BrassEYE Special: TWAT

[dot]

I don't think he does either. We've crossed sarcasm. A massive marshmallow stewart lee is going to terrorise new york.

[The Mumbler]

At around this point, the person who leaves a gag like the "arms" one usually recommends their own hilarious website of spoof news.

Whatever *did* happen to Dan L?

[TJ]

Whatever *did* happen to Dan L?

I was wondering that myself, funnily enough. Not heard anything of him since the House Of Commoners TV pilot was announced.

Probably still crying himself to sleep over the fact that Spaced is a television programme and not his real life, and, somewhere, probably still perpetuating that argument about the SOTCAA Fringe parody.

[pimpjuice]

TJ and slim(e),, come here  and let me give u a hug,,,,

[pimpjuice]

[Mister Cairo]

Is that a photo of your brain, one owner, hardly used?

Lying there on the floor like your hardly-used legs, which you could use to climb up the nearest office block and jump?

[Almost Yearly]

Hm.

[Foo Manchew]

pimpjuice, please stop posting images that are unrelated to the topic and trolling this thread.

[Rich]

I'm sure this must have occured to him at some point, but I agree that it would be a fairly redundant exercise.  Probably be worth a few laughs, and I'm sure people would lap it up, but it's all been done before.  Besides, I think with the legacy of TDT and BE, everyone's wise to how ridiculous media  coverage of this sort of thing is, and they at least think that they're capable of parodying it themselves.  So where could a TWAT special go?  I think it would end up looking like a parody of a parody - it wouldn't be fresh, everyone knows the tricks, and it would collapse under it's own hype.

[predictable]Be better than another series of Nathan Barley though! Etc...[predictable]

[slim]

Oh, I don't know. There are still some things to be parodied. The rolling news coverage in this country now is, I think, different to how it was in the day of The Day Today. It seems stylistically different too. There are subtle things you can spot about the news which have changed over the years.

I think there's plenty of material in the subject and it's coverage for a suitably talented chap to fill a half hour with TWAT.

[Rich]

Perhaps it's not something I'm completely qualified to comment on, since I was about 9 when TDT was on, and as such I didn't watch much of the news at the time.  However, I can agree with what people are saying that the news as we have it now, seems to be if anything, moving closer in style to TDT and such.  So then to parody that, where do you go?  Make it hyper-ridiculous?  I don't even know what that means.  

You're correct of course that there are still some things to be parodied, but it just don't think it wouldn't feel fresh or particularly exciting which you'd sort of expect from a one off comeback special.  But maybe it needn't be - at the end of the day if it was funny, then I'd laugh, which given the climate at the moment, would be more than enough.

[lactating man nips]

Maybe he could get some mileage from the changes in technology since TDT. Stuff like ITV's god awful virtual set and the much vaunted interactivity of everything on television these days.

I do think the lack of passion, anger or whatever is a key thing in morris's weak output recently. The whole nathan barley thing seemed like one long in joke that may have provided Morris with some catharsis (i hope so anyway) but didn't do much for the audience.

I'll stop there before i go completely off topic.

[slim]

But maybe it needn't be - at the end of the day if it was funny, then I'd laugh, which given the climate at the moment, would be more than enough.

Not that brilliant isn't what everyone should be aiming for, but this is spot on. Even an average Brasseye revisit would be far superior to a lot of stuff around today.

[Ciarán2]

It seems people would be happy to see another war start or hear about some more human suffering so long as a vaguely chucklesome Brass Eye style satire resulted from it. Like it's just comedy material.

Any comedy about these situations I think needs to be genuinely furious and funny if it's to work. Otherwise what is the fucking point?

[slim]

It seems people would be happy to see another war start or hear about some more human suffering so long as a vaguely chucklesome Brass Eye style satire resulted from it. Like it's just comedy material.

Erm, I don't think anyone said that actually.

Any comedy about these situations I think needs to be genuinely furious and funny if it's to work. Otherwise what is the fucking point?

I didn't say it shouldn't be. It could be an average Brasseye and still have more teeth than any "satire" we see at the moment. Make me laugh more too.

[Ciarán2]

It seems people would be happy to see another war start or hear about some more human suffering so long as a vaguely chucklesome Brass Eye style satire resulted from it. Like it's just comedy material.

Erm, I don't think anyone said that actually.

Fair dues. I think there are people of this mind though, not necessarily on this board but people I speak to.

Any comedy about these situations I think needs to be genuinely furious and funny if it's to work. Otherwise what is the fucking point?

I didn't say it shouldn't be. It could be an average Brasseye and still have more teeth than any "satire" we see at the moment. Make me laugh more too.

I just don't think "average Brasseye" is good enough anymore. To me "Science" is an average Brasseye episode. But it doesn't taclke the issue in anyway, just seems like a waste of time to snigger at the stupidity of things and not actually do anything about it. If satire has any power, it should change things politically. I think of those books of quotes by George Bush. They seems a bit redundant when the chap gets back into office. I just suspect that a Brass Eye about the "war on terror" would suffer a similar fate.

[slim]

If satire has any power, it should change things politically.

I wholly disagree with this. Satire doesn't have an obligation to change things, it can commentate without necessarily altering. Isn't that a ridiculously high yardstick by which to measure the value of satire? How many have genuinely altered a process by their existence?

[The Mumbler]

The reason why The Day Today and Brass Eye (and before them, On The Hour) were so refreshing was that, even if you watched the news and thought it was ridiculous or pompous or pious, you could never have predicted how Morris, Iannucci et al would have dealt with it satirically and comedically.  For any programme to parody news now would have to initiate its own syntax and framework.  To just do, say, Brass Eye again, would be ultimately unsatisfactory (see Brass Eye Special for instance), largely because unless Morris completely rethought a strategy and a set of satirical rules, it would simply revisit a format he has already perfected.  

I think this is why every single attempt to parody news since 1997 has been hopeless, since they've merely looked to Morris and Iannucci's creations for "inspiration".

[slim]

These are all good points but they shouldn't preclude satire of the news. Nor should they preclude any future Brasseye specials - I would say Brass Eye is a title, not a defined format. It would be wonderful to see Morris and others write another but with a differing style.

[Ciarán2]

If satire has any power, it should change things politically.

I wholly disagree with this. Satire doesn't have an obligation to change things, it can commentate without necessarily altering. Isn't that a ridiculously high yardstick by which to measure the value of satire? How many have genuinely altered a process by their existence?

I think things like TW3 had a big part in escaping stuffy 1950s ways of viewing things, I'm certain that Father Ted helped people see the Catholic Church in Ireland as anachronistic. Satires are meant to question the establishment, not tut from the side lines but really scrutinise things, to seek to bring about a change. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Things like Yes Minister are really at their best when the politicians are no longer laughing along, aren't they? It seems a bit empty to me, if satire's role is to merely contribute harmless chides. A good example of satire bringing about change is the student riots in Paris in May 1968, the ideology behind that was largely driven by Guy Debord, he was a superb mickey-taker.

[The Mumbler]

Even though the inspirations were theirs, even Morris and Iannucci shouldn't be exempt from having to redraw the map.   Simply revisiting old haunts would miss the point, and "updating" the graphics (which was Brass Eye Special's only innovation, and even that was superficial) is not enough.  

I think it very unlikely that either of them will revisit news parody, however.

[slim]

I think things like TW3 had a big part in escaping stuffy 1950s ways of viewing things, I'm certain that Father Ted helped people see the Catholic Church in Ireland as anachronistic. Satires are meant to question the establishment, not tut from the side lines but really scrutinise things, to seek to bring about a change. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Things like Yes Minister are really at their best when the politicians are no longer laughing along, aren't they? It seems a bit empty to me, if satire's role is to merely contribute harmless chides. A good example of satire bringing about change is the student riots in Paris in May 1968, the ideology behind that was largely driven by Guy Debord, he was a superb mickey-taker.

You're being very selective though by taking that line of thinking. Yes Minister was excellent and yet I can't think of a way in which it changed politics. The Day Today, if anything, did the opposite and seemed to accurately predict a future downward trend in quality early on, rather than changing the way in which news was presented. I would still say they are both excellent and valuable.

I don't disagree that it would be excellent for satire to expose and affect those it derides sufficiently to change the process it satirised, but I by no means think it's necessary for the work to justify it's creation. If that were true, you would reduce the body of worthy satirical work greatly.

Do you disagree with consensus views on a lot of satire that is praised? I'm not picking holes, I want to know - do you just have higher standards than I?

Simply revisiting old haunts would miss the point, and "updating" the graphics (which was Brass Eye Special's only innovation, and even that was superficial) is not enough.

I don't think anyone suggested that this was the approach they should take.

[Ciarán2]

Do you disagree with consensus views on a lot of satire that is praised? I'm not picking holes, I want to know - do you just have higher standards than I?

Where I disagree on the consensus views is where such programmes are considered great for their satirical content. I don't deny that they are funny. The Day Today is an interesting one, I suspect that people who make news progrmmes did take notice of it (and perhaps this was also true of KYTV?). They carried on making stupid news programmes mind, perhaps what they took from The Day Today was the fact that it was so attention-grabbing, that´s what The News at Ten wants to be, isn't it?

I think of things like Python and The Young Ones as successful satires as they seemed to affect the politics of the national broadcaster - they did change things. Possibly even in a way that might make you go out and vote differently.

Obviously I'm hesitant to suggest I've higher standards than anyone else, what I would say is that the last TV comedy I saw from the UK was lamentably safe. That made me feel a bit disillusioned.

[dot]

I do think the lack of passion, anger or whatever is a key thing in morris's weak output recently. The whole nathan barley thing seemed like one long in joke that may have provided Morris with some catharsis (i hope so anyway) but didn't do much for the audience.

I think he expected brooker to bring the bile. I hope he realises he's wasted his time and doesn't think it was a success. Actually I couldn't care a less any more. If he's going to rest on his laurels then I'll just pretend he's dead. Who in their right mind would work with charlie brooker? It must have been a "passing on the baton" thing that went horribly wrong.
RE all the twat stuff. It's a fucking ludicrous idea, he's done it to death and the paedophile special was shite, weekenders half arsed flailings are shite, some cunt posting pictures is shite, end of, jog on.

[13 schoolyards]

The thing that was so great about Brasseye and TDT was  - as others have pointed out - the way they were so fresh and original.  Doing them over removes that element, leaving, well, not a whole lot.  A completely fresh approach seems like the way to go, until you realise that TDT, etc have given the news one giant heads-up about what they're up to, so now a straight-faced satire of them is pretty much impossible - they're already in on the joke.  Whereas even fifteen ago it was possible to see 'The News' as this monolith of the system, now it's basically a light entertainment program, running with stories that rate instead of pretending it's the font of all knowledge.  The news is currently so degraded, there's simply no point in sending it up - and with government increasingly ignoring public opinion (remember all those anti Iraq war marches?  Fat lot of good they did) the news really doesn't matter.  Who cares what the public's being told when our leaders ignore our opinions and get re-elected anyway?

So while back in the day of TDT the news was a worthy target of scorn, these days it's hardly worth a series of Dead Ringers.  And if there was to be another Brasseye, it's focus would have to be firmly on whatever issue was being tackled, with the media parody stuff firmly in the background (which, to be fair, was largely the case in the first place). But would a Brasseye on, say, Oil, be funny or just preaching to the converted?

[bithez]

lock morris in a cell with iannucci and a typewriter and tell them they can't come out until they've written a sitcom.

[23 Daves]

If satire has any power, it should change things politically.

I wholly disagree with this. Satire doesn't have an obligation to change things, it can commentate without necessarily altering. Isn't that a ridiculously high yardstick by which to measure the value of satire? How many have genuinely altered a process by their existence?

Er.... Smashey and Nicey.  See, that's not the answer you wanted, is it?

[Almost Yearly]

Spitting Image was quite powerful too. It's like pop music: it can change things, but it if it looks like it consciously sets out to do so, it ends up all up itself. It should look like it's just pratting about.

It's a fucking ludicrous idea, he's done it to death and the paedophile special was shite, weekenders half arsed flailings are shite, some cunt posting pictures is shite, end of, jog on.

Oi - that's what I said, only I spelt it "Hm".

I spose we let Peter Cook off his years of unproductivity and Supergirl, so Morris still has leeway. But Cook had achieved so much already. Hm.

[The Mumbler]

The original teacher in Head of the Class was Howard Hesseman, who played the DJ Dr. Johnny Fever on WKRP In Cincinnati several years earlier.  The teacher in Welcome Back Kotter was a stand-up turned actor called Gabe Kaplan.  If any of this helps.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

it can change things, but it if it looks like it consciously sets out to do so, it ends up all up itself. It should look like it's just pratting about.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. But I'd go further and say that, with a lot of really good satire, the participants weren't really aware they were being satirical. They were just in it for a laugh, and the anger/political thrust was subconscious and second nature. With a lot of 00s comedians, though, I get the idea they don't really have any views on anything, so any attempt at newsy material looks a bit forced and hollow. No wonder so many of them just do monkey whimsy instead.

Something like NTNOCN's Confrontation Song, though - heartfelt and angry, but created by the same bunch of comedians who found the 'On the Moov' joke ridiculously funny. Or Grant and Naylor re-writing the lyrics to Every Breath You Take - you can't imagine anybody doing that now, because they'd be terrified of looking po-faced or whatever. But to G&N, it was...just what they did.

Comedians often say that satire can't change the world ('if anything, Spitting Image made Thatcher stronger' etc), but I think that's often just modesty. Humour is so central to the way we view stuff that it's difficult to see how it doesn't change the world.