Nathan Barley Series Two

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Nah, Kumars and Keeping Up Appearances - made by people who understand how comedy programmes work, even if they are aimed at your granny.

[Mr. Analytical]

Keeping up Appearances is a one joke series.

1. Elaborate set up involving Hyacinth trying to look posh
2. Something happens
3. Onslow turns up.

It deserves hatred because it only has 1 joke... every single episode is the same joke over and over again.  Oooh Hyacinth is having the vicar over to tea... oooh hyacinth is having a garden party... ooh Hyacinth is having something delivered from a posh shop.

The Kumars though doesn't have any jokes or ideas.

Nathan Barley had quite a few funny ideas, like the hoxtonites going round on children's bicycles and straight-on-straight sex and the whole "preacherman" thing.  It had a few solid comedy ideas and something to say.  It's not brilliant comedy but it's solid second tier stuff.  I honestly think that getting an experienced sitcom writer in to smooth off the edges and a better director would actually make for a seriously funny programme.

[Darrell]

God, why even bother acknowledging something that as you say is "second-tier stuff", never mind defending it? What's the point?

Whatever happened to wanting excellent, first-rate stuff and not accepting anything lesser? It's this defence of 'meh, it's okay' comedy that keeps it being made. Mediocre, fad-banging comedy is the trendy new replacement for proper comedy seemingly, and pointless defences of things which even the apologists have only middling confidence in just makes this worse.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Yes, Darrell. Thinking back, it's baffling that people have to defend a Morris series by saying "well, at least it's better than a Roy Clarke sitcom which hasn't had any new episodes for about 8 years".

I hope you're all happy eating your gruel.

[13 schoolyards]

Isn't this an arguement that Barley fans can't win?  If they say they enjoyed it because it was brilliant, they're idiots because it wasn't.  If they admit it wasn't brilliant, then they're idiots for enjoying it.  In this absolutist comedy world, is there any room left to like / enjoy something which you *know* wasn't amazing first rate comedy but - for bizarre and possibly unsettling personal reasons - you still had a good time watching?  Or are people who said they enjoyed it but it was only second-tier stuff lying to themselves: either they enjoyed it because deep down they really do think it's brilliant, or they didn't really enjoy it at all and only think they did?

I'm going to have a lie down now.

[slim]

Two Pints was a million miles better than Nathan Barley

Let's not get carried away here. Passable NB was still better than what I've seen of that shite.

And no, I'm not accepting mediocre as ok, I'm just stating opinion.

[phantom_power]

i don't think saying nathan barley was ok is accepting mediocrity, just acknowledging that there exists something between great and rubbish.  

of course people want something new to be fantastic, but when it turns out not to be you have to judge it as it is, not as you hoped it would be. this has no bearing on your hopes for other new programmes. you still want them to be fantastic.

i think most people who liked barley would admit it could and should have been better, but that doesn't mean it is entirely without worth.

[Jon_Norton]

Isn't this an arguement that Barley fans can't win?

And I can't win either. So we're quits.

[Munday's Chylde]

but it certainly compares with something like Season 2 of I'm alan Partridge or Season 3 of Black Books.

It certainly does.

[23 Daves]

Oh, you guys.

I freely and unconditionally accept that I'm no "expert" on comedy, know considerably less about the topic than most people on this forum (but still more than the average man on the street, I'd happily say), and have only attempted to write anything that could be loosely defined as comedy once (which was awful).  As a result, I did feel incredibly threatened by the savage attacks on "Nathan Barley" on this forum, and did go back and watch it all again – back to back – with your comments and criticisms in mind.  I still thoroughly enjoyed it, and still couldn't really see the validity behind most of the sideswipes we witnessed on here.  In fact, I think I actually got more out of it in one repeat viewing than I did first time around.

Sure, there's no question it's flawed.  Some of the episodes are so desperate to set up "dramatic tension" that they almost forget about jokes, the main reason we tuned in.  The direction of the series is obviously in awe of slightly clumsy techniques first used in "The Office" (or even "This Life").  There are some continuity errors.  Aside from those points, however, there are also some marvellous episodes.  It's not up there with "Brasseye", but it's still damn good.

A large part of the problem with most of you, I feel, is that you've never liked Charlie Brooker's humour, finding it too caustic, bitter and young fogey-ish.  "Nathan Barley" almost certainly fits those descriptions, but to me is no more or less enjoyable for that – Brooker's savageness has never particularly bothered me, perhaps because these are criticisms that are also thrown at me in my dubious part-time freelancing projects.  Maybe I'm blind as to how irksome they are as a result – I'm not sure.  Whatever, I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of Barley is his work.  You can sense it in the slapstick nature of some of the set-ups, and the sadistic glee of many of the plotlines.  It works for me as a satire obsessed with the small irksome details of daily urban life rather than the broader, far reaching work Morris used to do.

Call me idiotic, but I was also genuinely surprised by a lot of the twists and turns in the series, laughed frequently, and also found it to be a very accurate dissection of a certain breed of urbanite – to the extent of it being slightly wounding to me personally in places.  It will probably be one of my favourite programmes of this year, and if I'm in the minority with that assessment, so be it.  

Now "Catterick", on the other hand, almost made me want to weep with disappointment it was so bad, and it's totally beyond me how any of you lot could defend it.  Horses for courses, I suppose.

[Jemble Fred]

I've always liked Brooker's work (in print – the TVGH book is a wonderful thing to own) myself, but... not NB. Just personally.

Sorry to be contrary, but Catterick was great work. Certainly in comparison. So many quotable lines, great scenes. It was comedy. It could only disappoint in comparison to R&M's greatest works.

EDIT: And you're at the bottom of the page. Sorry, PT, I hate it when that happens.

[Jon_Norton]

Keeping up Appearances is a one joke series.

That's still one more than Nathan Barley had.

[Jon_Norton]

A large part of the problem with most of you, I feel, is that you've never liked Charlie Brooker's humour, finding it too caustic, bitter and young fogey-ish.

No. Those are fine qualities to have. And they work Ok in the capsule-joke format of TVGH. Trouble is when Charlie moves up to working on an even slightly bigger scale. What was wrong with NB (in my eyes) was the usual things that are wrong with bad sitcom: crap continuity, ridiculous situations, ridiculous characters... I never liked Keeping Up Appearances either, but that was at least a level of professionalism higher than NB.

"Nathan Barley" almost certainly fits those descriptions, but to me is no more or less enjoyable for that – Brooker's savageness has never particularly bothered me, perhaps because these are criticisms that are also thrown at me in my dubious part-time freelancing projects.

I couldn't see any "savagery" in NB - maybe I'd have to be part of that universe to feel in any way threatened by its feather-duster satire. Oh well.

[The Mumbler]

Exactly.  Satire (which this is supposed to be, so we've been told) is supposed to puncture egos and so on.  Who's going to get hurt by that irrelevant dog's breakfast?  In that respect, even Keeping Up Appearances had a target, and whatever you think of the ensuing comedy, it lived up/down to expectations.

[Jon_Norton]

Aside: I read 10 years ago that KUA was te BBC's biggest ever export success, and the most-exportable comedy format ever. Apparently, the basic concept of a snobby woman ashamed of her relations is a genuine cultural universal, that can be adapted into a show anywhere in the world - Asia, Africa, anywhere.

I'm not convinced NB says something to all the regions of Greater London.

[Jemble Fred]

Oh come on, KUA is great. And the worst possible show to compare NB to.You may as well try and argue that Aphex Twin's latest can't be rubbish because it's better than a Daniel O'Donnell album from ten years ago.

[TJ]

"To all the naysayers (BENT HALO THIS MEANS YOU) I would ask - would you rather have this, or The Office?"

"I'd rather have neither, on tonight's evidence".

Some wise words from the post-BES fracas...

[Mr. Analytical]

I've always liked Brooker's work (in print – the TVGH book is a wonderful thing to own) myself, but... not NB.

 I consider Charlie Brooker to be one of my personal heroes.    I adore the way he writes and it's had a huge influence on the way I write.  But I agree that clearly there's some problem in harnessing that writing talent and fitting it into a sitcom format.  Morris's style c an also be quite literary as evidenced by the nonsense syllables and bizarre sentence construction of Brasseye.

 But bizarrely that kind of comedy was completely absent from Nathan Barley.  Going by the first episode clearly Ashcroft was supposed to be the voicefor that kind of comedy like Mallard is in People Like Us but they refused to let him become a kind of narrator and therefore they couldn't describe Barley as a cunt they could only show he was a cunt and have loads of reaction shots.


 But despite what are pretty obvious problems I thought it was pretty good comedy.  Not ground breaking or likely to be hugely influential but there were lots of good ideas, some good satirical targets and a few very funny  moments.  Just because Chris Morris was involved shouldn't mean it's judged any harsher than any other sitcom.  Sure given  the talent involved it could have been awe inspiring and it wasn't but that doesn't automatically mean that it's rubbish.

[Jon_Norton]

I consider Charlie Brooker to be one of my personal heroes.

Christ. Why not Andy McNab?

When people start citing professors or journalists as "heroes", it means they're so desperate for a "hero" they'll give the job to anyone.

[The Mumbler]

Keeping Up Appearances was a huge hit in the United States on PBS.

Of course, that doesn't mean to say that just because Brass Eye or The Day Today didn't sell abroad, they were no good.  Although I see no reason why they couldn't have been sold to cable in America, for instance.  They're no more impenetrable than The Larry Sanders Show is to British viewers.

But as for Barley - well, it said nothing to me, and I live in London, keep tabs on the media, find it laughable and naturally senduppable, understood "essentially what they were trying to do", but just found they were "doing it really badly".  I still haven't made it past episode two, and if you think that by making this statement, I'm missing out, then you're mistaken.  I don't need to watch more than two episodes of Tonight With Trevor McDonald to find it patronising shite, and I felt much the same about Barley.

[The Mumbler]

But I agree that clearly there's some problem in harnessing that writing talent and fitting it into a sitcom format.  Morris's style c an also be quite literary as evidenced by the nonsense syllables and bizarre sentence construction of Brasseye.

Most of that "literary style", though, is really a pastiche of news and current affairs bombast.  And trying to transplant that into "the real world" doesn't work.

[Jon_Norton]

It's one of the ways the media have corrupted standards by promoting the use of "hero" to mean anyone considered even slightly admirable. Practically any fucker doing his job is a "hero" nowadays.

I can think of about half a dozen writers who've had a big influence on me, but if you said they were my "heroes" I'd give you a funny look. A "hero" is someone portrayed in The Dambusters and the like.

I once heard a man in a pub claim that Ronnie Biggs was "a national hero", but he had lots of scarey tattoos and scars on him so I didn't feel like debating the issue.

[The Mumbler]

See also the definition of the word "genius", of course.  Which used to be the preserve of the greatest thinkers, scientists and artists of their time.  Now, it appears to mean someone who toils over a muddled six-part comedy series on Channel 4.

[Mr. Analytical]

Mumbler - But it does... look at People Like Us.  The real genius of that series is in Mallard's bizarre narration.  The problem lies in trying to transfer descriptive written language into naturalistic dialogue, which is what they tried to do in NB and failed at.  But I can't imagine for the life of me why they went down that road seeing as it completely undermined both of their strengths as writers.

Jon - The meaning of a word is its use as Wittgenstein pointed out.  I take a hero to be someone whose actions you find inspirational and aspirational due to his level of skill in a certain area.  In so far as you can have heroes in the field of funny writing I stand by my decision and the dictionnary backs me up.  In lamenting the way people use language you're coming across as one of those nutters who bemoan the fact that homosexuals have co-opted the word gay.

[Jon_Norton]

Jon - The meaning of a word is its use as Wittgenstein pointed out.

No he didn't. That's a widespread myth about his later philosophy. What he actually wrote was:

Philosophical Investigations[/i] section 43"]For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word 'meaning' it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.

Trouble is, Wittgenstein is a "hero" for people who don't read the texts too carefully.


EDIT: to be fully pedantic, he didn't actually write that, because he wrote in German. That's the English translation.

[The Mumbler]

I have to disagree with you about People Like Us, Analytical.  Mallard's language-mangling is *one* comic element, but to reduce it to the only comic element does John Morton's writing and Chris Langham's delivery a grave injustice.  There's Mallard's attempt to reconstruct the words of others via indirect speech - which fatally undermines his supposed objectivity.  His striving for objectivity extends to his constantly reminding the documentaries' subjects, "I'm not really here", and about his becoming part of the documentary.  

Similarly, the technical aspects of People Like Us cleverly undermine Mallard's stance.  Whether it's in the editing (on radio - having a talking head repeat the exact same phrase as Mallard seconds earlier but without Mallard's malapropism), or in the direction (on TV - filming fragments of schoolyard litter just to have *something* to show!), there's a lot going on.  Not only do I find it in a different league to Nathan Barley, but it's surely a different game.  I don't think People Like Us is particularly satirical - it's more about character studies, even farce occasionally, and about how a figure's personal life can become embroiled in a professional context.

[Mr. Analytical]

Trouble is, Wittgenstein is a "hero" for people who don't read the texts too carefully.

 So you would argue that Hero is an exception to the rule that 'the meaning of a word is its use in the language'?  I'm sure that there are exceptions but the traditional exceptions to the rule you talk about when discussing Wittgenstein are things like "Help!" or a swear word used to rile and irritate people, not a relatively unimportant and rather conventional noun.

 I agree that Wittgenstein's later philosophy is frequently misunderstood, most notably by people who take his talk of language games to basically mean that you can have ideolects as long as they're consistantly used.  However, that was not my point... I wasn't saying that I'm allowed to use the word 'hero' in that way because that's how I use the word hero but rather because that is how the word is used in our language... if you look in the dictionnary you'll find that while it does refer to characters from ancient myth and people from the dambusters it also has a less grand useage.

 Which is why I pointed out that you sounded like someone moaning because the word "gay" doesn't just mean happy anymore.  You're focussing on one use of the word and poopooing all other uses of the word even though they're recognised by dictionnaries as quite common and acceptable useages.

[Jon_Norton]

No, I put quote marks around the word and thus I was mentioning and not using it in that context.

See, this is the Richard Ayaoade Generation here: they don't do the reading properly, scribble a half-baked essay, and then expect a top grade for it. No wonder this country is falling to pieces, standards have been chucked out across the board.

[Mr. Analytical]

So in other words... you can quote Wittgenstein from memory but you don't actually know what it was he meant.  Fair enough... glad we've got that sorted out.

[Jon_Norton]

No, in other words your comment about language games not entailing any old ideolects are correct, undermines your reliance on the existence of the corrupted ideolect that misuses "hero" to justify your own misuse. I thought it was pretty obvious that was the fatal inconsistency in your post.

I heard you Brooker fans liked things to be "caustic, bitter and fogeyish"?