very very average...
Life's Too Short Page 20
I am still enjoying this, mainly because of Warwick who is excellent comic actor. I really do not get the David Brent thing peiple are on about - they are both pompous, deluded men, but that goes for the lead character in most cases. The "haha it's funny because he is a dwarf" comedy works best when it is made obvious that Warwick is the victim of his own hubris. A dwarf falling out of a car is not funny, a pompous dwarf falling out of a car that is too big because he bought it as a status symbol is. Likewise his humiliation on the film set is only funny because he has taken the part at the expense of his clients.
I get the impression that Gervais and Merchant are on screen mainly because the show would not have got made otherwise. They are not adding much.
Quote: Timbo @ November 24 2011, 11:09 PM GMTI am still enjoying this, mainly because of Warwick who is excellent comic actor. I really do not get the David Brent thing peiple are on about - they are both pompous, deluded men, but that goes for the lead character in most cases. .
Probably doesn't help that so many of Warwick's lines are written without departing in any way from the over-familiar Brent-ian sentence construction, rhythm and verbal cadences.
If you are going to be picky...
Quote: Tim Walker @ November 24 2011, 11:15 PM GMTProbably doesn't help that so many of Warwick's lines are written without departing in any way from the over-familiar Brent-ian sentence construction, rhythm and verbal cadences.
Anybody who hasn't noticed this really isn't paying attention.
But don't most writers have a distinctive structure and rhythm? As personalities Brent and Davis are distinct.
A good writer should be able to create different personas for characters. The problem with Gervais and Merchant now is they give the same persona to all their characters. And the ending last night was terrible. When people do things in comedy that they wouldn't do in real life, at all, for me you lose all the comedy. Would a film set treat an actor in that way? Someone they have hired? It was clumsy and obvious, and extremely Extra-ish. Not to mention the joke at the end, the Gervais love in. Ooh Ricky, with that joke you are spoiling us.
Not funny.
I have no difficulty seeing Davis and Brent as differently nuanced variants on the same universal trope. More distinct at least than George Costanza and Larry David, and I do not see Curb being taken to task on the same grounds.
Having always been luke warm about Gervais I am finding it ironic that I am the one leaping to his defence. He is doing what he does as well as he always does.
Quote: alienep @ November 25 2011, 8:53 AM GMTWhen people do things in comedy that they wouldn't do in real life, at all, for me you lose all the comedy.
If people in sitcoms always behaved like they do in real life I am not sure the genre would actually exist. I would be surprised in any case if as writers Gervais and Merchant did not extrapolate to an extent from Davis' real life experiences. The humour comes not from the indignities inflicted on Davis, but from Davis reaction to them. This is where the warmth in the show comes from - Davis has a dignity to lose, so he engages our sympathy.
Quote: alienep @ November 25 2011, 8:53 AM GMTA Not to mention the joke at the end, the Gervais love in. Ooh Ricky, with that joke you are spoiling us.
As I said above, Gervais on screen presence is redundant, but I doubt that the show would have been Commissioned without it. TV execs commission shows featuring popular performers.
Quote: Timbo @ November 25 2011, 10:23 AM GMTMore distinct at least than George Costanza and Larry David, and I do not see Curb being taken to task on the same grounds.
Really? I would say Jason Alexander's performance as George is really quite distinct to David's performance as 'himself'. Alexander obviously is able to do far more performance-wise than David. George also has some elements unique to his character; he has a bottomless pit of self pity, for example, which I don't see in David. In some ways, the 'David' character is quite happy-go-lucky, breezing around untill he gets pissed off at something, or upsets others. But that aside anyway, George is supposed to be based partly on David, so it would be little surprise that the two have some similar characteristics.
So far I found last night's episode to be the funniest of three shown.
I thought the Helena Bonham-Carter scene last night was staggeringly unfunny. Just irritating by the end.
And Warwick talking to the camera after he was cut from the TV interview...it was Brent. Absolutely incredible that they get away with it, but fair play I suppose.
Very disappointing, as last week's episode was a lot different from the first and largely very funny. Just what is the reasoning for Gervais and Merchant to be in this though?
Quote: Timbo @ November 25 2011, 10:23 AM GMTIf people in sitcoms always behaved like they do in real life I am not sure the genre would actually exist. I would be surprised in any case if as writers Gervais and Merchant did not extrapolate to an extent from Davis' real life experiences. The humour comes not from the indignities inflicted on Davis, but from Davis reaction to them. This is where the warmth in the show comes from - Davis has a dignity to lose, so he engages our sympathy.
Don't think I said people in sitcoms 'always' should behave as they do in real life. The art of comedy is knowing how far you can take a 'funny' situaton. The scene with Bonham-Carter was fine, up to the point people started speaking like Davies wasn't there, and also with no recognition for the supposed doc film crew filming Davies. You start stretching credibility too much. On The Office, this fine line was usually just enough on the side of credibilty. The more you stretch this line, the more 'reality' you have to lose in the situation, the more you have to make up for it in tone.
For instance many sitcoms don't try to be 'real'. They create a world were improbables are accepted. Take Father Ted, for example. In the world of Craggy Island, anything went, surrealism, dadaism, sexism and everything went. Thus, it was hilariously funny, and never did I sit there thinking 'Ooh, I don't think a priest would do that!'.
When you are working with a set-up which apes a real-life documantary format, then the convensions are different, thus your comedy should stay within the remit of that set-up. I think.
Quote: alienep @ November 25 2011, 12:51 PM GMTFor instance many sitcoms don't try to be 'real'. They create a world were improbables are accepted. Take Father Ted, for example. In the world of Craggy Island, anything went, surrealism, dadaism, sexism and everything went. Thus, it was hilariously funny, and never did I sit there thinking ' Ooh, I don't think a priest would do that! '.
But Father Ted wasn't really set in the "real" world, it existed in its own self-contained world and stayed true to that, Life's Too Short however is supposed to be a documentary, hence in the real world, and so, the characters have to stay truer to real life.
It's not so much about thinking "a priest wouldn't do that" but thinking "Father Ted/Jack/Dougal WOULD do that" because it's been set up in their character and their interactions with their world.
Everyone has a certain amount of suspension of disbelief but if characters are constantly doing things that you don't believe they would really do it ruins the whole set up.
Alan Partridge is a classic example, no-one in real life would do any of the things that he does but the character, and the world he exists in, is so brilliantly written and realised that we, the viewers, never question it.
Having viewed three now, I think it's just lazy, cocky writing from a writer who's got lazy and cocky.
"What's a funny thing we can do to a dwarf and who do we know that's famous to do it to him?"
End of script meeting.
The mockumentary is a pretty worn out format (just check out 'Showcase') and it's been around on TV since the mid-80s and Victoria Wood.
You need to do a lot better than this to cut it.
And throwing in a whole pile of 'taboos' isn't going to help.
(PS. I don't know why he's fighting shy of incest - perhaps if they get re-commissioned...)
Quote: Lazzard @ November 25 2011, 3:31 PM GMTHaving viewed three now, I think it's just lazy, cocky writing from a writer who's got lazy and cocky.
(PS. I don't know why he's fighting shy of incest
Remember there are Two writers though, if you think it's crap, it's Merchant's fault too.