The Trip - Series 1 Page 19

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 3:36 PM GMT

Fair enough....

In that world of intangibles, anything is fair game - if you like it, far be it from me to try to take that away from you. (Although I secretly admit that I wish I could convince you of my case)

I'm just looking for a high level of critical discourse.

Not least because I feel that the BBC commissioners have ben reckless with my licence fee.

And aren't we all jealous a little bit that Coogan and Brydon get to make an improvised thing without rules....

I would argue that a good writer is one who is in control of the effect they intend.

I simply cannot figure out what effect is intended by The Trip.

View original

I can see how that would be annoying for you.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 25 2010, 2:09 PM GMT

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 clumbsy 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.

View original

Nat, to your points....

I'm confused where you see character development. What do you know about Coogan's character in teh fourth episode that you didn't know in the first?

Your example of the mirror moment is interesting not for the actual content but for what you get out of it. I think that's a very interesting reading of that scene but to be honest I think that comes from you, not from the show. That is to say I think you've approached it generously, adding your ideas to theirs, not that they actually intended to communicate that.

You talk about the characters being forced into this scenario but they weren't Brydon agreed to go voluntarily and continues to go with Coogan despite Coogan's rude attitude toward him. Why does Brydon take it? That's his character? ok, then we have the issue of passive characters to which things happen, but from which nothing comes...

if it's not a story about restaurant reviews then why is it in their at all? Setting is important - it shouldn't be accidental.onsider the setting in Grandma's house - a show named after it's title. Those characters and those dynamics can only happen there - the place is crucial to the forward movement of the events.

Didn't mean to ignore you!

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 3:43 PM GMT

Your example of the mirror moment is interesting not for the actual content but for what you get out of it. I think that's a very interesting reading of that scene but to be honest I think that comes from you, not from the show.

View original

This is the function of Art.

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 3:43 PM GMT

Your example of the mirror moment is interesting not for the actual content but for what you get out of it. I think that's a very interesting reading of that scene but to be honest I think that comes from you, not from the show. That is to say I think you've approached it generously, adding your ideas to theirs, not that they actually intended to communicate that.

View original

Of course there is always an element of personal influence and 'the way you read things', however I think you're not giving it ENOUGH credit- you seem to be taking it very literally on face value and not seeing what it it trying to convey. I think it might be more that you're not getting what it is trying to communicate than me projecting my own ideas on it top. But then again, who is to say who is right or wrong? After all, as Marc said, it's Art. (With a capital!)

You talk about the characters being forced into this scenario but they weren't Brydon agreed to go voluntarily and continues to go with Coogan despite Coogan's rude attitude toward him. Why does Brydon take it? That's his character? ok, then we have the issue of passive characters to which things happen, but from which nothing comes...

You're thinking too literally again. When I say forced, I mean that the characters have been placed in an unusual situation (admittedly by their own choosing), not that have been physically forced at gun point.

The reason that Brydon goes along for the ride is that he is being offered money to do a job with someone he likes and he had free dates in his calendar. What more is there to say? Certainly toward the beginning of the series I view the 'rude attitude' as banter between friends, or indeed siblings. I have a few friends who I have quite similar relationships with, and I like spending time with them. And my life is much richer for it!

if it's not a story about restaurant reviews then why is it in their at all? Setting is important - it shouldn't be accidental.onsider the setting in Grandma's house - a show named after it's title. Those characters and those dynamics can only happen there - the place is crucial to the forward movement of the events.

It's there because it wouldn't work without a device to force these characters into constant dialogue. I assume (maybe wrongly) that they originally set out with the idea of exploring the two characters and their interaction. The vehicle comes second, and a means of reaching their goal. It just so happens that the best vehicle in this situation was the 'trip' idea. I can't off the top of my head think of any other situations where they would both be travelling together and forced into that sort of dialogue. Frankly they've got it spot on! The setting isn't accidental, but it is secondary. It aids the exploration, but doesn't strictly define it. The characters do it themselves.

You seem to be transfixed with the idea of events and locations driving the narrative, which this absolutely isn't. It's a character piece.

Didn't mean to ignore you!

Good. I don't have to end you now

Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 3:54 PM GMT

This is the function of Art.

View original

What?!? Now that's just plain crazy talk!

I think it's probably unwise for us to try to tackle "the function of art" in an internet forum but let's just say briefly that lots of different kinds of art have lots of different kinds of functions.

The job of the artist is many and varied. You could argue that some artists are there to communicate specific ideas - Checkov, Shepard Fairy... while others intend to provoke a variety of disperate reactions - Pollock, William Blake...

So then the question for us on this forum is to ask is - What kind of artists have made this work and (I repeat myself here) what effect is intended?

We have to ask if these artists are in control of the effect that they intend to have and I argue they are not.

Nat you reading into the scene isn't a bad thing but for me it failed to provoke.

(I'm still right)

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 4:17 PM GMT

We have to ask if these artists are in control of the effect that they intend to have and I argue they are not.

View original

How?
How are they not in control?
They come up with the concept.
They outline the dialogue - block out the scenes.
They film the result, in a manner of their choosing - complete with improvised material.
They edit the material - from a huge pile of rushes - to produce something they are happy with.
It produces the 'effect'.
Like it or not this a crafted piece of work.

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 4:17 PM GMT

What?!? Now that's just plain crazy talk!

View original

No it's not. It's just a simple definition. It's the function of art. An artist creates a work of art, its function is to interact with the sensibilities of the person who encounters it, to take meaning and deconstruct it as an individual. It's a simple concept really. The universal expressed through the individual to the universal. Read Milton's preface to Paradise Lost - he explains it all quite nicely.

Lazzard I think you've misunderstood... we're talking about two different kinds of craft.

By effect I mean dramatic effect. Do they intend for us to know these characters? Like them? Make them up for ourselves? Infer into them? Despise them?

So after they've done all that work you list - what effect do they intend to have on us?

Just because it's been filmed, edited etc... doesn't mean it is "well-crafted"

And Nat - I haven't finished with you yet! I do however have a little one who is now being neglected - I'm afraid I'll need to sign off for a bit but I look forward to continuing the debate!

Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 4:48 PM GMT

No it's not. It's just a simple definition. It's the function of art. An artist creates a work of art, its function is to interact with the sensibilities of the person who encounters it, to take meaning and deconstruct it as an individual. It's a simple concept really. The universal expressed through the individual to the universal. Read Milton's preface to Paradise Lost - he explains it all quite nicely.

View original

Ok I really have to sign off but I can't let that one go...

What you describe is "a way that art seeks to achieve its intentions" which is very different that some kind of uberfunction of all art - which is what you stated in response to Nat.

How art achieves its means is not really our point of debate. Our focus in this discussion is whether or not The Trip is well-written as Marc suggested about 4 pages ago.

To answer that we need a definition of "well-written". I proposed one (the artist is in control of their effect) but if someone else has another definition I'd love to hear it.

Ok, I really have to go now... bye for now!

He said "Uberfunction"!

Seriously though, geezer, not sure I hold with all this book learnin' stuff.
I have enough trouble working out how my stuff works (when it works)- let alone the machinations of Steve Coogan's mind.

I do believe, however, that this cannot and should not, be judged as a 'text'.
I'm not sure any filmed medium should for that matter.
More than any other comedy I can think of, a lot of this is informed by our previous knowledge of Coogan.
I think if you didn't know him, his characters (namely Partridge) and his career path, none of it would work above the level of a rather limited impressions show with some nice food photography.
As such is is probably a bit 'geeky'.
But talk of arcs and structure are a little redundant.

It's a thing.

A thing I happen to like.

Quote: Lazzard @ November 25 2010, 5:34 PM GMT

It's a thing.

A thing I happen to like.

View original

This. I don't want to try and deconstruct the whole thing, talk about sapping the joy out of your viewing experience.

Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 3:36 PM GMT

Not least because I feel that the BBC commissioners have ben reckless with my licenee fee.

View original

Not liking something doesn't make it a reckless waste, especially as there are clearly people who do like the show.

Bizarrely, The Trip does seem to have made some people quite angry.
Not sure why.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 25 2010, 6:13 PM GMT

Not liking something doesn't make it a reckless waste, especially as there are clearly people who do like the show.

View original

Hi Matt,

Just to clarify, I didn't say the show was a reckless waste, I said the commissioners had been reckless. I think this because the show appears to lack a level of rigour that I feel a show should have to have in order to warrant spending the public's money on it.

Also, I'm not really talking about whether or not it's liked or likable. I think Motorway Cops is likable... I'm trying to get at whether or not it's "well-written" which was the start of this debate.

Also to clarify - I use the term "written" in the sense of "wrought", wholly as a complete thing including but not limited to its text.

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

Your conduct has been near exemplary. I think she's just shocked that you haven't backed down at the first objection to your posts!