Andrew Duncan Posted Tue Aug 1 23:47:21 BST 2000 by Justin

I could've done my usual Alison Graham-baiting (there are at least three factual errors in her Lipstick Years piece - I can't even be bothered to name them), and there was a wonderfully clueless letter last week congratulating Top Of The Pops for shielding Eminem's video from our kids (despite the fact that "our kids" are likely to be about the only ones remotely interested in him in the first place). There's even Mark Lewisohn's blithering "here are some other dramas made in Glasgow" - wouldn't f***ing say that about London, would he, the smug git?

No, I'm leaving all that aside. Look at Andrew Duncan's opening sentence in his interview with Sheila Hancock:

"She is pert, eloquent, gutsy, gracious, versatile (a director, writer, actress in Carry On films as well as Shakespeare) and independent, so at 67, the last thing she needs is to be unfairly categorised by a relationship with the husband (actor John Thaw) she married in 1973 and left for six months 14 years later when she was diagnosed with breast cancer."

Er, Andrew, you've just DONE it, though, you arse...

Subject: Re: Andrew Duncan [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Jon on Wed Aug 2 08:06:34 BST 2000:

"[C]ongratulating Top Of The Pops for shielding Eminem's video from our kids..."

Well, they never shielded me from Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Man2Man or Karel Fialka. Kids these days have it all done for them...

Subject: Re: Andrew Duncan [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Peter Ohanraohanrahan on Wed Aug 2 10:41:18 BST 2000:

Why do people submit to be interview by that cretin? He is Alan Partridge. The giveaway is the fact that it's referred to as "The Alan Duncan Interview," in a transparent attempt to make the twat seem important.

Subject: Re: Andrew Duncan [ Previous Message ]
Posted By James on Wed Aug 2 15:28:22 BST 2000:

It was worse in the old days. A few years ago, they used to do a feature called "Clement Freud entertains..." Or, in other words, "Clement Freud spends *my money* on food for..." Basically he'd do a few pars about all the expensive food he was buying for the interviewee, then there'd be a bit about the things they said to each other while they were eating the expensive food.

That Lewisohn piece is surpassing in the glory of its badness, because the idea of the "Deja View" thing actually has some point to it. It could be used to explain some of the creative influences behind TV shows or the progressive development of formats. Or something. OK, this might only be interesting to dullards such as myself and half the people here. But is "look, here are some other shows which have been set in Glasgow" of interest to *anyone at all*? It's one step up from "look, here are some other shows which begin with 'G'"...

(Some would say, of course, that my life must be damn near perfect if that's the only thing I can find to worry about. It's not, though: the badness of the RT is just what I worry about when relaxing from worrying about other stuff. Plus, it will kill our children).

Subject: Re: Andrew Duncan [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Anonymous on Sun Aug 6 17:58:11 BST 2000:

(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.

(name removed) and (name removed) write this website.

[ Add Your Comment On This Subject ]
[ Add Your Comment Quoting Message ]