Jump to content

Black Mirror

Nick R

By Nick R,
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

joeplus

joeplus

Posted
Posted

That was great. I liked the twist, and the prologue. Well-acted and nice-looking too. That said, the "it's been going on for an hour" part seemed needlessly absurd, set against some very well-observed stuff about how Youtube is TV now and all that.

Trailer for the next one. Spoilers, obviously, but note the scheduling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Retroid

Retroid

Posted
Posted

That was great! Really enjoyed it.

Didn't really say anything too smart - apart from how people bay for blood...

It had perhaps the best "I'm fucked" scene I've ever seen as the PM was walking to his piggy doom. It was all strangely believable, especially with it being an artist and all.

The female reporter and the wife seemed not right... The reporter took some retarded risks and the wife seemed completely heartless - both to the point where it seemed unrealistic. Other than that it was brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Comrade

Comrade

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Your question mark turns a statement into provocation. Here's a reply:

Brooker's known to be a big fan of Twitter. I hate Twitter. I've enjoyed much of his work, but on this subject - social media - I'd prefer someone who isn't compromised by utilising it for their own ends; albeit only for leisure. You feel differently, so take off yer rage goggles and cruise on to agreeable posters.

(And you'd be surprised. I haven't negged anyone, either. They're worthless unless you claim them, and if you do that they're redundant. But that's no invitation here: you don't go about changing another's mind through negativity. I'm fine with others praising Brooker to the hilt.

Oh, and if the mods would remove my account and delete my posts, I'd agree to that. Go ask 'em if that's possible if you hate the sight of my viewpoints so much.)

1) What?

2) Your blanket hatred of social media and condemning of people for collaborating with it is ridiculous. As ridiculous as most of the opinions you post on here, in what I suspect are attention-seeking acts.

3) The programme isn't even really about social media, but rather about traditional power structures' (government, TV news) inability to properly understand and react to social media.

4) I have no idea what a thread you posted about arcade sticks has to do with anything.

5) I have no idea what the neg/pos system has to do with anything.

6) I'd say my reaction to you is bemusement, hardly rage.

7) I have no particular wish to see you banned (though you can always abandon your account yourself if you like. I doubt anyone will bother to delete all your posts though). I just think that if you're going to air preposterous opinions in a public forum, those opinions deserve to be challenged. You constantly post absolutely bollocks opinions that I highly suspect are put on in a desperate attempt to make people think you are somehow uniquely intellectual. So I feel obliged to point out that you're talking total shit. If your views weren't so paper thin they could be disintegrated by a soft breeze, you probably wouldn't have the trouble you have on here.

8 ) ...

9) Profit.

16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comrade

Comrade

Posted
Posted

You put a question mark on the end of a statement in the hope I'd dig a deeper hole to support it.

"What?" referred to your entire post.

I didn't say that, Padre. I said something very close, but it's not worth going into that here.

Yes, you basically did.

Helping people. I've done this in a variety of threads you never visit.

So?

Antagonism will slowly strangle this forum.

Questionable, but at any rate - what's that got to do with anything?

I'm averaging a few posts per month; have been for a long time. Your challenge comment's the reason I am leaving: my opinions are not added through desperation, but the observation that there hasn't been a break in common thought yet. That's a forum fulfilling its purpose, so long as the point isn't hammered home. It won't be this time.

Well, I said "constantly" because almost every single time I see your name on here there's some pretentious rubbish next to it. All opinions (except racism, I guess) are welcome on here, but if your opinion is patently nonsense, you should expect someone to mention that. They are, after all, expressing their opinion that you're talking utter rubbish.

Granted, I have enemies, so it's not for me to participate any more. I'm now used to smaller forums where I'm better-known, and I've realised that RLLMUK is so big as to make every non-celebrated member anonymous. Adios.

You're being ridiculously (and characteristically) over-dramatic to consider me your "enemy". But still, feel free to pop off to some other forum where they're apparently so desperate for members that everyone will bite their tongue when someone turns up ad spouts the flimsy rubbish you deliver. You'll be back in a couple of months, as you have been the fourteen other times you've rather archly flounced off the forum.

And I doubt anyone would consider me "celebrated" on this board.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick R

Nick R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A few people have pointed out that Brooker first mentioned the idea for this episode in his Screen Burn column in 2002 - but with Terry Wogan instead of the Prime Minister. Coincidentally that column mentions Roy Kinnear, who was the father of the actor who played the PM in this. :blink:

This is a good review of the first episode.

On the change from the above Screen Burn column to the final story:

This is useful for examining 'The National Anthem' as the aims of the film become more apparent by looking at how the story has evolved over time. The most telling change is that he moved the debasement of television from being the conclusion of the story to being the premise – but rather than pig-related antics being the cause instead it was the rise of social media and the ease of access to foreign news forcing domestic news to lower their standards to compete.
Brooker's work tends not to be able to stay serious for too long without trying to puncture that seriousness and given 'The National Anthem' certainly takes itself and its premise seriously, I quite liked the hidden attempt to burst its own bubble in the epilogue. I read the idea that the affair was considered by some to be 'the first great work of art of the 21st century' as a comment on the film itself ('Carlton Bloom' shares Brooker's initials and 'Charlton' is the name he uses by on Twitter), self-deprecatingly criticising the idea that the film itself had any artistic merit and asking "Sure some people may say I've made a brilliant film showcasing the dark path our media has taken, but are you sure I didn't just make a film where a man had sex with a pig?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
NecroMorrius

NecroMorrius

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

You're all weird, that was brilliant. A fairly standard modern take on 1984, eventually becoming Brooker speaking about the commodification of his own anger and criticism. That final shot - window, or screen? Closer to purity, authenticity and truth, or further than ever?

21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept