Perhaps in the next installment, Suzie Cocktail will appear at the very end, popping into the studio as a last-minute interviewee? Or even anyone recognizable from this forum. No?
The Life and Times of Jeremy Spicer Page 2
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 20 2009, 8:26 PM GMTThere's no need for that Sooty.
Thanks. I did think that a tad unfair but we are in critique after all.
Quote: Ben @ December 20 2009, 8:36 PM GMTSorry, James, but I could only manage 3 minutes. If there's no laughs by then, I'm out.
The other main problems is that your description of the show is:
"The life and times of an ex-Newsnight presenter who now spend his time languishing on his local radio station The Sound of Surrey 109.4 FM presenting The Nightly Debate with Jeremy Spicer at 1am in the morning"
That description is essentially the description of "I'm Alan Partridge", but with some minor changes. The character himself seems to be a mix of Partridge and David Brent which blows any chances of originality out of the water.
It isn't met to be laugh out loud. It's a character piece. Maybe I should label it as comedy-drama and people won't be expecting something there (they're) not going to get.
As mentioned earlier he has similarities with Partridge and some with Brent but not a lot. It's taking the bitterness that Partridge has got and rather then (than) pretending everything alright when it's not Spicer vents his aggression with little outbursts laced with hypocritical underlining.
I think you shouldn't change it to comedy drama. I agree that at the moment there are far too many people who class sutble comedy with a naturalsitc feel as comedy drama. It means a show has to be full of slapstick, over the top performances and a studio audience to be classed as a comedy.
If people took this attitude a few years ago then The Office and The Royle Family and possibly the Peep Show would be comedy dramas.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 20 2009, 8:39 PM GMTI basically agree with Ben. You're always going to suffer with those comparisons, so the only way of getting past that is by making it damn funny; unfortunately there just wasn't enough funny there.
As you might have noticed already I am a comedian who doesn't do jokes. I can't write them really and a lot of my comedy comes from the character. The problem with this sort of comedy is it takes a bit of time to get into but if you stick with it I think you would enjoy it. My favourites bit's are at the end of part two yet most people have only watched the first three minutes.
Quote: James Cotter @ December 21 2009, 12:05 PM GMTI am a comedian who doesn't do jokes.
You should team up with Sooty, he doesn't do jokes either.
Quote: SlagA @ December 20 2009, 9:11 PM GMTNicely shot and acted well but you clutter the funny with sections that a viewer will take as granted. The opening studio shot where he gives the phone number, and other contact details is utterly irrelevant in a mockumentary. Either make a joke of it (he keeps getting the number wrong or it's the number of his last radio station etc) or let the viewer assume that these bits occur in his show. Don't clutter it in an attempt to make it too documentary than mockumentary.
The phone call (working class) is good but the naturalistic pauses etc should be shorter and he needs to be more extreme in his questioning style to create conflict, maybe? Don't imitate real life exactly, rather pick out the key parts and squeeze them in to get it denser.
Agree with everyone else, Alan Partridge comparisons will not make your task easier. I think the moment you start writing from within rather than relying so heavily on derivatives of your influences it'll make you a stronger writer. Personally, I'd list all the characteristics of Coogan or Gervais' creations and then work on a character built on all the antonyms, that way you'll be out of the shadow of your heroes.
These vids (like all other writers' projects) are just stepping stones to the next. So keep moving on, put Spicer and Good Times etc in the past and move on to the next project.
In summary, your performances are very good. You have a confidence and style that I admire but you haven't yet learnt how to use that to your advantage.
Thanks for saying you enjoyed the performance and you liked the way it was shot.
The whole irrelevant shots thing is just to signify how meaningless his life has become and if people find it dull they should.
I love the whole Shirley phone call but agree that some of the pauses are slightly to long but I find it to often that I watch comedy and they literally pick up a phone and start talking to someone with no gaps I find that very annoying. The reason for some of the gaps are because I am trying to think about what to say next as I ad-libbed the whole segment, I think I did a good job considering.
Don't get me wrong I know that it is similar to Alan Partridge but I think takes a slightly different angle on it.
I am already working on other projects and do agree that all these videos are stepping stones.
I think maybe I need some good writers to write for me as every critique whether it be this or Back to Class people always say they thought the performance was good so maybe that's the way forward.
Quote: James Cotter @ December 21 2009, 12:05 PM GMTMy favourites bit's are at the end of part two yet most people have only watched the first three minutes.
Maybe so with the better parts near the end but you have to draw people in and fast. Your audience wants to be entertained and you have a minute or so grace to at least give them a laugh before they begin to turn off. So you really have to address the structure of what you do. To say that you need 20 minutes to develop a character before he provides a laugh isn't true.
Every comedy should give laughs via the process of developing character. 
Quote: Badge @ December 20 2009, 9:25 PM GMTIt does seem very derivative, even to the 1970s song over the closing credits. I agree with others that you need to make it different from what's already been done by your heroes, and you need to have regular gags too. It was also pretty uninteresting visually.
Like Back to Class you're also too young to play this part and that's another distraction working against you.
I am not a big admirer of your work so far James but I do admire your balls. Though I'm disappointed you haven't called it The Spicer Life. You can still have that one if you like.
You didn't like the David Bowie song used in the credits? I thought it summed up the show.
Visually interesting is something I'm not a fan of. I could quite happily watch thirty minutes set in one place and if you have seen my works before you would know that. Maybe I'm more suited to the radio.
Ok I am not too young to play the part as Jeremy isn't that much older then me. That's difference with this character to Partridge or Brent. He's still got time to get out of his rut but he's to bitter to do anything about it. He needs someone to come along and kick him up the arse and maybe that person will.
Thanks for saying you admire my balls, that's the nicest thing you have ever said. I hope you will become a admirer of my work overtime.
Quote: James Cotter @ December 21 2009, 12:16 PM GMTThe whole irrelevant shots thing is just to signify how meaningless his life has become and if people find it dull they should.
I think maybe I need some good writers to write for me as every critique whether it be this or Back to Class people always say they thought the performance was good so maybe that's the way forward.
Re: the meaningless life, maybe he needs to be delivering it like it's internal agony for him to keep repeating those words. Something that shows the conflict between what he does and what he feels. His face or what he's doing should reflect the misery.
Also in portraying the mundane / dullness it can be done in a comic way. We should be left feeling that Spicer thinks his life is dull but the audience should never feel that same dullness in the act of watching, they are there for entertainment. So I'd use comic ways to demonstrate his despair that will make your audience laugh.
Your performances are great. But yes, you need to analyse what you're writing or work with writers who'll bring something new to the vision.
Quote: Ronnie Anderson @ December 20 2009, 11:51 PM GMTI agree you are far too young to play the role but in a way it is good that you are because in about ten years time your writing will have improved, you will be just about ready to play these older roles but having played them for so long you will extra skilled at it.
I agree mostly with SlagA.
That is one way of looking at it I suppose. I can't help writing and performing older roles for me they are far more interesting then (THAN) younger roles. Like I said earlier maybe I should go into radio, then people wouldn't know it was a younger person.
Quote: James Cotter @ December 21 2009, 12:05 PM GMTMy favourites bit's are at the end of part two yet most people have only watched the first three minutes.
The Bowie tune is the icing on the Cotter cake. You're now a recognizable face (at least to me), so that no matter what you do, I'll watch and enjoy. A bit like when The Pixies released Bam Thwok - sure it wasn't a particularly brilliant record, but it was The Pixies, so therefore - and depsite any absence of merit - it was great. That's a rather clumsy and misleading comparison, as Jeremy Spicer is way better than Back To Class, in my opinion.
James, you have essentially written a monologue but have confused it with phone calls and etc. It should probably be one thing or the other. Monolugues work best when the character is not self aware and gradually over the course of the piece the narrative is revealed. It should therefore have a narrative structure which yours doesn;t really, if you think about it we know everything there is to know about your character within a very short space of time and we don't go anywhere else with him. We know all we need to know in a way from reading the description. Have alook at shaping a story, the building blocks are reveals and surprises and relevations and a resoultion at the end. I hate the cliche but I will use it anyway - you need to take your audience on a voyage of discovery with your character, it's not a pen portrait - it's a story after all.
Quote: SlagA @ December 21 2009, 12:25 PM GMTRe: the meaningless life, maybe he needs to be delivering it like it's internal agony for him to keep repeating those words. Something that shows the conflict between what he does and what he feels. His face or what he's doing should reflect the misery.
Also in portraying the mundane / dullness it can be done in a comic way. We should be left feeling that Spicer thinks his life is dull but the audience should never feel that same dullness in the act of watching, they are there for entertainment. So I'd use comic ways to demonstrate his despair that will make your audience laugh.
Your performances are great. But yes, you need to analyse what you're writing or work with writers who'll bring something new to the vision.
Well I wrote a scene in which he has to give out the contact details for who the show was funded by which was a Indian takeaway I think, you see a bit of it but it fades out in the show but the whole things which was a lot longer shows that internal agony well.
I will think about my structure a bit more and hopefully will be working with some writers to do that.
Haven't been able to watch it yet, but James how do you write your material? Do you write it all down and learn it or improvise it or a mixture of the two? Because it might be worth getting someone to edit the script before you film stuff.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ December 21 2009, 12:43 PM GMTHaven't been able to watch it yet, but James how do you write your material? Do you write it all down and learn it or improvise it or a mixture of the two? Because it might be worth getting someone to edit the script before you film stuff.
Love to hear you feedback when you do.
It depends on the project. Harris & Doyle I wrote the complete script and ad-libbed the odd line but on the whole apart from one whole improvised scene (in the car on the way to the car park) it was all scripted. This however was on the whole retro-scripted with some scenes written and some with a outline but the rest ad-libed on the day. My next project A Matter of Principle is completed scripted. I wrote the whole of that by Dictaphoning myself in character then transcribing after and script editing it but that is because I am not in that one so different styles for different projects really.
Quote: Kenneth @ December 21 2009, 8:12 AM GMTIt's a Christmas miracle! And I love it!
What the show?
Quote: sootyj @ December 21 2009, 8:20 AM GMTWell I made it to the end of episode one. James you've got great production values, it's all well put together. But the humour is well none existent, there's no gags or comedic structures at all.
The whole Shirley thing by not being funny comes over as just a bit of mean bullying. This is based on Alan Partridge and the joke there is Alan is a monster constantly reflected in other people's reactions.
Also why would a reactionary like him read the Guardian?
Thanks for making it to the end of episode one.
Thanks for the complement regarding production values. With regard to gags I don't really do gags it's character comedy which takes time to get a character as explained earlier.
I thought the Shirley thing was quite funny. A tad to long? Maybe but still quite funny.
"Shirley can I just ask you one question, just out of interest because I've always wanted to know this. Do you pay council tax?"
Because he isn't your cliché right-wing Daily Mail reader he is you more liberal Guardian reader. Just because he's strong minded doesn't make him right-wing.
Quote: Marc P @ December 21 2009, 10:20 AM GMTI have to say I laughed at the you could be the new Keith Chegwin - and good to see the hair got slicked back as planned.
My favourite bit by far. That makes me laugh every time I see it. I defy anyone not to find that funny, even a little a bit funny.
Yes the hair was slicked back. Glad you liked it.
Quote: Kenneth @ December 21 2009, 11:49 AM GMTPerhaps in the next installment, Suzie Cocktail will appear at the very end, popping into the studio as a last-minute interviewee? Or even anyone recognizable from this forum. No?
Maybe I should a poll deciding on who should appear in a cameo?