mon 06/05/2024

School of Saatchi, BBC Two/ Gracie!, BBC Four | reviews, news & interviews

School of Saatchi, BBC Two/ Gracie!, BBC Four

School of Saatchi, BBC Two/ Gracie!, BBC Four

Art goes X Factor, and Gracie Fields goes to war

Thanks to the shenanigans of Brit-art superstars like Messrs Emin and Hirst, Art has become a lucrative appendage of pop culture, so it’s only logical that it should be given its own version of X Factor, with a bit of Apprentice-style authoritarianism bolted on for good measure. In School of Saatchi, a panel of judges sifts through a long list of hopefuls who are whittled down to 12, then six, then finally to the chosen one who will be installed in a London studio for three years under Charles Saatchi’s patronage.

Saatchi (“one of the most influential and enigmatic figures in the world of modern art”) eschews the camera and monitors the operation at arm’s length, sending in his trusted aide Rebecca Wilson to relay his comments, and delivering his imperious verdict on who’s in and who’s out over the phone. Rumour has it that an early treatment for the show proposed to have Saatchi’s disembodied voice coming out of a loudspeaker, like Charlie in Charlie’s Angels.
 
In approved reality TV style, School of Saatchi commenced with a preamble where we could have a good scoff at the really crap candidates who were dismissed out of hand, like the sculptor who wanted to convey the concept of “connecting with an artist” via two crumpled balls of paper containing email messages. But soon we were meeting and greeting more plausible contenders, such as Hong Kong-born video artist Suki Chan, sculptor Samuel Zealey or the amusingly excitable multimedia artist Saad Qureshi.
 
Nobody wanted to be Simon Cowell, though theartsdesk’s favourite critic Matthew Collings kept putting contestants on the spot by asking them, “Why is it art?”, but Tracey Emin boldly embraced the Cheryl Cole role. Not the legs and the spangly micro-dresses, obviously, but she exhibited an unsuspected empathy for the nervous candidates, and stepped in decisively to rescue installation artist Eugenie Scrasce from expulsion. Before Tracey’s divine intervention, art curator Kate Bush thought Eugenie had something fake and superficial about her. Afterwards, and having witnessed Eugenie’s challenging juxtaposition of an Ikea door-handle and a lipstick-stained whistle, Kate was hailing her as an heir to Marcel Duchamp. Collings warned us that the age of Rubens and Picasso is behind us, never to return, but with explosive  talent like this on display, we are surely poised to celebrate the dawn of a new Belle Epoque.
 
BBC Four's Women We Loved series continued with Gracie!, in which Jane Horrocks mined her Lancastrian roots to portray World War Two-vintage caterwauler Gracie Fields. Fields was one of Britain's biggest stars just as the lights started to go out all over Europe, but time has displayed a somewhat jaundiced attitude to her singular brand of entertainment. Horrocks possesses an authentic set of singing tackle, and is renowned for her impersonations of the likes of Shirley Bassey and Judy Garland, so Fields' terrifying arsenal of squawks and cackles were well within her compass (Jane Horrocks as Gracie, pictured below).
 
You'd have thought the piercing ghastliness of "Wish Me Luck as You Wave Me Goodbye" or "Walter, Walter, Lead Me to the Altar" would have driven the citizenry screaming from the theatre, but apparently they paid money to listen.
 
Musical taste aside, Gracie! concentrated on her marriage to Italian film director Monty Banks, who would have been interned as an enemy alien if Fields hadn't managed to persuade Winston Churchill to send her, with Monty in tow, off to Canada to boost Britain's war effort abroad. This provoked accusations that she'd abandoned Blighty in its darkest hour, and her popularity never fully recovered.
 
Fields had a complicated and rather interesting life, but this wasn't the film to do it justice. It looked like a series of scenes from the kind of stage musical that closes during the interval on opening night, and was hamstrung by cardboard characterisation and risible efforts at period detail. Sequences like the one where Fields, visiting British troops in France in 1940, was implored by an eager squaddie to "sing a song to remind me of my sweetheart - her name's Sally" wouldn't have made the cut in a junior school panto.
 
To add insult to injury, Tom Hollander played Monty Banks as the twin brother of David Suchet's Poirot, all silk scarves, pomaded hair and an effete Continental lisp. The real "hardy lass from the North" would have been aghast.
Gracie! repeats on BBC Four on Thursday November 26 at 10pm, Friday November 27 at 12.50am and Saturday November 28 at 9pm
 

Share this article

Comments

Probably one of the worst programmes I have seen, the so called art critics where dreadful and didnt have a clue about art, I mean real art as in drawing and painting not rubbish modern art where it has no meaning or skill involved, you could tell the critics and the paricipents didnt have a clue what they where going on about they where clutching at straws trying to make something up, when they acutally didnt mean anything it just shows how bad modern art is and there is no place for it in the real art world

The only artist on last night's episode of School of Saatchi was the young girl with the portrait of a tattoo man - I think her name was Khana Evans? She said the only sensible thing on the show when she said that it was all 'bollocks!'. She's damn right!!! The talented ones walked and the talentless have a lot to learn about real art.

I think it is very sad that obviously talented artists such as Khana Evans were not picked to display to Charles Saatchi. Her portrait of a tatooed man was stunning and her attitude towards her own concept of art was refreshing. With a talent like hers she wil succeed anyway!

I feel for all contestants. Facing the insecurity and jealousies of some self-proclaimed slick art experts. Even though the process and its panel is much annoying, the prize for the chosen one will be very real. The absurd indeed reached its climax when one of the jurors claimed: "Even I could have done that drawing much better" - but you didn't ! Very sad is, that nobody on the show obviously knows what art really is. If the young artists like to know what art is, I am happy to enlighten them any time. For the panel I am afraid it might be to late. Neon, London

The only good artist picked of the lost was a young artist who didnt have any academic experience but worked with watercolours - dont know his name but shows you dont need to have a degree to make good art.

I work in a major art gallery and one of my roles is to demonstrate to the public how wonderful, challenging and enlightening contemporary art can be. How disappointing then that this programme seemed no more than a parody of contemporary art. The critics (some of whom I usually admire) immersed themselves in clichés, showed a deliberate lack of a wider understanding of subject, and cooed over such terrible work. If there aim was to highlight some of the more unfathomable sides to art and put people off for life then they really succeeded. Armando Iannucci couldn't have produced a script that mocked contemporary art so well. Sadly it wasn't meant to be funny, which just made me groan with embarrassment.

Add comment

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters