This came to my interest when browsing the BBC news website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16338040
Noah Kravitz is being sued by his employees for taking a large number of his corporate Twitter followers with him when he left the company. The USA has, arguably, always been the haven of the litigators like no other nation, yet this sets an interesting precedent for 'ownership' on the Internet. Who is the 'owner' of a Twitter account when it is set up for corporate purposes? Furthermore, to what extent can a company possibly hope to 'own' clients on a website like Twitter, where the flow of information and the forging of connections is almost instantaneous. It has often been suggested that we now live in a hyper-capitalist age: it will be interesting to see what develops when Twitter creates an environment wherein the free flow of information moves far faster than the free flow of capital.
Wednesday 28 December 2011
Me and Downton Abbey
Here is a confession that may lose me valuable friends, allies, compatriots. Alternatively, here is a confession which no one will ever read from my tiny little corner of the web. But my confession is this: I can't get into Downton Abbey. I tried the Christmas special, I tried a few of the episodes prior to that, but I mention the Christmas special because it is a Christmas special and by the time 9pm rolled around, you would think that one would be sufficiently full of Christmas joy (and turkey) so as to allow you to soak up some of that Downton spirit.
Alas it didn't work, and I am left scratching my head at my lack of warmth for a series which entered the 2011 Guiness Book of Records for 'most critically acclaimed television show". It is lavish, and the cast is populated by some great actors. It is capable of creating scenes of genuine drama and emotion. Yet, something is missing and I think I put my finger on it when I watched the BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens' Great Expectations which is part of a season to celebrate 200 years since his birth. This programme has menace, it is darker, characters are morally ambiguous, there is a sense of mystery and genuine peril. It is also based on a pre-existing work of fiction, which Downton Abbey is not. It has been suggested that Downton is part of our tradition of doing great heritage drama and that, in the coming year, we will all need a bit of escapism. Revisiting the past is does no harm for a television show's narrative - look at Mad Men. Yet that show, and indeed a Dickensian drama, have stakes, they give their characters something to lose. I suppose I was left with the overarching feeling that life in Downton Abbey will never change; the ruling classes and the servant classes will keep their places, and the show will continue to provide simmering sexual tension and Jane Austen-esque dialogue. Perhaps the reasons for us finding it comforting now is because a society based on such deference was, for certain people, just as comforting back then; hence the slow crawl towards social reform. You always know deep down that Hugh Bonneville's Earl of Grantham will always be a fundamentally decent chap; there's no Don Draper shade of grey there.
These are all just thoughts, musings if you like. Maybe I'll buy the DVD and give it a re-think. Or, in a Dickensian twist, maybe a convinently placed spirit will take me back in time to Christmas Day and force me to watch it again.
Alas it didn't work, and I am left scratching my head at my lack of warmth for a series which entered the 2011 Guiness Book of Records for 'most critically acclaimed television show". It is lavish, and the cast is populated by some great actors. It is capable of creating scenes of genuine drama and emotion. Yet, something is missing and I think I put my finger on it when I watched the BBC adaptation of Charles Dickens' Great Expectations which is part of a season to celebrate 200 years since his birth. This programme has menace, it is darker, characters are morally ambiguous, there is a sense of mystery and genuine peril. It is also based on a pre-existing work of fiction, which Downton Abbey is not. It has been suggested that Downton is part of our tradition of doing great heritage drama and that, in the coming year, we will all need a bit of escapism. Revisiting the past is does no harm for a television show's narrative - look at Mad Men. Yet that show, and indeed a Dickensian drama, have stakes, they give their characters something to lose. I suppose I was left with the overarching feeling that life in Downton Abbey will never change; the ruling classes and the servant classes will keep their places, and the show will continue to provide simmering sexual tension and Jane Austen-esque dialogue. Perhaps the reasons for us finding it comforting now is because a society based on such deference was, for certain people, just as comforting back then; hence the slow crawl towards social reform. You always know deep down that Hugh Bonneville's Earl of Grantham will always be a fundamentally decent chap; there's no Don Draper shade of grey there.
These are all just thoughts, musings if you like. Maybe I'll buy the DVD and give it a re-think. Or, in a Dickensian twist, maybe a convinently placed spirit will take me back in time to Christmas Day and force me to watch it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)