Yanks Watching Telly

I mean honestly…WHAT WAS THAT. This comment is reserved solely for Psychoville. The Thick of It is way too normal, and The Mighty Boosh is far less put together to be associated with this “comedy”. Maybe I am just too mainstream of a television viewer, but I could not resonate with this show. We are constantly noticing the trend in which British TV makes the viewer feel uncomfortable. This can be tolerable in small doses, however, this dark comedy takes that habit way too far. According to its website the show is, “BBC Two’s spine-tingling, jaw-dropping, thrilling comedy serial.” If goosebumps, nausea, and nervous laughter count…then yes this show hit all three marks for me.

The show is featured in America on Fearnet, a cable channel that showcases horror-related shows. Understandably, a show like this could only be featured on a niche channel for a specific target demographic of horror lovers. That is the exact feeling that I felt when watching Psychoville…horrified. Every storyline managed to disturb the viewers: the one-handed clown, creepy blind man, delusional nurse, magical dwarf, and the serial-killer-in-the-making man/boy with his doting mother. The cast is fit for a freak show circus, and the humor seemed to be lost on me.

What I find more disturbing is the mostly positive reviews of the show evidenced by the comments listed under the show’s YouTube videos distributed through BBCWorldwide. Here are some quotes from viewers under videos featuring the future serial killer and his mom, who I found to be the most frightening/least funny characters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW85ANPdHf0&feature=relmfu):

ROTFLMAO: ReyKingz 1 year ago

This is just an amazing show: GottaLoveTheFez 1 year ago

Bwahahahaha… Nice. :0): funkchild75 1 year ago

English humor has it’s own League and we cannot touch it!: haidacanoe 1 year ago 67 likes

Furthermore, the posted videos have many likes, with only a few negative comments or dislikes. Clearly, there are people out there who enjoy this type of programming…I am just not one of them.

Interesting quote in here from Paul Feig, who you may know as the creator of Freaks and Geeks and director of Bridesmaids, and who is creating a mock-talk show comedy with American hosts for Sky Atlantic after it got rejected by Showtime: “Feig theorized to Deadline that the reason it’s resonated more with UK networks is that “British audiences responded to these overbearing American characters, and the show is Ab Fab meets everyone’s obnoxious parents who ask horrifying questions.””

Week after week, we have seen British television comedies hit many notes…some funny, some less entertaining. This week, at least in two cases, I am suffciently disturbed.

I can admire the wit of The Thick of It, but not the exaggerated camerawork and obvious jump cuts. It was a show better to listen to than to watch, which explains its early successes in radio. It epitomizes the general opinion of “British comedy” with a quick, dry wit through distinctive and quirky characters. On the other hand, you also meet distinctive and quirky characters in The Mighty Boosh and Psychoville…though definitely surrealistic in style.

Frankly, as hard as The Think of It was to watch, Psychoville hurt more. I enjoy unique concepts and out-of-the-box thinking, but Psychoville stands apart. The opening gag made me laugh, and tidbits throughout, but a majority of the time I felt uncomfortable or sheer confusion that someone actually thought of this. The Mighty Boosh, as weird as it was, offered a comedy troupe doing what they do best: silly things. I could understand and connect to that, but not the same with Psychoville. Forgive my horrible British allusion, but this week’s agenda was not my cup of tea.

I’ll be looking up the situation behind the blackmail, but after that…yep…I’m good.

This news dropped early this morning – the “constitutional treasure” will return, produced by BBC Productions.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/political-satire-yes-prime-minster-305843?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Anyone else think The Mighty Boosh seem really familiar? Old Gregg is a YouTube hit from a few years ago which most of my friends have seen, though none of us had any context. Very bizarre. And very similar to the episode we watched today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIInySnQe4I

I was really intrigued by “The Promise,” both in content and because of what Prof. Becker mentioned about complaints on the program’s ideology. Without having seen the entire series – and with a few gaps in our viewing of the first episode – I can only see hints of potential anti-Jewish or anti-semitic leanings in the show. I am not prepared to go so far as to call it such, but it is interesting to look at the political ideologies of the show nonetheless. We’ve seen by now that the British audience can be very vocal about problems they see with television programming and I believe Prof. Becker said there were around 500 complaints about “The Promise.

When we read Ofcom’s various rules and regulations a few weeks ago, I looked at bias and ideology on TV. Essentially, Ofcom ruled that if programming has a bias – and some programming should, do to the nature of its content and that all-important context – then the opposing viewpoint must also be expressed somewhere alongside the biased programming.

I don’t know if Ofcom ruled that “The Promise” did express a clear bias. If they did not, then I’d be interested to hear their reasoning as to why there is no bias. If they did, I wonder if part of the deal was that Channel 4 also had to schedule some programming about the conflict from the Jewish perspective.

A bias in this situation doesn’t necessarily seem uncalled for – when presenting such a contentious issue both historically and in the present, it seems almost inevitable that some ideology has to shine through the programming. If that is the case, though, then Channel 4, by Ofcom’s rules, has the obligation to present alternative points of view. If they did, then that seems commendable and a tribute to the benefits of Ofcom’s regulations. If not, then maybe Ofcom is just a bunch of hot air.

Much like Kelly, I was very impressed with the concept of Him and Her, and found it a very refreshing change of pace from the majority of comedies on both American and British television. I absolutely love the idea of showing the smaller moments of what it’s like to be in a relationship. So much of television romance seems somehow cheap and fake, and this show perfectly captures that true love comes out the best in those small interactions that no one else sees. I think the real time and bottle methods of the show help convey this very much as well. It all comes together to create a show that seems very real, a show that portrays how real life is often just as funny as television.

That being said, I felt like the show actually didn’t take things far enough. First of all, I thought the “wacky neighbor” trope had no real place in a show like this. As…interesting as that character was in this episode, I felt like he took something away from what Stefan Golaszewski was trying to do. The sister and her husband were better, but I still felt like they didn’t quite belong in this universe. I understand that characters have to enter the universe of Becky and Steve in order to keep things fresh and interesting, but I feel like in real life everyone runs into all sorts of people who are amusing but not too over the top. On the other hand, I felt like the old woman DID work, so maybe I’m just nit-picking for the sake of it.

Essentially, I found the concept of looking at life’s little moments to be a brilliant and refreshing idea. I don’t think such a show would every fly in America, but I plan on watching the other episodes just to see how well Mr. Golaszewski and his team have pulled it off so far. I would be interested in seeing a similar show with even less of the zany side characters, because I feel like this is a show that could really speak to people who want their television to be a little less manufactured and a little more real.

As far as I can tell, Him and Her was one of the few comedies that was received well amongst our class. As usual, it is refreshing to watch a British comedy and see that the United Kingdom can take a joke. The realism in this show was really refreshing, especially because it’s a look inside relationships that not many get to see on a regular basis. It also brings a smile to the viewer, just watching a couple be so in love and feeding each other patience to get through the trials and tribulations of living in a middle-class apartment, bizarre tenants, and most importantly- families. Not only does the couple on show their love for each other through patience, but most importantly, through humor.

So many of the situations in the episode we watched were funny but what was truly organic, was how Steve and Becky react to their outrageous circumstances. I think most of what the pair ran into (the elderly lady, sister, and strange neighbor) was exaggerated to create entertaining characters on screen. This can be annoying of television shows, but I could handle the slight exaggerations because of how natural Becky and Steve handled them, it was basically how I imagine I would have reacted. They weren’t reacting in a contrived way to arrive at a punch line for a laugh track. This kind of comedy can be dangerous for American television, because most Americans enjoy having their comedy served to them on a platter. But for those who can appreciate the natural humor of Him and Her, it is a cute television show that allows the viewer to become a third party in the cozy apartment of Steve and Becky.

Heading into the viewing of The Promise, I have to say that I was pretty excited. Although watching an intense, politically charged show right after a light-hearted comedy is not the ideal circumstance, I was nevertheless interested to see a modern day, high quality, and original British production.

The first comment I would like to make about The Promise is that it truly is a very well made show that really doesn’t seem to be constricted by lower budget allowances like many other British shows are (i.e. Him and Her). I definitely found myself immersed in the story, and also began identifying with the characters as well—a strong testament to the captivating subject matter, writing, and acting that the program provides. Additionally, I think that the heightened sense of realism adds to this immersive quality of the show. In some ways, through the constant use of handheld, the show feels similar to a documentary, despite its fictional roots.

To me, this is the most interesting aspect of The Promise—it is a scripted show that is commenting on a very current and contentious political topic. Generally, at least in the U.S., we don’t see shows with those characteristics. Usually, we either get documentaries about the political issue, or we receive scripted dramas post-conflict (i.e. Apocalypse Now, released in 1979 well after the end of the Vietnam War). Even The Hurt Locker, which is an example of a fictional piece released during the time of conflict, is very different because its main subject matter is not the issues of U.S. military policy, but rather the psychological states of the soldiers. Obviously there are some exceptions to this broad claim I am making, and I am not saying that The Promise is revolutionary, but I do think that it is fairly unique.

The reason I have gone to such lengths to highlight this characteristic about the show is that it seems to me that this kind of structure is a large determiner of the lasting effect of the message and topics being discussed. Obviously, the BBC chose not to fund or air the program most likely because they were afraid of the public reception. Some would say this is because the subject matter is very controversial. However, I think this may be putting it too lightly. Controversial can mean many things, but at its core it represents something that incites debate and argument. I think one could argue that instead of encouraging such discussion, The Promise is actually providing its own argument—its own answer. In this sense controversial could be replaced with manipulative, because the show does seem to represent a form of reality through its style.

Thus, I wonder how the show will continue to present its argument. I think the first episode was fairly balanced, but as we all know the show ends up leaning towards the side of the Palestinians. Again, it is not revolutionary for a show like this to take a side. However, considering the mandate for Channel 4 to present challenging and thought-provoking content, I do question whether this is truly what they had in mind, as it is a program with a bias and a slant. I am not fully indicting the show or the network for releasing it, especially considering I haven’t seen the remainder of the series, but I have to say that this program reminds me much more of an American production as the more objective nature that British shows we have watched (i.e. Our War) seems to have been abandoned slightly here.

I think that “The Promise” was an outstanding drama that achieved exactly what Channel 4 was looking for it to do. If Channel 4 was looking for an ambitious and edgy but well done drama that would help legitimize their network as more than just “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” and the former home to “Big Brother” then I think it has succeeded. That’s not to say that “The Promise” doesn’t fit with Channel 4’s image. The drama has been criticized and complained abo0ut all over Britain as portraying British-Jewish relations negatively. It also opens up discussion about events which not a lot of people were familiar with (Channel 4 encouraged its viewers to read up on the historical events that happen in the show on their website http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-promise/articles/further-reading). Channel 4 is no stranger to dealing with controversy surrounding its shows and in that sense, “The Promise” fits right in on Channel 4.

But what makes “The Promise” such a unique show for Channel 4 was the quality of the program. It was a well produced and well researched and when compared to something like “Gypsy Weddings,” it completely blows it out of the water. I can see why Channel 4 wanted “The Promise” and was willing to deal with the controversy surrounding it. “The Promise” received rave reviews about its production and narrative, despite the controversy surrounding the portrayal of the British role in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It seems like the show brought in viewers to tune in to critically acclaimed show rather than a show that has exploitative aspects surrounding its characters like “Gypsy Weddings.”

In my opinion I don’t think “The Promise” would have fit well with BBC. Even though Channel 4 did not have a reputation for having a show like “The Promise” I think that ultimately it ended up being the best fit. I’m not sure that other networks would have been able to handle the controversy it created. The risk/reward factor made the drama distinctly “Channel 4” even though it was initially pitched to the BBC. If “The Promise” is the first of many high quality drams on Channel 4, then they are off to a good start.

I think the BBC missed out with this one.

The first episode of “The Promise” to me was a very well-done, thoughtful, and sometimes shocking drama. The footage of the liberated concentration camps was particularly hard to stomach, and then put that on top of seeing Jews in Palestine being rounded up by soldiers in a similar manner, and you want to look away.

The idea of wanting to look away is maybe what the BBC was trying to avoid when it passed up on “The Promise.” Writer and director Peter Kominsky said the channel had maybe lost its desire for challenging material. “The Promise” is certainly challenging, which fits right in with Channel 4. To think that the money that went toward making “The Promise” was previously going toward funding “Big Brother.” That’s a laughably trade up. Something like this has to boost the credibility of Channel 4. I know that there has been a lot of debate that the fourth channel has gotten away from its roots of being different toward being sensationalistic, and if that’s the case, they should invest in projects like “The Promise” more often.

When Paul is taking Erin past the checkpoint and she protests that it’s dangerous, he replies, “Rather be back safely by the pool?” It seems like the BBC would rather be back safely by the pool. While watching “The Promise,” I couldn’t help but think how well this kind of drama would fit into the BBC. When reading up on its preproduction, I found out that 82 veterans were interviewed for days to get the information to make the drama as historically accurate as possible. A challenging, accurate, boundary-pushing serial is something that you would think the BBC would be interested in.

I also found a video that goes behind-the-scenes of filming. You can tell that even minor actors really wanted to get the significance and difficulties of emotion across:

I hate to piggy-back on Erin’s discussion of the bottle episode-ness of Him and Her, but it was also the first thing that came to mind as we watched the show, and fits in with the budget constraints for British television as a whole.

Because it is on BBC, Him and Her obviously is in a budget crunch like the entire corporation is. This would lead the thought to be that the higher-ups at the BBC enjoy the show because the relative bargain it receives by producing it.

Also, like Erin, I had a flash-back to an American television episode having their own bottle episode. Instead of Friends, I thought of Community and their episode “Cooperative Calligraphy.”  Community (despite godawful ratings) is extremely well-written, creative, and gains some critical acclaim. Dan Harmon is extremely self-aware in the production of the show, and in fact in the episode, there are several quips about the fact that it is a bottle episode (the entire show takes place in the community college’s study room).

The thing that sticks out to me is that American sitcoms have to do a bottle episode almost once a season. Because they have 24 episodes to fill, even with the bigger budget, they often have to do so to save some money that the producers and writers can then use in another episode where they can be more creative and make more chances. However, Him and Her has only aired 13 episodes, or roughly half of one SEASON of Community.

While the BBC obviously loves the money it can save on Him and Her, I don’t think a show like this would work in America. Most Americans probably don’t notice the bottle episode (they aren’t all as obvious as Friends and Community) so they can get away with it in a long season. However, I don’t think an American audience would watch a show that takes place in only one location, consciously, over an entire season.

Also, if you have the time, you should absolutely watch this episode if you have the time/want a good laugh. http://www.hulu.com/watch/191067/community-cooperative-calligraphy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17456505

After viewing the episode of Him & Her, I went back and reread the description of the program: “Intimate, anti-romantic comedy about real-life love in its lazy, messy, everyday glory.”

I applaud the creator of Him & Her for exploring a realm of relationships that few programs dare to delve into. According to the description, I would agree that the show is “intimate,” “real-life” and certainly “messy.” However, the real word that sticks out to me is “glory.” Him & Her successfully pinpoints the glory behind successful relationships, free of the falsities and superfluous characteristics so often seen on television. I am quite impressed that the creator has managed to pull off a show that actually glorifies the mundane. Personally, I found the amount of inactivity to be weirdly refreshing.

There is something so intruiging about watching two people act so completely normal. The idea that TV offers viewers a sense of escapism constantly seems to pop up, but Him & Her seems to do just the opposite, it actually keeps viewers in check with their own surroundings. Within this environment, people loose their keys, endure the pesky neighbor upstairs and are nice to their siblings out of necessity. There are spontaneous pillow fights, moments of uncanny intimacy and awkward silences. This is where the glory lies.

Him & Her essentially epitomizes the “relatable” program. There is nothing special about either character other than the fact that they have found true love. There is no drawn-out, ambitious, lofty love story that ends with fairy dust and rainbows. Instead, there are two people who would rather stay inside with one another than do anything else. As if the show couldn’t get any more real, the element of the plot unfolding in real time enhances the program. There is no time for scripted nonsense that characters would never actually say. All of the conversations and reactions are meant to come across as unadulterated and off the cuff.

Him & Her will certainly not appeal to everyone. In fact, I probably won’t indulge in any more episodes on my own. Mostly, I appreciate the fact that this type of program has found a home on British television. I don’t think I have ever seen anything quite like it.

Here’s a chunk of what we missed from The Promise.

http://youtu.be/A35ik5HmlXk