imitate TV Burp, which was brilliantly silly at its best. Instead, Brooker’s cynical, scathing assessment of TV gives the show its own identity, and indeed the contrast from TV Burp is quite refreshing.

4. It’s on in the Mock the Week time slot

BBC 2’s most successful show in the Thursday night, 10pm slot has been Mock the Week since the show started in 2005, yet last year there were only 12 shows over the entire year. Given that Mock the Week has demonstrated that a topical, comedy show aimed at adults who aren’t easily offended can flourish in this time slot, it makes total sense for the BBC to run another show that is targeting the same type of audience in this time slot.

5. It’s on in the Mock the Week time slot

One of the reasons I think Mock the Week has done so well over the years is because of Question Time. Question Time is a very successful show, especially given its time slot, but watching it having watched the news beforehand can get a bit much, especially during those weeks when there only seems to be negative news stories around. Offering a topical comedy on BBC 2 is a good antidote to this problem, providing light relief that will allow you to enjoy Question Time fully.

So, well done BBC. More scheduling decisions like this please, and less along the lines of Britain’s Brainiest would do very nicely.

Young Apprentice 2012

Whilst plenty of the shows that have become ‘TV institutions’ come around only once a year, fans of The Apprentice are 100% better off. Sort of. The main series might only be on once a year, but the third series of Young Apprentice will be with us on the 1st November. But whilst the original has become one of those shows that can sell newspapers, the junior version has somewhat flown under the radar. Ratings are always solid, but not at the same level as its big brother. Which might seem slightly odd, since the format of the show is ostensibly the same. Therefore today I’m going to look at a few of the differences between the shows to look at why this might be the case.

The History

Whilst Young Apprentice is about to enter its third series, The Apprentice has now run for eight. As a viewer, this is important because, especially during the first few episodes, you find yourself watching the new candidates and comparing them with those that have gone before. Would Ricky Martin turn out to be the new Stuart Baggs? Are any of the women as annoying as Jo Cameron? Have any of the men been taking fashion tips from Vincent ‘Charlie Evers’ Disneur? By contrast, Young Apprentice lacks the wealth of memorable past candidates to compare the show to, so fails to offer this element of the show.

Inexperience

Some view The Apprentice, particularly the first few weeks, as car crash television, where the enjoyment of the show is to be found in watching people make ridiculous fools out of themselves. The reason why this is more entertaining on The Apprentice than shows like The X-Factor is that, given their CVs, the candidates should know better. Their supposedly ‘exceptional’ backgrounds make watching them make awful mistakes even more amusing. However, you don’t get quite the same reaction with Young Apprentice. They haven’t built up the same wealth of experience, so are allowed a few more mistakes, and a part of you also thinks good on them for having a go when many teenagers, myself included, take the easy option in life. Thus the enjoyment you get from car crash TV is not quite replicated in the junior show.

Arrogance

More-or-less the same point, but The Apprentice always prides itself on unearthing some of the most amusingly arrogant people around who put themselves forward to be shot down in the most spectacular fashion. Some of the young apprentices have had a streak of arrogance running through them, but you’d be unlikely to hear any of them come out with anything as ridiculous as “As a salesperson, I’d rate myself as number 1 in Europe.”

Fitting out a suit

It sounds a trivial point, but some of the candidates on Young Apprentice simply look too young to take seriously. Take one of this year’s candidates, Sean Spooner.

The suit looks ridiculous on him. To be honest, he looks like he should still be in short trousers. He might turn out to be an intelligent chap, and the fact that he looks young shouldn’t be held against him given his age, but the truth of the matter is that if you don’t look the part in business, you’re unlikely to be taken seriously. Whilst the business merits of the senior show and the credentials of its candidates might be questionable, at least they generally all look the part, which is rarely the case with Young Apprentice.

You’re Fired

The lack of a spin-off show for Young Apprentice is something that I find baffling given the popularity of You’re Fired. Okay, so Dara O’Briain might have enough commitments already to host the show, but this needn’t be an issue. I’m sure there must be a decent BBC Three-type presenter who could provide the comedy whilst also appealing to the younger generation, and there’s still ample material to work with.

Promotion

Somewhere in the BBC, there must be a recognition that Young Apprentice is an inferior product, since the show has never been promoted anywhere near as strongly as the original. The Apprentice adverts seem to start about a month in advance – we’re little more than a week away from the start of Young Apprentice now and I still haven’t seen it advertised. This mentality is transmitted through to the viewer. I find myself watching it thinking that it’s still an enjoyable show, but not quite an adequate replacement in the television schedules. You can’t really blame the BBC for milking The Apprentice a bit more, but actions like broadcasting it on a Thursday mean it’s unlikely to ever step out of the shadows and become a hit show in its own right.

 

Fresh Meat

Fresh Meat returned for a second series last night, and whilst it’s fair to say I’ve watched funnier comedies, the show has me hooked because I identify quite with the show. It’s managed to capture an authentic picture of what life as a student in the 21st Century is like without dragging up those tired stereotypes of students who never get out of bed in the morning and sit around all afternoon watching programmes like Countdown. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but there are far more notable aspects of student life than that which many other shows miss but Fresh Meat somehow manages to capture.

Take last night’s episode for example. The housemates were faced with the prospect of finding someone else to live with them, I situation I found myself in towards the end of my second year. Everyone that we knew either didn’t want to live with us (understandable) or had already signed a contract to live somewhere else (which again, given the timing, was totally understandable). So, we were faced with the situation of living with someone we’d never met before. We managed to agree on people who under no circumstances we’d live with (quite a few as it turned out), and we were left with two options – a girl who seemed like she’d be quite good fun to live with, and a guy who seemed less fun but at least seemed like he wouldn’t spoil our fun. We all agreed on the girl and it was all set to happen before for some reason falling through, so we had to go with the guy instead. We tried to socialise with him, but he preferred to stay in his room. I once went 8 days in the house without seeing him, despite the fact that his room was five foot away from mine. Mind you, he did summarise the ‘Wayne Bridge Croatia game’ more succinctly than anyone else I’ve ever heard. His reason why England lost that night was simply “Too many shit players on the pitch”, which if you look back at the team sheet was impossible to deny.

The other reason why I enjoy the show is that it captures the sense of freedom that you get from living away from home for the first time at university. Many shows acknowledge the freedom of getting up when you want, going out when you want, drinking as much as you want and to an extent turning up to lectures when you want, and when you’ve come straight out of school, all of this is very enjoyable. But the real freedom is the freedom to be whoever you want. The people you meet at university don’t know your past, and they don’t have any preconceived ideas about how they expect you to act. Moreover, because they don’t know your family (at least to begin within), how you act will only influence what they think about you. When you’ve grown up with a group of people, where everyone knows everyone else’s family, how you act not only influences what they think about you, it influences what they think about your family too, for better or worse. It’s these freedoms which I enjoyed most about university.

The character of Oregon takes this to the extreme in the first series, creating an entirely new identity for herself and doing things that we can tell are very much out of character. Yet whilst I didn’t go to such extremes, I totally understand the desire to do so. I left school with a good group of friends, but never feeling like I totally fitted in to the overall social scene. It’s fair to say I wasn’t a huge fan of the person I’d become by the age of 18. Going away to university was a chance to change this, and whilst I didn’t make any drastic changes, I did the odd thing people at school might have thought out of character, and created a version of my past which was closer to the person I wanted to be rather than the person I was. Three years later, I left university with the person I wanted to be and the person I actually was pretty closely aligned.