The Rise of Reginald Perrin... again (with Martin Clunes)

[Ignatius_S]

Reggie Perrin is to rise again, with the BBC revealing that it is planning to bring the much loved character back from the dead in a revival of the 1970s sitcom.

It is understood that the actor Martin Clunes, the star of Doc Martin, is being lined up to take the title role, and Simon Nye, the writer behind Men Behaving Badly, is to work on the script with Perrin's creator, David Nobbs.

The recently appointed controller of BBC1 Jay Hunt said that one of her first acts in the job had been to look into reviving the series The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin. The dark comedy focused on Perrin, memorably played by Leonard Rossiter as a man constantly on the verge of a midlife crisis but with a vivid imagination. It ran between 1976 and 1979.

Based on the original novels by Nobbs, whom Jonathan Coe has called "probably our finest postwar comic novelist", the three series were hugely popular. A follow-up based on Perrin's will, The Legacy of Reginald Perrin, was aired in 1996.

BBC sources said the project, due to be made by Objective, the producer of Peep Show and Star Stories, was in its early stages but that Hunt, who named the show as one of her all-time favourites, believed it was once again relevant.

Hunt, in one of her first public appearances since taking the job, said at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International TV Festival that she hoped to slightly lower the average age of BBC1 viewers.

The BBC1 controller, who had ruled out a return to the corporation before being persuaded to leave Five to take on the high-profile role, plans to introduce shows aimed at younger viewers that will run in a slot after the evening news. She also confirmed plans to bring a popular science show back to prime-time for the first time since the axing of Tomorrow's World, and said the Radio 2 presenter Chris Evans would stand in for Adrian Chiles on The One Show next year.

Hunt hopes to build on the success of her predecessor, Peter Fincham, who was ousted following an independent report into the screening of a misleading clip of the Queen at a press launch. Unveiling an autumn slate which included Little Dorrit and a new Saturday night family drama, Merlin, she said another priority was to find a new approach to the arts.

BBC1 was named channel of the year for the second successive time at the festival's annual awards.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/25/television.bbc

[Jemble Fred]

It would be fascinating to see a direct adaptation of the novels, especially as the original series was pure sitcom.

[The Mumbler]

The novels contained a lot of themes that would have been utterly untransmittable in the seventies.

Revivals almost never work, though. Why can't channel controllers have some new ideas?

[boxofslice]

Don't remember 'The Legacy of Reginald Perrin', must have been bad.

This might work if they take a different approach from the sit-com route.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Don't remember 'The Legacy of Reginald Perrin', must have been bad.

I'd quite like to see it again, as I remember there being funny moments amidst the relentless catchphrasery/Patricia Hodge letching.

By sheer coincidence, I got the boxset a few months back and am re-watching the first three series again just now.  There's no doubt that a lot of it is still very relevant.  As a kid, I couldn't much identify with Reggie, but I sure as hell can do now...

[The Mumbler]

The Legacy of... was a terrible mistake, and not just because Leonard Rossiter was obviously unavailable. Having a Reggie-less universe is just about manageable in a novel (and Nobbs' novel was OK, if not marvellous), but the telly show was too reliant on the nostalgia for the original series.

[biggytitbo]

Legacy was abysmal, virtually unmatchable. Even the third series is actually fairly awful in many way(The minstral scene anyone?) but benefits from having Leonard Rossiter in so is always enjoyable. This is just a terrible terrible idea - you can't do any adaptation of the material without the ghost of Rossiter casting a long shadow on it. It doesnt matter how good Clunes is, he won't be as good as Rossiter because his Reggie is one of the best comedy performances ever.

[Ignatius_S]

Revivals almost never work, though. Why can't channel controllers have some new ideas?

I didn't get where I am today by having new ideas. *ducks*

By sheer coincidence, I got the boxset a few months back and am re-watching the first three series again just now.  There's no doubt that a lot of it is still very relevant.  As a kid, I couldn't much identify with Reggie, but I sure as hell can do now...

As it happened, I whizzed through the three series, the other weekend - although I'm pretty familiar with the shows, to my shame I hadn't watched it for far too long.

It would be fascinating to see a direct adaptation of the novels, especially as the original series was pure sitcom.

To my (continuing) shame, I've never read the novels... which I'm going to rectify. To those who have, am I right in thinking there's plenty of unused material or the books divert from the novels quite a bit?

I think this remake is too fraught with risks. If the script is reasonably similar to the original, people will say it's merely a copy; if they try to do something different, then there could be the charge of it's changed too much about.

I rather like Clunes, I'm not sure if Clunes is the right man for the role –as Rossiter's portrayal is so iconic, it's a tall order to follow.

Interesting that Nobbs will be involved and I do respect Nye, but I do wonder if there's too much baggage with the show for it to be taken seriously as a remake. Perhaps if it was a more loose remake (and not one announced to fanfare), there would be more of a fighting chance.

[Jemble Fred]

Rossiter was fine in the original series, but he's not the real Reggie Perrin David Nobbs created. The fact that Ronnie Barker was his choice for the role pretty much says it all. Rossiter went on to make the role his own within that specific sitcom format, but it still leaves the character of Reggie Perrin entirely suitable for reinterpretation.

The problem is though that most people won't know or give a fuck about the real origins of Perrin, they'll just half-remember that it was an old 70s sitcom what Rigsby used to be in and not give any new adaptation a chance.

But anything that keeps Nobbs working in comedy is a boon.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

ITV2 + 1 and E4 + 1, hmmm. How long before we can just enter in a date, say, I dunno, 26/08/1968, and watch that evenings' TV shows? A BB1 - 40yrs sorta facility.

Perrin again? Tut. After showing years of re-runs from a golden era the BBCig-wigs claim didn't exist, they're forced in to name drop desperation, from a golden era the...

The man in the street, him, he's never heard of Reggie Perrin. And those that have, quite a few, will be forced to compare this to the original and leave disappointed. It's winless. Well, past the head-up, "Oh?". You hear the name and it's all downhill. (And) maybe that's how desperate it is, even, ho-ho, with comedy. Far from attempting to leave a lasting impression, and well short of wanting to enthrall during, they're prepared to settle for getting folks mentioning it, once or twice, and to realise it's on.

Worst thing about it, is, after fucking it up once already, they still don't realise what they have in the original, or they wouldn't be doing this.

...stars Karen Taylor as Joan, Mathew Horne and Lily Allen as Tony Webster and David Harris-Jones, James Corden as C.J.,
Robert Webb as David, David Mitchell as Doc Morrisey and, well, it could be you, because Britain's Got Elizabeth Perrin Factor Eyes auditions start now!

Yeah, it'd be nice if they still took the level of chances that got Perrin made in the first place and did something new. Were there really only three channels back then? Oh, now I understand...

3 new replies! Gosh. (Ops, I'm already guilty of not giving the new adaptation a chance. Sign o' the times maybe.)

[The Mumbler]

Rossiter was fine in the original series, but he's not the real Reggie Perrin David Nobbs created. The fact that Ronnie Barker was his choice for the role pretty much says it all.

I was baffled for ages as to why Nobbs had originally suggested Barker - and then it dawned on me: Reggie's various reinventions after his disappearance. Of course.

I'm not so sure Barker would have nailed Reggie's sheer vulnerability, though.

And how versatile an actor is Clunes? He's likeable and often amusing, but how will he pull off the disguised Reggies and the man of the verge of a breakdown?

[The Widow of Brid]

To my (continuing) shame, I've never read the novels... which I'm going to rectify. To those who have, am I right in thinking there's plenty of unused material or the books divert from the novels quite a bit?

It's been a while since I read them, but the novels struck me as being a lot more pessimistic than the series. Characters driven to extreme behavior by the despair of modern, suburban, life but without the temporary note of redemption that the series attributes to these extremes. It's all a bit more squalid and self-aware in the books.

Of course this could be me massively misinterprating both the books, and the series.

I'm not overly optimistic, as the books seem something that could easily be done in an awful 'I'm taking it back to it's DARK roots' style. 

[thepuffpastryhangman]

(The minstral scene anyone?)

I think that's a top bit. Without the minstral pay-off it's slightly worrying, but with it, wow. I took it to be playing the audience, we're drawn in to thinking the stereotypical honky portrayals are squirmingly crass, then the minstral reminds us of those roots in 'popular entertainment'.

[EDIT - I find this a lazy person's useful book/sitcom event variation chart]

[Eight Taiwanese Teenagers]

I had no idea there were novels originally. I hope they have them at the library...

[Jemble Fred]

The thing is, far from being 'a remake', this is a potentially unique project. I can't think of another novel which became an iconic sitcom after many changes, and was then given the chance to be readapted by the original writer, no less in a more faithful way.

While they're at it, I'd love to see an adaptation of Nye's original Men Behaving Badly novel, which was similarly much bleaker than the eventual sitcom adaptation. Another clue that he's the ideal man to work on this with Nobbs, as he's been there himself.

[The Mumbler]

I had no idea there were novels originally. I hope they have them at the library...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reginald-Perrin-Omnibus-David-Nobbs/dp/0099436663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219758868&sr=8-1

I don't know if you have a spare tenner, but it'd be one of the best tenners you'd ever spend.

[Ginyard]

they'll just half-remember that it was an old 70s sitcom what Rigsby used to be in and not give any new adaptation a chance.

The situation is certainly not helped by the original being one of the best (to my mind, still the best) sitcoms ever made.

I'd be interested to see a reinterpretation, but if they try and move even vaguely into the same comedy territory the original occupies then its doomed. Playing it as a straight drama could work.

[The Mumbler]

Halliwell's Television Companion's review of the original series managed a gold-plated example of missing the point. "Contains too many repetitive jokes." Erm. Yes. It's about routine, you great fathead.

[koeman]

Nobbs' last novel was a reinterpretation of a play he wrote in the early 80s, and was rather good. He certainly cares enough about his characters that he wouldn't just do something like this on a whim. Although The  Legacy was a mistake, which he admits himself in his autobiography.

Although the original Perrin sitcom is iconic which inevitably makes revisiting the idea tricky, I believe this could work. The themes of the orginal novel are still relevant today (frustration with a dead-end job, boredom at the repitition of day-to-day routines, desire for escape), and as has been mentioned the novels go into certain areas, which I won't spoil for those who haven't read them, which it would not have been possible to carry over into the original adaptations.

I'm in a strange situation, though. I adore Nobbs (so to speak), he is my favourite author and one of my heroes for various reasons, but I'm not that familiar with the original sitcom as I'm too young to have caught its original transmission (well, I wasn't born, so I'd have had a job) and never really saw any of the repeats. So I do love the story, and the characters, and the themes, but I associate them with the book, not with the programme. So I'm very intrigued by this news.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Hey, I've had a really great idea:

why don't they just ask David Nobbs to write something new for TV?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Why can't channel controllers have some new ideas?

I thought that was what BBC3 was.

Yielding the answer, 'they do have new ideas, but they all suck gravelly toss'.

[papalaz4444244]

It would be fascinating to see a direct adaptation of the novels, especially as the original series was pure sitcom.

Yes. If this is filmed as a comedic drama and not a sitcom then it has potential. Not sure about Clunes, though.

[weekender]

For me the absolute crux of Perrin is that he knows he's having a minor breakdown, and is faced with two choices:

1) The sheer monotony of his life
2) Having the breakdown and enjoying all that goes with it

It's the fact that he absolutely relishes option 2, and plunges himself into it with all he can, which ultimately means he remains sane in an insane world - that's where both the humour and the pathos come from in my opinion.  I strongly disagree with Jemfred, the first series is in no way a sitcom.  To my mind, the fact that you've missed the entire point means you haven't appreciated it enough - it has so many bleak moments it's untrue, and therein lies the genius.  That and the fact that a lot of the supporting characters - CJ/Doc/Jimmy off the top of my head - appear to have been through EXACTLY THE SAME THING but in different ways, make the first series at least one of my most treasured comedies.

Ta for the link to the book, Mumbler.

[Jemble Fred]

the first series is in no way a sitcom.  To my mind, the fact that you've missed the entire point means you haven't appreciated it enough - it has so many bleak moments it's untrue, and therein lies the genius.

You don't seem to actually know what a sitcom is. Are you saying that because each episode isn't self-contained, it's not a sitcom? Many sitcoms have a a story arc.

The original Reggie Perrin series is a half-hour situation comedy performed and recorded in front of a live studio audience. And it's also, it goes without saying, brilliant. Of course it's an outstanding piece of writing from Nobbs, and was realised brilliantly within the sitcom format that they went for.

None of that makes a filmed twenty-first century adaptation of the original novel a bad idea.

[weekender]

Oh, situation comedy, I always wondered if 'sitcom' was an abbreviation for something.

I was trying to argue that Perrin is more than a sitcom, because of the bleak moments - of which there are a hell of a lot in the first series.

None of that makes a filmed twenty-first century adaptation of the original novel a bad idea.

I agree, but with the caveat that they'd have to bring something new to the table.  I confess to having never read the original books, but if an updated version can bring a slightly different twist on the moribund fecundities of modern life, then I'm all for it.

[Jemble Fred]

Oh, situation comedy, I always wondered if 'sitcom' was an abbreviation for something.

Does sarcasm actually work when you're not making any sense, though? Are you saying Steptoe isn't a sitcom either, then? Or any half-hour situation comedy that dares to be about anything more than the boss coming round for dinner?

[weekender]

No, I was trying to disagree with your first post, which suggested that the first series was pure sitcom.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think that although the first series is a sitcom, it's a lot bleaker than just a sitcom.  That was the point I was trying to make - there are more layers to it than that.

Having re-read my first post in this thread, I should have said "is in no way just a sitcom", so sorry about that.  I think I have misunderstood your point, and maybe you mine.

[rudi]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reginald-Perrin-Omnibus-David-Nobbs/dp/0099436663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219758868&sr=8-1

I don't know if you have a spare tenner, but it'd be one of the best tenners you'd ever spend.

Ta!

[Jemble Fred]

Well when I said 'pure sitcom', I meant in form really. The original series has become a cornerstone of a golden age of sitcoms, in my opinion, bursting with moments and set-ups that have become iconic sitcom fare – the farting chair, the catchphrases, the hippo etc.

The fact that it is ultimately about a lot more than most sitcoms is Nobbs' triumph, really – and the point is that there's a lot more of that in the books, depths still to be plumbed onscreen.

[Ignatius_S]

I was baffled for ages as to why Nobbs had originally suggested Barker - and then it dawned on me: Reggie's various reinventions after his disappearance. Of course.

I'm not so sure Barker would have nailed Reggie's sheer vulnerability, though.

And how versatile an actor is Clunes? He's likeable and often amusing, but how will he pull off the disguised Reggies and the man of the verge of a breakdown?

I know what you mean about Barker - and used to have trouble envisioning anyone other than Rossiter - one of those tantalising 'what ifs'.

Although it may not be wise to bring in radio performances (but the opportunity to bring in the Paula Yates connection is too good to pass over), in Lines From My Grandfather's  Forehead, Barker played quite a lot of figures from Middle England with varying traits not a million miles from Perrin (unhappiness, middle-aged depression, flights of fancy given in reply to ordinary questions) - the combination of his skill and the (relative) leftfield nature of the show made me very intrigued with what he would have done with it.

As for Clunes' I wouldn't have said that he's had the most versatile career, but I was quite impressed with him in Dirty Tricks, a two-parter black comedy on ITV a few years back.  To good effect, his character played upon the usual likeable roles that Clunes associated was best known for - at first he seems perhaps a little bit of an underachieving chancer, but as it progresses it's shown that there's a far nastiest side to him and far from being a victim of circumstances, he was the manipulator of them. I was less impressed by his 'Mr Chips' - I thought he was pretty good, but not outstanding. Of course, that role is associated with some legendary performances, but so is Perrin... I didn't see A for Acid, I was told that Clunes was fantastic as Haigh.

Was Barker closer to the physical description in the book? I think I remember seeing on a documentary saying that Nobbs thought it was funny that they wanted a 'penknife' of a man.

I wonder if Nobbs was influenced in his original choice through his time on The Two Ronnies?