Meades on France

[vinteuil]

A shame it is the last programme.

I agree; I have loved all of this - and - speaking en connaissance de cause (as our legal colleagues have it) I think he 'gets' France so right. I would be intrigued to know what the reaction would be if this series were played to a well-disposed English-speaking French audience - how they would take to his aperçus which to me chime so true... There was one faute de goût which did surprise me and which I bet our Jonathan, spittingly, now rues - he repeated a joke. In separate episodes he referred to the French wanting to be in touch with their roots - "without realising that roots is what vegetables have... ". Once was good; twice was not good...

But this was a marvellous series, of an intelligence on the BBC of which one had almost despaired...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

But this was a marvellous series, of an intelligence on the BBC of which one had almost despaired...

absolutely agree!

thought the Unnatural History prog on the Amazon was also intelligent

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm a big fan of J Meades. By rights this series should have followed on from "Magnetic North". As that ended to the strains of Les Corons by Pierre Bachelet, it was clear that he was turning his attentions to France. In the meantime, though, we have had the excellent "Off Kilter" about Scotland. I watched all three editions of the latest series today, the first two back to back. Perhaps for that reason I found the middle one the least entrancing but each was nothing less than excellent. I sit there making notes - English words that are new to me, bits and pieces on architecture, design, history, politics, art, "politics", culture, cuisine. Then I look at the paper and wonder what the heck to do with it all. Probably need to watch the three again to get the most out of them.

I love the design of his programmes. The offbeat nature of it, the mixture of the ancient and the modern, the absence of over-obvious historical timelines, the variation in the amount of time given to specific items, the scrapbook placing of audio and visual imagery, the trivial and the serious being presented in a way that they become each other. The lists. And frequently what he says and does not only makes me think but laugh out loud. Such is the packaging of broadcasting that one can search for structure without wanting it. I found the alphabetical references in the first programme useful and wondered why they hadn't been carried forward. Then I thought that perhaps it was his attempt at providing a French city. The other two were suburban sprawl.

And that is a part of the beauty of it. The mind travels with Meades along unusual paths, all the while stopping off to see some very unfamilar sights. The visual trickery of returning to a map time and again for an hour, expecting to see dots appearing all over the place and finding them only ever in the North East. The absurdity of a presenter who stands like a dummy with his arms beside his sides and yet with the inference that this is more natural than television's over-animated emphases. I would like to think that the style would draw in a wide range of viewers. This is, after all, a cultured anarchy of sorts or, if not, the authoritative knowledge of a maverick who views the avant-garde as too house-trained. Regrettably it is probably precisely this that leaves many outside, seeing him as too establishment or not establishment enough. Those who lob stones from cobbled streets are either destined to stay there or become leaders of a kind. Two sides of the same coin. Meades is in a completely different pocket.

I don't agree with him on everything. The French have a take on American pop culture that does bring something positive to it. Charm is in the clumsiness. A strong public sector can be a good thing. And just as our ways with religion and multiculturalism have pluses and minuses, so do the more secular and nationalistic approaches in France. Both states promote and negate individual rights. As for the rest, I am willing to accept his word until I do some further research. Not many series have the content to make you want to work on them a bit. And while like Alistair Cooke's "Letter From America", what one gets is essentially one person's selective outlook, there is also the reward of having a stronger sense of a country beyond typical cliches. Meades is 65. I just wish that he hadn't waited until the 1980s to work wholeheartedly in television. Let's hope that we have him for many more years.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm a big fan of Meades. By rights this series should have followed on from "Magnetic North". As that ended to the strains of Les Courons by Pierre Bachelet, it was clear that he was turning his attentions to France. In the meantime, though, we have had the excellent "Off Kilter" about Scotland. I watched all three editions of the latest series today, the first two back to back. Perhaps for that reason I found the middle one the least entrancing but each was nothing less than excellent. I sit there making notes - English words that are new to me, bits and pieces on architecture, design, history, politics, art, politics, culture, cuisine. Then I look at the paper and wonder what the heck to do with it all. Probably need to watch the three again to get the most out of them.

I love the design of his programmes. The offbeat nature of it, the mixture of the ancient and the modern, the absence of over-obvious historical timelines, the variation in the amount of time given to specific items, the scrapbook placing of audio and visual imagery, the trivial and the serious being presented in a way that they become each other. The lists. And frequently what he says and does not only makes me think but laugh out loud. Such is the packaging of broadcasting that one can search for structure without wanting it. I found the alphabetical references in the first programme useful and wondered why they hadn't been carried forward. Then I thought that perhaps it was his attempt at providing a French city. The other two were suburban sprawl.

And that is a part of the beauty of it. The mind travels with Meades along unusual paths, all the while stopping off to see some very unfamilar sights. The visual trickery of returning to a map time and again for an hour, expecting to see dots appearing all over the place and finding them only ever in the North East. The absurdity of a presenter who stands like a dummy with his arms beside his sides and yet with the inference that this is more natural than television's over-animated emphases. I would like to think that the style would draw in a wide range of viewers. This is, after all, a cultured anarchy of sorts or, if not, the authoritative knowledge of a maverick who views the avant-garde as too house-trained. Regrettably it is probably precisely this that leaves many outside, seeing him as too establishment or not establishment enough. Those who lob stones from cobbled streets are either destined to stay there or become leaders of a kind. Two sides of the same coin. Meades is in a completely different pocket.

I don't agree with him on everything. The French have a take on American pop culture that does bring something positive to it. Charm is in the clumsiness. A strong public sector can be a good thing. And just as our ways with religion and multiculturalism have pluses and minuses, so do the more secular and nationalistic approaches in France. Both states promote and negate individual rights. As for the rest, I am willing to accept his word until I do some further research. Not many series have the content to make you want to work on them a bit. And while like Alistair Cooke's "Letter From America", what one gets is essentially one person's selective outlook, there is also the reward of having a stronger sense of a country beyond typical cliches. Meades is 65. I just wish that he hadn't waited until the 1980s to work wholeheartedly in television. Let's hope that we have him for many more years.

And of course he is an unashamed carnivore... which I am not - not down to petty bourgeois pernicketiness.

I rather think Meades luxuriates in the dissonances whose pretexts he affects to decry, whereas some of us see them regretfully as needing taking on board. Or does he decry? He's himself a bit of an enigma, I find. Is the mannerism a persona? I'm willing to bet he'd be just like that in the flesh. In the end he posits the individual as wisdom's ultimate repository; in the absense of anything better on offer I'm inclined to agree.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

In the end he posits the individual as wisdom's ultimate repository;

... and taste therefore its only witness?

[Serial_Apologist]

... and taste therefore its only witness?

Don't think so...

[french frank]

I bow to the opinion of those who have seen more of him than my 15 minute clip ...

[Lateralthinking1]

french frank

All three programmes are available on the I-Player.

Lat.

[french frank]

french frank

All three programmes are available on the I-Player.

I meant that my 15 minutes watching was enough - hadn't made me a fan!

[Lateralthinking1]

I meant that my 15 minutes watching was enough - hadn't made me a fan!

Oh I see.

But where else on the BBC do you hear aenealogical, apogee, cinephiliac, contrapuntal, gnomic, occidental, pecuniary, primogeniture, sedulously and vassalage in the same programme?

[french frank]

Oh I see.

But where else on the BBC do you hear aenealogical, apogee, cinephiliac, contrapuntal, gnomic, occidental, pecuniary, primogeniture, sedulously and vassalage in the same programme?

I was struck by 'calumnize' - marked as 'obsolete' by the OED. Why not 'calumniate'? And an unusual context for 'bucolic'.

I imagine one gets used to the style. It came over to me as a 60-minute (if I'd kept watching) silent film with a droning, opinionated voiceover added. I was watching the one about American culture.

Minority of one, but never afraid to pipe up in dissent, that's moi!

[Lateralthinking1]

The one question I had was about his pronunciation of "xenophobic" which made the word sound like it had two bs. Do you have a learned (as in "learn-edd") view on this please? I am hoping he is right and all the rest of us are wrong.

[kernelbogey]

I've seen two out of the three so, reserving final judgement: I think Meades's language is too dense for television and maybe even for radio. There is a continuous stream of aphorisms and simple sentences, and the normal flow of journalistic prose is (obviously deliberately) eschewed. Nonetheless, these programmes are much better than a lot of the pap broadcast as audio-visual wallpaper.

[french frank]

The one question I had was about his pronunciation of "xenophobic" which made the word sound like it had two bs. Do you have a learned (as in "learn-edd") view on this please? I am hoping he is right and all the rest of us are wrong.

Do you mean the syllable -ob- was as in 'bobby' rather than 'robe'?

The OED, for phobic has Brit. /ˈfəʊbɪk/ , U.S. /ˈfoʊbɪk/ . Cf the pronunciation for 'robe' Brit. /rəʊb/ , U.S. /roʊb/ .

I'm not quite clear about the difference, but I'd say Meades's pronunciation - if I understand you correctly - is closer to the US pronunciation. Is he English?

[vinteuil]

Is he English?

a Wiltshire boy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Meades