T.W.
Friday 24th December 2010 1:44am [Edited]
15,786 posts
Too late to start trying to take every difference I can think of in my head and form them into some kind of coherent argument. But one of the most important reasons that Derek & Clive has a kind of warped charm to it, why it is forgiveable, is because of the characters of Pete & Dud. We very much know that Cook and Moore are playing a pair of characters, rather than versions of themselves, because we understand that they played a far more innocent and genial pair of idiots previously. Derek and Clive as characters, or as a performance, does not work nearly so well in isolation. We can accept the extremes of the language, the aggression, the misogyny etc... because we are aware that Cook and Moore, though not saints by any means, were generally respectable and respectful comedians/people in their backgrounds. We know that they are intelligent with cultured and cosmopolitan lives.
Frankie Boyle has never shown another side of himself, so what is an "act" and what is "him" is not as clear-cut. Plus, Cook and Moore (via some wonderful improvised dialogue, especially the ever-eloquent Cook) really nail their characters: these inadequate yet pompous, seedy, pathetic white working class men called Derek & Clive - men who only get any respect from themselves and each other. They're a couple of bullshitters, filling the desperate hours with talk of "that big poof nigger" and kicking Valerie in the c**t for half a f**king hour, or "naturally, I stooped down to rape her". They are, simply, boring and hollow bullies and losers. They are the joke. That much is clear.
With Frankie Boyle he a) doesn't have the attention to detail in his use of language in order to make the use of such aggressive/dark humour funny enough, and b) doesn't give any sign that tells us he doesn't actually agree with the vile things he says. In short, he doesn't give us a character which is the loser of the piece. He is the winner. And the winner (unlike Derek & Clive) will always look as though he is someone whom you should respectfully agree with, not someone who is laughable by their pathetic - if funny - disgusting-ness.
Many of the improv sketches in Derek & Clive work so successfully because Cook & Moore had spent years doing exactly the same kind of sketches, with the same rich use of character and language, but just without the really hideous, dark side let loose. Cook and Moore get away with breaking the rules of comedy with Derek and Clive because they know the rules so well. Frankie Boyle has not learnt the rules well enough to be good enough to get the language and the performance correct in order to subvert them.
(I could continue spewing this rubbish, or I could go toss off into a sock? 
Yep, agreed.)
What I wonder is why you are so vociferous in defending Boyle? Enjoy his comedy, fine. Argue against his detractors, fine. But I simply don't buy that Boyle is some kind of subversive comedy genius, too subtle and nuanced an act to be understood by the casual viewer. I did watch one episode of this show tonight. It was puerile, bereft of any class - a series of disjointed and fairly tired sounding stand-up shockers, interspersed by sketches which desperately wanted to be considered deep, meaningful, controversial and left-field, but which were the worst kind of wacky humour. Bad writing, bad composition and simply Not Funny Enough To Care About.