The Trip - Series 1 Page 17

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 9:34 AM GMT

I'd like the fans of this show to be more specific about what they think makes this show good.

So you think it's "Impressive" or "well-observed" or god-forbid "funny" then be specific and say why.

I think it a poor piece of work and here's why:

1) It is dramatically inactive. The characters wants and/or needs are deeply unclear.

2) The relationship between the primary characters is irrelevant to the forward motion of the individuals. Meaning they aren't trying to get anything from one another - they have no dramatic purpose for being in the same room together.

3) Individual events do not add up to anything. The photographer does a line...so what? It never goes anywhere and is irrelevant to the Coogan's journey (what little journey he has) Brydon researches Coleridge...reads his poem.... to what end? It doesn't influence the characters or the audience's understanding of the characters.

4) It's repetitive. This has been mentioned a lot here, not sure it requires further explanation but if some one wants to throw the Beckett/Pinter argument at me privately I'll take it on.

5) The whole food angle is deeply muddy. Why are they reviewing restaurants? What do we learn about them or ourselves from this endeavour? So they know nothing about food - we got that in the first episode now what statement are they trying to make by having us watch them eat (with ignorance) in successive episodes?

I look forward to your responses!

View original

Have you been reading the Playwrights Guidebook by Stuart Spencer by any chance?

On your points:
1) To me this is a reflective piece, both characters are around the traditional mid-life crisis age and are taking stock. Particulary Coogan who is deeply unsatisfied with his life. Coogan clearly 'wants' to be an A-List film star and have Misha and his children love him, as well as the public respect him for something other than Partridge.

2) What they get is competition, perspective and comparison, similar careers, similar age, similar talents etc.

3) Not all stories follow a cause/effect structure. That doesn't make it bad or good.

4) I agree.

5) I doubt they are making any such statement.

A couple of really big laughs in the last episode; Steve Coogan's dream and his response to Rob's Alan Partridge impression: "I'd love to quote your own stuff back at you, but I just don't know any." Really enjoying this.

I'm sorry Nat. My intention is not to be pushy but to try to engage in a serious debate.

I'm new to the world of internet forums so if you could help me understand how I've been pushy I'd appreciate it. I thought I had been very polite but clearly I'm mistaken. Mea Culpa.

Marc, I'm sorry I missed the post where you asked what sitcoms I like. A few as of late:
30 Rock
Peep Show
Arrested Development
The IT Crowd
Grandma's House
Modern Family

And yourself?

Marc you use the phrase "well-crafted". Could you give some more detail on that?

Thanks!

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 1:39 PM GMT

Marc you use the phrase "well-crafted". Could you give some more detail on that?

Thanks!

View original

I like all sorts from Dad's Army to The Trip! And Miranda I am very much enjoying at the moment. Well crafted just means all the elements that go to make up a production, acting, writing, camerawork, productions values etc.

Quote: jacparov @ November 25 2010, 1:34 PM GMT

Have you been reading the Playwrights Guidebook by Stuart Spencer by any chance?

On your points:
1) To me this is a reflective piece, both characters are around the traditional mid-life crisis age and are taking stock. Particulary Coogan who is deeply unsatisfied with his life. Coogan clearly 'wants' to be an A-List film star and have Misha and his children love him, as well as the public respect him for something other than Partridge.

2) What they get is competition, perspective and comparison, similar careers, similar age, similar talents etc.

3) Not all stories follow a cause/effect structure. That doesn't make it bad or good.

4) I agree.

5) I doubt they are making any such statement.

View original

Thanks Jacparov - I appreciate your thoughts.

Your first point is a great example of what I'm talking about - You say he wants Misha and his children to love him.... Ok, great, that's a fine character trait (though I don't remember any references to children but...not the point...) But how do we know that? He calls Misha twice over the first two episodes but then nothing in the last two and he still pursues other women.

My point is that this show is poorly written because things like this are left dangling into irrelevance. If he wants Misha then what is he doing to pursue her? Did he give up on her? If he did why didn't the artists show us that change in character? Why hasn't he called her in two episodes?

I haven't been reading that book - should I?

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 1:50 PM GMT

Thanks Jacparov - I appreciate your thoughts.

Your first point is a great example of what I'm talking about - You say he wants Misha and his children to love him.... Ok, great, that's a fine character trait (though I don't remember any references to children but...not the point...) But how do we know that? He calls Misha twice over the first two episodes but then nothing in the last two and he still pursues other women.

My point is that this show is poorly written because things like this are left dangling into irrelevance. If he wants Misha then what is he doing to pursue her? Did he give up on her? If he did why didn't the artists show us that change in character? Why hasn't he called her in two episodes?

I haven't been reading that book - should I?

View original

The Coogan character is shown as being conflicted, not really knowing what he wants other than film fame, and seems generally unhappy and lost. Coogan is also known, in real life, if you believe the tabloid stories, as a womaniser, so it's no surprise that, even if he says he wants one woman, he still goes off with others.

Coogan was over possesive and jealous of Misha. That came over quite clearly in the phone calls to her.

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 1:50 PM GMT

I haven't been reading that book - should I?

View original

Doesn't hurt to study a form in which one wishes to work. Your points are all to do with arcing characters. Characters don't have to arc in sitcom. Usually they don't at all. The 'journey' expression you used before is a a soap editors cliche. I hate the expression.

I think by episode 6 Coogan will have been on a journey. Winterbottom is a filmmaker and I see The Trip as a three hour film chopped into six parts.

Quote: chipolata @ November 25 2010, 2:00 PM GMT

I think by episode 6 Coogan will have been on a journey. Winterbottom is a filmmaker and I see The Trip as a three hour film chopped into six parts.

View original

I think he did say he was going to cut a film version and show it in Toronto.

Quote: chipolata @ November 25 2010, 2:00 PM GMT

I see The Trip as a three hour film chopped into six parts.

View original

It's coming out as film in other countries, apparently. Though in a new edit, not just all six episodes stuck one after the other.

Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 2:02 PM GMT

I think he did say he was going to cut a film version and show it in Toronto.

View original

Did he say that before or after reading my post?

Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 1:55 PM GMT

Doesn't hurt to study a form in which one wishes to work. You're points are all to do with arcing characters. Characters don't have to arc in sitcom. Usually they don't at all. The 'journey' expression you used before is a a soap editors cliche. I hate the expression.

View original

Thanks Marc,

I've just completed a Master's (with distinction! whoopie for moi!) in writing, my final was an original sitcom. I'm going to lay off the theory for a while and focus on reality.

You are absolutely right that very often characters in sitcoms do not evolve, however if you look at Peep Show or the fabulous Rev, you'll find examples, almost always British by the way, where they do.

Ok so if the point is that they don't arc and each episode is supposed to be a self contained event then why set up a six episode series as a single trip, going so far as to title it "The Trip"?

And if each episode is self-contained why are so many threads established and then dropped? I'd argue its pure lazy writing...

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 1:39 PM GMT

I'm new to the world of internet forums so if you could help me understand how I've been pushy I'd appreciate it. I thought I had been very polite but clearly I'm mistaken. Mea Culpa.

View original

Oh no, I can see where this is leading!

You are right you have been absolutely polite. Doesn't make your line of questioning any less pushy though.

ANYWAY. I might as well throw my feelings into this now I've implicated myself.

Characters- as far as my feelings towards it go, the characters are well written. Well written (or created if we're being contentious) for me because as the 'story' progresses I am seeing more and more of their personalities/goals/aspirations/weaknesses come through, without the need for the need for clumsy exposition.

For example, the moment with Coogan in the mirror doing the Brydon impression shows us his insecurities towards a man who he publicly suggests is 'lower' than him in the showbiz pecking order. This tells us a huge ammount about his inner workings without him saying it.

The characters are believable, and in this 'real world' context that is what they need to me. They are perfectly suited to the scenario they have been placed in. Also, you could argue that they are will written because they are constantly evolving whilst still remaining absolutely believable. The Coogan and Brydon we saw in the last episode are arguably quite different to the ones we see in the beginning of the first. Through every episode, the tension between them builds (eg when Coogan proclaimed that he couldn't name any of Brydon's work), and it is done in a way which feel natural and not forced.

In terms of the set-up (the actual trip itself), I would argue that this isn't the main narrative, but is only a vehicle for the characters to come through. For me it's not a story about restaurant reviews, but about the relationship of the men. By choosing this setup, they have forced the characters into an extreme situation where they are constantly together. The physical setup of the two person table forces them to converse. The fact that they know nothing about food is probably important too, as two keen foodies would gab on about the food. Because they don't, it frees them up to take the conversation where they like.

Can't remember what your other questions are, but there's my two cents!

I must add that I am not a sitcom writer, so these feelings are purely from a viewer's POV.

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 1:50 PM GMT

Thanks Jacparov - I appreciate your thoughts.

Your first point is a great example of what I'm talking about - You say he wants Misha and his children to love him.... Ok, great, that's a fine character trait (though I don't remember any references to children but...not the point...) But how do we know that? He calls Misha twice over the first two episodes but then nothing in the last two and he still pursues other women.

My point is that this show is poorly written because things like this are left dangling into irrelevance. If he wants Misha then what is he doing to pursue her? Did he give up on her? If he did why didn't the artists show us that change in character? Why hasn't he called her in two episodes?

I haven't been reading that book - should I?

View original

I suppose we don't 'know' as such but as Chipolata said his tone was very possessive in the phone calls, which to me suggested that he cared for her and was perhaps insecure about the relationship.

I dare say it was left ambiguous on purpose.
I would guess he is not chasing after her because:
A) That's not what the story is really about and,
B) He is on a job, she was supposed to come with him but they are having a 'break' so he took Brydon along instead.

The book is as good as any other 'How to write' books, it was just that the things you mentioned in your first post - i.e. Dramatic action, Events etc are the main things the author covers in the book.