The Scandinavian drama’s quirky characters and fast-paced plot have kept viewers riveted. Share your theories about the killer ahead of this weekend’s final episodes

Spoiler warning: this blog presumes you have seen episodes seven and eight of The Bridge. Don’t read on if you haven’t – and don’t post spoilers if you’ve seen the finale.

Just when you think that BBC4 must be all out of gripping Scandinavian dramas for its Saturday night double bills, the channel seems to rummage about the European schedules and produce another corker. And while The Bridge arguably might not be quite as brilliant as some of the channel’s other finds, it has proved to be one of TV’s spring treats: a gripping, twisty mystery of the kind that makes missing an episode absolutely unthinkable.

It has also given us a marvellous – not to mention unlikely – police double-act in the shape of Saga Noren and Martin Rohde, bombing about Malmo in the Swedish detective’s classic Porsche while her Danish counterpart tries valiantly to explain how small-talk works. (It doesn’t normally mean announcing the arrival of your period, for instance, or asking your colleague for details of a recent, ill-advised, shag.) But from such unlikely pairings come great television: Martin, generally more low-key and relaxed, depending on the state of his marriage; Saga, the audience is seemingly meant to presume, somewhere on the autistic spectrum.

The set-up gives us a partnership of equal but different police officers, in which it is the man who is more swayed by emotion and the woman who has problems communicating with colleagues – a neat switch from the usual gender roles in this kind of show, although not one that will be entirely unfamiliar to viewers of Scandinavian crime dramas. But is Saga the new Sarah Lund? I’m not sure that shorthand quite works for me. There might be quite a lot of running into darkened warehouses in a limited wardrobe of trademark clothing from both women, but the whole picture is more subtle than that.

There have, however, been comparisons drawn between our leather-trousered heroine and Lisbeth Salander. “We started with The Bridge back in 2005, before I read the Millennium Trilogy books,” Anders Landstrom, the show’s Swedish producer, told me ahead of the show’s broadcast in the UK. “I thought we should find an interesting, female character – that’s really what we started from. Sometimes people think [Saga and Martin] resemble how Danes and Swedes are – Swedes are not so interested in other people, and Swedes think Danes are very laidback and easy-going characters – but that’s not why they turned out like that. It was more that we invented Saga and then wanted someone a little bit opposite.”

But it isn’t just the Martin and Saga double act that’s captured viewers. The Bridge’s addictive qualities come largely from its plot, which has unwound in a particularly satisfactory – and, it must be said, speedy – manner. The Truth Terrorist’s five-point plan has provided a useful framework for storytelling, providing that perfect mix of action, foreboding and hope, while also turning standard Scandi crime-fiction social commentary on its head: here it’s the killer who appears to ponder the moral questions rather than the beleaguered detectives.

This weekend we reach the show’s finale. We’ve already had the traditional frustrating red herring episode, in which we spent hours getting closer to a pair of certain suspects, only for things to come unravelled at the last moment. Now we seem to be heading towards a conclusion with Jens, who despite his perfect alibi – “I was dead!” – is looking more like the TT with every extra link to the victims.

It would be disappointing to say the least if our killer turned out to be someone we haven’t already met. It’s a lazy writer who suddenly introduces the murderer in the last two episodes of the show – although it’s not, of course, unheard of. So the question (probably) is: who is Jens? (I haven’t seen the finale as I write this, but if you don’t want to discuss theories, best stop reading now).

As ever, the commenters on our Bridge series blog have proved to be streets ahead of me. But I find the theory that Sebastian, who has materialised out of nowhere to woo Mette from under Martin’s nose, is actually Jens compelling. Quite how that squares with Mette not recognising him – from her conversation with Martin in the kitchen, it sounded like she knew who Jens was – I don’t know. Nor whether it means Jens is going to attack Martin and his family in some way. But given that the troubles with Martin’s home life had been underlined quite firmly of late, not least by “Frida”, August’s online friend, it wouldn’t surprise me.

Talking of whom … There has been much signposting around August’s online chats – and there are still some theories that suggest that the TT is in fact August himself. But I’d be more tempted to plump for the idea that “Frida” is the TT – and August is either perfectly aware of this, so therefore complicit, or being tricked by the killer. Either way, it suggests that the TT has a(nother?) route into the family.

So what are your thoughts on the mystery – and what have you made of the series so far? There still seem a lot of loose ends/possible leads to tie up: 70s throwback Stefan Lindberg for instance, Saga’s friend Anton, Charlotte’s mystery wig. But we’ve also moved a long way forward in terms of both plot and character development, with both Martin and Saga unfolding as complicated individuals after a first couple of episodes in which their difference felt a little heavily highlighted. So will Saga and Martin manage to bring the Truth Terrorist to justice? Interestingly, I think the answer to that is rather less than clear.

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/have-you-been-watching-%e2%80%a6-the-bridge.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/has-the-voice-lost-its-charm.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/has-the-voice-lost-its-charm.html#comments Fri, 18 May 2012 22:01:48 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/has-the-voice-lost-its-charm.html [unable to retrieve full-text content]

After losing about 4m viewers and the spinning chairs stage, can the talent show tweak things to win viewers back?

Remember when people liked The Voice? It wasn’t that long ago. Back then we were all dazzled by how committed it was to fairness, vocal ability and fighting back against The X Factor’s shallow artifice. With good reason, too: truly, you’d have been hard pushed to find a more gimmick-free TV show in which Tom Jones bellowed half-remembered anecdotes about Frank Sinatra in a spinny chair while someone shouted a power ballad at him.

But then things started to go horribly wrong. Sunday’s results show could only muster 6.4 million viewers – down about 4 million from its audition-stage peak. While The Voice was ploughing on with its insistence that earnest credibility will always out, everyone else was too busy hooting at a dancing dog on Britain’s Got Talent. Clearly, The Voice isn’t getting something right.

The main complaint seems to be that without the show’s main gimmick – the blind auditions – we’re basically left with a sort of dreary, borderline inept am-dram recital of The X Factor live shows. There is some merit to that argument – but all is not lost. A little bit of tweaking here and there and The Voice could be great again.

The problems are easy to spot. Most importantly, as things stand it’s impossible to feel anything for any of the acts. We know they can sing, but we barely know them as people. Yes, Tyler knew Amy Winehouse. Yes, Leanne used to work in a holiday camp. Yes, Vince Kidd looks like he haunts the dreams of crying children. But that’s about it. If this was The X Factor, at least we’d know who to root for by now.

The exception to this rule, obviously, is Jaz Ellington, who was fawned over for what seemed like an eternity in the auditions and then revealed the sex of his unborn baby during Saturday’s show. He’s been given such prominence that he’s all but guaranteed to win the series, which seems a little unfair. If all the acts got Jaz’s treatment, we’d have a much better show.

Then there’s the weird presenter imbalance. Why is Reggie Yates barely on screen? He’s a great presenter with an easy charm and a quick wit, but he’s stuck in a miserable box of a room and consigned to glumly read out tweets. Might it be a good idea to let him loose on the main stage every now and again?

And let’s talk about the start of each episode. On The X Factor, there’s a near-hysterical montage of screaming and explosions, and then a dance routine, and then the judges are introduced in such a pyrotechnic blaze that you could be forgiven for thinking they were returning war heroes or actual demigods. Not so on The Voice. Now that the coaches’ group performance has been ditched – perhaps out of fear that it’d induce dangerous levels of travel sickness in everyone watching – all we’re left with is an awkward explanation of the rules, followed by three minutes of mind-numbing smalltalk. If the show can’t dazzle us from the start, why should we keep watching?

Finally, after initially making such a fuss of the spinny chairs, it seems like a waste to just ditch them. So let’s bring them back. Maybe they could spin around after every song, or whenever the coaches get excited, or every time Will.i.am calls something “dope”. Or maybe they could just whirl around all the time until Tom Jones gets confused and vomits in his lap. Promise me that and I’ll forgive The Voice anything.

What about you? Have you been turned off The Voice? What could lure you back? Leave your thoughts below. And don’t forget to come back and join us – even if it is just to whinge – for our Saturday liveblog.

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/has-the-voice-lost-its-charm.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/merkel-suggests-greek-euro-vote.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/merkel-suggests-greek-euro-vote.html#comments Fri, 18 May 2012 21:00:39 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/merkel-suggests-greek-euro-vote.html 18 May 2012 Last updated at 16:27 ET

Germany’s leader has had telephone contact with the Greek president, amid continuing speculation that his country may have to leave the eurozone.

Greek officials said Chancellor Angela Merkel had suggested Greece could hold a referendum on the euro when it votes in national elections next month.

However their German counterparts denied she had made such a proposal.

The crisis in the eurozone is expected to dominate G8 talks in the US this weekend.

The reports of the German-Greek contacts came as US and French leaders ended talks in Washington focusing on the economy.

‘Shared conviction’

In a telephone call with President Karolos Papoulias, Mrs Merkel “conveyed thoughts about a vote parallel to the election with the question to what extent do the Greek citizens wish to remain within the eurozone,” said a statement from the office of Greece’s interim prime minister.

“However, it is clear that the matter is beyond the competence of the caretaker government,” the statement went on.

But a spokeswoman in Berlin said: “The information reported that the chancellor had suggested a referendum to the Greek President Karolos Papoulias is wrong.”

The caretaker government was sworn in this week after elections failed to produce a viable coalition to run the country.

New elections have been scheduled for 17 June.

The vote could result in a government that would refuse to implement the austerity measures that Greece’s last remaining international creditors are insisting on.

Speculation is increasing that Greece may have to leave the eurozone.

Meeting in Washington just before news broke of the German proposal, the US and French leaders said Greece should stay.

“We have the same conviction that Greece must remain in the eurozone,” France’s new President, Francois Hollande, said.

President Barack Obama said the situation in the eurozone was of great importance to the people of Europe and the whole world.

‘Conviction’

He said he looked forward to “fruitful” discussions with other G8 leaders, with a strong focus on economic growth.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Francois Hollande and Barack Obama have met for the first time at the White House

Mr Hollande, who was elected president on 6 May, is also to have talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Earlier, European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said he European Central Bank and the European Commission are working on emergency scenarios in case Greece had to leave the single currency.

Several hours later, fellow commissioner Olli Rehn issued a statement saying that he is responsible for financial and economic affairs and relations with the ECB.

“We are not working on the scenario of a Greek exit,” he said.

That however still doesn’t rule out the possibility of contingency planning, says the BBC’s Matthew Price in Brussels.

By Claire Heald BBC 2012

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

David Beckham used a London 2012 torch to light a cauldron

The Olympic flame has landed in the UK ready for the London 2012 torch relay after being flown from Athens, Greece.

David Beckham used it to light a cauldron after the plane, also carrying Princess Anne and Locog chair Lord Coe, arrived at a Cornish air base.

Flight BA2012, a gold-coloured A319 named The Firefly, was greeted at RNAS Culdrose by cheering crowds.

After Friday’s welcoming ceremony, the flame flies on Saturday to Land’s End for the start of an 8,000 mile relay.

The Princess Royal carried the transportation lantern containing the flame from the aircraft and on to the tarmac.

It was transferred to a London 2012 torch and David Beckham lit a cauldron, to mark the flame’s arrival on UK soil.

He said: “It’s a very proud moment for everybody.

“Seb (Coe) and the team have done an incredible job. I’m very proud to be part of this team bringing the flame. As a nation we’re going to have an amazing couple of months.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was at the Royal Naval air station to formally welcome the flame, along with 500 members of the public, armed forces and dignitaries.

He said: “Eight thousand people will pass it from hand-to-hand, a human chain that reaches the length and breadth of Britain.

“With every step, the excitement will build. Ten weeks from now, the world will watch as the flame arrives at the Olympic Stadium, bringing with it the hopes of a nation.”

Chairman of Olympic organisers Locog, Lord Coe, who went to Greece for the lighting and handover of the flame, said this next stage in the build-up to the Games was a “magical moment for any host country”.

He said: “It’s just suddenly come home that this is the first time this has happened in this country for 64 years.”

The flame will spend Friday night under guard at the air base and on Saturday morning be flown the 25 miles to Land’s End by a Royal Navy search and rescue helicopter.

There, triple Olympic gold medal-winning sailor Ben Ainslie, who on Friday won a record sixth Finn world title, will be the first of 8,000 torchbearers to carry it across the country.

He said the flame’s arrival in the UK, “is a fantastic moment for the country. To have the flame on home soil gives everyone a chance to feel close to the Olympics and build up to the Games themselves.”

The torch visits the four nations of the UK before being taken to the Olympic Stadium in Stratford on 27 July for the opening ceremony of the Games.

It will travel through 1,019 cities, towns and villages, and drop in at UK landmarks like the Giant’s Causeway and Stonehenge.

It will be carried by bearers, or taken in a convoy and will also be transported by boat, bicycle, tram and train.

Cornish surfer Tassy Swallow, who will take the flame from Ainslie and be second to run with the torch, said: “I’m definitely Cornish at heart and excited to be carrying the flame.

“I’ve got quite a lot of pressure on me tomorrow, but I’m proud to represent St Ives, my sport of surfing and everybody who voted for me, I just want to make them proud.”

There will be an evening celebration in Plymouth after the first day’s journey through Cornwall and into Devon.

Later, the torch will visit BBC Radio 1′s dance party at Paignton, Torbay.

The flame, meant to represent purity, was kindled from the rays of the sun using a parabolic mirror in a ceremony on 10 May at Olympia, the home of the ancient Olympic Games.

It was taken on a 1,800 mile-long relay around Greece before being handed over to the Princess Royal on Thursday evening at the Panathenaic stadium, Athens.

The flame travelled to the UK from Athens airport held in four lanterns, screwed into cradles on seats 1A and 1B of the plane. The spare lamps ensure there is a back up flame for the relay should the torch go out.

Olympics minister Hugh Robertson, London Mayor Boris Johnson and five people chosen from across the UK to represent their country were also on board.

A flame first burned for a modern summer Olympic Games at Amsterdam 1928, but it was not until Berlin 1936 that a full torch relay was staged.

Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7624 800 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.

Read the terms and conditions

Forbes magazine puts J-Lo at No 1 in the celebrity stakes – thereby making this the most ridiculous of all power lists

You know how some of the stars we can see now actually died gazillions of years ago, but their light is only just reaching us? Please bear that in mind as we discuss this week’s announcement that the world’s most powerful star is Jennifer Lopez. Scientists are believed to be working round the clock to repair the tear in the fabric of space-time that has taken us back to 2001 – the prime of Miss Jennifer Lopez – but in the meantime Lost in Showbiz is urging you to be careful out there. If you hold any Enron stock, you might care to sell it, while the Nepalese royal family is advised to dine in bullet-proof vests until June is out.

We may return to the quantum-physical implications of the news later. For now, you should know that “respected business bible” Forbes has just anointed J-Lo the most powerful celebrity on the planet. Like the actual Bible, of course, Forbes carries its fair share of total and utter cobblers, and you have to think Jennifer’s supremacy is the sort of thing only silly or frightened people could possibly believe.

Not that madam isn’t hugely successful. She’s a judge on American Idol, a L’Oréal brand ambassador, and she’s in those annoying Fiat adverts. Furthermore, she has distilled her ineffable essence into an 18-strong fragrance range inspired by such things as “where I am right now”, “the way a woman feels when she discovers herself”, and “a special glow that women get when they’re pregnant and falling in love with their babies”.

Yet even accounting for this olfactory blitzkrieg, there will be those wondering if Jennifer has quite the full-spectrum dominance Forbes asserts. In fact, there will be those questioning the very nature of celebrity “power”. Even now, you might be turning the concept over in your mind and repeating : “Jennifer Lopez? JENNIFER LOPEZ? She couldn’t make me do NUTTIN’ – not even if a gun was involved.” (Which it wouldn’t be. In 2001, Jennifer’s gentleman caller Puff Daddy/Puffy/P-Diddy/Diddy/Sean Combs [delete as appropriate to ensure period authenticity] has just been cleared of four charges of illegal firearm possession and one count of bribery following a shooting in a Manhattan nightclub.)

Of course, as previously discussed in this space, we don’t go to power lists to be enlightened. LiS has yet to read Details magazine’s retraction of its former insistence that Britney Spears’s unemployed ex-husband Kevin Federline was a full 14 places more powerful than Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

So perhaps mindful of the righteous derision that has been heaped on such ranking enterprises, Forbes has decided to let daylight in on magic, and reveal the deeply scientific methodology that caused it to arrive at its conclusions. “The Celebrity 100 is based on entertainment-related earnings plus media visibility,” the magazine explains, defining media visibility as exposure in print, television, radio and online. It claims to speak to industry insiders to estimate earnings, measure online exposure using “Googleblogs”, various tools to search print archives and determine how many times a star has made magazine covers, before totting up Twitter and Facebook fans. And then what? Well, then something rather woolly happens: “All of the data is processed through an algorithm that creates our power ranking.”

Aha, “an algorithm”. Needless to say, Forbes does not divulge details of the “algorithm” that has resulted in a celebrity no one really cares obsessively about being ruled the most obsessively cared-about celebrity in the world. But LiS has been able to model an approximation using a glitter crayon and a series of mathematically rendered computations such as “A = nice arse?” and “B > Britney’s fragrance?”, ending in a decision box reading “GOTO someone like J-Lo on account of Oprah can’t win it every year”.

As for the rest of the list, Oprah Winfrey does indeed remain at No 2, thanks to that most crucial function of the Forbes’s algorithm. Last year she was kept off the top spot by Lady Gaga, who slumps to five, while Justin Bieber sticks at No 3.

Arguably the starkest reflection of the way we live now, though, is the fact that celebutante powerhouse Kim Kardashian sits a full three places above Steven Spielberg. Perhaps power means having the confidence not to keep putting out ever-diminishing iterations of one’s back catalogue. Kim’s sex tape has not been blighted by sequels, Mr Spielberg – yet still you announce Jurassic Park 4 and Indiana Jones 5 like they’re the classiest things in the world. If Kim puts out another wedding, maybe she’ll lose a bit of her moral high ground. But until we reach the Kardashian equivalent of Indiana Jones and the Stoopid Crystal Aliens, then the indignity of losing out to the auteur behind Fit In Your Jeans By Friday may yet continue.

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/meet-the-planets-most-powerful-star-its-none-other-than-jennifer-lopez-yes-really.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/and-simon-said-unto-britney-touch-me-so-that-ye-may-be-healed.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/and-simon-said-unto-britney-touch-me-so-that-ye-may-be-healed.html#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 23:00:18 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/and-simon-said-unto-britney-touch-me-so-that-ye-may-be-healed.html [unable to retrieve full-text content]

Britney Spears is back, appearing as a judge on the US X Factor – and it’s all thanks to Simon Cowell’s unconventional therapeutic care

To Los Angeles, next, where Simon Cowell has formally unveiled Britney Spears as a judge on the US version of The X Factor.

Enchantingly, the singer’s appointment had to be sanctioned by a judge, as she is still under conservatorship following her excruciatingly public breakdown a few years ago. But then, Simon is well aware of all that. Consider the passage in Tom Bower’s biography of Cowell, which details Britney’s guest appearance on the UK version of the show in 2008, all too soon after said meltdown.

Described as “on medication” to the degree that “the studio must be in lockdown”, Britney does not appear to be in the best frame of mind to be making a high-profile TV appearance. Or, as Cowell reflects: “She’s frosty and I haven’t got a clue why and I don’t care. I love all this.”

Eventually, he enters her dressing room. “She was just staring at me,” Cowell recalls to Bower. “I said: ‘Have you ever watched the show?’ ‘No,’ she said. And I said: ‘Touch me, I’m human’, and I think that broke the ice.”

And in that moment, students of advances in psychiatric care will have spotted the birth of a controversial treatment that would come to be known as Simon Says Feel Better. Though clearly not a scaleable solution to all mental health problems in early 21st-century society, this pioneering therapy would see the diminutive mogul heal the sick of pop with the sublimely inviting words: “Touch me, I’m human.”

Let’s see that in action again. “Touch me, I’m human.” “Touch me, I’m human.” “Touch me, I’m human.”

Racking our brains for the only earlier notable use of the technique, we may alight in 1st-century Judea, where a local man became so legendary for his restorative powers that the sick would merely reach for the hem of his robe in the belief that it would cure them. The gospels differ in their accounts of the practice – Mark has Jesus feeling the power drain from him and demanding “Who touched my clothes?”, while certain lost texts are believed to have him calling for the hand sanitiser.

Wherever you stand, though, you have to doff your hat to our own latterday Messiah, whose selfless gift of healing is too often misrepresented as exploitative ratings-grabbing. We can only wish Britney the best of luck with her return to the spotlight, safe in the knowledge that if it all starts to feel too much, the hem of Simon’s grey marl T-shirt will be at her televised disposal.

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/and-simon-said-unto-britney-touch-me-so-that-ye-may-be-healed.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/hit-miss-bares-some-interesting-questions-about-nudity-on-television.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/hit-miss-bares-some-interesting-questions-about-nudity-on-television.html#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 22:03:55 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/hit-miss-bares-some-interesting-questions-about-nudity-on-television.html [unable to retrieve full-text content]

Nudity on screen can often seem unnecessary or gratuitous – but Sky Atlantic’s new drama suggests this isn’t always the case

A drama producer who has worked in both television and radio once told me that the great benefit of working on the wireless was that there was never any hassle from actors or audiences over nude scenes. Apart from strong language, nakedness is the most frequent complaint in TV feedback forums and, in both cases, the objection is that these elements are unnecessary or gratuitous. The difference is that whereas opinions on language are largely generational – the more recent the viewer’s birth-date, the less likely they are to be offended by swearing – objections to nudity are more widely shared because of changing attitudes to women on screen, often influenced by feminism.

In this context, one of the striking aspects of new Sky Atlantic drama Hit & Miss, Paul Abbott and Sean Conway’s compelling drama about a transgender assassin played by Chloe Sevigny, is that it contains a moment that attempts to make the case for a full-frontal nude scene that is dramatically crucial and completely non-gratuitous.

Sevigny’s character Mia, who is undergoing hormone treatment prior to the final transformative operation, stands naked in front of a mirror. The unusual complexity of this image is that the viewer is seeing male and female nakedness simultaneously, being shown genuine breasts and a prosthetic penis.

It might possibly be objected that this scene is prurient – offering up a transgender patient as a sort of freak-show – but Mia is explicitly a character tracking the transformations of her body and it is relevant to the narrative for the audience to know what she has under her clothes at this stage: the information pays off in later scenes when her long-lost son surprises her in the bath and a local lothario tries to grope her between the legs. Abbott and Conway are surely right – and Sevigny seems to have agreed – that the reveal was necessary.

Most dramas, though, can’t claim such an easy absolution. In British cop shows of the 1970s and ’80s, it sometimes seemed almost obligatory for the central detective to be interrupted during love-making by a call-out to a crime-scene. As he heaved discreetly out of bed – often conveniently wearing boxers or even trousers – his big-busted girfriend would walk, in the foreground of the shot, naked past him to the bathroom. Memory suggests that The Sweeney was a particular offender.

Greater sensitivity to the exploitation of women has reduced the popularity of such shots, although one contributor to the Guardian’s letters page reported that he had stopped watching Homeland after episode four because of the frequent female nudity. The correspondent found these shots of women’s bodies “misogynistic” and accused reviewers who admired the series (including me and Sam Wollaston of the Guardian) of either ignoring or privately revelling in this woman-hating parade of flesh.

My view was that the other qualities of the series (acting, shooting, writing, plotting) were enough to overlook the inequalities of its costume policy. And the far greater quantity of female than male full-frontal scenes in screen drama results from something more complicated than just male chauvinism in the production process.

The standard compositions of TV sex scenes – the woman, with her breasts showing, on top of the man; or the man on top of the woman, whose breasts are showing – follow from the widely acknowledged theory that sexual arousal in men has a more dramatic visual indication than for women, and the regulatory and legal convention that erect penises are seen only in pornography or, more recently, 18 certificate movies. So, on television, if an actor is shown walking fully-naked towards a bed before a passionate love scene, application of the editorial guidelines raises distracting issues about his enthusiasm for the relationship.

But, while this excuse is true, it does also encourage lazy direction. The fact that an actor can’t be shown fully naked during sex but that an actress can doesn’t mean that the latter has to be. It is possible to film bedroom scenes while protecting the modesty of both participants – and certainly Homeland would not have suffered from a lower nipple count. Hit & Miss, however, fascinatingly fleshes out the debate over how naked bodies should be shown.

• Hit & Miss begins on Sky Atlantic on Tuesday 22 May at 10pm

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/hit-miss-bares-some-interesting-questions-about-nudity-on-television.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/your-next-box-set-space-above-and-beyond.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/your-next-box-set-space-above-and-beyond.html#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 22:03:24 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/your-next-box-set-space-above-and-beyond.html [unable to retrieve full-text content]

It was a short, one-season flight for this space combat drama but its influence can be seen in Battlestar Galactica and many other sci-fi series

TV history is littered with one-season wonders: perfectly decent shows that, for a variety of reasons, never made it to series two. Sci-fi TV is a good example, as such shows demand a lot from those who make them and those who watch. Not for them the earthbound police squad or hospital drama, where everyone is familiar with the scenario. They dream a little bigger than that in sci-fi, often creating entire universes, cultures and histories. Space: Above and Beyond, which appeared on Fox in 1995, accomplished a lot. While it didn’t last, it still made quite a mark – and influenced much of what followed.

Set in 2063, the show follows the adventures of the Wildcards: a rough, tough land, sea, air and space combat squad serving in the war between mankind and a mysterious alien race dubbed the Chigs. Stationed on their huge spaceship USS Saratoga, the troops embark on exciting missions, either as ground-based infantry or in their Hammerhead fighter rockets.

The show was the creation of James Wong and Glen Morgan, trading off the heat they were generating from their sterling work on The X-Files. In many ways, it’s a fine example of stealth sci-fi, since the format and much of the interplay owe more to military shows such as Combat!, The Rat Patrol and Tour of Duty than they do to Star Trek or The Outer Limits.

It turns out humans have just come out of a long and bloody war with their own robots-gone-bad, the Silicates, who have collaborated with the new alien enemy. What’s more, there are these artificially gestated humans around: the In-Vitros (Tanks or Nipple Necks, to use the slurs of the show) who are matured at speed then “born” at the age of 18. One of the main Wildcards, Cooper Hawkes, is one such being. Everything about the In-Vitros is brilliantly handled: they are often childlike in their outlook, yet angry at being treated like third-class citizens. Hawkes finds himself uneasily becoming part of a tight team after years of shunning human contact.

Occasionally, traditional battle tales are cleverly updated for the futuristic outer space setting: in one episode, the Wildcards send a captured enemy fighter on a surprise Trojan horse mission, as they believe the Chigs have no equivalent tale in their lore; similarly, a Chig pilot comes to pose a Red Baron-style threat to the humans.

Wong and Morgan’s clout meant the show was handsomely mounted, rumoured to have cost around $1m an episode. The special effects may now look like something from a low-rent video game, but they get the job done. Clearly influenced by Starship Troopers (the novel) and Aliens, Space: Above and Beyond in turn cast its own shadow on Starship Troopers (the movie), Battlestar Galactica and Firefly. Five seasons were planned, yet only one was made – a tantalising glimpse of what could have grown into something truly great.

]]> http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/your-next-box-set-space-above-and-beyond.html/feed 0 http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/cameron-defends-his-euro-warning.html http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/cameron-defends-his-euro-warning.html#comments Thu, 17 May 2012 21:03:29 +0000 banez http://queerspeak.com/2012/05/cameron-defends-his-euro-warning.html 17 May 2012 Last updated at 15:05 ET

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

PM: “The eurozone… either has to make up, or it is looking at a potential break-up.”

David Cameron has said there will be no retreat on deficit reduction – and that he was right to speculate publicly about the break up of the euro.

He told business leaders in Manchester that it was “more dangerous to stay silent than to speak out”.

The prime minister later discussed the crisis with other European leaders including Angela Merkel and new French President Francois Hollande.

Labour says the recession is caused by coalition policies not the euro crisis.

Mr Cameron raised eyebrows at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday when he warned the eurozone it “either has to make up or it is looking at a potential break-up”.

Chancellor George Osborne has repeatedly warned against speculating about eurozone break-up, saying it would cause instability amid Greece’s ongoing inability to form a government able to push through austerity plans.

‘Genie out’

But he told MPs earlier on Thursday that the Greek elections had “let the genie out of the bottle” and “some of the things we were happy to say in private we are now also willing to say in public because the issue is out there”.

“We have very clear ideas about what the eurozone needs to do to make their currency work,” he added, saying he backed austerity measures in “peripheral” countries but also wanted to see the “core of the eurozone” do more “to support demand”.

Mr Cameron discussed the eurozone situation with Mr Hollande, Mrs Merkel, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti and EU officials in a conference call ahead of the forthcoming G8 summit in the United States.

The BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister had reiterated the importance of decisive action to sort out the eurozone and to prevent contagion and repeated the key points of his speech.

But he said No 10 had refused to say whether Mr Cameron used the phrase “make up or break up” during the 45-minute conversation.

‘Contingency planning’

Downing Street has disclosed that the National Security Council has been involved in contingency planning in case of a worsening situation in Greece and the eurozone.

A spokeswoman said the Treasury had been drawing up contingency plans “for some time” but when asked whether there’d been any planning to deal with “civil strife” she said: “Certainly the national security council has, in the past, looked at issues regarding the eurozone.”

In his speech in Manchester, Mr Cameron said it was “essential to speak out about what needs to be done to safeguard the eurozone, to safeguard Britain, to take the steps to make sure we deliver the strong and stable economic growth that we want”.

Describing the situation in Greece as a “crisis that never really went away”, he said the eurozone could find itself in “unchartered territory” unless it took steps to strengthen its banks and protect its weaker members.

“As I have consistently said it is in Britain’s interest for the eurozone to sort out its problems,” he said.

“But be in no doubt: whichever path is chosen, I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect this country and secure our economy and financial system.”

‘Bystander’

He defended the coalition’s austerity measures, saying the programme of spending cuts, tax rises and pay freezes was already having the desired effect of reducing the deficit.

“Let me be clear, we are moving in the right direction – not rushing the task but judging it carefully. And that is why we must resist dangerous voices calling on us to retreat.

Earlier, Business Secretary Vince Cable said Britain “shouldn’t be panicking or be unduly negative” about the crisis in the eurozone.

“We need to get the risks in perspective,” he told BBC Breakfast, adding there was no reason the crisis should spread beyond Greece.

But Labour said the UK government had become a “bystander” to events in Europe.

“David Cameron isn’t part of the solution, he is part of the problem,” opposition leader Ed Miliband said. “He promised Britain there would be recovery and he has delivered a recession.

“All of Europe’s leaders, including David Cameron, bear responsibility for the fact that over the last two years they haven’t sorted out the problems of the eurozone and they haven’t had a proper plan for growth and jobs.”

Facebook has priced its shares ahead of one of the most eagerly-anticipated share flotations in recent stock market history.

The social network said on Thursday that it valued shares at $38 (£24) each, and they would begin trading in New York on Friday.

The share price values Facebook at more than $100bn.

Demand is set be high as this week the social networking site said it would be selling 25% more shares than planned.

But questions remain about the firm’s ability to generate profits and take advantage of mobile phone platforms.

There are also concerns that once the company has to answer to shareholders, there may be a greater emphasis on advertising to generate profits.

Limited say

Earlier this week, the company indicated the price would be between $34-$38 a share, with about 421 million shares up for sale.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Sir Martin Sorrell talks to Rory Cellan-Jones about the value of Facebook

This would represent one of the highest value share sales, or initial public offerings (IPOs) in US history.

By selling shares at that value, Facebook raised $16bn for itself.

However, the new shareholders will not have much of a say in how the company is run.

The shares on offer are A shares, which carry one vote per share, whereas the current owners’ shares are B shares, which carry 10 votes each.

They will control more than 96% of the votes after the public listing, with founder Mark Zuckerberg holding just under 56% of the voting power of the company.

Mr Zuckerberg, who owns about 25% of the company, stands to gain the most from taking Facebook public. Fellow founders Dustin Moskovitz and Eduardo Saverin will also become paper-billionares overnight, as will Napster founder and former employee Sean Parker.

US venture capital firm Accel Partners and Russian internet investment group Digital Sky Technologies also hold significant stakes in Facebook, while Microsoft and U2 frontman Bono also stand to make a huge profit on their investment in the company.

Revenue growth

The social networking site has transformed the way in which hundreds of millions of people around the world communicate. It is also transforming the way companies advertise to existing and potential customers.

But Facebook’s 900 million users helped the company generate just $1bn in profit last year, and there are concerns about its ability to grow profits in the future.

For while it holds a depth of personal information advertisers dream about, Facebook only generates about $5 a year per user.

This has led a number of commentators to question the company’s valuation.

“Facebook will need to generate annual revenue of $30bn-$40bn in order to justify the likely valuation of the business,” said Victor Basta at Magister Advisors.

“This is a tenfold increase over the revenues that it currently generates. The question is ‘where from?’”.

The potential revenue from online advertising is huge.

“We know our industry is $1tn worldwide,” Martin Sorrell, chief executive of advertising giant WPP, told the BBC.

“We know internet advertising is currently 20% roughly [of the total]. We know people are spending almost a third of their time online in one way or another, so there’s a vast opportunity for Facebook.”

Generating greater revenues from this potential market is the first key challenge facing the company, both in terms of its own business model and in the face of strong competition from the likes of Amazon, Apple and Google.

“We’re telling our investors to hold off,” Oliver Pursche, president of Gary Goldberg Financial Services, told the BBC.

“Number one, we don’t know what the guts and the balance sheet of the company looks like yet so that’s a big red flag for us. We want to understand the business before we tell people to invest.”

‘Knife edge’

Facebook has identified mobile devices, phones and tablet computers as key areas for revenue growth, but observers say this will not be easy.

“[Facebook is] the holy grail for advertisers. It holds the minutiae of everybody’s lives, the perfect concoction of information – age, sex and what you like,” technology analyst Ernest Doku told the BBC.

“[But] so many people are engaged for so long, it’s very difficult to lure them away to what you’re trying to sell them.”

The second big challenge is not alienating users while trying to maximise revenue.

“[The company] is balancing on a knife edge between servicing its users and pleasing its investors,” Mr Doku said.

“It has been able put the user experience first and foremost, but now investors are going to want [a return].”