Someone said I should have a look at the new, "re-designed", Sunday Times. So I have done. No difference much. The throw-aways (ie the specialist section sheets) have a bit more title blocky colour and white space and for that the Guardian has clearly been a part-inspiration. The print's a bit different, but so what? Nip 'n' tuck, dearie. Nip 'n' tuck. Most of all, the same tired writers lead the way, potpourris long over-due a reinvigorating squirt of fresh oils as they stale in their salaried cellophane.
Ah, AA Gill. Last week he reviewed The Tudors but rather wasted his wit on Sam Neill (eg "His presence makes this Tudorassic Park") by failing to notice that he's not actually in the new series. Hence Gill's pre-emptive excuse-making this week to cover himself - "Last week, I thought he was acting; apparently, he was already dead," he jests for the sofa'd chucklers (pause for fart-in-sofa sound). He didn't realise that the catch-up sequences were not teasers, suggesting that Gill's eye was everywhere but on the story, the history, what's in front of his nose. It's just that he's a lazy, veteran Sunday Times TV critic - let's say a living heritage writer - who gets to watch his TV on DVD, and why not have a go at innocuous Neill for some blind critiquing? The late Victor Lewis-Smith did something similar with Denis Norden once, but with very funny results.
Oddly, Gill's editor didn't notice, nor the subs, nor anyone much. Makes you wonder whether anyone is reading Gill's sparkling shit apart from me.
Ah, AA Gill. Last week he reviewed The Tudors but rather wasted his wit on Sam Neill (eg "His presence makes this Tudorassic Park") by failing to notice that he's not actually in the new series. Hence Gill's pre-emptive excuse-making this week to cover himself - "Last week, I thought he was acting; apparently, he was already dead," he jests for the sofa'd chucklers (pause for fart-in-sofa sound). He didn't realise that the catch-up sequences were not teasers, suggesting that Gill's eye was everywhere but on the story, the history, what's in front of his nose. It's just that he's a lazy, veteran Sunday Times TV critic - let's say a living heritage writer - who gets to watch his TV on DVD, and why not have a go at innocuous Neill for some blind critiquing? The late Victor Lewis-Smith did something similar with Denis Norden once, but with very funny results.
Oddly, Gill's editor didn't notice, nor the subs, nor anyone much. Makes you wonder whether anyone is reading Gill's sparkling shit apart from me.
4 comments:
Is Victor Lewis-Smith dead then?
Hey, no sub bashing here please.
It's our job to turn diarrhoea into brandy trifle, as a colleague once told a reporter unwise enough to approach the bench with a fatuous complaint.
Then Liz you need to work at the Sunday Times. God help you.
Gill's been doing it far too long. He's a great writer but he writes the same stuff about the same kinds of programmes. eg. Every summer, every week he bangs on about "Tristrams" (his once amusing nickname for TV execs) going off to Tuscany and leaving a rubbish schedule. YAWN YAWN fucking yawn.
Post a Comment