Toast of London

[23 Daves]

just finished ep3, loved it! "Can I have a sand which" hahaha and he is the absolute master at the wavering voice, that noise he made when he let go of the bowling ball. I don't understand people who hate Matt Berry when we have Rufus Hound and Robin Ince in the world.

It was his descending delivery of "But my ball is nearest the hoo--ooooole!" at the crazy golf course that got me laughing. 

The Matt Berry hate comes from the fact that he's been involved in a lot of tosh in the past, I think, but with this and his performance on Vic and Bob's forthcoming sitcom he'll probably get a much easier ride on here. 

[checkoutgirl]

The Scale thing always gets me.

Me too. I also find the word 'small' funny, particularly when put in front of a noun, for instance "I'm making myself a small sandwich". This amusement probably started when John Candy tries to downplay a fire in the car by saying "We had a small fire" to the cop in Planes Trains and Automobiles. It amused me because they have smoke billowing off them and he thought by saying the word 'small' that somehow the cop would let them away with it.

[checkoutgirl]

I don't understand people who hate Matt Berry

I dunno, I've always liked him myself. Maybe he's an acquired taste and the Noel Fielding connection (The Mighty Boosh) probably doesn't help. And Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is not well liked on CAB at all. I don't think Snuff Box is too popular on here either. So that explains it then, CABbers just dislike nearly everything he's ever been in because of perceived poor writing and/or over reliance on whimsy.

Not me though. I like Snuff Box, The Mighty Boosh and Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.

[amnesiac]

And Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is not well liked on CAB at all.

I've got a sniff of this during my introductory period here, it's the most puzzling thing of all things. Darkplace is peerless, it's all the cunts who like Arthur Strong and The Goodies who hate it, fucking purists, fucking fucking purists.

[Levi]

I dunno, I've always liked him myself. Maybe he's an acquired taste and the Noel Fielding connection (The Mighty Boosh) probably doesn't help. And Garth Marenghi's Darkplace is not well liked on CAB at all. I don't think Snuff Box is too popular on here either. So that explains it then, CABbers just dislike nearly everything he's ever been in because of perceived poor writing and/or over reliance on whimsy.

Not me though. I like Snuff Box, The Mighty Boosh and Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.

His radio series 'I Regress' was really great in places as well. I remember a reviewer describing Snuff Box as 'lysergic' and I think that's a pretty fair description for a lot of his (better) work.

[amnesiac]

Shipt episode.

[Bored of Canada]

Not me though. I like Snuff Box, The Mighty Boosh and Garth Marenghi's Darkplace.

Same. I've completely forgotten about Toast. Only saw the first one. I gotta hop back in.

[amnesiac]

I've completely started to hate it, I don't like the songs but I've kept that quiet until now, I reached my rubbish song threshold limit.

It's almost, almost, not quite, but almost Luxury Comedy realms of total total shit.

[derek stitt]

As running gags go, not knowing who Benedict Cumberbatch is  not amongst the best. Have given up on this show. Oh, and pixelated black mans cock is only funny written down.

I still can't work out if this programme is trying to hard to be lazy or clever. Somebody help.

[amnesiac]

I still can't work out if this programme is trying to hard to be lazy or clever. Somebody help.

No idea dude, I think we're playing into their hands trying to understand. I feel ashamed of my previous support and the damage it's done to my reputation.

[Levi]

As running gags go, not knowing who Benedict Cumberbatch is  not amongst the best. Have given up on this show. Oh, and pixelated black mans cock is only funny written down.

I still can't work out if this programme is trying to hard to be lazy or clever. Somebody help.

I'm still enjoying it but I agree it does seem willfully shit at times. The pixelated bit was just shabby. I imagine Arthur and Matt in their little writing room, watching Tramadol Nights and thinking 'yeah, that's awful, we'll try a bit of that.'

I've completely started to hate it, I don't like the songs but I've kept that quiet until now, I reached my rubbish song threshold limit.

It's almost, almost, not quite, but almost Luxury Comedy realms of total total shit.

Bit harsh. Luxery comedy is the benchmark for stinking shit and it's nowhere near that bad. I have in the past shouted at my kids for treading Luxery Comedy into the carpet.

The Song bits are beginning to get a bit samey. Or is that the point? Maybe it's the same song and I hadn't noticed.

[dr beat]

Yeah, its the same refrain but seems to have different lines to reflect each episode.

I'm still sticking with ToL and enjoying it, but I'm having issues with the format.  It seems to be in the Father Ted vein of having the characters off on different adventures each week.  Thats fine in itself but I don't find Toast to be either likeable or flawed enough to react to, and I'm not sure where the character development is coming from.  I really like the Robert Bathurst and Doon Mackichkan characters, but they need a bit more interaction with Toast rather than just being sounding boards. 

[j_u_d_a_s]

Has no one else recognised the irony of Matt Berry playing an actor? He's constantly out performed by anyone else on the screen in this. Doesn't help that Toast as a character is a big ball of nothing really. All we see of him is him getting work, where's the struggle?
In the 2nd episode, it's revealed he shagged Ray Purchase's wife yet we're still meant to be on side with him. This series so far feels like an awkward middle ground between his Boosh/IT Crowd whimsy and a keenly observed naturalistic sitcom disappointing on both grounds. (Though I will give them credit for following through the Bruce Forsyth joke in ep 1)
The swearing throughout the script ruins it too. I'm struggling to think of how any part of this show fits together, Berry is a terrible actor who can't deliver a joke, only elongated vowels. The songs at the end seem misplaced and only relate tenuously to the situation.

Reading all the above waffle, it's just a stream of conciousness with only a vague theme holding it together. Quite apt really.

[Utter Shit]

As with everything (read: the one thing) Matt Berry does, if you don't like it then there's really nothing for you because it's all he does. I find it hilarious and don't feel like it's gone stale, even though he's been doing it for...God knows how long. If you consider him a terrible actor who can't deliver a joke, then there's no point in you watching it because I would say that that IS the joke.

[j_u_d_a_s]

Can it really sustain 6 broadcast half hours though?

I mean, look at Amstell's non-acting in Grandma's House and how it really brought the theme forward. Simon, the outsider of his own family. Grandma's House had a truth to it that's missing in Toast of London. It's not even that Toast is meant to be a bad actor, just one looking for recognition.

[jonny-d]

I thought this one was the worst so far, though still sticking with it on the basis of the first episode - which was pretty great.

The Clem Fandango bit raised a giggle, as did the whole 'strong women in uniform' flashback - but second half was pretty dire.

[Beagle 2]

I think this has been brilliant, not really noticed the drop off in quality people have talked about, and there's enough gags and oddities per episode to make it much more that just the Matt Berry show. I really hope they make more. There's just something joyous about it.

[Beagle 2]

Can it really sustain 6 broadcast half hours though?

I mean, look at Amstell's non-acting in Grandma's House and how it really brought the theme forward. Simon, the outsider of his own family. Grandma's House had a truth to it that's missing in Toast of London. It's not even that Toast is meant to be a bad actor, just one looking for recognition.

Not comparable at all though are they? Toast isn't aiming to "have a truth to it", it's just supposed to be a silly load of nonsense.

[checkoutgirl]

Grandma's House had a truth to it that's missing in Toast of London.

Oh for fuck's sake!! They're different shows with disparate styles. The Bruce Forsyth business at the start sets out the stall. Berry's character isn't that important. It's just a load of whimsy and surreal nonsense with some swearing and other gags thrown in. He's an actor and this sets him up as a not very relatable character. He's not particularly sympathetic but that doesn't matter either. If you don't like it that's fair enough but there's something in there for me. I think the silly sight gags and oddly pronounced words and strange sized objects push the characters to the background a bit and that's going to annoy some people.

I agree about the songs at the end, that's a very Berry touch that he did in Snuff Box and it jarred there a bit too. I can tolerate the songs but they've never been my favourite thing about Berry. I don't get the stuff about Berry being a terrible actor, I think he's fine. Nothing noticeably bad anyway, although that hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement. He amuses me and delivers his lines to my satisfaction.

[j_u_d_a_s]

Not comparable at all though are they? Toast isn't aiming to "have a truth to it", it's just supposed to be a silly load of nonsense.

It's just a load of whimsy and surreal nonsense with some swearing and other gags thrown in.

So... why should it even exist? What's the point of it being a sitcom if it's just, by your own admissions, a series of whimsical silly events? Why isn't it a sketch show? What hangs it all together?
It's not even that silly or whimsical, there's attempts at some kind of pathos. Not least with the theme tune and songs towards the end but these ring hollow because Toast is a barely sketched out character.

Berry's character isn't that important. He's an actor and this sets him up as a not very relatable character. He's not particularly sympathetic but that doesn't matter either.

So why is this series centered around him then? Is he meant to be a self centered bastard or is he the hero of the piece? On the evidence of the three episodes so far, Berry clearly wants the audience on side with Toast in episode 3. But how can we be when he's spent the last two episodes trying to get his end away? In the hands of a better writer/performer, the scene with his soon to be ex wife could have had some pathos to it but instead it's just a prop to set up a reason for him to get money fast so he takes on an acting job for a vanity project by a billionaire who just throws himself off the boat to deny Toast his wages. It's a clunky finish to a story that's barely formed. And that's the thing about the episodes so far as well, they don't reach a conclusion. they just stop.

They're different shows with disparate styles. The Bruce Forsyth business at the start sets out the stall.  I think the silly sight gags and oddly pronounced words and strange sized objects push the characters to the background a bit and that's going to annoy some people.

Why can't we have strong characters and silly sight gags together? The Young Ones and Father Ted both managed it beautifully.
I brought up Grandma's House not because it shares similarities with Toast of London, but because it came in for a lot of flack over Amstell's non-acting. But Amstell being a bit wooden turned out to be a plus because it highlighted the theme of the series which was the distance between him and his close family. Of course it was helped along by having razor sharp observations and well crafted characters with fully formed lives. Auntie Liz was a wonderfully waspish creation for example.
The best examples of broad silly sitcoms such as The Goodies[nb]Oh yes, I went there![/nb] and Father Ted have characters that are well defined. In the first episode, Toast is a cowardly womaniser but by the third he's a wounded divorcee. Where's the character consistency there?

As with everything (read: the one thing) Matt Berry does, if you don't like it then there's really nothing for you because it's all he does. I find it hilarious and don't feel like it's gone stale, even though he's been doing it for...God knows how long. If you consider him a terrible actor who can't deliver a joke, then there's no point in you watching it because I would say that that IS the joke.

I can't help but find this to be a bit of a cop out answer. What makes this role of his any different or better than say Denholm in the IT Crowd? IMO, the last few series of the IT Crowd have been a better use of Berry's singular talent.

I don't get the stuff about Berry being a terrible actor, I think he's fine. Nothing noticeably bad anyway.

He's fine in small doses, I'm sure he'll fit right in with Vic and Bob on House of Fools. But there's no spark to him. Even when he's attempting to outdo himself by shouting yes into a mic for a V/O gig, it just comes across as half hearted. Plus he can't do any sort of nuance so really what can he do that doesn't involve him wobbling his voice a bit? Really, what is it that you find funny about him other than his off-key prononciations? I'm not being snarky here, I genuinely want to know.

[Beagle 2]

I'm going to try and come back on some of this stuff later when I've got a bit more time, but this is one of those occasions where I really can't fathom why you're watching it. You don't find Matt Berry's shtick amusing, that's fine, he used to get on my tits as well. But it can't have been a massive shock to you that he's playing this the way he is. And I feel like it's pointless to try and say why he makes me laugh, it's not an exact science. I thought there were plenty of good gags in this week's episode, but the bit that sent the room into fits of giggles was him saying "FUCKING CRACKERS". I imagine you sat there stony faced with a single tear rolling down one cheek, but it doesn't mean either of us are wrong.

To me you're criticising it on the wrong terms. It's pointless to watch somebody who is always the same in everything and keep on watching him do it week after week. It's pointless to criticise something for not being something it isn't trying to be. It's like watching Jaws even though I hate sharks and saying it's shit because it isn't Kramer versus Kramer.

I suppose stuff like this I just flat out disagree with:

Why can't we have strong characters and silly sight gags together? The Young Ones and Father Ted both managed it beautifully.

I think it has both. These are cartoon characters though, and I would argue well-defined ones.

So... why should it even exist?

What? Comedy can't be silly nonsense for laughs, with big broad characters and situations that would never happen?

So why is this series centered around him then? Is he meant to be a self centered bastard or is he the hero of the piece?

I don't think he's supposed to be a hero, I think we're supposed to feel a bit sorry for him. I think he's supposed to be a pathetic character. Is Father Ted meant to be a self centered bastard or is he the hero of the piece?

Toast is a cowardly womaniser but by the third he's a wounded divorcee. Where's the character consistency there?

So, my dad then. And millions of men the world over.

[checkoutgirl]

So... why should it even exist? What's the point of it being a sitcom if it's just...................................

I'm not defending the show so much as my enjoyment of it. You're bandying around Father Ted now. At no point would I put it at that level. The series isn't even over yet is it? Father Ted is one of my favourite shows and stuff like that comes along every few years and it's pointless using it as a comparison. I've never said Toast is a great show or even particularly good, but I do enjoy its sensibility and some of the techniques just happen to tickle me. That's it really. I hope they make more stuff like this because I like it. If it annoys you that much then you know what option I'm going to hint at. I know that sounds like a cop out but I like most of the other stuff Berry's in and I sure as fuck have never defended that on here. It's a losing battle.

[checkoutgirl]

a self centered bastard or is he the hero of the piece?

To use your comparison, Father Ted, wasn't Ted constantly desiring glamour and fun and a way out of his terrible existence but also very much the hero? Self centred AND a hero. Two things at the same time? Nurse!! My head's going to explode!! How can a person be two things that are contradictory?

In the first episode, Toast is a cowardly womaniser but by the third he's a wounded divorcee. Where's the character consistency there?

Like Beagle indicated, it's possible to be a person who has two different traits at the same time. It's within the realms of possibility to be wounded and a womaniser. In fact, one often feeds the other.

And that's the thing about the episodes so far as well, they don't reach a conclusion. they just stop.

I agree 100% with you there. Generally the episodes just kind of grind to a halt. Some stuff happens and then it just sort of stops happening. It's a bit sketch show in that regard but I love sketch shows so it doesn't really bother me. Loads of silly sitcom episodes end abruptly or open endedly but it's not something that would bother me particularly because sitcoms are often inherently silly and unrealistic so I rarely sit there furious that the episode has not resolved well. Generally if a show ends with a song then you should know what you are letting yourself in for the next time and if you don't like it, well...you could always repeatedly jam a knife into your leg instead.

[DeGrise]

I'm not sure I agree about the endings.

There is a time element to the episodes - Toast has to back at the theatre to appear in the awful play.

So all the adventures have to wrap up so he can do that. One of the reasons the hostage crisis was resolved was that Toast had to leave. So that sped up the whole negotiation element to humorous effect.

[checkoutgirl]

I'm not sure I agree about the endings.

There is a time element to the episodes - Toast has to back at the theatre to appear in the awful play.

So all the adventures have to wrap up so he can do that.

Well I haven't seen the latest episode yet but taking the hotel prostitute one as an example, he's there chatting to the woman at the reception, he slowly realises the mistake he's made and then it segues into a song bit. It felt a bit clunky. Not that it bothered me but I have to admit the endings seem a bit arbitrary and abrupt.

[DrGreggles]

I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

There. That's told you all!

[dr beat]

Just re-watched the last couple of episodes, and enjoyed them a lot more second time around.   I can see how its tying together a bit better.

[Danger Man]

Channel 4 has offered up next week's episode as some kind of bonus.

I like watching this. But it isn't all that funny or original. It's just nice.

A bit like Garth Marenghi, I suppose.

[HMS Beanspiller]

It doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny but it's endearingly silly and I've enjoyed all of the episodes (and would welcome a second series).

The only slight qualm I had with the latest one (watched on 4OD) was that

Spoiler alert

I didn't think there was any need for the actress in the play to be standing there completely naked. Maybe I'm being a bit Victorian but it felt slightly exploitative to me, it certainly wasn't necessary for the story.

[close]

[bobloblaw]

Agreed. Yes it was illustrative of the terrible play but it was gratuitous in a way you don't expect from a 21st century sitcom (not least as the bloke was semi-attired). Especially as they pixellated the masseur the other week. Still, at least Michael Ball was deployed well, and rose to the occasion.

Overall, a delightfully silly comedy and let's hear it for the unsung hero of the piece, Robert Bathurst.

More please, Channel 4. Not that it's going to be an easy sell to the powers that be, watched as it was by about 20 people plus Berry's comedy mates.