A woman in China sews protective suits for those handling ebola patients. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Status update: the World Service’s reports on ebola

Having listened to the show for three weeks, I am repeatedly struck by its unusually fluctuating tone.

News About Ebola
BBC World Service

At the time of writing, the information and analysis bulletin News About Ebola (weekdays, 7.50pm) had been picked up by 53 local radio partners of the BBC World Service across West Africa – from Sierra Leone’s Radio Democracy in Freetown to Liberia’s Radio Cape Mount and Guinea’s Radio Nostalgie. Known to be a source of reliable information, the show receives up to 3,500 texts a day.

In an email, one of the presenters, Amara Bangura, tells me that the questions from the public cover everything imaginable, not least ebola’s rumoured resistance to a particular brand of rum. Having listened to the show for three weeks, I am repeatedly struck by its unusually fluctuating tone. Using an interview with a World Health Organisation official, a local politician or a person on the street, one programme might be quite formal, almost distant, where others seem to contain the delirium of wounded national identity. Most memorable was a customer at a Freetown market considering the crates of rotten eggs and mould-covered cassava leaves in front of her and saying that opportunists had priced even these too high to buy. And one sharply edited feature at the end of the first week of this month was striking: a UK medic confirmed that up to 600 NHS workers have admirably volunteered their services.

Then to a nurse on the ground in 30°C heat and 100 per cent humidity, describing her protective clothing: “One pair of boots, one waterproof overall, two pairs of gloves taped at the wrists, a waterproof protective hood, goggles, face mask and then a plastic apron over all of it.”

Recent reports that many health workers are prepared to strike unless provided with even more protective barriers couldn’t fail to fill the listener with awe. “Often the fingers in my gloves are full of liquid,” the nurse had concluded, her voice exquisitely neutral. Then she shrugged one simple word: “Sweat.” 

Antonia Quirke is an author and journalist. She is a presenter on The Film Programme and Pick of the Week (Radio 4) and Film 2015 and The One Show (BBC 1). She writes a column on radio for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 15 October 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Isis can be beaten

Show Hide image

Netflix's Ozark is overstuffed – not to mention tonally weird

Could the channel use a hit? Every time my subscription leaves my bank account, I think again that it could.

The main reason why Ozark, the new Netflix series, feels so underpowered has to do with its star, Jason Bateman (who also directs): a good actor who badly wants for charisma, he simply can’t carry it alone. Watching the first few episodes, I kept thinking of Jon Hamm in Mad Men and (a better example here) Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad, both of whom played, as does Bateman, characters around which the plots of their respective series turned. When they were on screen, which was often, it was all but impossible to tear your eyes from them; when they were off it, you felt like you were only biding your time until they returned. But when Bateman disappears from view, you hardly notice. In fact, it feels like a plus: at least now you might get to see a bit more of the deft and adorable Laura Linney.

In Ozark, Bateman is Marty, an outwardly square guy whose big secret is that he is a money launderer for the second biggest drugs cartel in Mexico. When the series opens, he and his wife Wendy (Linney) and their two children are living in Chicago, where he nominally works as a financial advisor.

By the end of the first episode, however, they’re on their way to the Lake of the Ozarks in rural Missouri. Marty’s partner, Bruce, has been on the fiddle, and the cartel, having summarily executed him, now wants Marty both to pay back the cash, and to establish a few new businesses in which future income may be cleaned far from the prying eyes of the law enforcement agencies. If this sounds derivative, it is. We’re in the realm of Breaking Bad, only where that show gave us out-of-control Bunsen burners and flesh-eating chemicals, this one is more preoccupied with percentages and margins.

Where’s the friction? Well, not only is the FBI on Marty’s tail, his wife has been cheating on him, with the result that their marriage is now just another of his business arrangements. The locals (think Trump supporters with beards as big as pine trees) have proved thus far to be on the unfriendly side, and having paid off their debts, the only house Marty can afford has a cliché – sorry, crotchety old guy – living in the basement. On paper, admittedly, this all sounds moderately promising. But hilarity does not ensue. As dull as the Lake of the Ozarks when the tourist season is over, not even Linney can make Bill Dubuque’s dialogue come alive. Her character should be traumatised: before they left Chicago, the cartel, for reasons I do not completely understand, pushed her podgy lover – splat! – off his balcony. Instead, she’s fussing about the crotchety old guy’s sexism.

Ozark is overstuffed and tonally weird, so I won’t be binge-watching this one. This completes rather a bad run for me and Netflix; after the lame new series of House of Cards and the egregious Gypsy, this is the third of its shows on the trot to bore me rigid. Could the channel use a hit? Every time my subscription leaves my bank account, I think again that it could.

And now to The Sweet Makers: A Tudor Treat (19 July, 8pm), in which we hear the sound of the “living history” barrel being scraped so loudly, those attending the meeting at which it was commissioned must surely have worn ear defenders. Basically, this is a series in which four confectioners “go back in time” to discover how their forebears used sugar (first, the Tudors; next week, the Georgians).

What it means in practice is lots of Generation Game-style faffing with candied roses and coriander comfits by people in long skirts and silly hats – a hey-nonny-nonny fiesta of pointlessness that is itself a sugar coating for those nasty things called facts (ie a bit of tokenism about slavery and our ancestors’ trouble with their teeth).

Resident expert, food historian Dr Annie Gray, strained to give the proceedings urgency, sternly reminding the confectioners that the sugar house they’d spent hours building did not yet have a roof. But who cared if it didn’t? Destined to be eaten by fake Tudor guests at a fake Tudor banquet, it wasn’t as if anyone was going to lose their head for it – not even, alas, at Broadcasting House. 

Rachel Cooke trained as a reporter on The Sunday Times. She is now a writer at The Observer. In the 2006 British Press Awards, she was named Interviewer of the Year.

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder

0800 7318496