Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 10:27:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Bah, Sigh: Nathan Barley - Series 2

Started by Neil, January 20, 2007, 10:04:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Anonymous

Something about Charlie Brooker...

When I turn to his Screen Burn and it's yet another 3 column dissection of Big Brother my opinion of him drops to zero.  Why does he give a shit about Big Brother?  No one watches it.  It is not interesting.  There are no new developments to come out of Big Brother that are worth noting.  

This is really irritating, because he can be interesting on some topics.  He just needs to realise that to not mention something at all is sometimes the best thing to do.

slim

Quote from: "Anonymous"You're assuming I have decided not to like Friends (and perhaps that I secretly DO like it, but am trying to say I don't because I think it isn't cool to do so) based on reading a newspaper review.
Not true. I wondered where the popular trend of baselessly attacking the show for it's supposedly aspirational qualities originated.

Quote from: "Anonymous"I feel like asking them: 'Are you or are you not British?'  because I don't see how you can like this show and be British, it's jsut absurd.
Ah, there's the point at which I stop taking you seriously.

Quote from: "Anonymous"going on about how exemplarly and really quite original it is.
Where?

Quote from: "Anonymous"It's a cynical money making exercise
You could argue the same for most television shows.

Quote from: "Anonymous"employing 20 writers to factory produce lines.
Oh no, not efficiency and a wealth of talent to draw upon!

Quote from: "Anonymous"Perhaps the main problem is that American comedy relies on the wise crack, and British comedy has characters who are not really supposed to be cool in so obvious a way.
Two more generalisations to add to the pot. I really don't think Ross, Monica or Chandler are sold as "cool".

Quote from: "Anonymous"Adam and Joe.  They're great.  They had songs and puppet reenactments.  There was a sense of fun, but you're not trying to be aspirational when you watch the Adam and Joe show.  I'm not
Of course you can only be aspirational whilst watching Friends.

And now, a little more sarcasm:

Here's Show A: It's a sitcom
Here's Show B: It's a silly sketch thing

Look how Show A is not like Show B and therefore my unfounded speculative criticism is valid.

Anonymous

OK.   Believe what you want to believe.

Milo

Quote from: "Anonymous"OK.   Believe what you want to believe.

Possibly the most irritating post I've ever read on here. As if we aren't free to believe what we want to (or what is true) until you say so!

rudi

QuoteWhy does he give a shit about Big Brother? No one watches it. It is not interesting. There are no new developments to come out of Big Brother that are worth noting.

Eh?

I can't abide the ghastly freakshow, but surely the recent furore just makes your whole point utterly inaccurate?

I'm not sure how any TV critic/reviewer could NOT have commented on it without being regarded as remiss.

Anonymous

Milo,

Slim's points were so weak and facile it just looks like he is trying to convince himself that Friends really is a good show, and not just an aspirational trap.  


Rudi,

Well, whether the recent story really sheds any light on racism in the UK is a bit uncertain.  And taking that aside there is nothing of note in the show at all.  It is just nastiness from start to finish.

Milo

Quote from: "Anonymous"Milo,

Slim's points were so weak and facile it just looks like he is trying to convince himself that Friends really is a good show, and not just an aspirational trap.

I thought he made some good points, myself. I still haven't worked out what about it is supposed to be aspirational. No-one in it is all that successful/happy/etc. The worst you can say about them is that they are mostly attractive - a bit unrepresentative but pretty much the norm for telly. I don't see anything especially wrong with the show. The characters did end up a bit like caricatures of what they started out as but, again, that's the norm for long-running telly. The show itself is well-crafted, frequently funny, nicely performed and extremely watchable. Not the greatest ever but certainly not deserving of the derision it receives.

slim

Quote from: "Anonymous"weak and facile
That's me!


Edit: On the subjec of NB. Last time around I think I said I thought it was ok - nice idea but not well executed. Hopefully the second series will see the team pick themselves up, learn from their mistakes and produce something better. Call me naively optimistic if you like, but there's a chance.

rudi

Quote from: "Anonymous"Rudi,

Well, whether the recent story really sheds any light on racism in the UK is a bit uncertain.  And taking that aside there is nothing of note in the show at all.  It is just nastiness from start to finish.

None of that detracts from the point that it was a major TV story, which therefore makes a TV critic/reviewers pretty beholden to cover said story, surely?

Anonymous

Sorry to break the flow of discussion but I thought you might like to know about some info I found on another forum that suggests the new series might only be available as as 'on demand' online shows:

"Disregarding reports of falling viewing figures for series one and eschewing the constraints of the traditional TV commissioning circuit, Morris will make each complete episode of ‘NB2’ available on a weekly basis via the internet as a download only.

The ‘online-only’ concept was previously exploited by former Morris cohort, David Quantick (‘Jam’, ‘Smack The Pony’) in his 2000 comedy series about heroin addicts, ‘The Junkies’. Quantick’s ‘docu-comedy’ regularly attracted online viewing figures of a quarter of a million."

Apologies but I don't know where they got the info from (they didn't say). Interesting though. Does anyone know anymore about this?

TJ

Interesting definition of 'regularly' for the lone episode of The Junkies, there.

Quote from: "Anonymous"Morris will make each complete episode of ‘NB2’ available on a weekly basis via the internet as a download only.

That's interesting...last year I wrote:

Quote from: "me, last year"what if Nathan Barley had been released straight to DVD and not shown on television at all? You know, as if it were a guerilla film release by someone like Nathan? Wouldn't the 'you're watching this so you are implicated in the satire' have then made a lot more sense? After all, everyone watches television so it didn't work, but not everyone buys DVDs like that, and those who do so are surely at least a little more likely to be justly implicated as 'Nathans'

...which I reckon would also apply with making them internet downloads rather than TV shows.

Famous Mortimer

You think Channel 4 would float TV-sitcom money at something only intended to be downloaded?

Quote from: "Famous Mortimer"You think Channel 4 would float TV-sitcom money at something only intended to be downloaded?

How's that? Not sure I understand what you mean, I'm afraid. If you mean is it feasible that they might try and insure themselves against losing money on a programme nobody's going to want to watch (judging from the viewing figures of NB1), by producing it cheaply then I'd say so.

They should have done that first time round though. I reckon, for the reasons I stated above, that it would have made more sense artistically, and done purposefully cheaply on camcorders etc...would have ended up making more money. This does assume though, that you'd have to pay to download the episodes or pay only to download them in high quality or something like that.

Famous Mortimer

I mean, they'd make less money off something which was designed solely to be downloaded (in terms of advertising and potential DVD revenue) so therefore would spend less on it. I think.

Anonymous

I agree wholeheartedly with the main article's views on Lucas and Walliams.  Anyone see Walliams on that end of year quiz thing hosted by (the equally nasty) Jimmy Carr?  His ego was so swollen it looked like he thought he was some kind of super being.  For once I was pleased to hear something from Russell Brand, who berated Walliams for endlessly going on about swimming the channel and behaving like a smug twat.

Cziffra

"
I'm always a bit bemused that champions of Barley can't see that the "You don't get it" argument equates to a far more linear assessment of the show then long-term Morris fans usually give. It's not that I don't get 'cock/muff/bumhole' is a tool to show the vacuous nature of The Idiots, it's that I understand that and still think it's crass, obvious material Morris is, or certainly was, capable of transcending. "

I feel you're missing the point entirely. When watching the series I was frequently torn between finding the series to be a funny, caricature of the 'idiot' culture (staggeringly accurate- perhaps you have to be below a certain age to recognise the accuracy with which he portrays these cunts) and finding the 'idiocy' funny on a pure, crass surface level. Where does that leave me when I laugh AT idiocy but I actually find some aspects of  the idiocy very amusing on a surface level, without a hint of irony? The image of David Bowie pissing into a toaster is hilarious, regardless of whether it's a satire of modern art.

Perhaps I'm analysing too far, but I believe that this is an intentional part of the series. Where is the line between 'irony' and cheap humour? I think that's very much part of the idea of the series. This question is constantly used in criticism but I believe this a total failure to understand the message. I think you are SUPPOSED to ask that question. It's not some incidental failing of the show.

I found the cock/muff/bumhole rather amusing as an illustration of the absurdity of supposedly 'ironic' humour (I forget the deep explanation of how it's supposedly rather intelligent in some way) yet I also found it very amusing as a surface joke. It's almost like he's going further and ASKING you to think whether he is being cleverly ironic (in the same manner that he asks you to consider this of the idiotic characters) or merely lewd and leaving you to think about it. It really makes you think about where the boundaries lie, as suggested by the discussion of Little Britain, and I believe very intentionally so.  

Andrew

Anonymous

"It's almost like he's going further and ASKING you to think whether he is being cleverly ironic (in the same manner that he asks you to consider this of the idiotic characters) or merely lewd and leaving you to think about it. It really makes you think about where the boundaries lie, as suggested by the discussion of Little Britain, and I believe very intentionally so. "

and just to add to that, while Little Britain merely presents itself as an ironic version of lewdness (which may indeed be rather a dubious claim), Nathan Barley skillfully questions the whole premise of the validity of  irony, both within the drama and within itself as a programme.

Andrew

Anonymous

Quote from: "Anonymous""It's almost like he's going further and ASKING you to think whether he is being cleverly ironic (in the same manner that he asks you to consider this of the idiotic characters) or merely lewd and leaving you to think about it. It really makes you think about where the boundaries lie, as suggested by the discussion of Little Britain, and I believe very intentionally so. "

and just to add to that, while Little Britain merely presents itself as an ironic version of lewdness (which may indeed be rather a dubious claim), Nathan Barley skillfully questions the whole premise of the validity of  irony, both within the drama and within itself as a programme.

Andrew
bhj

merlin

Neil, you are a Titanic Cretin... Just accept that Jam is funny and interesting, there has never been anything like it on television. Also, you seem to have some unhealthy fixation on The Day Today, a holy grail that should be constantly strived for. All Morris' work is brilliant in its different ways, whether hilarious Brasseye satire, or dark comedy in the shape of Jam. Nathan Barley is just another change in direction. Admittedly it is Morris' weakest series, but it still serves a clever entertainment and comedy purpose. Your hatred for Time Trumpet is ill-conceived. Just because the humour is up-front and obvious, it should not be dismissed. Just watch it, it's funny...

'Debate 101' there...

Simply having an opinion doesn't validate it.

Keep up the good work, Dopus!

Shoulders?-Stomach!

QuoteJust watch it, it's funny...

Why didn't that work when I tried it? Am I broken?

Anonymous

Nathan Barley really back
No!
Horray
Me like Nathan Barley a Lot

twodeadmagpies

can't wait for another series of NB, subjectively! just to see where chris morris is. does no one else think his entire output (or what i've seen at least)  has followed a kind of logical progression of: ultra public public personal shared half-there private to the point of simply 'show' in IT Crowd?  like a thick comedy vain throbbing to an ever higher, invisible frequency.  quality isn't degraded. it just isn't there to look at anymore. not in that way. not in the >content<, is it possible to take comedy beyond that? don't know, not watched/read/seen/heard/thought enough...

if i'm right, the new series of NB will contain Morris' cuntribution (totally internal!) of exactly not contributing to the script, directing, acting or any material use.

which is interesting entirely for what happens after that. (some kind of realpolitik diary?)
watching the IT crowned, i just couldn't help thinking of John Cage's song 4'33 (nowt), or Duchamps book, E (eeeeeeeeee's), not without a li'l cringing, but still,

actually the problem with NB was that Julian barratt is too attractive and i hate london and kevin eldon needs to do peroid drama(tears for rod hull), and if there was any more jaaaaaaaaam, i'd glue my face to the tv in joy, and charlie brooker is the only thing in the guardian apart from SE14 that stops it being so worthy that i go off topic.
thanks for the vent. am off to watch the current crop of comedy on tv. eastenders (surreal) newsnight review (a too obvious parody?)....yay!

rudi


twodeadmagpies

sorry. i got excited, i've only just found this site. all the real people i know prefer partridge so i'm not usually allowed to ramble about chris morris.
which is perhaps why all my theories appear to have congealed some time ago. i'll shut up now.

Brutus Beefcake

Quote from: "Janek's Little Black Box"That's interesting...last year I wrote:

Quote from: "me, last year"what if Nathan Barley had been released straight to DVD and not shown on television at all? You know, as if it were a guerilla film release by someone like Nathan? Wouldn't the 'you're watching this so you are implicated in the satire' have then made a lot more sense? After all, everyone watches television so it didn't work, but not everyone buys DVDs like that, and those who do so are surely at least a little more likely to be justly implicated as 'Nathans'

...which I reckon would also apply with making them internet downloads rather than TV shows.

Was that one of the posts you didn't delete then?

Quote from: "Brutus Beefcake"Was that one of the posts you didn't delete then?
Sort of. It was one of my posts as a 'guest' so I couldn't access/edit it.

On the subject of Barley, though, I reckon TJ was right:

Quote from: "TJ, referring to the potential Nathan Barley 2 arguments on Cookdandbombd,"We're all bored of having to say something about it just for the sake of saying something about it, the people who will argue very convincingly that it is A Bad Thing are bored of having had to repeat themselves until they are blue in the face, and the berks who counter this by saying "roftl u just dont get it U R NATHAN BARLEY just lchill and let the comedy wash over you, peace and fucking" will get bored soon enough too if nobody else can be bothered commenting.

I certainly feel a familiar boredom just starting to think about it again for the first time in a year or so.

Maynard F.Periwinkle

I must say, Neil, my one and only complaint with this site is your occasional lack of impartiality, and perhaps personal moderation, whenever these issues seem to come up.

I come here, as many do I’m sure, principally to find impartial information... I tend to form my own opinions and I think of them as pretty much unique to me - although they no doubt represent some unimaginably elaborate equation comprising all sorts of social, cultural and environmental factors, innate personality traits and dispositions.

Whether or not an individual likes the direction Chris Morris has taken in recent years is not necessarily a sign of their own intelligence, heritage, validity, etc.

Where the 90's were a decade when news spoofs and subversive gags seemed to work endlessly, I have to admit I don't find DTD or Brassed Eye quite as funny, and certainly not quite as worthwhile, as I used to - unless perhaps I recall how funny they were in the context of a post-80's era where people would tune in and genuinely not know whether or not to take them seriously.

But I think that's to be expected... Worthwhile music, art, comedy, etc. has always been as much about context as it is content - while an episode of You've Been Framed and a half bottle of whiskey will probably always seem quite funny to us on some slap-stick/mammalian level.

I have to admit, Charlie Brookers’ humour really gets me... I find myself genuinely laughing out loud whilst watching Screen wipe - even on its third or forth repeat... But it's more than that for me, it's a very satisfying kind of observation humour - certainly personally validating, but at times almost verging on profoundly relevant sociology.

Personally, I found Nathan Barley one of the most satisfying, worthwhile, and necessary satires of the last 10 years... I loved the format - it was certainly more light-hearted sitcom than is was going all out for gags every 15 seconds... In a strange way, and much like Dark Place, and even Curb Your Enthusiasm if you think about it, i found it almost so compelling to watch that you don't really realise how funny it is until you think or talk about it later.

The idea that you have to truly love something in order to satirize it effectively seems to hold very true, as the attention to detail in everything from the design to the choice of music, seemed as much a celebration or a labour of love, as it did a bitterly cynical attack... And I think we've had more than enough of British satires which miss the point, or display complete ignorance of their subject matter...

Just my opinion

Neil

Interesting post...I'm sorry my lack of impartiality bothers you though.  However, it won't change.  I mean, I like to try and get some discussion going on here, it's great to hear from the average visitor, and it's been a real pain in the hole to bring back the ability for them to post without registering, actually.  

Anyway, I kind of like gathering my thoughts together in this manner and seeing what pops out too.  Plus, if I had to be impartial, then I couldn't gush and froth over my latest GLR encodes, and that wouldn't do at all.  I only started doing websites as they seemed to be the natural successor to mix-tapes, and I got/get so much pleasure from excitedly cramming a home-made mix-tape into someone's mitts and saying 'you'll fucking love this, mate!'