Wednesday, 9 June 2010

The Live Life Show


In my English Lit. class at school one of the most enjoyable papers I ever wrote was on dystopias. I had by that time already discovered George Orwell so Nineteen-Eighty Four was an obvious point of departure. From there its was on to novels like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, a book that overwhelmed me with its brilliance, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange, G K Chesterton’s The Napoleon of Notting Hill and Andrei Platonov’s The Foundation Pit.

But the other girls in my group were reading the same books so I thought I'd cast the net just a little wider. And that's how I discovered The Year of the Sex Olympics, a play by Nigel Kneale and first broadcast on BBC television in 1968. I was immediately captivated by this depiction of a future in which a debased underclass are kept amused by reality TV shows and pornography, ever more sensational in content, like the Sex Olympics. The elite were always looking for new ideas and are encouraged when the masses, ever more lethargic, ever more difficult to please, are engaged and amused by death and suffering.

Reality TV at the time was non-existent, so the play could be considered as a brilliant anticipation of times to come, of our times, a time when television shows are becoming ever more wretchedly debased in their pursuit of ratings. But I suspect that the author, who had previously adapted Nineteen-Eighty Four for television, was also looking back to the public executions of the past, which used to draw massive crowds, people taking a vicarious delight in death. The premise was based, if you like, in the vilest dimensions of human nature.

The theme had a particular resonance for me because of the popularity of Channel Four's Big Brother reality show, drawing on Orwell, though in such a way that I feel sure would have nauseated him. I confess I was seduced by this show to begin with, seduced by characters like 'Nasty Nick' (Sorry; I was in my teens!). But with each successive series my contempt for the parade of mediocrities that were selected to appear began to grow. I have to say this, even at the risk of sounding snobbish, but I began to think of them as the worst forms of low-life imaginable, 'oiks' and 'pig people', as we used to say at school.

The worst of all was the celebrity versions. There was one with George Galloway, then an MP, doing an impression of a cat and another of him dressed in a tight-fitting leotard, with, not to be coy on the point, his testicles on clear display. To see this revolting old man, one whom I despised for his politics, prancing around like this was just too, too awful, hugely funny and utterly ridiculous at one and the same time. I haven't watched the show since.

I almost never watch TV now; I have far more important things to do. It's not just that. The fact is that the mixture of reality TV, celebrity chefs, talent contests and the rest of the sad and unimaginative rubbish is simply unwatchable. It's garbage best left to the proles, people whose surplus energy is sucked up by a manipulating and cynical elite. Meanwhile I shall return always to the Live Life Show. :-)

49 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I usually am!

    I don't suppose you've ever watched the ghastly BB. Our particular Nick is not at all nasty. :-))

    I might lob this piece into My T tomorrow. Speaking of which I best pop over there, a giggle before bed time. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As Adam Garrie do you mean? Anyway, must dash.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I reread 1984 a couple of weeks ago and it inspired a few trains of thought.

    I'd forgotten a lot of it; the hanging of the enemy soldiers as entertainment, the film which Winston reports in his diary with gruesome helicopter strafing of refugees..and those televisors through which everybody is watched by the Ministry of Love. There are spine-tingling resonances with some of our own recent entertainments and "news" transmissions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Retarius, have you read We? If not you might be surprised by it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ana, GG talked much bollocks in Iraq so I see no reason why his testicles should not be displayed.

    Incidentally, is 'testicles' taken from the name of a lewd Greek politician?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Adam, Is this what you mean:

    "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]."

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ironically, Nobby. Galloway was an opponent of Saddam when I supported him--in the 1980s, when he took heavy handed action against a terrorist enclave in the North of Iraq. Like you--I'm a Unionist, but what's good for the British goose is good for the Iraqi gander. There is more mis-information on Halabja than one could imagine. Namely, highly inflated statistics that have appeared in official New Labour Government documents--and we all know how that squalid lot valued accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Adam, A tyranny does not 'liberate' anyone. I have discovered that it is usually the first sentence which contains an error. As with travelling from A to B the first mistake eventually leads nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Adam, So are you arguing for tyranny because it does some liberating things? If it does I strongly suspect that there will be a hidden agenda disguising what advantage is really at work here. Incidentally, if any democracy fails in its responsibilities that is no argument for tyranny either.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Adam, I am talking about political principles rather than political conveinience. There are all types of democracies and I cannot support every single one of them. The British model is best, in my view. But what is also necessary is an informed and educated electorate. Without this people can easily be manipulated to vote for an eventual tyranny. You refer to Iraq as, so to speak, a political system of government which presents a choice between a rock and a hard place. Fair enough. But much of the electorate have never been fully informed or well educated. Full demorcacy depends on full and comprehensive education. I am not advocating a dumbed down Labour example either but to 'dumb up' so that society offers the best chances via scholarships to those who would otherwise have no advantage or opportunity. The Government, any government, must provide schools which encourage the best. Democracy cannot fully succeed without such a vision. Anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just to clarify, it was Gladstone under the guise of moralism who allowed Gordon to perish due to a petty personal jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Adam,

    I would applaud such a history and educational system if it had not been built on the graves of so many innocent victims.

    This is essentially my point which you skim over to refer to a secular and egalitarian system. But I remain unimpressed with the blood that was shed because of it. Not only blood but some billions of dollars that Iraq had refused to pay back to Saudi Arabia.

    You are right to say, however, that foreign policy is built on pragmatics; although Jenkins' Ear has probably heard enough of this already :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adam, I am no bleedin' heart. I simply say that Iraq was led by a man who sought tyranny for its own sake and not because Saddam wanted a better educational opportunities for women. Saddam waged war on Iran and Kuwait and no one can argue away the thousands or millions of deaths that resulted from his megolamania. Retrospective wisdom is all very well but in the first Gulf war Saddam sought to bring Israel into the conflict by firing scud missiles at Israeli cities. He nearly succeeded. The West intervened again for many reasons which includes that there was always the real possibility that this would happen again. In other words a Saddam free Iraq would not be responsible for WW3. That is not to say that WW3 might start anyhow but it will no longer be because of Saddam.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Adam, RE: Iraqi women etc. I admit no such thing. I am merely accepting your opinions on this particular matter for the sake of argument. Iraq was an unstable force in the region not because of whatever reforms Saddam introduced but because of his intent to dominate other countries by force if necessary. Consequently, there was an ever present threat to the world's oil supply which Saudi Arabia nor America was willing to accept especially after the invasion of Kuwait. The war against Iran was another example, however, of Iraqi hegemony in the region. You say that Iran is the most dangerous country in the region. It is now but then? In the 1980's? Is this the reason Iraq went to war with Iran? I remain unconvinced about that. The last point is made by John Simpson the BBC reporter who argues in his book, 'Not Quite World's End' that WMD's were hidden in Syria shortly prior to the allied invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Adam, It seems to me that by attacking declaring war on Iran and Kuwait Saddam announced his intention quite clearly. That he never succeeded has more to do with foreign intervention than retrospective wisdom. The generous terms Saddam offered in 2003 regarding WMD searches can be argued as Saddam knowing that WMD was in Syria. I will check out the other blogspot as soon as I have time. Cheers, Adam.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Adam, The biggest 'betrayl' that you refer to was some three centuries later in 1453. One of the few books I have read twice is by Roger Crowley, Constantinople: The Last Great Siege 1453.

    ReplyDelete
  32. ps Yes, if you have any information it would be interesting to know more.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Adam,

    Re Iraq

    Can you say what action you would have taken if you were in the same position of responsibilty as President Bush (senior or junior)?



    Incidentally, I cannot connect with the link you have given.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. control


    ps thanks for the link Adam.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Adam, Hmmm...easy to answer I agree. So. Kuwait would have remained invaded. Saddams influence in the Middle East growing every minute. Saudi Arabia - you have not responded to the idea that they actually asked Bush to invade Iraq; and you say nothing about the billions of dollars Iraq owed either.

    Saddam in such power and contro would have had control of much of the world's oil especially so if he felt empowered enough to later invade Saudi Arabia.

    What you offer Adam is retrospective wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Adam, The link refers to something I do not think you are talking about. What I find is a Geotool map of America. Is this it?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Adam, Did you read the story of an Iraqi man who lived in the cavity of a wall in his own house for many years because he was so afraid of Saddam?

    This cannot be an argument based upon one regime being preferable to another. This will become too subjective. Therefore it must be a discussion about what is in the interests of Britain.

    You argue that it was in the interests of Britain to not go to war with Iraq. In retrospect it looks like a convincing argument. However, my argument rests on the circumstances of that time which suggest to me that leader of a tyrannical regime was growing in power and influence everyday and that one day this power would be used against those who had previously supported him.

    I will try your link again. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Adam, I have never thought for one minute that Saddam was a threat to Great Britain. But the Great Game continues in various forms and you are being naive to argue otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Adam, It will never end so long as nations seek to exert power and influence in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. During our recent discussion of Big Brother on BlogCatalog, I completely forgot that back in 2010 I had written about a show that had aired on French TV that was an order of magnitude worse than anything that you have discussed here. It was called Game of Death. I believe that it was a one-off, but it was appalling. I think that you will be appalled too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I say, Dennis, I feel sure gladiatorial fights would be a big draw. :-(

      Delete