'The Hour' is Upon Us

Continuing the BBC’s Original British Drama season and their commitment to ‘re-establish its reputation as the home of intelligent and ambitious drama’, the first episode of the 1950s set thriller The Hour hit our screens this week.

Undoubtedly following the success of the US hit Mad Men, writer Abi Morgan’s new drama whisks viewers into the turbulent behind-the-scenes world of the launch of new BBC current affairs programme 'The Hour', delving into the sexual and social politics of the era.

Torchwood: Miracle Day

When Russell T Davies made the decision to shake up the formula of Torchwood from 13 part ‘monster of the week’ to five part mini-series, the show turned from a somewhat tacky sci-fi drama in the shadow of its time-travelling older brother to an intelligent, stylish and thought provoking supernatural thriller.

Still executive produced by the team who brought back Doctor Who, but with a big cash injection from US cable network Starz, Miracle Day looks set to continue this success and take the show onto bigger and better things.

The Killing - Review

Back in January, BBC4 aired the Danish original of The Killing (entitled ‘Forbrydelsen’ - ‘The Crime’) and this week the American remake, made its way onto our screens courtesy of the kind people at Channel 4. Since it was hidden away in a shadowy corner of the BBC’s scheduling, I missed the original, and subsequently have no frame of reference for comparison, but that allows it to be judged as a programme in its own right.

Luther - Return of the DI

‘He is the Sunrise. He loves everyone’

I didn’t watch the first series of Luther - not because it didn’t interest me, but because I didn’t have the luxury of recordable TV - so I went into last night’s second series opener with virtually no prior knowledge of the story.

The first test was whether I would be left in the dark with regard to previous plot, but this was swiftly and cleverly dealt with. Rather than relying on the slightly lame and lazy flashback, or ‘previously on…’ technique, the back story was told through a clever expository opening in which Alice Morgan (Ruth Wilson) is being questioned in a mental institution about the events of last series.

Who dares - but does it win?

The first part of the eleventh Doctor’s second series* came to a climactic close on Saturday, finally giving viewers the answer to a question first pondered over in May 2008, but leaving them asking a million more. This series has been described as more daring, intelligent and confusing than ever before by critics and fans alike, with many complex plot-points being seeded from the first episode, but looking back on it, was it really as good as we all first thought?

Under the Radar - Great films that may have passed you by: Battle Royale

Battle Royale - Kinji Fukasaku - 2000

It’s hard to sum up the premise of this film better than the opening prologue:

“At the dawn of the millennium, the nation collapsed. At fifteen percent unemployment, ten million were out of work. 800,000 students boycotted school. The adults lost confidence and, fearing the youth, eventually passed the Millennium Educational Reform Act, AKA the BR Act...”

In a near future world where adults are trying to regain the respect of the rebelling younger generations, a new programme is established whereby classes are arbitrarily selected to compete in the Battle Royale; a sadistic, kill or be killed game ,which can only have one winner.

Living on The Only Way is the Real Chelsea Shore

I’m not reality TV, I’m not ITV2, and I’m simply not interested in watching posh/rich/shallow people bumble through their lives without a care in the world, which is why I’m annoyed that yet another vacuous docusoap has graced our TV schedules with its presence.

Made in Chelsea is the latest addition to this new craze of fly on the wall documentary dramas following the lives of ‘ordinary’ people. It centres around some of London’s young elite, and affords viewers a ‘candid’ (not scripted scenarios in the slightest), triple-A insight into the way they live their rich and glamorous lives. Do we really need (or for that matter want) another?

Moffat vs. Moffat...revisited

Earlier this year the British public snubbed Steven Moffat’s televisual efforts, as his newly regenerated Doctor and co-created contemporary Sherlock lost out in all their categories at the National Television Awards.

Moffat-adoring conspiracy theorists believed it was due to fans’ votes being split, as they were forced to choose one or other of his creations. My belief is that the What’s On TV reading public aren’t your archetypal fan of either of these programmes, preferring a bit of cosy melodrama instead.

Under the Radar - Great films that may have passed you by: Madeo

Madeo (Mother) - Joon-ho Bong - 2009

Let’s play a little word association game. I’m going to say something, and then I’m going to try and guess the first word that comes into your head. Ok here goes: ‘amazing filmmaking nations’.

You’re thinking ‘Korea’ aren’t you? No? Well then you obviously haven’t seen Mother, in which case read on!

Since the early noughties, South Korean cinema has begun to grow and it is one of the few nations in which Hollywood films don’t dominate at the box office. Bong Joon-ho’s Madeo is just one example of the growing confidence of this industry.

The film centres around the relationship of hapless, seemingly mentally retarded Do-joon (Won Bin) and his long suffering, but ultimately loving Mother (Hye-ja Kim). When a high school girl is found murdered and left for all to see atop a building in the centre of their village, all fingers instantly point to Do-Joon. However, determined that her son is innocent, his mother sets out to find evidence to the contrary, and will stop at nothing to overturn the conviction.

Submarine: Sinking Ship or Riding the Waves to Success

Anyone reading this, who is in their late teens, twenties or above, will know that sometimes adolescence can suck, and sometimes it can be brilliant, but very rarely does it follow along the same (slim, toned, sexy, spot-free, care-free) lines of coming of age films like American Pie.

I can’t speak for the entire population, but my teenage years were more ‘Inbetweeners’ than ‘Skins’, so it was really refreshing to go to the cinema and watch a film which honours and celebrates these awkward years of life, rather than trying to pretend it’s an easy ride of parties, booze and casual sex.

I’m talking about Richard Ayoade’s debut film Submarine, which tells the incredibly ordinary, but incredibly well observed tale of a 15 year old boy growing up in Wales; his life, his first love, and how he deals with his parents' failing marriage.

Under the Radar - Great films that may have passed you by: Let the Right One In

Låt den Rätte Komma In (Let the Right One In) - 2008 - Thomas Alfredson

It’s almost as if Hollywood enjoys ruining films. It’s as if they take pleasure out of watching a highly original concept, translating a foreign script into english, americanising it, throwing in some filmic clichés and generally taming it for their mass market.

I could name a hundred different examples, but the one I have chosen is Thomas Alfredson’s Låt den Rätte Komma In (Let the Right One In), recently ‘re-imagined’ (seemingly an industry term for ruined) and released as Let Me In.

One to Watch: Christopher and his Kind

When David Tennant finally called it quits on his tenure as the Doctor, all eyes were on his next role. Sadly it transpired to be the the incredibly damp 'Single Father' on BBC.

It was a very safe choice of follow-up, which didn't particularly test any of his acting ability, or help him reach a wider viewership than he had whilst on Doctor Who.

It did however, manage to break any question of potential type-casting.

The current Doctor Matt Smith (who has been unfairly branded an 'unknown' until this point), who also seems eager to avoid potential type-casting, has done a Daniel Radcliffe and chosen a bold and challenging role to break up his performance on Doctor Who.

Under the Radar: Great films that may have passed you by: The Fall

The Fall - 2006 - Tarsem Singh

‘Fantasy film is just escapism’ say the skeptics and critics of the genre. 

Wrong. 

For a film to be successful you have to invest in the world of the story; you have to become part of it. Its function is to transport viewers away from their cinema seats to the world on screen, rendering all films escapist to a certain extent.

The thing about fantasy is that it transports us to a world completely different from our own.

Oh, wrong again?

In actuality, fantasy cinema merely presents our own social anxieties and problems metaphorically.  In the same way that children create ghost stories for old buildings, and Freud believed dreams help us to solve problems in our daily lives, escaping to a fantasy world, whether it be on screen or in our own heads, can be therapeutic.

Under the Radar: Great films that may have passed you by: Brick

‘High School Drama’ and ‘Great Film’ are two phrases that you don’t often find together in the same sentence, paragraph of review. Usually High School teen flicks are pretty plotless and formulaic, adhering to a number of genre stereotypes; the geek, the outcast, the jock and the cheerleader and how their lives are (superficially) affected by the presence of the other.

Even the great, intelligent High School films - I’m thinking Cruel Intentions and The Breakfast Club - are party to these conventions.

But once in a while a writer jots these clichés down on a piece of paper, rips them up and throws them in the bin. Or in the case of Brick, chuck them into a pile of Film Noir standards, mixes them up and create an incredibly interesting take on the two genres.

It's not that grim up north, but is it commercially viable?

M50 2HQ - a simple combination of six letters and digits that sends shivers down the spines of hundreds of TV executives. It’s the postcode for MediaCity UK - the British TV industry’s new Northern home.

The very thought of moving north has be known to make the grown men and women of London cry. Imagine the thought; do they even have channel 5 up there? Well yes, we do. (Not that anyone watches it, but that’s beside the point).

For me, as a Northern lad, the idea of production moving North is fantastic. Not only does it mean there will be more jobs available to me in the media, but it will mean that programmes might be more representative of our country as a whole, rather than being London centric.

BBC have already stated that ‘making content relevant for the whole of the UK’ is one of their aims of BBC North, but what does this mean for the exportability of our programming? Will dramas set in Keighley be as attractive to overseas buyers, as those littered with London landmarks.?

BBC Worldwide - the commercial arm of the corporation, whose role it is to sell their programmes and formats to different countries - made a profit of £145 m last year, and their annual report states that ‘BBC America had its best-ever ratings, owing to the success of Torchwood and Doctor Who.’

London to new Who is as the quarry was to the classic series. In the first four series it became a staple of the episodes set on contemporary Earth, with Russell T Davies crashing a spaceship into Big Ben and blowing up 10 Downing Street in the first series alone. Similarly, BBC’s Sherlock, which wouldn’t be Sherlock Holmes without its London setting, is also currently the top downloaded TV Programme on iTunes in France.

Both of these are brilliant programmes in their own right - but would they be as popular with foreign audiences, and therefore as commercially viable, if they didn’t present the image of Great Britain people have come to expect?

Films like Notting Hill & Four Weddings & A Funeral are perfect examples of the importance of London to commercial success, in the same way that the Parisian setting of Amelie made it so successful in the UK and worldwide.

It’s a tough time for most commercial enterprises at the moment, and the cash-strapped UK TV industry is no exception, so it seems that the extra money that international exports bring in is as important as ever.

As much as the move North will prove an exciting change in the dynamic of British TV, and programming will hopefully start to be representative of the whole of the country, not just the capital, TV bosses will have to be careful not to alienate our international audiences.

BFI Future Film Festival: Fantastic or Forgettable

Anyone who loves film is sure to love the BFI. It’s one of the best places to go and while away an afternoon watching films and wishing you owned all the books in their incredibly well stocked shop. There’s something about the place that makes you feel as though you’re amongst kindred spirits.

So when the opportunity to report at their 4^th Future Film Festival came up, I jumped at the chance. The weekend’s programme boasted a diverse range of sessions, screenings and workshops. I arrived eager on Saturday morning and looked over the schedule again, before queuing for tickets to my favoured sessions. On Saturday delegates had the option to attend 4 out of a possible 12 sessions. It felt like I was in a my favourite restaurant trying to decide which of the amazing dishes to choose. Sometimes I chose well, sometimes I chose the chicken...

It started well when I attended my first awards ceremony (which you can read about here) – the Future Film Animation awards. It was exciting to see that this, a classic, yet oft overlooked medium in film (except the recent flow of brilliant pixar films), was thriving and producing some incredibly slick, clever and endearing films. The winner of the 19-25 category, Train of Thought, can be seen here.

However, for my next workshop on ‘screenwriting’ we’d been shoved down in the basement of the BFI which wasn’t ideal. The room looked as if it held about 15 people, 20 max. 30 odd showed up. Suddenly this intimate little session turned into an overcrowded lecture. The leader explained that he would usually get to know his students better, but there were simply too many of us.

If the numbers had been right it may well have been a better session, but with too many delegates there was no room for any real discussion or in depth analysis of writing techniques. The only message I came away with was ‘show, don’t tell’, which is pretty much the first line of any scriptwriting book anyway.

So on I went to ‘In your face: getting your film seen’ - a panel discussion about breaking into the festival circuit and finding a distributor for your shorts. In amongst the slightly stilted discussion, there was a lot good advice given by the panel (which can be found here), but at the time I slightly resented having one of the experts say ‘I guess I just got lucky’; this isn’t the kind of advice aspiring filmmakers need to hear.

I left on the Saturday evening with a bag of notes but a lot of mixed messages. I felt lightly despondent, not inspired like I expected; something about the first day just hadn’t lived up to my expectations.

Thankfully the fest really got into its stride on Sunday.

The screening of Gareth Edwards’ Monsters, followed by a Q&A with him was a true delight and there was a noticeable buzz as people left the cinema. Hearing Edwards talk about his film with so much passion and enthusiasm was the perfect way to start the day - this is the kind of inspiration I was looking for from the off. (Read more about Monsters here)

I then attended an advice session about being a critic - this was the first ‘expert panel’ to truly offer some good advice. Members included a writer for Sight & Sound, Online Editor for Little White Lies and film writer for Who’s Jack. Questions from the floor where informative and succinctly answered, and the panel chair asked questions of the delegates making it feel much more like a two way discussion

The day ended on a high with the screening and results of the Future Film Fiction awards. For me this was the highlight of the weekend - while the 19-25 category were good, the 15-18s stole the show with 3 very different, but very intelligent short films. (You can read about them here.)

By the end of Sunday I felt inspired again.

This is still a young festival, with much potential, but still with a bit to learn. Its main draw for me - that it is aimed specifically at 15-25 year olds - was one of its drawbacks. The difference in knowledge that 10 years makes is amazing - and in trying to cater for such a wide group of people, some of the practical sessions lost their focus and ended up being too basic.

And, though I may sound like I have a chip on my Northern shoulder, programme organisers need to remember that it’s the British Film Institute, not the London Film Institute. Very little discussion was given to other filmmaking cities, such as Manchester or Edinburgh and too often people assumed that all delegates lived and worked in London.

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed my weekend. Both panel discussions I attended were informative - in particular the film critic session - and I was genuinely in awe of what Gareth Edwards had managed to achieve. But the Awards ceremonies were the highlight for me, in particular seeing the work created by youth groups to try and inspire young adults to find their voice through the medium of film.

As I said, this is still a young festival with much to learn, and with each year it will grow, and grow better. I would certainly recommend it for aspiring young filmmakers - to see the work that your peers are producing (and be embarrassed by and made jealous of the quality of projects submitted by people 5 years younger than you!) is a great way to get your mind working. It's also a fantastic place to network, meet like minded people and get access to industry professionals. I look forward to the day when I can go back and see the winners of this years categories presenting their debut feature films, noting how it was this festival that inspired them in the first place.

Pixar - Short but Sweet

I’m a bit of an insomniac; when I’ve got something on my mind I find it really hard to switch off and fall asleep. (It’s 3.20 am as I’m writing the first draft of this). Reading makes my eyes hurt, listening to music just makes me want to sing along, and if I start watching films I want to see them through to the end (which would take me to about 5.40am).

So tonight I opened up YouTube with the thought of watching some videos to try distract me from my thoughts. Something on the homepage brought Toy Story 3 into my mind and suddenly the characters from the film’s preceding short Day & Night strolled into my head.

When I first watched it at the cinema Day & Night was like nothing I had ever seen before (or probably will again for quite some time). It’s not easy to explain, and in doing so you take away some of its brilliance; it needs to be seen to be fully appreciated, so if you haven’t already, then take 6 minutes out of your day to be blown away.

This 6 minute short presents one of the most culturally relevant topics of our society - prejudice - but instead of feeling like I’ve had a moral message thrust down my throat by some poorly scripted overacting and rather than feel like I'm being preached to, I feel like I can actually engage with it.

This is what’s so brilliant about Pixar, in recent times they seem to have become fearless. They touch whatever topic they want, and present it how they want; which more often than not is in a new, interesting and unconventional manner:

Day and Night teaches us to not judge on first appearance, to look beyond what is on the exterior and find common ground, through a fantastically animated, silent film-esque short which combines classic disney, with 21st century Pixar.

Presto teaches us of the importance of mutual respect, that success requires teamwork and an appreciation of those that we work with, by having a rabbit humiliate his magician partner until he is given the carrot he deserves.

Wall-E warns of the state of our future if we continue to live life in the consumerist manner that we do today, but presents it’s story through the eyes of a robot who can’t even communicate with us. That is, can’t communicate verbally - Pixar build so much emotion and empathy into those E.T. eyes.

Up teaches us about tolerance, patience and the importance of friendship - whoever that friendship might be with - a talking dog, a brightly coloured prehistoric bird, or an old man who flies his house to Paradise Falls with helium balloons.

Pixar have never patronised us, but recently they have begun to realise that they can do more than just make computer animated features; they have developed a platform upon which they can go anywhere they want and in doing so have touched upon some topics that modern cinema often chooses to overlook. Hidden underneath their shiny computer graphics are some serious moral messages which other commercial filmmakers often choose to forget.

Possibly the most amazing part of this is that these films are for children; some of the most intelligent, insightful, moving films are for the youngest generation of filmgoers. They may be for children, but they are far from kid’s films, and if some of their messages can penetrate the minds of our youngsters, that can only be a good thing.

Pixar films are, without question, one of the most exciting things to happen to cinema in the 21st century. They have given us some of the most interesting and thought provoking cinematic experiences of modern times.

Marchlands

The weather outside is pretty grim, rain throwing down, wind battering the trees and the house, so I’m sat in my lounge under a blanket with the fire on. The atmosphere seems nicely set to watch the first installment of ITV’s new drama Marchlands.

This 5 part serial will tell the story of three families, over a number of decades, who live in the titular house haunted by the drowned daughter of one of the couples. The concept instantly grabbed my attention, as it was a nice deviation from the usual courtroom/crime/detective drama that ITV churns out on a regular basis, so I thought I'd give it a watch.

The episode opens with a clever and seemless montage, which introduces our protagonists and the parallel scenarios instantly set up the idea that all their lives will intertwine and be connected. The attention to detail in some of the match shots shows the care taken by the director (as presumably 1968 was filmed on the same redressed set as 2010, some weeks later ) and the art direction helps to easily differentiate between the three generations, whilst retaining the feel that the house is unchanged.

Sadly, the same care and attention doesn’t appear to have been given to the script, which is at times obvious, and at worse patronising.

Predictably enough, the youngest daughter of the middle couple starts to have visions of an imaginary friend names Alice. The staple creepy/psychic child (executed perfectly in The Innocents, then populised in The Sixth Sense) is an overused plot device of the genre, which has been done a lot better a lot of times before.

And some of the dialogue was pure, unnecessary exposition - for example Nisha (who has moved into the house in the present day) finds a photo of the young girl, and when stripping the wallpaper in her bedroom uncovers a mural with the words “Alice in the Woods”. She then feels inclined to voice her thoughts: “Alice in the woods, which must make you Alice”. Condescending explanatory dialogue like this shows a lack of confidence in a script, and the audiences ability to understand it.

The odd thing is there are some clever aspects to the script, like the ongoing motif of water signaling Alice’s presence within the house, and the claustrophobia induced by the viewer very rarely being able to escape the confines of Marchlands. Furthermore the hints that our present day protagonist knows more about the history of the house than he is letting on provides some added mystery - it’s just that some of the execution is poor.

And for me, Alex Kingston was a bit of a disappointment. Fresh from her role as Prof./Dr. River Song (depending on when we meet her - wibbly wobbly timey wimey) in Doctor Who she appears to be the star billing to draw attention to this programme. However, her character is only slightly more believable than her Yorkshire accent (having been born and bred in Leeds, I feel like I’m allowed to pass comment!). If this is what ‘production moving North and becoming less London centric’ means, it’s a little disheartening (rant over).

Basically, this opening episode didn’t grab me, nor did it make me want to set up series record on V+. It’s a shame, because visually and directorially it’s well executed. The story itself seems interesting enough, but the script lets it down; not enough bait was laid to instantly hook me and entice me back, and some of the writing was so jarring that any drama or tension trying to be built was lost.

It wasn’t poor, and I didn’t hate it, but I also didn’t love it. Put it this way, if I’m in next Thursday at 9, I’ll probably watch part two. If I’m not, I won’t feel like I’ve missed out on much.

Class of 2011

2007, I'm finding my independence at University, being simultaneously grown up and enjoyably childish at the same time, drinking, partying and embracing the freedom. Then E4 go and premiere a TV programme where a load of 16 year olds have beaten me too it and are seemingly making a better job of it. I'm talking about skins, E4's massively unrealistic, but incredibly watchable teenage drama; back for its fifth series this week with a brand new cast.

Something about a new series of skins always excites me - from the clever advertising to the anticipation of seeing what new characters the writers will come up with. And there was even more pressure this year to come up with an exciting new bunch of sixth-formers.

While the second generation were great (far better than the first) there were obvious comparisons between the two. The writers seemed to follow a noticeable formula: the slightly dorky one - Syd/JJ, the gay one Maxxie/Emily & Naomi, the pilled up one Chris/Cook etc. and when the new cast pictures were released, people quickly commented things like ‘he has the looks like Freddie but the personality of Cook’.

Comparisons were always going to be made so it was important that the writers came up with something different. While at the moment there isn’t much to be said about most of the cast they’ve certainly thrown us a couple of interesting curveballs in the form of non-gender specific Frankie Fitzgerald and mysterious Matty - whose few words during a brief encounter with Frankie were more intriguing than anything the rest of the cast said put together.

For an introductory episode, the ratio of screen time was strangely weighted; giving more attention to the girls, leaving the lads attempting to provide some comic relief. However, the relationship between Frankie and ‘the Plastics’ was well established. And the Carrie-esque changing room scene cleverly foreshadowed the prank to be played on Frankie later on in the episode. The changing of relationships from start to finish - with a clear divide emerging - could provide an interesting, and ultimately more realistic group dynamic this series.

(Along with Carrie, there were a couple of other clever nods to teen films, such as Mean Girls & Donnie Darko)

Music, as ever, played its part in the storytelling. Music from upcoming bands fleshed out the soundtrack while Frankie Goes To Hollywood was played for laughs. The cleverly ironic use of Fergie’s ‘Glamorous’ as Frankie entered the party more than made up for her incredibly obvious and slightly tacky burning of societal norms in the form a sequinned dress.

All in all, this was generally a well written, funny, and at times moving intro episode, which has left me wanting to know more about some of the characters who weren’t given as much attention as the others. It didn’t ‘wow’ as much as previous series openers have, but something about its simplicity took me back to when Tony first woke up and introduced us to his world.

Frankie’s battle to find friends, but be accepted as an individual rather than a carbon copy, coupled with Minnie’s jealousy over her new ‘rival’ should provide some different avenues to explore, and it will interesting to see how this year’s crop of kids make their mark.

It may be ridiculous at times (though that may be because I can detach myself - I’m an Inbetweener at heart) and it may enjoy exploiting its bad reputation (skins parties, drugs, sex, violence), but the show deals with a lot of issues that teenagers face - mental illness (eating disorders, aspergers) sexual orientation, substance abuse, death. Like it or not, it’s far more culturally relevant, and representative of our society than any of the teen dramas imported from America and for that reason, it should be praised, and watched, and just enjoyed for what it is.

Moffat vs. Moffat

2010: Year of the Tiger. That’s if you’re up to date on your Chinese Astrology. If, like me, you’re not, and all you care about is TV then 2010 was the Year of the Moff.

With two flagship BBC shows under his belt – Sherlock and Doctor Who – Steven Moffat’s reign over British TV in 2010 was supreme. The task of taking over as executive producer and head writer on Who probably seemed daunting enough to many (How would Matt Smith fare against David Tennant? Would the series live up to fan expectation? Was it going to be full of "Blinks"?). But Moffat took it all in his stride and also found time to co-create a new, revamped, 21st century relevant incarnation of the world’s greatest detective.

And neither of the shows suffered at the hands of the other. 9 Million viewers tuned in to see Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman solve a Study in Pink and 10 Million viewers watched as newly regenerated Matt Smith crashed to Earth changed the life of little Amelia Pond and made tweed and bowties (and Fezes) cool again.

But which was better? That’s up to the British viewing public to decide as Steven Moffat goes head to head with…well himself…in two categories of this year’s National Television Awards.

I say with himself – let’s just clarify this. Here’s how the two categories stand:

Drama

Doctor Who / Shameless / Sherlock / Waterloo Road

Drama Performance

Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) / Philip Glenister (Ashes to Ashes) / David Jason (A Touch ofFrost) / Matt Smith(Doctor Who)

In the Drama category, Waterloo Road can probably be written off. It is a little bit ‘soap-y’ and the final episodes had viewing figures half the size of Sherlock and Who. Shameless, for me, has past its prime and while it continues to produce good scripts, and the series length has doubled since it’s initial outing (and is still growing), it has lost some of the initial charm.

Drama Performance is a little bit more tricky, but considering that Smith & Cumberbatch are new to their characters I think they are more likely to be recognised for putting in a good performance.

Ok, that cleared up (or at least swept under the rug), who will win; The Doctor or the Detective?

Drama

I’m going to give this one to Sherlock. There was something extremely clever about this 3 part series that makes it stand out in this category; something a little different from the usual stuff we see on TV. (TV bosses take note – there are no courtroom dramas starring James Nesbitt in this category. What does that tell you?!) .

While Doctor Who series 5 was great drama and entertainment, it stuck rigidly to the formula of other series’ and didn't offer up anything particularly different. This was expected, and welcomed, because with all the new changes in cast and crew (and horrible power-ranger Daleks) to stray too far from what we know and love could have been alienating to viewers.

Sherlock on the other hand was the perfect platform to bring back someone who we know and love and send him charging into the 21st Century. Viewers new to Holmes were welcomed with open arms, but there was so much extra content in for die hard fans that it was always going to be a hit. Sherlock wins this round.

Drama Performance

Tough decision, but I’m giving this one to Matt Smith. Cumberbatch and Freeman both won initial nominations before the shortlist; and rightly so, they made a formidable duo. But there is something about Smith – his searching eyes, the way he uses his hands, his ability to command a scene (even against the likes of the legendary Sir Gambon).

The moment that won it for him was from a two part Silurian episode. Smith seems to be able to look past the obvious delivery of a line, and choose a way of doing it that is so perfect for his incarnation of the character:

Alaya [A Silurian]: I am the last of my species!

The Doctor: No, you’re really not. Because I’m the last of my species, and I know how that sits in a heart. So don’t insult me.

While Tennant’s ‘last of the Time Lords’ might have made a big emotional fuss about this line, Smith’s quiet, controlled anger made it more poignant.

Following Tennant was never going to be easy, or so everyone thought, but Smith seemed to just walk straight into the role. He instantly embodied the Doctor. That makes it sound like he didn’t put any effort in, but it’s like anyone doing a job – if you’re exceptionally good at what you do, you make it look easy. And that’s why Smith wins this one.

And Who does Steven Moffat want to win? “For all those of you who have asked, I will only be happy with an exact draw. I'm counting on you all.”. Sorry Steven, I can’t rig a draw. Nor can I promise you this prediction will come true, but I reckon you’ll get one for each this year. As I said, Year of the Tiger, who's motto is "I Win".

See if I'm right (and gloat if I'm wrong) on ITV, Wednesday 26th January, 2011