6 Reasons Why Masterchef is Good for You

So it's that time of year again. Masterchef: The Professionals is running riot on BBC Two. Although I can hardly allude to Masterchef being annual - it is ALWAYS on, which is great for someone like me, an obsessive-complusive watcher and avid admirer of Michel Roux.

Here are 6 really good reasons as to why Masterchef is good for you.

1. Laughter
We all know that laughter is healthy. It adds on years to our lives if we laugh often enough. And what better way to get some laughs than watch a bunch of professional chefs suck at the thing their supposed to be good at? Yes you may think I'm being rude, callous and harsh even, but there is nothing funnier than a chef believing he's the next Michel Roux and then messing up his souffle. Add into the mix a few of Monica's expressions and you've got yourself a laughter concoction.

2. Michel Roux Jr
Michel Roux is good for the soul. I know I'm slightly biased in my opinion of him (j'adorrrreeee), but his little quips, God-like cooking skills and cheeky little smile will turn anyone's frown upside down.

3. Cooking
I'm a firm believer in the benfits of an understanding of good food (I guess you could call me a 'foodie'). Having a good knowledge of ingredients and processes can only enable you to put good things into your body, and enjoy doing it. What better way to learn about the processes of a kitchen, flavour combinations and the French classics than watching a hearty episode of Masterchef? And you can always laugh if they get it wrong...

4. Drama
One of the things I love about Masterchef is the drama. It's like watcing a crime series - constantly on edge, wondering who's going to get killed next. Okay, a possible exaggeration, but being gripped is definitely good for the heart (I think). And jumping up and down during the elimination is a clear calorie-burner.

5. Critics
Daydreaming is good for you right? Floating off into another world of joy and sunshine can turn a gross day into a fabulous one. My favourite daydream? Being a critic! Their jobs sound FANTASTIC. Their actual skills are eating food and having opinions. I already have those skills! Pick me!

6. Relieves any boredom
Masterchef the Professionals is on 4 days a week. That's 3 and a half hours of watching time. Bored after work one evening and don't fancy doing sociable things? Watch Masterchef! It's like comfort eating without actually eating anything. And if you are cool with lots of things to do all evening, its a great hangover cure and has definite omnibus potential.

So there we have it. The ultimate programme with added health benefits. Do something amazing for yourself this week.... watch Masterchef.

Musings on... The Escape Artist (contains spoilers)

I'm always on the lookout for BBC dramas, and I've usually been very impressed with them (The Fall springs to mind). This one had all the right components on the tin... stunning lead actor (David Tennant - I'm quite a big fan, he was definitely the best Doctor), mystery and suspense, a baddie, blood and guts, and a serious amount of tension. It was written by the guy who wrote Spooks, and as a MASSIVE fan I dutifully tuned in. 

This week was the second episode of the three part drama, and the third airs next Tuesday at 9pm. It follows Will Burton, a hot shot defence lawyer who's never lost a case. Tennant manages to portray a man quietly confident in his ability, but without arrogance - he walks around with just an air of humility. He goes home to his massive London flat with glass everywhere, to his gorgeous wife (Ashley Jensen), who should win wife of the year the amount of time Will has to work - and to his beautiful son. They have an idyllic cottage that they go to on weekends. Basically the perfect life. 

In dramas, all good things come to an end.  In court, Will defends a creepy bird man, Liam Foyle (Toby Kebbell), who was charged with sadistically murdering a young woman. Just FYI, he's a bird man because he has loads of birds in his house, in case you were wondering...Will gets him off, because "everyone deserves a defence". But, our hero does have a moral compass, shown when he refuses to shake Foyles hand on leaving court. 

** Spoiler **

Let's cut to the chase. Creepy Foyle turns up at the cottage while Kate (Will's wife) is alone and in the bath. She's murdered in a brutal way, while the son hides in a box. Will arrives too late and weeps while sat in her blood. Bad times. 

All this happens in the space of about 45 minutes. As a result, I felt so emotionally assaulted I nearly cried. At the time, I felt it was too quick - I wasn't ready for the ensuing trauma. But on watching the second episode, I realised why what felt like the drama 'punch line' of the series was in the first episode. The real strength lies in the aftermath. Will is suddenly and dramatically bereaved, with Tennant's portrayal instantly changing. He's now a desperately sad man, frantically seeking justice for his wife in the only way he knows how - by actually being really good at law and stuff. Except now he's on the prosecution's side, an interesting insight that I feel embellishes Will's new topsy-turvy character. 

Despite the thrills (of which there are many- heart rate was well above average), there are some strange choices made in the script. Like Will's Chambers taking on his wife's case (which surely wouldn't be allowed?) and the worst guy being assigned the job. I imagine if you're a barrister and were watching the court scenes, you'd be laughing at the ineptitude of the lawyers/judges/evidence etc (according to some lawyer writing for the Telegraph). But thankfully, I am not a lawyer, and I don't care about the court scenes. Being ignorant suits me.

What I do care about, however, are the times the drama errs on the side of sensationalism, going for cheap 'horror' shots. Specifically the time in episode two when Will is watching his wedding video. The scene cuts instantly to the forensic photographs of Kate's slit throat and a pool of blood. We get that murder is tragic and sad, as the point was laboriously made in the first episode (and it also being a fact of life) - we don't need it hammering home in such aggressive ways. Also WHAT is with the 'oh yeah and she was pregnant when she was murdered' thing? It's like they're saying a woman being murdered isn't tragic enough on its own. That definitely pushed the wrong kind of buttons for me - but it is possible I am being too sensitive. 

Despite all those things, I will definitely be tuning into the last episode. It's extremely difficult to turn off, the punches are quick and often. The cast are truly carrying the show. Tennant is fab at always, with Toby Keddall (who I've never seen before) almost outshining him. The character is wonderfully terrifying in a subtle kind of way, and Keddall portrays it brilliantly. I must also mention Sophie Okonedo, who is right up there with her portrayal of Will's bitchy but vulnerable intellectual rival. It's almost worth just watching it for these three actors. 

So there's my extremely long (sorry) list of thoughts about The Escape Artist. If you like David Tennant, and aren't clued up on being a barrister, then I duly recommend this to you! 

Musings on... The Great British Bake Off

So. It's Bake Off season again. And thank the lord. The summer of TV hasn't been massively inspiring in all honesty (apart from the documentary 'Crazy About One Direction' - that was classic) so it is with glee, joy, and admittedly some very happy tears, that I welcomed it back to my weekly TV schedule.

Despite Mary and Paul's blossoming on-screen romance, and Sue and Mel's hilarious quips, it is contestants that are the life and soul.

Here is my take on the remaining Bake Off contestants:

1. Beca: The Joker

Welsh people always crack me up (I think it's the accent?), and her I-have-no-idea-what-I'm-doing attitude makes her hilarious to watch. Apparently she has a roast dinner  every day of the week, and has a trifle for pud. Ahhh the Welsh.

2. Christine: The Older Lady/Mary Berry's Double

She's the Older Lady of the competition, wise and measured, with some serious skills in the kitchen. Her twists on the classics are very Berry-esque, and they even look alike. I like to think that they are best friends.

3. Frances: Teacher's Pet/Swot

Every reality series has to have one, and Frances is taking her role very seriously. It appears to be her life mission to be as swotty as possible, with her matchstick breadsticks, Nutcracker inspired petit fours and James and the Giant Peach pie. She has been accused of putting style before substance, so now I don't even crave her bakes, and her cakes do not make me want to gorge. Give me a slice of Glenn's "grotesque" tray bake any day... and don't worry, I didn't punch the air when her biscuit tower collapsed... that's too mean. (Of course I was gleeful. I'm not sorry).

4. Glenn: The Loveable Rogue

My favourite by a million miles. Kinda a bit crap at times (and insists on baking the biggest bakes in the world... although I'm not sure that's a bad thing Paul) but always pulls it off, and does it with the cuuuuutest smile. Team Glenn for life. I just want to hug him. Can I attend the school where he's head of Sixth Form? Pleease?

5. Howard: Geeky man that you can't help feeling sorry for (Brendan take two)

Remember Brendan from last series, who had an obsession with 70s decoration and made that sickly gingerbread house? Howard is Brendan take two. He's quite a geeky guy, and therefore I expect him to do really well. When he does badly, which is quite often, I cringe. Or when he's the victim of baking espionage. And he cries in episode 4.... can't really add much to that.
Best quote: "I'm not a great fan of jelly, it's just not my cup of tea."

6. Kimberley: The Quiet and Smiley One

Positive, enthusiastic, very good at baking, humble and extremely calm. I think that's because of her pyschologist background in my completely amateur and uneducated opinion. She'd be good in a crisis. My advice to the Bake Off contestants is to befriend her, then use her for her calmness and talent (for their own gain, obviously. Maybe steal her custard).

7. Ruby: Eye Candy+Really Clever

Ruby is stunning. I think I probably fancy her. But not only that, she's extremely smart and her honesty is very funny. She seems to have no idea what she's doing most of time, and appears frazzled all the time. It makes me glad not to be on Bake Off, because unlike Ruby, I wouldn't pull it off.
Best quote: "Each time I get good feedback, it just proves to me that I'm not an idiot".

So there's my slightly random take on the remaining members of the Bakers Dozen. A job well done, Love Productions, as per usual.

Musings on... Extreme OCD Camp

I'm always a bit wary when it comes to programming about things like OCD. Of course, challenging stereotypes and driving change is extremely important, but sometimes I fear these programmes do more harm than good. Such an example is 'Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners', shown Channel 4 a few months back.  The premise of the series was to take people 'obsessed with cleaning' and get them to clean a dirty house. What I found difficult about it (as did many commentators) was the fact that the whole programme was based on negative assumptions about OCD. The condition covers a variety of different mental health issues and the assumed connection with cleaning trivialises sufferers, but also does nothing to help the general public's understanding of the condition. Moreover, it parades sufferers in front of millions like a show pony. 

I guess Channel 4 were trying to show OCD as something less sombre, a sort of positive twist on a negative experience. But there are so many dangerous assumptions associated with all kinds of mental health (see BBC Three's It's a Mad World season), and I feel it is far more positive to address these, before we start poking fun at them. 

Extreme OCD Camp is, in my mind, a positive exploration of the condition from my position of someone without OCD, wanting to understand more. It is cautious and humble, with none of the jaunty tone of 'Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners'. The people who take part are teenagers or in their early 20s, their conditions completely different. Jack has a type of contamination OCD, paralysed by the thought of germs and disease. Imogen has a fear of something bad happening to her family, which she controls by tapping things around her and eating certain foods. Josh has symmetry OCD, where his life revolves around doing everything with both his right and left hand, or right and left foot. They went to Seattle, USA for an OCD therapy camp, the idea being to create and trigger exposures, and to fight their want to ritualise their anxiety away. This premise, the aim being to help the sufferers control OCD, means that the programme instantly has a serious focus and an ability to penetrate deeper into the anxiety and pain felt by sufferers, rather than poking fun at their subsequent behaviour.

I think one of the best things about television is its power to communicate different experiences across all the divides and prejudices of the world. From an non-OCD sufferer, I learnt so much about the condition - how a mental condition can become so physical, not just in their ritualising actions, but also the pain etched in their faces. I learnt how debilitating it can be - its not just an obsession with cleanliness or a hatred of germs, it is a deep seated fear of something bad happening as a result of their actions. For people already suffering, it strikes a chord. The young people out on the trip speak of their 'unique connection', something portrayed so well by the programme, and instantly hints at a wide community of sufferers, each with the ability to do something about their condition. You can help but wish them all the luck in the world, and hope that they manage to gain control of their lives. An emotional watch (as you can probably tell) and I wholeheartedly recommend it. 

Musings on... The White Queen

Now, as life has FINALLY slowed down, I can get back to blogging! As a history graduate (eek), this drama is right up my street. The White Queen portrays three of Phillipa Gregory's books, and tell the tale of the Wars of the Roses during the fifteenth century through the lives of three extraordinary women. From my understanding, the books are based as much as possible on the evidence, which is far from complete, and with some embellishment here and there. A 'historical novel' as a concept does confuse me though. I read Hilary Mantel's first book Wolf Hall, about Thomas Cromwell, and honestly couldn't stop the voice in my head screaming "but how does she know they said that?!"

The White Queen centers on Elizabeth Woodville, a widow of a lesser knight, who marries the new King Edward. The story of a commoner rising to royalty is something of a soft spot for us Brits after Prince William's wedding (or maybe that's just me), and is a hint of a brilliant continuity that spans centuries often found in history - something I love about the subject. Within Elizabeth's story is that of Anne Neville, the youngest daughter of the most powerful noble in England, Earl of Warwick - 'the Kingmaker', and Margaret Beaufort, married at 12 and a mother and widowed at 13. These powerful female characters highlight the position of women in the fifteenth century - passed from pillar to post, small pieces in a larger picture. It's almost a dichotomy - powerful women trying to control their own lives and those of the people around them, but always with the overhanging threat (and execution) of patriarchy.  

The main problem with this drama is, however, the level of historical knowledge that is needed in order to understand what is going on. I'm no fifteenth century expert and had to wikipedia most of the families in order to understand the lineages and claims to the throne. Henry Tudor, Margaret Beaufort's son, is destined to be King according to his mother, and it took some research to understand why. This is quite distracting when trying to get into the drama from episode one. This could just be a problem I found, as I have an insatiable need to understand who is who ALL the time. But, there is a new series on BBC 2 that looks at this period of history from the point of view of a documentary, presented by Phillipa Gregory. If you're struggling with who's who, I recommend you watch it. They marry well together and explain some of the more intricate historical details (perhaps why they're on at the same time?)

Moreover, it is striking how much time is skipped over, without much notice. Elizabeth was married to Edward for over six years before the Earl of Warwick swapped sides, but this isn't stressed enough. Whilst the drama doesn't have to depict the 'boring' middle years, it's important to understand exactly how long things took in order to fully appreciate the history. 

From a production point of view, it has pretty much been slated in the press. There are modern drainpipes in shot, zips on costumes and plastic railings on staircases. I confess I didn't notice them, but I was disappointed to read about them. One would hope that an expensive project like this would have covered all bases. 

These mistakes are made up for by sheer captivation. There is so much drama - the fact that it is based on real events over 500 years ago adds to the thrill. The characters are fascinating, portrayed by very talented actors and actresses. Complaints similar to the ones I've highlighted above seemed to have stopped many people enjoying the series, but in my mind, it is important to take historical costume dramas with a pinch of salt. They're bringing alive a time that is poorly documented, and whilst historical novels are a bit too far for the history graduate within me, a historical drama sits perfectly in the middle. 

Elizabeth Woodville (Rebecca Ferguson)

Musings on... The United States of Television: America in Primetime

Firstly, SORRY for being rubbish to all you regular blog readers (not entirely how many regulars there are out there, apart from my Dad. Hi Dad). Dissertation is in and I'm now embarking on the mundane chore of revision, which obviously means the TV has been on non-stop. I've got an interview on Wednesday at the BBC and was looking around for a bit of inspiration when I came across The United States of Television on iPlayer. Being a history student combined with my interest in the power and function of TV, it's not surprising that this little gem got me thinking. 

The episode I watched was 'The Independent Woman'. It recognised the ability of TV not only to reflect society, but to create and drive change, something I've been fascinated with for a while now. The argument is that in America, television played a part in the alteration of the portrayal and role of women in society. The documentary went right back to the 50s, with 'I Love Lucy', a sitcom exploring the idea that women had their own dreams, and that it was okay to pursue them. Also mentioned was 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show', a programme following the life of Mary in her workplace, and 'Roseanne', a show about a women-dominated household where appearance was not the basis of her likability. An interesting point picked up about shows in the 50s and 60s was that on commercial channels like CBS, advertising often became the glass ceiling in female representation at a time when women's liberation was picking up speed. Commercial broadcasters had to be sensitive to the advertisers, and in many cases that meant reigning in the direction of female portrayal. Apparently Americans needed not to be riled up and/or made to think, in case it rendered them unsusceptible to advertising products. I feel that is a slight patronisation, but never mind... 

The programme then moved on to talk about more familiar shows, like 'Sex and the City', 'Desperate Housewives', 'The Good Wife' and 'Grey's Anatomy'. I forget how groundbreaking SATC was - it's such a fixture on all the repeat channels nowadays and I failed to see it as anything more than a funny, slightly raunchy and entertaining programme. The reality is that it is a show about the relationships of four women, and that relationship is paramount. The objectification is turned onto the men, and it is in that respect that it paved another, different way for women's representation. Likewise, Grey's Anatomy portrayed women as cut-throat, competitive and above all, smart. Interestingly, the creator of SATC spoke of how the premise of the show wasn't to make a social statement, but to be funny. It's an example of the ability of TV to reflect the interests and opinions of society, and sharpens the fact that I, as a viewer, I take it for granted than women can, and are being, portrayed in this way. 

The dominant theme throughout is the idea that women began to care less about what others think, and more about being themselves. Desperate Housewives explored the idea of a woman who hated being a mother through the character of Lynette. Rather than the show being about women who tell each other everything (SATC), Desperate Housewives is about women who keep secrets. The idea of a woman hating being a mother is not such a crazy idea in many women's minds. 

And then there's the idea of the stay at home mother. Often these days, women don't respect others that stay at home and devote their lives to their children. Why do that when in the 21st century, we can have it all? Arguably, having it all isn't real anymore, an idea explored at the end of the programme. The challenge now is to recognise the pressure to be the perfect woman as an arbitrary one, one that shouldn't dictate what a woman should do in her life. Isn't feminism all about choice anyway? 

It was a humbling watch, and a reminder of the power of television in shaping, reflecting and spurring change. From a production point of view, the best thing about it was the numerous interviews with cast members, writers and producers of all the shows mentioned. Turned out to be quite an all-star cast, and it's fascinating to hear what they think about the place their programmes have taken in the cultural development of the United States, and in many cases, Britain as well. 

Lucille Ball in 'I Love Lucy'

Musings on... The Great British Sewing Bee

Hello all, sorry for the SERIOUS delay in posting. I blame it on my dissertation (and also some super work experience at a TV production company... so really it's a lack of dissertation...) But I doubt many of you are waiting with baited breath. Here it is anyway. 

So The Great British Sewing Bee is a thing. I saw it advertised and was seriously sceptical. SURELY there can't be another Bake-Off spin-off? What with Paul Hollywood on our screens with his sexy bread programme (if you don't believe the sexy part, watch it... trust me) and Bake Off specials all over the shop, I felt like we had enough wholesome Great British-ness on our screens. 

The premise is the same as Bake Off, except now its 'makes' instead of 'bakes'. The experts are the sewing equivalent of Mary and Paul - Mary Martin,"the best sewing teacher in the world" and Patrick Grant from Savile Row, with Claudia Winkleman in the Mel/Sue role. Not impressed with them so far... these guys just aren't that funny and nothing quite beats Mary's cheeky 'soggy bottom' line. Each week, the contestants (mainly women and gay men - also a token bearded/pierced guy) have to do a series of 'makes'. This week, they had to make an A line skirt from scratch, customise a neckline of a t-shirt and make a day dress, again from scratch. Now this is where the complaining ends. 

It's SO addictive. Ten minutes in I was ashamedly engrossed in the A line skirts (how do they cut in straight lines? Why do sewing machines have pedals? How can they see those tiny tiny stitches? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ZIP IS WRONG?!) and then realised that being ashamed is silly. This show will make sewing cool! Just like Bake Off, everyone will now be setting up a sewing machine and making their own clothes. Perhaps an exaggeration, but sewing is officially cool, thanks to the BBC. 

The equivalent of the Bake Off tent/gazebo thing is an East End sewing workshop, an Aladdin's cave of fabric, ribbon, sewing machines, scissors etc. It's a shabby chic kind of thing... which is SO in at the moment (don't you know) with the added brilliance of a balcony thing round the top, enabling some creative and interesting shots of the sewers down below.

I think what makes this show brilliant is its reality. These people are normal, nervous, and trying to do their best (although beasts on a sewing machine), encouraging the feeling that maybe my future career lies in sewing - if they can do it, I can too! 

But let's be realistic here. I am crap at sewing. But watching others do it gives me a virtual ability to judge (that scalloped edge is RUBBISH) which is infinitely more fun. There's tension, there's tears and there's pressure, and when people are ironing pleats one minute before the end of the challenge, you know it's all going to unravel...