I don’t watch Top Gear and have no particular interest in cars. I have no great affection for Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond or James May and can understand why people of a particular mindset (environmentally conscious, politically liberal etc.) might take exception to the show. Despite this, when I do occasionally catch some of the programme I find myself smiling for some reason and glad that it’s there and on the telly – there’s something unidentifiably pleasing about the fact that the show exists and I’ve never quite understood why. I know it’s nothing to do with the content and I agree that most of the features are silly and a bit puerile but there was always something satisfying about know the show was there. In today’s New Statesman Rachel Cooke explained why.
Rachel shared my disinterest until this weekend but she now regrets her first viewing:
There, in just a few short condescending and abusive paragraphs, Rachel has perfectly captured the appeal of Top Gear – even among those who have little interest in its subject matter. If Jeremy, Richard & James are some sort of proxy for every poor kid who had the sh** kicked out of him at school because he wasn’t part of the cool gang then I (and I suspect many others) are delighted to see them on the telly. I wasn’t part of that gang myself and had precious little ‘success with girls’ – does the fact that my head might have been stuck in the Economist rather than AutoTrader make me anymore palatable to Rachel I wonder? It certainly makes me more amenable to Jeremy & Co. than it does to her. Are we demanding that the cruel social cliques of the playground are kept alive via TV scheduling so that poor Rachel isn’t exposed to the ugly boys she spent so many years spurning as a teenager? Poor thing….
I suspect it’s precisely because they irritate people like Rachel and all the grown-up cool kids that Top Gear is the success that it is – even if we weren’t in Jeremy’s gang the uncool mob far outnumbered the cool ones. I like to think that adults are a little more egalitarian than children and quite happy for TV shows to exist for any number of things whether they’re interested in them or not. As I pointed out up front the show does little for me and I’d sooner spend an evening reading the New Statesman than watching it but that’s provided it’s free of this sort of condescending rubbish – get a grip love (sorry, couldn't help it)…
Rachel shared my disinterest until this weekend but she now regrets her first viewing:
“Oh, I wish I had not done it. Ever since, I have been unable to put these men out of my head. For some reason, I keep imagining them in their underpants. What, I keep wondering, are these men like in bed? I know that this is thoroughly shaming and repulsive, but it's true. Of course, this is precisely the effect they're after. Top Gear isn't about cars. It's about sex. If the three of them sat in the studio in tiny lime green Speedos, it couldn't be any more obvious. I can't imagine that any of them was particularly successful with girls at school…..I will do my best to respond without using the pejorative ‘love’ here but I make no promises.
Top Gear feels to me like compensation for past slights, like remuneration for congenital inadequacy, and this applies to its viewers as well as its presenters. Furious with your boss? So sit back and watch this Aston Martin go! Ignored by that pretty girl on the train? No matter. Here's a Ferrari racing a jumbo jet!
Let's be honest: if you know what constitutes a "good" time on the Top Gear track - a necessary qualification if you're going to snigger at a "bad" time - then you need to get a life, or a girlfriend…. It's scary, this: watching the school geeks hit the TV big time. Haven't they seen Saxondale? Why can't they just stay at home quietly and listen to their Genesis records?”
There, in just a few short condescending and abusive paragraphs, Rachel has perfectly captured the appeal of Top Gear – even among those who have little interest in its subject matter. If Jeremy, Richard & James are some sort of proxy for every poor kid who had the sh** kicked out of him at school because he wasn’t part of the cool gang then I (and I suspect many others) are delighted to see them on the telly. I wasn’t part of that gang myself and had precious little ‘success with girls’ – does the fact that my head might have been stuck in the Economist rather than AutoTrader make me anymore palatable to Rachel I wonder? It certainly makes me more amenable to Jeremy & Co. than it does to her. Are we demanding that the cruel social cliques of the playground are kept alive via TV scheduling so that poor Rachel isn’t exposed to the ugly boys she spent so many years spurning as a teenager? Poor thing….
I suspect it’s precisely because they irritate people like Rachel and all the grown-up cool kids that Top Gear is the success that it is – even if we weren’t in Jeremy’s gang the uncool mob far outnumbered the cool ones. I like to think that adults are a little more egalitarian than children and quite happy for TV shows to exist for any number of things whether they’re interested in them or not. As I pointed out up front the show does little for me and I’d sooner spend an evening reading the New Statesman than watching it but that’s provided it’s free of this sort of condescending rubbish – get a grip love (sorry, couldn't help it)…
5 Comments:
Ah well you see I was ,and remain ,cool. This is the way C...
....but if Cooke comes round here and says that to me I`d say..OI ! Cooke. An earnest commentator on women’s issues from a left perspective you may be ...BUT..you are fat ugly swot with dull greasy hair who has been in her forties from birth. If I wish to indulge in merry banter over some reheated "Just because you have a small willy" Polly-filler ,I will wait for Celia Walden or Bryony Gordon`s next one.
So get back to your earnest whining for which you have a moderate talent and leave fun to funny people.
JC- Quite right Newmania would you say she needed a good seeing to ?
NM- Almost without doubt Jeremy. Now piss off and do your Esther Rantzen for menopausal men and leave me to my pint
Sorted
Ah but come on. Clarkson was never the kid that got the s--- kicked out of him - he instead reminds you of the rather earnest kid with spots who probably pays the school bully his lunch money in order to get someone beaten up, and tries on slimy chat-up lines with the girlies and gets laughed at when rebuffed. Rather than being beaten up he was ignored because he was a prig and a bore.
He goes on to foster the resentment at not being cool or attractive and out via Top Gear it comes, an explosion of "Look at me! Look at me now! I get to drive really really big vroom-vroom cars! Where are you now, eh, class 5B - Jenny Smith, who turned me down when we were 14, and Bobby Wilkinson, who turned down my pax offering of a Twix, and Graham Jones who wouldn't play tag with me - while I'm here in my great cars! Nowhere that's where!"
It isn't that satisfying to know the class turd is sticking two fingers up at you for mere perceived slights.
OK - unlikely for obvious reasons that Clarkson was a bully's victim but that hardly justifies Cooke's sneering tone.
You're guess as to Clarkson's school life might be spot on but if it comes to a choice between class turd and superior smug journalist type who's still laughing down her nose at people I'd go for the turd every time.
None of them -- not Clarkson, May or Hammond -- can say "because". That doesn't make them bad people.
I've often wondered if people who are really really into cars actually hate Top Gear.
Oh, and I haven't seen them race a Ferrari against a jumbo jet, but a Bugatti Veyron was beaten by a jet fighter. Natch.
... and despite being a short arse, Hammond must've got his Nat King at school, surely?!?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home