My Wrongs #8245-8249 & 117: A Reappraisal

[Neil]

It's a masterpiece.  I can't believe I was so under-whelmed by it when it came out, but I know that I was worried about mechanically parsing everything as 'a comedy.'  That attitude, with its focus on laughs to the exclusion of all else, is a fucking useless, limited way to appreciate anything that can't be comfortably categorised.

Seeing this on its own terms, as a piece of art, and veering away from useless, direct comparisons with the radio version, it becomes obvious that this is ridiculously dense and brilliant.  I've just written this for an update, to try and explain the podcast I'm working on...

My Wrongs is a vivid emulation of psychological states, intended to challenge the viewers thinking in appropriately odd ways.  Addiction and obsession lie at the heart of the protagonist's problems, and his attempts to battle these even seep out into the packaging itself.  The DVD packaging is a representation of the book which Him uses to catalogue his wrongs, yet this book barely even exists in the final cut of the film.  You have to piece together clues, paranoid fragments... some of which are hidden and only tantalisingly glimpsed.  Morris brings the themes of the film to life, by challenging you to destroy something you've just bought.  Even the label of the DVD itself contains extra details that can be applied to the film in such a way as to enrich what you know of it, but first, you have to join Him's frequency.  My Wrongs is one of the most thoughtful, interesting, and sucessful things Chris Morris has ever produced. 

...not much more to add at the moment, other than that the sound design is wonderfully evocative, and given that I don't know much about the mechanics of directing, I still have to ackowledge the effective way in which the character's anxiety and such-like are communicated.  It's the same with the sound-track, with it pulsing along steadily for chunks of the film, then bursting into life to mimic Him's internal chunderings. 

This isn't designed just for analysis, it's designed for over-analysis!  I've ended up researching psychological experiments, psychology in general (which I already had planned), and put an alarming amount of thought in this film, and it all ends up feeding back into your overall appreciation of what is being communicated, and the methods that are being used.

[Johnny Townmouse]

I don't have anything especially deep to add to this, other than to say that I found it a boring and pointless waste of time the first couple of occasions that I saw it. I had ridiculously high expectations due to everyone involved (the marriage of Morris, Considine and Warp seemed too good to be true). However, I have shown it to students a few times, mainly becuse of the use of sound, and have started liking it more and more. This is, in part, because students seem to genuinely love the film a lot.

It's strengths, other than the sound production, is Considine's acting and some really very good use of camera. I wonder if that was Morris or the DoP?

And to the tagger below - yes, I imagine that if some of us watched Nathan Barley we really would enjoy it a lot more than when it first aired. I can't imagine putting myself through it though.

[Guy]

And to the tagger below - yes, I imagine that if some of us watched Nathan Barley we really would enjoy it a lot more than when it first aired. I can't imagine putting myself through it though.

_{Having tried this earlier in the year, the answer from me is 'argh, nope'.}

I only saw My Wrongs once, did they show it one night on C4 or something? That must've been where I saw it. I didn't get a lot out of it, though I don't know if that has much to do with me not being much of a (Blue) Jam 'head'.

[Neil]

I do intend to go through Nathan Barley again, I'm revisiting it all, and rebuilding the site.  Conceptually, it does a lot of really interesting things, but it never quite held together as a series for me.  The pilot had a much more succesful tone and approach.  I find some of the end performances so jarringly ineffectual that it's going to be a hard one for me to ever really treasure, but who knows. 

I'm sure My Wrongs must sound bewildering on a 5.1 set-up, I can't wait to hear that at some point. 

Do people think the incident with Auntie Suzie happened?  The question is whether his guilt has some foundation in reality*, and was he just being, as Rothko says, 'a little snitch?' 

* Which it literally does, in My Wrongs.

[Ignatius_S]

When My Wrongs first came out, although I was highly interested, short film had become quite trendy at that time and I wasn't sure of Morris' intentions. As it was I thought it was great.

Around this time, I had been enduring numerous dreadful short films – this probably did shape my opinion of My Wrongs to a degree, because I thought the latter did so much so well (especially the sound) and to me worked as a short film, when so much that was coming out was awful and had the merits of an extended advert for WKD.

That all said, I think it's fair to say, I haven't got as much out of the film with subsequent viewings. I still think it's a good piece, but tend to watch it when I'm showing people who haven't seen it. I do think it's a good example how something from one medium was adapted to another brilliantly.

... I wonder if that was Morris or the DoP?...

With stuff that this, I tend to go with the DoP – if nothing else, even if the former has the vision, it's the latter who has to realise it.

I couldn't remember who the guy was on My Wrongs – after checking, the cinematography was done by Danny Cohen, who had several credits. I noticed that it went on to get some not too shabby credits like DoP in Dead Man's Shoes among.
   

[Neil]

You can read the shooting script on CaB, and judge from that. 

EDIT:

watch something enough times and you'll grow to like it

Interestingly, I've only started to watch it again after I grew to like it!  It's the thinking it's inspired over the years that prompted that.  Therefore, your tag would be more accurate if it said "the more time you spend thinking about something, the deeper your appreciation of it can grow", and all I can say is, I totally agree. 

[Ignatius_S]

I do intend to go through Nathan Barley again, I'm revisiting it all, and rebuilding the site.  Conceptually, it does a lot of really interesting things, but it never quite held together as a series for me.  The pilot had a much more succesful tone and approach.  I find some of the end performances so jarringly ineffectual that it's going to be a hard one for me to ever really treasure, but who knows...

Although I certainly think it flawed, messy, NB was something I enjoyed discussing with friends and I feel there are some very worthy elements.. the vulnerability of Dan, for instance.

...Do people think the incident with Auntie Suzie happened?  The question is whether his guilt has some foundation in reality*, and was he just being, as Rothko says, 'a little snitch?' 

* Which it literally does, in My Wrongs.

Is my mind playing tricks or in the audio monologue does he accuse the father of molesting his sister?

Doesn't he grass his father up because that's what the hamster tells him to? (Sorry, it's a while if I've seen it). If so, then he's ceding his responsibility to the animal – just as he goes along with what Rothko says. At the end, doesn't he blame the ducks?

Personally, I would say that his guilt does have foundation – when he he's told that he needs defending/case etc., he instantly remembers the incident as a child. Could well be something he usually suppresses or chooses not to remember, but it's deep-set guilt.

[Neil]

Is my mind playing tricks or in the audio monologue does he accuse the father of molesting his sister?

Nah, it's an affair in both versions.

Doesn't he grass his father up because that's what the hamster tells him to? (Sorry, it's a while if I've seen it). If so, then he's ceding his responsibility to the animal – just as he goes along with what Rothko says. At the end, doesn't he blame the ducks?

Yes, an inability to take responsibility is a constant theme, and that's what makes his mand snap like the ducks neck.  Up till then, the visual hallucinations are quite subtly placed in a way, with reality being just slightly bent, although suggestions of auditory hallucinations are made through the soundtrack e.g. the drooping bloop of Imogen's answering machine.  Once he blames Imogen, he undoes the good he's trying to do with the book, and ends up having a flashback to the formative experience where he followed his impulses with devestating consequences to his family life.  This throws him into a full-blown episode, which escalates the goldfish staring at him, to Rothko talking to him.  The world now isn't just looking at him, it's talking to him too, and telling him what to do, insulting him, etc. 

Personally, I would say that his guilt does have foundation – when he he's told that he needs defending/case etc., he instantly remembers the incident as a child. Could well be something he usually suppresses or chooses not to remember, but it's deep-set guilt.

Yes, also, he's only four when it happens, and with schizophrenia, it seems that this kind of projection is a way of dealing with things the person can't bring themselves to admit.  It comes back to control and responsiblity again, another of the constant themes.  Also, the incident is related to him in childish metaphors - I think it's possibly something he saw, and which has scarred him, just as the kids in the park will be scarred by what he and Rothko have done. 

We can see that he uses the animals as a form of coping strategy, but is also tormented by them.  The childhood flashback is recreated at the end in the church, with Rothko telling him to say things that are patently untrue, to a couple who are in the midst of having their baby christened.

At the end, doesn't he blame the ducks?

It's even better than that, he blames the ducks for telling people he thought a dog could talk.  He's repressing the memory of Rothko now, I think... Or trying to, but it keeps bubbling back to the surface.  The ducks became a method for him to try and shirk the blame of Rothko's death.  He places it on them instead.

Showing people he can hear ducks talking carries less weight than them knowing about Rothko.  It's that Morris trick of sending everything flying up the arse of its own logic. 

[DJ Solid Snail]

I seem to recall somebody saying that including the original monologue on the DVD was "the biggest own-goal in DVD extras history," which to me used to feel about right - Blue Jam's 'Rothko' is to me its finest moment, a brilliantly paced and well-written epic that sucks you in like no other sketch, taking up as it does an entire quarter of a show and constantly justifying every second of it. Taking out the wonderfully twisted narrator's thoughts means it loses everything that makes it great - a reasonably straight adaption of the events themselves aren't anywhere near as interesting. Hearing a deluded, insane man projecting an authoritative, sweary, antagonistic personality onto a dog and getting himself into a trouble for it is far funnier than actually seeing and hearing this dog, particularly during some of his coarser, wacky insults. I always felt it never really added anything, and, having lost all the best writing - the narrator's descriptions - the thing feels like it's over way too soon.

...That said, I did really enjoy the podcast the other night (and seeing the film again) and there clearly is far more going on that I'd initially suspected. Putting aside the initial disappointment and not comparing it to the radio sketch, I do now think it's a really well-made, interesting film, and all those hidden themes Neil was harping on about are genuinely fascinating.

I only have one thought: when Rothko finally starts talking, it feels as if it happens then because his guilt is manifesting itself; he's calling himself on his blaming of Imogen, and then this guilt simply escalates from there.

Oh, and Paddy Considine's raving at the ducks at the end is very, very funny. Morris must have seen him in A Room for Romeo Brass, I take it? He shows tremendous range in that.

[Neil]

Taking out the wonderfully twisted narrator's thoughts means it loses everything that makes it great - a reasonably straight adaption of the events themselves aren't anywhere near as interesting.

It's actually the whole adaption and implementation that's brilliant.  Radio is 'theatre of the mind', you can draw pictures with words, but when reworking this idea for film, Morris went as far as considering the packaging itself, and how it would be a physical manifestation of the themes, and of the overall piece.  Even the menu is constructed in such a way as to pull you into the sort of altered thinking that the main character is experiencing.  The jam easter egg flashes on Rothko's eyes, and is marked by shifts in the already unsettling background loop.  It's applying the sort of flashy cuts in the duck pond, to things that exist outside of the film itself. 

[DJ Solid Snail]

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear about it, but that was what I used to feel about it, and I like it a lot more now after repeated viewings and seeing it as its own thing rather than comparing it to the radio sketch.

[Nelson Swillie]

It was alright. Didn't blow me away but it didn't actively have me frothing at the mouth and barking "RUBBISH" either - and you'd be surprised how much that happens with post-80s comedy. I did giggle out loud at the double decker marked 'Shit Off'. though.

[Neil]

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear about it, but that was what I used to feel about it, and I like it a lot more now after repeated viewings and seeing it as its own thing rather than comparing it to the radio sketch.

I know, sorry.  I just wanted to point out how the adaption lets Morris play in more than just the arena of sound and vision.  Blue Jam was about communicating a mood, and My Wrongs carefully sets out to implement (or appeal to) certain types of mindsets.  I'm sure this all sounds very wanky, but he wants to affect an emotional state - the best example is that you can only find certain 'clues' to the puzzle, by frantically destroying something you've just bought.  It's a perfect adaption of one of the monologues.

[DeGrise]

I always felt that My Wrongs and NB were damned by ridiculous expectations. It's only when you can judge something on it's own merits that you can make a valid judgement. I've always made it my business to avoid any art until I can uncross my arms.

I've loved both pieces for years and have had arguments about both with many people, all ending with me being proved right. I'm not saying I'm better than you; just different. And better. Etc.

[Guy]

Wow, what a big piece of bait you've got dangling off your hook there!

uncross my arms

<wipes away nostalgic tear> It's like 2005 all over again!

[Famous Mortimer]

I always felt that My Wrongs and NB were damned by ridiculous expectations.

I've always felt NB was damned by being absolutely dreadful, but there you go. Not seen My Wrongs since it was first released, but I'm certainly prepared to give it another go after this.

[Maybe Im Doing It Wrong]

I only got round to seeing this this year and was massively underwhelmed. It struck me as very self-consciously "dark", and really slight. At twelve minutes there's nothing to it - it just comes across like a slightly extended sketch. I'm eternally bemused as how much debate and discussion such a bagatelle manages to generate.

All in all I thought it was a hugely immature, wanky, and (for want of a better word) studenty film for a 40 year old man to have made. When Woody Allen was 40 he was writing "Annie Hall."

[The Region Legion]

I've always felt NB was damned by being absolutely dreadful, but there you go.

It's actually a perfectly brilliant piece of work - I avoided it for a long time after seeing what people were saying about it here. Eventually watching it made me realise why I don't listen to anything said on this forum, ever.

Also, the Brass Eye Special was fantastic.

In summary, fuck all of you.

[Koosh Koosh!]

It's actually a perfectly brilliant piece of work - I avoided it for a long time after seeing what people were saying about it here. Eventually watching it made me realise why I don't listen to anything said on this forum, ever.

Also, the Brass Eye Special was fantastic.

In summary, fuck all of you.

Whoah, whoah, cowboy. While I'm just a lurker, I do know that's no way to approach the sometimes "passionate" arguments presented on this board. I don't like Nathan Barley myself (seemed like one joke over and over again), but I am of the opinion that Blue Jam was Morris' best work to date, and that a lot of the spin offs (Jam, My Wrongs etc) aren't as bad as people paint them to be.

I believe there's a lot of general consensus from some posters that the 1997 - 2002 period of "daaaaaarrrk" stuff Morris did was a load of old wank. The key is to stop yourself from saying "ha ha look at how wrong you are", and actually think about what you like about Nathan Barley or the brassEYE Special, and tell us. Explain why Nathan Barley is underrated and maligned by the masses, and talk about what you like about it.

That or you could just say "fuck you", I guess. But that's not very interesting, honestly.

[23 Daves]

We haven't had a good old chinwag about "Nathan Barley" on here in a long time, and I think that's partly because the overwhelming consensus back in 2005 was that it was dire - and if you were a fan, arguing to the contrary was actually quite hard work.  For every comment you made in its favour, it felt like ten replies were being fired back at you every hour from naysayers.  It was like being stood at the opposite end of a tennis court whilst one of those automated ball shooting machines goes haywire.

NB is actually Morris' most anal and exclusive piece of work, I think, in that almost everyone who liked it seemed to have had direct experience of the kind of people it was choosing to satirise - and in 2005, there weren't that many Barleys around (there's still not really, although I have the grave misfortune to have a Nathan Barley as an in-law).  So, it was cathartic if you were in some way connected to the London media world and its worst tossers, and probably seemed horrendously myopic and wanky otherwise.  It also failed to make much of the media class system - the reason so many of these hipsters work in the media now is because wealth buys work experience or time out to develop projects, which buys power.  You have to have money, not brains, to get a headstart in that world these days.  It's interesting that both Brooker and Morris chose not to touch upon that much.

Leaving "Jam" aside for a second, it was also Morris' first piece of work which didn't focus its ire on a target which could be seen to effect everyone's lives in some way. If you lived in Fife or Yeovil, I'm sure "Nathan Barley" said absolutely nothing of any relevance to you in 2005 (and this is a compliment to the good people of Fife and Yeovil rather than an insult, incidentally).

In short - not Morris' best work, but there are still some really sharp, and actually quite cutting, observations in there.  And whilst previous Morris projects had excellent casting, there were a few misfires in Barley-world, with actors and actresses who looked as if they'd been beamed in either from crappy BBC3 sitcoms or episodes of "Casualty".  Still, for all that, I genuinely find it better than "Jam" and "My Wrongs", and certainly better than the "Brasseye Special" which so lacked focus that some paedophiles mistakenly thought it was in their favour.  Not as good as "Four Lions" though.

[Zetetic]

The problem that I had with Nathan Barley wasn't far different from 23 Daves'.

Watching Nathan's shitty shock pieces, produced without much technical talent and no creative insight relying on nothing but reference to public figures and a vague sense of controversy to gain value in the world of NB, I thought of Bushwacked.

Watching a show that seemed, at least to me, to decry the self-centered nature of the media, and those in it, I thought of the fact that I was watching a show produced by those in the media, about those in the media, seemingly only with any possible relevance to those in the media.

There just seemed to terrible lack of self-awareness about the whole thing ('myopic and wanky' does indeed cover it pretty well).

(I always liked My Wrongs, but I've never spent enough time to consider why, so thank you Neil for a thread full of interesting thoughts on it.)

[Steven]

I don't think you really needed experience of Shoreditch Twats to get the references, it was a pretty obvious stereotype that you didn't need to physically encounter to understand wherever you came from, the internet was the middle-ground for all that kind of understanding. The real problem is it wasn't very funny. Charlie Brooker also made his name through utter Barley-esque techniques, starting a media-referencing website which would curry favour with the media and get him a step up in the ladder. He then tried to play this out through various tragic output, the TVGOHOME show was an abortion, before eventually finding his comfort level - just decrying the media in a documentary style way. His various Wipe shows are alright I suppose, but it's mainly common sense shit anybody could come up with, if you look at various low-level youtube shows they come up with very similar opinions on much lower budgets.

Getting back to Barley, I suppose it doesn't really work because it was just a criticism of media and its low-level inhabitants through personification, which is just like drawing pictures of people you don't like and stabbing them with a pencil. It wasn't any kind of story or arc or something substantial to philosophise about, it was about building little stawmen you could burn for your own self-relief. It's hard to know how much input Morris had on this, I can spot pieces, but it seems to be mainly Brooker's thing and Morris shoving in a few things.. Doug Rocket definitely feels like a Morris piece. There were a few prescient things like the gimicky mobile phones etc, but it was really just a diatribe on media without any real underlying story other than the Preacher Man schtick, which is presumably a pisstake on the way indie kids adopted Bill Hicks as a messiah about 10 years too late.

[hummingofevil]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I have just noticed on the last viewing that the book on the table when we first see Rothko come into focus is "Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions" by Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. The book is next to a full ashtray so kind of implies that he has been reading it. Doing a little bit of research, reviews of the book discuss how it discusses the idea of guilt at length and in summary (and I've not read it so might be wrong) that the only way of dealing with addiction is to constantly remind yourself of your own guilt, to follow a set of rules (the twelve steps) prosciptively that are clearly laid out in the text and for good measure to believe in God (in modern alternative AA groups this is sometimes replaced by the concept of a "higher power"). Of course its possible that the book is actually Imogen's and he is only reading it because he is at her flat; if this is the case then it opens up a further possibility about the dynamic of their relationship which I've never thought about before.

Just another piece of the puzzle for you.

[DeGrise]

I still think NB was weighed down by preconceptions of what a new Morris project should be.

If you reappraise it, you'll see it was actually remarkably prescient about the vacuuity that social media and 'media engagement' would help promote.

It's very easy to dismiss NB as 'not funny'. Itwas a traditional comedy format, which nobody was expecting, and it appeared to be focussed on a world that few people actually new about. However, the show was unarguably entertaining and a piece of social commentary that could only come from the combination of two expert media commentators coming together - and if you look it at it now you will see that  the themes are now much more universal than they first appeared to be.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't think the burden of expectations weighed it down at all. What weighed it down, again, was it not being funny, or all that interesting or insightful.

It's the equivalent of the newspaper Bart produces in an episode of the Simpsons – the front page headline being "Extra! Extra! Todd Smells!" It's that level of specificity in the targets being satirised – people most of us have never met, are never going to meet, and whose actions or opinions have no effect on us. It might still work if there were something broader there – Tim Minchin's song insulting a reviewer who gave him a bad review is funny, despite me not having a clue who the guy was (this is one example, there are many others). It might have worked if Morris and Brooker had used the class basis of Nathan and people like him as a target for satire, which has already been mentioned above, but they didn't.

As far as it being prescient, I'd argue the exact opposite is true. Magazines like the ones in Nathan Barley are dying out, at a fairly quick rate. I must have missed them nailing "the vacuity that social media and 'media engagement' would help promote". 

I recall reading the original thread on this, from just after I joined the board, and it wasn't as wholly negative as is being made out on here. It certainly was more negative than not (which is appropriate, considering it was rubbish) but there seemed to be plenty of positive-ish voices.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

It's that level of specificity in the targets being satirised – people most of us have never met, are never going to meet, and whose actions or opinions have no effect on us.

So what?

I've never understood this particular criticism of NB, given that nobody I know who likes it (and there's quite a few of them) has any connnection with the London media scene whatsoever.

[Ignatius_S]

Any chance of getting this a split thread?

Some old threads about NB:

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6745.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=13231.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7461.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=11098.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=13231.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7220.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6745.120
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7193.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7193.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6707.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7126.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6990.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,7434.0.html
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7306.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7419.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7638.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6696.0
http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=7505.0

The second link is for a thread when a second series looked likely.

Hopefully, I'll come up wioth some words of my own...

[An tSaoi]

I've only ever thought My Wrongs was 'okay'. It always struck me as a quite interesting and nicely-made short film, but ultimately one which doesn't 'speak' to me that much. It seems to focus more on audio and editing tricks than it does on hard substance, and although it's possible I'm being hugely ignorant, the film doesn't say as much as it thinks it does. I also don't like the idea that in order to get the full picture you have to look up such and such, then read some book that appears in such and such a shot, and tear apart your DVD cover; the work should be able to speak for itself based only on what's in the film proper without all this auxiliary research. Take that bit about Him not having a name because he doesn't believe he deserves one; that's an interesting concept which goes some way to explaining his character, but it's not touched upon at all in the film, so unless you happened to read that description, you'd not appreciate it as much (where is that written anyway, is it on the blurb or something?)

However, Neil's assertion that it's a masterpiece has got me wondering whether it's actually gone over my head, and that it's a wonderful short after all. It's very irritating to hear that there's lots to a piece that you don't get, because that makes me feel stupid, but I'm willing to be put right. As far as I can see it's about a schizophrenic man who feels guilty and ashamed of everything bad he's done (and has listed and numbered them, a bit like the protagonist in My Name is Earl a few years later, but without the intention of setting them right), who blames it on the animal conspirators who 'tell' him to do it. His subconscious puts him on trial so to speak, hence the dog lawyer, with decidedly un-hilarious results. The end.

There has to be more to it than that. What am I missing? I'd really like to like the film more.

[DeGrise]

Nathan didn't work at the magazine. He popped into the office because they had a symbiotic relationship - he thought they gave official 'cool' approval, and they needed him to tell them what they should be talking about.

His character predated the social media sensation, and his desperation for the approval of stangers seems to me to have anticipated the requirement for ill-informed idiots to provide judgement from everything from news to art before it can be decided whether the item under discussion has any value.

I've watched the entire series four times. I think it's an excellent piece of work. You don't like it, that's fine too.

Watching My Wrongs never fails to change my state of mind. It has an emotional and mental resonance that very few films have ever had for me. To me, that it is true genius - the fact that after repeated viewings it still has a significant impact. It isn't just a comedy - it's far more powerful than that.

P.S. I also know how to spell knew. I just haven't slept for two days.

[Whug Baspin]

I was listening to one of the radio shows the other day and there was a section where he interviewed a lady who suggested that dogs would make good judges, not sure if that's been mentioned before, but could have been the birth of the dog/lawyer idea.