Saturday 5 April 2008

The great sci-fi shoot-out


It's back! The best science-fiction TV series ever created is at last returning for its long awaited fourth series. And so, by a curious coincidence, is Doctor Who, snarks Dominic Maxwell...

Yes, Battlestar Galactica really is that mighty. If your only knowledge of BSG is from its initial incarnation, a so-so space-opera starring Dirk Benedict in the late 1970s, that may be hard to take seriously. But not only is the new show better than the original, it's also stronger drama than pretty much anything out there, give or take a Sopranos or a Wire. It's brilliantly written, perfectly played, and credits its audience with plenty of intelligence.

Meanwhile, Doctor Who has grown cocky. Confidence has turned to glibness, as the Doctor cheerily saves himself with a smart comment and a spizz of his sonic screwdriver. Can it ever again be the best science-fiction series around? Not on Battlestar Galactica's watch - here's why.

TOUGH OPPOSITION

BSG starts with the villains, the Cylons, knocking off billions of people - leaving the 40,000-odd survivors the sole remnants of humanity. Mankind's chief weapon? The rusty old spacebucket of the title. The Cylons' chief weapon? Having white-hot technology, looking human (handy for infiltration) and never dying. Cybermen? Daleks? Amateurs.

PEOPLE GET HURT

OK, Billie Piper got sucked into another dimension, and Kylie copped it. Other than that, though, not much really gets to our invincible Time Lord. In the ensemble BSG, there's always the danger that one of our heroes might die at any moment. The President (Mary McDonnell) has cancer; Admiral Adama (Edward James Olmos) gets shot at close range by one of his own crew, and several second bananas lose their lives as the show progresses.

IT'S NOT FOR KIDS

Which, OK, doesn't make this an entirely fair fight. But BSG depicts an adult moral universe that comes in lifelike shades of grey, where people must often choose between competing evils. Doctor Who, meanwhile, is a family show. You don't have to be a kid to enjoy it. But it helps.

SEX, SEX, SEX

There is sexual attraction in the Tardis, but thankfully no consummation. The rebooted BSG, however, was sexed up from the off, as super-sexy Cylon Number Six (Trisha Helfer) literally screwed secrets out of Gaius Balthar (James Callis). And while Number Six looks smashing in a cocktail dress, and the more rippled male cast members aren't averse to getting their shirts off, the sex isn't just titillation: it deepens the drama.

IT'S REALLY FILMED IN SPACE

It isn't? Well it certainly looks like it is. Respect to the special effects on the new Doctor Who, but BSG looks out of this world.

IT PLAYS A LONG GAME

You can't really watch BSG out of sequence, as each season has a shape. In last season's Doctor Who, on the other hand, the Master conquered the Earth in two episodes.

SCARCITY BRINGS VALUE

This fourth season will be its last, which means there's no time for the show to repeat itself. BSG episodes can be overcomplicated, but there are no actual duds. Doctor Who, meanwhile, has too many brisk one-offs in which the aliens barely have time to announce their grievances before they've been sassily outfoxed.

BREADTH OF REFERENCE

Doctor Who is the story of a superman hero. BSG is the story of a human society, and looks at the competing priorities of government and military, leader and worker, duty and desire. It also features sexy people in fetching outfits. In short, it's got the lot.

Battlestar Galactica Revisited, Tues, Sky One, 9pm (followed by The Phenomenon at 9.30pm & Razor, 10pm). The fourth series starts next week. Doctor Who, Sat, BBC One, 6.20pm

Travels in written Britiain

As Melvyn Bragg embarks on a literary tour of Britain, he tells Serena Davies why his new series has a ‘grit’ absent from TV’s other celebrations of our island...

Melvyn Bragg’s enthusiasm is contagious. “It’s a fair bet that this is the most written about country on the planet that there’s ever been,” he gushes. The country in question is of course Britain – the inspiration for Shakespeare’s “scepter’d isle”, Blake’s “green and pleasant land” and Burns’s “bonny Doon”. Everyone knows a quote or two about our country, even if they didn’t think they did.

It is these famous sayings coupled with much more obscure writings that will make up the content of Bragg’s new series, Melvyn Bragg’s Travels in Written Britain, starting on Sunday on ITV1. The passages themselves will be read by some of our most popular actors and personalities, Stephen Fry, Jasper Carrott and Tracey Emin among them. Added to these will be the occasional arresting voice from the past – the 1922 recording of TS Eliot intoning The Waste Land’s bleak vision of the London crowds traipsing to work makes a star turn.

Interspersed with these readings will be Bragg’s journeys around different parts of the British Isles. Each of the series’s four episodes will feature a different region: London, the North, the Midlands, and Scotland. These have been selected for the stories, both literary and historical, that they’ve produced. Although the South Bank Show stalwart concedes that there are other areas he could have covered, and is bracing himself for criticism for these omissions.

“One of the things which British critics are absolutely brilliant at, I’ve discovered in my time,” says Bragg, “is that they delight in telling you what you didn’t do… I’m very happy with these programmes. There’s a lot of meat in them. We’ve got Shelley, Wordsworth, Dickens. We’ve got great writers, and people whose words have never even been spoken before.”

By interweaving the texts of literary writers with those of more ordinary records such as newspapers and letters, Bragg will tell some remarkable tales. One involves the lady whose birthday invitation is the only piece of writing in a female hand to survive in Britain from the days of the Roman Empire. We hear, too, of a 12-year-old factory girl who had to carry back-breaking loads of bricks in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Then there’s the 19th century’s Maid of Buttermere, a Cumbrian girl whom one travelling scribe described as the epitome of English country beauty – turning her into a tourist attraction overnight. Her subsequent fortunes were recorded in an article in a local paper – by a jobbing journalist named Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

This last story holds a particular appeal for Bragg (he’s written a book about it) because it is about the area he comes from. In fact, he pinpoints growing up in Cumbria as the inspiration for this series, as well as the reason behind the passion for literature and language as evinced in his previous television series, 12 Books That Changed the World and The Adventure of English.

‘I was brought up two or three miles from the edge of the Lake District but as soon as I could ride a bike or go youth hostelling I was all over it,” he explains. Which means he was “all over” its literary figures, such as William Wordsworth and Thomas de Quincey, too.

“So I was aware I was going through several different sorts of landscapes. I was going through the adolescent landscape growing up, I was going through a real landscape and I was going through a written landscape.”

It is this sense of landscapes real and metaphorical that he wishes to convey in Written Britain. Landscapes “written” not just by poets but also by the folk writer of the famous ballad Do ye ken John Peel, for example, who hailed from Bragg’s hometown of Wigton, and by miners, such as those from his father’s side of his family, who wrote accounts of their labours.

His concern for the grimier realities of Britain’s story means, Bragg says, that his show will stand out from the crowd.

“There’s lots of programmes on nine o’clock on a Sunday night going on about how great Britain is,” he says. He thinks “they’re all wonderful”, and although he declines to specify series, his likely reference points include ITV1’s Britain’s Favourite View, and the BBC’s A Picture of Britain and The Nature of Britain.

“I’ve got nothing but praise [for these programmes],” he goes on. “On the other hand, there’s a bit of grit somewhere: when you’re looking at castles I’d quite like to know who built them. Not who [commissioned] them, but who built them: what stones they used, and how they hauled them.”

Bragg is hoping that ITV finds pockets deep enough to commission a second series of Written Britain. But he’s well aware that the channel that gives him 18 South Bank Shows a year has nothing like the budget for factual programmes that the BBC has. “We’re a lean machine, we’re lean and mean,” he says, speaking of ITV. “The gap between us is now amazing. Good for the BBC. And good for us that we keep doing it.”

Melvyn Bragg’s Travels in Written Britain begins on ITV1 on Sunday, 6 April at 10.45pm

A career no longer pushing up the daisies

For ITV1 to spend millions of pounds on quite the most bizarre US import of the year, and then to slap it right in the middle of prime time, is a significant gamble: Pushing Daisies is Marmite television. It’s part fairy-tale romance, part comedy, part detective drama – an other-worldly mix that means viewers will either love it or hate it. But, at a time when American TV is awash with cops, doctors, nerds and heroes, it has the winning virtue of at least being an entirely new idea.

It tells the story of Ned (Lee Pace), a pie-maker who learns as a boy that he can bring dead bodies back to life with a single touch. But it gets more complicated. If Ned ever touches a person again once he’s resuscitated them, they’ll die once more – this time for good. And if within 60 seconds of resuscitating someone he hasn’t touched them again, sending them back to the hereafter, someone else in close proximity will die instead. Anna Friel talks to Benji Wilson about coming back from the dead...

It’s a cartoonish conceit (and one that works better on screen than it does in print). It’s complemented by an arch narrator, cotton-candy scenery and, in particular, a deliciously kooky love interest called Chuck (who is murdered, but then Ned brings her back to life – meaning that, of course, he can never touch her again). Chuck – impish, fearless, irresistible – really couldn’t have been played by anyone other than Britain’s own eternal ingĂ©nue, Anna Friel.

Yet, until she was cast in this show, Friel’s career was hardly on the up-and-up. After success in Brookside when she was just 16, and then on Broadway in Patrick Marber’s hit play Closer, she had ended up stagnating in the sorry movie franchise Goal!



It’s typical of Friel that, when I start to tiptoe around some of her career turkeys, she butts in. ‘Say what you want – I won’t be insulted at all so don’t think you have to word anything sensitively,’ she says. ‘At 21, going to Broadway, that was the time when things could have just gone whoosh. Things were just at the right place and then I was incredibly badly managed, and given really bad advice. It’s not until now that I’ve gone to America and they’ve all said, “We were loving you – where did you go?” Now, Daisies has put me in the nicest position I could possibly be in.’

She’s referring here to her recent casting opposite Will Ferrell in the Hollywood remake of Land of the Lost, which would never have come without her performance in Pushing Daisies. She admits that her decision to start looking at US TV scripts has revitalised her film career. Previously, she wouldn’t touch small-screen productions.

I always said absolutely not,’ she says. ‘I’m going to keep battling, do that film career – but TV’s actually turned out to be the best way to make that film career come true. Before, if you were in TV it was completely different to doing movies, but now the snobbery’s gone. Now, because of the calibre and the type of people doing TV, lots of people are choosing to do it. It’s the hardest schedule you could ever do but you reap the benefits… if you’re in a good show.’

And there’s the rub – not all TV shows are created equal. Friel knew she had struck gold when she was offered the part of Chuck without audition by the esteemed pairing of series producers Bryan Fuller (Heroes) and Barry Sonnenfeld (Get Shorty, Men in Black).

‘I was very lucky,’ she explains. ‘I got offered about seven shows when I expressed an interest in television and then read another 15 – and this one screamed out loud. I liked its imagination and its humour and I thought the standard of writing was 10 times better than some of the other things I was reading. And I loved that [the heroine] was called Chuck. I thought, “I want to play a girl called Chuck.”’ As Friel says ‘Chuck’ she broadens her native Rochdale accent to make it sound like ‘Chook’. ‘I don’t like “Cherk”, as I have to say in American.’



Chuck, like most of Pushing Daisies, floats somewhere between the real world and the fairies. Friel and her long-term partner, actor David Thewlis, have a two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Gracie, and Friel says she looked to Gracie for emotional pointers. ‘If you’ve died, as Chuck has, it’s the worst thing that can possibly happen to you. If that’s already happened then nothing’s ever scary. Gracie’s open and she’s absolutely fearless,’ says Friel. ‘It’s the fact that she just appreciates everything. I sit here and you could be an absolute bastard and I’d look for the one little quality you have. That’s her thing all the time – she will look for the best in everybody. She’s made of love, she believes in nothing but love and completely appreciates life.’

And if that sounds sentimental – well, that’s Marmite TV. But the critical and audience response to Pushing Daisies in America has shown more love than loathing. Unlike some of her other work, Friel is proud of it. Or at least, as she concludes with a dose of Rochdale realism, ‘I don’t mind people seeing this one, put it that way.’

Pushing Daisies is on ITV1 on Saturday, 5 April at 9.00pm

Omid Djalili:'How many other small, fat , bald men get their own show?'

Omid Djalili is one of Britain’s most popular stand-up comics, as well as a star of film and TV. Not bad for an Iranian boy who failed his A levels – three times – and was rejected by 16 drama schools, writes Deborah Ross...

When I arrive at the comedian Omid Djalili's house in nicely tree-lined East Sheen, south- west London, it's his wife, Annabel, who answers the door. Omid's just popped out for milk, she says. He'll only be a tick. They've just returned from a few days in Devon with the children – they have three; the oldest is 15 – and the fridge is empty. Come in, come in. Cup of tea? She puts the kettle on. We chat for a bit. She is lovely; very pretty and smiley. Then Omid returns. "Hello, Omid," I say. "Milk?" asks Annabel hopefully. Omid opens his plastic carrier. There is apple juice. There is a newspaper. There is no milk. "I forgot," he says. "Oh, Omid," we both say in the way women do when they wish to capture centuries of female disappointment. Omid looks sheepish and smiles that smile, the one that says: "Please don't hit me, clever ladies who would get milk if they were sent out for it."

I am minded to stay in the kitchen with Annabel to talk about why men cannot do the one simple thing you have asked them to do (it's not my favourite subject – I'm just determined to get to the bottom of it one day) but Omid is ushering me into the living room with my black tea. That is: tea, which is black, there being no milk. Nice.

The house is 1920s and big but not fancy, with a living room that's all old rugs and comfy sofas. Omid says he doesn't do fancy. "I don't have extravagant tastes. I don't buy fancy cars. I'm not ostentatious. Buying a nice house in East Sheen was really pushing it for me." Having grown up without money, he now worries about his kids growing up with it, worries that they're becoming "bloody rich twats". The other day he overheard them talking about the houses they would like to live in when they were older and so he said: "Not with my money, you won't." He adds: "I saw my parents work desperately hard."

He settles on to a sofa, feet up, yawns, then yawns again. I'm keeping you up, I say. He says he's sorry, he's knackered. He's mid-tour plus has just driven the four hours back from Devon. He says that once, returning from a gig in Liverpool, he was so tired while driving down the motorway he hallucinated pterodactyls flying around his head that he had to flap away. He was eventually stopped by the police who asked him: "How fast do you think you were going, sir?" He said: "100mph?" No, they told him, "you were going 10mph in the middle lane while slapping yourself." They were nice, though, the cops. "They sat in the car with me while I had a little rest." He is amazed that "more comedians don't die on the road". I say I'm amazed more can't remember milk. Honestly, we send you out to do one simple thing...

He is a big man, hefty, but not Channel 5 freakomentary fat, although the way he speaks about himself you'd think he was. When I ask him if he still has a personal trainer he says: "I have to, I'm so heavy." I tell him he's not that heavy. Come off it. He disagrees: "I'm deceptively heavy. I'm 15-and-a-half stone, four stone overweight." He's not sure what the problem is, but thinks it might be food. "I eat too much on tour, because of the stress. It's comfort eating. It's soporific." What can't you resist more than anything? "A bowl of chips." He does like to cook, yes, and particularly Iranian dishes "full of walnuts and pomegranates".

Born in London to Iranian parents, he is that rare thing: a comedian in the West who, having a Middle Eastern background, can tell jokes about the Middle East. But although culture and ethnicity – as well as some wonderfully silly dancing – are at the core of his act, I do think he is mostly funny just because he is just funny. I like his joke about the Middle Eastern equivalent of our knock-knock jokes. "It's the Floomph, Floomph joke. Floomph, Floomph? That's someone knocking on a tent." That said, he often will make a point: "An asylum seeker arrives at Dover. 'Why are you here?' asks the customs officer. 'My house was bombed,' comes the reply. 'No, why are you really here.' 'Um... because I've always wanted to work in a chip shop in Basingstoke?'"

Success is good, and the money is good, but he's not in it for the money or the fame. "For me, it's always been about respect." He's failed a lot, and has been rejected a lot. He took three A-levels three times and failed them all. He was basically booted out of school. He was refused a place by 16 – 16! – drama schools. He says he's had to fight all the way to get to where he is with his sell-out tours, film roles and his own BBC sketch show. "How many other small, fat, bald men get their own TV shows?" he asks. "Kojak?" I suggest. "Apart from Kojak," he says.

One of his most recent film roles was in the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie, which I could not make head nor tail of. What was it about, Omid? He says he has no idea. He took the part because he was told he'd get to do a scene with Keith Richards. He adds: "I didn't understand the script or even the scene I was in! I'd ask the others: do you know what this is about? They'd say: no idea. Just shut up and do it." He is most proud of his performance as Picasso in the film Modigliani, although wishes he had been given more time to lose weight. "I was Picasso in his porkadelic phase."

His parents moved to London in 1957 – Omid was born eight years later – where his father, Ahmad, worked as a journalist for the Iranian newspaper Kayhan. However, this career came to a sudden end with the Islamic revolution in 1979 and the new regime's official campaign of persecution against the followers of the Baha'i faith, which include Omid and his family. To earn money, his parents turned their small Kensington mansion-block flat into a sort of pension for sick Iranians who had travelled to Harley Street for medical treatment.

"Iranians don't like staying in hotels. They want to stay with families. So my parents would take them in and cook for them and translate for them and take them to their appointments." Omid rarely, if ever, bought friends home from school. "Too embarrassing and too complicated. They'd want to know why a sick old man was wandering around in his pyjamas at four in the afternoon and I'd have to explain." He didn't have his own bedroom – "bedrooms were money" – so slept in the lounge. When I ask about siblings he says: "I have an older sister and brother who shared a room and escaped as quickly as they could." His mother, Parveneh, was also a dressmaker. What was her style? "Very flamboyant, very few clients," he says.

He went to trendy Holland Park school which is where, he thinks, he first learnt that being funny could feel really, really good. In his first year he wrote a sketch for his classmates that his teacher suggested he perform in front of the whole school. The sketch involved a monster lying under a blanket that no one could look at because the monster was so ugly that if you did look at him, you'd die. He primed a few kids to come up on stage, lift a corner of the blanket, then scream and drop dead. He then asked the deputy head to come and have a look but when the deputy head did so, the monster died, "because the head was so ugly". The sixth formers, he says, "roared with laughter and I felt like a rock star".

Alas, Omid did not make it to the sixth form himself. He was expelled, although never formally. The head – perhaps the deputy had been promoted and didn't think he was that ugly – just said: "Please don't come back." Why? "I was told I was disruptive. I was a real tearaway. I'd run into the staff room, take down my trousers, play the piano and then run out again." He went to some kind of college to take his A levels (English, Economics, French) which he thought he could do in a year. He could not. "I failed in January, took them again in June, and then again the next January." All in all, he has worked out that "I failed 49 separate papers". Omid, I say, you're obviously a smart guy, so what is with all this failing, already?

He says it was probably his chaotic family life; he could never get down to any studying at home because he was constantly being asked to drop everything and go and pick someone up at the airport, or drop everything so he could go and translate for someone. Your parents weren't interested in your education? No, he says. I say that's weird. Usually immigrant parents are mad for their children's education; mad for them to become doctors and lawyers so the whole family can feel somehow legitimised. This is true for some, he says, but not for him. Weirder still, he says, he comes from a background of doctors and lawyers on both sides. There was an actor though; his mother's brother. "He married a Mormon, went to live in Utah, and had a small part in Starsky and Hutch. Unfortunately, he died young, but when I said I wanted to be an actor, she encouraged it." And your dad? "He paid no attention until I started making money."

He didn't take his failures lightly. When his A-level results would come in the post he would implore: "Please let it be an A, maybe a B, and it would always say 'unclassified'." Each time, he'd get the results investigated but "they were always right". In the end, "I was so desperate to go to university I lied on my UCCA form, putting down Bs and Cs instead of Es and Fs." This led him to an English and Theatre Studies degree at the University of Ulster. When he graduated, pretty much top of his year, he confessed but was not run out of town. "They said that I obviously deserved to be there."

Next, all those auditions for the drama schools. Sixteen! Maybe you were crap, I suggest. He didn't think so, he says. He even got to the point where he phoned one school up to ask: why? They sent him a letter saying "that although I was very talented they also thought I was very arrogant". He probably is a bit arrogant – he couldn't believe his A-level results, he couldn't believe anyone would turn him down – but still. Do actors require humility? "I think you do have to be quite malleable and I was too much the finished article."

Luckily, at around this time, he met Annabel (Knight, an actress and playwright) and together they moved to the Czech Republic where they became involved in experimental theatre. Their company, In Theatre, was highly rated and travelled extensively. "I did think: this is it. This is what my life is going to be." But he felt he had to come back to London in 1995 when his mother died because "my father took it very hard, and was lonely". What does Ahmad think of his TV, movie and stand-up star of a son? "He does like the fame by association. He's 84 and says he has a lot of women in their sixties and seventies flirting with him."

I say I don't see where the stand-up comes into all this. He says it was Annabel, who just kind of saw it in him, and persuaded him to put something together for the Edinburgh Festival. You have her to thank for all this yet you can't remember to get milk? Omid, you should be ashamed. "I got apple juice!" he protests.

Anyway, our time is nearly up. He's got to get to Salisbury for a gig. Omid kindly gives me a lift to Richmond station, wearing a peaked cap that makes him look all cheeky. He says his life seems fantastic to him now, as if it is happening to someone else. He may be considerably more vulnerable than he cares to let on. Still, this is no excuse for not doing that one simple thing.

Never is, never will be.

Balls of steel


As Jim Halpert in the US version of The Office, John Krasinski won over the doubters. But, asks John Patterson, can this plucky Brit-obsessed underdog cut it as a player in George Clooney's gang?

It's worth mentioning at the outset that you probably won't meet a nicer, more deeply everyday kind of fella than John Krasinski. He's still fresh and green enough to look around a Beverly Hills hotel lobby and say, all bright-eyed, "Wow, there are famous people in this room!", not realising that he is simultaneously the most famous and most beloved person for 20 blocks.

This is also what we love about Jim Halpert, the big-blue-eyed sales associate from Dunder-Miflin Scranton whose love for blank-faced receptionist Pam (Jenna Fischer) has lately riveted audiences in America in the same way that the Martin Freeman-Lucy Davis romance did on the original British The Office. And, honestly, John is a lot like Jim.

First, though, we're here to talk about Krasinski's latest movie, Leatherheads, directed and co-written by co-star George Clooney. Leatherheads is a very likable, albeit not quite succinct enough, retro screwball comedy about the early days of professional football (ie American football) in the 1920s, when all the action was on the college football circuit and the pro version of the game was hobbled by a lack of backers and a dearth of paying spectators. Imagine a movie that feels like it was made by the Coen brothers (and numerous Coen regulars appear, including the imperishable Stephen Root and the speccy Klan guy from O Brother, Where Art Thou?), which doffs its titfer in the general direction of any number of motormouth 1930s and 1940s comedies.

Krasinski is the college star and supposed first world war hero whose move into the ratty professional leagues, with Clooney's struggling Duluth Bulldogs, draws the national spotlight to the game. Meanwhile, a Chicago reporter, or reportrix, played by Renee Zellwegger in the best Hildy Johnson/Brenda Starr manner, knows that Krasinski's war heroics may have actually been war cowardice. What Krasinski remembers, though, is mud; the movie's final contest takes place on a rain-soaked field of combat, and mud proves to be an agent of influence in the final outcome.

"Believe it or not, George had to test these different kinds of muds. He wanted one that stuck better. You had this whole special effects team dedicated to mud. And the stuff is heavy; I could barely move around. We found plenty of time to complain about it. There were days when, no kidding, it was 30 degrees outside and we'd put on our muddy wool outfits, and then the next day it'd be 78 degrees but you'd be wearing the same muddy wool, all wet and disgusting."

Did all this suffering earn him induction into the Clooney gang?

"Uh, I dunno, I don't think so yet. I might be like the gang's personal assistant, but I'm on the way in. I'm a little worried about how they induct their members. I worry that if I was in an Ocean's movie they'd probably put a brand on me with a molten coathanger when I joined."

Did he get punked by Clooney, the notorious prankster famed for such stunts as altering a friend's answerphone message to make it sound like a gay hooker's instructions to potential clients?

"George loves his elaborate practical jokes but he already had three jobs - producing, writing and directing - plus the old acting thing, which is tough on a guy, so he was so busy I don't think he had time to punk anyone. But the first two or three days down there, I thought the entire movie was a prank. I thought this might be the most elaborate prank ever. He'd get the cover of Time magazine, and there'd be a little picture in the corner of me like a kid, crying my eyes out with a little leather helmet on, and the headline, 'We got a little TV kid to think he could do a big movie with Renee and George!' But the other thing he did was beat me at basketball, and that was devastating!"

But he's, like, 15 years older and half a foot shorter!

"Dude, he beat me seven to two! You start shooting and all of a sudden you give him a window and he's soooo fast. He asked me if I was any good. I said, 'Yeah, I'm pretty good.' Of course, George now tells people I said I'd kick his ass up and down the court! I remember telling my friends that he really lightened up when I challenged him to basketball. One of my friends said, 'Have you read Vanity Fair? He's ALWAYS talking about how he plays ball twice a day. He has his own court on the Warner Bros lot.' I knew I was doomed right then."

Three women stroll past, their pace halting as they whisper to each other, "That's HIM!"

Dude, they're checking you out!

"Aha... um, I gotta go!" he says, satirically half-raising himself from his seat. He sits back down: "No, trust me, it's Jim they're interested in, not me. Everyone knows me as Jim. I've been doing this a while now, so I know the difference."

Jim is the one guy in The Office (a masterpiece of US comedy that has established an identity entirely separate from the Gervais-Merchant British original) who earns our unqualified love. Did the popularity of the original scare him?

"My love for British things, and London especially, is so overwhelming. But one day I went out to lunch there with Ricky Gervais and I felt sure that people were going to just stone me. Over here the new show was well underway, but over there it had just hit and obviously no one was watching it enough to care about me. Ricky is a whole new echelon of celebrity. Everybody knows him! Everyone wants to buy him a pint!"

After a breathtakingly precise imitation of Stephen Merchant, Krasinski notes the incredible niceness of The Office's originators. "It would have been really easy to remove themselves from our version of the show, cut all ties, take the money and run, but they're so appreciative. You expect them to say, 'Of course we love the show,' whatever they think, but suddenly they'll start talking about our new plotlines and particular episodes in immense detail. That shows they do love us, I think."

He still sounds a little worshipful of certain British comedy titans. "Last night I was at the premiere of Run Fatboy Run. I finally met Simon Pegg, great guy, super-kind, super-gracious, and Eddie Izzard was there, and all of these guys just love the show. I'm like, 'You guys aren't supposed to say that. You're supposed to hate the show!' Believe me, your bullshit-meter's on full-tilt when actual Brits who you admire are praising you."


You don't have to be mad to work here: Krasinski on his co-workers:

Michael: "Steve [Carell, who plays boss Michael Scott] shot The 40 Year Old Virgin while we were doing the first season and I don't know if we would have survived without its success. He became a movie star and our show got picked up. I don't think that was a coincidence. He's got an incredible energy. He's deadly funny."

Creed: "You know he was in [60s rock band] The Grass Roots? So he'll be at lunch and he'll be talking about being onstage with Janis Joplin, and they're all on PCP, and Creed's playing a guitar that didn't exist and it wasn't plugged in, and notes would pour out of the guitar and crumble into dust - NOBODY has stories like that! The day the Doors were in the studio figuring out the beat to Riders On The Storm, Creed's there in the studio with them. And he's a huge star in China - he's like the white guy in every Chinese movie! The American general or the ship captain."

Phyllis: "She was running lines at the auditions and I told her, ' You need to be on this show - just don't go after my part!'"

Angela: "Right now she's tiny and pregnant, so now she's the same width as her height. I joke that she's my little sister. Compared to her character she's so nice. If she ever hurts someone's feelings she'll feel bad about it for ever. But in character she can say all these evil cold things and it's hysterical."

Ryan: "I was in high school in Massachusetts with BJ [Novak, who plays Ryan, also one of the show's writers]. His humour is odd. You can laugh at his jokes, even as you're the one getting laughed at."

Friday 4 April 2008

Sex is still the global TV draw

Sex, sex and more sex together with ever-popular game shows remain the big television draws in most countries, according to a new survey. Sex and science, sex and spirituality and sex for the sake of sex - anything goes, according to International Medias Consultants Associes (IMCA) and Mediametrie, a French television audience monitoring firm, which produced the survey.

"Sex sells whatever the medium," said Sheily Lemon of IMCA. "The 2007-2008 season was marked partly by the return of game shows, many of them games depending greatly on chance and the participants' psychological skills, and also partly by sex, sex and more sex spiced by just a little bit of spirituality," said Amandine Cassi, one of the authors of the study of viewing habits covering 2,000 networks in 82 countries or territories.

Sex rears its head in magazine programs, documentaries, reality shows, series and sitcoms, for example in Spain with such programs as El sexometro on the Cuatro channel, in France with shows like Sexualite et amour: vos questions, nos reponses (Sexuality and Love, Your Questions Our Replies) on France 3, and in Britain with Sexilicious on Channel Five.

"From the point of view of relationships, there is an antagonism between apologies for sex for the sake of sex in opposition to stable, solid, long-term relationships," said Sheily Lemon. "Most of the time all these programs have a scientific gloss with experts explaining how it's done, involving very technical details," she said.

The British documentary on the ITV1 channel, How to get more sex, went into the theme of chemical means of sexual attraction by inviting participants to sniff various odours, without knowing whether these were male, female or those of a pig, for example, and then saying which ones attracted them most. Sheily Lemon noted that even Roman Catholic channels, such as NED 3 in The Netherlands, talk about sex, citing the program 40 dagen zonder seks (40 days without sex) which invites young viewers to observe sexual abstinence for 40 days.

As for game shows, family, money or general knowledge are all fair game as subjects too provide an excuse for this ever-popular type of program. The study singles out one program on the United States network NBC, My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad, in which fathers and their offspring have to demonstrate their ability to work as a team. Then there is the game show on Fox Television called The Moment Of Truth, in which participants reveal the intimate things about themselves - revelations which can sometimes be horrific news to their families.

No delays on 'live' Olympics

TV broadcasts from August’s Beijing Olympics will go out live to the world with no transmission delays, senior Olympic officials have announced. “As far as the Olympics are concerned, the broadcasts will go out as and when the action happens,” said veteran International Olympic Committee (IOC) member Kevan Gosper.

China’s state broadcaster CCTV routinely delays transmission of so-called live events, including a ceremony on Monday on central Tiananmen Square to welcome the Olympic torch when footage was broadcast about one minute late. Fears that China would delay Olympic TV broadcasts so as to censor the coverage or would block the internet to journalists during the Games were completely unfounded, Gosper said.

Gosper, vice-chairman of the IOC’s Coordination Commission, working with Beijing on hosting the Games, told AFP there would be complete internet freedom for more than 20,000 accredited journalists covering the Games. “TV signals will be live and the internet will be open and free for all accredited media,” he said.

Beijing routinely blocks access to websites deemed indecent or critical of the Chinese government or in favour of issues opposed by the communist party. Sun Weijia, director of media operations for the Beijing Olympic organising committee, said CCTV had no role in international transmission from the Olympics. The job will be handled by the host broadcaster, Beijing Olympic Broadcasting, a joint venture between the organising committee and the IOC. “There will be no delay from Beijing. The transmission signal goes out to international broadcasters as events unfold,” Sun said.

Gosper was speaking on the sidelines of a three-day meeting between the commission and Beijing Olympics organisers taking place just 127 days ahead of the Games opening ceremony. “I have to be certain that journalists and all members of the press can report on the Games as freely and openly as they have done on previous Games,” he added.

Satire offensive

If Headcases isn't cruel, it won't work states Matthew Parris. It's got to hurt. If it doesn't bite it doesn't work. And if it doesn't shock, it won't stick.

To know why that is true of political satire you would have to be more than one of The Times's parliamentary sketchwriters, as for 13 years was Parris; you would have to be a psychoanalyst or priest. What we know is that for at least the past four centuries England and Ireland have excelled at the art of political lampoonery, and almost everything that survives from it is savage. An art that started with cartooning and satirical fiction, and moved to poetry and theatre, and finally to broadcasting too, has altered the media through which it has been published, but stayed astonishingly true to the tradition of rude, crude, unfair, needling and unbelievably personal attack that has always distinguished English satire. Continental satirists and cartoonists usually go for the issue first, the individual second: with us it is the other way round.

And the legacy is truly shocking. Jonathan Swift published a modest proposal that the Irish should eat their own babies, as an answer to famine in that country: it was meant as a satire on the heartlessness of the English. In the 18th century it was not thought unusual to caricature monarchs sitting on the lavatory. Such are the traditions that were handed down to the BBC's That Was The Week That Was in 1960s Britain - and 20 years later to Spitting Image. Like it or not, Headcases will be called the successor to Spitting Image and compared with ITV's crude, ferocious and long-running end-of-20th-century satire. Computer animation may have replaced the famous rubber puppets that the programme's victims gave silly sums of money to purchase, Gordon Brown and David Cameron may have replaced the pinstriped Margaret Thatcher, Dracula Norman Tebbit and clownish Neil Kinnock, but the spirit of British political caricature - part savage and part infantile - remains the same across the ages.

Maybe we should define terms. Or maybe it isn't worth trying. I've already made free use of words such as caricature, cartoon, satire, lampoonery (and you could throw in parody too) as though they were loosely interchangeable. In fact, there are two distinct strands to this branch of humour. The first strand is the oldest and most primitive insult in human history: mimicry. We mock by making a copy of our victim, and we mock further by making the copy grotesque: an exaggeration. The medium is secondary: it could be audio or visual; still or animated; film, theatre, newspaper or book. It can be a copycat voice (like Rory Bremner's), a copycat walk; it can be a savage cartoon, or a puppet, or an actor on stage, or a whole novel such as George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the animals were really grotesque versions of real people on the Left and Right. What all these have in common, however, is that part of the pleasure and laughter comes from seeing dignified people made undignified through the depiction of crude copies of them.

That itself is the joke: the first joke. It is the core joke for England's greatest cartoonists. Look at our 18th-century cartoonists like James Gillray and William Hogarth, whose demolition of Georges III and IV the former Cabinet Minister Kenneth Baker (himself portrayed on Spitting Image as a slug) has recently showcased in two new collections. Or look at fine modern exemplars of the tradition like The Times's own Peter Brookes.

But look harder at a Brookes cartoon, a Spitting Image puppet or a Headcases animation and, though you may laugh first at the rude copy of an important personage, you may well be entertained next by an implied disrespectful commentary on something in the news that the personage has said or done. This - disrespectful commentary on current events - is the second strand. Satirist, parodist, cartoonist or lampooner alike, will often be protesting at, not just laughing at, their victims.

Pariss' own experience, as an MP and then as a journalist leaves him ambivalent about the power of satire to change things. Unless a satirist - in print, picture or TV image - goes with the grain of how the public are already beginning to see a political leader, his work is wasted; but what he can do is echo and amplify - and, with humour, give wings to - ideas that are already current.

Parris would be more confident of satire's power to hurt (as opposed to embarrass) if he hadn't seen for myself how much most of our political and media class crave the attention, however cruel, of satirists. When Spitting Image decided not to replace their famous puppet of Brian Walden with a puppet of his successor [Parris] on Weekend World he felt desolate. Partly because we all like public attention, even when hostile. Partly because to be among the puppet cast of that series was for many years the mark of having arrived. Norman Tebbit played up to his bloodsucking puppet. Margaret Thatcher pretended not to see the joke about her - but did, and finally began to parody herself. Believe me, if Headcases takes off as its predecessor did, they'll all want to be on it.

And before the “not a patch on Spitting Image” comparisons begin, it's important for those of us who were actually there in 1984, when Spitting Image started, to remind ourselves that the series wasn't usually all that funny. The satire was a hit-and-miss affair, with more misses than hits. We tend to remember only the hits. We remember Thatcher's poll-tax map of Great Britain on which Scotland was “the Testing Ground”; the joint leaders of the newly formed Liberal and SDP Alliance - a big David Owen puppet with a tiny, squeaky David Steel in his pocket like a kangaroo's joey; Roy Hattersley spraying spittle whenever he spoke; and a grey John Major forever pushing peas around his plate.

But those are only four sketches. Readers with long memories may perhaps be able to remember a handful more. Spitting Image, however, ran for 12 years. Many of the sketches were mildly funny, just a few were side-splitting, and frankly much of the rest was low-grade slapstick, with puppets for ever biffing each other on the heads in routine and unfunny Punch & Judy fashion. People and programmes, however, live on in their moments of genius. Spitting Image had enough of these to deserve its place as a classic.

Technically it was fairly crude, though some (not all) of the puppets were inspired, and some of the politicians (like Thatcher) grew eventually to resemble their puppets. It was not without wit: Thatcher, dining with her Cabinet and ordering steak, and in response to the waiter's “And the vegetables?” replying, “They'll have the same as me”; but the series was distinguished more often by sheer brutality (the sketch of Thatcher consulting Adolf Hitler, working incognito as an elderly gardener next-door, must have given its editors an anxious moment) or downright cruelty (Norma Major told Parris that she and her husband had loved Spitting Image until that peas sketch, after which she couldn't bear to watch it: “John doesn't even particularly like peas,” she added, sadly.) Headcases will need to get in place a cast of computer-generated representations that are, as often as not, technically memorable. It will need a measure of wit and the occasional flash of insight. And it will need to find - or create - an audience keen to enter its world and knowing and caring enough about its cast of characters for the jokes to mean much.

It will also need occasionally to shock. Really shock. There must be lightning flashes of cruelty, and they must often border on and sometimes trespass into bad taste. Unless there occur episodes which seriously offend a minority of viewers and bring the series regularly to the attention of the broadcasting watchdogs, it's never going to take off. Parris does mean to offend. Not just the easy targets, Christians, pensioners, the BNP, monarchists and toffs - it's perfectly safe and PC to attack these - but people on the more sensitive outposts of the diversity agenda. The best traditions of English satire should not spare Muslims, blacks, gays, women, the disabled or the mentally ill. There will have to be sketches that make people wince, as Parris winces when he sees David Blunkett's blindness parodied. Spitting Image, which after one Tory election victory had the massed puppetry of the entire Tory Cabinet singing the Nazi Tomorrow Belongs To Me, would not in today's politics have hesitated to depict Messrs Brown and Cameron in a gruesome bidding competition as to the respective disabilities of their two sons. Do broadcasters still have the stomach for that kind of thing? Every age has its own political correctness. Less prudish about nudity, swearing, sex and violence than we used to be, have we simply replaced the old taboos with new ones such as racism, sexism, homophobia - and smoking?

Where the Victorians covered piano legs lest the piano appeared to show ankle, Mr Blair's New Britain bans snapshots of school Nativity plays lest they offer illicit thrills to paedophiles. My guess is that the underlying Britain changes less, but the print and broadcast media are becoming nervous about representing it. Brave satire should go clodhopping into this anxious balance. Parris watched a sampler DVD of Headcases. He said the series evidently intends to adopt the same strategy as did Spitting Image in its later years: a sort of BBC Radio 5 Live fusion of politics, news, celebrity and sport. Thus, besides politics, we have satire on the Beckhams, the grandes dames of British cinema, and trash-celebrity; but I will need convincing that the audience for all this will have much patience for politics, or vice versa. Some of the computer animation was brilliant, and many of the caricatures spot-on, but in a medium where the competition grows ever more varied, from Shrek to on-board airline safety videos, this novelty is likely to wear off.

And so to the really awkward question. Was it cruel enough, pointed enough? Were there aching moments or unforgettable lines? What Parris saw gave reason for hope but not yet for confidence. In his own field, politics, he found Headcases slightly safe. If you want to do a brutal satire of the Prime Minister, but shrink from the image of a one-eyed, paranoid, nail-biting obsessive, you've flunked the test. Nick Clegg should have been in a nappy, having accidents, and dipping rusks into milk. And though Headcases' William Hague was splendid, I'm at a loss to know how you'd do David Cameron. Depicting him a bit of a toff is nowhere near cruel enough, though George Osborne showed promise as Cameron's snivelling school fag.

David Davies should be a broken-nosed thug, Dr Liam Fox a body-snatching creep, and the other Tories a faceless bunch whose names their leader keeps forgetting. Vince Cable would be a foxtrotting poisoner; David Miliband a monkey with embarrassing habits; Ed Balls a nasty playground bully; Alan Johnson a cockney spiv; and Harriet Harman and Dawn Primarolo operated by machines.

Parris concludes by telling us what he really thinks; namely, that Armando Iannucci's The Thick of It leads the way. Now that the British family no longer sit down together to sample the evening's TV viewing and talk about it over breakfast, you probably can't corral different audiences into a single, mainstream satirical show. After what should prove a promising start, I would take Headcases into more dangerous territory: a niche programme, unafraid to offend, and placing politics and real news at its centre. Where's the fun in mocking Amy Winehouse? Leave the Peters Andre and Doherty to parody themselves. Produce political satire that, though its audience is circumscribed, is watched with both anxiety and relish by people who count, and from time to time brings a Commons morning when David Cameron or Gordon Brown find it hard to look their own backbenchers in the eye.

National lampoons: 2,500 years of great satirists

Aristophanes (456-386BC) One of the first political satirists. Wrote Lysistrata, in which the women of Athens withhold sex from their military and political husbands.

Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) Author of Gulliver's Travels and former priest. Drapier's Letters, written anonymously, were so successful in their criticism of an Irish coin-making monopoly that the Government offered a reward for the name of the author. No one responded.

William Hogarth (1697-1764) The pictorial satirist. His Beer Street engraving shows Londoners enjoying vast quantities of beer after a ban on the unlimited sale of gin.

Thomas Rowlandson (1756-1857) One of the 18th century's most popular cartoonists. His Early Lesson in Marching shows four men in civilian dress posing while being instructed by an officer on how to march.

James Gillray (1757-1815) Fan of Hogarth. His The Coalition shows Lord North and Charles James Fox excreting into a pan bearing the royal coat of arms while the Devil stirs the contents.

Punch (1841-1992 and 1996-2002) Its sophisticated but inoffensive material made it a staple in 19th-century British drawing rooms. Closed because of poor sales, relaunched by Mohamed Al Fayed, closed again six years later.

H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American journalist best known for his satirical reporting of the trial of John Scopes for teaching evolution.

Mort Sahl (1927- ) An American stand-up comedian who once wrote speeches for JFK. His trademark was appearing on stage with a newspaper in hand, and many of his jokes stemmed from the day's headlines.

Gerald Scarfe (1936- ) Sunday Times cartoonist also known for his work with The New Yorker and Yes, Minister and cover illustration of Pink Floyd's The Wall. His Top Bitch (below) shows Margaret Thatcher as a bitch, excreting Ted Heath as a turd .

Peter Brookes (1943- ) British Press Awards Cartoonist of the Year. Political illustrator and cartoonist for The Times since 1983. Since 1986, has also been co-cover artist of The Spectator. In That's All Folks (below) Tony Blair appears in the famous Looney Tunes cartoon sign-off with the bad taste of Iraq in his mouth.

Private Eye (1961- ) Thorn in the side of the Establishment, edited by Ian Hislop. Known for gossip about the misdeeds of the powerful and famous, and for the number of libel lawsuits brought against it.

Louis Theroux goes big game hunting

Maverick TV journalist Louis Theroux talks exclusively to Serena Davies about his upcoming documentary, a look at the hunting industry in South Africa, where foreign tourists pay thousands of dollars to shoot big game on private farms

What made you choose this particular topic?

I’d done a film on high stakes gambling in Las Vegas and I’d done one on plastic surgery in Beverly Hills and I’d been thinking along the lines of what stories are there out there in a similar vein. There’s obviously a lot of controversy around the issue of hunting as there is around gambling and I like these stories where there is a moral dimension, stories that force you to think about your prejudices about a subject and explore the extent to which they are justified.

Hunting really divides people in Britain. We keep pets and we name our animals but we’re not too worried about industrial hunting practices. Though that is starting to change. We made this film last year, before Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall began their campaigns drawing attention to meat farming practices.

Certainly at the time we were making the film last year it was not to my mind self evident that the life of a kudu running around on a game farm in South Africa and shot by an American tourist for its horns is much worse than a battery farmed chicken here, cooped up in a cage with its claws and beak chopped off. In fact the kudu’s got it significantly better, I would have thought.

How did making the film alter your attitude to big game hunting?

I came away from the programme thinking that although I wouldn’t choose to hunt, I wouldn’t want to see it made illegal. The argument that [the game farmer] Pete Warren makes in the programme that the private ownership of game and the raising of game on farms is actually a very effective way of maintaining game stocks and preserving endangered species is a strong one.

Although I do feel there is more they could do to ensure the hunters themselves are confident. I don’t think half-blind people should be out there. In many hunting circles it used to be considered unsportsmanlike like to shoot from the truck. In Ernest Hemingway’s day it was a definite no-no. But nowadays those rules are all out of the window.

There is a lot of talk of the hunter’s “killer instinct” in this programme. Do you think this is something that would get expressed in other ways if the hunters didn’t have the opportunity to kill animals?

No I don’t. In some ways there’s a mystery at the heart of hunting and this programme which I don’t completely unravel. The bottom line is I don’t really understand why people want to shoot these animals.

The source of the pleasure is definitely not the act of doing harm though. I’m not being an apologist for it but even I can see the hunters that I met really strove to make the kills as clean as possible. There is a big premium on the idea of the clean big kill. No one would inflict unnecessary pain. They wanted the animals to die as painlessly as possible.

How do you persuade people to be involved in a programme such as this?

There’s always a negotiation that goes on to persuade people we are coming to the subject with an open mind but without surrendering too many pawns. We don’t want to misrepresent the fact that we will draw our own conclusions.

Big game hunters and the hunting industry in South Africa know a lot of people regard what they do as terrible, and the media have tended not to do them any favours. So it was an uphill struggle to win trust from the people, and to get into the world. The director and the associate producer went out there and met lots of people and tried to explain what we were doing and most of them said no and then we ground down Rhian (the game farmer who features in the film), who opened his doors to us and made it possible.

How did the experience of making this film compare with some of the others you have worked on?

With most of the worlds I’ve explored the people are possibly doing harm to themselves, either by gambling their money away or making themselves look a bit odd, or damaging themselves emotionally by becoming prostitutes. But in hunting it’s different because there are animals involved and hunters aren’t harming themselves, they are harming another living creature. I felt like this took us into a slightly different place: it was a bit tougher for me to work out what I felt about them.

Any upcoming projects you can tell us about?

They are still works in progress. I can’t get specific. The season is still open on making another programme about the right kind of intriguing public figure. I’ve sent two letters to Heather Mills and I was thinking of sending her a third one but at this point I think I’ve got to accept she’s just not in the mood at the moment. It’s all give and no take at this point.

Louis Theroux’s African Hunting Holiday is on BBC1 on Sunday, 6th April at 9.00pm

Risk management spider-style

Last night's TV reviewed: The Human Spider; Identity Fraud: Outnumbered

There was one extraordinary shot in The Human Spider (C4) that captured the sheer madness of what “urban free climber” Alain Robert does for a living. It came halfway through the film, when we already knew the diminutive (not to mention epileptic) Frenchman liked clambering up the outside of the world’s tallest buildings without ropes, harness or any other safety equipment. Or permission, for that matter.

We knew he’d scaled the colossal Taipei 101 (1,670 ft) and the Petronas Twin Towers (1,482 ft), among others. We’d seen him scoot not only up but all the way back down the comparatively puny National Bank (574 ft) in Abu Dhabi. Indeed, we’d seen so much footage of him climbing it was beginning to get repetitive.Then, as we watched him shin up Shanghai’s soaring 1,380ft Jin Mao Tower, the camera did something it hadn’t done before. From a vantage point nearby it started at the base of the Jin Mao and tracked dizzyingly up and up the vertical quarter mile of glass and steel to where Robert, a mere speck by now, was clinging to the side of the building just below the top, trying to avoid being grabbed by policemen on a balcony above him. The vertiginous sense of height and stomach-lurching vulnerability were overwhelming.

“I think he must enjoy life,” said one awestruck woman on the street below. But he didn’t show much sign of it. Robert’s response to surmounting such challenges rarely went beyond briefly raising his arms in the air, fists clenched. No triumphant chest-thumping, macho bragging or drunken carousing. In fact, with no manager or entourage to accompany him, he cut a curiously lonely figure as he travelled the world to do his stunts, sometimes sponsored, sometimes for the heck of it, and often getting slung in jail straight afterwards.

Whenever he spoke of climbing it was in terms of compulsion and a refusal to be “safe” or “ordinary”. Much of the time he looked haunted.

As did his wife and young sons back in rural France, whenever their masks of Gallic insouciance slipped. The fleeting glimpses of Robert’s home life were among the most revealing. Such as the high ceiling in his bedroom, kitted out as a climbing wall (clambering upside down above the marital bed he brought new spookiness to the spider image); and a hilarious spat in which he argued that while his work involved “managed risks”, his wife Nicole was blindly “building a tomb” for herself by refusing to give up smoking.

It was a moment of unselfconscious absurdity but further proof of how death casts a constant shadow over the Robert family even in this cosy domestic setting. And it added a much-needed note of poignancy to a film that, though fascinating, well-made and insightful, left its subject hardly less of an enigma than he was at the outset.

Fear of a more insidious sort ran through Identity Fraud: Outnumbered (BBC1) which hammered home the notion that ID theft is the world’s fastest-growing crime and that we should trust no one. Not even family and friends. The problem with identity fraud, well, the big problem, obviously, is other people using your name to spend vast amounts of money, leaving you to explain to your nearest and dearest that you have never subscribed to any of those internet porn sites, and, no, that doesn't imply that there are other internet porn sites you have subscribed to. But the other problem, speaking now from a televisual standpoint, is that there isn't a lot to see. People rifling through dustbins, or licking illegally obtained stamps to send out letters informing unsuspecting punters that they've won the Nigerian state lottery: this is not the stuff of Baftas, or even decent ratings.

So you can't blame the makers of Identity Fraud: Outnumbered, a sequel to 2006's ID Fraud: They Stole My Life, for trying to spice things up, with dramatic music ticking away underneath, and lots of rapid cutting in an attempt to add some pace to what was, essentially, footage of middle-aged policemen driving at very moderate speeds along quiet suburban roads. And to do them credit, they put up a pretty convincing case for keeping your mother's maiden name off Facebook and shredding pretty much any paper that passes through your house, up to and including missives from local restaurants offering you authentic Indian cuisine and free delivery on orders over £15. But one of the main lessons of this programme was that, in the end, you can't protect yourself completely. One woman here was stung for £8,000 when the people who had moved into her old house filched personal details from a letter that should have been forwarded to her new address; and a man whose passport had been stolen several years earlier suddenly found himself slung into a Slovenian jail, because crimes had been committed in his name in Germany.

What made this gripping, though, was the hint of family drama underlying several of the cases, sadly unexcavated. There was Simon Bunce, whose credit-card details were used to download child pornography from a site in the US. When Simon mentioned to his father that he was under suspicion, his father cut him off and told the rest of his family, who also cut him off. Fortunately, Mr Bunce was able to prove that the details were being used from an address in Jakarta, on a day when he was in south-west London. The voice-over announced that he is now reunited with his family, as though that solved everything. I wondered what was going on in that family that they were so ready to assume Simon was guilty. Then there was the case of Linda Cowan, whose sister Elaine used her name to buy a new house, even showing off photos to Linda, and landed her with £250,000 of debt. Linda was filmed prowling outside the house – "She doesn't deserve a house like this. She's not worked hard enough to achieve something like this. She doesn't fit in here... She wears leggings" – and then grinning broadly outside the court as she learnt that Elaine had been sent down for 15 months. Hard to know where one's sympathies lie on this one. Are leggings really such a crime?

Further reading: Climber Alain Robert is the human spider

Thursday 3 April 2008

Moonlight fans give blood

There will be blood - from fans trying to save CBS' vampire drama, Moonlight. The show, which has yet to be renewed, is the focal point of a nationwide blood drive that fans hope will convince network officials to bring Moonlight back for a second season. The rallying point, YouChoose.net, claims that more than 3,000 people have pledged to donate a pint of blood each.

Moonlight star Alex O'Loughlin has been so touched by fans' efforts that he has agreed to become a spokesman for the Red Cross, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Despite the fans' efforts, at the moment Moonlight is not in any real danger of getting cancelled. With four new episodes slated to air starting April 25, the modestly rated series is expected to return next season. Viewers say they aren't taking any chances. "We wanted to celebrate the return of episodes and really focus attention on the show," said Barbara Arnold, a fan who helped organize the drive.

Another CBS show, Jericho was briefly returned to the air following a fan protest in which tons and tons of peanuts were sent to the network. CBS cancelled the series for good two weeks ago.

Seinfeld is unharmed in car accident

"Because I know there are kids out there, I want to make sure they all know that driving without braking is not something I recommend, unless you have professional clown training or a comedy background, as I do."
Jerry Seinfeld, who lost his brakes and flipped his new car over in East Hampton during the weekend, was called a hero Thursday by Police Chief Todd H. Sarris. Once he realized the brakes were gone, Seinfeld had only seconds before his car came out of a side road onto busy Montauk Highway. "He avoided a catastrophic event," Sarris said. "I can't imagine the damage had that vehicle gone into the intersection."

Sarris said it appeared Seinfeld was going at the legal speed limit of 30 mph when he realized he had no brakes and quickly pulled his emergency brake, downshifted, and turned the steering wheel sharply to the right. His car, a 1967 two-door Fiat sedan, slid and flipped over at least once, stopping on its side, police said. Sarris said that a second car following Seinfeld - possibly driven by his publicist - took him back to his house about two miles away, but that the comedian immediately returned to the scene when asked to do so by police, who called him on the phone.

The two officers investigating the case told their chief that there were no indications Seinfeld had been drinking and that he answered all of their questions fully during the field interview. No charges were filed, and because there was no damage to any property except to the car, no accident reconstruction will be made. "I don't know if I would have had the presence of mind to do what he did," Sarris said.

East Hampton Town Police said Seinfeld was driving alone on Skimhampton Road early Saturday evening in Pantigo when the brakes failed. The crash occurred at 7:42 p.m., police said. The 53-year-old comedian was wearing both his lap-belt and a harness, Sarris said. And, when the brakes failed, Sarris said Seinfeld grabbed the emergency brake and cut the wheels in an attempt to slide the car to a stop. Apparently, though, the tires grabbed the pavement -- and caused the rollover.

The sitcom star, who co-wrote and co-produced the animated Bee Movie last year, did not require any hospitalization or medical attention -- though he was reportedly shaken by the time he arrived back at his home in East Hampton.

A car collector, Seinfeld has previously told journalists his favourite ride is a 1955 Porsche Spyder- the same car James Dean was driving when he was killed in 1955. Of course, you would think that when it comes to the Fiat Seinfeld would find a joke in the crash somewhere.

Any car buff will tell you the old standard for the Italian-built auto, which was a thrill to drive- but was often a mechanical nightmare. Q: "Do you know what Fiat stands for?" A: "Fix It Again, Tony."

Peabody winners announced

Stories about wounded Iraq veterans, reported by war-wounded TV journalists, won Peabody Awards on Wednesday. Thirty-five recipients of the 67th annual George Foster Peabody Awards for broadcasting excellence in news and entertainment were announced by the University of Georgia ahead of a ceremony in New York City on June 16.

Peabodys went to Wounds of War- The Long Road Home for Our Nation's Veterans, a series of reports by ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff, and to CBS News Sunday Morning: The Way Home for Kimberly Dozier's piece about two women veterans who lost limbs in Iraq. Dozier and Woodruff survived near-fatal attacks while on assignment in Iraq.

Another CBS News series, 60 Minutes, won a Peabody for Scott Pelley's report The Killings in Haditha. "The range of genres, the variety of topics and the consistently high quality of submissions for Peabody consideration indicated again that amazing work is being done in electronic media," Peabody Awards director Horace Newcomb said in a statement.

Awards also went to Discovery's Planet Earth, which used HDTV to showcase natural wonders; Independent Lens for Billy Strayhorn: Lush Life, a portrait of Duke Ellington's collaborator; Nature: Silence of the Bees, an inquiry into the decline in the world's honeybee population from Thirteen/WNET; and WGBH-Boston's Design Squad, an engineering competition for young people.

Awards for entertainment series went to NBC's 30 Rock and Bravo's Project Runway. Peabodys also went to Mad Men, AMC's drama set in the world of 1960s New York advertising, and Dexter, Showtime's drama about a serial killer who preys on other sociopaths. Nimrod Nation, an eight-part documentary series from Sundance Channel, also received a Peabody.

Other recipients included Comedy Central's The Colbert Report and A Journey Across Afghanistan: Opium and Roses, a documentary from Bulgaria's Balkan News Corporation.

Whole Lotta Shakin, the Texas Heritage Music Foundation's public-radio series chronicling the 1950s heyday of rockabilly music, received a Peabody, as did Univision's Ya Es Hora, a public-service campaign that taught legal aliens how to apply for American citizenship.

The University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication has administered the Peabodys in Athens, Ga., since the program's inception in 1940. The awards ceremony in New York will be hosted by NBC news anchor Brian Williams.

Scrubs dies, but ABC could resuscitate it

The last episode of Scrubs that will air on NBC is a fairy-tale themed half-hour inspired by The Princess Bride. Now, J.D. (Zach Braff) and company are left to find their happily ever after elsewhere- probably at ABC- since NBC has decided to cancel the show before it got a chance to complete its last season and bow out with a series finale.

The first single-camera comedy to succeed in broadcast television, Scrubs was supposed to end this season, but the writers were not able to finish the scripts before the writers strike began. NBC Co-Chairman Entertainment and Universal Media Studios Ben Silverman said Wednesday that the show would end this spring without completing its last six episodes.

Silverman said he did not know where Scrubs would end up. But high-ranking ABC executives have said in the last few weeks that ABC would give the series another season, possibly with 18 episodes. ABC Studios produces the show. Asked by a reporter if he doesn't mind that ABC wants the comedy, Silverman said: "If they can go 1 for 21, good for them."

ABC Studios and other Scrubs were unavailable for comment.

Battlestar's last supper

Below is the edited text of Mo Ryan's mid-March conversation with Battlestar Galactica executive producer Ronald D. Moore. There are five sections:

* 1. Moore discussing his first-ever stint in the director’s chair
* 2. Moore discussing the 100-day WGA strike
* 3. Non-spoilery Battlestar info
* 4. Somewhat spoilery Battlestar info that you can probably safely read after you’ve seen Episode 1 of Season 4 (you can read it before that if you’re OK with discussion of some general story themes that coming up. This section doesn't reveal many plot points.)
* 5. The final bit is pretty spoilery material

Section 1: Directing Battlestar Galactica

MR: You’re directing an episode this season, right?

RDM: Yep, I’m prepping it now.

MR: Are you directing the twelfth episode?

RDM: Yeah, No. 12 [which started filming March 25].

MR: Why that one?

RDM: Originally, way back when we were laying out the original production schedule [before the strike], we envisioned taking a production break between the first 10 episodes and the second 10. So I thought I shouldn’t direct the first one back [after the break], I should direct the second [i.e., Episode 12 of the season]. But then everything kept changing, and we didn’t take the break, and then the strike happened [and just after the strike began, the ‘Battlestar’ cast and crew finished shooting Episode 11].

It actually worked out for the best. I’m up here prepping the episode and no one has anything to do but help me. I’m spending a lot of time with the director of photography walking through the sets and talking about things. If we were in the normal production mode, he wouldn’t have the luxury of spending so much time with me.

MR: Is it an episode you’ve written?

RDM: Yes.

MR: So in that second bunch of 10 episodes, which ones did you write?

RDM: This [twelfth] one and the finale.

MR: I thought you would write that. So are you afraid of directing?

RDM: Oh sure, I’d be a fool not to be. You have to approach it with a healthy respect. But I’m doing it with the family, everyone’s very supportive, they all want me to succeed and it’s a very positive atmosphere.

I’m just smart enough to know what it is I don’t know and try to learn as I go along, and accept that you’re going to make mistakes and there are going to be things that are not going to be perfect. But it’s exciting. It’s fun to stretch and try something new.

MR: Is this something you’ve been contemplating for a while?

RDM: I’ve thought about it on and off for a long time. People have asked me over the years, ‘When are you going to direct?’ You know, I always felt like, I’m still learning this job and didn’t burn to go and learn another.

Over the last couple of seasons, I’ve thought about it more, and thought, if I’m going to try this, this is the place I should do it. I should do it with these people, on my show, it should be the last season. I just decided to pencil myself in and then do it.

MR: What are you most excited about and what are you most worried about? Do you have any sense of what the biggest challenges will be?

RDM: I think the most interesting and the most challenging thing at the same time is dealing with the actors on the set and working out the scenes and performance. I mean, I talk to the actors all the time, but from a different chair. It’s as a writer and as a producer. It’s a different language and a different concept than creating a moment on the set.

The thing that I have the most trepidations about is the thing that I’m most excited to do. It’s really making what I’ve seen in my head and written down on paper come alive in the moment. That’s really an interesting place to go.

MR: So when something new and maybe even slightly different is found in the moment on the set, is that one of the things you enjoy most?

RDM: Yeah, I’m always really intrigued to see how scenes shift and change once they’re in the hands of the actors and the director, and it’ll be exciting to be part of that process. One of the great things about the series is the way we’re free with it, the way it evolves and changes and you discover all kinds of different layers or character moments that [weren’t foreseen]. Not everything can be planned in advance and certain things just happen on the stage.

MR: There are some shows where the actors seem to be in lockstep and seem to be told, “Hit this mark, say these words.” But the “Battlestar” actors seem to be more empowered to find the characters and flesh them out.

RDM: Yeah, absolutely. Part of what we want the actor to do is figure out how these words fit in their mouths. How do they think their character would say this and react? Does it feel natural? If not, what does?

I mean, you’re trying to keep it within a certain framework, you still want to get from A to B, even if the journey there is slightly different, you have to make sure you’re still getting to the same place in the script.

MR: When do you wrap the season?

RDM: End of June.

MR: Is John Dahl [the director of "Red Rock West" and "The Last Seduction"] still on board to direct an episode?

RDM: Yes, he’s directing the one after me.

MR: Are there any other “name” directors who’ll be shooting episodes in the second half of the season?

RDM: There are but a lot of things are still in flux, we’re still trying to get confirmation, we don’t have anybody locked in.

MR: Er, I heard about one person in particular who might have been on board to direct…

RDM: Who’s that?

MR: Joss Whedon.

RDM: I’m not sure that’s going to happen or not, because he’s got his series [‘Dollhouse’] now. He really wanted to do it, but I’m dubious that it will work out.

MR: That would have been pretty cool.

RDM: It would have been a trip. We were all really excited, but between the strike and his series, it just doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen.

MR: Just going off on a bit of a tangent, when I saw the theatrical screening of “Razor,” I really was struck by how good it looked on the big screen. And in particular the special effects were really impressive. The same was true of the first episode of the season. It seemed like the special effects are even more amazing as the series goes on.

RDM: Yeah, it’s the nature of that particular aspect of the production. The effects keep getting cheaper, and you keep getting more of them, and the artists get better and you just keep building on the work you’ve done in the past. And it’s faster. The pre-viz, the animatics [preview images] that we get in editorial – they would have passed for final [effects] a few years ago.

MR: It seems like there’s this painterly quality of composition to them, that there’s this incredible attention to detail. The way things move on the screen…

RDM: They are doing a great job. Sometimes I’m pulling them back -- sometimes they’re too beautiful and they’re doing such great work that they’re taking me out of the show. We lose the documentary style, the rough-and-ready style that is kind of the hallmark of the show. It’s the fine line of trying to say, ‘You know, this is amazing, beautiful work, let’s make it less beautiful.’” [laughs]

Section 2: The WGA strike
MR: Regarding the strike, what’s your sense of how that worked out?

RDM: I was happy with it. I felt like it was do or die on essentially the principle of, establishing the [precedent] that the guild will be compensated going into new media. At the outset there was a refusal to deal on this issue in any way. Then it was, ‘OK, we’ll deal on it but in this ridiculous way.’

I knew there were going to be compromises and we weren’t going to get everything we wanted. Neither would they. It was about, were you really going to break through on the fundamental issue of whether the guild would have jurisdiction and that a framework [for online compensation] was going to be set up.

We all lived with the memory of what happened with DVDs and we didn’t want to set a situation where we were locked in perpetuity to a really bad formula. Then we’d all be really angry about it for the rest of our lives. So the fact that it didn’t go down that way, and the fact that we established the framework and the principal of what it is – yeah, I’m happy with it. I think ultimately [the strike] was worth it.

The thing that I carry away the most, even more than the nuts and bolts of the agreement itself, was the sense of solidarity of the union. I joined the union in 1989, right after the ’88 strike, and the feeling was that strike had been a failure. I think you can argue the points one way or the other and some people would argue that it wasn’t, but overall, the sense was that it was a failure. There was a lot of recrimination, the feeling that it was a bad deal.

And over the years, as each contract came and went, there was a sense that the union wasn’t that strong, that we were getting taken advantage of and that no one took the union seriously, that the WGA was just a punching bag.

And this time it felt like, “No, we are not going to take this, we are going to stand up, and we are capable of it.” We were capable of pulling off a strike, of organizing it, of sticking with it. We brought the town to a stop. We had a huge impact. Now I feel proud to be a member of the WGA, and I feel proud of the way that everyone conducted themselves on our side of the table. There’s a real sense of pride and that’s new, and I’m very happy about that.

MR: During the run-up to the strike and throughout the strike, TV showrunners became a very prominent part of the WGA, they seemed pretty united and very influential in determining the course of the strike. I’m not a student of the WGA, but did you get that sense that that was a change from how things had been?

RDM: Yeah. It was the first time [showrunners] became a discernible group. It was a term that had always been bandied about, but it wasn’t really an identifiable group. But the guild had made an effort [in the year before the strike to have dinners and meetings for showrunners]. And there is a sense now that there is a group called showrunners and they wield power and they wield authority. Not so much as a formal body like a committee but as an identifiable group of brokers.

And that’s interesting because that wasn’t really the case before. It’s not like there’s a ‘screenwriters group’ or any other kind of subcategory of the guild. But the showrunners [group] seemed to have a sort of cohesive body to it, you could say, ‘These are people that do this job and have these interests.’

MR: I think that term has become prominent because it’s a way to say, these people are at the center of a whole host of things related to a show – there’s a TV program at the heart of it, but there’s this whole range of other creative things that are related to that show. And showrunners are driving the creative forces behind all of that, Webisodes and "mobisodes" and other online endeavors and games, all these other things. And what seemed to be coming to a head was the idea that the showrunners are kind of spinning out all of that stuff, but they don’t have true jurisdiction over it and they’re not getting paid for it.

RDM: Yeah, and I think we were in a unique position to see the fundamental unfairness of what was being done and what was being proposed by the studios and the networks. We were very informed on all the issues and how they would play out in different revenue streams.

MR: I got the sense from the get-go that the producers didn’t take the union seriously at all, that their sense was, “We’ll crush them like insects, just like we always do.”

RDM: Absolutely. I think they really misplayed their hand on the other side. I know there was speculation that, ‘Oh, [the producers] are hoping for a strike.’ I don’t think they were. I think they were counting on there not being a strike. And I think they overplayed their hand really early on. The day we had the second showrunners meeting over the summer, we’re all in the room, and that very day the AMPTP came out with their proposal to revamp residuals.

MR: Revamping them in terms of getting rid of them.

RDM: Yeah! And the anger in that room, the sheer hostility, was palpable. And it galvanized certainly the showrunners, it galvanized all of us in terms of, the cynicism of that move. It was clearly a cynical move meant to intimidate and scare and put it in our faces, ‘Oh if you’re not careful, we’re going to do stuff like this to you.’ That ticked people off.

It also said they weren’t even remotely bargaining in good faith, and they were so many steps away from presenting a plausible opening gambit that everybody in the room was saying, ‘This is heading for a strike.’ They just really mishandled it. If they had not come out with that move, particularly on that day, it might have played itself out a little differently. As it was, it just really united the feeling [of the membership].

MR: It just really shocked me, it seemed like they were going out of their way to disrespect the writers – who are creating the content that make these companies so much money. It was like saying to a partner at a law firm, “You’re just lucky we let you work here – we’ll crush you and you’ll like it!”

RDM: There’s so much posturing and so much intimidation [in these kinds of negotiations]. They want the structure a certain way so they don’t have to listen to you, so you have to take their notes, so that you feel like they have certain power. But the showrunners -- we’re close enough to the finances of all this – we do understand the complete Potemkin village [i.e., sham] finances and accounting at the studios and the networks. And how they’ve built these gigantic complicated accounting systems to continually hide profit and never have profit and move revenue from here to there.

It’s like the IRS, the tax code is so Byzantine that there are probably only a handful of people that really understand it. There’s probably only a handful of people at any studio who understand how the finances really work.

To a certain extent they’re prisoners of their own system. So I have sympathy for them in that regard, because they are locked into a certain way of doing business and accounting for profit and expenditures and revenue streams and auxiliary markets and all this stuff, and it’s so complicated. So when we step up and say, ‘Hey, we need to be compensated for this part of this revenue stream,’ it throws a monkey wrench into everything they’ve built and they get freaked out and frightened, about ‘How can we make money – as we define making money?’

You’re through the looking glass on some level, because everything makes a profit, in truth. They all make money on everything. ‘Waterworld’ turned a profit. But they won’t show that on the books.

MR: Yeah, according to Hollywood accounting, nothing has made a profit, ever.

RDM: Right, but clearly they do. They sell these things over and over again. People are still watching ‘The Wizard of Oz.’ These things are sold perpetually.

MR: And chances are the screenwriter will see none of it.

RDM: Yeah, because that’s the way they’ve built this particular system.

MR: It was interesting to read the take of Silicon Valley people during the strike. They were like, “Writers make content. People want content. Why are the studios making this so hard? Why can’t people who make content have some creative control and ownership?”

RDM: Yeah, and that’s where it’s all going to move to eventually. Everyone will start giving up on the [old model]. The Guild unfortunately gave up copyright [for writers of film and TV] a long time ago. By giving up the copyright, they gave up everything. That’s probably the biggest mistake that’s ever been made in labor in Hollywood. If you think about the position of a playwright or author and what they’re going to get in perpetuity versus what TV and film writers will get, it’s a completely different world.

And the studios cry, “If we didn’t have copyright, we couldn’t do business!” Well, that’s a load of [expletive]. They would just build it into their business model and they’d just restructure their Byzantine ways around it. At this point, it’s almost impossible, I don’t think they could do that if they wanted to. It would upend so much. They’d have to rebuild their business from the ground up.

And that’s why people like me will eventually say, “You know what, I don’t want to do work where I don’t own the copyright. I don’t want to do work where I don’t have ownership. I’m going to move over to someone who will give me that.”

MR: How realistic is it that you could make a show as good as “Battlestar” in that sort of alternate realm?

RDM: I think it’s going to happen, I think it’s just a question of when and how do you do it. Right now it’s the Wild West era, and it’s all about risk. Do you stake your claim over there, and see if there is gold in them thar hills, or do you stake it over there. There will be a lot of people who blow it and some who will strike it rich. There’s really no way to know. But I feel pretty certain it will happen. I really don’t know how fast it will happen and under what auspices.

MR: It is a really interesting era, I don’t know if anyone has yet struck that balance among all those things – retaining ownership, paying the creative staff, getting it to the people, all that. But someone will, if they haven’t already.

RDM: It will be content-driven. Content drives everything. Videogames take off because you’ve got Halo. TV takes off because you’ve got “ER.” Movies take off because you’ve got “Lord of the Rings,” not because you’ve got a great projection system or a great new application for your desktop or some new cable system. It’s because you’re offering something that people want to watch over there, and suddenly over there becomes a very popular place to be.

MR: I wanted to ask you about the fan interaction and the fan Web sites and all that sort of stuff that happened during the strike. Were you surprised at how all that played out, how active fans were on behalf of writers?

RDM: I was surprised and I was touched by it. It was genuinely grassroots and the fans themselves rallying to the cause and trying to come and help – coming to the picket lines at ungodly hours of the morning, showing up in the rain, bringing us doughnuts, printing up T-shirts. They did a lot of amazing things that were just genuine and moving.

When you’re working in science fiction, you’re used to fans being interested in the writers and knowing who the writers are. That’s the way this genre works. There’s conventions and fan clubs and there’s always been a connection between writers and fans. And that bled over into the strike. It was great to see.

MR: Was it cool to hang out with other showrunners? Did you know a lot of them before the strike?

RDM: No, very little. Suddenly I had opportunities to meet a lot of them and talk to them and develop friendships. It was really interesting. I certainly got to see a lot more of my peers in those three months than I did in the previous 10 years.

MR: And then you realized they all watch your show.

RDM: Yeah. [laughs] It was always surprising. I was always startled when people came up and said how much they liked the show.

MR: It is sort of like, you’re in this cloister of the production and then it’s so different to be out in the world of people who actually watch the show?

RDM: It’s always kind of been that way. In television there’s this weird sense of isolation from your audience, you kind of get this feeling that you write the show for you and your wife and your friends and the other people who work on the show. It’s our little show and then it goes out into the world and somebody watches it. You don’t get the sense of going into the back of a theater and watching it with a crowd, being there and feeling the interaction.

Suddenly, with something like the strike, you’re out there with your peers and the public. And I realized a good chunk of the business watches the show. I hadn’t really realized that.

Section 3: Non-spoilery Battlestar questions and info on Moore’s other projects.



MR: Will you do more writers’ roundtables and podcasting?

RDM: I have to get my podcasting in order, I haven’t done any yet. I’ve banked a couple of podcasts that won’t be on for quite a while. We went to Vegas with the writing staff and had a big daylong conference where we discussed the whole last season, and I recorded that. Midway through the summer, we went on a writers retreat to Lake Tahoe for three days and structured and broke the last few episodes and I recorded that. They probably won’t be able to [release those podcasts] until the show’s over, because they have all the stuff, what the ending is. It’ll be dessert after the show’s over.

MR: Do you have any sense of when the final 10 episodes will air?

RDM: They haven’t made a decision yet. The earliest would be in the fall, it’ll take us that long just to shoot and [do post-production on] the episodes. I think the betting is probably not until '09 but they haven’t pulled the trigger one way or another.

MR: Do you have a preference on when they air?

RDM: I don’t really have a preference. I think people would like it [to finish up] this year, because you’re more connected to it. But I don’t mind stretching it into next year. I don’t know that it makes a huge amount of difference to the audience one way or the other. I think that ultimately it’s all about the DVD boxed set and when the entire series is put together on the Internet, that’s how it will live in perpetuity.

For those keeping score at home, here’s the status of Moore’s other projects:

* “Caprica,” a “Battlestar” prequel, got the greenlight from Sci Fi a couple of weeks ago. It’s a 2-hour film that could serve as the pilot for a new series. Moore co-wrote the piece with “24’s” Remi Aubuchon. There's more on "Caprica" here, and the intrepid TV bloggers from E!Online have even more on the show.

* Moore and “Battlestar Galactica” co-executive producer Jane Espenson were working on “Warehouse 13,” a Sci Fi project in development, but both have left that series.
* He has a sci-fi pilot in development at Fox. It’s called “Virtuality” and he’s writing it with “Battlestar” co-executive producer Michael Taylor.
* Moore has a pilot in development at NBC called “Restoration.”
* “The Thing” and “I, Robot 2” are feature films that he’s been involved in.

Section 4: Somewhat spoilery Battlestar conversation.
MR: Having seen that first episode of the season, I was thinking about something you said to EW. You said something like, “The plot about Baltar is not really about him being a savior.” What kind of grew in my mind was this idea: When somebody really is a prophet or a seer or a visionary – and that’s what Kara appears to be now – a lot of the time, nobody wants to know that person. They’re shunned, rejected, ignored.

RDM: Yeah. People who have a genuine knowledge or foreknowledge or greater awareness – they generally don’t have a good life. And then people who claim to know, who say they know – they get treated differently.

MR: And they get a harem, possibly.

RDM: Probably [laughs].

MR: But there’s a genuine moment in the Baltar sequence where he really knows how awful he is, and wonders if somehow, he could save someone else, if something greater really could work through him. And he wants that.

RDM: I think that is accurate. He didn’t seek this place he goes. But then he’s there and he tries on some genuine level to communicate something honestly. He does have a voice in his head, telling him things, in a literal sense. And that’s a message from somewhere. I think he does start to believe and try to believe and try to be genuine with his flock, as best he can.

MR: Hasn’t that always been an ultimate goal for him, to have a worshipful cult around him?

RDM: Yeah, but at the same time, it makes him a little uncomfortable.

MR: Is he a guy who cares whether there’s one god or a lot of gods, or is he more like, “Well, I’ll go this way,” whatever way the wind blows?

RDM: I think there’s an element of that. But on a deeper level, he’s a scientist and he wants to know what the truth is, especially after his experiences – what is it all about? What is behind all this? Is there a God? Are there many gods? Is it all just a crazy delusion? I think he would like to get to a fact somewhere along the line.

MR: The show has always asked these questions about “which way should we go,” in a philosophical sense, in a political sense, in a religious sense – but now there’s also a very literal question of which way to go. Should they go with what Kara believes about where the fleet should be heading? There are always these hardcore choices on the show – will you be the kind of society that throws people out airlocks and puts them in detention camps, or will you be ruled by law? Will they go with her intuitive feeling about the right direction toward Earth, or will there be a pragmatic group decision?

RDM: Yeah. What are the choices that you make and how do you make them? And what does that say about you? And is there one answer to any of that? Should you do it in the moment, use the tools at hand, should you make the decision based on faith, based on science, based on your head? And why that choice in that instance? What drew you one way or the other?

At the end of the day, what does it say about you because of all those choices that you’ve made and the way that you’ve chosen them. In a larger sense, what does it say about your society that you as a group and as a people have taken these paths. At the end, you look back at the paths that you’ve trod and, you know, did you lay waste to villages along the way? Did you destroy the world? Did you make a clean break with things? Did you leave certain areas better than you found them? You have to assess all those things. Ultimately it’s all very complicated. It’s not easy to come up with a simple philosophy that can guide you at every moment along the way.

MR: It’s attractive to think that there can be one set or rules that can always be relied upon to get you to the right answers. But I think that’s what your show really delves into – there isn’t always necessarily a “right” answer. Does Adama follow Kara because she has a gut instinct? Does he put 40,000 people’s lives at risk because of this feeling she has?

RDM: Right. And yet he’s done that based on Laura Roslin’s gut feelings. It’s very tricky stuff. We wanted it to be difficult and complicated for these people. The choices just get harder.

MR: Is Kara a pariah because of that, for reminding everyone that she had a different idea?

RDM: Yeah.

MR: In Season 3, we found out who four of the final five Cylons are, and that got me thinking – what is it about being a Cylon or just the Cylons’ very existence that freaks these people out so much? The idea that the Cylons don’t have a soul? The idea that Cylons are the Other? Is it Cylons worshipping only one God? What’s that kneejerk hatred about?

RDM: I think there’s an unwillingness and a terror around the idea of considering them as people. Their history is that these were machines. We literally created these things. These are toasters, as they keep saying. These are devices, things we made that got out of hand and are now threatening us.

We justify a lot of our behavior and attitude toward them by saying, these are not people. These are machines, they do not have souls. They look like people, they talk like people, they smell like people, they feel like people. But you have to try to ignore that and remember that these are constructs, they’re different than we are. We are special, we have some spark of life that they do not have.

The moment we start accepting them, then we have to reevaluate a tremendous amount of fundamental things, around their creation, around the way they were treated initially, around the way we’re treating them now. It’s too difficult to wrench themselves into that different perspective.

Nonetheless, they continually find themselves crossing that boundary. They fall in love with them, they treat them as – there’s Adama’s relationship with Athena. He gave her the uniform. He has accepted her as a person. But he can’t quite make that leap to the rest of them.

Kara started feeling guilt and difficulty when she was torturing Leoben in Season 1. She’s swearing he’s a machine, but there’s this thing that’s screaming and crying and bleeding and she can’t quite distance herself. It’s about blurring all those lines, and they can’t quite move themselves as a people to accept the Cylons as a legitimate race.

MR: Right, it’s like the fear doesn’t stem from, “They’re not human.” It stems from, “What if they are human?”

RDM: Yeah.

MR: It’s like, “What if they’re like us and we’ve been doing all these terrible things this whole time?”

RDM: Yeah. And if we could have created them so easily, on some level, what does that say about how special we are? Maybe we’re not that special either. Maybe we’re not touched by God either. Maybe we’re some sort of fairly easy biological accident that happened. And that threatens your own identity.

MR: In a way, the humans want to view themselves as gods because they created the Cylons. “We have to be lord and master of you – you can’t be like us.”

RDM: Yeah, exactly.

MR: Among the people in the fleet, there have been huge fights and disagreements along the way, but it seems like, now that it’s getting down to the nitty-gritty, and they’re on the final leg of the journey – it’s not us against them, it’s us against us.

RDM: Yes, there are some relationships that will be torn asunder and will not be put back together. There will be some things that will be fundamentally broken over the course of the season. We’re going to lose certain characters, some things are not going to be repaired. There’s a sense of finality about it.

Section 5: Medium-to-heavy duty spoilery stuff.



MR: Laura Roslin seemed so decisive in that first episode back. Just comparing her to Season 1 Roslin, she’s so resolute. Is that how she’s going to be this season?

RDM: That’s certainly where she starts. That will come to a screeching halt.

MR: Is Romo Lampkin coming back?

RDM: He is coming back. There’s one in this bunch of 10 and we’re talking about another one in the second group of 10. It’s not firm yet, but there will probably be a second [episode with Romo before the show ends].

MR: Is it a matter of needing him for the story or just really enjoying the character and the fact that the fans like Romo?

RDM: It’s from Mark Sheppard’s bribery, cajoling, extortion [laughs]. No, we just liked the character and he played it really well, so we were always saying, “Where can we use Romo again?”

MR: You have to know that the EW “Last Supper” photo of the Season 4 cast has been analyzed to death.

RDM: I know. As soon as they said that’s what they wanted to do, I said, “Oh, that’s genius.” I was on the phone, “Let’s put him here, her here,” I spun out all these things. It was a lot of fun.

MR: That was one question I had – you were the maestro orchestrating where people were and what they were doing, right? Everything in the photo is intentional, right?

RDM: Mostly. I wasn’t on the set. They pitched me the idea on the phone, and asked if I had any ideas of what to do. I said, OK, yeah, let’s do this. I spun out the basic format and I think they embroidered a little on that when they were on the set.

MR: Are there significant new characters this season?

RDM: Nothing that comes to mind. [Mo here: Hmmm. But according to the EW “Last Supper” photo, there’s a new No. 6 model called Natalie. She assumes a leadership role for a group of Cylons with “a separate agenda,” Moore told the magazine.]

MR: Just so I understand what I think you told EW for the story that went with the photo, none of the people in that photo is the final Cylon, right?

RDM: Yeah. I said that. I probably shouldn’t have said that [laughs] but I have said that. So, yeah [that is the case, the final Cylon is not any of the people in the photo].
 

Copyright 2007 ID Media Inc, All Right Reserved. Crafted by Nurudin Jauhari