As I have been making my way through past episodes of NBC’s “Community,” I came across one particular episode that took some shots at British Television. Pretty funny stuff and good to know that this class has at the very least given me the relevant knowledge to understand Community’s cultural references.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K82xjKCbL_Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRPeqaZiQ-M&feature=player_embedded
I agree wholeheartedly with a point brought up by Professor Becker, in that Miranda “is quite self-consciously framed as uncool, unhip, unedgy, fitting perfectly with Miranda’s awkward character.”
Sure, multi-cam sitcoms are outdated, awkward, old-fashioned, etc… but so is Miranda! Miranda is a bull in a china shop. She is a single, 30-something who trips on her own feet and struggles to interact with the opposite sex. If there is any character who appropriately fits into the multi-cam realm, it is her. Miranda includes enough guttural, funny elements to justify the appropriateness of the multi-cam.
Miranda herself is extremely likeable. Serving as the antithesis to the quintessential (American) young, attractive lead, she is a bit more grotesque. Along with her unorthodox persona comes a comedic timing that propels the entire show. What other element of a sitcom is more important than the comedy, anyways? Betty mentioned the scenes in the doctor’s office and the undeniably awkward “sharing of the pull-out couch” scene as being laugh-out-loud funny, and I agree. Miranda’s commentary to the camera and over-the-top reactions are undeniably truthful. Who hasn’t dreaded some portion of overwhelming, family-driven holidays or gone crazy while awaiting the arrival of a package?
The BBC even admits to Miranda’s shortcomings and rejoices in them. According to the BBC One website, “It doesn’t matter what Miranda attempts in life, whether it’s dating or simply dealing with her overbearing mother, she always seems to fall flat, quite literally.” The show relishes in Miranda’s failures, which are both endearing and entertaining.
In a world where comedic sitcoms are constantly trying to set the trends for the genre, Miranda stands alone. Perhaps rooted in the past, Miranda is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. Despite its unique style, I appreciate the fact that the program has still found a home (and quite a successful one) on television.
It is no secret that FTT students are suppose to have sophisticated tastes in film and television and express their pretentious or critical opinions about this show and that movie. Of course I also love the quality television shows and movies that do innovative camera and script work, but I have a special place in my heart for “entertainment for the masses” and Miranda reminded of this.
I grew up watching CBS, so I grew up watching multi-camera sitcoms mixed with “Survivor” and the “Amazing Race”. It was these shows that helped me realize how invested I can become in a television show and characters. I totally gush over shows like “Big Bang Theory” and “How I Met Your Mother”. I do not mind being the fourth wall and I totally fall for the upfront jokes. In this class we have not watched shows with these features, which is great, but I really enjoyed how Miranda brought me back to this style of comedy.
Not all of the jokes were great, not because I did not understand them, but because they simply weren’t funny and there were times when Miranda would look at the camera that seemed a little weird or forced. This being said, I think there was some gold in this episode. The scene in the doctor’s office and the scene when she shares the couch with her “friend” had me laughing out loud, which is not something I have been doing with British comedy. It was in these scenes, when she addressed the audience, that amped up the comedy because not only is what is happening in the story funny, so is what is going on in her mind. On the other hand, looking to the audience and mouthing the word “help” or asking the audience for advice may seem a little remedial, like something that would happen on “Dora the Explorer” and “Blue’s Clues”. As Professor Becker’s post discussed, Miranda is not the most innovative or hip thing on television today, but neither is Miranda herself, she is awkward! Truthfully, I have my fair share of awkward moments, so maybe that’s why I found moments in the show so funny. Miranda does do something unique, however, by bringing viewers back to the multi-cam style, but also breaking the fourth wall throughout which is not an easy task.
All in all, this style of sitcom is a classic that I don’t deny to love.
The BBC examines how/when/why British accents are used by characters in fantasy movies and TV shows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17554816
As Carleen and Sam can attest, Twenty Twelve was thoroughly entertaining, and not just because of the comedy the writer, John Morton, strives for. While everybody can understand and assume the ineptitude of networks and Olympic committees as they prepare for the 2012 Summer Olympics, Carleen, Sam, and I have first hand knowledge of it.
The three of us were chosen by NBC Sports to intern for the network during the 2012 London Games. While obviously excited for the opportunity, it seems as though the entire network is run by Graham Hitchins, the bumbling Head of Infrastructure (we need bike lanes). We were late to find out whether we were accepted to the program, we were late (by two months in my situation) to find out where we would be working–in New York, Connecticut, or London–and as far as I know, nobody has had communications with the network in almost six months to discuss any further logistics or anything. Because of this, I feel I was able to enjoy Twenty Twelve on a different level, after having the first-hand experience of how incompetent some people can (at least appear) to be.
Now that that is out of the way, I actually thought that Twenty Twelve was a smart move for the BBC. While we learned the BBC dominates the audience share in Britain, it is obvious that numbers are dwindling and the Corporation is under heavy attack from digital channels, satellite, and fed-up license fee payers. By poking fun both at itself and at the signature event that the BBC has exclusive rights to, the BBC almost humanizes itself through Twenty Twelve. While I suppose the argument could be made that it actually shows how incompetent and bumbling they actually are, I feel it does the opposite. It makes the audience realize how much actually goes into the set-up and broadcast of a major event like the Olympics.
According to the Wikipedia page for the show (so take this information with a grain of salt), the show has never pulled over half a million viewers. However, it did win Best Sitcom at the 2011 British Comedy Awards. Perhaps by by humanizing itself like it does through Twenty Twelve, the BBC will continue to survive as a Public Service Broadcaster in Great Britain through the next license fee commission and report.
It didn’t really dawn on me until reading Becker’s post on Miranda: British comedy takes so many forms. In two hours yesterday afternoon, we saw four different kinds of comedic formats. In the same amount of time on NBC’s Thursday night comedy, we’d typically see a cinema verite/mocumentary and a single-cam. I can’t think of something like Stewart Lee’s… on network (NBC, CBS, ABC) at all, unless you count the stand-up bits on Seinfeld, which would be a stretch.
Each of the US networks seems to have their comedy format of choice: NBC does CV/mocumentaries, CBS does multi-cams, and Fox and ABC have their single-cams. Obviously there are exceptions to that very broad generalization, but those are the formats that stick out to me. All of the shows we watched yesterday came from a BBC channel, and a couple comfortably shifted from a lower channel to BBC1 or BBC2, so obviously the BBC is seeking to be innovative and to expand its broad-spectrum programming with the number of comedy formats. I find that very interesting and admirable.
I went to radiotimes.com to see what kinds of programs there were programmed around some of the BBC’s comedies, to see if a British audience ever experiences a potpourri of comedic forms the way we did yesterday. Obviously they seek to spread out their programming, but I’m pretty sure Becker said that they either do or had done some kind of comedy night on one of the channels.
Since Twenty Twelve is on right now, I decided to look at that specifically. It airs on Friday night at 10PM and this week is preceded by Brick By Brick: Rebuilding Our Past, a show about disassembling and rebuilding historical houses (which sounds like a hoot and a half to me, although I doubt that’s the intention). It is followed by QI XL, which is a quiz show where Stephen Fry asks celebrities questions and “awards points for the most interesting answers.” It sounds like it could be funny, but isn’t a scripted comedy like the ones we saw. So, the short answer seems to be that comedy is generally spread out with everything else.
When I went to the BBC’s website to look up info on some of the shows I was seeing, I went to the Comedy page and saw they had broken down the comedies into categories:
While I understand that genre and form are two different things, I still thought it was really interesting that they broke their scheduling down like that, and into more categories that I would have expected. I thought that what we saw yesterday was an interesting mix, but to think that there’s even more – enough to split “music” into its own separate comedy category – is mind boggling. I realize that these shows are split among the BBC family of channels, but it’s crazy to me that the same outlet is producing so much different and successful content. The BBC is known over here for The Office, but it seems like it would be hard to peg it the way I did
I have two major questions coming out of this brief research: (1) Does the variety of formats and subgenres just within Comedy mean that the BBC is using its money well? Does having so many formats mean that there’s not only programming, but COMEDY programming for everyone? (2) Is there value to the mixed schedule when it comes to comedy? Can we appreciate the different forms more when we spread out the laughs and have something funny to look forward to on different days? Is the US idea of “comedy night done right” better? Why?
As in the US, UK TV offers a bifurcation between single-cam sitcoms, which are considered hip and are on the whole more critically praised, and multi-cam or studio audience sitcoms, which are fewer in number, critically framed as dumbed down entertainment for the masses, usually don’t win awards (except for the People’s Choice variety), and increasingly thought of as obsolete. However, Canadian TV critic Jaime Weinman has argued that British multi-cams might have a better chance of co-existing alongside single-cams than in the US because the UK industry shows more awareness of form, of forming the comedy to the format, which inherently makes the shows less problematic aesthetically, whereas in the US the choice to go multi-cam seems more driven by commercial impulses rather than aesthetic ones. I would also add to his argument that British TV has always had a wider range of comedy formats in prime time, especially studio audience formats, and not just multi-cam sitcoms but sketch comedy shows and panel chat shows, and at all times in the schedule, which might also feed into a wider awareness of the role of format, for both creators and audiences.
The sitcom Miranda is an intriguing case in that regard. Written by and starring Miranda Hart, Miranda presents Hart playing a character she honed during her standup comedian days, an awkward, bumbling thirty-something woman who nonetheless bounces along happily and self-deprecatingly through life, albeit hounded by a mother who thinks it’s unnatural that her daughter isn’t married with kids yet. Hart says she always envisioned the show as an audience sitcom as an extension of her standup comedy. She expected it would be disparaged as lowbrow fare and was gratified when audiences responded to it positively. Hart says she’s especially pleased that rather than seeing Miranda as a guilty pleasure, many see it as a chance to be “allowed to openly like an uncool show.” (And it is popular in viewership; it started on BBC Two, but due to its popularity has been bumped up to BBC One for its upcoming third season.) Critically, reception is mixed, with the typical multi-cam dismissal that it offers predictable and cheap humor, but it has gotten some respectable awards traction. It received BAFTA and British TV Academy nominations, and at the British Comedy Awards in 2011, Miranda won both the Best New TV Comedy Award (the first multi-cam sitcom to take that title since 1999) and the People’s Choice entry.
As Hart’s quote would attest, the show is quite self-consciously framed as uncool, unhip, unedgy, fitting perfectly with Miranda’s awkward character. Highly performative, Miranda wholly embraces sitcom theatricality; you could even say it panders to it. Each episode starts with Miranda talking to the audience, has moments in the middle of her commenting or playing to the audience, and ends with the main characters waving to the audience, a deliberate callback to 1970s British sitcom conventions.
[Depicted here are two consecutive scenes of Miranda playing to the audience. She runs a joke shop, a customer has come in and sees Miranda and friend (and love interest) Gary playing with toys, but rather than admitting they were playing childishly with the toys themselves, they lie and say they were just picking up the toys for their children. The lies spiral from there. (Make sure to watch through to the second scene, which is a perfect example of how fluidly Miranda interacts with the audience, in the studio and at home. Also, info on Cliff Richard, if you don’t know him.)]
Hart has said these asides are highly influenced by 1970s sitcom conventions and classic British TV comedians like Morecambe and Wise, but the show doesn’t feel like a relic of the past. It feels very contemporary, in fact, not far off from what single-cams have been credited with innovating, such as use of asides to the camera, quick cutaways, and self-conscious narrational moments.
[Here is a scene where Gary busts into a therapy session with Miranda and her mom. Watch the scene and then note in retrospect how the audience reacts according to multi-cam rules, even though there’s been a single-cam-esque temporal manipulation in production.]
But there’s no question Miranda relies on a type of humor one might call corny and unsophisticated. One review offered: “This is a show that wouldn’t be fashionable if Lady Gaga turned up in it to perform a secret gig. But neither is it meant to be.” The qualification there is significant. Similarly, one commenter, complaining about a reviewer calling the show kitsch, wrote, “There’s nothing ‘kitsch’ about it, unless you think the aesthetics of television are of themselves embarrassing, in which case why write about the medium? ‘Kitsch’ is a style in taste that presupposes an element of self-loathing that simply isn’t present in Miranda. The show doesn’t disapprove of itself for being popular culture.”
In such a manner, both the format and the performance present Miranda embracing who she is, an unconventional female comedy figure, and outwardly expressing it with infinite gusto, carrying forth through all manner of embarrassment. For me, the self-consciousness of the show’s style, the active studio audience, and Hart’s playing to that audience and viewers help to make the show’s cringe humor, the type quite common to post-Office single-cams, feel inclusive, endearing Miranda to the audience rather than separating her out, like a David Brent figure. In that sense, Miranda affirms Jaime Weinman’s point about strategic use of form being evident in Britain’s multi-cams, and it’s gratifying to see an audience, if not a full set of critics, respond to that. The show also points toward an incorporation of old and new that indicates the creative potential of the multi-cam, one that in the US seems to be going untapped, as excesses here seem to have come lately in the form of raunchy content, not creative form.
Here’s a profile of Armando Iannucci, the writer of The Thick of It who’s now doing the remake Veep for HBO.
If you’d like to watch some Royle Family to pair with Monday’s assigned article, this lovely person….I mean, this craven law breaker has posted all the episodes on YouTube. I’m planning to show clips from Series 2, Episode 5, “Barbara’s Finally Had Enough,” on Monday, but you can watch the whole thing here if you’d like. Logline: wife Barbara is sick of how lazy husband Jim is, and Jim is annoyed by Barbara being particularly short-tempered as she goes through menopause. Daughter Denise tries to comfort Barbara while Denise’s husband Dave watches Who Wants to Be A Millionaire with Jim.
http://youtu.be/e9w9qMh7x_8
http://youtu.be/kAZUf6rrGVw
Although wacky and certainly “out-there”, I enjoyed The Mighty Boosh and found it to be entertaining. It was definitely something that you would describe as being best watched while on drugs, but it still found its moments to be not too bizarre and thus a fun watch. But perhaps what interested me most about the show is how it was adapted from radio, much like many other programs in the UK. I tried to think of a recent television series in the last fifty years that was adapted from radio and had a hard time coming up with anything after I Love Lucy, which was adapted for television in 1951 (so more like sixty years).
This certainly speaks to the differences between television cultures, and I guess entertainment cultures in general, in the US and UK. There’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to BBC Radio programs that have been adapted to television. And perhaps even more interestingly, there are also BBC television series that have been adapted for radio, something I am almost certain would never happen in the US. A particular program that I was surprised to see on the list for being adapted from radio was Whose Line Is It Anyways? which of course was also a successful television series in the US. The British series came before the American one, thus I guess you could say this was an example of an American television series adapted from radio during the past twenty-five years.
However, I think the most interesting part about this is how Americans have moved away from radio as a source for narrative entertainment from various genres and instead see it as a source for news and talk radio, which is often political. Meanwhile, the British have maintained a capacity for enjoying narratives on radio, which allows for a show like The Mighty Boosh to find different routes onto television. Nevertheless, I can’t fathom how bizarre The Mighty Boosh might sound on radio. How could half of the things we saw during the episode we watched possibly be communicated clearly through radio? It would be fun to hear an adaptation and see if it came across as even more radical and surreal.
Although we have viewed some British sitcoms during the course of the semester, I believe that it was this week’s screening that gave me a true idea of the range and depth of British TV comedy. Prior to this class, I had not seen many British comedies, and those that I had seen I was not particularly enamored by. In fact, apart from Inbetweeners, there has not been one comedy series at our screenings that I have genuinely liked. However, this changed during this week’s screening of The Thick of It as the show’s sharp wit and constant bombardment of subtle humor constantly had me engaged and laughing. Yet, despite my appreciation for this cinema verite style of comedy, I will not be talking about The Thick of It in today’s blog post. Instead, I will be discussing the Mighty Boosh, a show that I did not actually like per say, but still very much intrigued me as a viewer.
For an acclaimed comedy series, it is quite unusual that I never laughed once during the Mighty Boosh nor even thought I liked what was happening on the screen. Yet, despite this indifference, I could not take my pupils off the screen because I was so utterly fascinated by the bizarrities unfolding. In fact, after watching to “Journey to the Centre of a Punk,” I went ahead and watched two more episodes and a short clip of “Old Gregg.” From the talking white blood cells to Old Gregg’s “mangina,” I was completely intrigued by the weirdness of the series and simply could not stop watching. For a series that I still to this very moment do not actually enjoy, it is very perplexing and unusual that I watched so many episodes, which I believe, really speaks to the surrealist spell and charm that the series has on its viewers. However, despite its charm and intrigue, I would still far from classify myself as a fan of the show. And this thought brought me to my main question about the show that I posed during class: what is the target demographic or audience for true fans of The Mighty Boosh?
When trying to pinpoint what the target audience is for the Mighty Boosh, one must assume that it closely aligns with the target market for its broadcaster, BBC Three. As we learned earlier in the semester, BBC Three has a target age range of 16-34. Although I am confident that the majority of people in this age range would find the series off-putting and childish in its over-the-top attempts to get a laugh, I am sure there are a few oddballs in this target age gap that truly do enjoy the goofy nature of the show. Instead of merely being intrigued by the oddities of the series like myself, I am sure these true fans are like “cultists” of the series and legitimately enjoy the humor of the series. Also, I do not think it would be a far stretch of the imagination to believe that many of these avid fans are drug users who find the show’s inherent surrealism as a perfect complement to their illicit activities. In fact, for the types of situations created in the show (like the talking ape or the “funk” producing amoeba from Old Gregg), one must assume that the creators were using some sort of mind-altering drugs when thinking it up. However, these are just assumptions, and so I thought I would do a little digging on the subject.
After doing some research on the series, my thoughts were confirmed as it turns out that at The Might Boosh’s live shows the average person is in their late teens to mid twenties and is oftentimes participating in illegal activities either before or during the show. In fact, many fans of the series have “viewing parties” where they get together and partake in illegal drug activity before watching the show. However, my thoughts on mind-altering drugs affecting the actual creation of the show may have been unfounded. It turns out that although Noel Fielding (one of the creators of the show) used to partake in many drugs like MDMA and horse tranquilizers, he and his co-creators have largely stayed away from these drugs over the years. In fact, they have come out many times stating that drugs come from a “dark place” and they instead like to maintain their “childlike and magical” innocence that makes the series what it is. This reveal completely shocked me as I was almost certain that like Pink Floyd or any other psychedelic musician, the drugs would be a part of what added to the surrealist product. However, the fact that these comedians do not actually need drugs in order to create their bizarre product speaks to the absolute creativity and talent that these artists must have.
“Blink and you’re dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don’t turn your back. Don’t look away. And don’t blink.” The Doctor’s words in “Blink” seem to resonate with BBC4’s The Thick of It, a program which requires the viewer’s undivided attention due to its quick wit, shaky camera, and the incredible pace at which the characters speak. I had the accent barrier against me, but it still seemed as though a mere blink or mishearing of a line would have me lost. There’s certainly no slumping down in front of the boob tube and turning your brain off with The Thick of It. This falls in line with Cinema Verite’s position on the British comedy spectrum as opposed to surreal humor like The Mighty Boosh, much of which is more easily accessible slapstick. The comedy in Cinema Verite is easily missed if one does not look for it, especially when the dialogue is bursting with sophisticated references to politics and pop culture. The articulate language of The Thick of It makes much of the humor of the show lie merely in the manner in which the words are spoken. A sharp viewer is required for this show, but if one is willing to put forth the effort, The Thick of It has a hilarious payoff.
When The Thick of It started, I first noted that Malcolm Tucker was played by Peter Capaldi, who also plays Sid’s father in Skins. It wasn’t until about five minutes in that I realized I’d seen a few of these characters before in the film In the Loop with James Gandolfini and Anna Chlumsky (of My Girl fame). This film depicts the British government’s relations with the American government as the U.S. moves forward with war in the Middle East. I’d never heard of the television show before seeing the movie, but that certainly didn’t affect my enjoyment of it. Although many of the TV series cast returned, the only actual returning characters are Malcolm Tucker, Jamie MacDonald and Sam Cassidy, with other actors from the series playing new characters. In The Loop was nominated for an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay in 2010 and is really worth checking out. Here’s an old trailer:
I was also surprised to learn that I’d heard of the HBO remake coming out in April. Veep features TV darlings Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Tony Hale (as well as Anna Chlumsky again) in a political comedy about the female vice-president of the United States. With a less shaky camera and seemingly fully new and different cast of characters, it doesn’t seem to be as much a remake as an entirely new show with the same auteur behind it. There was a more loyal remake (produced by Arrested Development‘s Mitch Hurwitz) in the works back in 2006 for ABC which revolved around a low-level member of Congress and never made it to air.
The Thick of It‘s creator and writer of the failed ABC remake, Armando Iannucci, stated the following of the U.S. network version, “It was terrible…they took the idea and chucked out all the style. It was all conventionally shot and there was no improvisation or swearing. It didn’t get picked up, thank God.” Let’s hope HBO can deliver Iannucci’s crassness and wit without the sacrifice of style with Veep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soJggb_jDL8
Interesting article from The New York Times on Elizabeth McGovern, who is in “Downton Abbey.” Formerly engaged to Hollywood star Sean Penn, McGovern has led a relatively quiet life married to an Englishman the past 18 years — in a sense paralleling her role on “Downton Abbey.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/arts/television/04mcgovern.html
After writing my first paper on the threat of elimination of BBC4, I was extremely intrigued to watch “The Thick of It.” The program, created by comedic genius Armando Iannucci, was one of a few programs I came across in my research that truly highlighted the strengths of BBC4 — and in some cases, turned weaknesses into strengths. Iannucci mentioned in an interview with a British newspaper the budget for his show was small, but that did not deter the cast and crew. In fact, the creative forces behind the show wore it as a badge of pride that they went out each day of filming to produce this high-quality show on such a low budget. We as viewers may complain about the shaky camera or, in my opinion, the difficult-to-hear speech at times, but all things considered, this is nitpicking – the show is very, very good. In fact, if I had not been told it was a BBC4 show, I never would have guessed. In my mind, BBC4 is stately, stodgy, and prim and proper – quite unlike this antics-laden show moving so fast if you blink, you are sure to miss a joke.
Having viewed this episode less than two hours after handing in my paper, I could not help but think of the show as more than a comedy – to me, “The Thick of It” represents exactly what BBC4 needs to be doing in order to survive. Its intelligent, quirky sense of humor lends me to believe the show may not be a ratings-smash, but I would bet it had a very loyal following during its run. More importantly, programming like “The Thick of It” is network-defining stuff. Lately, BBC4 has been known for several things – budget cutbacks and the threat of elimination, documentary programming, and imported foreign dramas such as Denmark’s “The Killing.” The first, obviously, is a serious problem. The second two are certainly major parts of what the network does, but my paper led me to believe BBC4 wants to be “distinct” and “innovative.” Television documentary, no matter how well produced, is never going to make BBC4 “distinct” nor “innovative.” Additionally, while ordering “The Killing” was a strong programming move for BBC4 that may have saved the network for the time being, it nevertheless is an imported show – and BBC4, as part of the BBC, is a British institution by nature. “The Thick of It,” on the other hand, continues in the vein of a storied history of British comedy. Additionally, it is innovative while still being cheap to produce – a necessity for BBC4. Running programming like “The Thick of It” not only defines BBC4 as culturally relevant, but it also gives the network an identity.
Luckily for BBC4, it appears an eight-episode fourth series begins filming this month, according to Iannucci. Hopefully, the network will be able to land the programming – BBC2 aired the third series. For BBC4 to survive, it can’t just schedule documentary programming and foreign drama. Rather, it needs to highlight the patented British wit that is a cultural hallmark and longstanding source of pride of the nation.
It was only one third of the comedy we watched this week and by far my least favorite, but I could not think of anything else to talk about because it was just so…I don’t even know what singular word could possibly sum up Psychoville.
At first I was intrigued by the secret letters and the scared characters and though that it could be one of those quirky shows that was just ‘off’ enough to work. But then the clown toke his hand off at a children’s party. And the woman doted on a doll like her real-life child. And the mother essentially groped her son while quizzing him on serial killers before he went to recreate the acts. Although I was not as totally disgusted watching this as I was watching Black Mirror a few weeks ago, my stomach still turned and I wanted to look away. What was the inspiration for something like this? Who’s deeply disturbed mind developed this show and wrote this script? How could you possibly think this was a good idea?
Well, I guess enough people DID think it was a good idea…because it got two series already. This is just another example of the completely different comedic styles of the US and the UK. We’ve all said that other shows wouldn’t work in the US but this may be the first time I truly believe it. I would be hard pressed to think of a super-small, cult-like audience that would enjoy something like this, but if you know of one, I’d be extremely interested in knowing who it is. At least with the dark and disturbing plot of Black Mirror there was a point, a message, and a greater purpose, but in my opinion Psychoville has nothing to give than shock value and confusion. Nothing made sense. I was not entertained. I would probably be scared of the people who are die-hard fans of this show.
Granted, we did only watch the first episode and it must make some bigger connections later in the series, but if I was watching this as a premiere in the UK, I would not be hooked and absolutely never tune in again. I can handle strange, but apparently I cannot handle psycho.
