The Art of Colour: Georgia O’Keeffe

A year in art, music, cinema and literature features and there have been some fascinating, thought-provoking pieces on everything from banned books to cinema in Berlin. For your reading pleasure, we’ve rounded up the best of best; a look back over Culturelle in 2011…

Brits and the Boards: Women in UK Theatre

Alice Stride edits a go-to guide to the brightest and most brilliant women working in British theatre today: an inspiring must-read for any budding theatre-luvvies out there.

The Enigmatic Artists

Plum Woodard takes a look at five of music’s most enigmatic female artists, from rock and pop, soul to blues – and from ceaselessly out there to near on unknown…

The Art of Colour

In considering the works of celebrated artists, the exploration of the expressive use of colour can unveil ardent sensitivity and insight into some of the great masters in history and how they inspire us, even today. Kaiti Vartholomaios looks at the art of colour.

Ten of the Best… Historical Novels

As a fun and engaging way to learn about the past, historical novels offer more than your average ‘airport’ read. Viola Levy noses through ten of the best.

Street Art Now

Spray cans at the ready; SJP takes a look at the progression of street art, key artists and where you can see the best tags, bombs and burners…

Banned Books: The Novels You Weren’t Supposed to Read

Banned by governments, Brogan Driscoll presents an edit of some of the most famous outlawed titles – and a few that might surprise you.

Brushstrokes and Bitch Fits: Women who Changed Art

It’s certainly not that female artists don’t exist – it’s simply that they’re not given the wall space that their male counterparts are. Sandra Smiley considers ten key female figures from the art world…

Magathèque: Volume 20

It’s your final Magathèque and the best ever yet! To conclude two years of short film exploration,  Pippa Rimmer reminds you of some of the best shorts we’ve profiled…

On Location: Greece

It’s been a long time since Greece was one of the globe’s greatest exporters of culture, but that hasn’t stopped international production companies from turning its landscapes into cinematic starlets…Kaiti Vartholomaios explores the Greek cinematic landscape past and present.

Upper Class Reads

The fictional – and not so fictional – adventures of the rich and fabulous have fascinated readers for centuries, and it is hardly surprising, thinks Katie Byrne.

Running in Heels: Jasmine Cullingford – Artistic Director

Alice Revel  takes a peek behind the curtains and meets the lady who makes the on-stage magic happen at one of the UK’s most inspiring, eclectic arts venues.

Meet Diana Athill 

Speaking to Harri Sutherland-Kay , the legendary, award-winning British writer and editor adresses the important themes of writing, political activism, feminism, education, religion and the afterlife.

The Ex Factor Playlist

SJP presents your essential guide to the best break-up tracks of all time. Grab a bar of chocolate, arm yourself with tissues and press play to listen to the Ex Factor…

Work by artist Yolanda Dominguez

A Space to Write

Monique Rubinslooks at how a woman needs time, a means to live and her own space if she is to find form for the muddled – but wonderful – ideas that for too long have been buried somewhere at the back of her brain.

Blogging in Heels: Katy Evans-Bush – Baroque in Hackney

Alice Revel quizzes fascinating books and culture blogger Katy Evans-Bush about her sharp, witty musings on literature and London.

Bitches of the Big Screen

Audiences love them, actresses love playing them, the only question is why don’t we see more of them?! Victoria Todd give you our best Bitches of the Big Screen.

Meet Yolanda Domínguez

Jem McCarron meets the young Spanish artist, whose ground-breaking work investigates and challenges our gender conceptions through new, innovative art forms.

Cinematic Cities: Berlin

Continuing your cinematic journey of Europe, Francesca Robson takes you to a city which has inspired some of the most dedicated depictions on celluloid: Berlin

Beach Reads: The Guilty Pleasures

Unfold your towel, settle into the sunshine and enjoy the dog-eared pages. Alexia Healy chooses some of the best literary junk food for snacking pleasure!

Meet Rose Balston

Fran Harris talks classical treasures, architectural anecdotes and bringing London’s artistic heritage to life with the young, passionate founder of Art History UK.

Five of our Favourites… Northern Soul

Not so familiar with the genre? Plum Woodard takes a look five of top Northern soul tracks that are bound to get you spinning on your heels in no time…

The Magic of Writing: Patricia Duncker

Literary doyenne and idea aficionado Patricia Duncker speaks to Deirdra Eden Keane about love, suicide cults, literature festivals and everything in between…

One of our five Northern Soul picks, Dobie Gray’s Out On The Floor

Is this how we watch television today?

Ask anyone what they think of television, and you’re likely to hear something along the lines of ‘rubbish’ ‘trash’ or simply ‘There’s nothing on!’. But is it actually true that broadcasters are failing to provide interesting content, or is that just something people say?

According to the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB) in November, the average TV viewing time per person in the UK was more than 29 hours, and television reached 95% of the UK population. Indeed, 44% of people say that watching TV is their main leisure activity. All these people must surely be able to find something to watch?

Over the past few years, the way in which people watch television has changed dramatically; not so long ago, there were only had five UK terrestrial channels. Today there are hundreds, and audiences are turning to them more and more. But does this mean that TV has got better?

Since the ‘90s, viewers have steadily moved away from the original five channels and found programmes that interest them elsewhere. This has fragmented audiences, with the effect of lowering ratings on each individual channel. But more choice means more competition and more chance of finding something that interests you – and this has no doubt improved the TV experience.

In the so-called good old days, if you wanted to watch a particular programme, you had to sit down when it was on and watch it. You couldn’t fast-forward through adverts, pause live TV or watch it on your laptop later. Yes, recording was an option, but it involved faffing around with menus and codes and video tapes and rewinding – in other words – a pain.

Today 10 million British homes have Sky TV, and by the time the digital switchover comes around next year, over 90% of the UK will have Freeview coverage, and with it a choice of up to 50 channels. These services mean you can record two programmes at once at the touch of a button, watch them whenever you like and fast forward through the ads. You can now pause live TV, or catch up with on-demand services like iPlayer or 4OD.

Programme “air time” is effectively in the viewer’s control, but it’s up to the viewer to make the most of this power. In many ways, there has never been a more exciting time to be watching TV, because you can vote with your remote and decide in advance what’s worth watching and when you want to watch it.

In this world, the importance of TV guides and reviews is ever greater as the audience become involved in actively choosing what they want to watch. Which is a good thing – at the end of the day, you don’t walk into a bookshop, pick up any book and expect it will be one that interests you. You spend time finding one you like. Why shouldn’t it be the same with TV?

But if checking what’s on TV and then recording it implies a more active and selective form of viewing – broadcasters need to be thinking outside the box to boost their ratings. For example, the nine to ten o’clock slot is often seen as the prime time hour, coming as it does just after the watershed. All channels compete for audiences in this one window, saving their best content for it. But with more and more people pre-recording programmes to watch them when they want, this prime time slot is becoming less significant. This is especially true when recording is limited to two programmes. If yours is the third that misses out because it clashed with two other shows that interested the viewer, then you are losing out on viewers.

If the audience is more actively finding the programmes they want to watch, not just slumping in front of the TV and hoping something is on, there is far more pressure on broadcasters to produce and commission great TV that people will choose to engage in.

On the other hand, if more people are recording, fewer are watching adverts, so broadcasters will have to do more to reach their audiences and promote upcoming shows. They may well soon be sending out email newsletters tailored to the specific interests of each viewer thus targeting individuals’ preferences, or making it possible to record a show the moment you see the advert for it.

Television is certainly as popular as ever, but the perception that it remains a medium that caters for the lowest common denominator belies the many great programmes that are available. But television remains a medium that people are connected to and that, moreover, connects with people. But crucially, if broadcasters want to keep up with this increasingly sophisticated and demanding audience, they are going to have to produce more engaging and entertaining television – or risk being switched off.

If broadcasters want to keep up with today's audience, they must produce more engaging television – or risk being switched off...

Bugs and Daffy: the Looney Tunes

The internet is swarming with lists of the top ten sexiest cartoons that cater to men’s fantasies.  But what about us? Is there simply not enough animated eye candy for us girls to swoon over? My research has told me that this is indeed not the case; most women have had a crush on a cartoon at one point or another. As a result, here is a compilation to reflect women’s archetypal taste.

1. Looney Tunes

Bugs Bunny versus Daffy Duck: this comic duo, often best friends, often worst enemies, have been at it since Warner Brothers put pencil to paper and created ‘screwball’ characters. Both are voiced by Mel Blanc, who holds, amongst others, the record for the original characterization of Daffy Duck for over 52 years as the longest time any animated character has been performed by his or her original voice contributor. Bugs’ nonchalant attitude and ability to keep cool under any situation perfectly contrasts Daffy’s uptight sarcasm, making both attractive in opposite ways. Of course, something would have to be done about Daffy’s spitting, but don’t you just want to loosen him up? (Note: Tweety’s large head has also been commented on favorably.*ahem*)

2. Disney - The Good

On the one hand you have wealthy princes such as the Beast with his hidden kindness and a stunning transformation, and Prince Eric, who is all kinds of handsome. On the other, you have rags-to-riches triumphs such as those accomplished by Robin Hood, a foxy hero with dashing courage and deep-rooted morals, and Aladdin, who is ambitious and generous. It’s no surprise women are attracted to charitable men. After all, altruism is sexy.

3. Disney - The Bad

Captain Hook, Hades, Jafar; These men plot the downfall of their opponents whilst sporting heavy eyeliner. They are the poster-boys for the wild, underground glamour that sparks attraction to even in the best of us. No one can argue against the powerful allure of crossing over to the dark side. (Also, there must be something about pirates-numerous women have indicated a desire to be lost at sea with Captain Haddock)

4. Disney - The Not-So-Ugly, aka The Side-Kicks

Often overlooked, some of the sidekicks possess deeply attractive qualities. The Mad Hatter, for instance, knows how to throw a good party and has a flamboyant dress sense, reminiscent of Oscar Wilde. The Genie can make all of your dreams come true. Lumiere is a charismatic hottie. And Thomas from Pocahontas? He is endearingly idealistic. Voiced by Christian Bale, it’s no wonder we’re inexplicably drawn to him.

5. Outcasts

Though Wolverine and Spiderman come from entirely different backgrounds (the first comes from an affluent family and has a strong military education, whilst the latter is a geeky school boy), both became superheroes against their will. Wolverine was shunned by society once his secret was out, and Spiderman was bullied as Peter Parker. However once these two gained control over their powers, they became forces to be reckoned with. The fact that both of these guys were outcasts at one point triggers compassion that turns into lust upon the realization of the strength and power they posses.

Thundercats: the power of Panthro!

6. Cats

Outside the cast of the Lion King, cats have historically been associated with raw sexuality. The perfect example of this in animation is the ThunderCats – Lion-O, Tygra, Panthro; they each possess an animal magnetism that is difficult to ignore. The Puss in Boots in Shrek 2 has both flair and Antonio Banderas’ sexy Spanish accent. The Pink Panther is smooth, like chocolate, soulful, and rumoured to be black. It also doesn’t hurt that he is an icon for Breast Cancer charities the world over. Fritz the Cat is a smutty shagadelic rascal who will do things the other cats won’t do. And despite the fact that Garfield is not conventionally attractive, most of the time he will leave you alone unless you’re eating – great news for anyone on a diet! Ah, and he does make us laugh.

7. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Four mutant turtles who employ martial arts to fight crime whilst living underground. Back in the 80s, we all had a turtle we adored. As the song goes, Leonardo is the leader and his right hand Donatello is the engineer of the group. Raphael is ‘cool but rude’, loosely translated as BAD. ASS. And Michelangelo knows how to have a good time. There’s someone here for everyone. And let’s not forget fellow vigilante Casey Jones. No wonder it was such a popular show. April was one lucky girl.

8. Athletic Jocks (pseudo or otherwise)

Where would the cartoon world be without its body builders? Why we like these boys is fairly obvious. They have brawns. Whether it is Johnny Bravo, He-Man, Pop-eye, Sport Billy, Ryu from Street Fighter, or Kronk from the Emperor’s New Groove, if we were ever in trouble, these would be the guys we’d call on. Brains have very little to do with it.

9. Ladies’ Men

Candy Candy was a Japanese import that blossomed in Europe in the mid-1980s. Candy’s love interest was Terry. Jem and the Holograms was another show that flourished during the same period featuring a punk rocker and her band. Jem’s love interest was Rio. In these cases, both Terry and Rio were the protagonists’ love interests, however, what made them interesting is that both played supporting roles rather than main characters, and neither of them were able to decide which girl they wanted. Terry never ended up with Candy, and Rio is always torn between his feelings for Jerrica and Jem (who is Jerrica’s alter ego) as well as Pizzazz occasionally, lead singer of The Misfits and Jem’s rival. It is quite possible that these two hunks represent unrequited and/or confused crushes and the places they have in our hearts.

10. The Smurfs

What can anyone say about The Smurfs? A Belgian export, they are small, they are blue, and there are thousands of them. A series referred to as ‘kiddie cocaine’ in the 1980s, I, personally, never really understood the appeal. Was it the Smurfs themselves that were considered attractive? Or…. could it have been that we wanted what Smurfette had: the pick of the litter? In any case, women have referred to their appreciation of the little critters repeatedly, bringing them in at number 10.

A selection of Disney hunks including Prince Phillip, Aladdin, John Smith, Eric, Hercules, Tarzan, Milo, David and Prince Naveen

Karl Lagerfeld as imagined by Disney

Once the reserve of children under the age of 12, the proliferation of cartoons since the early 1980s is proof of the enduring mass appeal it has to people of all ages. The bright colors, the funny voices, the strange proportions and zany plots-these characteristics serve to tickle the imaginations of young minds. But what about those of us that are well past those years of innocence? ‘We are too old for cartoons’ is the common mantra regurgitated, and yet so many adults go out of their way to watch the new Pixar film or the latest season of Family Guy. Let’s not forget the resurgence of comic book heroes such as Captain America and the Green Lantern. So what is the appeal?

We certainly don’t doubt that there is an appeal – the cultural impact of cartoons is indisputable. Consider Disney, the behemoth veteran of the cartoon world. Disney has become synonymous with major labels, no longer a passing fad. Season upon season, it inspires trend after trend after trend. This year alone has seen Tom Binns’ creations for Disney Couture inspired by the latest release of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, the rebirth of Bambi by JC de Castelbajac, and a Venomous Villains Collection for Fall 2010 by MAC starring the dark glamour of some of Disney’s most vicious witches and dastardly fiends. Back in April, Elle Spain also did an adorable series of major fashion designers such as Karl Lagerfield, Marc Jacobs, and Donatella Versace as their Disney alter egos.

For Disney’s up-and-coming semi-animated film Tron: The Legacy, the brand has teamed up with various designers to create a luxury shoe and accessory range. And it doesn’t stop there. The film will feature music by awesome electronic duo Daft Punk. This comes as no surprise given the music industry’s enthusiasm for all things Walt. Ever since Louis Prima choreographed the soundtrack of The Jungle Book to the image of a singing, swinging orangutan back in 1967, Disney has received major contributions from artists such as Celine Dion (Beauty and the Beast), Christina Aguilera (Mulan), and Phil Collins (Tarzan). Disney music has been awarded left, right and centre, from Elton John and Tim Rice’s outstanding Lion King soundtrack to Michael Giacchino’s award-winning music that had audiences fighting back tears in Up, a movie with very ‘grown-up’ themes. Even on the alternative front, indie artists such as Nick Bertke who revived ‘Alice’ as well as ‘Toyz Noize’, continues to stylize his music to the sounds of animated film. For his latest track, ‘Wishery’, he uses clips and sound bites from Disney’s very first classic, Snow White.

And that’s just Disney (for more of the latest collaborations, follow this link).

This autumn, Lacoste collaborated with Peanuts on the comic’s 60th anniversary. Stylecaster did a rundown of popular Saturday morning cartoons with their fashion counterparts including cult classics such as Carmen Sandiago, Gumby, and Fred Flintsone. No longer are retro t-shirts one-off fashion statements – they are staples. To cater for this consumption, companies like 80s Tees offer prints with Rainbow Brite and Care Bears (to name a few) to the masses. Sanrio’s Hello Kitty franchise has inspired naughty innovations. The list is endless, and frankly, daunting.

It is clear that cartoons have permanently permeated our lives from all angles. What is not clear is why. I have been churning this question in my mind for months now, and based on my research, I have managed to narrow it down to four major themes that seem to provide the most accurate explanation.

Laughing out Loud: Humour in Cartoons

The humour you can get away with in film pales when compared with animated imagery. For starters, violence in cartoons (excluding anime, a spherically intense genre, as well as certain comics) is pretty funny. Killing Kenny from South Park every episode is a signature of the show, and audiences come to expect the variety and absurdity of new ways he could die. Contrarily, having a real-life TV show where the same child dies each time would be abusive and disturbing to say the least! The same goes with Wyle Coyote and any Looney Tunes character who has ever been hit on the face with a frying pan. If there was a similar show with animals being beaten or blown up, you could be sure that there would be an outcry from both audiences and animal welfare groups alike.

South Park's Kenny dies. Yet again.

Then, there is plain old-fashioned wit. True, wit can be funny whether in cartoon form or not. However, when a film that is geared towards the young employs clever one-liners, it is funny not only because of the sentence itself, but also because it makes us feel smarter for understanding it. This is actually one of the biggest reasons why films like Toy Story and Howl’s Moving Castle are considered ‘fun for the whole family’. At one level, you have kids who enjoy, and occasionally benefit, from watching the story line unfold. On another, there are funny one-liners and double-entendres for the ‘grown-ups’.

To take it a step further, some double-entendres are less subtle than others, and are predicated on taboos; this means that they provoke both laughter and discomfort. Consider the characters in Family Guy; Peter is an illiterate deadbeat dad, Lois is an attractive well-bred bondage-loving dominatrix, Meg is a socially awkward teenager with low self-esteem, Chris is a younger version of his father, Stewie is a diabolical and sexually ambiguous infant with a Napoleon complex, and their dog Brian, is the alcoholic voice of reason. This dysfunctional family unit makes for comedy gold, and as an adult, you can appreciate the irony of, say, turning an alcoholic into a narc. One episode of pure genius out of hundreds.

Moving on. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut; the title itself is a glaring double-entendre, graphic images and violent swearing notwithstanding. The loose use of language and imagery is the case for most shows on the Cartoon Network. This is not a recent development – ever since the Golden Age of comic books, cartoons have been rife with hidden meanings. HiLoBrow compiled a secret panel of the best double-entendres and websites like Superdickery are dedicated to absurd, humorous and sexually suggestive comic book covers. Whether they intended to be so at the time is unclear.

In short, cartoons make us laugh. And it feels good. However, to ask why cartoons are hilarious in the first place is not an easy question, nor one that many people are willing to explore – after all, why is anything funny? And do we really want to know? It is common knowledge that the minute you have to explain a joke, it ceases to be funny. Yet, for those that are curious, this article explains it pretty well without going into overwhelming detail.

Sex Sells

Some people enjoy cartoons because of the sexual feelings they foster towards certain characters. The internet is teeming with rankings of the sexiest animated babes and variations thereof, including versions of them as adult humans and even as Sith princesses for the Star Wars enthusiasts out there.

In fact, there are very few such lists targeted towards women. Is this because the cartoon market is predominantly male? Or is it because there simply aren’t enough male heroes for women to lust over? Having asked around, the latter is most definitely not the case. As a result, a compilation has been drawn up (excuse the pun) to reflect what might be a Top Ten for Women.

Cartoon Characterisation

By extension, if human beings fantasise about ‘winning the girl/boy’, it makes sense that we see ourselves as the enitity they fall in love with. In other words, we see ourselves in our favorite characters. In an online post about why adults enjoy cartoons, the author writes:

“Sometimes, you see a character that reminds you of yourself when you were younger, how you wanted to be, or how you are now.”

People fall in love with a character itself, and the only reason anyone would watch one repeatedly is primarily based on the depth of the cartoon’s characterisation.

“I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way.” – Jessica Rabbit.

It should come as no surprise that the internet is swarming with quizzes designed to align us with certain characters. Which super hero are you? Which Disney princess? Which Disney villain? (Personally, I am respectively Spiderman, a tie between bookworm Belle and unconventional Pocahontas, and Captain Hook, who was the only comic Disney villain until the appearance of Hades). There are personality profiles on each and every character in history-heroes, anti-heroes, klutzes, you name it. And everyone has someone they can readily identify with-if not, that personality is bound to be created sooner or later. These characterisations have evolved over time, especially for women.

She's definitely not one for the kids...

Boys have had infinite options to identify with from the very beginning. The bookish sorts related to Spiderman, whilst those repressing their anger could relate to the Hulk. They all wanted to BE either Superman or Batman. Those who were comfortable with their own dark sides could relate to The Punisher, the first ‘anti-hero’ before Watchmen came along. On a national scale, Captain America symbolized everything the United States should be: courageous, just, honest, and free. Even the outcasts had outcasts.

The historic portrayal of women is significantly different and has been the source of controversy for decades, especially concerning hot-button topics such as gender equality and body image.

Betty Boop was the original overtly promiscuous flapper toon. Female characters before her hardly differed from their male counterparts. Due to censorship in 1934, her sexualized character changed dramatically fluctuating between unmarried housewife and career girl. During this period, girls were the primary readers of comics, not boys, with Archie Comics publishing the most popular strips. Women were portrayed in one of three ways: career girls, romance-story heroines, or perky teenagers. Later on, within the same decade, ultra-powerful heroines emerged to rival the men, like Miss Fury and Fantomah. These were strong competent crime-fighters who certainly did not need rescuing. It was just after 1940 that Wonder Woman, the first true-to-life heroine, and truly one of the greats, was created by William Marston, psychologist and feminist theorist. It is believed that she was modeled on his wife. Of her, he stated:

“Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world.”

Note that, at present, Wonder Woman has had a bit of a makeover.

During the Second World War, a massive crisis arose concerning the definitions of masculinity versus femininity. Women during this time took on men’s jobs. The mentality of a stronger, more aggressive dominatrix prevalent during that period was evident.

In the 1960s, woman’s liberation was in full swing, and women demanded to be seen as equals; hence, the creation of career-oriented characters such as Lois Lane (Superman), Vicki Vale (Batman), and Carol Ferris (The Green Lantern). However none of these women were superheroes. When the first super-heroine emerged in the form of the Invisible Girl of the Fantastic Four, the leitmotif of the time was her (and others) struggle to be accepted as equals. Once that did happen (some time during the 1980s), Marvel Comics renamed her Invisible Woman and she was promoted to leader of the Fantastic Four.

The 1970s reflected the tensions of the time, and women were demonized either as angry man-haters (Thundra) or butch feminists (Man-Killer). Up until the 1980s, women were not given leadership roles.

Then, in the 1990s, the UK got involved with Tank Girl – a figure who challenged preconceived notions of beauty. During this time consumer tendencies indicated that sex still sold. Thus, the idea of a character that was not attractive refreshed the cartoon landscape. One last trend over the past 20 years has also been lesbianism. Notably, Batgirl is in an openly gay relationship with police officer Renee Montoya.

However the way women are depicted in cartoons is still debatable. After all, it was only in 2009 that Disney made a movie starring a black princess. And many still argue against the proportions Disney and others have adopted; Tongue-in-cheek posts are an indication of this.

Yet, humanity evolves. I hear the new Supergirl is less sexualised and more kick ass. Standards never cease to catch up to the times-new female archetypes forge the road ahead.

Childhood

Last but not least, for anyone who remembers Saturday morning cartoons, watching cartoons or reading comic books makes you feel like a kid again. The innocence and freedom; the possibilities! All of these things take us back to ‘better times’. Nothing more, nothing less.

Born in the 1980s? This will bring back some memories…

Child of the 1990s? These animated gems are for you!

Shakespeare's Collected Works?

Often heralded as the greatest writer to ever live, it is perhaps surprising that William Shakespeare remains a mystery, but there are great gaps in our knowledge. We cannot even say with certainty when he was born. One of the many legends that surround the Bard is the pleasing symmetry of his date of birth and the day he died. 23rd April is also St George’s Day (the patron Saint of England) and so is, perhaps rightly, celebrated as a day of English heritage. There is a problem however. Although Shakespeare was confirmed to have died on the 23 April 1616, his birth 52 years earlier is not quite so certain. We only know that Will was baptised on 26th April – he could have been born at any point up to this date (although it is unlikely he was more than a week old as babies were baptised as soon as possible at the time).

This proves how little we know about the man behind some of the greatest plays in the English language, if indeed it was really William Shakespeare who wrote the lauded works. Many simply find it difficult to believe that a ruffian upstart from Stratford could create such marvellous tales told in the richest language imaginable. Most detractors argue that it is impossible for a man of Shakespeare’s background to have the education and skill to create the work attributed to him. Others accuse him of simple theft as many of his most memorable plays have plots taken from older works. What is often lost in debate is the fact that authentic personal experience is a recent addition to the desirable qualities in a work of literature.

The Authorship Debate

No one chose to question the writer’s identity until well into the 19^th Century, over 200 years after William Shakespeare’s death. This conspiracy theory, otherwise known as the Authorship Debate, contests that William Shakespeare wrote the plays that bear his name – or posits the notion that he was but a contributor, joined by other luminary playwrights of his age.

The anti-Stratfordians (as those who believe William Shakespeare is not who we think he is call themselves) have their reasons. They consider it strange that the heralded playwright was not mourned more or made tribute to on his death. The most compelling evidence, for them, is that there is no real documentation that proves William Shakespeare from Stratford was a playwright and wrote the plays attributed to a William Shakespeare. Many who believe that Shakespeare did not write ‘his’ words fit into the following camps: the Oxfordians, Baconians and Marlovians.

Oxfordians support the theory that Edward de Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford, is the real writer of ‘Shakespeare’s’ works. De Vere was a celebrated poet and playwright at the same time Shakespeare’s plays achieved success and he also shares some biographical details with parts of the plays. He has been the most likely substitute since the 1930s (for those inclined to disbelieve). Baconians, on the other hand, believed Sir Francis Bacon to be the true author throughout most of the 19^th century, for no real reason. Delia Bacon (not a relation) from America became convinced that Shakespeare was a fraud and set about proving it. However, she was ridiculed on publication of her book The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded for giving no real evidence to support her theory and was subsequently diagnosed as ‘insane’.

Did Marlowe write the Bard's plays?

The established playwright Christopher Marlowe is also touted as ‘the man who wrote Shakespeare’ by some. Marlovians argue that his death in 1593 (twenty years before some of the works attributed to the Bard were first performed) was faked in order to escape execution on the charge of atheism – a truly heinous crime in Elizabethan England. This theory garnered such support that a question mark was placed before the year of Marlowe’s death on the monument to him in Westminster Abbey in 2002, despite no conclusive evidence that he didn’t die in Deptford in 1593.

Evidence for Doubt?

Our scant knowledge of Shakespeare’s life means it is impossible to either prove or disprove these theories – one thing is certain though. There is no concrete evidence that anyone other than Shakespeare wrote his works. It is also worth bearing in mind that for any of these contenders to have written the amount of work said to be Shakespeare’s, they would have had to spent little of their time doing anything else. Which is simply not the case. Regardless, in 2007, the Authorship Coalition published a Declaration of Reasonable Doubt concerning the identity of William Shakespeare, the author. It has since been signed by nearly 2,000 people, including notable academics, Shakespearean thesps and famed directors of the Bard’s work.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is why it is important to know the identity of who crafted such beautiful poetry. What really matters is that we are in possession of a wealth of great literature that has survived for over 400 years and are able to preserve it for the generations to come. Whether Shakespeare wrote it or not is insignificant.

On that, nothing has changed. My chamber is still sans idiot box, and I like it that way. What has changed is that I don’t need a TV – in my room or anywhere else – to catch up on my favourite series. If I’m being well behaved I can log on to 40D or BBC iPlayer, click and watch. If I’m being slightly more morally ambivalent – obviously, this is a hypothetical scenario – I can scroll through Megavideo, Surfthechannel or even YouTube, to find what I want to watch.

Family TV time: a thing of the past?

The fact is, watching TV on TV is soo 2007. Actually sitting down in a communal space, turning on a big black box, flipping through a myriad of channels showing only repeats of Friends and home decorating programmes, waiting through the adverts. Who does that anymore?

That may be a stretch, but it’s not so hard to imagine a time when the television becomes redundant. Internet speeds are now fast enough for watching online to be an enjoyable experience, and we are so used to exercising choice when it comes to our leisure activities that waiting to watch something in the particular time slot allotted seems antiquated.

Is this a bad thing? There’s an argument that the decline of TV, for all that it is derided as an activity for children, won’t be too good for family cohesion. Sitting around the one room all together, watching Blind Date or Family Fortunes on a Saturday night, or crowding round the screen together for a big football match – it doesn’t have quite the same ring when it involves a solitary laptop, streaming the next episode.

But that ship has not only sailed, it’s halfway round the world by now. Various Xboxes, mobile phones and iPads have essentially done away with the blissful-family-time scenario. And TV online can still be a communal activity, if only through Twitter hash tags, Facebook statuses and web recaps.

More than that, TV on TV is dead because it’s too restrictive. Skyplus, Tivo and the like changed that a little, but they didn’t remedy the problem. We are the iTunes generation, used to having what we want, when we want at the touch of a button. If TV was a meal out, we no longer have the patience to pick through a long and complicated menu. We might not want the drive through version – we still want to watch proper, old-fashioned programmes – but we want it on a to go basis.

Besides, the internet hasn’t made the television redundant, only what’s on it. Nowadays DVD players come equipped with clever USB gizmos, so you can watch a programme made for TV but downloaded online, on TV again. All very post-modern, I know.

When you think about it, TV isn’t really a staple of life. It seems that way because it has had such an impact, but the presence of a TV in every person’s living room is only a recent phenomena. People learnt to live with it, and they will learn to live without it.

The only problem? To [mis]quote Joey in Friends: “Without a TV, what will we point our furniture at?”

Car crash TV or compulsive viewing?

Reality TV is in intensive care, and to echo the kind of medical clichés ER has taught me, it’s very much touch and go. The world is unsure whether to start paying their respects and practising their most sombre “I’m sorry for your loss’s” or celebrating and marvelling a miraculous recovery. Similarly, I am unsure whether I am writing an obituary or a mid-life review.

On 14^th July 2000, Channel 4 became proud parents to a controversial TV format, which was later haled as the birth of an entire genre. The instant fascination was puzzling, as reality TV was not a new phenomenon. America had been stirring up whispers around the genre since the early 90s, with shows like Survivor and the Netherlands had introduced Big Brother to the world a year earlier. Never-the-less, Britain watched with bated breath as 11 archetypal characters exercised the spectrum of human emotion.

Nobody could predict just how big this so called social experiment would get, and as its popularity rose, so did the worlds growling hunger for fame, creating a new breed of celebrity. Magazine shelves were filled with smiling cover stars whose fame we couldn’t recall the reason for. For want of a less clichéd phrase, it was stardom for the sake of it. The psychological community has conducted myriad amounts of research into this new dynamic – just why are we so obsessed with fame? A study in Britain in 2009 concluded that the top three career aspirations for 5 – 11 year olds were sports star, pop star and actor. 25 years ago teachers, bankers and doctors – more traditional, vocational careers – topped the poll. So what’s changed?

Psychology professors at Ohio State University noted that reality TV shows us just how easy it is to gain status through automatic fame. It turns our distant dreams of stardom into just that – a reality. We sit and watch people exactly like us being catapulted to the showbiz fore, and wonder why it can’t be us, why our own lives shouldn’t warrant an audience. A lot of us don’t care that many reality TV stars are famous for the wrong reasons, I mean, who remembers Charley from BB8 for anything other than her infuriating arguments. We think of Nikki Grahame, the flow chart in our minds immediately direct us to her ‘Who IS she’ rant. One of the most puzzling things about this new want for fame is that the fact that the world is sitting up and taking notice seems to be enough for most people, being liked is just an added bonus.

As the once innocent genre grew into an unruly child, it seemed nothing was out of bounds in the name of entertainment. We laughed our way through mild electrocutions, fish gut filled paddling pools and a blind man eating an unfathomably hot chilli. The creativity of Big Brother’s producers seemed to increase exponentially; we had the ‘rich/poor’ house divide, and who can forget the comic genius of the ‘ignore the obvious’ task? Having to ignore your own Grandad while he’s sitting next to you dressed as Santa? I’m not sure how closely that echoes ‘reality’, but the public devoured it, nonetheless.

However, this no-holds-barred attitude to ratings was bound to backfire sooner or later. An entertainment time bomb, if you will. The extreme contestants, the mental gymnastics Big Brother forced them to play and the pressure of grasping on to their 15-minutes-of-fame-and-a-Heat-magazine-cover fame package pushed our reality friends to their absolute edges. It seemed this once adored genre was being pulled further and further into the depths of scandal – the ‘fight night’ of BB5, the race row of Celebrity Big Brother and the glacial shoulder the world gave contestants upon their departure from the house.

Yet another X-Factor hopeful...

While Big Brother, dubbed the ‘godfather’ of reality TV was painted with the unflattering hue of controversy, the genre itself was wildly branching off in all sorts of directions. Kind of like in science when you had to watch those cells rapidly multiply and dominate their Petri dish homes. Sub-genre upon sub-genre was born; we had the talent based family; The X-Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, American Idol. We had career focused programmes like the ever-popular Apprentice. Then there were the docu-soaps that invited us to take a front row seat in the drama of other people’s lives; The Hills, The City, Blonde Charity Mafia. You know the type, lots of shots of shop fronts and nightclubs paired with around 7 minutes of actual footage? Even our Hollywood friends jumped on the bandwagon, offering us the chance to act as a fly-on-the-wall in their oh-so-fabulous lives. It seemed every square in the chess board of life was covered by reality TV, from weight loss to dating. Meanwhile, Big Brother was franchising all over the world, with series being born across Europe.

Reality TV, aside from acting as popcorn for the brain, has actually had a bigger effect on us than we may realise. It has produced the people we hated to love, and loved to hate, and it made for quite an impressive resume. It has over taken politics and current affairs as an essential tool for water cooler talk. It has reshaped the ambitions of today’s youth. While Big Brother’s demise will definitely have a big effect on the lifespan of the genre, I think it’s grown to such proportions that it cannot be killed off altogether. It’s like we’ve broken for an interval, and we’ll be settling down to watch Act 2 unfold soon. This isn’t the curtain call; maybe it’s just ‘to be continued’.

Golding's iconic novel Lord of the Flies

If you were asked to compile a list of iconic novels, William Golding’s Lord of the Flies would be an obvious choice. It’s a classic tale signifying the rise of anarchy and the fall of civilisation – they even teach it in school. But would you compare a Nobel-prize winning author with the twenty-first century’s most notorious facet: Reality TV? And more importantly, should you?

First, let’s make an important distinction. People talk about iconic literature as having a direct influence on other important authors, musicians and creators. Is Reality TV important? Well, no, not in its current guise as a dumping ground for celebrity wannabes/has-beens. I’m not suggesting that Big Brother is a timeless piece of artistic genius, but its presence in the modern world is undeniable.

But think back to its first tentative steps, when Big Brother was more of a study in psychology and socialisation. Okay, so it’s unlikely Channel 4 came up with idea purely to investigate the intricacies of human nature. But it was an interesting experiment: lock a group together in a confined space; follow their every move with video cameras; tell them their behaviour will ultimately determine who stays the distance and wins the prize.

Here’s where Golding’s influence comes in. Lord of the Flies works on the assumption that the basic human condition is fundamentally flawed. Strip away our societal laws and norms, and we’re left with this primal state of aggression, chaos and disorder. Moral decency is not inherent, but forced upon us by the great wide world.

Sound familiar? More interesting still, Big Brother ‘housemates’ are fully aware that their time in the house and their chances of winning come down to popularity. The polite, the charming, the helpful and generous will surely survive over the selfish and aggressive. But even with this in mind, there seems to be a certain deterioration of human decency beyond the contestants’ control. Screaming, shouting and plate-throwing have escalated so fast that police have been called in to investigate.

In a competition that’s supposed to run within the confines of one house, only the intrusion of the outside world can break up the anarchy of an otherwise ‘lawless’ society.

Of course, people chosen to be Big Brother contestants are notoriously extreme. As the series progressed, it became clear that people with contentious views and a tendency toward aggression were being selected to create must-see TV. But that said, even in the first series of UK Big Brother we had ‘Nasty Nick’, who chose devious manipulation over any form of natural charm or decency.

And the influence of Big Brother himself is an important factor. The programme makers take great delight in stoking an already roaring fire with their own devious schemes. Revealing ‘private’ nominations, forcing contestants to play pranks on each other, asking leading questions about relationships in the house – the perfect catalysts to drive fear and suspicion.

In his afterword, E. L. Epstein said that Golding’s Lord of the Flies “is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature”. Note that the rise of ignorant and fame-hungry contestants is often used to mark our own society’s general demise.

Now for the big question: is this the default condition that people refer back to when they are plucked from society and forced to create new laws and hierarchies from scratch? Or is the influence of Big Brother – and one or two malicious contestants – enough to send the whole house spiralling into chaos? I imagine Golding’s response: If we didn’t have an inherent tendency towards anarchism, we wouldn’t fall so easily when pushed.

The Big Brother house spirals into chaos…

Carrie Bradshaw, but not as we know her

Sometimes in a television series, flashbacks really hit the spot. Who can forget a young Monica Geller running around in a fatsuit on Friends, the schoolboy Jed Bartlet sparring with the young Mrs Landingham on West Wing, or the glimpses into Don Draper’s background occasionally shared by the Mad Men writers. Unfortunately, sometimes they take away all the magic.

And sadly, it’s very much the latter when it comes to Candace Bushnell’s eagerly anticipated Sex and the City prequel, The Carrie Diaries. The premise of the book is simple – what was our favourite frizzy haired floozy like in high school? Temptress or teen tearaway? Gorgeous, glamorous or geek? Ugly duckling or swan?

Any Sex and the City fan wants an answer to these questions. Bushnell’s book fails because it doesn’t give one.

Sure, we learn lots about this youthful incarnation of ‘Carrie’; she’s an individual, a feminist, a pot-smoker and underage drinker (shocker). Her love life is busy but not plain sailing – another surprise – and her friends are neither as loyal nor as likeable as those she will later meet.

Future Carrie – the one we meet on the show – can be a pain; whiny, self-indulgent, not to mention she’d be in debt because of her shoe collection. But she’s ours, for all her flaws dedicated viewers have their own idea of her. This Carrie isn’t anything like her – short of a quirky fashion sense and a writing ambition. She could grow up to be Carrie Bradshaw, but she could just as easily grow up to be Miranda, even Samantha.

Her hobbies (swimming) and hangouts (a seedy bar or burger shack) bear no resemblance to Carrie’s world of Cosmopolitans and Manolos, Mr Bigs and brunches. Obviously, 17-year-old Carrie wouldn’t be living that lifestyle, but through the book you never get the sense she’d want it either. Her outré wardrobe and writing dreams are there as plot devices to connect the two, yet if The Carrie Diaries was really Carrie’s story, those links would be seamless. And for a book entitled ‘Diaries’, it is bafflingly written as a basic first-person story. Carrie is Carrie for her columns and the way they transition from personal experience, to philosophy and finally snappy ending.

Perhaps the worst part about the book is that it is only about Carrie, when really she is a quarter of a whole. Whatever Sarah Jessica Parker might believe, what makes Sex and the City so brilliant is that as much as it’s about the men, it’s about the friends too. Carrie’s friends in her old life are meaningless – intriguing at times but without the emotional pull. Rather than read a whole book about Carrie, I’d rather have been served a four-way flashback, telling me why Charlotte is so prissy, Miranda so angry, or Samantha so liberated. Maybe even how Stanford coped with his teenage years.

What I wanted when I opened the book, admittedly appealing with its sparkling gold cover, I wanted to be taken into a world in the same way an episode of the show compels you. I wanted to get to love Carrie for longer, perhaps tp hear where she bought the pink tutu or what her first pair of designer shoes looked like. What I got was a book about a generic teenage girl, with generic friends in a generic town – characters with as much dimension as those in Twilight or Sweet Valley High. The great thing about Carrie et al is how dimensional and flawed they were. Bushnell offers us cookie-cutter, instantly forgettable characters.

On a long flight, perhaps curled up on a deck chair with one eye closed and the sun beaming down, you could do worse. But don’t kid yourself. She might be called Carrie – but she isn’t.

The Carrie Diaries by Candace Bushnell is published by Harper Collins and available to buy online here.

Candace Bushnell talks about her conception of The Carrie Diaries

This month Running in Heels highlights ten television series that have left their mark on the little screen years after they have been pulled off the air. Now immortalised in DVD box sets, there is a little bit of something here for all tastes. From the slightly obscure but delightful comedy—Arrested Development to Battlestar Gallactica (not only for self-professed geeks), to classics such as Seinfeld and Friends; these shows are must watch television!

The quirky Arrested Development crowd

Arrested Development

The short lived Arrested Development was one of the most out of the ordinary comedies to come out of America in years. At its core, it is a series about family. The Bluth’s–comprised of new and veteran comedic talent (Jason Bateman, Michael Cera, Portia de Rossi and David Cross to name a few)–are a wealthy family that love and hate each other in equal measure; accepting of each other’s faults to an entertaining and sometimes ridiculous degree. This quirky comedy that is at once witty and slap stick funny will warm your heart. Even if I hadn’t decided to present these in alphabetical order; Arrested Development would still deserve a top place on this list.

Battlestar Galactica

You do not need to be a Trekkie or be a fan of the sci-fi genre to watch (love and own) the re-imagined version of the 70s show Battlestar Galactica. Critically acclaimed for its superb writing, directing and acting Battlestar is an action-filled, political commentary about our world today. Yes, even if it’s set in space.  Watch it; you will be (as I was) floored by its intense story lines and epically cool dialogue.

Boston Legal

Created by David E Kelley (of LA Law and Ally McBeal fame) Boston Legal is a light and wacky dramedy notably starring James Spader and William Shatner; the latter flaunting his comedic chops. It balances the line between tasteless and candid humour so delicately that your every laugh will feel gloriously sinful.  For diehard fans of courtroom dramas as well those who love irony this show belongs on your shelf.

The Office (UK)

The Complete Series of the Office is another show that will have you laughing out loud at David Brent and co’s absurd antics. The Office was one of the first mock-umentary of its kind and has spawned copy cats around the world. But nothing can be better than the original. If there is one reason you should own this on DVD, I have two words for you: Christmas Special.

The Christmas Special...

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Chosen Collection

Before Twilight turned vampires into relatable characters of myth and before Edward Cullen made them sexy, there was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Finishing its seven year run in 2003, Buffy has since become a television classic. It is the story of your not to typical teenage girl Buffy (Sarah Michele Geller) who attempts to juggle adolescence while also being a ‘Slayer’; a human whose fate it is to kill vampires and other demons. In each episode, our heroine faces off with some kind of bad guy while also dealing with typical teenage preoccupations; such as dating, sex, love, friendships and much more.  Buffy was ranked second on Empire Magazines list of the 50 Best TV Shows Of All Time and should definitely be in your collection.

Friends

Whether you’re in your 20s or 30s, Friends is the television show that defined your generation. Today, there is not a single life situation where a Friends quote cannot be referenced. More importantly, most people will still giggle at the recollection.  The infamous Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Chandler, Ross and Joey invited us into the lives for ten glorious seasons and if, like me, you still miss them? Buy the complete season. You won’t regret it.

Planet Earth (BBC Documentary)

Perhaps an odd choice in this mix, but the Complete Episodes of Planet Earth narrated by the legendary David Attenborough deserves a place on this list. It begins with this:

“A hundred years ago, there were one and a half billion people on Earth. Now, over six billion crowd our fragile planet. But even so, there are still places barely touched by humanity. This series will take you to the last wildernesses and show you the planet and its wildlife as you have never seen them before.”

The show has a number of firsts ever to be captured by a camera. Among those are the highest aerial views of Mount Everest. A city girl at heart, David had me at ‘barely touched by humanity’.

Seinfeld

Seinfeld has been trumpeted as the first TV show ‘about absolutely nothing’.  And it’s true. In a typical episode Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer fumble through life; reflecting on the most mundane trivialities of our existence. Case in point:

The riotous cast of Seinfeld

George: What is Holland?

Jerry: What do you mean, ‘what is it?’ It’s a country right next to Belgium.

George: No, that’s the Netherlands.

Jerry: Holland *is* the Netherlands.

George: Then who are the Dutch?

If there was ever a comedy that turned the ordinary into the extraordinary; this is it. The Complete Series comes with special features including bloopers, interviews and much more. Giddy Up already and watch!

Sex and the City

Sex and the City is the most self-explanatory entry in this list. If you really need a reason to own this one, I don’t like you, but I’ll begrudgingly give you four.
● The outfits: every episode is a style bonanza that will make even the most cynical non-fashionista drool.
● The men: Mr Big, Burger, Steve, Smith, The Russian, Aidan and many more.
● The storylines: Remember the one where Carrie got dumped on a post it? Or the ‘He’s just not that Into’ episode? Remember Miranda’s euphoria post pregnancy when she could fit into her skinny jeans? How about the one where Samantha defies breast cancer?
● The women: This show is not only a testament to the bonds of female friendships but also offers a unique perspective on the different roles that women in the 21^st century can proudly fulfill.

The Sex and the City Box Set is a must for every woman.

The West Wing

If you’re in the mood for a drama that you can watch over and over again, then The West Wing is the one for you.  One of the best written television shows of all time and with a stellar cast of actors (Martin Sheen, Rob Lowe, Bradley Whitford, Allison Janney), The West Wing takes a behind the scenes look at the Presidency of the United States. This show will make you think about social issues as well as make you laugh and tear up sometimes within a space of two minutes. If you’re a political nut, this will be a very special addition to your collection.

You can find all these on Amazon or Play.