Quote: David Bussell @ October 22 2012, 11:36 AM BST"D'you wanna get sucked in? I'll suck you so far in you'll get blown out the other side!"
Damn! You beat me to it!
I thought this was the funniest episode of the series so far. Terri and Robin stole it for me. Plus with new Getting On last week (which was excellent) as well, I would say Jo Scanlan is the queen of comedy on TV right now.
I thought it was brilliant - went far too quickly. The acting was incredible and now I know they weren't able to prepare for it, even better. The Thick Of It is the best thing on TV at the moment.
Quote: joebloggs69 @ October 21 2012, 7:29 PM BSTManagement/neo hippy speak was already old hat ten years ago, in fact we've all parodied it at one point or another, and for me that has been one of my main problems with this series because it focused even more on that aspect.
That's the trouble with The Thick Of It - it's often not really satire, merely retelling the actual truth of Westminster with a slight accentuation on the comic. Just as Malcolm Tucker is a direct rip-off of the real-life persona (or perhaps, perceived persona) of Labour's bastard-in-chief Alastair Campbell, Stewart Pearson was a direct rip-off of the perception of Conservative spin doctor Steve Hilton.
Quote: Aaron @ October 22 2012, 3:22 PM BST...merely retelling the actual truth...
The definition of satire, though, if you think about it...
To a certain extent, yes. But is satire - or perhaps I should say better written satire, rather than satire itself - not more fictionalised, creating new stories to highlight the absurdity of reality, to prick the pomposity of real figures, to shine a light on hypocrisy and ridiculous ideas? The Thick Of It is almost none of that. It's almost a biopic of the entirety of Westminster, running dangerously close to celebrating the Bad Al Campbells of this world. There's little divergence from what has actually, literally happened.
Satire to truly work must be a heightened reality.
Quote: Pingl @ October 22 2012, 3:56 PM BSTSatire to truly work must be a heightened reality.
Or an altered one. Think Jonathan Swift.
Quote: Nogget @ October 22 2012, 3:59 PM BSTOr an altered one. Think Jonathan Swift.
Good point, but wouldn't Swift's type of satire be too allegrorical for today's audience?
Radio 4 produces Brian Gulliver's Travels, which takes influence from the original, but with modern themes. Allegory and satire, for today's audience.
Quote: Nogget @ October 22 2012, 6:04 PM BSTRadio 4 produces Brian Gulliver's Travels, which takes influence from the original, but with modern themes. Allegory and satire, for today's audience.
But it's bloody dreadful, I listened to it 
I watched episode six whilst shamefully hammered and badly jetlagged.
At a certain point quite early on my sense of humour/reality must have disengaged completely because I felt certain that I was watching edited highlights of a genuine government inquiry and I couldn't figure out why so many actors were being called as witnesses.
Needless to say, I didn't laugh much.
But I did watch it to the end.
I got round to watching this last night. This was in my opinion a poor episode. If it was a parody of an enquiry it didn't work. Tucker's character would have sat through many of these, he should have been a sharper and less antagonistic. The set-up with the Mirror story about the panelist was just lazy. It lacked any subtlety, seemed to have been written in a rush and wasted what had been a wonderful set-up. There were no jokes in it, there was no sense of reality to it, the characters although buffoons in real life should have been shown to be shrewder operators than they were. In all it was an omnishambles and a great disappointment.
Quote: joebloggs69 @ October 21 2012, 7:29 PM BSTI never really liked Stewart and his schtick precisely because it's been done to death. Management/neo hippy speak was already old hat ten years ago, in fact we've all parodied it at one point or another, and for me that has been one of my main problems with this series because it focused even more on that aspect. Having said that, I think this is the best he has ever been (but that's not saying much), because within the context of the inquiry (and the real life Levison) it was more poignant.
I've also felt that this series suffers from a lack of realism, which was the life blood of previous series. This episode also had that problem, as it relies on realism more than any other. There is just no way Malcolm would have said so many of those things, or that the inquiry would simply have ignored him and moved on to the next question if he did. His final speech was ok, but again, the writing was clumsy and it was, at best, a thinly veiled moral lesson and mouthpiece for the writers. It was too on the nose. He might as well have just looked straight at the camera and said "Do you see what we're doing here, girls and boys? This is called 'Satire'".
That's my expert opinion, which I have gleaned from years of not writing comedy and moaning about what's on telly.
Stewart is at his best when in combination with Mannion. Not as effective here.
I think it was very good, lots of laughs for me. But, even as a massive TTOI fan, I couldn't buy into Malcolm's diatribe at the end. It was just too far out of reality and, having seen a lot of real-life enquiries recently, no-one would say that sort of thing or even be allowed to say that sort of thing. Not even Malcolm Tucker.
Having said that, the funniest line for me was:
"No, it is not CSI:Miami, despite your shirt."
Dan
Loved Tucker's eloquent rant.
Can't wait to see how his behaviour was all a cunning ruse. Say it's a cunning ruse!
Quote: swerytd @ October 25 2012, 9:56 AM BSTHaving said that, the funniest line for me was:
"No, it is not CSI:Miami, despite your shirt."Dan
Yep, that was the other bit I laughed at.
