Being off school can blight your life. It all depends on what you miss. Long Division; the Past Historic; Dovetail Joints: no sweat, you’ll catch up, you’ll get the hang of it, you’ll pick it up from the repeats and action replays. But if you are tragically away on the one day in the 6 years of secondary schooling when they do ‘blow-jobs’ you’re buggered. In a manner of speaking that is. It would be unusual and perhaps deeply confusing for two such esoteric aspects of human behaviour to be covered on the same day. If even this late in life, I discover that this topic was dealt with in mixed classes I’m going to demand the refund of 6 years back dinner money.

Discovering an epistemological chasm in my mastery of all things erotic is a chastening experience for one whose attitude to sexuality and the hinterlands of sexual practice has been the same as my attitude to visual art: I don’t pretend to understand it – but I know what I like. I am now faced with a devastating example of the Law of Excluded Middle – either the question “how do you blow your load?” is as meaningless as it is tackily crass; or it makes sense and I’ve been missing out all my adult life on a definitive element in sexual gratification.

In my palpable naiveté I thought a blow-job, apart from striking me as an extremely generous act of sexual expression, was something a woman gave and a man got. Of course I understand that gender in this arrangement can be malleable, but I have always cherished the conviction that the transitivity of the practice was neither physically nor grammatically uncertain. I am embarrassed, nay deeply ashamed to have reached a full and satisfying masculine maturity without having the first idea how I would even begin to ‘blow my (own) load’. This strikes me as an onanistic mystery awaiting Dan Brown’s unsurpassed skills in explication. Perhaps it’s new: the coming thing perhaps. I fear I am going to have to file this new arcane sexual practice away with the ‘G-spots’, the uncomfortably military-sounding ‘erogenous zones’ and the ultimate confounding mystery, to we men, of the apparent, utterly unpredictable ubiquity of the clitoris. Finding the Boson? Piece of cake mate. In comparison.

Apologies Gillian but Jedi Jim was more dirty Knight than shining light this week. He was gratuitously rude, bullying, self-deluded “the PM they loved” – in fact a nasty little sh*t. For once Karen Brady got it right: manipulative and profoundly passive aggressive. These are unpleasant enough qualities in anyone but fuelled by at best half-truths, and ludicrously OTT language like ‘cowardly’, towards everyone in his team except the one he had the hots for, Zoe, they left a most unpleasant taste in the mouth.

If as has famously been said – “the past is another country” then to Glen and the hopelessly out of her depth Su, the people from that other country are as mysterious as aliens from Mars. In word, sentiment and attitude these two babes hopelessly lost in the wood, were too crassly ignorant and paradigmatically patronising for anyone of any age, to be truly offended by. In an escalating sequence of excruciatingly stupid and mind-numbingly crass proposals to name their magazine including apparently the cherishable ‘Coffin-Dodgers’, our Glen’s poverty of imagination and superficiality of thought cried out to us.

Just when we thought it was impossible to find a more stupid name than Glen’s bon mots, Zoe found it. Hip Replacement – ironic? Give me strength. Not since some pillock came up with “see their light” for catfood has common sense been so comprehensively surpassed by witlessness. Having correctly identified that charming clichéd chimera, which brings Marketers to the brink of orgasm, ‘a gap in the market’ Jim and Co, truly lead by Jim, managed to screw everything up. The mistakes were systematic and comprehensive: selecting the worst possible front page photograph from what looked like some lively options Su teased out of her excellent models; ignoring Zoe’s correct analysis of what was wrong with the front page lay-out; patronising and trivialising content; all gathered together to produce a magazine that made Women’s Realm look colorful and racy.

Jim and Co were a case of nothing Ventured nothing gained and deeply patronising to anyone over 30. Living up to their name therefore LOGIC decided to be just as crassly insulting and equally patronising to all males below that age. If I were Natasha’s father I’d be deeply concerned at her almost contemptuous conception of men: or as she might put it “they’re all lads yeah?” “Always up for a bit of tit yeah?” “so we give ‘em what they want yeah?” She appears to be sublimely unaware of this Twitterspeak verbal mannerism which the adults to whom she was pitching obviously found, as did we, incredibly irritating. In the end though LOGIC had the best mag name and at least some sense of colour in comparison to Venture’s myopic moles.

Very interesting to see Tom and Helen working together. Rapidly becoming the two most likeable Apprentices left, they are also the brightest with that rarest of Apprentice qualities – a good dose of common sense. Tom gets being a gentleman and a gentle man a good name and teams ignore his good sense and intelligent analyses at their own risk. He and Helen worked very well together and both were united in their dislike of the ‘blow your loadism’ so beloved of Natasha. Hated by 2 of the 3 buyers, this incomprehensible drivel attracted a game-busting £60,000s worth of advertising from the third: supposedly because it was addressed to a gap in the gutter, er market. So it was a triumph of the stereotypes all round this week: older people are universally doolally and all young men are ‘lads’ with tits and bums OCD.

I sincerely hope any of the Apprentices with grandparents got a good smack around the head when they got home. As for Sugar Lump’s basis for firing Glen: pure ‘engineerism’ “ I’ve never yet met an engineer who could understand business.” This is such a stupidly unqualified remark that one is sorely tempted to describe anyone who claims it is true as a jumped up little twerp: but my gentlemanly Thomasonian instincts won’t permit me to be so rude. Perhaps the Good lord! should take a look at Germany where one of the most powerful and successful economies in the world is firmly based upon belief in and respect for the qualities of first class engineers: not as in much of the UK, Spivs and B(W)ankers.

So onward and downward: Helen and Tom look competent, intelligent and likeable: Jim and Natasha look mean-spirited, arrogant and self-obsessed. Leon looks likeably ineffectual and Zoe a strong character who hasn’t yet learned to play nicely with the other boys and girls. Melody has been as quiet and unobtrusive for the last 2 weeks as we fervently wish Susan might become. If I hear her say again that she runs her own business I think I’ll top myself. Why I might even blow my load.

See also http://www.zettelfilmreviews.co.uk
Twitter: zettel23

Another great review! You're absolutely right - this is not the Jim I know! He's become too cocky but I know he'll do a u-turn. I do like Susie though. She talks a lot of sense. I do think Jim deserved the boot but there's something about him that Lord Sugar likes.

Jim's an interesting case. he is one of a number of contestants over the years to illustrate the moral ambiguities of these shows. You may remember the first Big Brother series where one contestant, can't remember his name now, lied and cheated in an effort to win. We were all innocent watchers of such new programmes at the time and didn't quite know how to judge the context, where to put our moral judgments. We didn't know whether they applied in the same way or even if they applied at all in this kind of 'reality'.

This moral ambivalence does not just occur in The Apprentice - it is the essence of the show's appeal. We enjoy the discomfiture of pomposity pricked, arrogance mocked, certainty shaken etc etc. In my remarks about Jim's behaviour this week I made the segue from his behaviour on The Apprentice to the kind of man he actually is. But it is deeply ambiguous if this is a sound judgment: clearly people on this show get hurt; they cry, they feel stupid, humiliated, feel failures etc. So what exactly is our moral view of the behaviour of the others who make them feel this way, lie to shift blame to others?

I suppose my feeling about The Apprentices is that they should not leave their morality at the Boardroom door: they should take it in there with them. But if they do that then they explode the whole rationale of the programme. The Apprentice gives schadenfreude a good name: yet taking delight in the pain and discomfort of others - is a hateful quality, rendered acceptable but the ambiguity of the programme context.

So Gillian: is this the real Jim we saw this week? The Jim who is really sitting behind the nice guy image he projects to the world? Or is the shitty Jim just playing acting out: like the actor who plays a villain in a play. We are familiar with that context - we can distinguish between a fictional character and a real person.

What do we see on The Apprentice? Real people in a stressful context: or people entering a game who assume a role in order to win it? Actors who chose to play villains don't have to be villains.

Thus: what is Reality on a 'reality' TV show?

I guess my deepest dislike about this The Apprentice is that it presumes, ecourages the view not only that all moral bets are off in business, that honour, truthfulness and honesty are [hindrances to business success; that only the shits and the egomaniacs can win. That the only way to succeed in business or life is to emulate Lord Alan Sugar's attitudes, values and behaviour.

Apart from having a bit of fun taking the piss: it is to try to give the lie to that assumption, that motivates me to write these reviews.

thanks for the comment Gillian,

best

zettel

Z, I've no intention of ever watching The Apprentice - I get my fix of Sralan from the remarkably life-like and more handsome puppet Harry Hill whips out occasionally - but your reviews are a must-see/read. And well done for being honest about your sexual mystifications; made me feel not so alone in this respect . . . er, you weren't joking, were you?

Saw this one late on I-Player. Like you, Zettel, I'm finding this series quite hard to swallow and usually emerge from it spitting with rage. It's so clear that - until the final three are chosen - people are simply being kept in for their televisual appeal, or ability to irritate and annoy (maybe that's why Lord S is still there). Glenn's dismissal this week was a perfect example. Sr'Alan appeared to loathe Jim last week and this would have been the perfect opportunity to fire him. But no. The inoffensive, likeable Glenn went. Because of the heinous crime of...BEING AN ENGINEER.
Spit!!!
Susiex

Only half-joking I guess Terry. Sexuality may be one of the few important things in our lives with no mystery left. To its detriment. And by mystery I don't mean ignorance. I'm no expert in these matters but if I've learned anything over the years; when we've got all the facts straight and the techniques clear - we haven't even scratched the surface of what's important and difficult about the proper place of sexuality in human relationships.

Thanks for the comments.

best

Z