Top Gear Madness

Let's face it, I've been an avid fan of Top Gear for many years now.  Of all the motoring programmes that I watch it is, by far, the most entertaining.  Some critics have argued that it isn't really a motoring programme but just an entertainment show.  In the past I didn't always agree, but recently the show has gone a little weird.

For starters, it does tend to review the most expensive cars money can buy.  Not that I don't like looking at beautiful supercars and, occasionally, the odd hypercar.  I bet that every single one of the viewers dream of owning one of the cars that are reviewed, I know I do.  Who wouldn't?  It's only a dream, though.  There is no way, unless I win the national lottery, that I will ever have the money to waste on one of the above mentioned cars.  Notice I said 'waste'.  To spend that kind of money on a car that just goes fast and looks good is an extravagance.  They are, at best, impractical and totally unsuitable for daily use - unless all you want is to show off!

Let's not get distracted by petty details.  Top Gear is there to entertain us.  The antics of the three presenters is one of the key points of the show; their interaction with each other and the differences in their personalities is what makes the show entertaining.  Jeremy Clarkeson is the older, brash (typical for someone from Yorkshire!) and somewhat dim-witted of the trio.  James May is the usual butt of their jokes and is supposed to be the more sensible one.  Finally, Richard Hammond is supposed to be the anchor to the current generation with his dress sense (?) and his understanding of current technology.  In the real world, these three would never be together.  Their disparate personalities would constantly clash and cause instant fallout!  In fact, during several episodes it looks as if exactly that has happened!

That clash of personalities is what makes the show funny.  As individuals, they each have their unique sense of humour.  Clarkeson has always had a dry and sarcastic wit.  He was at his peak several years ago; he could identify with situations and come up with a hilarious parallel.  Unfortunately it seems as if his reservoir of sarcastic wit is running dry and he is digging deep just to come up with something that we cringe at.

Hammond, once the cool, collective member of the trio has become the fool.  Although not quite as mad as Clarkeson, he doesn't fall far short (no pun intended).  Between the two of them they manage to lower the tone of any conversation and, to be honest, that's exactly what most of the viewers want.  Maybe because I am older and wiser I no longer appreciate it as much as I used to.

James May.  He is the outsider of this trio.  Considered a little extravagant by the other two, he doesn't live for pure speed and power, although technically he has driven at the fastest speed in a normal road car.  He is Captain Slow due to his naturally cautious nature and his healthy respect for living!

Together, these three make the show what it is.  It's not a car show although it does feature cars.  It's Sunday night entertainment featuring cars.  It has comedy, impressive visuals and a star guest who has to be questioned by Clarkeson.  Not too bad if the guest happens to be male, but if it is a good looking female, the disgusting visage of Clarkeson trying to flirt is enough to make anyone feel sick!  That notwithstanding, it's popularity has continued to grow as it's entertainment value is appreciated by more and more people.  Even Sony has included the 'Top Gear Track' in it's latest incarnation of Gran Tourismo.

There is another unique member of the Top Gear team; the Stig.  A sexless (although usually male), unidentifiable figure dressed in a white racing suit and helmet.  The Stig is intentionally surrounded by mystery and this caused an outrage last year when the former Stig identified himself, breaching his contract and instantly becoming a pariah to the many Top Gear fans.  Fortunately, a new Stig was born during the making of the Top Gear Christmas Special 2010.  In true Top Gear fashion they threw tradition and religion to the winds and rewrote the nativity.  It was well made and entertaining.

That sums Top Gear up.  It's entertaining even if, sometimes, the presenters themselves are completely idiotic.  It has already gathered large following and the mysterious Stig even has a cult following.  It does show us some pretty cars and the reviews are completely biased, so pay them no attention and just enjoy the car on display.  As a motoring show it is rubbish, but we already knew that.  I think the original intention was a motoring show, but along the way it got sidetracked into what it has become today.  It's obviously a success as it is shown around the world and enjoyed by millions of people.  It's not a serious show and it doesn't take itself seriously.  Neither should the viewer.  Just enjoy it as a bit of fun.

Celebrity or Content

It's become something of a natural phenomena recently.  Many celebrities are now sponsoring charities, political figures and views as well as campaigning for the like.  On a whole, the use of celebrities as sponsors is successful and the general public will flock to whatever cause they are supporting; the UK's comic relief is a key example of this.  But what is more important; the celebrity sponsor and whatever they may advocate or the actual content of what they are promoting?  Unlike politicians, celebrities are not accountable in the political sphere but can influence it.  What makes a celebrity more qualified to speak on something rather than a subject matter expert?

Celebrity sponsoring has never been so popular as it is today.  Due to the nature of communications today, be it the television, the internet or even radio, we are swamped with all manner of celebrities from sports, film and television.  There are even celebrity bloggers who have risen to fame as a result of their online blogging and its popularity.  So, celebrities are everywhere.  You can't turn a corner without bumping into one.  But as popular as they may be, for whatever reason, they are still ordinary people.  Many of them have very little education, some of them have PhDs.  How do you tell?  How can you know that a celebrity actually knows what he or she is talking about when they sponsor something?  Why do people take more notice of them rather than an expert in the matter.  Why do politicians want celebrity endorsements?

Very few major charities do not have a celebrity or two lending support to them.  The celebrity can ensure that an issue has a greater audience simply due to their celebrity status.  They don't even have to say anything intelligent, just as long as they don't say anything stupid and jeopardize the good work the charity may be doing.  In this case, the use of celebrity sponsorship is a great way to generate interest for good causes, but it does have it's pitfalls.

In the UK, we have an annual charity event called 'Comic Relief'.  It's a televised event and draws millions of viewers due to its popularity.  The aim of the event is to raise money for charity, investing money into projects in Africa and the UK.  It's main draw are the numerous comedians that support it as well as other celebrities that endure some form of humiliation (in a humourous way).  It's a great event and goes on for hours.  The BBC hosts it, usually over two channels.  Comic Relief has made tens of millions of pounds since it first started many years ago, all for charity.

The one thing no one has asked is, why haven't things changed considering we have thrown hundreds of millions of pounds at it?

If a business had been given the same amount of money to invest, you can be pretty sure the investors would like to see the results of their investments.  Yet, in the case of Comic Relief, no one has.

I am not suggesting that Comic Relief is squandering the money in any way, but we have been shown the same thing for a fair number of years now and there seems to be no change.  The same problems exist as before millions of pounds were thrown at it.  Therein lies one of the first problem.  If you just ask for money, eventually people are going to ask why nothing appears to be changing or nothing appears to have been done.  The celebrities are always being filmed in the poorest parts of Africa, year after year.  Surely there must have been some changes?

At the end of the day, however, no amount of money is going to change the situation in Africa until the root cause has been identified and changed.  I am sure that all the charities involved over there are doing the best they can in difficult situations and any help that celebrities can bring must be a godsend for them.  Other charities have also benefited from celebrity endorsements and this is for the betterment of us all.

However, the real crux of this blog is celebrities getting involved in politics.

There have been cases, in the UK, where celebrities have taken up the gauntlet and changed UK policy due to the amount of public support they garner.  One key item that comes to mind is an actress, Joanna Lumley, campaigning for the rights of Gurkhas.  For those of you who are not familiar with this, I will give a very brief explanation. 

The British Army recruits Gurkhas from Nepal to be part of the Gurkha regiment.  The history goes back to 1814 when the British fought the Gurkhas as part of colonial expansion of the British Empire.  The Gurkhas have been loyal and hardy soldiers within the British military for a great number of years, yet when their service was complete they were not given the same pension as that of a soldier recruited from the UK.  This was obviously unfair and Ms Joanna Lumley supported the Gurkha Justice Campaign, along with other celebrities.  The campaign was successful and the rights of the Gurkhas was justifiably recognised and British Law was changed.

The UK is about to participate in a referendum to decide how we vote in elections.  It's called the Alternative Vote and I wont go into all the details.  However, a number of celebrities have voiced their support for one of the two various camps.  As far as I am aware, none of them are experts in British Law or constitutional politics, yet they are garnering support for whatever camp they believe should win.

At the end of the day, these celebrities are ordinary citizens and have a right to their own opinion.  However, by using their celebrity status, they have been given a platform by which they can campaign for whichever camp they deem to be the best.  They have had more influence than the elected politicians, not that that should be a surprise to anyone as British politicians have nearly been branded as corrupt as a result of recent investigations.  However, the celebrities have no accountability, unlike the politicians.

A key question has to be, do any of these celebrities actually know what they are talking about or are they just giving their personal opinions?  If I started to campaign for one of the camps, no matter how well informed or qualified I may be, I would not have anywhere near the same amount of influence as even the most minor of the celebrities.  The same appears true for the politicians.  They cannot influence as many people as the celebrities.

I am not suggesting that all or even any of the celebrities don't know what they are talking about and have just been given a script to read, but common people are drawn to them as a result of their popularity rather than the actual understanding of the content and value of their motivations.  There have been cases where some celebrities have campaigned for totally idiotic ideals.  Very entertaining to watch and read about but pretty scary in the amount of people that believed them due only to their popularity.

This isn't new and has been going on for years.  In the USA, a certain Hollywood star became a governor of California.  From what little I understand, he was a good Governor and was re-elected as a result, but I wonder how much influence his celebrity status had in getting him elected in the first place?  I was even wondering if the US was going to change it's law so that he could run for President, but that was going to be a stretch no matter how popular he was.  It wouldn't have been the first time a Hollywood star became the President of the United States, but as he was not born a US citizen, it wasn't an option.

The good news is that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be making films again instead of advertisements asking the British to come and visit California!