Archive
A sucker for True Blood
At University many students spend endless hours revising, researching and working hard sweating blood and tears to complete essays and meet tight deadlines. However as pressure mounts and deadlines edge that bit closer we all need to relax, escape and let our minds wander. This year (academic) I have escaped in a truly ‘fangtastic’ world called True Blood. Please excuse the playful language as it is merely distracting and reducing my review of True Blood already, but I feel it is needed to express the sheer enjoyment received from watching this programme. In three months I have indulged in all three series with (twelve episodes in each).
I know what you’re thinking. Am I a student who simply spends their time, energy and money viewing television programmes with square eyes? No. Prior to True Blood I have never been interested or bothered nor addicted or a ‘fan’ of a particular show. However over the past few months I have become, to put it mildly, obsessed with True Blood. I have become an observant and critical media student appreciating an addictive yet clever series. Without writing an analytical essay on this series it can be recognised that the creator, Alan Ball has used codes and conventions effectively alongside a range of genres to attract the largest target audience. It has successfully stole my attention, can it steal yours?
The series (three, so far) are based on the books written by Charlaine Harris offering a raunchier, sexier version of vampires and a magical world. True Blood offers you shocking things you have never seen before and it is not for the faint hearted or the young.
Set in a fictional town, Bon Temps, Sookie Stackhouse (a waitress) discovers a new world of creatures when she falls in love with Bill Compton a vampire. Unlike other vampire stories such as Twilight, vampires are not a secret but are governed by laws just like humans, this adds to the tension when committing crimes throughout the series such as killing another vampire or a recurrent storyline draining a vampire for v (vampire blood). The vampire blood is very powerful with the ability to heal those who are wounded or nearly dying whilst also creating fantasy worlds for couples. Vampires are persuaded to drink Tru Blood- synthetic blood instead of killing humans. However you may find throughout the series this does not always satisfy even the “nicest” vampires.
The series offers a sexy insight into the world of humans and creatures, whilst an attractive cast offers pleasure for both male and female viewers. The main character Sookie Stackhouse is innocently portrayed with delicate beauty: a slim attractive blonde girl who in the first few episodes (constantly) refers to her ‘virginity’. None the less her characteristics are sweet and endearing.
The creatures (vampires and werewolves) are attractive in appearance and the female vampires, especially, offer a raunchiness, darkness and lust. With their beautiful complexions, dazzling dress sense and unique characters (with different personalities) you cannot help but fall in love with the cast. Careful you don’t fall for a vampire, you may get used to the term fang-banger!
Each episode covers a variety of issues, dilemmas and problems. The storylines are tense, captivating and full of emotion keeping you glued to the screen or seat. Most of the scenes are very graphic and therefore the series is devoted to a young adult audience capable of being exposed to sexually explicit scenes and topics covering homosexuality, rape, lust, magic and pain. The episodes are fast paced and gripping and through the series you learn of betrayal, heartache and treachery. Needless to say you will hooked.
So what makes it different, more exciting and more enjoyable than any other vampire series we have watched or heard of before? Well I have asked myself that very question and it cannot be summarised in one lexeme. The programme offers viewers a believable world full of creatures, daring storylines which expose our instinctive animalistic traits, scenes heavily evoking sexual emotion, tension and seducing viewers subconsciously into the world of True Blood. Fans of the programme are eagerly anticipating the new storylines and twists in the fourth series, expected to be released summer 2011. So if I haven’t convinced you, try two episodes of True Blood and believe me you will be wanting more. Another bite. Only the true stuff (a joke- only to be understood by fans)…
In a culturally creative world with works such as Twilight, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, True Blood successfully earns credibility and captures the imagination whilst being based in a realistic world with many believable concepts and laws. It is sexy, enticing and most of all addictive. Although some people snigger and mock ‘fantasy works’ True Blood remains sophisticated and real and one definitely not to be missed. It captures love, pain, action and adventure whilst exploring the realms of magic, vampires, fairies, witches, shape shifter, werewolves and fairies (hopefully more in the fourth series).
To True Blood fans that cannot wait for the fourth series here is a sneaky ‘tease trailer’ and no doubt when we are able to enjoy the pleasures of the fourth installment Twitter will be chaotic with conversations. To those not converted yet (to the series that is), watch a few episodes and see what happens…
Related articles
Channel four– True Blood
Share this information with:
Eastenders: storyline beyond belief?
Do we want to watch cot death and baby snatching on our television screens? Is that entertainment? With over 6000 complaints, has Eastenders gone too far?
The storyline that has caught the attention of thousands has caused uproar, fury and upset. Ronnie Mitchell and Kat Moon having given birth to baby boys within hours of each other. Little James Ronnie’s son dies from cot death and whilst wandering in the Square for help, she hears Tommy crying upstairs in The Queen Vic: she swaps her dead baby for Kat and Alfie Moon’s baby Tommy. Wow. Let me catch my breath. I did just say that two babies were born, one died and then they got switched. Sorry for any bluntness that may have caused offence. Did the scriptwriters think about the repercussions of this storyline?
Life and death are sensitive issues not to be taken lightly, in jest or to be ridiculed. In the case of child deaths our media, over the past few years, has been bombarded with children being abducted, abused or dying. Therefore this storyline caused outrage amongst many who found it offensive, disrespectful and all in all insensitive.
However, soaps are not meant to represent reality. They offer escapism, pleasure and food for thought. Theorists have argued that soaps tackle issues that we like to hide from society that do not fit into the “normal” family structure that people aspire to create in their lives.
The actress Samantha Womack (who plays Ronnie) is reported to be leaving the show and one of the reasons is the horrific storyline. The programme-makers already made last minute edits to the New Year’s Eve episode: a scene showing Ronnie touching the cold hand of her dead baby and Kat (in blood-soaked pyjamas) after Alfie Moon (her husband) finds her haemorrhaging in her bed.
The character Ronnie has suffered immensely throughout her character’s life: abused and raped by her father, having a baby when she was a teenager and her father led her to believe the baby was dead. Evidently many people have felt that this is a step too far for the character and completely over the top. Discussions have been raised about the believability: would you recognise your own baby? In addition most people feel this is the wrong time for such a tragic storyline. Christmas and New Year should be a joyous time and promoting self fulfilment for the year ahead, instead we find soaps competing for the craziest and most eccentric storyline. Is this the sad state of Britain’s soaps? Or is it a harsh portrayal of difficult issues? With the exception that baby swapping (in our culture and society) is very rare.
The last storyline in Eastenders to cause such a stir was only back in April 2009 when Danielle Jones (Ronnie’s daughter) was killed in a car crash. Is this the response of audiences saying enough is enough? How far will television producers and writers go to entertain the public? Is the BBC really conforming to the PSB format? Instead of seizing the opportunity to create happy memories with two strong, independent women in the script entering motherhood after storylines of tragedy and pain, Eastenders took the wrong turn. Through this controversial decision they have probably lost loyal fans as they have simply found the storyline too upsetting and devastating. The insensitive coverage of losing a baby did not consider viewers who have experienced this tragedy and underestimated the emotional trauma it has caused: who in their right mind would even contemplate swapping a dead baby for someone else’s living baby? Eastenders in the past has tackled issues in a thoughtful and responsible manner (story line) considering ethical, emotional and personal problems. Has the focus this time been too much on causing shock and gaining the highest ratings over the Christmas period? What do you think? Dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnn…..
Share this information with:
The X factor vs. high culture
The X factor has only just finished and our papers are filled with this years winner, Matt Cardle crowned on 12th December 2010. You may also have read articles about other winners from popular television shows: Strictly Come Dancing winner Kara Tointon and I’m a celebrity get me out of here, Stacey Solomon are a few seen in todays newspapers.
So what do we make of all this madness? Is popular television affecting the nation?
Radio 4 aired a thought-provoking debate on high art vs popular culture, 15th December 2010. Michael Buerk hosted the programme along with an intellectual panel: Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox, Clifford Longley and Michael Portillo.
The programme offered a variety of points of views about X factor and the effect shows such as these have on our nation and culture. However with only a forty-five minute programme, areas being discussed were limited. These are a few of the opinions and points raised on the programme:
- Attacks on X factor are against chavs and the ‘stereotyped’ people and does not pose as a threat to society.
- Critical opinion “music has a moral value…precious in the world” and a programme such as X factor can be considered culturally offensive.
- Simon Cowell is strongly responsible for reducing music to homogeneity and thus being counter-educational.
- Should the X factor be taken seriously?
- Has celebrity culture taken over different parts of our culture? This question could not be elaborated as the subject is too great for the shows allowed time.
- Does the show contain ‘talented’ musicians? Just because the formula of X factor has appealed to the mass audience showing its success that does not prove they are extremely talented but simply the manipulation of the media is at play. This success can be compared to the popularity of McDonalds restaurants, just because millions of people consume the produce does not necessarily mean it is of high quality, or the ‘best restaurant’.
- People on the X factor are ‘puppets on a string’.
- The culture in the 21st century is consumed differently to previous times. We are not cultural dopes we are active audiences (theorist Stuart Hall), look at Twitter on a Saturday night. This is a fast-moving medium sharing the nations opinions.
- The celebrity culture is dominating our lives. The beginning of X factor provides an insight into the contestant’s personalities and lives. Celebrities dominate the best-selling books in our charts.
- The beginning of X factor (30 seconds) plays classical music in the opening. Is the X factor a gateway to more music?
- Some people on the X factor are simply being humiliated for entertainment. Is this morally right? However, for some contestants they may enjoy the ‘one off’ experience however for many this will not be enjoyable.
- Passive viewers feel they have ultimate control over the outcome of the competition. Is this right?
The show offered a range of views to entertain the reader however the arguments were too broad and due to the limited time they could not be expanded fully. The X factor by active readers can be viewed as entertainment, escapism or useful in the context it is consumed. For example, a sociable evening with friends eating a takeaway. However are these popular programmes offering culture. Culture adds to (our) beliefs, values and personalities, and is a show such as the X factor doing so in a positive way? Are we able to see this programme as beneficial? Art and culture should be able to challenge and stimulate a viewer (exercise the human mind) and should not be based on popularity.
Perhaps our attention should be focused on the content and quality of the art culture in our society: do we need more writers? More true musicians? Listening to the programme alongside others sparked further discussions. Has television been dumbed down? Blaming the X factor is not necessarily the answer for the collapse of culture and civilisation but it may be the alert needed to lead our society to a culturally appreciative world.
Related articles
Rewind Radio: Moral Maze; Chris Evans; Cheque Book and Pen
BBC 4 Message board
Share this information with:
Rebecca's Rambles... 
Recent Comments