British Comedy Guide

Twenty Twelve - Series 1 Page 9

Quote: Griff @ March 27 2011, 10:58 PM BST

Why are mockumentary and sitcom mutually exclusive?

The Office was a sitcom and a mockumentary. A mockumentary is just a style within a category. Spinal Tap was a mockumentary but still a film.

Twenty Twelve is definitely a sitcom done in the style of a mockumentary, but the BBC don't seem to like that traditional word and have tried to come up with a description that sounds newer and original. In the process they've called it a Comedy Drama, Comedy Series and, best of all, Comic Documentary. It's almost like Perfect Curve have been in charge of its PR. And I sympathise with Aaron here.

The general and very basic definition of a sitcom is 30 mins of a narrative comedy. This is what most producers, writers, commissioners tell us all the time. Comedy drama is defined as the same but anything longer than 30 mins. There are more smaller differences but this is the basic convention.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ March 28 2011, 9:19 AM BST

I haven't seen this yet, possibly because I don't look for sitcoms on BBC4. I thought BBC Three was the place for new sitcoms they didn't have much confidence in now, so why are they sticking this on BBC Four? I thought that was for documentaries and repeats of The Old Grey Whistle Test, and stuff.

BBC Three tends to be sitcoms for a young audience. And there are usually more made for them than an older audience. BBC Four test out the Lead Balloons and Twenty Twelves.

Finally got round to watching the first two episodes and have really enjoyed it so far it's not hilariously funny but the incompetence of the Olympic Games organisers strikes a chord with me. I really think London's roads are run by that guy.

I still haven't seen it. What a prick.

Sitcom.

Quote: James Cotter @ March 28 2011, 2:05 PM BST

I really think London's roads are run by that guy.

London's roads are controlled???

Quote: Tim Azure @ March 29 2011, 7:40 PM BST

London's roads are controlled???

Laughing out loud Good one.

Quote: Griff @ March 28 2011, 10:31 AM BST

Well, yes, my point exactly.

Sorry, if it wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you and adding to your point.

It really felt like it was trying to be more like People Like Us in the third episode with the interviewer chats. I dunno if it was because I was watching quite late last night but it didn't seem particularly funny this week. What was the pay-off for the vlog? Plane routes? Locked out? Aquatic centre? Was it enough?

I think this sitcom really needs a Malcolm Tucker character to come in and bollock them all. Give them something to fear. An audience pay-off for all the stupid decisions being made. There's no consequence or threat. It's people making mistakes without any effect.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 31 2011, 11:55 AM BST

I think this sitcom really needs a Malcolm Tucker character to come in and bollock them all. Give them something to fear. An audience pay-off for all the stupid decisions being made. There's no consequence or threat. It's people making mistakes without any effect.

You've touched on one of the problems with it, there's no hierachical structure. The characters are all of roughly equal status. Ergo no real conflict.

Quote: chipolata @ March 31 2011, 10:07 PM BST

You've touched on one of the problems with it, there's no hierachical structure. The characters are all of roughly equal status. Ergo no real conflict.

Well there is supposed to be a hierarchical structure but you don't sense it because everyone plays the fool. You need someone to represent us and go 'what the f**k are you doing? Fix it or you're fired!'

Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 31 2011, 11:55 AM BST

I think this sitcom really needs a Malcolm Tucker character to come in and bollock them all. Give them something to fear. An audience pay-off for all the stupid decisions being made. There's no consequence or threat. It's people making mistakes without any effect.

Welcome to modern British management culture; the satire would be inaccurate if there were any consequences for the people involved, other than perhaps a golden parachute.

Quote: Aaron @ March 27 2011, 1:35 PM BST

*shrug* It's not our place to redefine programmes. If the BBC say it's supposed to be a comedy drama, then it's a comedy drama - albeit one with an identity crisis, in your opinion.

You're in charge around here, if you think it's a sitcom then put it in the sitcom forum. The BBC's word isn't gospel.

Quote: Timbo @ April 1 2011, 11:00 AM BST

Welcome to modern British management culture; the satire would be inaccurate if there were any consequences for the people involved, other than perhaps a golden parachute.

Then they should show the people who are.

Quote: ContainsNuts @ March 31 2011, 11:55 AM BST

I think this sitcom really needs a Malcolm Tucker character to come in and bollock them all. Give them something to fear. An audience pay-off for all the stupid decisions being made. There's no consequence or threat. It's people making mistakes without any effect.

Definately agree. The show is OK how it is but a Tucker type boss would add another element.

Quote: Timbo @ April 1 2011, 11:00 AM BST

Welcome to modern British management culture; the satire would be inaccurate if there were any consequences for the people involved, other than perhaps a golden parachute.

Yes, but the problem is that in this show you have four main characters who are essentially the same: ineffectual middle-management types. That's why there's no real comic dynamic in it, other than they're all a bit useless.

Is it an accurate satire? I don't think so. I suspect there's far more tension and shouting and jeopardy in the actual build-up to the Games.

A major problem - apart from the characters being mainly one-joke individuals, vis a vis the PR woman - is that our core characters are the dolts in the story. Well, the Hugh Bonneville character is the exception, but he's a weak, put-upon character.

One of the fundamental differences with "The Games" - which I promised myself I wouldn't mention again - is that the core characters were the sane people trapped, trying to do their job, in a malestrom of bureaucratic idiocy.

As, here, our heroes have to deal with a builder and six missing metres:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teoL6FKEtCY

This was from the first series. By the second series they'd tightened up the pacing and storytelling.

Share this page