He's reviewing the situation.
The Trip - Series 1 Page 16
He should get a room then!
I'm reviewing the reviews and the show and I'm doing it in the style of Michael Caine whilst eating in a fine restaurant, just to keep up the meta-post modern irony.
I only said to blow the bloody candles out!
Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 11:37 AM GMTI only said to blow the bloody candles out!
No, no, it should be more like... I only said to blow the bloody candles out...
(repeat back and forwards ad nauseum)
See anyone can write this stuff.
Are those my men...us?
Quote: Marc P @ November 25 2010, 10:25 AM GMTThat classical paradigm you refer to, doesn't refer to sitcom I am afraid. One judges viscerally first and foremost. And if it isn't rocking your boat move onto stormier waters. It is a perfectly wrought piece. It is all about character - you seem to think they are being themselves and they aren't. This is its craft and its art.
The classical paradigm can be used as framework for all fictional storytelling - novel, play, and sitcom.
If a piece of work wants to kick against it - GREAT! I love writers like Pinter who defined their own worlds.
If that's what The Trip intends to do - I'm all for it but I contend it doesn't know what it's doing - that it is imperfectly wrought because it's "wrighters" have failed to define a world - see previous post.
I had hoped for some serious debate here - you can't just say "it's perfectly wrought" you have to actually say why that is.
Isn't good rhetoric what sets us apart from lower species? Like soap-writers?
(PS. I don't think they're playing themselves as evidenced in previous posts where I refer to "Coogan's character".)
Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 12:09 PM GMTThe classical paradigm can be used as framework for all fictional storytelling - novel, play, and sitcom.
Can be means just that. Can be.
Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 12:09 PM GMTI had hoped for some serious debate here - you can't just say "it's perfectly wrought" you have to actually say why that is.
Isn't good rhetoric what sets us apart from lower species? Like soap-writers?
Like I said it's a character piece.
I see you are a writer producer director by the way JPM1. what sort of things are you working on. WHat kind of sitcoms do you like?
Marc I'm beginning to think you're just egging me on
But I'll go with it anyway because what better way to procrastinate from actually working on my own sitcom...
It's a character piece? Ok, fantastic... tell me what makes these characters "good" characters? What makes them compelling? Why should an audience member care about them? What is their journey?
And if those aren't the right questions - then what are the right questions?
Let's get specific - Coogan's character calls Misha in the first two episodes but then not again in the third and fourth. Has he stopped caring about her? When did that change happen, what caused it and why didn't the artists show us that character progression (for lack of a better term)
Quote: JPM1 @ November 25 2010, 12:31 PM GMTMarc I'm beginning to think you're just egging me on
But I'll go with it anyway because what better way to procrastinate from actually working on my own sitcom...
It's a character piece? Ok, fantastic... tell me what makes these characters "good" characters? What makes them compelling? Why should an audience member care about them? What is their journey?
And if those aren't the right questions - then what are the right questions?
Let's get specific - Coogan's character calls Misha in the first two episodes but then not again in the third and fourth. Has he stopped caring about her? When did that change happen, what caused it and why didn't the artists show us that character progression (for lack of a better term)
You are trying to analyse it in terms of what you see wrong and asking others to be complicit in this. Which is a little bit mad. What makes a character good is that we believe in them within the world they have created in which to inhabit. What Coleridge called the Willing suspension of disbelief. I don't have to care about them in a real sense, only enough to be hooked into the story and watch what happens. This happens for me within this show. I find them funny, believable, human. Like I said there are many forms of storytelling -this isn't one that fits your classical paradigm. You are asking me to make it logical to you why you prefer a cup of tea to a cup of coffee.
Marc, I want to thank you for taking the time to engage in the argument.
I hope other people feel like they can jump in, anytime...
I'm asking, perhaps clumsily, why you prefer this "cup of tea" I've stated why it doesn't work for me and I'm asking others to state why it works for them - Which is more than simply stating THAT it works for them.
I'm glad to hear that you find them funny, believable, and human and that that's enough for you. I'd still argue that there is more to a show being "well-written" than that and I'd also argue that you're setting the bar low.
Shouldn't a good character be more than just believable? And aren't some great characters totally unbelievable? (Moss on The IT crowd...)
Believable as I said within the context of the world that has been constructed for them to inhabit. Different worlds different levels of 'believability. I don't see how I am setting the bar low if I find something very well crafted and funny. Like I asked earlier - what kind of sitcoms do you like?
I would have put forward my feelings on the issue, but if I'm honest JPM1, your pushiness on the subject has left me a little uneasy.
I've been reading the thread but haven't much to say at this point as I agree with JPM1 almost entirely.