The Apprentice

The Apprentice

I have watched this show from the start and in all that time Alan Sugar has made but one mistake in keeping a candidate on a further week when someone else should have gone, (Stuart Baggs) this very fact underpins the very real and identifiable skills that are required in the changing world of business. Of course these are very different skills from a profession that does not have a product or need to sell or market.

The candidates have often already risen to the top of the pile through avarice and it is for this reason and the constant refreshing of the format that keeps this show at the top of its game.

If I was to acknowledge a weakness it is the creeping political correctness and it's often London centric concerns that reflect the aberration of the metropolis and its peddling of liberal authoritarianism. The programme must always reflect the wider UK to maintain is relevance and preeminence.

Tom Allen on your fired is the best since Adrian Chiles

'The Apprentice' is labelled as the interview from hell, and it is certainly no walk in the park. A range of aspirants from wide-ranging backgrounds are formed into two teams and must attempt to make the most amount of money in a variety of tasks, with one member from each of the losing team getting fired after each task until only one person is left.

The decision to have Sir Alan Sugar head the show was inspired as though he may not be the richest entrepreneur in Britain, his gruff, no-nonsense manner works very well on television and better I suspect than someone like Richard Branson. His sidekicks Margaret Mountford and Nick Hewer are also great value with their world-weary sarcasm and their ability to say more with a lifted eyebrow than anybody since Roger Moore in 'The Saint.' Sir Alan makes tough and controversial decisions about who gets fired each week and though as a viewer you may not agree with his choice, ultimately it is up to him as he will have to pay the winner's wage packet. With some tasks taking place over several days, we get to see what the editor wanted to some degree and not necessarily a 100% accurate reflection of events, but The Apprentice is supposed to be entertaining and not a documentary about business practises.

There are frequent accusations of bullying being encouraged by the programme. While it is true that the candidates will often do their best to stab each other in the back whenever possible, there is some satisfaction in seeing the negative tactics leading to the failure of the task and the possibility of them being fired. There is even more to be had when people who claim in front of the camera to be able to able to crush anybody in their way turn into jellyfish when they get into the boardroom. The tension mounts considerably as the series goes on, as the obviously weaker candidates get filtered out and there is less room to hide behind other people when things go wrong (as they frequently do). Some of the bitchiness and aggressiveness must come from the pressure on the candidates which must be enormous, increased by the television cameras and in particular when for most of them being the winner would be a massive opportunity.

I can't help but feel that the quality of the candidates has declined since the first season as now the producers probably have to wade through applications from people who failed the Big Brother audition. Also the fact that some of the losers have managed to carve out TV careers for themselves probably boosts the attraction for fame-hungry applicants. It is certainly worrying if the 14 finalists represent the greatest business potential in the UK, though in fairness in the business world a £100,000 salary is probably not enough incentive to attract the best who are on more than this money already.

For once a winning format has managed to cross the Atlantic and actually last unlike so many others in the past decade and appears to be here to stay for a good while yet.

When this came out it used to be interesting to watch. The contestants seemed quite good and the tasks made sense.

The longer it's gone on the more it's skewed to having contestants who are annoying and seem to be there to make a name for themselves, but to be honest it's the programme itself that's led to that.

The tasks they're given and the way the show is presented is so manufactured now and clearly edited/scripted to be that way.

The sooner this is scrapped the better!

From the outset, this show has always been interesting. Tempers fraying, tense boardroom meetings and the on-going quarrels of Saira and Paul all mix together to make one hell of a good show.

I, myself, am rooting for Saira to win, but that is irrelevant at the moment. For anyone who hasn't watched it as of yet, do so. Yeah, Alan Sugar is a rude and ignorant jerk - but it just makes it more compelling to watch! As to who I think will win...well Miriam and James are good contenders, Paul is hope goes next because I find him repulsive, but he has a good chance. Saira also has a good chance.

Plus, Alan, I praise you for kicking Raj out - totally inadiquate.

Fourteen aspiring business people (seven men and seven women) come together to go for one available job working for Sir Alan Sugar for $100,000 a year. However this is no ordinary job interview and instead of being a couple of days long the interview lasts about 12 weeks. Each week the two teams are given a task to carry out, the team that succeeds the most (in terms of sales generally) is rewarded but the team that loses is berated before three are selected for one final discussion before Sugar fires one.

I didn't bother with this show at first just because I'm not a massive fan of reality shows and this one looked like it was based on cruelty and shouting. However I gradually started to watch it and, although I don't worry about missing a show, I do enjoy it as a show. The task structure makes each week different and interesting for different reasons and I was surprised by how engaging each show was. Of course being a harder reality show it is driven forward by a lot of fighting, raised voices and confrontation but it is not forced or cruel for the sake of it – it just happens as a result of the structure and task. The dynamics of the characters are constantly interesting and it is impossible to watch it without getting drawn into the debate and judgement. This is why it works because it engages on this level – you won't like many of the people in the show and you may not like Sugar but it is the dramatic race against time and tensions that make it work.

I'm not totally convinced that the whole business concept rings true because for the type of job they are going for £100,000 a year isn't really that much money, plus their antics are not the sort of thing you expect from people in their earning bracket or areas of responsibilities. Some of them are smart, sharp and controlled but others you just have to wonder why they think anyone would want to give them a lot of responsibility. The tasks do require skills but they normally are more about the ability to work under a great deal of time pressure that makes them hard rather than requiring much more than good common sense. So aside from the link to business skills being a bit questionable this is quite an enjoyable show. It is cruel (Sugar plays the harsh host just like countless others) but mostly it is interesting and engaging to watch the two sides race against the clock (and each other) to complete their task. A winning formal then which, although it is a reality gameshow, stands out as one of the stronger reality gameshows.