Quote: bob4apples @ July 8 2013, 11:54 PM BSTWhat's worse is the canned laughter after every attempted joke.
It's not canned laughter. It's performed in front of an audience.
Count Arthur Strong - Series 1 (TV) Page 4
Yeah LOL, Linehan even tweeted about it re: how people always get it wrong with canned laughter, given that only a few shows actually use canned laughter instead of actual studio recording.
And honestly, I can't imagine watching this without laugh track at all.
Quote: shaggy292 @ July 9 2013, 7:28 AM BSTIt's not canned laughter. It's performed in front of an audience.
I hope they get the help they need.
So watching all of it this morning, with a forensic eye (because it certainly isn't with laughter in mind), what's wrong with it?
Well, for a start off, who's the programme about? It appears to be mostly about the intellectual son of a dead comedy performer, and his poor relationship with his father. Which is an interesting premise for a drama (sort of "At Home with the late Tommy Cockles") but not exactly comedy gold. And, second on the bill, the dead comedy performer everyone's talking about. Why is the eponymous star only a supporting character?
There's also a borderline racist portrayal of a cafe owner who appears to have escaped from a Sitcom about a corner shop, circa 1978.
Given Linehan's involvement, the writing is very weak. For example, at the end, we have a heart-warming reconciliation with his dead father, and the weakest pay-off line ever.
The larger premise, that he was an actual variety performer, makes little sense. In the radio show, you were shown Strong's delusions, and it was left open whether he had ever been a performer at all, or was just a fantasist who'd never performed to a crowd larger than his own front room. Here he's the former partner of a clearly well-respected comedian, so portraying him as a hopeless loser doesn't add up.
Still, at least Barry Cryer had a good cameo.
I've tried to get into the radio show a few times, but as people have said you either click with the character or you don't, and I didn't.
I did have a few laughs at Ep 1 but it was at parts that was very obviously Linehan-penned. I'll stick with it though as it had a lot of promise and first episodes are always bogged down in exposition.
Now - imagine Linehan doing John Shuttleworth on TV ...
Although I do think they could've used a different cast. Rory Kinnear is fine and all, but have a feeling that he's miscast for the role. I don't know, maybe it'll grow on me.
Quote: Tokyo Nambu @ July 9 2013, 9:04 AM BSTWell, for a start off, who's the programme about?
Two priests and a housekeeper in a remote island parochial house ... a misanthropic bookshop owner ... a hapless IT department ... I wouldn't necessarily get too hung up on it being about anything.
Quote: shaggy292 @ July 9 2013, 7:28 AM BSTIt's not canned laughter. It's performed in front of an audience.
It was because the laughter sounded so unnatural. ie. like canned laughter.
And they could have edited it in later in post. Probably needed to. Having been in the audience for a few readings and filmed comedy pilots that were seriously devoid of laughs, that's what they do.
Did they hold up boards saying 'laugh' for the audience after every 'laugh'?? Cos I would be worried if someone in the audience actually found it at all funny.
Quote: GallonOfAlan @ July 9 2013, 9:45 AM BST... I wouldn't necessarily get too hung up on it being about anything.
No it doesn't have to be about anything, but I feel they missed out by not playing to their strengths, which in this case was The Count and...well that was their only strength. Every scene which lacked him was worthless; the argument about the apostrophe, the discussion with literary agent, the ambulance interior, all were totally devoid of humour.
However, I didn't enjoy all of The Count's scenes either, and it was certainly not as good as the radio show. It seemed slower and comparatively underperformed, as if Delaney had been told to tone it down.
Quote: GallonOfAlan @ July 9 2013, 9:45 AM BSTTwo priests and a housekeeper in a remote island parochial house ... a misanthropic bookshop owner ... a hapless IT department ... I wouldn't necessarily get too hung up on it being about anything.
Father Ted was, if I recall correctly, the main character in "Father Ted". He drove the narrative, and events happened because of things he said and did and the decisions he made.
Last night, the protagonist was Michael (Rory Kinnear). His decisions and emotions were central, each plot item happening because of him, not Strong (he visits Strong, he suggests lunch, he gets involved in an argument in the cafe, he suggests attending the memorial service, he tells the audience that he's hoping Strong causes a scene to disrupt the service, he rushes to the buffet when things go wrong, he causes the leg to fall off, he is --- inexplicably --- in the ambulance with a stranger at the point of resolution). He provides all the insights into motivation (by phoning his wife from the world's most implausible cafe lavatory, by talking to his wife at the outset, by having an apparent emotional catharsis at the end). Strong just provided colour and occasional commentary.
It's as though the writers didn't trust the basic premise of the show (that Arthur Strong is both interesting and funny) and wanted it all to be done via someone younger and more boring. The result was that we learnt very little about the person the show's supposed to be about, and a great deal more about the supporting cast. Doctor Who showrunners sometimes say, and maybe even believe, that the companion is the audience's way into the Doctor's world, on the assumption, perhaps, that viewers of a franchise that's been running for fifty years don't know what the show's about. But here? Is the Count so alien, so unfamiliar, that we need someone else to explain it to us? And in which case, shouldn't it be everyman, not an OCD author? What's the point?
Another problem is that very slight gags were burdened with a weight they couldn't stand, and then never resolved. A lifetime was spent on a misunderstanding about whether there was a two teas for the price of one offer, which then went precisely nowhere. For example, everyone was presumably charged for two cups, at which point the problem would have been apparent, but they never were. The whole business with the foot spa similarly went nowhere: it felt like there had been another scene in the cafe which had been lost in the edit. The business about the apostrophe in chips established, ve-ry slow-ly, with subtitles for the hard of understanding, that the Kinnear character was a slightly socially inept pedant: hadn't that already been established by the reviewer from the Telegraph telling us about his anal attention to detail?
As I say, I enjoyed the radio series, and even when it went off the boil more recently I still looked forward to it. But this? Meh. Linehan's capable of a great deal better.
Considering I'd never listened to the radio series, I was very impressed with this first episode of Count Arthur Strong, whilst it didn't blow me away, it was rather funny and entertaining to watch.
I shall be tuning in next week for Episode 2.
Quote: Tokyo Nambu @ July 9 2013, 11:15 AM BSTIt's as though the writers didn't trust the basic premise of the show (that Arthur Strong is both interesting and funny) and wanted it all to be done via someone younger and more boring.
Somehow this feels like it might not have been the original writers decision.
Feels more like a committee led 'request' for more narrative.
Not sure it adds much - and certainly shifts the focus away from Count Arthur.
I enjoyed it, but nowhere near as much as the radio show.
I enjoyed it. Don't know about the story arc, they didn't quite have the guts to go for the straight sitcom did they? But I still liked it
Quote: Pingl @ July 9 2013, 2:40 PM BSTI enjoyed it. Don't know about the story arc, they didn't quite have the guts to go for the straight sitcom did they? But I still liked it
Haha, was wondering the same. That was really un-Linehanesque if you will. Probably Delany's influence really. I love the old Linehan approach though, where any potential build up for any drama is immediately broken down to laughs. I would've ideally preferred that, you being hit with plenty of gags in minutes, but I'll take this anywho 
I think it's more fair to talk of the Linehan-influence than the Delaney one, seeing as it's his character and his show, and Linehan's stepping into something that's really already pretty fully established.
Anyway. Recommissioned.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/news/story/000001193/count_arthur_strong_bbc_two_series_2_commission/
Good to see bumbling Arthur doing a bit of visual slapstick but his trademark malapropisms were absent.
My late dad had a foot spa like that, he was also an insufferable know it all and mangled his words. I therefore watch Count Arthur with a great deal of goodwill.