Many a true word is spoken in jest; there is an old quote
from a Harry Enfield and Chums sketch “Women! Know Your Place.” Although a woman’s place is now wherever she
so pleases, there is an element of truth behind accepting what your place is.
As an actress you have to accept your place; not as a lower
class citizen as believed about the first actresses in London but what our ‘cast-ability’
truly is. We are judged by our looks,
talents and niche and the sooner you accept what your cast-ability is the
happier your audition life will be. I
may want to be Nala in The Lion King but I have to face facts that it is never
going to happen.
Similarly, Phillip Schofield may want to be the next hard-hitting
journalist hack but it ain’t gonna happen.
His place is as a warm, friendly, popular culture television presenter;
we want to see him giggling uncontrollably with Holly Willoughby about phallic
shaped parsnips not leading a campaign against the government.
 |
| from The Telegraph |
I have always been a fan of the Silver Fox from the gopher,
to loin cloths to the This Morning sofa but I think he got it wrong yesterday. I suspect it was the This Morning editorial team/producers
with Panorama aspirations that pushed this idea with dreams of Daytime TV seen
to front the campaign against cover ups and paedophilia. But they need to remember that This Morning
is exactly that – “Daytime TV.”
It can be argued that David Cameron was booked as a guest so
therefore This Morning was obliged to cover hard hitting topics (he was booked
to discuss Dementia) however, it is doubtful that Downing Street’s PR team book
the Prime Minister on such television shows for an in-depth debate. The purpose of these appearances is surely to
display how in touch he is with the people of the UK - those ironing at 11am
and those waiting to hear from auditions although wherever he is, interviewed, David Cameron should expect to answer tough quesitons. Debate and confrontation is welcome in all kinds of television and I am not insinuating that daytime viewers don't have opinions and a desire to share them but such acts must be done in the right setting.
The act of Phillip Schofield handing over a list of Tory names allegedly
linked to child molestation claims to David Cameron has been called a “silly,
tabloid stunt,” and I have to agree. It
wasn’t a presentation of well thought-out research, documentation or a manifesto but
a list scribbled on a cue card that Phil said he “had got off the internet” the
night before; his turn of phrase cheapened the act before he even handed it
over.
 |
| You don't wanna laugh but......image from http://unitedshadesofbritain.wordpress.com/ |
This conversation and David Cameron’s calm response
obviously went viral over the Internet within hours; everyone had an opinion or
a mock up-photo to tweet. I am loathed
to say it but I think the government are right to warn against “trial by
Twitter.” Response and opinion can be
created so quickly online by any number of people and although there are so
many advantages to the cyber world, it is right to be wary of this force,
too. Specualtion is expected but we must be careful of creating lists about such a scandalous and sensitive subjects without documented evidence. Tom Chivers has written a great
comment in The Telegraph blog today about this, citing how people are “incredibly
prone to groupthink” and prompting us to remember the “name and shame campaign”
of The News of the World a few years ago prompting vigilante behaviour against
paedophilia. He makes some throught-provoking points, take a
look http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/tomchiversscience/
So Phil, you were a lovely Joseph but since I have accepted
that I cannot audition for the blonde, leggy Ulla in The Producers, you need to
accept that you cannot audition to be Jeremy Paxman – it would confuse the
Dancing on Ice viewers.
No comments:
Post a Comment