We've All Got Exactly The Same Quiff, And It's Ludicrous.
There are only three episodes of 10 O'Clock Live left! I'm going to miss it when it finishes, even though it doesn't have nearly enough interaction between the presenters. It was very wobbly indeed when it started out, but I think it's really found its feet, and the past few episodes have been great.
The problem with 10 O'Clock Live is that it shouldn't be live. In theory, it means the presenters can react on-air to any major events that might occur, but on the occasion on which that did happen - the passing of the Libyan no-fly zone resolution - they couldn't really react, in part because it was live and therefore they didn't have time to gather proper information and in part because the presenters are given so little time to discuss things unscripted.
The reason the presenters don't have time for discussion is because Channel 4 want to limit the risk of something going wrong on live television as far as possible; they can't put themselves in the position of not knowing what their presenters are going to be doing, and they can't risk dead air, so the vast majority of 10 O'Clock Live consists of the presenters performing pre-written pieces. This is a waste of liveness, Channel 4! Either make more room for spontaneous discussion or turn the programme into 10 O'Clock Prerecorded, in which you can keep the things that work, edit out the things that don't and allow debates/fabulous shouting matches to run their course, rather than cutting them short before we get to see whether John Prescott (who has never looked better than he did on Thursday night) is going to punch that arsehole from News of the World.
(THAT ARSEHOLE FROM NEWS OF THE WORLD. 'On Tuesday [Sienna Miller]'s prancing around in front of a camera; why on Wednesday should she complain about it because she happens to get caught by a pap who's maybe listened in to her messages to see where she's gonna go?' THIS IS A VERBATIM QUOTE. If you're happy being in front of a camera on your own terms, what right do you have to complain when people listen in on your private conversations? I MEAN, THAT'S JUST UNREASONABLE. 'Privacy's a place where bad people do bad things.' Saying that hacking celebrities' answering machines is just equivalent to listening to your boyfriend's messages to find out what he's been up to, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S ENTIRELY MORALLY SOUND. It was great to see Prescott, with the entire audience behind him, bearing down on News of the World Arsehole like a great big wave of righteousness.)
The other reason 10 O'Clock Live shouldn't be live: sometimes they'll get a very enthusiastic audience, which is unbearable because Brooker and Mitchell have no idea what to do when they're applauded in the middle of a piece. They just sit there, looking uncomfortable. IT'S LIVE, AUDIENCE; APPLAUDING SLOWS EVERYTHING DOWN. Although the presenters do seem to have become a bit better at handling unwanted applause in recent weeks.
(Another annoying thing about the audience: they don't laugh at funny things Lauren Laverne says, and then they crack up when Brooker rephrases them to clarify. I SEE YOU, AUDIENCE, REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FEMALE PRESENTER CAN BE FUNNY. Part of 10 O'Clock Live's improvement can be attributed to the fact that she's now being allowed to do actual humorous segments, whereas before there was a sense of 'oh noooo, we can't give her jokes', presumably because the same material would be much better received delivered by another of the presenters because the audience are sexist idiots.)
Also, although this is just a personal reason, I find live television really uncomfortable to watch because of the constant threat that the presenters might seriously cock things up. This is a potential that might amuse me in other programmes, but when I like the presenters I just get very embarrassed on their behalf.
Although it does mean that Charlie Brooker occasionally interrupts political discussion to point out that a fly has just landed on his nose, which is rather delightful.
For those who don't watch 10 O'Clock Live, have a performance from a 1976 episode of Top of the Pops. It's pretty incredible. (On Mother's Day, my mum decided to have a 1970s-themed evening and we watched the entire episode containing the linked performance. I enjoyed the fact that, during another performance, the entire audience were standing completely still except for one girl dancing away in the background. Oh, seventies television.)
Finally, in news irrelevant to everyone but me, my tongue feels as if a family of Borrowers are trying to convert it into a bungalow. Ow ow ow ow ow.
The problem with 10 O'Clock Live is that it shouldn't be live. In theory, it means the presenters can react on-air to any major events that might occur, but on the occasion on which that did happen - the passing of the Libyan no-fly zone resolution - they couldn't really react, in part because it was live and therefore they didn't have time to gather proper information and in part because the presenters are given so little time to discuss things unscripted.
The reason the presenters don't have time for discussion is because Channel 4 want to limit the risk of something going wrong on live television as far as possible; they can't put themselves in the position of not knowing what their presenters are going to be doing, and they can't risk dead air, so the vast majority of 10 O'Clock Live consists of the presenters performing pre-written pieces. This is a waste of liveness, Channel 4! Either make more room for spontaneous discussion or turn the programme into 10 O'Clock Prerecorded, in which you can keep the things that work, edit out the things that don't and allow debates/fabulous shouting matches to run their course, rather than cutting them short before we get to see whether John Prescott (who has never looked better than he did on Thursday night) is going to punch that arsehole from News of the World.
(THAT ARSEHOLE FROM NEWS OF THE WORLD. 'On Tuesday [Sienna Miller]'s prancing around in front of a camera; why on Wednesday should she complain about it because she happens to get caught by a pap who's maybe listened in to her messages to see where she's gonna go?' THIS IS A VERBATIM QUOTE. If you're happy being in front of a camera on your own terms, what right do you have to complain when people listen in on your private conversations? I MEAN, THAT'S JUST UNREASONABLE. 'Privacy's a place where bad people do bad things.' Saying that hacking celebrities' answering machines is just equivalent to listening to your boyfriend's messages to find out what he's been up to, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S ENTIRELY MORALLY SOUND. It was great to see Prescott, with the entire audience behind him, bearing down on News of the World Arsehole like a great big wave of righteousness.)
The other reason 10 O'Clock Live shouldn't be live: sometimes they'll get a very enthusiastic audience, which is unbearable because Brooker and Mitchell have no idea what to do when they're applauded in the middle of a piece. They just sit there, looking uncomfortable. IT'S LIVE, AUDIENCE; APPLAUDING SLOWS EVERYTHING DOWN. Although the presenters do seem to have become a bit better at handling unwanted applause in recent weeks.
(Another annoying thing about the audience: they don't laugh at funny things Lauren Laverne says, and then they crack up when Brooker rephrases them to clarify. I SEE YOU, AUDIENCE, REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FEMALE PRESENTER CAN BE FUNNY. Part of 10 O'Clock Live's improvement can be attributed to the fact that she's now being allowed to do actual humorous segments, whereas before there was a sense of 'oh noooo, we can't give her jokes', presumably because the same material would be much better received delivered by another of the presenters because the audience are sexist idiots.)
Also, although this is just a personal reason, I find live television really uncomfortable to watch because of the constant threat that the presenters might seriously cock things up. This is a potential that might amuse me in other programmes, but when I like the presenters I just get very embarrassed on their behalf.
Although it does mean that Charlie Brooker occasionally interrupts political discussion to point out that a fly has just landed on his nose, which is rather delightful.
For those who don't watch 10 O'Clock Live, have a performance from a 1976 episode of Top of the Pops. It's pretty incredible. (On Mother's Day, my mum decided to have a 1970s-themed evening and we watched the entire episode containing the linked performance. I enjoyed the fact that, during another performance, the entire audience were standing completely still except for one girl dancing away in the background. Oh, seventies television.)
Finally, in news irrelevant to everyone but me, my tongue feels as if a family of Borrowers are trying to convert it into a bungalow. Ow ow ow ow ow.