 |
From Kevin Marsh
Ok, "Front Row."
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough !!!!
Nobody loves you … but you CARE !!!!!!!!!
Etc etc.
Provide your own taunt/insult if you will … and you will, surely, after Mark Lawson's rather feeble attempt this week to knock the crown of surreal, absurdist radio from the Today head.
You'll know where it all started. First it was the photo competition that became even more brilliant and successful in its second week - 1.4 million hits which means that either a lot of you got the idea a bit and came to look at the photos or a few of you got the idea a lot and need therapy.
You can still see the competition entries and winner here
Either way, a photo competition on the radio was nothing short of inspired.
But not as inspired as origami on radio.
Now Sarah's already written about this especially about it being the only thing that saved us last week when Mr Lawson - yes him - was rushing out to a matinee, got a Cuban heel caught in the hem of his fake fur coat, fell heavily against the solar panel that provides the studio power and took us off air. He swore it was an accident but I doubt it. The bouffanted boulevardier has managed to keep his footing on the catwalks of Europe for many years now so I don't believe it was beyond him to negotiate the crazy paving around the Today lean-to.
Anyway, common courtesy dictated that we invite him in for a little sit down and a cup of Earl Grey - it was just as well Sarah had nothing to do on account of us not actually broadcasting as such by then and therefore could focus on getting the Today bone china cups out.
The mistake we made was to carry on talking, while he was there, about our plans to do for radio what Dali and Magritte did for canvas, Ionesco did for the theatre and Bunuel and Cocteau did for the cinema. Obviously 'One 91Èȱ¬' means nothing to the aesthetes of Radio Four and Mr Lawson had no sooner picked the glass shards from his pomandered locks than he was earwigging our brainstorm while pretending to be interested only in Sarah's fairy-cake.
So it shouldn't have come as any surprise to hear on this Monday's "Front Row" a long discussion of signing plays - and by "signing plays" I don't mean autographing a script. I mean supplying the hand signs by which those whose hearing isn't A1 can see what's being said on stage. Now, signing is fantastically difficult - though I've only ever seen news bulletins and politicians' speeches signed and they're relatively easy because of the short words and because there's no irony or deceit or intrigue involved. Actually, that last bit isn't true, is it ?
Anyway, signing a play is hard and a skilful craft if not an art in itself and therefore absolutely the right thing to talk about on an arts programme. But on radio ? With examples ? They thought they were being SOOOOO clever.
But that's not all - they also chose to talk about signing Hamlet's "To be, or not to be" speech. What's wrong with that, you might ask. Well only that there's no sign for the verb "to be".
Now let's not be naïve about this - it was not an accident. It was a challenge. A line in the sand. You can see what they were saying: "Think you News Johnnies can play in that ontological space between visual perception and the metaphor that is language ? Well, WE'LL show you what epistemological whimsy can be !".
Ok. Ok. Fine. We'll get them, don't you worry. Not yet, obviously. But just wait… or perhaps… perhaps the total silence of NOT BROADCASTING three days BEFORE "Front Row's" gauntlet flopped to the floor was the last absurdist word in retaliation. Or the first, if you see what I mean. Match THAT Mr Lawson… unless you did in 1999 and we didn't notice.
Listen to this 'Front Row' item again.
Anyway, we stayed on air quite a lot of this week and one of the highlights was Jim's brilliant interview with a gentle sounding, thoughtful but nonetheless ultimately cross John Le Carre. I don't know what had made him cross apart from everything including the world and President Bush and America and war and politics and in the end, presumably, all of us.
Listen again
The other was Sarah's fearless expose of the Advent Calendar scandal and this one I really don't understand. Apparently, people are selling Advent Calendars with chocolates behind windows that are numbered up to 31 - that means the calendars go up to the 31st December or six days after Christmas a.k.a. the end of Advent. Worse, people are buying them.
Listen again
Now, setting aside the obvious difficulty with this which is that Advent is a season of fast and that whether you follow the canon of the Council of Macon or the stricter second Council of Tours, chocolate is NOT on the menu at all (if you doubt me, try this: … there is a slight problem with the non-Advent bit that occupies a week of said calendar's life. Indeed, of all the things they are, Advent Calendars is one thing they are not.
Do I sound cross? I hope not… but as I was just saying to Mr Le Carre...
Kevin
|
|
