Nathan Barley - Episode Five

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Slackboy's trying to whip up some controversy, that's all.

[Identity Crisis Ahoy!]

Edit: CONTO-VERSIAL!

[Slackboy]

Slackboy's trying to whip up some controversy, that's all.

Just got a pm from ICA. Thanks for that, it's all much clearer now.

[Slackboy]

It was a link to a site, not approved of on this thread, but one which a large percentage of this forum would use.
.

Still doesn't completely rule out kiddie porn though does it?

Sorry everyone, couldn't resist.

[Lionel Richtea]

dagnammit, you've piqued my curiosity now...

[Identity Crisis Ahoy!]

*The wink smilie*

[Neil]

So, Nathan Barley then...  Shit, isn't it?  Half the time I can't work out where the gags are, did anyone actually laugh at the "When she gave me a blowjob..." line?

[twilitidol]

So, Nathan Barley then...  Shit, isn't it?  Half the time I can't work out where the gags are, did anyone actually laugh at the "When she gave me a blowjob..." line?

Well at least it's better than The Bureau!

[Cambrian Times]

I gave an agonised smirk

[Neil]

Well at least it's better than The Bureau!

Oh I would dispute that, there's nothing in Nathan Barley that comes close to the delivery of "I'm closing the bureau.... for an hour."  Besides, that's a teeny tiny part of TDT so it's not really a fair comparison.  I think it's always a bad sign when people have to support something by saying "At least it's not as bad as..."

[Identity Crisis Ahoy!]

The 'it's not on par with / at least it's not' debate has been going on for a while now....

It is its own thing, and it works I think, in that it raises a few smirks. Given that it's very poor compared to (only) Morris' past work (I couldn't give two Five TV Special's about Charlie Brooker's past contribution - TVGH included), it's a decent show.

[twilitidol]

Oh I would dispute that, there's nothing in Nathan Barley that comes close to the delivery of "I'm closing the bureau.... for an hour."  Besides, that's a teeny tiny part of TDT so it's not really a fair comparison.  I think it's always a bad sign when people have to support something by saying "At least it's not as bad as..."

That was supposed to be more of a light hearted remark, as opposed to a "point", but if we're getting onto the subject of what makes one thing funny and another not, there appear to be an awful lot of people saying that the supporters of this show can't come up with any reasons why they like it. If permitted, I would like to ask why a criticism of "It's not funny", or "It didn't make me laugh" et cetera is more valid than that of "It did make me laugh".  I admit, I'm new to this forum, but there seems to be a schism between those who objectively dislike the programme, and those who subjectively like it.

Certainly I don't think it's nearly the best work Chris has done, but I don't think it's nearly as humourless as parts of TDT and BE - the only difference being that those weren't driven by story in the slightest, so could cut instantly to something more universally palatable.

[twilitidol]

The 'it's not on par with / at least it's not' debate has been going on for a while now....

It is its own thing, and it works I think, in that it raises a few smirks. Given that it's very poor compared to (only) Morris' past work (I couldn't give two Five TV Special's about Charlie Brooker's past contribution - TVGH included), it's a decent show.

Again, it wasn't supposed to be an issue of debate at all. Sorry!

[Identity Crisis Ahoy!]

The 'it's not on par with / at least it's not' debate has been going on for a while now....

It is its own thing, and it works I think, in that it raises a few smirks. Given that it's very poor compared to (only) Morris' past work (I couldn't give two Five TV Special's about Charlie Brooker's past contribution - TVGH included), it's a decent show.

Again, it wasn't supposed to be an issue of debate at all. Sorry!

Fair do's, but it has been a running comparisson throughout the threads.

[twilitidol]

Fair do's, but it has been a running comparisson throughout the threads.

Again, sorry, but being relatively new here I honestly didn't have the time or inclination to trawl through the numerous posts, but I still think it stands out as an off the cuff remark, as opposed to anything more sinister, given the preceding context.

[Identity Crisis Ahoy!]

Alright, fair enough. Enjoy your time here.

[Neil]

That was supposed to be more of a light hearted remark, as opposed to a "point"

Oh ok, hard to tell on here, and it's the sort of defence you do tend to see anyway.

but if we're getting onto the subject of what makes one thing funny and another not, there appear to be an awful lot of people saying that the supporters of this show can't come up with any reasons why they like it. If permitted, I would like to ask why a criticism of "It's not funny", or "It didn't make me laugh" et cetera is more valid than that of "It did make me laugh".  I admit, I'm new to this forum, but there seems to be a schism between those who objectively dislike the programme, and those who subjectively like it.

I don't think it's a question of either view being more valid than the other, it's just that someone will always be expected to try and justify why they like/hate the show (otherwise this place would be extremely dull).  At a base level I don't find Nathan Barley funny in the slightest, episode 3 is the only one that made me really laugh and I still thought it wasn't up to scratch.  So I try to come up with other reasons to explain why the show is shit, e.g. bad direction/performances/script or the sloppiness with regards continuity errors...   Some people can overlook these things because they like the show, and that's perfectly understandishable as I would too if I thought it was really funny.  I'd still moan about them though :-)

Certainly I don't think it's nearly the best work Chris has done...

To be honest, I'd say it's quite obviously the worst thing he's done.

[twilitidol]

I don't think it's a question of either view being more valid than the other, it's just that someone will always be expected to try and justify why they like/hate the show (otherwise this place would be extremely dull).  At a base level I don't find Nathan Barley funny in the slightest, episode 3 is the only one that made me really laugh and I still thought it wasn't up to scratch.  So I try to come up with other reasons to explain why the show is shit, e.g. bad direction/performances/script or the sloppiness with regards continuity errors...   Some people can overlook these things because they like the show, and that's perfectly understandishable as I would too if I thought it was funny.

No, I understand this, but not being too au fait with the technicalities of direction and such things all I can rely on is the fact that it's made me laugh more the a lot of comedies recently, and I don't see why that alone shouldn't be a sufficient argument as to why I think it's a relatively good comedy programme. My point is simply that there seems to be more of an onus on the supporters of NB to justify their opinion than that of the detractors.

I can fully empathise with those who dislike it, as it's not what I expected at all - I just appear to be lucky that it's to my taste.

[weekender]

No, I understand this, but not being too au fait with the technicalities of direction and such things all I can rely on is the fact that it's made me laugh more the a lot of comedies recently

Hmm.. does that say more about the quality of 'recent' comedies though?  I agree that there probably does need to be some sort of 'subjectivity' about comedy, but what I don't understand is why mass-orientated comedy can't be popular, and why people seem to accept the current state of affairs as a high-point in comedy history.

and I don't see why that alone shouldn't be a sufficient argument as to why I think it's a relatively good comedy programme. My point is simply that there seems to be more of an onus on the supporters of NB to justify their opinion than that of the detractors.

You've said it yourself, 'relatively'.  To me, that argument seems to boil down to a simple 'quantity over quality' argument.  Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that people can sit and giggle when watching 'Nathan Barley'.  I don't want that though.  I want them to experience the same sheer joy that I have when watching classic comedy sketches, I want them to laugh out loud so much that they have to stop the tape, rewind it and watch it again, like I did when Brasseye was first broadcast.  I want them to experience the sheer exhilaration of true, genuine laughter, that you can't stop.  When was the last time that you watched something and laughed so much that you cried?

I don't want people to sit and grin because they feel that they understand the point of the comedy.  I want them to fucking laugh, to the point of tears, like I have done with comedy in the past.

I want to do that with Nathan Barley, but it's not happening.

[Cambrian Times]

The last time I laughed so hard I cried, I wasn't watching comedy, I was playing psychobabble.

[twilitidol]

You've said it yourself, 'relatively'.  To me, that argument seems to boil down to a simple 'quantity over quality' argument.  Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate that people can sit and giggle when watching 'Nathan Barley'.  I don't want that though.  I want them to experience the same sheer joy that I have when watching classic comedy sketches, I want them to laugh out loud so much that they have to stop the tape, rewind it and watch it again, like I did when Brasseye was first broadcast.  I want them to experience the sheer exhilaration of true, genuine laughter, that you can't stop.  When was the last time that you watched something and laughed so much that you cried?

I don't want people to sit and grin because they feel that they understand the point of the comedy.  I want them to fucking laugh, to the point of tears, like I have done with comedy in the past.

I want to do that with Nathan Barley, but it's not happening.

I appreciate that, but the fact is I sat down and laughed out loud to The Day Today, Brasseye, Blue Jam and now Natham Barley, so "relatively" was just a figure of speech - I wasn't trying to belittle the show even surreptitiously.  I may be new to this website, but not the associated programmes; I just suppose (I'm starting to feel ashamed to say around here now) that I enjoy NB  because bits of it make me laugh a lot.

[JesusAndYourBush]

I thought for the first 4 episodes it got better each week, but tonights episode broke that pattern.  It was ok though.

Am i the only person who thought it weird that they casted a girl who in no way looked 13?

Surely that was the whole point.  The magazine subtracted 6 years from everyones real ages.  When this fact was revealed she said she was actually 18.  (Someone's crap at maths then!)

When Nathan didn't know her age it was ok for him to receive the blowjob, but then he was worried when he was told she was 13.  (Then at the end he bragged about getting a bj from a 13 year old even though he knew she wasn't 13, presumably because all his friends thought it was cool.)

Maybe the point Morris was making in this episode was that there's a difference between someone having sexual relations with someone underage (but who looks older) and a genuine paedophile.  For example had the girl really been 13 and Nathan had been arrested he'd have been branded a paedophile when quite clearly he isn't.  He isn't attracted to kids - the girl looked much older than 13.  People have unfairly been made out to be a nonce under these circumstances and had their lives ruined by a fumble with a tart in a club who looks older than she is, for example.  In the eyes of the law they're classed as a sex offender, possibly named in the press and all the other repercussions.  (Of course take the opposite circumstances, someone over the age of consent that deliberately dresses and looks younger, and someone has sex with them because they think they're younger than they are.  That person would be a paedophile because they thought the person was underage, even though in the eyes of the law they wouldn't be classed as one.)

[Jimmy]

Maybe the point Morris was making in this episode was that there's a difference between someone having sexual relations with someone underage (but who looks older) and a genuine paedophile.  For example had the girl really been 13 and Nathan had been arrested he'd have been branded a paedophile when quite clearly he isn't.  He isn't attracted to kids - the girl looked much older than 13.  People have unfairly been made out to be a nonce under these circumstances and had their lives ruined by a fumble with a tart in a club who looks older than she is, for example.  In the eyes of the law they're classed as a sex offender, possibly named in the press and all the other repercussions.  

That was one of the points I thought it was getting at- it wasn't particularly funny though was it? Worst episode so far for me. I laughed out loud though at the intercom exchange:

Sugarape office: Sugarrape, whoo's this?

Dan: Hawkwind

Sugarape office: PREEEEEECHERRR MANNNNNN

Other than that it was laugh free. The stray thing went nowhere when the key dropping suggested it would. Why did we need to see the glove from Dans pocket in the cafe? It would have made a much better reveal if we weren't aware of it before the masturbation sequence.


I'm a bit tired of the whole concept of putting characters into a gay (or percieved to be gay) situation, it seems to be a bit of a cheap way to get laughs(from some people).

I recall thinking this when you had Charlie tossing off old men in LoG3, I just don't find it funny particularly.

Good to see Yeah? in this episode, he seems to take such delight in toying with Dan, and took smug-fuckery to a new level with his tone in the news interview.

[mayer]

I only half-watched this, as it interrupted a six-hour marathon game of Risk I was playing at the time.

I wasn't paying attention at all, but I could still tell it was shit.

Why is none of the stuff that happened for the last four weeks (especially r.e. Claire/Nathan and Dan/Nathan) important or mentioned or has any impact on how these people now conduct themselves?


Also... did Jonnatan say that Dan was going "gay for pay"?

My friend got his first gig at Endemol by pitching three ideas, one of which was a game show called "gay for pay", where the contestent is in a fake-club setting and has to get  a bloke/girl a drink, a number, and if they want to get the jackpot, in the toilets and go "gay for pay". So I looked up when i thought I heard that and drunkenly yelled that Brooker was a plagarist.

He probably didn't actually say that anyway.

I dunno why I even bothered with the pretence of watching it this week.

[Munday's Chylde]

If its suspension of disbelief you're after then look no further than Dan actually going to a pub and wanking a bloke off instead of JUST MAKING THE STORY UP.

[TJ]

Am i the only person who thought it weird that they casted a girl who in no way looked 13? I mean, her voice and her shape alone couldn't of been a 13 year old's. Now, if they said 15 i would've believed it. Maybe even 14.

Hmmm... it's that self-shooting-in-foot 'point' from the BES rearing its ugly head again.

And seeing as i'm new i'll throw my tuppence in. A big problem with Barley is it's supposed to be about a cunt you hate. But it's more about a twat you don't particularly care about either way.

Exactly.



Really finding it hard to believe what's going on at the moment. People saying "I sort of quite enjoyed a couple of bits in this slightly-better-than-the-others episode that has come after four weeks of uninspired viewing-figure-jettisoning critically-slated publically-rejected generally pointless and aimless bilge, and on that basis I would like to see more!" at the same time as planted insiders are saying "there's talk of a second series" despite the fact that there is no way any other show in its position would be recommissioned? You do the maths.

Look, whether last night's was good or not (and for the record, my reaction - as with all the others - was a resounding 'not much bothered either way, where's that Best Of Clive Anderson Talks Back video?'), that kind of ratio of enjoyment to tedium shouldn't be acceptable in anyone's books. This is veering close to those annoying Babylon 5 fans who insist that everyone should be made to watch at least two entire series (to get the 'story arc', apparently) before they are allowed to decide whether they feel like watching it ever again or not, or worse still that pompous "I think now that the dust has settled and a couple of weeks have gone by and the more obstinate elements have had their say and cooled off, I think we're all agreed that Blah Blah Blah was excellent after all, aren't we" twaddle that predominates on A Certain Other Forum. Actually, it's reminding me exactly of what happened towards the end of "The 11 O'Clock Show".

"Monty Python's Flying Circus", "Rising Damp", "Seinfeld", "The Day Today", "Smack The Pony", "The Adam And Joe Show", "Inside Victor Lewis-Smith", "Yes, Minister", "The Mary Whitehouse Experience", "The Goodies", "Nightingales", "3rd Rock From The Sun", "The Comic Strip Presents", "Knowing Me, Knowing You", "Alas Smith And Jones", "End Of Part One", "French And Saunders"... all of these shows and many more besides grabbed me within minutes. A couple of other shows that I'm fond of, particularly "Curb Your Enthusiasm", took a week or two but in all cases there was something compelling about the first one I saw that made me want to see more. Five weeks, though, is taking the piss in anyone's book, surely?

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Last night's seemed squarely aimed at Brooker and Morris's Loaded/'men's weekly' audience. Imagine them cackling "Morris - pure fucking genius, yeah?" at the toilet scene (which didn't make sense on so many levels - they should have been in a cubicle, shurely?) and the blow-job ("Weeeeey lads!"), lager running down their chins and onto their [whatever t-shirt is cool but uncool today]. The 'molestation' photos suffered from one of the series' main problems, ie they were just as bad as whatever they were trying to parody. Along with that awful 'Uncle' song, it appears that Morris is happy to have the BES sycophants as part of his fanbase, and he's giving them what they want.

People have been talking about Dan's breakdown. He's the same mumbling, ineffective git from that interview scene in the first episode. If he's supposed to be on some inexorable decline then Barratt isn't showing it. The only way his character has developed in the past few weeks is in the financial department. He owes his sister some money, but he's not that bothered.

Anyone else realised that Pingu is a non-character? He's had two (maybe three scenes) in five episodes, just to make Barley look like a bastard (but more like Brent in actuality).

[Sulphagne]

My favourite part of the series so far, which has possibly earned the show as a whole a lot more respect in my eyes than it deserves simply for never referring to it again, is the fact that all of Dan's current money woes can be traced back to (correct me if I don't have the details quite right, I'm working from memory here) having Pete's Dragon out on video for seven years. As I recall, this was mentioned in one sentence by the chap barging into the house (bailiff, is that the word?), and he never elaborated on this, Claire never asked Dan about it, and Dan hasn't breathed a word about it since, not even at his bank appointment where it would have worked in the context (i.e. apologetic muttering) of the rest of the scene.

And why this, of all the reasons that a man might have for needing a lot of money in a bit of a hurry? Why not gangsters? Blackmail? An expensive life-or-death operation? An impending auction? Why not at least have him never getting around to returning American Beauty, or Requiem for a Dream, or what have you? Pete's Dragon makes no sense on any level as a statement about Dan's character or his surroundings, and I love the gag all the more because of it. It's a seconds-long escape from the trendy claustrophobia of Hosegate, and it's even a fairly strong departure from the show's usual writing and direction, as it sounds as if it's come from a different show entirely. I've seen the first four episodes (haven't seen this one yet, so I apologise if Pete's Dragon was brought up again last night), and I don't think I've noticed a single other example of such respite.

Not only that, but although I do believe there's been more character development throughout the series than a lot of people give it credit for (or, more likely, I'm finding the wretched stuff where there is none, you'll see what I mean in just a moment), do we know anything at all about where any of the characters were a year ago, let alone seven? Nikolai the barber is an inscrutable exception, as we were given his life story in the space of one scene, but when it comes to Dan's revered status and lack of journalistic talent, or Claire's self-righteous nature, all we can do is speculate. Am I the first here to suggest that a worn VHS copy of Pete's Dragon has been the only thing preventing Dan from losing it completely over the last seven years? I hope so, I wouldn't wish an idea like that on anyone else.

Has anyone else had a similar experience with this series? Finding one glimmer of inspiration and originality somewhere, and finding the series as a whole a hell of a lot more watchable and enjoyable as a result? All I want is confirmation that I really do have standards, here. I agree for the most part with what Neil and the other senior Doingwords have been saying since week zero, but then these little moments come along and I just don't share it, y'know?

[jutl]

Really finding it hard to believe what's going on at the moment. People saying "I sort of quite enjoyed a couple of bits in this slightly-better-than-the-others episode that has come after four weeks of uninspired viewing-figure-jettisoning critically-slated publically-rejected generally pointless and aimless bilge, and on that basis I would like to see more

I appreciate what you are saying, but this does read like a strenuous plea for intolerance. I'm sure it's heartfelt, but I think an uncharitable reader might see it as an attempt to convince people who actually laughed at the show that they somehow shouldn't have. I can't be sure though, as I didn't fall into that group. It was very poor again, I thought. Every time an episode ends I am surprised... how do they manage to fit so little in? The main plot was a little play made out of a three line joke,  and the Dan subplot was once again a fragment. "Dan needs money, Dan degrades himself... erm that's basically it." The builder at the door during the titles was just a lazy gesture towards finishing off that plot - "oh and... we see him again."

The paedophilia thread was tacky - let's get a knee-jerk laugh from the 'taboo-mentioning-is-cutting-edge' contingent then immediately retreat to safety with the "I didn't even have an uncle" line. Later, the blowjob scene was cowardly. The light, nothingy nature of the critique was preserved by having Barley incapacitated by orgasm at the moment he found out the girl was 'underage'. It's a substanceless compromise between the light-sitcom possibility of having him find out post-orgasmically, or the more disturbing option of having him find out well before and going on regardless. The final satirical sting of the idiots all unthinkingly accepting that underage blowjobs are cool is again a watered-down critique - "Barley is a weak-minded opportunist, not a monster." I accept that you could argue that these middle-course-steering plot decisions are all positive dramatic choices, but for me it just again stressed what a jovial-if-unfunny satire this is. It's not angry at modern culture, it's tutting at it like an indulgent parent.  

The website footage that started the show was funny if only because its style of direction was only a slightly intensified version of that adopted by Morris for the show itself - "if I wag the camera you'll believe you are there..." Again it castrates its criticism by half celebrating the things it identifies as risible.

the same time as planted insiders are saying "there's talk of a second series" despite the fact that there is no way any other show in its position would be recommissioned? You do the maths.

They're not necessarily planted, surely? I mean, assuming that post was real, the person was just posting some new info at an appropriate site.

The 'molestation' photos

It took me a while to realise that wasn't a variation of 'playstation'.

[Jon_Norton]

And seeing as i'm new i'll throw my tuppence in. A big problem with Barley is it's supposed to be about a cunt you hate. But it's more about a twat you don't particularly care about either way.

Exactly. But in this episode, Nathan did become an actual cunt, and suddenly things bucked up a bit. But we were back to silly faces by the closing minutes.