|
This story brought to you by Welshman.
Whilst Dan and Vic were having their 1.30
a.m. talk in the garden, the following piece of conversation
took place which I can only paraphrase from memory:
__________________________________________________________________
Dan: Is it right Jason had a nudity clause in his contract?
Vic: Yeah, he had one
Dan: (laughing) It makes me wonder why I didn't have one.
Makes me wonder "Hey. What's wrong with me?"
Vic: I had the create mayhem clause, man. Shit, that was ma
thing, like, you know what I mean? What they brought me in
for, man. Now they want it different, man. I said that to
them man and they said "now we want you to change your
strategy" and I said no way, man, I mean that's me man, I'm
gonna be true to me man. That's who I am."
____________________________________________________________________
What I didn't know was that their contracts actually contain
the requirement to behave in certain ways.
Dan's comment about Jason's contract seemed a totally
straight lead into his joke about "Why didn't they ask me to
go nude as well"
Vic seemed genuinely peeved that they had pulled the rug
from under the agreement they had reached as to what he
would do in the house.
The comments about these clauses appeared quite genuine. The
conversation was not focussed on their existence but on what
they had been expected to do under them.
I suppose, if you think about it, if someone says "Hey, take
me into the house and you will get a lot of nudity", they
will want to put something in the contract that will allow
them to exploit that without later repercussions. Similarly,
if Vic said to them that he would play the bad boy, the
nasty Nick, the schemer when he went in, they would want to
protect themselves from any serious public backlash by means
of a clause which ensures Vic takes full responsibility for
his actions.
Interestingly, Dan also said "I didn't have any clauses
[laughs] I have no idea what they wanted from me"
So who does have special clauses and who doesn't?
For example, can Michelle's extraordinary and immediate
obsessive attempts to corner Stu[pid] be because she had
stated her willingness to have sex romps and she had a
clause allowing Channel 4 to show this and which she felt
obliged to perform to? It would explain a lot.
A further thought: Why did Channel 4 allow this conversation
to be heard? Immediately before it and after it there were
sound cuts.
An answer could be that Channel 4 is quite seriously
concerned about public opinion in the aftermath of this
week?s events in the house. Whilst doing so was nonsense,
the reporting of the fracas to the police and various
"public figure" comments about it all may make Channel 4
want to be clear to everyone that it is a game, that the
contestants are willing and conscious participants and that
Channel 4 is not exploiting innocents.
So why this greater openess?
Isn't the Head of Channel 4 to be the new BBC Director
General? We shouldn't underestimate the delicacy of the
politics surrounding anything that goes "wrong" whilst the
changeover is taking place. The "great and the good" are
very sensitive to these things and the soft porn label that
the tabloids gave Mark Thompson when his new appointment was
announced will have got home.
|
