MSN's Blame On ...
Each week I write for MSN Germany. If you want to read the last month's entry then go directly to MSN's Blame On ... where you can catch up on the latest column in german.
And every thursday you'll find something new that might interest you.
But here on the right hand column of this page you'll find the older articles in English.
And if you want to read the german version then just click on the links below.
Blame On ... DSDS, Bohlen and Superstars
Blame On ... was braucht es wirklich, um ein Superstar zu sein?
Blame On ... Erfolg und Misserfolg
Blame On ... der Einfluss von MTV
Blame On ... MTV, was ist schief gelaufen?
Blame On ... Amy Winehouse und die Lüge um den Club 27
Blame On ... die Zukunft von Wetten, dass ..?
Blame On ... die London-Aufstände und die Gier nach Ruhm
Blame On ... ein Ex sein und "Die Alm"
Blame On ... The Voice Of Germany
Blame On ... die neue mutige Fernsehwelt
Blame On ... Wie verwirklichen wir die Vorsätze für das neue Jahr?
Blame On ... die heimliche Gefahr der Eurokrise
Blame On ... Lebenserwartung
Blame On ... ein Frohes Neues "Altes" Jahr
Blame On ...DSDS, Bohlen and Superstars
For almost ten years we have been subjected to the overwhelming mediocrity of the hopefuls on the Deutschland Sucht den Superstar stage. Most who audition are at best, limited in their talent, at worst, suffering from delusion. Rarely is there a true talent. After almost a decade of searching not one long term Superstar, an accolade that should be reserved for artists who attain and regularly sustain national and international success, has been found. None of the previous winners have achieved that level of fame, and it is unlikely that they ever will.
Generally Bohlen is the most direct in his criticism on DSDS, often his 'honesty' will seemingly crush the contestants hopes. Sometimes he will flatter, eliciting cheers from the audience and relief from the singers. Bohlen has given us a method to criticize a live performance - stage presence, dress, connection with the audience, attitude and the quality of the voice. We enjoy the superlatives as much as we secretly like the schadenfreude. We have seen just how difficult it is to be a 'live' performer, and believe that we can appreciate what talent really encompasses. We have all become armchair jurors.
The charts are dominated worldwide by a 'real' singing superstar, Adele. Interest in 'live' music is on the up, no doubt in part due to shows like DSDS. Recently I was at a 'live' show in Cologne, where an artist, Percival, was performing. As he started to sing, words and phrases much like the superlatives the jury occasionally use, started to swim around in my head. Explosive, thrilling, energetic, present, and yes, he looked good. All terms we've heard again and again on DSDS. A young woman standing at my side whispered into the ear of her boyfriend, comparing Percival to Jeff Buckley one minute and Terence Trent D'arby the next. He was good, but we've been programmed to speak in superlatives and to compare any singer to one of the greats is dangerous. They are not. Not until they are a real superstar.
In the Autumn, a new show, The Voice of Germany, will be launched on Pro7 where the judges coach the contestants. The promise is that this will allow us a deeper look at the work needed to develop the voice and performance techniques of artists. My hope is that there will finally be an honest appreciation of what it means to become a superstar.
DSDS will continue, and most of the contestants will still be doomed to oblivion once the marketing force of a weekly appearance on a high rated show is taken away. No doubt Bohlen's place is secure, but his position is not unassailable. Simon Cowell, the original main juror of American Idol, the U.S. equivalent of DSDS, the show which launched Kelly Clarkson, left this year to concentrate on X Factor. It was predicted that the ratings would drop. The opposite happened. It seems DSDS is bigger than any of the judges. Whether Bohlen stays or goes we can thank him and DSDS for an increased
appreciation of 'live' music but a false understanding of what it really takes to be a true Superstar.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On ... what it takes to be a Superstar.
At readings promoting my autobiography I always start the show by putting a tub of Vaseline down in the front of the audience. "Vaseline is what every Superstar needs to have a successful career", I say.
The audience reacts with a mixture of bewilderment, intrigue and embarrassment. But the explanation is simple. For me the word Superstar defines a level of fame that is greater than that of a star, they are people who have achieved consistent and continuous success on an international scale. They make a connection to us, often a bond that will stay for our lifetime. This bond is greater than any marketing machine can provide. And it all comes back to that tub of Vaseline.
In the 1960s Jean Genet, the French author, poet and political activist wrote that the tub of Vaseline confiscated by his prison guards incensed them to the point of violence. For him it showed the power of an object. Dick Hebdige, in his book, Subculture: The Meaning Of Style argues that it is exactly these 'objects' - beliefs, dress-codes, and symbols - that alienate the majority, which can help define a subculture. When a singer's deep rooted belief, what I like to term as the 'Vaseline' inside of them, comes across, then they have the ability to connect to us, and to go from star to superstar.
Some of these so called 'Vaselines' are obvious, Kurt Cobain and nihilism, Madonna, sex and freedom of expression, Bono and political activism, Lady Gaga and inclusiveness – the idea that we are all freaks but all belong. The Rolling Stones, the ultimate rock band, and the ultimate clichee of Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll. Mick has been a womanizer his whole life (Sex), Keith is still going despite what seems to be a life consuming (Drugs) and put the whole band together and you have Rock 'n' Roll. It's their motivational force, their 'Vaseline'. And we love them for it. Some are less clear. Michel Gondry, the French video director said in an interview for the Museum für Angewandte Kunst - Art of Pop Video exhibition in Koeln, that as an artist you must find what lies deep within you and work either with it or against it. In my opinion
George Michael worked against his 'Vaseline' for many years. The son of Greek parents, brought up in the conservative Greek community in London, it would have been almost impossible for George to come out. George then appeared to work against this deep routed knowledge of his homosexuality, presenting himself as the ultimate ladies man. After his arrest for indecency in the States he had no choice but to come out. He then worked with his 'Vaseline'.
So next time you hear the word Superstar as an introduction to the next big thing, think about their 'Vaseline'. Because if they haven't got Vaseline they'll more than likely to be forgotten about by the time the next 15 minute wonder comes.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On ... Success and Failure
The definition of failure is the lack of success, but should failure start to be viewed as a strength and not a lack or a deficiency? And is failure necessary to have a success? Recently I hosted a panel discussion at the ADVANCE small business conference in Cologne. Titled "Failure: Best practice for success", its goal was to give a healthier perspective on failure - that it is, as the title suggests, an important learning curve on the way to success. It's one I wanted to share, as the experience of failure has been invaluable to me. Most of us have failed at something in our lives.
The first time we got onto a bike we probably fell off a few metres later. Almost all of us – to be honest I don't know of one child who doesn't – get back on and try again, succeeding within the next few attempts. Similarly in our private lives if one relationship fails (and I am not suggesting it's as simple as riding a bike!) most of us remain open to embark on a new one. In business it's a similar story. One Venture Capitalist company said that nine out of ten companies they invest in fail. When looking for investment second time around it seems that failure is not a pre-requisite to get investment, but apparently it is greeted. The question is then not if you fail, but how to pick yourself up aferwards and go on to succeed. Sometimes the experience of failure can be debilitating. My 'failure' experience as a Program Director at Viva Zwei took me years to get over. I lost selfconfidence in my abilities and fell into a period of self-loathing followed by many years of painful introspection. Eventually I saw the experience as an opportunity to embark on a career which related to how I really saw myself – often referred to as the 'authentic' self. Authenticity, it turns out, is a key factor in success in
business, and the feeling we get from succeeding at something is almost always positive. In turn these positive feelings make us happier.
And happiness is what we all should strive towards. So if something does go wrong the key is to stop perceiving it as failure and learn to analyse and dissect before embarking on the next venture. After all we all make mistakes, the problem only really comes when we repeat them.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame on ... the impact of MTV.
When MTV launched on August 1st 1981, pop video was still in its infancy. MTV was the pipe. It brought the videos to our TV screens but didn't produce them. It made the interstitial programming, the bits in between - Idents, fantasy full graphics which were made by young aspiring creative artists, and VJ links. Record companies made the videos and MTV got them for free. The costs were Gema, the production of the VJ links and the costs of broadcast. MTV was a money making machine. Overnight the image of a pop star could be seen in 3 minute blocks, on rotation, 24 hours a day.
In the early 80s the British New Wave, with bands like Human League and Adam and the Ants, were the first to profit. American record labels were slow to produce videos and MTV needed a supply. Directors made their name with pop videos – Steve Barron, Godley and Creme, Wayne Isham, Mary Lambert, and Julien Temple. Famous film directors started to make videos, Brian de Palma, David Mallet, Russell Malcahy, and John Landis. Within a very short time MTV's influence grew. This new and innovative channel started to have an impact on TV shows. Michael Mann, the director of Miami Vice saw the potential of this new image based aesthetic. Stylised actors, fast moving scenes, and a few car chases added in all cut to music. One Miami Vice episode was based completely around the Phil Collins' track In The Air Tonight. It was, as Mann was to later describe it, an MTV cop show.
MTV's worldwide expansion increased its influence. Music shows on established channels disappeared. No-one needed a weekly video or chart show when MTV was there, first with exclusives of new videos from superstars. MTV News, which I was involved in, became the precursor to the Entertainment News formats of today. Shows like Beavis and Butthead led a new style of animation, The Real World was the first proper reality show. And the presenters, particularly the masterful Ray Cokes became the idols of millions. For many aspiring presenters he was the one to follow. Stefan Raab is testament to Ray's influence. In the 90s MTV was even to have a political impact. In the States, Clinton appeared on MTV and talked about his love of Elvis and connected to the youth. Even film, where many directors ended up after starting in video, was influenced by MTV. Reality Bites was even targeted to the MTV generation.
By the mid nineties MTV's impact was at its peak. Video making had also reached new heights with innovative directors Jonze, Gondry and Cunningham leading the field. MTV had changed the face of television, delivered a new aethestic, and influenced a whole generation. It appeared to be unassailable.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On ... MTV; what went wrong?
It is often siad that there is no gain without risk. For many years MTV made the right risks, and enormous financial gains. It had been the leader in the market, innovative, risk taking, dynamic and influential. It all started on August 1st 1981 and MTV Europe launched 6 years later.
In the early years MTV was on a relentless march. We, the staff, had freedoms that would be unthinkable today in the heavily formatted world of television. That led to some of the most creative as well as disastrous moments on the channel. It was never bland. Ray Cokes was given airtime and basically allowed to fill it how he wanted. It made him a star. Genre shows like 120 minutes, Headbangers Ball and Party Zone flourished. In the news department we had almost carte blanche to interview or feature who we wanted. The record companies pushed us their artists, and we expanded that basis with bands from Israel to Iceland and everywhere in between who didn't need to have a record contract, a video on rotation or be particularly mainstream. For the viewer it expanded their horizons and encouraged them to look outside the confines of their own music market. Then in 1992 we were told that we should only show or interview artists with a record contract or a pop video on the channel. This in my opinion was the first fundamental mistake and led MTV down the path to being a follower and not a leader.
In 1993 Viva launched and MTV Europe at first ignored its impact. In fact one of the bosses at MTV told me it would mount to nothing, and to be honest, after watching the first few weeks of Viva, I actually agreed. But Viva connected directly to the German youth and the audience started to fall away. MTV panicked and made their second fundamental mistake, probably the biggest, launching local MTVs in different territories. It went against the trend of the new and most important technological advance of our lifetime – the internet. The web allowed people to look out onto a wider world. MTV looked
inwards. The internet stripped record companies of their revenues. Video budgets were reduced, and alongside that MTV had to look for other revenue streams. Ringtones and reality formats took over the channel. And by the time 2005 came around and youtube launched videos could be seen, on demand, anytime anywhere. The internet relegated MTV, as a Music Video channel, to the sidelines.
What started in Europe as a Music Video bonanza fizzled out into a pay TV channel in Germany at the start of this year, its focus no longer on music.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On … Amy Winehouse and the 27 Club lie.
When Amy Winehouse died the press immediately latched onto the spurious and misleading idea that at 27 she had joined some elusive club for dead musicians. Until Winehouse augmented the list, it consisted of six famous musicians who all passed away at 27 - Robert Johnson, Kurt Cobain, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, To support this 27 club theory a list of other musicians who died are cited. In all there are over 30 – a number that is supposed to lead us to the conclusion that there is something mystical about the age of 27, that decisive year of maturity, where some rock stars die from drugs, alcohol or related causes. The 27s: The Greatest Myth of Rock & Roll by Eric Segalstad has expanded this myth, suggesting that it's not just the rock and roll lifestyle, but that the number 27 has some significance – because some even die after leading 'clean' lives.
Conspiracies in rock have always made great reading - Paul McCartney supposedly replaced in the Beatles after a fatal car crash – the proof being that clues could be found in the track 'I am the Walrus' when played backwards. Elvis, who supposedly hoaxed his own death and is still alive. Even Jim Morrison was reportedly hitchhiking around America years after his death! But what the purporters of the 27 Club omit to include are over 300 other musicians who died early, from drugs, drink, drowning, plane and car crashes, even natural causes. No one seems interested in countering the myth by mentioning others, sometimes even more famous musicians, who have died and were not 27. Elvis Presley was 42 when he was found dead with 14 different drugs in his body. Keith Moon, drummer of The Who, was 32, Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols was 21, Phil Lynott of Thin Lizzy was 36, and Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys was 39. I found it even stranger that no one could seem to remember Michael Jackson who died at 50, the drug propofol reported as the reason for his death.
The sad result of the interest in this spurious and misleading idea of a club is the almost total dismissal of the talent of these musicians. Amy Winehouse's voice probably had more in common with Piaf, Holiday or Garland than the vocally and emotionally empty majority of female pop stars that have dominated the charts in the past 30 years.
Winehouse's lyrics had a depth which far outweighed her 27 years. She opened the door for Duffy and Adele, and has left a legacy which should be respected and not dismissed by aligning herself to the superficial idea that the number 27 is some mystical year when pop stars die.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame on … the future of Wetten, dass ..?
As Wetten, dass..? slowly and strategically comes to an end during the latter part of this year, the talk is not about whether it should continue but who should present the show. Thomas Gottschalk's long goodbye has certainly secured a ratings hit for ZDF, the last edition in Mallorca reached an audience of over 12,43 Mio. - the best ratings for many years. The show is not just a phenomenon but undoubtedly an institution. Since early 1981 when the original host and inventor Frank Elsner launched Wetten, dass ..? it has been shown in local variations in over 20 other countries including Britain, Poland, Slovenia, USA, and even China – making revenue through format sales. It's the flagship show of ZDF, but even though it's a massive success, I believe it's also now become the noose around ZDF's neck. Not because, as some people seem to think, that there isn't a replacement for Gottschalk - there are definitely more than a few, Schoeneberger and Kerkeling could stamp their
identity on the show as successfully as Gottschalk has done so over the years - but because this monolith, this souvenir, this monument to the golden age of television stands in the way of a channel which has the possibility to renew and modernize.
Two of ZDF's new digital channels, ZDFneo and ZDFkultur, have some of the most innovative and exciting shows. There, new formats could be tried and tested, before switching over to the mainstream ZDF channel. Those formats would have a longer testing period because of a lesser dependency on ratings. But this can only really happen if the monolith is pushed aside, if the show which defines the channel is shed, if the money and resources that
are invested into making Wetten, dass ..? are used to help the channel renew itself. Of course I don't really believe this will happen. Neither the government nor the heads of ZDF would allow Wetten, dass ..? to go. But they should. I believe its short-sighted thinking to allow it to continue. When Gottschalk finally leaves, Wetten, dass ..? should be retired into the annals of TV history.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On ... the riots
Like many people in Germany I watched the riots of last week unfold in Britain with shock and dismay. People trashing their own cities and communities, targeting local shops, then stealing commodities not needed to live from but trainers, laptops and plasma televisions. As someone who is British and who has viewed the change in British society from a distance over the past 16 years, I was not completely surprised. I lived near Broadwater farm, the epicentre of the riots during the early eighties. On the night that a policeman was fatally stabbed my flatmates and I were at home. The houses in our street were set on fire and as they got closer we made a decision to go and stay at a friend's house. We left all our possessions and expected to come back to nothing. We were lucky, others were not.
This time round people have lost homes, livelihoods and sadly some, even their lives. The reasons for the riots back then were much clearer - discrimination, poverty, high unemployment and police brutality. Today there is clearly a different picture. The people arrested came from contrasting sections of society, a teacher, model, a millionaire's daughter and the unemployed. There are, I believe, additional reasons why these riots have taken place that cannot be ignored, and that other societies including Germany should take note of.
Since I left Britain in 1994 I have watched from afar a society that has been increasingly obsessed with materialism, greed and celebrity. Many in the general population aspire to celebrity based only on notoriety, looks or association - not talent, and very little effort. They look up to front page celebrities whose only skill has been to sleep with someone famous, marry a footballer, expose themselves on Big Brother, or be a reject on X-Factor. This has created a loss of perspective, and alongside a complete lack of work ethic, has left just the drive to take any shortcut to riches.
On top of that there are politicians convicted of fiddling their expenses, police accused of taking bribes and a church still reeling from child abuse claims. In short materialism, grabbing what you want, is seen as the shortcut to achieve happiness. This is just not true. It's been proved in studies that as long as you have a basic standard of living, no amount of retail therapy, no amount of greed for more, will make you happier. The next day you will just wake up realizing that you are still the same person you always were.
For the rioters, whose retail therapy was stealing, they have now woken up no doubt believing they are, with their pictures in the newspapers, celebrities. From their arrogant reactions in the press it is clear they are not remorseful, and I doubt they have found long term happiness with their plasma TVs. What I believe has to happen now, and for me this is the lesson that other western countries including Germany needs to take to heart, is not about installing in people just what is right or wrong, or a´sense of respect for others and yourself, or even a sense of community, it is to convince everyone that the goal in life should not be about greed for material gain but about finding a passion, a vocation, something which backed up with hard work provides long term fulfillment.
And if the idea of hard work is unappealing to the rioters then they should consider what Confucius said - "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life".
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame on … being an Ex and 'Die Alm'
Ex-TV presenters, ex-Footballers, ex-Models. Although I am an ex myself, namely an ex-MTV presenter, I was surprised to receive an e-Mail two months ago asking me if I would like to be on 'Die Alm'.
Although I turned the offer down, maybe I can shed some light on what goes through the mind of an Ex when such an proposition comes up and why Ex-es would be willing to offer themselves for some very public humiliation. My first reaction was – why me? Why have they put me in the same category as the people who go on reality shows? After all I have many different strands to my career and being in front of camera is just one, which all but ended a long time ago, but occasionally still earns me some money. Once I had gotten over the initial shock of being considered alongside Gisa-Lisa Lohfink, I decided to ponder on what it would really mean.
1. The Show.
The first question was – would I want to do such a show? I've taken part in 'Das perfekte Promi Dinner' and actually enjoyed it, I'd even love to do 'Let's Dance' as it would be like an enforced fitness course, but 'Die Alm' is a totally different type of challenge. I've lived in the city most of my life and I am not an outdoor type. I don't particularly care for farmyard animals and would hate to be forced to spends days on end with a group of humans I don't know and am unlikely to like. Worse still is the idea of being filmed 24 hours a day.
2. The Money.
Of course all of this can be fixed by being offered enough money, it's why Ex-es do it. Having a name from the past does not provide an income, but since I am doing OK at the moment I resisted even finding out what the going rate was.
3. The Fame
Many Ex-es have an attention deficit which needs to be remedied. In order to feel worthwhile some need audience or press attention. Fame, however minor, can be addictive. I also like occasional attention, but would I want my life to be on the front pages of the yellow press? No, definitely not. All that considered I decided not to reply immediately as I thought I would be able to write a more dignified reply the next day. That evening I made the mistake of telling friends about the offer. One or two would have loved to watch me being humiliated, but the general reaction was – “you're not going to do it, are you?”
The truth is I would probably have had a major freak out after 24 hours in 'Die Alm' to the amusement of the audience, my friends, and to the detriment of my career. So I wrote a polite reply. I lied. I said I would have loved to appear on the show but would be in America when the show was on. Now of course I'm watching it every night from Cologne. Humiliation at its best. Just thank-god its not me in there. Not yet at least!
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame on … Gamers
Although RTL rightly apologised for their now infamous feature about gamescom 2011 where the suggestion was that gamers are socially inadequate, and worse still - smell, it is evident that those who have no connection at all to games or the gaming industry and work in the media are at a loss at how to pidgeon-hole this group, let alone how to give the industry some respect. From the critical response they received, RTL, and hopefully others, may have now realised that they have underestimated the power and importance of this supposed minority and discovered that gamers are part of a powerful, majority industry that cuts across gender and all agegroups. To put the record straight here are some myths corrected.
Violent games turn gamers violent.
Studies by the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and other surveys cite no conclusive link between video game usage and violent activity. Games have an effective rating system, as do films and other forms of entertainment. And when it comes to other games a 2008 USA Today article reported that researchers at the American Psychological Association convention in Boston suggested that video games can be powerful learning tools, in one case even improving scientific thinking.
Gaming is a minority industry.
According to an ISFE 2010 Gamevision Europe study, 24.1% of adult Europeans are gamers and more than 95 million European adults are playing video games regularly. In 2009 the value of the industry in Europe was over 8 billion Euros and is increasing year on year.
Gaming is only for teenage males.
Also wrong according to the same survey. 30% of 30 - 49 year olds Europeans play video games. Interestingly 31% of all males and 20% of females are Gamers. In the States the Entertainment Software Association report that 26% of people over the age of 50 play games.
Gaming is for the socially inept.
The same survey goes on to say that 78% of gamers like shopping and just one % point less like eating out. The vast majority of gamers like chatting – 92%. Interestingly 58% of all Gamers who are parents report playing games with their children. Games can be a social activity, as anyone who has played Wii and been thrashed at golf by their 87 year old mother at Christmas can testify. And the question to whether all gamers smell? All I really have to say to that is that the stench of bad journalism is the worst smell of all.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame on … X-Factor
Two weeks in and I have to admit something I'm slightly embarassed about. Here goes. Deep breath. Oh god, it almost kills me to say it. But ...I like X-Factor. OK. I've said it. It's out there now. It's not the singers on the show that have impressed me. In fact the contestant's musical ability play a secondary role in these shows.
When MTV started the emphasis shifted from music to image, today it's about the back-story, the construction of the features. For me they are a masterclass in how to make modern television, so supremely edited they are a tearful joy to watch. This is TV manipulation at its best. This is the new Hollywood. Tinseltown works at its best when film-goers invest in the characters and follow their journey. Films present universal themes that we can all identify with. I'm not talking about the plot - what our hero will do
- but the deeper themes that relate to all us – such as overcoming adversity, importance of family, or that sacrificing or hard work will bring rewards. These key themes are a constant in Hollywood and lately in the features of reality shows. And X-Factor has become the Spielberg of television storytelling. It doesn't need 90 minutes to secure our investment in the contestant before bringing out an outburst of emotion. It needs 5, that's 300 seconds to provide an emotional rollercoaster for us, the Jury and the studio audience. XFactor is truly a masterpiece.
But the emotionality has been taken to another level in the British and Australian X-Factors. They've added a reaction to these features which has flawed the programme. I call it the weeping Jury. Kelly Rowland, formerly of Destiny's Child, dissolved into such overpowering emotion on British TV after a young Scottish girl sang her heart out for her grandmother, she could hardly speak, just cry. And following her lead Louis Walsh, manager of Boyzone, blubbed. But the Oscar for best performance on X-Factor has to go to
Australia. A young man limped onto stage, one withered arm, severly crippled but beaming with joy. He and his brother had been victims of the war in Iraq as children. Adopted and brought up in Australia where they had lived a better life, half of the Jury had moist eyes before he sang. And as he burst into the first line of Imagine from John Lennon there wasn't a dry eye in the house. I shed a tear the moment Roland Keating, who sits in the Jury, started to cry. The whole audience was at it. It was like mass hysteria, that I haven't experienced since Princess Diana's funeral. I hope the weeping jury doesn't come to Germany – the sight of Das Bo snivelling into his hankerchief might just send me back to the therapist.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On … Breaking Bad
Now in its 4th season in America, the series Breaking Bad is about an undervalued chemistry teacher, who, upon finding out that he has terminal cancer, uses his chemistry know-how to become Albuquerque's biggest and best Chyrstal Meth cook. His goal? To leave his family with enough money to live a good life after his death. It's a moral problem, a question of whether the end justifies the means. But the quandary for main character Walter H. White, superbly played by Bryan Cranston, is that he continually has to choose between two no-win dilemmas. Slowly his moral compass is being eroded. And mine is too. I have become addicted to the series. Breaking Bad is turning me into a criminal.
Anyone who knows Breaking Bad will understand my predicament. Those of you who haven't I can only suggest that you catch up immediately. The 3rd series will run on arte in October. The first two are out on DVD. And that is my moral dilemma. I just couldn't wait for series 4. I'm already well into it. I'm watching wherever I can find it on the net.
Friends on the street talk about the latest episode, each presented as if better than the last. I walk away, not wanting to know in case I've missed an episode. Can you imagine if one country watched the World Cup one year in advance of another? This is how I feel. And this is when the addiction takes over. I don't want anyone to ruin the series for me. And now I'm the one who feels he's on Chrystal Meth, waiting for next my weekly hit, for the duration of the series.
This dilemma, namely watching an illegal version of the show instead of waiting for the German free TV release, has far reaching consequences. It's clear that fans like me will do anything to see it early. One day after the American broadcast they are available online, free, illegally. Shutting down sites like kino.to and pressing criminal charges won't stop the seeders. And there has to be another solution which allows us leechers to see the series legally at the same time, or shortly afterwards. It's the same problem with the music industry. Tim Renner, motor.de chef, said on n-tv that if you hear a song on the radio and can't buy it legally then of course you are going to get it illegally on the net if you really want it. Most of us know, as he goes on to say. that if we continue getting music or films for free on the net then „keine neue Kulturproduktion kommt“. In a 2010 GfK-Studie zur Digitalen Content-Nutzung it's estimated that 1.6 million people download over 23 million TV series. In my defense I do buy each series later on DVD when they are available, Truth is though seeding and leeching will continue on the net where there is a need. As it is for Walt's character, there is no going back. No return to a mundane normal life where we will wait sometimes years for the new series to come to Germany. I have to have my fix of Breaking Bad now. And just like Walt, I just might have broken bad too.
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
Blame On ...Name Changes!
The name of a person is a significant factor in their life, it defines them, and it can affect the perception of them in the world. Most people stay with the same name all their life. But what happens when you change your name?
Elton John's real name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight, Lady Gaga's is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta. Many well known personalities change their name on the cusp of fame, each for a variety of reasons. It could be management, record or film company pressure to have a name that the audience can easily identify with or remember. It could be, as in my case, a legal issue. I had to change my name from James to Blame to be in the Artists Union in Britain as there was already someone in the same union with the same name. If the name we are given defines us, then the name we choose whether it is a completely new or just a first name e.g. Madonna, redefines who we are. Would Annie Mae Bullock really have developed into the explosive ball of energy that is Tina Turner on stage? Could Madonna have become the 'diva' Madonna without dropping her other names?
In fiction, character's names are well chosen. The name has to highlight the personality of the character, and tell us something about them. Hannibal Lector could hardly have been so evil if he had been called Jeffrey? Would Neo in the Matrix have been the 'One' without being Neo? But if you intend to change your name be warned. Names, as my therapist once told me, lead to a development of a second personality. In my case Blame is more extroverted than my original name James. And if you choose a name that can only work when you are young this can cause other problems. Boy George grew up and had to drop the Boy and revert back to his brith name, George O'Dowd. And I believe Lady Gaga will eventually suffer similar problems. Gaga suggests at the least extreme childishness and at the most extreme madness. Living up to that may not be a problem in her twenties, but she may have to revert back to Stefani in years to come.
There are benefits to changing your name. The most useful plus for the world's biggest stars is that they can hide behind their artist name. Madonna once reflected in an interview with me - How would Madonna answer that? - It appears that even Madonna realises that she has developed a kunstfigur, one that protects her from baring her whole personality and allows her to maintain a certain privacy. So it may be the name change which redefines you and your attitude to it which keeps you sane. Choose wisely!
Blame On ...the weekly MSN Deutschland Column!
