Melbourne's Kardashian Kaos

When Kim Kardashian recently arrived in Melbourne, there were thousands of over-hyped teens, and more than a few blokes who should know better, all excited to catch a glimpse of the one and only Miss Kim K.

But not everyone was happy she was here. Journos, experts, and social commentators all came out with their pitchforks and their matches, ready to burn her at the stake. But what were her sins, what did she do that was so evil?

Its no secret that the Kardashians are the business of making money, and Kim didn't come to Australia on a humanitarian mission of goodwill. Was it news to anyone that she came here on a promotional tour? of course it wasn't, so why the outrage? People want to see her because she is stylish, beautiful, and cool. And she delivered on every level.

There was one particularly nasty article in The Age which reeked of a reporter who thought he was far too good to be there. As is unfortunately all too common here in Aus, the Tall Poppy Syndrome came out in full force, and it was self righteously ugly.

There were the customary swipes about having to provide questions to her Publicist before the interview. But why wouldn't this be the case? With reporters baying for blood and controversy at every turn, wouldn't it be negligent for any Publicist not to screen the questions? And don't all celebs screen their questions? Even politicians do. The tone of the interview is the very reason why its required!

Then there were the 'lets show how stupid you are' questions about politics, legal proceedings and the Mars Rover. Kim isn't here for her thoughts on politics, court cases and space, so why ask? Why does she have to prove herself on this stuff? Whether or not she knows or cares what the answers are, she is not claiming to be a political activist or scientist. Its painfully clear the purpose of these questions were an attempt to show her as a dumb pretty celeb. 

Why didn’t anyone ask the Olympians about their political or legal views?

The Australian media is always so quick to cut down big celebrities who don't measure up to their lofty standards. Its as though they have a chip on their shoulder because the celeb is too beautiful, or not wholesome enough. Of course, this isn't the first time an international star has had to put up with this.

Who could forget David Beckham's visit to Aus a few years back. He did everything 'right' - visited kids in hospitals, posed in photos, signed autographs - way more than 99% of the population has ever done. And that is not to mention the great game of football he played. He put on a show for the fans, bent it like Beckham to score a superb goal, he was entertaining, and the fans loved it.

But of course, this just wasn't good enough for some areas of the media, especially those TV channels who didn't have the rights to the match. How could this foreigner with all his money, fame, and good looks actually be a good and likable guy?

So the story was run that he snubbed some kids at the airport. Obviously there was no mention that security whisked him into his hotel before he knew the plane had landed. Anything for a bit of controversy, and the more negative the better. The media had found an open wound and were going in for the kill, using children as weapons. But unfortunately for the blood thirsty journos, Becks found out about it all, and those same kids were invited to the match, and got to meet their hero after all. And funnily enough, the same media outlets that had championed the cause of these children had slinked away nowhere to be seen.

Its a sad state that not only is it ok, but its almost expected for reporters to demean international celebs who are beautiful and successful. You get the feeling that these reporters think they are speaking for us all.

But the the reality is, they wouldn't be celebs if no one liked them. No one waits at the airport, the red carpet or buys tickets to see a celebrity they hate.

Come back soon Kim!

Big Cats On The Prowl

Some important work going on over at the Department of Sustainability and Environment:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sorry-but-there-are-no-big-cats-out-there-20120918-263yy.html

There are almost certainly no pumas, leopards, jaguars or cougars roaming regional Victoria, a state government study has found.

"We can't say 100 per cent there are no big cats in Victoria but we can say it is highly unlikely," Department of Sustainability and Environment zoologist Peter Menkhorst said on Tuesday.

What was the purpose of such a study? Are these legendary Big Cats a problem to anyone? Does this mean a study is also now required to rule out the existence of bunyips and drop bears?

Surely they didn't think they'd actually be able to CONFIRM the existence of the Big Cats? And if they did confirm the cats don't exist, does anyone think that would stop the people who claim to have seen them - the kooks, the crazies and the conspiracy theorists?

I hate to think of the amount of time, resources and efforts were wasted on this study, which couldn't even make a definitive conclusion. Good to see the State has money to burn!

His survey of about a century's worth of anecdotal evidence alleging big cats exist in Victoria has concluded it is highly unlikely

Highly unlikely? Way to commit to your work! Surely all it takes is bit of common sense to rule out the Big Cats?

But thankfully, common sense doesn't prevail, and thankfully, the 'experts' can't confirm that there are no Big Cats prowling the Victorian bush.

Because why would anyone want to deny such a great urban legend?

How would older siblings scare their younger brothers and sisters on camping holidays if there are no more black pumas prowling the night looking for campers to snack on?

"It probably is dogs or foxes or pigs or known predators, " Mr Menkhorst said.

Pigs? Dogs? How are you going to tell a decent scary campfire story about killer PIGS?

There’s probably no Bigfoot or Lochness Monster either. But who wants to believe it?

Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said the study concluded the most obvious explanation for the reported sightings of big cats over the years was that they were large, feral cats

Pfft – large feral cats – Its a Puma. And always will be.

The Real House Husbands of...

After the bombardment of ads during the Olympics which were only slightly less annoying than the commentary itself, Channel 9’s post Olympic schedule has barely raised a mention.

From Underbelly: Yet Again, which may or may not have made it to its final episode; to Big Brother which is now just a Gold Coast share house of bored people, as surely the cameras have been turned off by now; and finally to House Husbands, which has already merged into the mashed up memory of mundane Aussie dramas that went nowhere.

House Husbands has been advertised as:

 "A fresh and dynamic look at Australian family life, with a very modern twist" 

A dubious quote, as I don't know how the adjective 'fresh' can be used to describe an Aussie drama about the boredom of suburban living, with the same old plots, seen a thousand times, brought to life by a cast of tired faces we've seen a thousand more times. Once again we have yet another version of a show about ‘Ordinary People, Everyday Problems’.

As for the 'modern twist', whoa, how progressive, men looking after their kids. Way to get out there Channel 9. The House Husbands seem to be a cross between the bumbling men in those ridiculously sexist ads, who display the intelligence of a slug as they try to find the yogurt in the fridge, or somehow successfully cook a frozen meal that is so easy, even DAD can cook it; and the lazy slob Dads of the painful American sitcoms in the 'Fat Man, Hot Wife' genre, where they just want to watch car racing while being belittled by their sassy wives and smart ass kids. Think 'According to Jim', 'Home Improvement', and the big daddy of them all - 'Everybody Loves Raymond'.

As is standard with Aussie TV, the show is full of the familiar faces you don't want to see again. Not daring to stray too far from their comfort zone, Channel Underbelly 9 has cast two of the main characters from the alumni of Underbelly has beens. They've clearly run out of cop shows to put them in. On top of that, we also get to see Gary Sweet As in his latest attempt to keep his Aussie larrikin persona going. The biggest question here is how does this show try to pass him off as one of the kids' fathers? Maybe as the father of one of the other Dads?

House Husbands gives us a gaggle of forgettable-but-déjà-vu story lines, including hapless husbands braving the after-school pick up, and weary wives being over their jobs. How much mileage can they get out of these mundane situations? I cant wait for the episode where Gary Sweet As does the ironing, or when the guy from Underbelly takes the kids to the supermarket to get milk, but sneaks a packet of Twisties without the wife finding out (maybe they could rip off that ad where the Dad is so stupid he can't even pick the right brand of bread for his high maintenance family). Nothing like watching TV about people doing the boring tasks that you are avoiding doing yourself by watching TV.

In this week's episode Mittens
gets the ironing done.

And its all confusingly advertised to the soundtrack from Reservoir Dogs. Are the promotions teams at Channel 9 so conditioned to Underbelly that they automatically think every scene in every show has to copy their favourite gangster film?

Its surprising this show has made it this far. That said, its minimal impact matches 9's other attempt at drama – Tricky Business (is that show still on?) Maybe there's something interesting happening in the Big Brother house that Channel 9's writers could use as inspiration?

Puberty Blues = Not So Blue

2012 has been a benchmark year in awful for Australian TV.

From the endless reality lowlights of Everybody Dance Now, Big Brother, Bingle, The Shire, and Excess Baggage, to the drama misses of House Husbands, The cheap ripoff of Sons of Anarchy Bikie Wars, Underbelly 58, and Winners and Losers; it's been nothing but bland predictable failures from go to woe.

But somehow, one drama that was firmly in the category of likely 2012 failures, has miraculously been able to buck the trend. Whether its by blind luck or design, who would have thought that Puberty Blues could actually be popular? When Channel 10 announced a remake of this 1970s film, a collective groan was heard across the country. Are there any new ideas in Australian TV. Any?

Of course, the answer to that question is no...

...But to everyone’s surprise, Puberty Blues is different. It has a hook. A coming of age drama is nothing new, but one set entirely in the 1970s is a surprisingly refreshing idea. Puberty Blues is essentially the typical “ordinary people, everyday problems” scenario that Australian scriptwriters love so dearly, but its the 1970s spin which is a little daring and sets this show apart. More importantly, it shields the writers from showing their ignorance on what real life and real situations are actually like. The nods to the good old simple life in the 70s are quaint, and the language used is timeless. Shut up Moles!

"She's such a Mole"

As is standard with all Aussie dramas, Puberty Blues is a pay cheque for a fair share of Aussie actor has beens. But this is one situation where the recycled actors almost adds to the retro feel of this show, albeit by accident. Although the retro feel has a very 90's flavour with all the hits including McLeod's Daughters, Water Rats, Blue Heelers and Stingers well represented in the CVs of the cast of Aussie washed ups.

Claudia Karvan is the one exception, and is a coup for Puberty Blues. Even though she has done the rounds of Aussie TV, she’s steered clear of the Neighbours, Home & Away, cop show, and hospital drama traps, and doesn't have that same washed up feel of her hack colleagues co stars. How she’s managed this is deserving of a Logie Award in itself. Not to mention she starred in one of the very rare gems of Australian film – The Big Steal. 

The Logie for managing to be an Australian TV actor and NOT
appear on Neighbours and H&A goes to Claudia Karvan.

The other win for this show is that it actually looks like some money has been spent on it to get the 1970s feel. The clothes, the props, they all fit to the 70s. Even the lack of High Def does.

In reality no money has been spent, its just that the budgets of all Aussie TV dramas can only afford used hand-me-down costumes from the 1970s, which have gathered dust since being worn by Molly and Simon on A Country Practice, but in this case it works, as they’ve hit the right era. Its funny how the school uniforms worn in Puberty Blues look exactly the same as those worn by Neighbours and Home & Away characters which are supposedly set 35 years later.

As for the props, is there anything worse than watching an Aussie drama which is set in current times, and seeing the characters boil the kettle on the stove for a cup of coffee, or wash dishes by hand? Does anyone really not have an electric kettle or a dishwasher anymore? You can get electric kettles from Coles for $10! Then again, according to Aussie drama, there is no Coles, all grocery shopping is done at Alf Stewart's corner store.

But once again, this scenario that makes Packed to Rafters look like its filmed in a $2 shop actually works for a show which set in the 1970s. Even the corner store is believable when its the 1970s! I wonder if they sell Big Boss candy cigars.

So it looks like channel 10 have stumbled upon a winning formula. When all the available ideas, dialogue, costumes and props are all decades behind the times, why not set the show to the same era? It'll look more genuine than anything else on TV...