Yanks Watching Telly

A BBC arts commissioner blames low visibility for arts programming on insufficient marketing by the BBC.

Here is another post on Simon Cowell’s shift to feel-good television. It seems the meanest man on British television (and American, for that matter) is at least trying to let up on his trademark acidic barbs — albeit, begrudgingly. You can check out his eye-roll, and subsequent “X” and then approval of the beyond-campy Showbears here.

“Britain’s Got Talent” does feel-good television

Idris Elba. That, in my opinion, is what “Luther” is about — because frankly, the show does not seem to do much else to set it apart from other police procedurals. Rogue police officer? Been there, done that. Cop with personal problems? Call me when you have something new. A man of the law in a duel of wits with a diabolical criminal? Stale, at this point. We can talk all we want about camera angles, or the fact the show reveals the villain within the first 20 minutes of the first episode — but frankly, why bother?

Yet “Luther” is not a lost cause. Of the two shows we watched Monday, I liked it much more than “Blackpool,” which I absolutely did not expect. I wanted more camp, more fun from “Blackpool,” and the show did not deliver — the songs were few and far between, and the characters seemed like they were made of lead. On the other hand, I am not a cop-show guy. I don’t watch “CSI” or any of the “Law & Orders” as I want a drawn out story, nothing episodic. “Luther” seemed exactly like the type of show which would bore me, 50-something minutes spent on a criminal case, and then, bam, done. Maybe that is what drew me in to “Luther” upon watching it — the promise of something more, but really, I think it was Idris Elba.

Star power is sometimes the x-factor in pulling what normally would be an ordinary show out of mediocrity, and some times, actors or actresses put their stamp on a show in such a defining way, you could not imagine anyone else in the role. “Luther” is a perfect example, as the title role is the most important aspect of the show. Whereas a period piece like “Downton Abbey” is predominantly about the costumes and scenery and “Sherlock” is more dialogue/plot-driven, “Luther” is essentially a one-man show — as if the title didn’t give that fact away.

For this reason, I think of all the shows we have seen this semester, “Luther” could make the transition to American to television with the most ease — but in a way, it would be presented with the biggest hurdle. “Blackpool” did not transition well to American television, and it is hard to imagine something like “Downton Abbey” or “Sherlock” doing the same without major changes, because both of those shows are just so British. But “Luther” is not defined by its “British-ness,” but its star power. The concept of the show is very American, because it is a textbook procedural. The challenge, unfortunately, would be finding someone who can define the role of Luther as Elba does, which is no small task.

Therefore, you and I can complain all we want about the fact the show isn’t very innovative — that is not the point. Idris Elba is a force portraying Luther, and you just can’t look away when he is on the screen — which thankfully, is not very often.

“Organizers of the London Olympics approached the Who’s manager to inquire about having Keith Moon play at an Olympics event despite the drummer being dead for nearly 34 years, the Sunday Times reports.”

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/olympics-organizers-ask-keith-moon-to-play-closing-ceremony-20120413#ixzz1rzBjQQEQ

BBC3 is developing a new combo of reality TV and sketch show: “A new BBC3 sketch show will attempt to repeat the “structured reality” trick of The Only Way is Essex – but this time with laughs. Boom Town will feature a cast made up entirely of real people with their “own catchphrases, eccentricities and larger than life personalities”. None of the jokes will be scripted – all of the cast, who will be transferred to a fictional “town” complete with made-up road signs and locations, will be playing themselves.”

“Channel 4 has pulled a comedy sketch in which blind man groped a female nude model in life art class in front of duped students.”

Seems he didn’t like the comparisons…

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/simon-cowells-britains-got-talent-shifts-schedule-to-avoid-clash-with-the-voice-uk/#utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Saw this on a friend’s Facebook the other day and thought it would be good to share considering today’s entertainment discussions. Definitely a nice contrast to the ridicule and mockery that we saw on this show today.

Just came across this article from the NYT in 2009 discussing how the Mighty Boosh guys were hoping to succeed in America. Given that it’s 2012 and we have yet to see that happen, I guess it didn’t work out.

I saw a Twitter conversation unfold today between British TV writers Andrew Ellard and Richard Naylor about the comparative role of setting in US and UK sitcoms. Naylor wondered why so many US sitcoms have detailed, specified settings (i.e. Seinfeld in NYC, Frasier in Seattle), whereas UK sitcoms seem to be part of more generalized regions, like London or the north in general, rather than specific areas. The most revelatory tweet was this one, from Ellard: “It’s aspirational. Most US residents will never see LA or New York. Most UK can see something Liverpool-ish anytime!….UK sitcoms are broadly ‘I recognise my life in that’ while most US shows go ‘I’d like to live like that’.” Also this, from Naylor: “Also think Americans pride themselves a little more what part of US they’re from. We don’t care so much….Went to Miami, heard this girl say “I’m from NY so I know what’s up.” Cant imagine “I’m from Sheffield so I know what’s up”

The idea of British comedy in America is definitely one that many people approach with a great deal of skepticism. There is no question that it has the stigma of being too dry and therefore un-relatable for most American audiences. In a lot of ways, I think that it is comedy that Americans are actually the most familiar with in regards to British film and television because more people have been exposed to such productions than probably most other genres. So, every time we have watched a different comedy this year, I have been thinking about how people I know would react to the different jokes and comedic strategies. Obviously we have debated numerous times whether certain British shows of any genre would or would not be well-received here in the states. In this case I’m not really as interested in this debate, which really is focused more on whether shows could consistently attract large audiences. Instead, I am more simply inquiring as to whether people I know would find the shows to be entertaining or not.

I think that comedy is in many ways one of the easiest genres to judge as far as audience reception. It’s really a simple question: did you laugh when you watched it or not? Obviously, there are more redeeming qualities to the better comedies that can make them higher quality, but overall I think it’s safe to say that the intention of most comedies is to incite laughter.

Thus, I have to say that I really do have my doubts about the British comedies we have watched, as a collective whole. What I have observed is a noticeable absence of laughter in our class during the screenings. How would I define a lack of laughter? I really don’t have a specific way of doing so other than through a comparison to my own viewing experiences with my friends. During those times, the room is filled with laughter consistently throughout the episodes. Of course, some are worse and some are better, but there are usually at least a few large laughing periods for each episode. In regards to our class, I have noticed that many shows spark only a few small laughs, while others really none at all. Furthermore, I have to say I have never noticed a time when the entire room lights up with laughs.

Now there are some serious variables involved that could account for the differences. One possible variable is simply the setting. I’m sure that we are all slightly less comfortable in the classroom than we are at home with our friends, and so I am sure that somewhat affects how much we laugh. Another example is that my friends are going to have more similar traits and interests as a group than our class, which means that we will probably be more likely to watch certain shows and to find them amusing. However, I think this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that we are the same age and are all FTT majors (so we clearly have a heightened interest, informed perspective and broad experience with TV).

Also, despite my observations, it does seem that there usually (definitely not always) is a significantly positive reception in our class when we discuss these shows. My explanation for this is actually due to the fact that we are FTT majors, and that we do have informed perspectives and generally hold higher standards for television. I believe that we get a large amount of enjoyment out of watching British comedies because they are very different and a nice break from the redundancy and simplicity that often times plagues American television. However, this does not necessarily make them good comedies, since we are not laughing as much as we otherwise would.

I guess my point in writing this rather lengthy post is that I think it’s very difficult for us to accurately evaluate British comedies—maybe even more so than other genres we have watched. I think this is first due to the fact that comedy as a genre constantly serves two masters (making people laugh, yet being different and unique), and I think problems in analyzing these separate parts is exacerbated by the British style, which makes it harder for us as Americans to connect with the humor.

In class, we talked about our feelings about multicam and single cam sitcoms. I, like it seemed most of us, have grown accustomed to single camera comedies. That’s not to say I don’t appreciate the multicam sitcoms, but I just feel like they are becoming a thing of the past. Most contemporary sitcoms shot in multicam are on CBS like the “Big Bang Theory” and “Two and a Half Men” which are generally popular amongst the older demographics of 35+. The younger audiences, like us, seem to favor things on NBC like “The Office”, “Parks and Rec”, and “Community” which are all single camera. When we watched “Miranda” I was immediately reminded of the sitcoms I used to watch growing up as a kid and a teenager, but I was disinterested because it was no the style of shows that I presently watch. My favorite sitcoms are the shows which are shot in the single camera format, where I see the multicams as the old way of doing things. I grew up watching “Friends”, “Seinfeld” and “Everybody Loves Raymond”, but my tastes seem to have evolved with the modern sitcom to favor the single cam.

One of the thing I did notice about “Miranda” was the writing. Writing a sitcom is incredibly difficult because I thought they are essentially going from one punch line to another. We talked about the subtle humor that we saw in “Twenty Twelve” with the snarky, under the breath comments or quick phrase right before a cut that you can easily miss. But a sitcom requires intricate phrasing and timing in order to get the audience to laugh at all the right places and find the show funny. At first I was critical about the episode of “Miranda” we watched because it felt like it had a few very big jokes and the rest of the show as just filler. So I looked up an article from The Guardian which commented on “How to Write Comedy: Writing Sitcom”(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/sep/22/comedy5) and it gave me a much greater insight into the art of sitcom writing. It stated that “Sitcoms are not about ‘gags’. It’s bad sitcoms that are full of jokes.” and they finish up by saying “character and situation make it hilarious.” By this explanation I can appreciate what “Miranda” was trying to do with its comedy. It wasn’t just trying to be a laugh factory by producing joke after joke.

The character of Miranda herself was pretty entertaining in herself, but the humor that was happening wasn’t always laugh out loud funny. There was something almost charming about the way she acted. Although I personally still prefer the single camera, I still have a great appreciate for the multi camera sitcom. They both require a special, specific style of writing which fits the format they are writing in. I feel like “Miranda” is a great example of a multicam sitcom which emphasizes the character and situations to make it funny, rather than just fire off joke after joke.

In preparation for writing this post, I googled Stewart Lee. His official website, http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/ came up as the first hit, and amongst the links for media clips, tour date tickets, and Stewart Lee merchandise, what kept flashing up, right under an ad for his latest tour, were a variety of “reviews” he’s received from the internet.  A few examples include,

He’s a self-impressed, patronising, up-his-own arse, condescending twat.
– Vagabond, b3ta.com

Stewart Lee: You are not funny. Almost a Dane Cook level of NOT funny.
-May Pescante, Twitter

Please Mr Lee do humanity a favor and scuttle back under your rock
– Charles, North Carolina, Dailymail.co.uk

“I hope stewart lee dies.”
– Idrie, Youtube

This one was particularly interesting, especially after comments in class on Wednesday about how the repetitive nature of his last bit became unfunny rather quickly.

A heckler could destroy his entire act simply by shouting “we get the fucking picture” from the back of the room in the first 5 minutes.
– Dirtbox, eurogamer.com

It seems that Lee has garnered quite a bit of negative criticism for coming off as a self-righteous jerk, but sometimes it works for him. The point I’m trying to make here, is that going to a comedian’s official website and finding a bunch of reviews that call him every terrible name possible (the ones above are tame compared to some of the rants featured) is absolutely funny.  He is playing off of what these people are saying in their reviews and showing them that he simply doesn’t care that they say mean things about him. 

I personally found Stewart Lee rather funny at times, and didn’t feel that the bit at the end was overlong or forced, but I also recognize that I just didn’t get a lot of his other jokes, possibly because I’m not British, but also possibly because they simply weren’t funny, or perhaps because a lot of them were rather bleak.

Here’s another clip from Comedy Vehicle with some of the intercuts that everyone seemed to like a bit more than his stand-up, even including a clip of Hitler and a fake news program that calls his own jokes terrible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXHq0F4nG5A&feature=related

We talked a little in class about the similarities between Twenty Twelve and 30 Rock, considering both are programs detailing what goes into producing something. While watching it, I found more parallels to The Office, mostly because of its style. 30 Rock doesn’t have interview segments or any sort of mockumentary feel, so The Office felt like a more natural comparison to me.

One clear difference though is the narration and that the interviewer’s voice is heard. The narrator will frequently talk over the dialogue of the characters in Twenty Twelve, which sort of gave me the impression that what the characters have to say isn’t always going to be funny or interesting, whereas nearly every line in The Office seems to be going for some sort of comedic value. For example, in this clip–which actually was very funny–the narrator speaks over Ian Fletcher, signaling that sometimes what he says doesn’t matter:

More interestingly though, when characters are being interviewed on their thoughts during an episode, you hear the questions that they are asked. The Office has some of its best moments in interviews with the characters, but you never hear the questions from “the camera crew,” although occasionally a character will reference them in the show.

Take this clip. It’s a very well known line from The Office, and think some of its humor comes from the fact that we don’t know what question Michael Scott is being asked. He might be off on this tangent on his own.

Sometimes we hear someone’s interview answer, and we think, what question could they have possibly been asked to spark that response? It’s part of the humor of the show.

Do you guys think Twenty Twelve would be funnier if we couldn’t hear the interviewer’s questions? Or is that factor a welcome addition to the mockumentary format?

More detail on the low ratings for Mad Men on Sky Atlantic.