Skincest.

The new series of skins has started. Hooray. However, I decided to give it two weeks before throwing my opinion of it over the web, as, in true skins style, the opening episode is not really an episode, but more of an extended trailer, introducing the characters and brief snippets of their personalities that tantalisingly hint at the shenanigans we should be in for in the coming weeks.
We start episode 2 with the focus on Cook, the fun loving loudmouth who, at first glance, appears to be a chav version of Chris from the first two seasons. There’s a fairly obvious play on words you can form from his name: one that, no doubt, is in use on many Internet forums as we speak. Suffice to say, over the course of the episode Cook proves this nickname to be entirely accurate.
I posted last week that Skins series 3 would take one of two directions, and, unfortunately, it appears that Skins has decided not to bother itself with silly things like narrative and character, instead concentrating on fitting as many scenes that would look cool on youtube into one episode as possible, in the vain hope that viewers will send said clips to each other taking multi platform viewing to it’s inevitable moronic conclusion. Take Cook: When we first meet him he is, undeniably, a bellend. This is no bad thing, some of the finest characters in TV history are bellends; indeed, it would take a fool to argue that Tony series 1 was anything but. However, rather than reveal layers to the character, or to ground him through, if not situations, but at least actions that are believable, he simply acts like an even bigger bellend than you initially thought. The characterisation across the board is uniformly weak and the whole thing plays out like the Bash Street Kids have found their fathers secret stash- although nowhere near as entertaining as that sounds.
The dip in quality from, not just the first series, but the (poor) second series is noticeable. I can’t blame the actors who, for such a young group, do a fine job with what they are given. And the direction, as always with skins, is excellent, if a little too frenetically paced for my tastes. The problem lies with the script, which was truly dreadful. Not only did the dialogue lack all of the wit and candour of previous Skins episodes, but the episode must also rank as the least believable hour of fiction I’ve seen on T.V. And I’m including Seasame Street, Back to the Future and that episode of the news where O.J. got acquitted in that list. Nothing believable happened. Not once. For starters Cook was still alive at the end of the episode. He would have at least, received a harder beating from the supposed gangsters led by McKenzie Crook (I kid you not) Despite only being 17, Cook was not only able to take enough cocaine and drink enough alcohol to Kill Pete Doherty several times over, but then walk around sober as a judge, visit a brothel, punch a gangster, and maintain an erection! I know you’re at your sexual peek at that age, but the sight of McKenzie Crook spread eagle on a sexual torture rack would be enough to tip anyone over the edge. It was as if the writers simply wanked all their pre-pubescent fantasies of what being a teenager would be over the page, then handed it in to be filmed. Skins seems to be eschewing the larger audience it gained through knowing scripts and clever dialogue, and concentrating on the audience of 13-15 year olds who will live vicariously through its characters. I’m honest enough to admit that, when I was 14, skins would have appealed to me enormously; the idea of kids, only slightly older than me, living seemingly adult lives, but with no responsibilities, worries or recriminations, and only a lifetime orgy of sex and excess to contend themselves with, would have been enormously attractive. And I imagine it would be for today’s teenagers, if it wasn’t so insulting to their intelligence. Skins seems to be playing to a mythical audience of idiots, who only get excited when they see either a.) drugs b.) drink or c.) sex on the screen. The old skins would have been aware of this and played on these preconceptions. Unfortunately, any sense of self-reference and irreverence has been lost in order so Skins can appear to stay edgy and cool. Skins has been many things before but it’s never been stupid. Until now.

Skinny Genius.

I have spent the past week in the capital of Great Britain, and between riding the tube and spending vastly inflated prices on drinks, discovered, to my horror, that London is absolutely nothing like the Monopoly board. Another cherished childhood institution is exposed as a dirty lie. I was expecting, nay hoping, for a London full of talking dogs, road ships and walking top hats, but there were none. I spent hours trying to find Go! and collect my £200 but, after wandering around for the best part of my weekend, the best I'd been offered was fellatio from an emancipated street whore(I gave him 50p and sent him on his way). Strangely, unlike I had been led to believe, London is not a perfect square, where every street is neatly lined up next to each other in an easily negotiable fashion, but a jumbled mess of tubes, intersects and skinny jeans. It was walking around Camden, with my childhood dreams already in tatters, when I realised: London is infested with skinny jeans- they're everywhere! I honestly don’t know how this current trend of silly emo hair, t-shirts large enough to live in, and painted on jeans has crept it's way into the upper echelons of society, like some form of fashionista chlamydia, but it has. If we should be lambasting Russell Brand for anything, and let's face it we should, it should be for skinny jeans. I am personally more offended by the silly fashion sense of impressionable, unimaginative, teens, trying to craft a unique identity by aping the first person they see on T.V, than the harassment of an old man over his sexually delinquent granddaughter, although, admittedly, this may be more my problem. Take a look at this:



This man is clearly a bellend. Yet he is, inexplicably, everywhere. Why? What has become of society when, in London, I can find thousands of despondant, imaginatively-retarded teens, willing to trade any semblance of their own personality to imitate him, a cynically manufactured XFM/E4 hair monkey, yet not one walking top hat? Unbelievably, it goes even further: Take a look at this shifty character:



He is exactly as annoying and talentless as the above moron, but with the added bonus of a silly voice, sort of like Windows XP compared to regular windows or TWAT 2.0. It's as if T.V and radio bosses sit around a jeans shop in Camden and give every tenth customer their own radio show. It has to stop. It's getting out of hand. Nobody wants another Terry Christian but that's where we're headed. Both of these presenters are famed for their irreverent wit, but, between them, they have managed to make me laugh as much as a cat with aids has(once, if you're asking, but again, this may be more my problem.)I think all T.V and radio presenters should be completely anonymous, then rather than picking people who are trendy or "speak to their audience", we could have presenters who just speak clearly. We could have a whole T.V schedule of anonymous, masked T.V presenters, who speak with wit and candour, but then the whole schedule might begin to resemble an Al-Queada recruitment video. Actually, I haven't thought this through. It doesn't change the fact that Alex Zane is a twat though.