dellas
Friday 21st January 2011 2:52am [Edited]
Manchester
4,598 posts
Didn't expect much new fantastic revolutionary TV, quite entertaining, mainly Mitchell, who I like always. At least a modest try at topical sarcasm and bott-spotting.
Quote: Tim Walker @ January 21 2011, 12:01 AM GMT
A somewhat shaky and nervous start but, hey folks, that's live television for you!... Except it didn't really feel much like live television. Despite having three of the current "big beasts" of British comedy fronting it (and Jimmy Carr), the rigid format of the programme smacked of a show lacking confidence in its own ability. Thus everything was regimented by strict segmenting and too much rigid adherence to the script. The audience seemed a bit too respectful and well-behaved too, as though they too felt constrained by respecting the pressures of live TV.
The "satire" involved was mainly nothing you wouldn't find on a run-of-the-mill panel show, i.e. topical gags which sound as though they have been written by (and for the benefit of) smug 6th form students. They didn't so much skewer the topics they went for, as simply throw paper darts at them (and, more often than not, missed). I was disappointed to see Charlie Brooker front a segment on Sarah Palin, the majority of which could have been written by any mediocre gag-smith in the last two years. Plus a segment on Tunisia which only seemed to demonstrate that the writers (apparently) didn't have any knowledge whatsoever about the political/social situation in Tunisia (nor really cared) - which is a bit of failure if you're trying to give your audience satirical content. yess
Predictably, the best and funniest bits were where the talent was allowed to do the kind of comedy they had become popular for doing. David Mitchell's "local news" rant (which, let's face it, was whimsical rather than satirical) was a highlight. However, when David came up against a proper politician (David Willetts), on a serious subject, he failed to land any blows whatsoever. It was a genial conversation, but the questions (which may have sounded challenging in rehearsal) were facile and easily batted away. Perhaps David didn't want a confrontational or adversarial debate with the Minister (which would be refreshing), but in the context of a satirical comedy show, it fell flat.
Jimmy Carr was as slick, polished and comfortable with performing live as you'd expect him to be. He's obviously the most comfortable as a presenter and should have his talents focused on anchoring the show. Brooker and Mitchell don't look comfortable when having to engage with the camera in terms of shepherding the broadcast along. Maybe their awkwardness will improve as the series progresses? Maybe not.
The best evidence that a good show could bloom out of this rather messy hotchpotch was the brief segment of round-the-table chat towards the end. Just having the hosts sit around a table and banter a bit should be allowed more of the running time. This is where the memorable material will come from. In general, the performers need to tell the producers to get out of the way a bit and just let them do some funny stuff. Enough with the format.
Anyway, hopefully this will improve as the wrinkles get ironed out throughout the series. It's got a long way to go though if it wants to be a satirical comedy show, as opposed to just another topical comedy show.
(Oh, and though I've nothing against her, why the appointment of Lauren Laverne? I realise that she's filling the role of "sassy token female" in the show, but was there really no proper female comedian available for hire? Someone, you know, who earns their living telling jokes, for example? Her 'Americanised' segment of world news was dire, both in content and performance.)
