Dolph Lundgren is to the acting world what Henry Kissinger is to international diplomacy... a one-time heavyweight on the scene who faded into obscurity when his heavy-handed methods fell out of favour.
Ironically enough, their high spots both came during the cold war: Kissinger as the master tactician under Nixon and Ford, Lundgren as the Soviet-built steroid-enhanced machine who killed Apollo Creed but got his ass handed to him by Sylvester Stalone.
However, whereas 90-year-old Kissinger now sits around recalling state secrets for his nursing home buddies, Lundgren (aged 55, looks 65) must continue to pick up a pay cheque somehow.
Stalone threw him a lifeline with two appearances in The Expendables and its sequel, but not content with playing 'old action star No. 5' in those geriaction flicks, he has taken the lead on a new TV series called SAF3.
Now if that spells out 'SAFE' to some of you, there's a good reason for that. SAF3 stands for Sea, Air, Fire unit 3.
It is basically an elite - and by elite I mean a group of uber-photogenic young actors you've never seen before, a grizzled leader (Lundgren), and a headquarters by the picturesque shoreline of Los Angeles - unit who tackle forest fires and sea rescues.
It was put together by a uniform fetishist obviously, because the young actors get to swap from firefighters uniforms to iconic Baywatch red swimsuits and trunks, at will.
The acting is one-dimensional, the copious use of over-dubbing suggests someone has trouble with their lines and Lundgren stares into the middle distance more often than the quality tester at a Magic Eye Poster factory.
Within the first five minutes of the show, Lundgren has stripped to his swimming trunks (thank God he didn't wear Speedos) and is toweling himself down, flexing his once sculpted torso and trying ever so hard not to look like he is.
For some inexplicable reason, the head of the fire unit demands that music be put on in the kitchen/rec room and that the young people dance around to it (trust me, I'm not making this up), oh, and Lundgren is haunted by the image of his lover drowning (he couldn't save her... but you kind of already knew that didn't you).
SAF3 is set, as I said, in Los Angeles, but not filmed there. Oh no. Why go to LA where things are so expensive, when you can fly the unknown cast and crew to South Africa (economy class) to film it there.
This TV show is so bad I offer the following safety proceedures. If you walk into a room and it is accidentally on the telly, drop to the ground and roll out of the room. Exposure to even a few minutes of this show can lead to dangerously high levels of despondency building up in your lungs. Also, once you're out of the room, do not go back in UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if there is a loved one sitting on the sofa watching it. You've lost that person. Move on. Stare into the middle distance. Maybe become a firefighting lifeguard.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Arthur's Day, Is it a scam if we're all in on it?
A Belfast Telegraph blogger called Eamonn McCann has written a rather scathing attack on drinks Czars Diageo and their cynical attempts to promote a new day of celebration for their main product, Guinness.
The article by Mr McCann (read it here- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamonn-mccann/how-we-bought-into-the-pr-scam-that-is-arthurs-day-29572850.html) is a tirade against the corporate greed of Diageo, but I think such venomous rhetoric is somewhat simplistic in its explanation and appears all too eager to cast Arthur's Day as without redeeming elements or any essence of merit.
First and foremost, Diageo used the opportunity of the 250th anniversary of the brewing of Guinness in Dublin (1759, the date that appears on all Guinness logos) to launch Arthur's Day in 2009.
It was, in reflection, a date which merited celebration. Guinness has, down through the years, provided one of the most identifiable and exportable products that has ever emerged from these green shores.
What's more, Diageo have paid taxes and have sold enough pints of the black stuff, with associated excise duty, to create possibly the largest dent in Ireland's tax revenue should the stout stop flowing out overnight.
Many people would like Diageo to leave Ireland and certainly to end their association with Guinness. We have idealised notions of Guinness as how our fathers used to enjoy it, perpetuated by the abundance of "Guinness is Good For You" signs which loiter like barflies in wrinkled suits in the dingier corners of our traditional pubs.
But the truth of the matter is Guinness is a global brand because of Diageo and the success of the brand must be attributed in no small part to the ruthless global nature of the drinks conglomerate.
Since 2009, Arthur's Day has returned once a year and has been increasingly viewed by the world-weary as a cynical attempt by Diageo to get us to drink more, with the thin veil of music gigs, special offers or that indefinable 'Irish-ish' tag which accompanies any pint of the black and white drunk by anyone under the age of 30.
The truth of the matter is, we have all become too afraid of alcohol advertising in this country. Drinks companies already have to jump through hoops to advertise alcohol, but this is tempered by the fact that alcohol is a dangerous and controlled substance. It is not available everywhere and its sale is restricted to those over 18 years of age.
Have a look through the Advertising Standards Authority's standards for alcohol (http://www.asai.ie/entiresection.asp?Section_Num=7) and if you are like me, you will see that the vast majority of the regulations laid down make sense.
With limited options open for advertising, Diageo sought another outlet and Arthur's Day was it. The day could not be promoted as a giant drinking session or pub crawl (see the ASAI regs) and so it had to have a separate focus, which was live music.
Guinness-sponsored bands played the length and breadth of the country for the first Arthur's Day in 2009 and subsequent Arthur's Days have had even more bands playing under their banner.
What, exactly, is wrong with this? Who exactly is being scammed? The band? The venue? The audience?
Ah, yes. Mr McCann went with the latter, saying that Arthur's Day was just a means of debasing the 'Irish' identity. In his own words "Sales of plastic bodhrans and leprechaun beards soared through the thatched-style roof of the craft-village cottages, as half the population turned out in full Darby O'Gill get-up as capering extras in epic scenes of paddy-wackery."
Where exactly did this congregation of green beards, ginger wigs and goatskin drums take place? I've yet to see the photos to prove that there was anything approaching the knee-slapping, shillelagh-swinging 'paddy-wackery' that Mr McCann said was so evident.
Some people went out on a night they may not have normally gone out - in 2012 Arthur's Day fell on a Wednesday night, this year it's a Thursday. They had a few drinks. If they wanted to avail of any subsidised pints of Guinness, that was their decision as adults to make.
Eamonn McCann's article was based on the premise that the marketing men and women hired by Diageo who came up with the concept of Arthur's Day and 'sold' it to us are somehow smarter than we are.
I'd say to Eamonn, give the people of Ireland a little bit more credit than that. Arthur's Day is a marketing dream for Diageo, but only because we, the people, allow it to be.
The article by Mr McCann (read it here- http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamonn-mccann/how-we-bought-into-the-pr-scam-that-is-arthurs-day-29572850.html) is a tirade against the corporate greed of Diageo, but I think such venomous rhetoric is somewhat simplistic in its explanation and appears all too eager to cast Arthur's Day as without redeeming elements or any essence of merit.
First and foremost, Diageo used the opportunity of the 250th anniversary of the brewing of Guinness in Dublin (1759, the date that appears on all Guinness logos) to launch Arthur's Day in 2009.
It was, in reflection, a date which merited celebration. Guinness has, down through the years, provided one of the most identifiable and exportable products that has ever emerged from these green shores.
What's more, Diageo have paid taxes and have sold enough pints of the black stuff, with associated excise duty, to create possibly the largest dent in Ireland's tax revenue should the stout stop flowing out overnight.
Many people would like Diageo to leave Ireland and certainly to end their association with Guinness. We have idealised notions of Guinness as how our fathers used to enjoy it, perpetuated by the abundance of "Guinness is Good For You" signs which loiter like barflies in wrinkled suits in the dingier corners of our traditional pubs.
But the truth of the matter is Guinness is a global brand because of Diageo and the success of the brand must be attributed in no small part to the ruthless global nature of the drinks conglomerate.
Since 2009, Arthur's Day has returned once a year and has been increasingly viewed by the world-weary as a cynical attempt by Diageo to get us to drink more, with the thin veil of music gigs, special offers or that indefinable 'Irish-ish' tag which accompanies any pint of the black and white drunk by anyone under the age of 30.
The truth of the matter is, we have all become too afraid of alcohol advertising in this country. Drinks companies already have to jump through hoops to advertise alcohol, but this is tempered by the fact that alcohol is a dangerous and controlled substance. It is not available everywhere and its sale is restricted to those over 18 years of age.
Have a look through the Advertising Standards Authority's standards for alcohol (http://www.asai.ie/entiresection.asp?Section_Num=7) and if you are like me, you will see that the vast majority of the regulations laid down make sense.
With limited options open for advertising, Diageo sought another outlet and Arthur's Day was it. The day could not be promoted as a giant drinking session or pub crawl (see the ASAI regs) and so it had to have a separate focus, which was live music.
Guinness-sponsored bands played the length and breadth of the country for the first Arthur's Day in 2009 and subsequent Arthur's Days have had even more bands playing under their banner.
What, exactly, is wrong with this? Who exactly is being scammed? The band? The venue? The audience?
Ah, yes. Mr McCann went with the latter, saying that Arthur's Day was just a means of debasing the 'Irish' identity. In his own words "Sales of plastic bodhrans and leprechaun beards soared through the thatched-style roof of the craft-village cottages, as half the population turned out in full Darby O'Gill get-up as capering extras in epic scenes of paddy-wackery."
Where exactly did this congregation of green beards, ginger wigs and goatskin drums take place? I've yet to see the photos to prove that there was anything approaching the knee-slapping, shillelagh-swinging 'paddy-wackery' that Mr McCann said was so evident.
Some people went out on a night they may not have normally gone out - in 2012 Arthur's Day fell on a Wednesday night, this year it's a Thursday. They had a few drinks. If they wanted to avail of any subsidised pints of Guinness, that was their decision as adults to make.
Eamonn McCann's article was based on the premise that the marketing men and women hired by Diageo who came up with the concept of Arthur's Day and 'sold' it to us are somehow smarter than we are.
I'd say to Eamonn, give the people of Ireland a little bit more credit than that. Arthur's Day is a marketing dream for Diageo, but only because we, the people, allow it to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)