I know that Bellamy's People is not a sitcom, and therefore slightly out of the range of this blog but there are some lessons that do carry over, since Bellamy's People is, ultimately, a character comedy. And I was surprised to learn that the BBC have not recommissioned it. Why was I surprised? Because it's studded with top comedy talent and the critics that I read seemed to love it. And sometimes, one feels, the BBC bloody-mindedly decide to recommission a series in order to prove the first series was not a failure or a mistake. That said, I can't think of that happening recently. The Persuasionists received very short shrift from BBC2 and was demoted twice during it's run. Perhaps also I thought the BBC would want to keep Whitehouse and Higson onside since they're clearly people the BBC want to continue working with. This is understandable, although a very expensive way of going about it.
There a few points worth making at the outset. And this is why analysing the failures of the mighty is worthwhile - because their talent is not in question. If one watches a new show from a new writer or team, one might think that the author has failed because he or she doesn't know what he or she is doing - and doesn't know how to write jokes. This is not the case with Higson and Whitehouse, who have been responsible for some of the great comedy characters in recent British comedy history. Their record speaks for itself. The show also includes lots of high-quality actors and actresses, including Lucy Montgomery, with whom I've worked on Milton Jones, and a failed sitcom on Radio 4 called The Pits. Lucy is probably the most talented voice-artist I've ever worked with. Comic talent is not the issue. So what is?
Firstly, was the programme a failure? In terms of ratings, yes. The plain fact is that people didn't really watch the show even though it was trailed quite heavily and reviewed in every newspaper, often favourably ('Sensationally good' - The Times) (which further demonstrates how hopelessly out of touch the critics are from their audiences). But by the end of the eight-part series, I believe the viewing figures were below 900,000, which, for BBC2, is simply not enough - especially when one bears in mind how much the series must have cost to make. And now the show has, apparently, been cancelled. Charlie Higson is, understandably, furious, according to his tweets. But what can we take away from this show?
It's worth asking the question 'Why didn't people watch the show?' The figures started low, but they could have climbed. Why didn't they? Having seen one or two, why did lots of people decide not to watch three or four more? Why didn't people tell their friends to watch it? Sorry to labour this, but it really does matter (in the context of this blog).
My own experience was this: When I watched it, I felt rather confused - and for the first few minutes wondered when the show was going to 'start'. And then it just kept on going as it was (I had the same experience watching Green Wing which, for me, felt like a trailer for itself), cutting from one character to another without any kind of storyline or spine. Higson or Whitehouse may argue that The Fast Show has no story, being a sketch show, but Bellamy's People, it turns out, did need one after all. The individuals characters had stories to tell, at times, but not every time. And ultimately, I wasn't hooked, which made me cross as I really wanted to like it.
But I think the main problem is that I didn't know what I was watching. Is this a format-spoof? A sketch show? What is it? The radio show, Down the Line, was simple since it was a near-the-knuckle parody of radio phone-ins. The premise of Bellamy's People, however, is rather curious and comes at the beginning of each show - Bellamy is telling us he did a radio show and now he's going round the country meeting all the people who used to call in, and find out what they think about different issues. Eh? Seriously? A radio DJ going round interviewing members of the public about issues doesn't happen in real life. So it seems odd to chose that as a basis for a comedy show.
Some would challenge that last statement and say 'Why be conventional? Why should the show be a parody of an existing format?' It doesn't always have to be, but it almost always should be, in this case at least. Comedy is hard because it depends on surprise and subversion, but also on not surprising or subverting things in other places. The audience needs to feel at home and comfortable - or at least like they know what's going on - before you pull the rug or throw them a bizarre character.
And that was ultimately the problem with the show for me. As Bellamy was interviewing these people, I couldn't helping asking myself 'why is he talking to this person?' and 'what is he hoping to get out of it?' and 'does he think they're mad?' and 'Am I meant to think that Bellamy is bad at his job?' and 'Why is Bellamy not really in this show?' I'm sure Higson or Whitehouse would yell at me for being such an idiot and asking such stupid and facile questions, but that was my experience when watching the show. And these are the questions that prevented me from enjoying the comedy performances and the jokes.
One of my big mantras in writing comedy is 'Confusion is your enemy'. The audience need to think everything is fine before you play with their heads and hit them with a joke. (it's why you try to leave the funny word of a joke to the end of the sentene). Maybe the format confusion ultimately drove people away from the show - or at least stop people from taking it to their hearts. I don't know. But it did in my case. And looking over the reviews, many of them said 'the format doesn't really work but at least the jokes are funny'. Turns out that the format not really working makes quite a big difference to non-reviewing audiences.
As I was watching Bellamy's People, I was reminded of People Like Us, which was a show that I first stumbled across on radio in about 1996 and couldn't get enough of. And then it turned into a wonderful TV show. People Like Us managed to give the impression of being nothing but a slightly tepid fly-on-the-wall documentary, but it drew you in and then gave you far better jokes, characters and ideas than you ever expected. Bellamy's People may have had all of those things, but I couldn't get past the format, my confusion and all my silly questions. I don't think it's just me those. Those chaps at the British Comedy Guide seem to feel the same way. If you don't believe me, have a look here.
Showing posts with label bbc2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bbc2. Show all posts
Friday, 14 May 2010
Saturday, 23 January 2010
The Persuasionists
Here’s the short version: I rather like it.
Here’s the longer version:
The problem with launching a new sitcom is that most viewers compare your Episode 1 against their favourite episode of their favourite sitcom. We all have our favourites - and we love those characters as if they were members of our own family. Frankly, I would like to hug 30 Rock’s Liz Lemon and tell her everything’s going to be okay. Or we’d like to smack the characters because they’re making the same mistake week after week. Seinfeld said their rules were No Hugging and No Learning - but pretty much every sitcom has that second part. Sitcom characters don’t learn. Mainwaring and Hancock are pompous, always. David Brent thinks he’s funny every week. And so on. And so usually we find ourselves chuckling before they’ve even done the joke. Sitcoms that are up and running have a crucial momentum that keeps us laughing.
And so getting a new sitcom off the ground is like launching a rocket. Once the thing is moving and orbiting the earth, you just need to nudge it the right direction. But getting the darn thing of the ground, that takes a lot of energy.
Why am I saying this? You may well be ahead of me. I’ll fess up and say that I didn’t really like episode 1 of The Persuasionists, and some of this is because of the reasons above. I just didn’t know the characters. There are other reasons, which I’ll mention in a moment. But I did like episode 2. I’ve watched some scenes several times over and laughed a lot. And I’m looking forward to seeing episode 3. Put it this way: I watched Episodes 1 and 2 on iPlayer. But for episode 3, I’ll try and make an appointment to view - or at least tape it on my PVR and watch it within 24 hours (high praise in my house).
Why did I like it? I liked it because it was a big silly sitcom with jokes in it. It sounds rather daft to say that, but I do worry, sometimes, that some people think jokes are beneath them or just too obviou, or that a show is all character and story, and the laughs are simply organic. In one sense, they are. But you need them all the same. It’s another reason why writing sitcoms is so hard. You need to create characters, relationships, a situation, a story that hangs together - and then write about a hundred jokes that make a roomful of 200-300 people laugh out loud. Oh and three million people at home, give or take. That’s why the money is quite good when you get it right.
The Persuasionists is, then, a knock-about comedy set in the world of advertising. Are the characters believable? In a sense, but they’re obviously larger than life. And they’re clearly meant to be that way. And as with most office sitcoms, and audience shows, you tend not to believe that any actual work goes on in the office in question - but nobody minds that. It’s a sitcom. The audience understand that real life isn’t that funny. And that an office of 25 people tends to have more than 5 people who actually talk to each other. Sitcom is a contrived format by its very nature. But it works.
Clearly, the recipe for this particular show didn’t work for some people. The reviews and comments were almost entirely negative. It’s all rather sad. Reviewers, bloggers, and tweeters single out comedy for the vilest of comments. In a way that shows they care about comedy. It also shows that people are prepared to hide behind the internet to say horrible things that they would never say in real life. But the relentless stream of twitters say “Worst show ever” and “I’ll never get that half hour back” is pretty depressing. Apart from anything else, most TV is dreadful. Even successful shows. But we digress from the matter in hand.
Here’s my main worry about the show - the mix of characters. There are five characters, all with fairly strong traits. And since the show is set in the world of advertising, most of the characters are, what tv execs call ‘unsympathetic’. They shout and rant and are generally mean to each other. The exception is the Adam Buxton character - who is the optimist and nice-guy. The other characters are more grotesque, which is fine, but it makes them less believable. And so every single line those characters say has to be really funny. If it isn’t, we’ll stop laughing and think to ourselves “I don’t buy this”. Occasionally, you need a character to say things like “Hey, we have to get this done in time, or else” or “I hope my mum doesn’t die” or something that they have to mean. We all know it’s made up, but if the we don’t even believe that the characters believe in anything, the whole thing falls apart into a deconstructed heap on the floor.
I’ve run into this phenomenon writing Hut 33, which is a sitcom for Radio 4 set in Bletchley Park in World War Two. One character is called Minka, played by Olivia Colman. Minka is a psychopath who believes that violence is the solution to all problems. And she’s very handy and has all manner of weapons secreted about her person. She’s a preposterous character, keeping weapons in places where they couldn’t possibly fit, but it works - as long as she’s not carrying lines of exposition or doing what the other characters do. The problem comes when you have a whole show of those big characters. They have to gag their way in and out of every situation, and if one joke misfires, it can fall apart. If two jokes misfire, it hurts.
In Episode 2 is because the jokes fired. They worked - especially the lunatic stuff Keaton said and did, and the wonderful scene in which the boss explained to the popstar why Australia wasn’t ordinary. It was great, and bits like that really carried the show. There were other lovely moments when the popstar looks at Adam Buxton from afar and he’s sniffing his hands. And then he says how boring he is saying “Even when I hear my own voice, I think ‘O God, not him again’.” Lovely. The question is whether episode 3 can pull off the same trick. I hope so. I do enjoy laughing.
Here’s the longer version:
The problem with launching a new sitcom is that most viewers compare your Episode 1 against their favourite episode of their favourite sitcom. We all have our favourites - and we love those characters as if they were members of our own family. Frankly, I would like to hug 30 Rock’s Liz Lemon and tell her everything’s going to be okay. Or we’d like to smack the characters because they’re making the same mistake week after week. Seinfeld said their rules were No Hugging and No Learning - but pretty much every sitcom has that second part. Sitcom characters don’t learn. Mainwaring and Hancock are pompous, always. David Brent thinks he’s funny every week. And so on. And so usually we find ourselves chuckling before they’ve even done the joke. Sitcoms that are up and running have a crucial momentum that keeps us laughing.
And so getting a new sitcom off the ground is like launching a rocket. Once the thing is moving and orbiting the earth, you just need to nudge it the right direction. But getting the darn thing of the ground, that takes a lot of energy.
Why am I saying this? You may well be ahead of me. I’ll fess up and say that I didn’t really like episode 1 of The Persuasionists, and some of this is because of the reasons above. I just didn’t know the characters. There are other reasons, which I’ll mention in a moment. But I did like episode 2. I’ve watched some scenes several times over and laughed a lot. And I’m looking forward to seeing episode 3. Put it this way: I watched Episodes 1 and 2 on iPlayer. But for episode 3, I’ll try and make an appointment to view - or at least tape it on my PVR and watch it within 24 hours (high praise in my house).
Why did I like it? I liked it because it was a big silly sitcom with jokes in it. It sounds rather daft to say that, but I do worry, sometimes, that some people think jokes are beneath them or just too obviou, or that a show is all character and story, and the laughs are simply organic. In one sense, they are. But you need them all the same. It’s another reason why writing sitcoms is so hard. You need to create characters, relationships, a situation, a story that hangs together - and then write about a hundred jokes that make a roomful of 200-300 people laugh out loud. Oh and three million people at home, give or take. That’s why the money is quite good when you get it right.The Persuasionists is, then, a knock-about comedy set in the world of advertising. Are the characters believable? In a sense, but they’re obviously larger than life. And they’re clearly meant to be that way. And as with most office sitcoms, and audience shows, you tend not to believe that any actual work goes on in the office in question - but nobody minds that. It’s a sitcom. The audience understand that real life isn’t that funny. And that an office of 25 people tends to have more than 5 people who actually talk to each other. Sitcom is a contrived format by its very nature. But it works.
Clearly, the recipe for this particular show didn’t work for some people. The reviews and comments were almost entirely negative. It’s all rather sad. Reviewers, bloggers, and tweeters single out comedy for the vilest of comments. In a way that shows they care about comedy. It also shows that people are prepared to hide behind the internet to say horrible things that they would never say in real life. But the relentless stream of twitters say “Worst show ever” and “I’ll never get that half hour back” is pretty depressing. Apart from anything else, most TV is dreadful. Even successful shows. But we digress from the matter in hand.
Here’s my main worry about the show - the mix of characters. There are five characters, all with fairly strong traits. And since the show is set in the world of advertising, most of the characters are, what tv execs call ‘unsympathetic’. They shout and rant and are generally mean to each other. The exception is the Adam Buxton character - who is the optimist and nice-guy. The other characters are more grotesque, which is fine, but it makes them less believable. And so every single line those characters say has to be really funny. If it isn’t, we’ll stop laughing and think to ourselves “I don’t buy this”. Occasionally, you need a character to say things like “Hey, we have to get this done in time, or else” or “I hope my mum doesn’t die” or something that they have to mean. We all know it’s made up, but if the we don’t even believe that the characters believe in anything, the whole thing falls apart into a deconstructed heap on the floor.
I’ve run into this phenomenon writing Hut 33, which is a sitcom for Radio 4 set in Bletchley Park in World War Two. One character is called Minka, played by Olivia Colman. Minka is a psychopath who believes that violence is the solution to all problems. And she’s very handy and has all manner of weapons secreted about her person. She’s a preposterous character, keeping weapons in places where they couldn’t possibly fit, but it works - as long as she’s not carrying lines of exposition or doing what the other characters do. The problem comes when you have a whole show of those big characters. They have to gag their way in and out of every situation, and if one joke misfires, it can fall apart. If two jokes misfire, it hurts.
In Episode 2 is because the jokes fired. They worked - especially the lunatic stuff Keaton said and did, and the wonderful scene in which the boss explained to the popstar why Australia wasn’t ordinary. It was great, and bits like that really carried the show. There were other lovely moments when the popstar looks at Adam Buxton from afar and he’s sniffing his hands. And then he says how boring he is saying “Even when I hear my own voice, I think ‘O God, not him again’.” Lovely. The question is whether episode 3 can pull off the same trick. I hope so. I do enjoy laughing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)