Topic: Four Lions on Review Show, BBC2, 11pm tonight

[Neil]

Four Lions on "Review Show" at 11pm tonight, BBC2.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Oh, how splendid. I will be watching!

[Clint Hollow]

Anyone who hasn't yet seen the film  should definitely give this a miss (not that I've seen it yet).

The people on "Review Show", or Newsnight Review as it was before, will always discuss HUUGE moments in the film. Even when they try to hold back and not ruin parts of the script, they usually do anyway.

Grab it from the usual place and watch it after you've seen the film.

[Neil]

On now.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Who is Peter Whittle, and where is his sense of humour?

[JPA]

Bah, missed most of that.

[Neil]

That was an unbelievable load of bollocks.  I must see it again so I can properly desconstruct it - only the terrorism historian seemed to get it.  There was only one single reference to how funny the film is, that I spotted, because the rest of them were sat wringing their hands over whether or not it should have been made.  And the lady one was arguing in favour of spoon-feeding, she didn't seem to have any concept of THINKING about why certain dynamics may exist.  That plummy, pissed-off twat seemed to comprehensively miss every point going.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Since when was 'I mean yes, it is funny' a distracting side issue when reviewing a comedy film?

Why isn't deconstruction and appraisal of comedy considered just as highly as going on about the films supposed intentions and talking about what it had to say in a wider context?

Perhaps Morris' main mistake, critically anyway, is choosing a topic where everyone wants to talk about the issues. He's made a film where everyone is expecting fully developed and profound political points and biting satire rather than simply something which is very funny. But that may also be because he is Chris Morris.

I wouldn't be too disheartened. Most critics are utterly crap at reviewing comedies because the techniques they use to disect other films simply don't work when discussing comedies. Perhaps it's because they're self-consciosly reviewing and can't allow themselves to be swept into the laughter fully.

[Subtle Mocking]

They really did insist on analysing it in the most po-faced way. Leads me to wonder, what films do they actually like? I know comedy films are in a bit of a decline at the moment but come on...

[JPA]

I saw the obligatory 'doesn't attack Islam' dig.

[An tSaoi]

They really did insist on analysing it in the most po-faced way.

Newsnight Review The Review Show is notorious for that. They never judge a film on its merits as part of its intended genre (comedy, action film etc), but as as if it were a treatise on 'The Issues', holding every film to the same standards as a serious analysis of society. "What does this action hero shoot-em-up say about the War in Afghanistan?". The people they get on the show seem totally incapable of discussing any work that falls outside the boundary of grim academic seriousness. They're the type of boring people who look down on comedy because it's too silly, and therefore beneath them.

I didn't watch all the interview so as to miss spoilers, but I flicked over to it a few times and could have strangled that posh git.

[JPA]

I just watched it on iplayer, as others have said ***do not watch it if you are avoiding spoilers***

The problem that others have described in the thread is right there in the introduction, which along the lines of - 'we ask if it gives any insight into terrorism, or does it simply just set out to shock?' No mention of the comedic merit of course.

Peter Whittle repeated his assertion twice that the characters didn't ring true because of how successful Islamic terrorists, and twice the terrorism expert replied that the film had been very well researched and that history shows a mixture of both successful attacks and botched operations led by idiots. Why Whittle has such a problem with the film focussing on the latter I don't know.

[copylight]

I haven't seen this review nor the film but it's all part of the media dance that it has to go through so it not being a worthy enough review from this show is all par for the course. Maybe it's too early in the day but which reviewer has given 4L the fairest summation so far?

Why isn't deconstruction and appraisal of comedy considered just as highly as going on about the films supposed intentions and talking about what it had to say in a wider context?

Because in this pundit contest context, there is no such thing as comedy for comedies sake. ''Deconstructing'' stands in the way of all that must get in its way, funny or otherwise. I liked Tom Paulin rally off Greer, bouncing of Parsons in the day, shame we couldn't have seen four lions get digested through the three of them.  Greer's mouth, sticky and smelly with fact*.

Perhaps Morris' main mistake, critically anyway, is choosing a topic where everyone wants to talk about the issues. He's made a film where everyone is expecting fully developed and profound political points and biting satire rather than simply something which is very funny. But that may also be because he is Chris Morris.

Good point. He said himself that this is a dad's army approach to the subject but good comedy does transcend it's subject matter and by it being on the review show then it's already considered to be valuable enough for such mass debate.

Perhaps it's because they're self-consciosly reviewing and can't allow themselves to be swept into the laughter fully.

Always a good thing. The peado special was given a similar daft arse approach to the obvious when reviewed on Newsnight review.

*_{conjoined critical centipede analogy}

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The blanket 'Funny' review quotes on the poster gives the clearest message possible as to the primary purpose of the film. You could well ask why no-one on Newsnight Review noticed that.

It's even called The Review Show now, which seems to imply less of a necessity to drag every object of review into a current affairsy/socio-political pontificating sphere of discussion.