10 O'Clock Live - Series 1 Page 14

A problem that this programme suffers from is that familiarity breeds - if not contempt - then disenchantment. Over the last year or so, David Mitchell and Charlie Brooker have become rather ubiquitous in comedy shows. So much so that even Jimmy Carr could be seen as the TV-shy team member in comparison.

You can see the programme makers logic. If you're going to launch a 15 week run of hour-long live comedy, of course it makes sense to hire three of the current top funny people in the country. However, I think this decision backfires rather, as the audience has nothing much new to surprise them other than the format. And the format doesn't enhance any of the performers abilities in any way.

We've seen Mitchell and Brooker do their style of humour (and better) on numerous other shows - some even currently on air in competition. And Jimmy Carr's patter is known by everyone who watches TV. There is no element of surprise here. The material on offer would need to be different enough, or superior enough, when compared to their other recent work in order to make a splash with the audience. And it's really not. It's solid, but just more of what one would expect. Again, nothing we don't expect. So even a good line is diminished by over-familiarity with the style.

So whilst it's not terrible, the show (save for Laverne) suffers from massive overexposure of three of its stars.

One can understand the performers feeling that whilst you're hot, why take as many plum jobs as you can? But I seriously think they (especially David and Charlie) should consider becoming a little less prominent on our TV screens/radio after they've finished this. The audience's fatigue or boredom with them (which I sense is creeping in) might turn to actual dislike. Which would be a pity since they're so obviously very talented.

Whilst it is refreshing to see a political interview where the interviewee is allowed to speak and make their point, that Mitchell just sat and let Campbell spew all of that bollocks was deeply frustrating. He really needed to have the guts to jump in, cut him off, and challenge him with some more pressing and pertinent questions.

The sketches are pretty poor, and there are so few of them that they really would be best off dropped. The round-table discussions with all four of the team are the format's strong point, and should be utilised far more.

10 O'Clock Live really needs to decide what it wants to be. Most of that wasn't satire - it was just left-leaning comics presenting their own opinions.

I watched all of this one and I still can't see any problem with Laverne and I really enjoy the fact it's live for some reason. The daft professor was too ridiculous to be true, so that was entertaining.

The only cringe segment for me was the David Mitchell interview. I like David Mitchell, but just because he's bright, doesn't mean he isn't politically naive - so don't put him in front of Alastair Campbell, ffs.

Even Campbell looked bored, it was such a walkover. There were any number of stats he could have countered with if they'd done some research, but instead he seemed to accept everything AC said at face value. Bizarre effect for a 'satirical' show.

ETA: quick version = agree with Aaron ^^^

Quote: Aaron @ January 28 2011, 1:18 AM GMT

Whilst it is refreshing to see a political interview where the interviewee is allowed to speak and make their point, that Mitchell just sat and let Campbell spew all of that bollocks was deeply frustrating. He really needed to have the guts to jump in, cut him off, and challenge him with some more pressing and pertinent questions.

View original

It's probably quite difficult for an experienced interviewer to question a former spin doctor let alone someone who is primarily a comedy writer/performer.
Unless they were just making jokes and taking the piss with it.

Quote: Steve Sunshine @ January 28 2011, 1:36 AM GMT

It's probably quite difficult for an experienced interviewer to question a former spin doctor let alone someone who is primarily a comedy writer/performer.
Unless they were just making jokes and taking the piss with it.

View original

I agree. When they said Campbell would be on, I thought - Jeez, lamb to the slaughter. I have never seen anyone get the better of him - it's one of the reasons I loathe him. The only 'plus' was that even when Campbell thought he was playing to the audience with some 'popular' remark, he was met with stony silence.

Quote: clueless @ January 28 2011, 1:42 AM GMT

When they said Campbell would be on, I thought - Jeez, lamb to the slaughter. I have never seen anyone get the better of him

View original

Oh I have - but the air of indifference and lack of any kind of care or sympathy with which he comes across, diminishes any effect that a bettering may otherwise give. He's the personification of 'new' Labour: telling people what they think rather than listening to them.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 27 2011, 11:10 PM GMT

Could be. (I imagine it's more likely to be that he's a bit uncomfortable in and unsuited to the role as opposed to him being a big thicko, but obviously I'm just speculating here like a mad shit)

View original

No one called him a thicko. I was speculating that he may be discovering that interviewing is not as easy as it looks, and that it is much easier to snipe from the sidelines unchallenged than to engage in the hurly burly of political debate. Don't get me wrong I like Mitchell and think he is extremely talented. I am just speculating that he might have thought that it was going to be easier for him to run rings round than these political types than is turning out to be the case.

It's very difficult to run rings around political types. They've done a zillion or more interviews and even an admittedly erudite or witty interviewer doesn't stand any more chance of wrong-footing them than somebody off of Newsround.

My heart sinks a little whenever Laverne or Mitchell have the stage.

Still worth watching for Brooker's monologues and Carr's one-liners though.

I thought they were less nervous last night. I see now why they have Laverne; it's to act as a mummy to all the kids on the team! I wish they would allow more time for the interviews too. I was considering what other female comedian could fill her boots and ... I don't think there are any.

Ha, I'm sure they could manage to find someone out of hundreds of women.
But she's fine as she is.

Why do we even need four anchors? Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Quote: chipolata @ January 28 2011, 1:02 PM GMT

Why do we even need four anchors? Too many cooks spoil the broth.

View original

Because all four look fit to burst a gasket as it is, it begin live etc.

Quote: Aaron @ January 28 2011, 1:18 AM GMT

10 O'Clock Live really needs to decide what it wants to be. Most of that wasn't satire - it was just left-leaning comics presenting their own opinions.

View original

As summed-up concisely by the Serco bit.

It was a topic ripe for investigation or satire, but it was neither and held no pretense to be. "Here is a company we know little about, now write to the government and complain about it."

No research. No jokes. Just a random call to arms.

I enjoyed it more this week, but it still feels like it's not as well informed as it should be. That's both episodes now that one of the hosts didn't know the difference between the debt and the deficit, which is VERY basic knowledge for this sort of show.

Also, Lauren Laverne needs to be replaced with Josie Long. Though I really liked her pre-recorded sexism bit.

And what was the Serco bit? Devoid of humour or insight. Less depth than a One Show segment.

Quote: Aaron @ January 28 2011, 1:18 AM GMT

Whilst it is refreshing to see a political interview where the interviewee is allowed to speak and make their point, that Mitchell just sat and let Campbell spew all of that bollocks was deeply frustrating. He really needed to have the guts to jump in, cut him off, and challenge him with some more pressing and pertinent questions.

View original

Damn it, Aaron. Stop making points where I need to agree with you.