I caught fifteen minutes of Stephen Fry In America last night. I feel I've seen no end of prominent British broadcasters wander around America with a film crew in tow: Clive James, Michael Palin, Alistair Cooke, even Jonathan King. There must be plenty of others that have slipped my mind. Memory may be playing me false but it seems that now they spend less time finding out anything about the places they're visiting than they ever did. Last night Stephen was in Alaska. I gathered the following:
1. It's cold;
2. It's beautiful;
3. The Inuits hunt whales;
4. Some of the fish are very ugly;
5. Stephen Fry has been there.
Then he went to Hawaii. I learned the following:
1. It's warm;
2. It's beautiful;
3. The Hawaiians resent the tourism;
4. The sunsets are very beautiful;
5. Stephen Fry has been there.
Then I got a bit anxious watching Fry interview people. In real life he is probably a very good listener but that's not his TV persona. He looks like a hyper active kid who's been told to fold his arms and sit still. We expect him to be spouting forth while other people listen to him in wonder and admiration. And he's very self-conscious about his size and shape. He lacks the streak of fearlessness that made Palin so good at this kind of thing. When he was lowered in the cage to be filmed swimming with some apparently docile sharks he really couldn't wait for it to be over.
As much as I like Stephen Fry, I find his American travelogue leaves little impression on me. I watch the programme and it washes over me - I can remember very little of what was said and done after it has finished, which is rather odd. I can remember huge swathes of the assorted Michael Palin programmes to this day.
ReplyDeleteIt's far too rushed and shallow, equivalent in U.S. eyes, I presume, to the way we view tourists being hustled along on a one week "tour of Europe". I expected much better of Fry and the BBC and gave up on it after two instalments.
ReplyDeleteand don't get me started on his Twitter etiquette...
ReplyDeleteI watched it and it was a fairly harmless hour's viewing. It beat watching Peter Jones driving round in fast cars and basically flashing his wealth at everybody on BBC2. Really lovely programming in the middle of a recession.
ReplyDeleteThe programme was a real disappointment. I am a Stephen Fry fan and was looking forward to it, but there were no insights at all and I found myself tuning out about 15 minutes into each episode. Shame.
ReplyDeleteI personally had not real gripe with the programme. I agree that it wasn't exactly encyclopaedic in its detail or even particularly broad - things that Palin does excel at - but I think it fulfilled its purpose. It seemed like it was made to be the escapist, slightly romantic show that it ended-up being. I think it falls into that controversial bracket of shows that are labelled "Sunday night programming". Inoffensive and unchallenging, but fun to escape into for an hour.
ReplyDeletePaul Merton, Stephen Fry, Griff Rhys Jones - what is it with comedians and travelogues? Does it make it more interesting? Does it make it more valid?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Does it make it easier to get commissioned?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Slightly disappointing but a passable enough hour on a Sunday evening.
ReplyDeleteFry did appear to be out of his comfort zone as DH said. He is not a natural travel writer/presenter like Palin. The whole series was also a bit "rushed". Some States barely got 5mins whereas I'm sure you could do an hour on every State.