The (Rambling) Media Edition: Part 4

So, one of my main goals while I’m here is to try and get at the root of why soap operas are so much more popular in the UK than they are in the US. In fact, one of my Cultural Studies peers over here was shocked when I told her that, back home, I am frequently ashamed and embarrassed to admit my love of soaps. In order to do this, however, I should probably start watching some, don’t’cha think?

 

Tonight I sat down and watched two episodes of “Coronation Street” and one episode of “EastEnders.”

 

Let’s start with the former…

 

 

“Coronation Street” (a.k.a. “Corrie”) started in December 1960. This means that, following the cancellation of US America's “As the World Turns,” “Corrie” became the longest running soap currently in production. (Just for giggles, here’s a scene from one of the 50^th Anniversary episodes, which featured an explosion, tram crash, and a viaduct’s destruction—skip to the 59 seconds mark:)

 

 

Now, in doing a bit of preliminary research for this post, I discovered that “Corrie” has actually released (circa) six straight-to-video films. Soaps on DVD format is something that is only just recently being experimented with back home (e.g., a special DVD featuring key holiday episodes from ATWT), so this is definitely something I want to look into a bit more…

 

As far as the episode I watched tonight: I found it to be somewhat cute, for the most part. As I noted on Facebook while chatting with some pals there, right off the bat, there is a difference in class when it comes to characters in US and UK soaps—and, to be fair, other academics, most notably Christine Geraghty and Dorothy Hobson, have already noted this. US soaps are all about the upper echelon fighting over businesses and money, whereas UK soaps seem to be about people trying to survive. 

 

Also—and bear in mind that I need to think this line of thought through a bit more, as well as watch some more episodes—“Coronation Street” (and possibly “EastEnders”) kind of brings with it the casual, easygoing vibe of a pub. Like you want to get cozy with it. Conversely, American soaps are all sparkle and spectacle, and looking for the drama. I don't know, I might completely revise this thought later, but that's the gut-reaction I'm having at the moment. I definitely want to follow-through with the pub atmosphere connection, though…

 

By way of comparison, and also to showcase the ideas I’m discussing above, I want to juxtapose two clips: the first is from yesterday’s episode of “Corrie,” and the other is from my favorite soap back home, “The Young & the Restless”:

 

Now, both of these clips take place in one of the favored watering holes on the show. Of course, you’ll notice the class signifiers right off the bat—the clothing, the atmosphere, and the treatment of the respective bar-keeps. If you’re more familiar with the American brand of soaps, however, you’ll also notice a certain…casual intimacy between the “Corrie” characters. Again, I can’t quite articulate what I’m trying to say yet, but, damn it, there’s something there!

 

Now, let’s get to the other show I watched tonight: “EastEnders.”

 

First things first: I want you to watch these credits:

 

 

Okay, now back up a minute! 

I want to tell you about three serendipitous moments I had while watching this show tonight 

First Moment: my friggin’ school is in the logo! The show’s fictitious setting (the London Borough of Walford) is right across the river from UEL.

 

I marked my campus in red to help you out...

Second Moment: Already in this blog, I’ve mentioned a couple of times my love for the movie “Beautiful Thing.” Well, one of the reasons I love that movie so much is because of the character Leah Russell, played by Tameka Empson:

 

Given that, you can understand my surprise at finding her in “EastEnders,” where she plays the character Kim Fox. (And then my further surprise at learning that Linda Henry, who played the mum in “Beautiful Thing” was also in “EastEnders” at one point!)

 

Leah grew up to have some fierce hair! Growin' up with them gay boys did her good!

 

Third Moment: A few blog entries ago, I posted one of my favorite “French & Saunders” clips:

 

 

 

Obviously, Dawn French was (lovingly) mocking Debbie Allen from "Fame":

 

 

But then, in last night’s “EastEnders,” was Leah—I’m sorry, Kim (Ms Empson) doing this:

 

 

 

 

Ho. Lee. Cow. Worlds. Colliding.

 

At any rate, “EE” started in February 1985, and is centered around the citizens of Albert Square. In Christine Geraghty’s book, Women and Soap Opera: A Study of Prime-Time Soaps,* series creator Julia Smith stated: “We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuality, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc., in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism” (p. 16). 

 

Perhaps this sense of realism is the difference I’m looking for? 

 

By the way, if you’re curious, some of my non-US friends on Facebook have described the difference between US and UK soaps as follows:

  NC: “British soaps are all about how horrible life is…American soaps seem to be extremely more glamorous than ours, which are all about poor people scratching a living. people in american soaps always seem to be loaded…While theres definitely a lot of (usually dark) humour in the soaps, they are always dark and depressing. Every christmas day Eastenders has to try to out do itself with something worse happening than the year before it”

AB: “Try Eastenders! Its the Anti USA soap! its gritty and realistic (and they dont stay in the same room in the same conversation for two years!”

TC: “…I think the soaps are very realistic in that they don't attempt to over glam things in their look at working class life. You will find these characters on every street in the UK. The characters have always been super accessable and thats why I think people take them intk their hearts so much. Check out Emerdale it's based on rural/country life and is the alternative choice to Corry or Eastenders. Hollyoaks is the mid teens to.mid twentys soap. All about kids in collegenand Uni. The only tuing I watch regularly is Emerdale.”

 

Once again putting aside the academic stuff for a moment, I want to point out one character from “EastEnders” who caught my attention right away: Dot Cotton, played by 84 year old June Brown. I don’t know too much about her yet—other than her portrayer has an amazing sense in hats…

 

 

—but look forward to learning more about her. Right off the bat, I’d love to do a analysis of this character versus Jeanne Cooper’s Katherine Chancellor character from “The Young & the Restless.”

 

 

Perhaps a good place to start with such a study would be the one-of-its-kind monologue episode wherein Dot relays her life story (which you can watch courtesy of these four clips):

 

 

 

Eastenders - dots story: 31 january 2008 (part 1) 

 

 

Eastenders - dots story: 31 january 2008 (part 2)

 

 

Eastenders - dots story: 31 january 2008 (part 3)

 

 

Eastenders - dots story: 31 january 2008 (part 4)

 

In closing, I want leave you with two final videos—to cleanse the pallet, if you will. 

 

The first comes courtesy of my friend Tally, and hails from “EastEnders”:

 

 

 

The last comes from this week’s “The Young & the Restless”…

 

 

 

And who says soaps aren’t fun?

 

Bye now—

 

* Just a quick note about Dr. Geraghty and her book, Women and Soap Opera: A Study of Prime-Time Soaps: I actually own the book, having acquired it for an earlier Cultural Studies project that I was working on. It’s a really fun read, if you can get your hands on it. Then, later, I had the honor of interviewing Dr. Geraghty for yet another work—she is a really kind person in real life, and had no qualms about helping me. In fact, she even shared with me some of her as-of-then unpublished work.

The (Rambling) Media Edition: Part 3

Those of you who have known me for more than five minutes know that I’m a huge fan of the British comedy “Are You Being Served?”—heck, just look at the url of this blog for goodness’ sake: “Looking for Grace Brothers’”—clearly an AYBS reference.

 

Well, what you may not know is that my love of this series—indeed, of all British comedy—comes by way of my friendship with my best friend growing up, William West (a.k.a. “West-Man”). Over the years, we spent many hours staring at PBS’ reruns of AYBS, and I’ve never forgotten that. I’d be lying if I said it hadn’t played a role in developing my own sense of humor, and defining the type of things I find funny.

 

At any rate, I was reading over William’s blog yesterday—which you can find here, by the way; it’s amazingly funny, and, as he points out in the header, “he’s forgotten more about pop culture than you’ll ever know”—and he mentioned a series I had never heard of, but absolutely should have!

 

The series was called “Take A Letter, Mr Jones,” and it starred Mr. John Inman (who played Mr Humphries on AYBS) as a male secretary working for Rula Lenska.

 

DVD Art

Now, a second ago I declared that I absolutely should have heard of it. But, then again, maybe not. Having learned of its existence, I immediately went to the YouTube store and watched the first episode. (If you’re so inclined, you can also watch the first episode courtesy of the embedded videos below.)

 

I have to say, I was less than impressed. I mean, aside from possessing a theme song that was more irritating than pubic lice (or so I’ve heard—I wouldn’t know personally), it just plain wasn’t funny. Such a shame, too, because I have always adored the late Mr Inman.

 

Perhaps seeing one of his other little-known, albeit funny roles would help us un-see the above...

 

The (Rambling) Media Edition: Part 2

Before leaving KG & MM’s wonderful home—and let me just take a brief moment here to reiterate how grateful I am for their hospitality, and putting up with me while I searched for housing—we started watching a fun flick that we still need to finish. It’s a Norwegian horror film called "The Troll Hunter."

Do yourself a favor and take a moment to watch this trailer:

Is that not simply awesome? It’s like a cross between “The Blair Witch Project,” “Pan's Labyrinth,” and “French & Saunders”!

 

The (Rambling) Media Edition: Part 1

(NB: I have no idea why the text-formatting is so funky starting with Topic #2. My apologies in advance!)

I’ve finally found my own flat in London, and am all moved in. (I’ll post pictures in a later post—I need to finish unpacking first.) I’m now living in the Borough of Newham, near Forest Gate. It’s very interesting, very ethnically diverse area. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t two KFC’s, a Subway, and a McDonalds within walking distance. Oh, and the new Westfield’s shopping mall is only a ten minute tube-ride away. *smdh*

At any rate, the flat is part of a converted single-family home above two shops, one a vegetable market and the other a “Euro style” (whatever that means) pizza and fried chicken joint. I imagine, in another time, the family that lived here probably ran one of the shops downstairs. There’s one kitchen, one bathroom, and four bedrooms (which serve as the individual ‘apartments’). I live on the middle floor, with the landlords (two Lithuanian brothers), and two other guys live in the apartments upstairs. Fortunately, most of them are out during the day, so it's relatively peaceful.

Oh, and have I mentioned the psychotic cat? Like my parents’ dog he's obsessed with my lower-half, so anytime I'm in the kitchen he bites and/or scratches me around the legs and feet. *Sigh*

This is really what the cat looks like...

The Classes...

Happy weekend, everyone!

Well, classes started for me this week. Since that’s the main reason I’m in London, I should probably say something about it, don’t you think? So, below I’ll provide an initial glimpse into each of the modules (courses) I’m taking. No other updates in this post—I'll create a separate post for that stuff in a bit. 

In the meantime:

“Cultural Politics: Power and Social Change” (Thursdays; 9:00 AM-12:00 PM GMT): This module is one of the ones I was required to take—it’s the equivalent of a first-year, post-introductory course. Co-taught by SM and DS,

“[t]he aim of this module is to introduce key ways of understanding power and the technologies through which it is expressed and distributed, and then to put these theoretical ideas into practice by analyzing contemporary instances of cultural politics.

Our interest throughout will be with the question of cultural change, and the possibilities for resistance.

How does change take place and what is the role of technologies in social change? Who has power in our cultures and how does it work?

At the end of the module you will be expected to have an understanding of the different ways in which key theorists in Cultural Studies have understood power and its origins, and be able to undertake different kinds of analysis of cultural politics.” ~ module guide (a.k.a. syllabus). 

As I noted above, it’s fairly similar to a first-year course, and there are the obligatory readings form Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault (YAY!), and Marx...

I love Michel Foucault!

______

Now, let me digress (read: rant) for just a moment about that reading list:

I loathe—positively detest; hate; venomously dislike; would rather have a root-canal—reading Marx! Don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem per se with what he’s saying. I just hate READING his work (well, the English translations at least).

In some ways, Marx is almost like Tolkien, in that he takes four or five pages to spit out an idea that could have been said in one very short, very concise blurb. And, what’s worse, whereas Tolkien was at least describing ostensibly epic scenery—something to spark the imagination—over those many, many pages, Marx goes on-and-on about labor and value and commodity. Since such matters are already something I’m not overly interested in analyzing personally, the excessive page-counts that are part-and-parcel of Marx-related readings does not make me like him any more. (NB: I'm not saying the issues Marx raises aren't important issues to be explored—they're just beyond my ability to analyze.)

And, finally, I just have to say that, personally, the readings during the first two or three weeks of Cultural Studies-related classes are always my least favorite. Why? C’mon, surely you’ve guessed by now—it’s because they’re always related to Marx! As much as I love and respect my CS instructors, I think there’s a stipulation in the contracts they sign—both in the US and the UK, apparently—that they must all devote the first few weeks to my German foe. (Not that I wish to see him eliminated from the curriculum altogether, of course—it’s just that, if I had my druthers, someone more exciting, like Foucault, would come first.)

Alas, it appears I've taken a page from one of his manuscripts, and written too much. Let me put it this way: this is what my brain feels like after reading Marx...

End rant…

______

My second class:

“Culture, Power and Resistance in the Twenty-First Century” (Thursdays; 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM GMT): This is the only class I’m taking that wasn’t required by Columbia’s agreement with UEL. Taught by JG and DS,

“[i]n this module we will look at some of the most important trends and processes which are shaping the world today, and useful ways of understanding them.

In particular we will pay attention to new forms of power, as well as asking what radical culture and politics might look like in the postmodern age of global neoliberal hegemony.

In many ways the current era is one which problematizes older ideas about where political divisions lie: the old conflicts between capitalism and socialism, between liberalism and conservatism, between traditionalism and modernism have been replaced by a complex set of antagonism which are still unfamiliar in many ways.

Here we will try to get a sense of just what is at stake in these momentous shifts. We will pay particular attention to the effects of the neoliberal program on global—and particularly British—society and culture, and at the potential for resistance to this program in the years to come.” ~ module guide

Barack Obama (D) Barack Obama (nL)

It all sounds very interesting. From what I gather, this is the equivalent of something between Columbia’s “Methods of Inquiry” and “Capstone” classes. While there is a heavy focus on neoliberalism in this class, there also seems to be a focus on gender-issues (e.g., one of the prompts for our final work is “Has neoliberalism impacted men and women differently?")—this fact should help immensely with my Women & Gender Studies minor.

_____

Please pardon the interruption as I offer-up another side-note:

It appears that the only graded assignments for our classes over here are two papers in each class—one that is the equivalent of a midterm essay, and the other a final essay. No weekly reading checks, no tests—just two papers. (Which is both exciting and a bit scary.)

End interruption.

______

Now we come to the final class:

“Realism, Fantasy & Utopia” (Fridays; 9:00 AM-12:00 PM GMT): This is the other required class I’m taking—and I’m glad I am! It sounds fascinating! Also taught by DS,

“[t]he aim of this module is to provide an introduction to concepts of realism and test them against what are generally thought of as 'unreality' or 'fantasy'.

We will be questioning what counts as 'truth' and 'knowledge' and exploring the role of utopian fictions in cultural critique.

The main objective of the module is to encourage and enable students to develop a critical understanding of the political interests underscoring historical and contemporary debates about the ‘representation of the real’ in diverse social and cultural practices.” ~ module guide

Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Based on the first session of each module alone, I think this will wind up being my favorite. As a sample: DS started off by showing us this three-minute video:

"The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in Clay"

After watching the above, DS split us into groups of two and posed the following questions:

1)    What kinds of thoughts will the prisoners be having about the one how has ‘seen the light’?

2)    How will they react to him after he has failed to convince them of his experiences?

Suffice to say, it lead to some interesting and thought-provoking discussion. 

(If you're interested, my response was that, according to the parable as it was told, the prisoners were incapable of truly seeing or hearing their friend, so they wouldn’t have had a reaction—he was no more than a continuation of the shadowy tapestry they see day-in-and-out. But, if they, in fact, COULD understand what he was saying, then they would either have resented his taunting them with images of an outside world they would never see, or they would have simply ignored him because they couldn’t possibly grasp what he was describing anyway.)

What do you think, dear readers? Comment away….

Other topics to be covered during the module (both separately and together): feminism, gender, and sci-fi. Hellz yeah!

One of my favorite villains ever! And Patrick Stewart. Yummy!

Well, that’s the scoop with my modules. I’ll be back in a bit with another update—one about the non-academic stuff.

Oh, oh, oh! But, before I go, another culture shock moment: they don’t use (American-sized) printing paper at UEL. Nope, it’s all 11.7 x 8.3 in. Somewhat problematic in terms of my organizational methods—how the heck is that gonna fit nicely in my notebook?

Westminster Abbey: A History

So, after a rather lengthy disagreement between my laptop and my camera that started on Monday, they’ve finally patched up their differences and allowed me to upload more recent photos and videos. Meaning I’m back with another update.

I spent Monday morning in my continued pursuit of housing. Alas, I remained unsuccessful. (Are we noticing a trend here?) Frustrated and feeling as if my time in London was being wasted by people who cannot be “bovvered” to respond to my inquiries, I decided to check-off one of the things on my “To Do” list: tour Westminster Abbey.

Now, the first thing I should say is this: you’re not actually allowed to take photos within the abbey; but, as Nic can attest, I tend to work around such signage by taking secret videos when no one’s looking. The way I see it, I’m not using the flash setting, so there’s no risk of damaging anything—plus, for the most part, they’re only shared between me and my pals. No harm, no foul. At any rate, that’s why some of what follows are videos, and the images are fairly grainy (they’re screen caps).

First and foremost, a bit of history on the abbey itself:

“Westminster Abbey is steeped in more than a thousand years of history. Benedictine monks first came to this site in the middle of the tenth century, establishing a tradition of daily worship which continues to this day.

The Abbey has been the coronation church since 1066 and is the final resting place of seventeen monarchs.

The present church, begun by Henry III in 1245, is one of the most important Gothic buildings in the country, with the medieval shrine of an Anglo-Saxon saint still at its heart.

A treasure house of paintings, stained glass, pavements, textiles and other artifacts, Westminster Abbey is also the place where some of the most significant people in the nation's history are buried or commemorated. Taken as a whole the tombs and memorials comprise the most significant single collection of monumental sculpture anywhere in the United Kingdom.” ~ Official Site for Westminster Abbey

 

Bein' all touristy...

Pretty neat, huh?

As noted by the quoted section above, there is a “significant” collection of monumental sculpture within the abbey. This is not surprising, considering there are over 3,000 people buried there, including the likes of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Laurence Olivier, Rudyard Kipling, and Charles Dickens. 

Old Dickens was dead as a door-nail...

It’s practically impossible to be within the abbey walls without seeing and/or standing atop someone’s memorial!

But, for now, let’s look at some of the living, and then I’ll return to the dead people in a moment...

One of the things I was most eager to see was King Edward’s Chair (a.k.a. the Coronation Chair). This is the more well-known of two thrones the monarch occupies during the coronation ceremony. 

King Edward's Chair

The chair itself is has been used during every coronation ceremony since 1308, and once housed the Stone of Scone (the coronation seat for Scottish royalty). The fact that it looks a bit beat-up is not surprising, consider its age and the fact that for a long time it was not placed under lock-and-key as it is now—meaning the abbey’s students were able to carve their names and other sundry graffiti on its ancient surface.

It truly is a site to behold! And, one day—hopefully not for a very long time—Prince Charles will sit here, just as his mother did in 1953.

This image is NOT mine!

 

Another site from the abbey that some of you may recognize is the High Altar.

The High Altar...kind of.

Most recently, this was seen during the wedding ceremony of Prince William and the now-Duchess of Cambridge (nee: Catherine Middleton)

 Now, some interesting things to be pointed out here:

First, notice the two doors on either side of the altar. Near the end of the ceremony, the bride and groom exited through the door on the right, and then returned through the left-hand door a bit later. This was so they could sign the wedding register. What you may not know, however, is that on the other side of those doors is the tomb of Edward the Confessor, the man responsible for starting the abbey’s construction so long ago.

(Yes, that very hurried video is the one I captured of the room behind the High Altar. The structure at the top is the tomb itself, and in the alcoves beneath it visitors can pray.)

 

Secondly, the man seen behind the Duchess' father is the fellow who lead our tour of the abbey!

The guy who looks like he's asleep--yup, that was my tour guide.

Now, as I said earlier, I want to get back to some of the dead people buried at the abbey. (’Cause, let’s be honest, that’s the biggest reason why I went!)

There are slightly less than twenty monarch entombed within the abbey walls (though, most of the recent royals are buried on the grounds of Windsor Castle). Aside from Edward the Confessor, there is also:

·      Henry III (King of England died 1272)

·      Edward I (King of England died 1307)

·      Edward III (King of England died 1377)

·      Richard II (King of England died 1400)

·      Henry V (King of England died 1422)

·      Edward V (King of England died 1483)

·      Henry VII (King of England died 1509)

·      Edward VI (King of England and Ireland died 1553)

·      James I (King of Great Britain and Ireland died 1625)

·      Charles II (King of Great Britain and Ireland died 1685)

·      Mary II (Queen of Great Britain and Ireland died 1694)

·      William of Orange (King of Great Britain and Ireland died 1702)

·      Anne (Queen of Great Britain and Ireland died 1714)

·      George II (King of Great Britain and Ireland died 1760)

Now, as impressive as that list is (at least to geeks like me), there are actually three names that I’ve left off. Three very, very important names—and the main ones I went to see:

·      Mary I (Queen of England and Ireland died 1558)

·      Elizabeth I (Queen of England and Ireland died 1603)

·      Mary, Queen of Scots (Queen of Scotland died 1587)

Let’s start with the first two names: 

Queens Mary I and Elizabeth I were both daughters of the infamous King Henry VIII. And they didn’t see eye-to-eye on much, mostly because Mary was Catholic and the daughter of Henry’s first wife (Catherine of Aragon), whereas Elizabeth was Protestant and the daughter of Henry’s second wife (Anne Boleyn).

When Henry died, followed shortly thereafter by his only recognized son (Edward VI), Mary became queen—and promptly declared Protestantism illegal. And then slaughtered a bunch of non-Catholics, earning her the nickname “Bloody Mary.”

Well, eventually, Mary herself died, succumbing to cancer two or three years into her reign. At which point Elizabeth ascended to the throne. I don’t suppose I have to say too much about Elizabeth I here, as her history is fairly well-known.

What I did not know, and what I imagine others didn’t either, is that, after Elizabeth died, her successor (King James I of England and VI of Scotland) had Elizabeth buried alongside Mary at Westminster Abbey.

 Yes, they share the same grave. King James even affixed an inscription that reads: “Consorts in realm and tomb, here we sleep, Elizabeth and Mary, sisters, in hope of resurrection.”

Since the new King shared Elizabeth’s religious philosophy, the memorial atop the tomb is dedicated solely to Elizabeth I. There are no effigies dedicated to her elder sister.

An acknowledgment of those who lost their lives over their faith.

Morbid? Perhaps. But, I was there!

Across the way from Queens Mary and Elizabeth rests another Mary—Mary, Queen of Scots. While Elizabeth I was still on the throne, she was worried that her cousin, the Queen of Scotland—as next in line for succession—might make a move to usurp the crown. So, it was off with her head!

At first, Mary was not buried in Westminster. However, when her son—yup, you guessed it: King James I of England and VI of Scotland—took over, he had his mother’s body exhumed and brought to the abbey, where she was buried near her cousins, Mary I and Elizabeth I.

Pretty self-explanatory...

Again, I recognize the morbidity--but I was there!

Whew!

Well, that was exhausting to type all out, and I’m sure you’re exhausted from reading it all! I think I’ll close now. I ain’t bovvered, though.

Until next time…

PS: Yes, the King James I mentioned here-and-there is the one the Bible translation is named after.