Doctor Who
- David Tennant to appear in Poliakoff's 1939
- DT planned to leave months ago
- Russell Tovey, currently filming Being Human, talks about returning (and not returning) to DW
Film
- Remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes?
Theatre
- Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart to star in Waiting for Godot
- Matthew Horne and Imelda Staunton to star in Entertaining Mr Sloane
British TV
- Five to air documentary on the Brand/Ross 'incident'…
- …Ross pulls out of the Comedy Awards…
- …and Ponderland gets its best ever ratings
- BSkyB profits up 25%
- Trevor McDonald to step down from News at Ten
- Press pack for Joe Ahearne/Martin Shaw's Apparitions
US TV
- Jesse Alexander and Jeph Loeb fired from Heroes
- Valentine and Easy Money cancelled
- Kath & Kim gets full season…
- …as does Samantha Who?
- 30 Rock gets series-best ratings
- FX developing Staten Island-set police drama
- Jenny McCarthy and Andy Richter to appear in Chuck
Subscribe to the daily news by RSS or email
November 3, 2008 | Reply
[Russell T Davies denies it so it must be true] so the DT announcement wasn't remotely timed to distract people from the Brand / Ross affair.
Not sure whether I should be pleased or not re Valentine, from a GBB point of view. I think on balance it probably is best for Gods if Valentine is not a huge hit, but I do hope it won't make networks jumpy about all Greek Gods In Modern Times based shows.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
Viz the Five prog about the Ross/Brand nonsense, whatever shreds of sympathy I had for Georgia Baillie have disappeared. How convenient that we are going to see the Satanic Sluts in action. Still loads of sympathy for Andrew Sachs though - but bet he's a little bemused by his granddaughter's behaviour!
November 3, 2008 | Reply
I think no matter what Georgia Baillie does, it doesn't matter, otherwise you're descending into "She was asking for it/It doesn't count as much because she's not a 'good' woman" territory, which isn't something that we should be doing. So what if she's in a badly named burlesque troop/into S&M/has a Bagpuss toy/whatever? If someone was knifed and they then went on TV to talk about and promote their business at the same time, would that mean the knifing was more acceptable?
Personally, though, I can't see what the fuss is about. Anyone who does phone pranks is a bit of an arse (yes, even Chris Morris), what Ross and Brand did was probably illegal, and Brand was at least ungentlemanly to gas on like that about what he got up to (allegedly) with GB. But who gives a monkey's really? And to this level of annoyance? I'm more annoyed that Ross hasn't resigned when everyone else has - which speaks of more than a little bit of cowardice on his part.
I'm with Jerry Sadowicz (sp?) on this one: the jokes you don't laugh at are like a tax that pays for the jokes that do make you laugh.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
It's not so much what Georgia Baillie does, its the cynical manipulation of people like Max Clifford who maximise the most out of these situations. I know what you're saying about judging her, but I kind of think if you're prepared to be in a band called the Satanic Sluts,and prepared to sleep with Russell Brand you have to accept you'll come in for some flak when you protest at how terrible it is constantly in the papers. If it's private. Keep it private. We don't all need to know. (And I think Russell Brand has been ungentlemanly in the extreme about this). It just seems to be me she's having her cake and eating it - if her lovely grandfather has been upset by this stupid joke, then surely he's going to be just as upset to see the other things she's been up to spread across the papers. Like the Sadowicz joke. I am mainly baffled that so much has been made of something that till the papers got hold of it no one had even noticed really.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
It's too late to keep it private - Russell Brand took that option away.
Your argument is still a bit buried in patriarchy for my liking (sorry). On the one hand we have GB a 'victim' of MC's manipulations but when she does as she's manipulated, she's no longer a victim and deserving of sympathy. The fact she is overtly sexual for her job and the fact she's had sex with someone who's famous means you can't then complain if you think you've been mistreated and you can't get some kind of recompense by using the same media who are currently trying to expose the rest of your life to the world and judge it.
We're supposed to worry for Andrew Sachs who, rather than getting our sympathy because people leave harrassing prank calls on his answerphone, apparently deserves our sympathy because he found out his granddaughter has sex - surely the days of male ownership of their female relatives' sexuality are over?
As in all things, you don't have to read the papers, but Andrew Sachs did have to listen to his answerphone and GB did get her private life put into the public eye without her consent.
I'm pretty much on GB's side on this one at the moment but Ross and Brand didn't really deserve this and the Radio 2 controller certainly didn't.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
I'm sympathetic to Georgia Baillie as well. No matter what she does, she will always be that girl who has sex with Russell Brand. Having that exposed so publicly was not her choice. She has chosen to take ownership of the situation and make the most of it. Good for her. Was she supposed to slink silently away in shame?
November 3, 2008 | Reply
What Marie said, which I now realise is about 500 times more coherent than what I said.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
Ok, fair enough we're probably not going to agree on this Rob, and maybe I am a bit muddled in my thinking on this. I don't think at all that Andrew Sachs as the elder male has rights to his granddaughter's sexuality or wotsit. OOer. Didn't mean that at all. I agree that GB didn't deserve to have what was essentially a private matter thrust into the glare of the spotlight, and I can see Marie's argument about her taking ownership over it, but I would say Max Clifford is also manipulating the situation (and her). As usual in an argument with controversy in it I am taking a weebly wobbly position and I too probably want my cake and eat it. I was sympathetic to her part in this, but became less so when it seemed to me she was courting more publicity. I remain sympathetic to Andrew Sachs because he didn't deserve any of this for simply not being there to be interviewed. I certainly think the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion.
On the feminist/patriarchal thing and as a completely different aside - when I had stronger feminist leanings then I do now (ie when I was young and idealistic) it seemed to us that a brave new world was dawning where women wouldn't have to sell their sexuality to get on. It depresses me a little bit to discover they still do, even though of course in these post modern times they are taking charge of it themselves. Just feels sometimes we've gone a bit backwards and women are leading the charge.
November 3, 2008 | Reply
Depends what you mean by get on. Most professions, I'd say that nowadays women don't have to sell their sexuality to get on (subject to usual codas about how good-looking people of either gender get discriminated in favour of relative to uglier people, location, class, etc). Media-friendly professions are a different matter.
On the other hand, we're talking a dancer. For the most part, male and female dancers are selling a form of sexuality. It's a bit hard to generalise from dancers to the general population.
There's also a 10,000 word article here on the question of attitudes to public sexuality, the attitudes of feminism towards sexuality in countries with a Protestant tradition vs a Catholic tradition, the attitude towards sexuality of feminism over time, increasing sexualisation of men, and more. But I'm not writing it.