999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 10:24:38 GMT
Friends of mine swear they are not influenced by advertising (i always ask them if they have Heinz, Kellogg’s and other brands at home and if so why?) On a tangent, this is an interesting question. I too feel superficially that I'm largely unaffected by advertising but accept I probably am influenced by it in some ways. To take the Heinz and Kellogs examples, for instance I prefer Wilkins ketchup to Heinz because it tastes nicer and found this out purely by seeing it on the shelf and deciding to give it a try, and I prefer Tesco own honey-nut cornflakes to kellogs for the same reason. The supermarkets I get those from are nearby so I use those. When TV ads come on, I mute them, channel-surf, pick up something to read and wait for the programme to re-start. When scrolling advertising boards started appearing in towns it infuriated me because they're eyesores and make the streets look ugly. I don't recall ever remembering anything on them, just my irritation they're there. I get impatient when reading a magazine and having to flip through full-page ads. Etc etc. All that springs to mind when I think about advertising is impatience and irritation. I can't consciously think of what influence it has on me, but instinctively I feel it must be there somehow. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Jan 8, 2019 12:03:20 GMT
All the protests to the electoral controllers after that, I concluded, were the displeasure of the establishment at being beaten by ordinary folk whom they had ignored for years. That might have been what motivated the protests but the bottom line is that it has been found that they broke electoral law. I enjoyed the film, it was based very heavily on Tim Shipman’s book “All Out War” so not many surprises (it’s a great book, but depressing if you supported Remain, for much the reasons Backdrifter alluded to above). One key point for discussion seems to have been how many people didn’t realise that the opening “inquest” scene was set in the future, in 2020, given that Cummings has so far refused to attend any formal inquiry, including that of the Electoral Commission. I think that’s an interesting point and the film could have better emphasised that this was a wholly speculative event, as it gave the character a story arc leading to regret and frustration which doesn’t exist in real life. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 12:16:25 GMT
One key point for discussion seems to have been how many people didn’t realise that the opening “inquest” scene was set in the future, in 2020, given that Cummings has so far refused to attend any formal inquiry, including that of the Electoral Commission. I think that’s an interesting point and the film could have better emphasised that this was a wholly speculative event. Yes even Carole Cadwalladr has been griping about that scene as though it's a major inaccuracy, when the opening card made clear there is fictionalising and the dialogue in that scene includes the line "...the EU referendum 4 years ago." Graham says he included that scene as a way of conjuring up the idea of Cummings being held to account seeing as he has not so far attended any such formal session - a perfectly reasonable dramatic device in my view. (By the way, in case anyone's worried or irritated by this, mentioning that scene doesn't serve as a spoiler and we haven't referred to anything the Cummings character says during it). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 13:10:05 GMT
Once it's been on TV, I think it's on spoilerphobes to avoid the clearly labelled thread in question. I've not watched it yet, but if I didn't want to be spoiled, then I wouldn't be in here!
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 8, 2019 13:43:00 GMT
I expected watching it to be an exercise in masochism, and it wasn't. It didn't send my blood pressure skyrocketing, but it also didn't tell me anything much I didn't already know.
In terms of the way it set out Cummings's strategy and made the point that advances in technology mean it's game over for old-style campaigning, I thought Graham's script did a very good job. He also found an effective way to communicate that voters who felt left behind by the political classes were encouraged to use the EU as a target for all their frustrations, and he didn't belittle those frustrations, or say they were just about racism. Overall, I thought it was typical James Graham, though: very good at distilling a few key talking-points into effective drama, but surface cleverness is not the same thing as depth. It carefully doesn't touch on the fact that the law was broken, and that's understandable - there's an electoral commission ruling but no convictions, so I imagine Graham and Channel 4 would have found themselves in hot water if they'd started pinning decisions about electoral overspending on named individuals - but it also inevitably means part of the picture is missing. The film as a whole suffers from the fact that what it depicts is too big and too complex for a two-hour television slot, and the four-years-later scene at the end doesn't work at all.
It is brilliantly directed, and Benedict Cumberbatch is superb in it. The characterisations of Banks, Farage, BoJo and Gove were pushed too far towards caricature, I thought - they were made into buffoons, which effectively neutered them and diminished the significant contribution Johnson and Farage's personal charisma made on the Leave side (yes, I just threw up in my mouth a little typing that, but it's true). I did, though, enjoy the (accurate) portrayal of the odious Bernard Jenkin as a glib, pompous arse with the intellect of toast.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 8, 2019 14:28:49 GMT
I thought it was really well done, though could have been stronger if they's resisted the urge to make certain figures cartoonish (Mike Leigh has the same failing - it lulls people into a false sense of security to think their enemies are just cartoons). even Carole Cadwalladr has been griping The Guardian has been laying into this drama for weeks now, in a way that's quite OTT. Amongst her various complaints, Cadwalladr even thinks good/nice/famous actors shouldn't play characters she doesn't like (does she realise Cumberbatch has played Richard III, or remember he played Julian Assange?) and the rest of the staff have been attacking it too - Mangan giving it a ludicrous two stars, whilst online various colleagues (Peter Bradshaw, Nick Cohen and others) have been piling in. I've jus seen the superb Sweat and given the interesting times we're living through I'm surprised by the lack of homegrown political dramas: they flourished in the 80s, but the Guardian's response to this won't be encouraging to less established writers with thinner skins. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 14:59:28 GMT
I did, though, enjoy the (accurate) portrayal of the odious Bernard Jenkin as a glib, pompous arse with the intellect of toast.
That's very harsh on toast. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 15:05:57 GMT
I thought it was really well done, though could have been stronger if they's resisted the urge to make certain figures cartoonish (Mike Leigh has the same failing - it lulls people into a false sense of security to think their enemies are just cartoons). even Carole Cadwalladr has been griping The Guardian has been laying into this drama for weeks now, in a way that's quite OTT. Amongst her various complaints, Cadwalladr even thinks good/nice/famous actors shouldn't play characters she doesn't like (does she realise Cumberbatch has played Richard III, or remember he played Julian Assange?) and the rest of the staff have been attacking it too - Mangan giving it a ludicrous two stars, whilst online various colleagues (Peter Bradshaw, Nick Cohen and others) have been piling in. I've jus seen the superb Sweat and given the interesting times we're living through I'm surprised by the lack of homegrown political dramas: they flourished in the 80s, but the Guardian's response to this won't be encouraging to less established writers with thinner skins. I despair of most mainstream media these days. I've wanted to avoid saying that as it sounds like a tired formulaic thing to say but I now find I can't hold back. BBC News in particular seems to have had a case of the evaporating backbone, certainly regarding elements of brexit and associated matters. Re Cadwalladr, I think she's done some sterling journalism in relation to this but is now so invested in it it's as though she feels she owns the entire history of this situation and all its developments, and must therefore pick apart anything that deviates from that ownership. Yes some of the key figures were shallow caricatures which maybe should've been curbed, but then the focus was on Cummings and his view of those around him, and I think those portrayals reflected this. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 8, 2019 15:32:33 GMT
I think those portrayals reflected this. Good point - though more generally I think the way Johnson and the media have in effect collaborated in creating the cuddly 'Bojo' character and are now doing the same with Rees-Mogg is toxic. I loathe them, but I don't think they're thick. |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 16:03:29 GMT
I think those portrayals reflected this. Good point - though more generally I think the way Johnson and the media have in effect collaborated in creating the cuddly 'Bojo' character and are now doing the same with Rees-Mogg is toxic. I loathe them, but I don't think they're thick. Every time I hear anyone routinely refer to BJ as 'Boris' it makes my skin crawl, even more so when it's media professionals - see previous points about creeping media craposity. I get those 'reality turned inside out' moments when I hear people go on about sticking it to the elite and then in the next breath eulogise BJ and JRM as being the only ones who can save us. Those two are like different bulbous shoes attached to the same evil soulless clown. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 8, 2019 16:58:42 GMT
Mangan giving it a ludicrous two stars Shenton's just tweeted that the Guardian TV critic Lucy Mangan's husband was on the board of Vote Leave. Maybe she should have mentioned that. Or the paper got someone impartial to review it. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 8, 2019 18:29:23 GMT
Friends of mine swear they are not influenced by advertising (i always ask them if they have Heinz, Kellogg’s and other brands at home and if so why?) On a tangent, this is an interesting question. I too feel superficially that I'm largely unaffected by advertising but accept I probably am influenced by it in some ways. To take the Heinz and Kellogs examples, for instance I prefer Wilkins ketchup to Heinz because it tastes nicer and found this out purely by seeing it on the shelf and deciding to give it a try, and I prefer Tesco own honey-nut cornflakes to kellogs for the same reason. The supermarkets I get those from are nearby so I use those. When TV ads come on, I mute them, channel-surf, pick up something to read and wait for the programme to re-start. When scrolling advertising boards started appearing in towns it infuriated me because they're eyesores and make the streets look ugly. I don't recall ever remembering anything on them, just my irritation they're there. I get impatient when reading a magazine and having to flip through full-page ads. Etc etc. All that springs to mind when I think about advertising is impatience and irritation. I can't consciously think of what influence it has on me, but instinctively I feel it must be there somehow. |
|
754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on Jan 8, 2019 18:36:09 GMT
Sorry, incompetent use of quotes button! I agree Backdrifter, we all like to think advertising has no effect on us....and it irritates me no end to think it might....sometimes I think it is quite sublimable....for example when I am looking at car insurance I perhaps feel happier picking a company where I know the name?
Interesting work was done in the USA on Facebook data a couple of elections ago...apparently you can measure the uplift in the % of people voting in an election if Facebook reminds them to vote. If Facebook tells them a friend has voted this had a greater effect. This work has been done (a few years ago) with huge amounts of data...so I suspect even recognising a brand name makes us more likely to buy it (unless we actively hate the brand!)
|
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Jan 8, 2019 20:21:26 GMT
This was a cracker. Never seen a film so depressing and entertaining in equal measures. And weirdly for a drama with 800 commercial breaks it felt far too short. Would have worked better as a mini-series, perhaps.
Re: Cadwalladr, I admire her dedication and hard work hugely, but it's like she thinks she owns Brexit and no one else is allowed a voice. She made quite clear that she believes Brexit should be verboten as subject matter for drama until a hypothetical future when all the facts are known and any future legal actions completed, which is ridiculous. How can one claim to be unbiased about a drama when one's stated position is "Get Your Mits Off"?
She had to delete and apologise for one tweet that used abusive language towards James Graham already, and was exposed on Twitter for telling a minor untruth in one of her many tweets debunking the film scene by scene. If you're publicly setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of The Truth you have to keep your own behaviour impeccable.
I wish Uncivil War had focused on the unreliability and biases of the press more. I suppose Ink covered that material. The Times had a real witchhunt going a few weeks back with weird madeup articles about (apparently fictitious) feuds with Cumberbatch and Hare making unprovoked (also apparently fictitious) attacks. Now the Guardian. Gosh it's almost like the press have their own agenda!
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Jan 8, 2019 20:37:17 GMT
She made quite clear that she believes Brexit should be verboten as subject matter for drama until a hypothetical future when all the facts are known and any future legal actions completed, which is ridiculous. It is - and while I think she's done a massive amount of truly admirable work over the past couple of years, I also find her a problematic figure for all the reasons you list - but she's correct in her observation that it's a problem that the film gives the impression that the campaign was merely unethical rather than actually criminal. It's not unreasonable to argue in response that legal processes are still ongoing and until people are actually convicted attributing criminal acts to specific individuals could well have got James Graham and Channel 4 into trouble, but it's certainly an issue that the film (necessarily) simplifies a very complex story in order to a) avoid a legal minefield and b) fit into a two-hour slot. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 8, 2019 21:52:05 GMT
When “Aaron Banks” made his first appearance I thought they’d drafted Robbie Williams in.
Highly entertaining. It wasntt supposed to be taken seriously though was it?
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Jan 8, 2019 22:51:51 GMT
Having just caught up with it tonight, overall a very entertaining drama which I thought was well written and acted (BC really was excellent here) even if some of the characters involved as others have said did appear a little cartoonish at times. It really gave me something to think about, especially during the board room scene and the battle between Cummings and the MPs with their contrasting views on their approaches to getting the message across to the voters (traditional election tactics vs use of social media).
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 8, 2019 23:18:19 GMT
weirdly for a drama with 800 commercial breaks it felt far too short. I watched it on the All4 player last night and it had no adverts at all. Then a friend watched it today and said he had to plough through loads. |
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jan 9, 2019 1:52:23 GMT
Thought it was decidedly average but can't blame Graham for taking that TV money. Don't think it was a good subject for a drama, certainly not yet. It was very much a dramatist's version of events with the the elevation of the eccentric Cummings to lead character in what was surely a distorted portrayal of the power matrix. I didn't feel like it showed any real insight into the workings of things when it was so obviously 'TV-a-fied' with Banks and Farage as buffoons rather than real players and Cummings' eureka moments, so never felt it was evoking what really happened behind closed doors. And I don't think people who have followed it in any detail learnt anything new.
It was very strange that the drama portrayed it as though in the final couple of weeks before the vote, Leave was on top and becoming expected to win. Remain was a clear betting favourite the whole time until the votes started being counted.
It would have been great for the Remain campaign for Leave to have seen to be ahead in terms of motivating lazy young voters to turn out and dissuading people from voting Leave as a general protest vote. As it was whilst the Remain campaign was complacent it is hard to see what they could have done when their sensible warnings were not cutting through, being sliced down as 'Project Fear'. Lots of young pro-EU people were also complacent and didn't vote but after two referenda where the status quo was upheld with AV and Scotland, the consensus was we'd see the same again. And while Leave could make wild unfulfilled promises, Remain could hardly do the same when we were already In, it was a known known. Was surprised not to hear the political maxim 'When you're explaining, you're losing" when Remain tried to rebut arguments about Turkey etc.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jan 9, 2019 11:15:19 GMT
the drama portrayed it as though in the final couple of weeks before the vote, Leave was on top and becoming expected to win. Remain was a clear betting favourite I think they portrayed it as undisclosed polling, didn't they? The Remain strategist fretting because their private polling was suggesting a Leave lead. I actually think the Leave vote would have been bigger had Jo Cox not been murdered, which must have put a lot of Lexiters off voting (I've heard some saying so, but the drama didn't really touch on that). |
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Jan 9, 2019 11:20:14 GMT
I actually think the Leave vote would have been bigger had Jo Cox not been murdered, which must have put a lot of Lexiters off voting (I've heard some saying so, but the drama didn't really touch on that). I'm glad though that they made a point of including Cummings's reaction to Farage's "without a single bullet being fired" remark. My opinion of NF was never high, but that self-satisfied grinning comment permanently condemned him in my eyes and, I think, showed his true measure in its full vileness. |
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jan 9, 2019 16:50:10 GMT
I though this was an excellent drama. Interesting what was included and what wasn’t, had to happen otherwise it would be Wagnerian.
I really must make an effort to see one of his plays
|
|
3,321 posts
|
Post by david on Jan 20, 2019 11:25:49 GMT
If anyone is interested, Alan Yentob interviews James Graham. BBC 1 @10.45pm Monday 21st Jan.
|
|
