The Trip - Series 1 Page 24

Hi Marc,

I whole-heartedly agree. There is room - no doubt about it.

So if The Trip is not part of that paradigm, what paradigm is it adhering to? Has it invented its own?

I'd challenge anyone to describe the parameters of that paradigm. What are the rules of this world?

Pinter deviated beautifully - but you can look at each one of his plays* and clearly describe its world. I can think of plenty of examples form the world of playwrighting but I'm struggling to think of another sitcom that deviates as far as The Trip.

I'm fine with work that forges an innovative path - in fact I'm really excited by the prospect of a really original sitcom format.

However, I think the world of The Trip is muddy. That is to say that it's unclear why it does the things it does - see previous posts re: dramatic action, dropped threads, characters lacking wants...

*some later work I haven't read but have heard is less laudable.

It's not inventing, or trying to invent, any paradigm I should imagine. Deconstruction isn't always a good creative tool.

It's just a very shitty, very muddled programme. No paradigms or anything about it. It's tickled some people and bemused others in equal measure.

I started watching this week's, and then two minutes in they started doing their impressions again and I realised I just couldn't take another half hour of f**king Michael Caine. So I switched off.

There are really funny bits inbetween the impressions, but I can't be bothered anymore to wait for them.

It's not shitty or muddled to the people who like it, I presume.

Hi Marc,

I wouldn't use the word deconstruction. I'd call it "describing." Can we describe what makes it "good?"

I don't think we can.

If it makes people laugh or cry or become engaged that's great. But as writers, shouldn't we try to describe "how" it does that?

If for no other reason but that we may learn from it. ( And of course, copy it.

In that sense I'd argue that understanding the nuts and bolts of a piece is actually a very good creative tool. Call it deconstruction, describing - I suppose that's just semantics.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2010, 4:20 PM GMT

It's not shitty or muddled to the people who like it, I presume.

View original

No, definitely not.

Just out of curiosity Matthew, do you like it, think it's "good," or "well-written?" or all of the above?

Not everyone here is a writer.

Good point Stott. Would it be acceptable to have a 'deconstruction' thread in Writer's Discussion where all of this can go? I might be in a minority though, because I don't write sitcoms..

Quote: JPM1 @ November 30 2010, 4:29 PM GMT

Just out of curiosity Matthew, do you like it, think it's "good," or "well-written?" or all of the above?

View original

I quite enjoy it, it's a bit of a curiosity, and fairly or not, I'm not looking at it like I would more classically structured sitcoms; but then I don't really think of it as a sitcom anyway. It's an odd, amusing piece. I just like listening to Coogan and Brydon chunter on, really.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ November 30 2010, 4:30 PM GMT

Good point Stott. Would it be acceptable to have a 'deconstruction' thread in Writer's Discussion where all of this can go? I might be in a minority though, because I don't write sitcoms..

View original

If the moderators would prefer this conversation to go elsewhere I'm happy to abide. Please just let me know.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 30 2010, 4:32 PM GMT

I quite enjoy it, it's a bit of a curiosity, and fairly or not, I'm not looking at it like I would more classically structured sitcoms; but then I don't really think of it as a sitcom anyway. It's an odd, amusing piece. I just like listening to Coogan and Brydon chunter on, really.

View original

Thanks for that Matthew.

In a way I'm jealous of the generosity of spirit you approach the show with. Maybe I'm too cynical.

I looked at your profile and you're probably one of the more accomplished comedy writers here - what's your take on the use of deconstruction as a method of learning about one's own craft?

Quote: Aaron @ November 30 2010, 4:17 PM GMT

It's just a very shitty, very muddled programme. No paradigms or anything about it. It's tickled some people and bemused others in equal measure.

View original

I suppose I'm obligated to challenge those that agree with me as much as those that don't...

Aaron - what makes it shitty?

Can you define "shitty" for me?

Can shitty be measured objectively?

Is The Trip shitty in the same way as any other programmes or is it shitty in a wholly original way?

Why does everything have to be pulled apart and analysed?

Why can't someone just say yeah it was good or it was shit? Why is that not possible?

Quote: bigfella @ November 30 2010, 6:04 PM GMT

Why does everything have to be pulled apart and analysed?

Why can't someone just say yeah it was good or it was shit? Why is that not possible?

View original

But where's the fun in enjoying something at facevalue, BF? WHERE? CAN YOU EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE?

The problem with over-analysing comedy, as I see it, is that successful comedy - successful jokes - break conventions, or burst expected paradigms - so if we can successfully pin it down, it may not be doing it's job properly. The best comedy is, perhaps, unexplainable. If we can explain why we find something funny, then on these terms, it wouldn't be funny ... ie we would have a framework, so the joke would be killed.

The joy of The Trip, for me, is it's very freeform lack of structure ... this is the very thing that makes it funny.