Sex In Court, E4

by | Mar 29, 2007 | All, Reviews

Did we like it?

An attempt to show fornication under the unconvincing guise and unimpeachable moral authority of a courtroom in which awful people who make a case for legalised abortion up to the age of 30 have their sexual disputes solved by a judge and jury. It sends you numb with horror save for the occasional pinprick of amusement.

What was tolerable about it?

• The utter absurdity of the cases brought before the court. The first concerned Rachel who wanted her husband Guy to refrain from his demands of anal sex. It was amusing to see Guy’s sickening masculinity challenged when the judge asked him if he would like items inserted up his posterior.

• The jury scenes were mercifully brief as they all appeared to have been picked up from a morons’ convention, or were at least edited to appear so.

What was bad about it?

• It resembled a porn film when a flimsy plot is concocted to frame the money shots.

• The second case involved Ashley and Joanna. Joanna was irate that Ashley had filmed one of their sex sessions and shown his mates down the pub. Her response was to agree to appear on a TV programme when the footage that had so embarrassed her was shown to the nation (albeit in pixelated form). Meanwhile, Ashley who had got such a thrill from showing off his prowess to his mates was given the chance to show off to an even wider audience and therefore an even bigger thrill. Sure, he was found guilty and ‘lost’ the case but he’s fulfilled his wildest fantasies.

• Ashley’s friend who alerted Joanna to her boyfriend’s deception did little to convince us the whole thing was a set up for a pair of exhibitionists after he claimed: “I was lookin’ through Ashley’s videos [on his phone], and I found the film of him and Joanna so obviously I watched it.” As a friend to both, surely he would have switched off the debauchery?

• And even if it was a set-up, you imagine that E4 wouldn’t have cared so long as it meant that it could show young people having sex and talking about it ‘in court’.

• The dismal ‘ironic’ voiceover that was full of double-entendres Julian Clary would have run out of town, and appeared as comic relief when it became apparent just how appalling the rest of the show was.

Luke Knowles

Luke Knowles

29/03/2007

Editor of the website and host of the podcast. A general TV obsessive. I've been running the site since 2008 and you can usually find me in front of the TV. My Favourite show of all time is Breaking Bad with Cracker coming a close second. I feel so passionately that television can change the world and I'm doing my little bit by running this site. You're Welcome!

Tags:

Follow us:

Our Latest Posts:

0 Comments

Submit a Comment