I
t will come as no surprise to those in my inner circle when I write that my favorite television show is one that most Americans have never heard of: Top Gear. Top Gear is a British automobile comedy starring three ‘gents named Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond along with a weekly collection of supercars, a celebrity or two, the news, and typically an off-the-wall challenge of some sort. And oh yes, The Stig.
The Stig is an unnamed, faceless, speechless character who’s main purpose on the show, outside of some comedy relief at his expense, is to drive each car around the same test track in order to be able to compare lap times. It has been a great stroke of planning to keep his identity and opinions outside the subject matter of the show in order to let the cars compete basically against each other without driver flavor. And the speculation as to the driver in the suit doesn’t hurt either.
There have been several men who have worn the outfit unbeknown to the viewers through the 15 series of the show. Well, I guess it was clear at one point that they had changed people as black Stig met his fate and white Stig emerged. The point of the character has been that The Stig is a… character, and that the person playing the character doesn’t matter as long has he can perform the tasks that come along with playing the part.
Intro the lawsuit. The actor who played The Stig for quite some time decided to write an autobiography about his experience. The show wants to block its publication. Andy Wilman, the producer of Top Gear, wrote an interesting article entitled “The Stig. He’s ours” and here’s an excerpt:
As you can tell I’m quite cross at the moment, but there’s plenty to be cross about. Last week, instead of working on the next series, I had to go to court. If you go to court you have to look smart, which meant I had to dig my suit out of the back of the wardrobe, and the last time I wore that suit George Michael could still drive in a straight line. So on Monday there I was, dressed like somebody who works behind the till at NatWest, having to listen to people from HarperCollins telling me that they have the right to reveal who the Stig is. Well actually, that’s tosh. The whole point of the Stig is the mystique – the bizarre characteristics he has, the wonderment created about what he might think, feel, do or look like. Kids adore the conceit, and I believe adults, although they know it’s a man in a suit (or is it?), gladly buy into the whole conceit because they find it entertaining. Even the papers, who love to make mischief, have kept everyone guessing over the years because they acknowledge that viewers like the Stig secrecy thing.
Being honest, I have an interest in reading the book. Not because of the person who wrote it — I could really care less about him. As a fan of the show I enjoy the outtakes and behind the scenes stuff. The book falls into that category for me. However, I appreciate the post that Wilman made. He showed where Top Gear is coming from in the same give-it-to-me-straight kind of fashion that makes me enjoy the show over and over again.
In the same way that many of Top Gear’s episodes over the years have not been great on their own, the progression of the series makes each show necessary for the overall sum to be a success. Their stance on this lawsuit may be very similar. You can argue their position on it pro or con just as you could Jeremy’s hatred of the Porsche Cayenne (aka Cockster). However, in the end this is just one more ‘episode’, albeit outside of any series, that — pro or con — will not spoil the whole.
