How to be a Chris Morris fan in 2006

[thewomb]

Well I've started another thread to explain exactly why I like NB (and that includes the dialogue), hopefully avoiding any ego-battles in the process.

[Munday's Chylde]

There was someone in the nathan barley thread who held the secret to why it was brilliant wasn't there? He wouldnt share it though because 'there was no point'. I think we need to get him back because i was bursting to know.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I've never understood why comedy seems to be singled out for  the 'You either like it or you don't' dismissal.

A football team either wins a match or it doesn't, but you can still analyse the game. Food is either delicious, bland or disgusting, but you can still talk about the flavours. That's where the pleasure is. The 'pointlessness' of doing so isn't the issue.

[thewomb]

I seem to have taken up arguing on the internet as a distraction from my new year's resolution of giving up smoking, so I'm actually being relatively productive.

[flamingdog]

Shit + whisk = Shitwhisk

I feel guilty for laughing.

I must admit, it got a guffaw out of me as well. As if my CaB cachet wasn't already unutterably soiled.

I'm never having scrambled eggs round at yours, Johnny Yesno.

A football team either wins a match or it doesn't, but you can still analyse the game. Food is either delicious, bland or disgusting, but you can still talk about the flavours. That's where the pleasure is. The 'pointlessness' of doing so isn't the issue.

This is the crux of it. While I shy away from going so far as saying there's an objective basis for saying something is definitively 'funny' or 'unfunny', I do think you can transcend your opinions on something and engage in a bit of honest chinwag about something without it just turning into intellectual tennis.

It's like the talk about The Office in the Extras thread a couple of weeks ago. I'm perfectly capable of looking at it from the detractors' point of view when they highlight its shortcomings, and saying 'yes, you might have a point there', without burning my metaphorical Gervais t-shirt.

Yes, comedy is subjective, but that's not the be-all and end-all of the discussion. And it's a crap get-out.

But as far as NB goes, I just thought it was sod-boring, which is the one thing I thought Morris would never be. Even his crap stuff, to my mind, was at least interesting on one level or another.

[El Unicornio, mang]

I've never understood why comedy seems to be singled out for  the 'You either like it or you don't' dismissal.

.

Perhaps because funnyness/non-funnyness isn't something that can be explained in a way that someone with the opposite view would be able to recognise. It can be fact that something is well or badly made, which is what the discussions about comedy shows mostly revolve around, but I would struggle to explain why I found something funny as much as I would explain why something tastes good. I think Fawlty Towers is a very well made show, but I don't find it funny, for instance. You could explain to me til you're blue in the face why it's funny and it wouldn't make any difference to me, in the same way that I couldn't make someone who hates mayonnaise understand why I like the way it tastes. Laughter is a very visceral thing, and it's true that you're either going to find it funny or not. That doesn't mean people shouldn't discuss it though, obviously.

[poor fool]

Rubbish. Everyone who didn't like it has explained why they didn't like it at great length. If still have 'absolutely no idea why', then you clearly haven't read any of it. You're just trying to start a fight for the sake of it, and you know it.

What the are you talking about? What aspect of my conduct on this thread has even insinuated that I am trying to start an argument 'for the sake of it'?  I was attempting to spark a debate on the nature of subjective criticism - what about that makes you want to belittle my contribution? Because my arguments contradict the evident status quo?
I thought I was making clear and concise points. I'm sorry if I've been deluding myself, but there's absolutely no call for your baffling accusations. It's as ill mannered as it is mistaken.

[TJ]

What the are you talking about? What aspect of my conduct on this thread has even insinuated that I am trying to start an argument 'for the sake of it'?

Your saying that you've read page after page of people arguing against Nathan Barley but have no idea why they don't like it. That's highly inflamatory, not to mention nonsensical. People have set out their reasons time and time again for your benefit (and often solely for your benefit, as a quick flip through the forum archive will confirm) - you may not like them, but to say you still have 'no idea' of why people don't like it is to imply some sort of stupidity or inarticulacy on their part. And that's just not on. You can't just glibly dismiss what you yourself refer to as pages and pages of reasoning and expect no comeback.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

One of the most infuriating things people sometimes do in threads is to say 'I liked it' (and nothing else) after a few pages of intense, largely negative discussion. It doesn't contribute anything to the debate, but there's this implication that the little voice saying 'I liked it' should somehow override all that nasty negativity and force everyone to get some bloody perspective. Whereas in fact, it's just as pointless as someone saying 'That was shit' and nothing else.

There is this idea that you don't have to justify why you liked something ('I laughed, end of story'), but hatred is somehow strange and must be explained. The charge 'Why do you waste your life endlessly talking about comedy?' is only ever directed at people hurling brickbats, never at those throwing bouquets.

[poor fool]

Your saying that you've read page after page of people arguing against Nathan Barley but have no idea why they don't like it. That's highly inflamatory, not to mention nonsensical. People have set out their reasons time and time again for your benefit (and often solely for your benefit, as a quick flip through the forum archive will confirm) - you may not like them, but to say you still have 'no idea' of why people don't like it is to imply some sort of stupidity or inarticulacy on their part. And that's just not on. You can't just glibly dismiss what you yourself refer to as pages and pages of reasoning and expect no comeback.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick there, sunshine.
What I was trying to point out is that for the most part, all the reasons why folk didn't like it (e.g. Julian Barrett's acting, the dialogue) I really loved it, and couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't find it funny. Likewise you, but vise versa.
That's it. I wasn't being glib, inflamatory or implying anything at all.
You've made a mistake.
In the most needlessly confrontational way possible.
Hope that's cleared it up for you.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

People gave all sorts of reasons why they disliked Nathan Barley, though, a lot of which concerned conceptual problems with the show - how it didn't work as satire or as a sitcom, how the characters were badly conceived, how jokes didn't make sense...and that's before you even get to 'Why can't Richard Ayoade deliver lines properly?' and 'Why doesn't Dan have keys to his own office?'.

Every argument under the sun can be found in those old threads. Pick one and take issue with it - it's fun!

[El Unicornio, mang]

There is this idea that you don't have to justify why you liked something ('I laughed, end of story'), but hatred is somehow strange and must be explained. The charge 'Why do you waste your life endlessly talking about comedy?' is only ever directed at people hurling brickbats, never at those throwing bouquets.

Usually if someone says "I love this tv show/food/magazine/game/film" people won't be as interested to know why as if someone says "I hate this tv show/food/magazine/game/film", which generally gets people asking "how come?" or "what's wrong with it"

I have to admit, I think I've always got more enjoyment out of discussing reasons for hating things I don't like than discussing reasons for liking those I do

[mayer]

The charge 'Why do you waste your life endlessly talking about comedy?' is only ever directed at people hurling brickbats, never at those throwing bouquets.

Everyone insults "fanboys", even the casuals, even, or especially if they're positives. All the "nerds" chatting about Star Trek or pop in detail, even saying nice stuff.

I mean the word "fanboy" is just that, an insult purely directed at those throwing flowers.

[poor fool]

Every argument under the sun can be found in those old threads. Pick one and take issue with it - it's fun!

I know that. Everyone kows that. I suspect there are single cell organisms that grasp at least the basic concept.
I was trying to interest the thread in a debate on the subjective nature of humour, and the inherent derogatory nature of criticism.

Anyone?

[humanleech]

Compile together any recurring criticisms of your opinions into some kind of online encyclopedia or messageboard list, so that you can sneeringly point to them when challenged as proof of your comedic and intellectual superiority.
Respond to any reasonable explanation of some of Nathan Barley's strengths by binding 'DAN REACTS!!1!!1!" to a fucking macro.
Inaccurately paraphrase all those who disagree with you, while determinedly refusing to answer any literally phrased question. Resort to sneering schoolboy sarcasm when further pressed.
Pretend that Friends wasn't 75% shit to demonstrate just how far beyond the expected range of comedic opinoins your tastes lie.
If anyone gets wise to your bullshit, compile yet another online encyclopedia or messageboard list, as a way of pre-empting any future criticism and eliminating the need to use honesty or accuracy in your debates.
Be sure to take any contray opinion entirely personally, and accuse all those who disagree with you of having an ulterior motive / being deliberately controversial / trying to prove their intellectual superiority.
Never, ever forgive someone for pointing out a joke that you missed.

Despite the fact that Nathan Barley was crap, this post is very accurate. You've had your fights, you won most of them, now stop staring at the bruises in the mirror, for god's sake..

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

I was trying to interest the thread in a debate on the subjective nature of humour, and the inherent derogatory nature of criticism.

Anyone?

We've had that debate countless times before, too.

[poor fool]

We've had that debate countless times before, too.

There it is again. That sneering, pejorative way of making a point.
What's the point in that?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

A serious one... I was suprised to read someone saying that they were suprised that Morris fans could hold "right wing" views. Leaving aside the technicalities of that for a minute, I just thought "why"?

*posts another picture of a fish*

I was specifically referring to that particularly dreary Thatcher/Major school of Tory drivel as voiced by some people on the thread. In fact, what I said was:

It seems deeply depressing that all those Thatcherite prejudices ('The unemployed are all scroungers', 'Women get pregnant in order to get council houses', 'I got where I am today through hard slog') are still being spouted by people in 2006. Seemingly without any awareness of how cliched those views are. It's like meeting racists who actually say 'They come over here and take our jobs'.

When/how did Chris Morris start attracting these people?

It does seem extraordinary that people with those tiresome, Norman Tebbit views could be fans of Chris Morris. Morris always struck me as someone who was against all that - not rightwingism itself, but fucking bullshit and stupid unthinking prejudices.

Morris did lots of surreal jokes-for-their-own-sake, but they were always shot through with a 'What the FUCK?' type anger. People forget how radical he once was, how exciting shows like On the Hour and Brass Eye were. He was the polar opposite of Tebbit.

[Part Chimp]

there's this implication that the little voice saying 'I liked it' should somehow override all that nasty negativity and force everyone to get some bloody perspective.

For some reason when I read that line I suddenly pictured you blowing out your big puffy red Yorkshire cheeks and giving a self-satisfied sigh afterwards. Not that I know whether you're from Yorkshire or not. Or indeed if your cheeks are red and puffy (or big).

Sorry. Nothing to see here. Just imagine this is some kind of DVD commentary track.

[chimpoo]

Sorry. Nothing to see here. Just imagine this is some kind of DVD commentary track.

I wouldn't be that hard on yourself!

[mayer]

The charge 'Why do you waste your life endlessly talking about comedy?' is only ever directed at people hurling brickbats, never at those throwing bouquets.

Everyone insults "fanboys", even the casuals, even, or especially if they're positives. All the "nerds" chatting about Star Trek or pop in detail, even saying nice stuff.

I mean the word "fanboy" is just that, an insult purely directed at those throwing flowers.

Anyone?

I mean, the comment that "no-one ever says Why Are You Being Positive? Eh.... EH... EH!!!" is repeated by er, some... often enough to be a mantra. It's been said about thirty times in the last week or something.

But it isn't true. Is it?


Have a look at the Apple Mac threads, or the XBOX ones, or whatever. Everyone insults "fanboys" (or, the neutral word would be "positive people").

So?

[humanleech]

Morris's best work is often very silly, laugh out loud stuff.

Bang on.  And the root of this thread really is:  How the flying fuck can anyone argue otherwise?  Especially when they're someone who enjoys his work?  I just don't get it, I really don't.

Because of Blue Jam.

[mayer]

Blue Jam and Jam made me laugh out loud, lots of times.

[humanleech]

I've never understood why comedy seems to be singled out for  the 'You either like it or you don't' dismissal.
A football team either wins a match or it doesn't, but you can still analyse the game. Food is either delicious, bland or disgusting, but you can still talk about the flavours. That's where the pleasure is. The 'pointlessness' of doing so isn't the issue.

Yes but people do apply the 'it's just personal taste' thing to music, lierature, art, films and also tv programmes in general. Just as much as comedy. I'm going to regret saying this, but that's one of the reasons many people hate 'Late Review' so much - because people on that programme actually say something. And when Germaine Greer describes 'Wallace and Grommit' as 'Volkish' I agree with her. 'Nazi', I'm not so sure of.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I mean, the comment that "no-one ever says Why Are You Being Positive? Eh.... EH... EH!!!" is repeated by er, some... often enough to be a mantra. It's been said about thirty times in the last week or something.

But it isn't true. Is it?

Have a look at the Apple Mac threads, or the XBOX ones, or whatever. Everyone insults "fanboys" (or, the neutral word would be "positive people").

So?

I think it's to do with extremes, though - 'fanboys' is the opposite of 'Chuckle Reich', or whatever people sometimes call this place. A fanboy is someone who is pointlessly sycophantic and totally blind to his heroes' faults. So yes, you're right, those people are often ridiculed.

But what about when it's less extreme? Thewomb's 'Happy Funtime' thread, for example - a thread set up solely to talk positively about Nathan Barley. I can't imagine anyone's going to suddenly crash in after a few pages and say 'Come on guys, get some perspective' and tell them to be a bit more negative. Something which would almost certainly happen if the roles were reversed. Which is hypothothetical, yes, but you know it's true. There's this unspoken agreement that positive thought shouldn't be disturbed - the party shouldn't be spoilt - whereas negative ranters mus be 'saved' and told to get out more.

Also, 'fanboy' tends to be an insult used to dismiss a particular clique from which the accuser is excluded. 'Oh God, here come the Hitch Hiker's fanboys, moaning that Marvin's legs are two centimetres too short...' The insult is used to illustrate the accuser's neutrality, his 'not bothered either way, mate'-ness. The accuser is presenting his casual interest as the correct, healthy way of approaching something. I'm not convinced the same thing is going on when people say 'You lot are just bitter about Ricky Gervais's success you humourless tossers' - there, the negative/positive views are equally stubborn. It's positivity which is being encouraged, not neutrality.

Simon JT said he was looking forward to The IT Crowd based on the 30-second trailer. Nobody jumped on him and said 'But how can you say that? You've only seen a 30-second trailer!', which a lot of people did after the 'Hmm, I'm not hopeful' reactions to the Nathan Barley trailers. If you can be (mildly) optimistic about a show based on a trailer, then you can be (mildly) pessimistic too, yes?

[mayer]

Come now, let's not be disingenous.

- thewomb's thread was a direct reaction to the standard, popular opinion on here. He wouldn't have started that thread elsewhere.

- The people that say that stuff about Gervais are Gervais fanboys, like you say "the negative/positive views are equally stubborn". So it's a zero sum game, not the standard love of positivity you claim is going on.

- Re. Fanboys... not at all. There are people who liked the later Red Dwarfs and later Oasis LPs accused of fanboy-dom by many, not neutrals, but other fans who were pessimistic. "Stop being so positive just because it's an Oasis record". Don't Believe The Truth everyone said would be toss, even most Oasis fans. I had to defend my early optimisim on the project. My optimism was borne out, incidentally, I reckon. (Though of course the same optimism wasn't for SOTSOG).


But, you do have a less strong, more valid point which, I think, is quite easily explained.

It's natural for people to be positive, or at least want to be. Positiveness and opitimism are natural human traits, because people, god bless them, want to be happy.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

[ffogems]

Some people just want to play the 'fanboy', even temporarily, because they enjoy adorning their show in far too expensive drapes. I don't think anyone is being delusional when they do that, they're aware that they are being fancifully positive*. Can the same be said for negativity? I'm not sure it can.

I think people encourage positivity because they love exposing the comedy snobbery in others. It's a class thing. It's that working class, 'down to earth',  all-embracing, 'don't expect nothin' much really' mentality that's been transferred to comedy tastes.

*Incidentally Thewomb's Nathan thread is a direct reaction to negativity, rather than being an 'All fans congregate here' thread

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

It's natural for people to be positive, or at least want to be. Positiveness and opitimism are natural human traits, because people, god bless them, want to be happy.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Because I think misplaced positivity (namely, mediocre things being called excellent) is quite damaging. What people call 'positivity' can often be quite negative. I don't believe all positive thought is healthy just because it involves smiling rather than frowning. Punk was a positive thing wasn't it? But it still involved 'hating' the dinosaur prog-rock it opposed.

Also, I think being against-the-grain has a lot to do with it. People are troubled by you liking Be Here Now because it's not a view they're used to - it forces them to actually think and re-evaluate, rather than just sneer 'Be Here Now anyone?' and expect to get nodding agreement. So you're labelled a fanboy, because it's easier. I couldn't help thinking there was a bit of this with Nathan Barley and The Office - 'it's aimed at people like you, so you should like it'.

[Johnny Yesno]

It baffles me that some people would think NB is Morris's best work but I can understand that there are people who watched it looking for the good bits. I guess it's like when you're into a band and their output gets weaker and weaker. You still buy their records if there's one or two decent tracks on them and you'll be blowed if you're going to accept that they've totally lost it while they still have their moments.

There's some reference made to this idea in Trainspotting in connection with Lou Reed, isn't there?

[Johnny Yesno]

Also, I think being against-the-grain has a lot to do with it. People are troubled by you liking Be Here Now because it's not a view they're used to - it forces them to actually think and re-evaluate, rather than just sneer 'Be Here Now anyone?' and expect to get nodding agreement.

Couldn't you say the same thing about NB, though? For those of us who gleaned some enjoyment out of the show "DAN REACTS!1!1!" is fairly equivalent to "Be Here Now anyone?".