How to be a Chris Morris fan in 2006

[chimpoo]

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.

Exactly...so you develop a love/hate relationship.  It wouldn't feel so good if you didn't criticise them so much.

[poor fool]

What the hell does 'Dan reacts' mean, anyway? An actor uses his face to act with? I'm baffled as to how this could be construed as a criticism.

[thewomb]

Dan was so jaded he could barely bring himself to speak, hence he tended to communicate largely through facial expressions. This was misconstrued by many as lazy acting/writing, hence all the Dan Reacts shenanigans.

[SimonJT]

I should say actually - it's not so much that I'm looking forward to the IT crowd on the basis of the trailer - I was looking forward to it anyway, and the trailer has done nothing to change that. I like the idea, and I'm a fan of Linehan's work. Now, I'm sure this applies to more pessimistic people aswell, but I just thought I'd better point it out.

[Johnny Yesno]

I should say actually - it's not so much that I'm looking forward to the IT crowd on the basis of the trailer - I was looking forward to it anyway, and the trailer has done nothing to change that. I like the idea, and I'm a fan of Linehan's work. Now, I'm sure this applies to more pessimistic people aswell, but I just thought I'd better point it out.

I thought the trailer was poor but I'm not going to let it put me off. I made that mistake with Spaced (again!) which I initially avoided due to the trailers but which is now one of my favourite comedies.

[Munday's Chylde]

Dan was so jaded he could barely bring himself to speak, hence he tended to communicate largely through facial expressions. This was misconstrued by many as lazy acting/writing, hence all the Dan Reacts shenanigans.

I'm never keen on cliches being used in places like this and the 'x reacts' thing gets on my nerves when I see it quoted ad inf. BUT I will say this in defence of those who used it as a criticism - the use of a reaction shot in modern comedy was something highlighted and picked up on long before Nathan Barley aired as a device that could be used to generate a laugh from 'realism' without having to give much thought to creating a joke or a funny line. A large number of people here predicted in advance that Nathan Barley would be chock full of it simply by virtue of the way the comedy climate was changing - therefore, given these accurate predictions, I'm inclined to agree that its use in Barley is probably a little bit more than a simple coincidence that the character of Dan was designed to be too jaded to communicate.

[Neil]

I really am repeating myself now, but, 'You just don't like x because Chris Morris isn't doing his Jeremy Paxman impression!'  That's a really stupid and pointless argument which has been repeated ad infinitum.  Look out for it if The IT Crowd turns out to be shit.

[thewomb]

Dan was so jaded he could barely bring himself to speak, hence he tended to communicate largely through facial expressions. This was misconstrued by many as lazy acting/writing, hence all the Dan Reacts shenanigans.

I'm never keen on cliches being used in places like this and the 'x reacts' thing gets on my nerves when I see it quoted ad inf. BUT I will say this in defence of those who used it as a criticism - the use of a reaction shot in modern comedy was something highlighted and picked up on long before Nathan Barley aired as a device that could be used to generate a laugh from 'realism' without having to give much thought to creating a joke or a funny line. A large number of people here predicted in advance that Nathan Barley would be chock full of it simply by virtue of the way the comedy climate was changing - therefore, given these accurate predictions, I'm inclined to agree that its use in Barley is probably a little bit more than a simple coincidence that the character of Dan was designed to be too jaded to communicate.

The reaction shots in NB make perfect sense to me - you only need to leaf through the NME to summon a similar feeling of barely being able to muster a response to such intense idiocy.

[Musicoutoftrousers]

What the hell does 'Dan reacts' mean, anyway? An actor uses his face to act with? I'm baffled as to how this could be construed as a criticism.

I agree that the ubiquitous use of the phrase as a catchphrase on here is a bit annoying and not something to be proud of, but I also think there are legitimate reasons why people dislike the extensive use of reaction shots in Barley and stuff of that ilk (i.e. the Office):

Firstly, it is a lazy way of attempting to create humour. Admittedly, facial expressions can often add to the humourousness of a line or situation, but they don't do much on their own, especially when used repeatedly and in a one-note way ('look at this idiot - he's being an idiot again. the idiot.').

Secondly, Barrat's facial expression in the reaction shots were almost always the same - what's been referred to as 'the twitchy face thing'. Even if you find this funny once, or twice, or even three times, it must eventually begin to grate, with the same expression being used in an identical way over and over again.

Thirdly, they beat the audience over the head with an extremely simple premise. The Idiots are Idiots and Dan Doesn't Like Them. Do we really need a close-up reaction shot to hammer home this point, seeing as the primary basis behind Dan's character is that he dislikes the Idiots. We can take it as read that when they say something idiotic, he won't be best pleased. Great facial expressions work best when unexpected, I think.

To go off on something of a tangent, this annoyed me more in the Office, as I often hear the show described as 'incredibly subtle, actually' when it isn't. Numerous examples of Brent's faux pas are lingered over interminably in the form of reaction shots. I can't really remember if people described Nathan Barley as subtle, and thus whether this particular part of the point applies to the show, mostly because very few people really talked about it at all.

These are just the reasons that occured to me off the top of my head. I'm sure plenty of others have reasons they could give for being annoyed by the device, but I'll let them talk for themselves.

you only need to leaf through the NME to summon a similar feeling of barely being able to muster a response to such intense idiocy.

That's true enough, but

a) someone whose spent most of their adult life around such idiocy (as Dan has) would surely be losing his sense of complete disbelief, and actually be able to give some sort of comment / rejoinder / anything better than a twitchy face. He's quite able to write an extensive editorial on the matter, anyway.

b) when my jaw drops open in complete disbelief at some form of twattishness or cuntery, I don't think 'cor! this would make great TV'. I'd much rather have a central character who is capable of fending for himself, rather than one who just stands around in slack jawed incredulity all the time.

[Neil]

That's why I prefer the Dan in the pilot, he fucks around with people a lot more.  Then they cut his balls of for the series and made him a complete bore.  Also, I really like having to rewind or rewatch episodes of Arrested Development due to laughing so much.  There's something very smug about a director saying 'ooh, we'd better have a reaction shot here so they can have a good old giggle and don't miss anything'.  The only thing that really bothers me about them is they're like the comedy equivalent of a hand-brake, I think they can screw the pacing.  It was The Smoking Room where I first noticed them, although I do like that show.

[poor fool]

That's why I prefer the Dan in the pilot, he fucks around with people a lot more.  Then they cut his balls of for the series and made him a complete bore.

But in doing so, I think they created an entirely sympathetic and realistic character, rather than some kind, well, 'preacherman', which is what it could have turned into. I really didn't find him boring to watch. I enjoyed his frustration and mounting insanity. And I've said it before, but I think Barrett is a truly underrated actor. His Northern stoicism serves for much subtle comedy.

[Neil]

But in doing so, I think they created an entirely sympathetic and realistic character, rather than some kind, well, 'preacherman', which is what it could have turned into.

I don't agree, but why does he have to be either of these things?  I mean, I don't find him sympathetic because he's such a push-over, and people will invariably point to his 'mental decline" or some-such bollocks, but it's just so boring.  They have to hang this stupid video club debt over him so that he becomes a complete and utter push-over.  He should have been more of a prick.

[thewomb]

It seems that between the pilot and the series, they decided that Dan should be the sympathetic one. He's an entertaining prick in the pilot, but he's not the focal point he would later become. And his mental decline isn't bollocks, it's one of the main arcs of the series.

[poor fool]

I don't agree, but why does he have to be either of these things?  I mean, I don't find him sympathetic because he's such a push-over, and people will invariably point to his 'mental decline" or some-such bollocks, but it's just so boring.  They have to hang this stupid video club debt over him so that he becomes a complete and utter push-over.  He should have been more of a prick.

I'm no doctor, but isn't Dan's behaviour common to sufferers of depression? Particularly his listless and narcissistic characteristics?
And I'm surprised you find the video debt to be such a bad piece of plotting. For my money, I've seen bolder things shoehorned into an episode of Seinfeld or Curb in order to advance the narrative. I don't find it a problem though, as long as a chracter goes from a to b, does it really matter how they get there?
Anyway, I'm glad he wasn't more of a prick. People in real life are not obnoxious pricks, especially if they reach that point in their life where they suddenly realise that everything they've worked towards and now stand for is utter shite. The fact that he wasn't a prick makes him easier to relate to, as he more like you or I would be in that given situation, and therefore more sympathetic.

[Neil]

Um, I'm not disputing it's there, I'm just saying it's boring bollocks.

[Gypsum Fantastic]

And his mental decline isn't bollocks, it's one of the main arcs of the series

Really? I might be wrong but from what I remember he was pretty much the same all the way through, but in episode six they had a couple of moments that suggested he was going slightly nuts.

[thewomb]

I found it funny. I liked watching him lapse from the articulacy of 'The Rise Of the Idiots' to not being able to muster much more than '15Peter20 is a Poohead'.

[thewomb]

And his mental decline isn't bollocks, it's one of the main arcs of the series

Really? I might be wrong but from what I remember he was pretty much the same all the way through, but in episode six they had a couple of moments that suggested he was going slightly nuts.

In Episode 4 he's drinking away his pain, and in Episode 5 he's wanking off a builder...

[poor fool]

Um, I'm not disputing it's there, I'm just saying it's boring bollocks.

Um, I was trying to express why I think it is not boring bollocks.

[El Unicornio, mang]

People in real life are not obnoxious pricks.

I wish that was true

[Craig Torso]

I found it funny. I liked watching him lapse from the articulacy of 'The Rise Of the Idiots' to not being able to muster much more than '15Peter20 is a Poohead'.

I didn't think The Rise Of The Idiots was particularly articulate.  From what we heard it seemed to be a badly-written article with no real explanations or analysis, just straightforward statements about why he didn't like them.  Pretty much the same as '15Peter20 is a Poohead' really.

Did a full version of that article ever crop up anywhere or do we only get the bits from the first episode?

[poor fool]

I wish that was true

Me too. But you have edited my post in order to change its meaning.

[Munday's Chylde]

The reaction shots in NB make perfect sense to me - you only need to leaf through the NME to summon a similar feeling of barely being able to muster a response to such intense idiocy.

I know, you make a good case for them, but my point was that the critics of Nathan Barley on here predicted it would be full of reaction shots of that nature long before the programme aired, long before anyone knew anything about Dan's character - thats just too much of a coincidence for my liking, far too much - its a very modern comedy device, they might have shaped their main character around them enough to justify them, the office did the same, so did the royle family - but clearly its a very unoriginal and predictable thing to use, the facts speak for themselves there don't they? In which case people are justified in having some contempt that morris and brooker walked straight into their prediction and didn't pull the rug out under them by doing it differently, putting some cracking comedy lines in for dan instead - shaping the character around that instead, a talented writer could do that AND still portray him as jaded and close to giving up. As a long time Morris fan I really wanted him to prove them wrong - I'm afraid he didn't. You shouldn't be able to guess what the show is going to consist of before you see it, really you shouldn't.

[The Mumbler]

From Now That's Funny! (Methuen, 1998) by Joe McGrath and David Bradbury, who interviewed lots of comedy writers:

JMcG: Does it help you to know who your cast is, who you're writing for?

John Sullivan: Oh, yeah.  I did the first series of Only Fools & Horses without a pilot, so I wrote six episodes blind, not knowing who they were.  Then we got David Jason and Nick Lyndhurst and made a few adjustments.  Once I'd seen that first series, I was writing for them.  You aim towards the strengths of the actor.  YOu can hear the voice, see the face, see David's eyes, his looks, and Nick's open mouth.  So a lot of the time Del would say something, and I'd just write: 'Cut to Rod', knowing full well Nick would give you the most wonderful expression and you'd get a great big laugh on it.

JMcG: You put reaction shots into the script?

JS: For those two, yeah.  Lots of them.  And doing Roger Roger I put in 'Cut for a reaction' to someone.  There's a couple of times in Roger Roger where I didn't put it in, and then afterwards thought, God, why didn't we have it?  There's a natural reaction there and we didn't get it, and it's because it wasn't there in the script, so it's my fault.

JMcG: Directors trained in television wouldn't cover the reaction.  A director who's trained in film would.

JS: When I joined the BBC, I never knew how to lay a script out; I didn't know what was expected.  So the first thing I wanted was a script, but what I realised years later  was that I had a director's script, a shooting script, which had all the reaction, so that was the habit I got into: 'Cut to reaction, cut to reaction'.  When I saw other writers' work I realised they didn't do it.  But that's how I write.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The 'reaction shots' in a show like Only Fools and Horses are a different kettle of fish, though. They tend to involve, for example:

1. Del says funny line.

2. Audience laughs

3. As the audience are laughing, we see Rodney's expression. Consequently, the laugh gets louder.

4. When the laugh comes to an end, the dialogue continues.

In other words, the audience/viewers are laughing before (or at the same time as) the reaction shot.

In shows like The Office and Nathan Barley, however, the reaction shot is there to point out that we should be laughing. It comes before the laugh.

I find it irritating, anyway, because people who use reaction shots tend to be the same people who hate the 'patronising' sound of audience laughter. But, to me, reaction shots are far more insulting and unsubtle. 'Look, he's said an embarrassing thing - it must be embarrassing, look at the straight man's reaction!'

[The Mumbler]

Also, of course, Lyndhurst is frequently given funny things to say AS WELL.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Also, of course, Lyndhurst is frequently given funny things to say AS WELL.

Yes, that's really the "trick".

[ccbaxter]

The 'reaction shpts' in a show like Only Fools and Horses are a different kettle of fish, though. They tend to involve, for example:

1. Del says funny line.

2. Audience laughs

3. As the audience are laughing, we see Rodney's expression. Consequently, the laugh gets louder.

4. When the laugh comes to an end, the dialogue continues.

In other words, the audience/viewers are laughing before (or at the same time as) the reaction shot.

In shows like The Office and Nathan Barley, however, the reaction shot is there to point out that we should be laughing. It comes before the laugh.

I find it irritating, anyway, because people who use reaction shots tend to be the same people who hate the 'patronising' sound of audience laughter. But, to me, reaction shots are far more insulting and unsubtle. 'Look, he's said an embarrassing thing - it must be embarrassing, look at the straight man's reaction!'[/quote

Add: 3-and-a-half: Rodney's expression alters again to one even funnier, as he realises the true implications of what he's first reacted to...

Agree with those distinctions, though.
Thoroughly enjoy The Office, but the weakest scenes for me are those involving Martin Freeman's (or Tim's) mugging-to-camera-one after each latest oh-so-pointed-and-superior on-high-observation.

[humanleech]

I really am repeating myself now, but, 'You just don't like x because Chris Morris isn't doing his Jeremy Paxman impression!'  That's a really stupid and pointless argument which has been repeated ad infinitum.  Look out for it if The IT Crowd turns out to be shit.

Who said that, then? Who would want Morris to just do his Jeremy Paxman impression? What post on this thread are you answering?

[humanleech]

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

I was talking about silly. Not all the funny bits on Blue Jam were silly. Oh god, now I'll have to name them. Give me a day or two, it's been a while.