Chris Morris Ramble

[klaus]

   I've read as many Chris Morris entries as my brain could handle today in the hopes I would find some discussion of Morris as a director.  More than that, as a comedian whose work has actually maintained a high level of excellence with each new project.  Nothing doing though.  Just arguments about why NATHAN BARLEY and MY WRONGS didn't meet expectations.  My feeling is that Morris has managed to avoid the greatest pitfall of all comedians, that of becoming derivative.  Derivative in tone, persona, jokes.  To name just a few derivative comedians plying their trade, Sasha Baron Cohen's work on HBO, Rowan Atkinson post-Blackadder III,  Red Dwarf V and on, and for the Canadians out there, the past 3 seasons of This Hour Has 22 Minutes.  It isn't hard to make a list of comedians who aren't creating anything new but still beating a dead joke. 
   With Morris though, each project since the original Brass Eye has been an attempt to create a new style for his comedy (NOTE:  I see him as a satirist/antagonist comedian).  For instance, JAM and MY Wrongs, both come from the same beast BLUE JAM, but each looks and moves completely differently from the other and from its original source.  While you could say elements of JAM can be found in THE KIDS IN THE HALL and THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN (if in nothing else then in their cynical approach to daily lives and the wonderful characters those troupes created), JAM's rhythms are completely original.  If the skits didn't put a person off, then the way the skits were filmed surely did.  JAM is a surreal masterpiece, that I think will outlive all Morris' other work if simply because it won't date itself like Brass Eye will (surely in 30 years people will have forgotten Phil Collins.  We can only hope). 
   The problem with MY WRONGS is that it is slight.  Why WARP RECORDS didn't give Morris money to make a feature about the Paddy Considine character will always be a source of annoyance to me.  Imagine those Morris read skits from BLUE JAM as one feature length film.  Now stop.  It'll only hurt if you think on it too much.  They became the protoype for the Dan Ashcroft character.  But where MY WRONGS differs from JAM, and this is obvious, is that Morris has stopped using camera tricks, and attempted to film the work straight.  Also, MY WRONGS is not episodic.  We have one character to identify with.
   And that's where NATHAN BARELY comes in to play.  Why have so many people reacted so harshly to it?  Morris, for the first time, has created a long work, with multiple characters, has even made them more then caricatures.  Further to this, BARELY has a very filmic feel to it, sorely missing from much on television.  The rhythms, the subject matter (the blow job, hand job, Ashcroft in the hospital) are completely foreign to majority of television programs. 
   There's more to be sad but I'll start with this.  I hope people respond with more than just "Tosser."
   

[Glebe]

You know, I actually haven't seen My Wrongs yet. Must check it out. The idea of a Jam movie is interesting, it could be an intriguing cult curio masterpiece! Good point about Barley, I think Morriseans (if you will) in general were disappointed by Barley because it seemed like Morris was branching out into comedy drama and moving away from outright satire. There's some terrific stuff in Barley, if anyone else had of done it it'd be more appreciated.

[klaus]

My great fear about Nathan Barley is that Morris is making a second series.  I'm happy to hear him say he wants to take Barley from a different angle but I'm not sure if the characters will allow him to do that.  I'm worried that their mannerisms and their roles will carry over from the first series and we will have nothing new.  I'm still hoping that the suicide bomber film is a cover for the Barley storyline and that the second series actually sees them all as suicide bombers.  Ashcroft with dynamite strapped to his chest would be quite funny.

[Pylon Man]

Rowan Atkinson derivative after Blackie III? How is Mr Bean anything like Blackadder goes Forth?

[klaus]

Bean isn't very interesting and is just a copy cat of M. Hulot.  Also, if Bean had only been a few episodes, maybe that wouldn't have been so bad, but the movies watered the persona down.  Also, that awful police program Atkinson did with Curtis.  And the Hollywood movie about the race.  Talk about losing the plot.  Or collecting the cheques.

[Neil]

Good point about Barley, I think Morriseans (if you will) in general were disappointed by Barley because it seemed like Morris was branching out into comedy drama and moving away from outright satire.

No offence, but that's one of the big Barley cliches, and I don't think there's any truth in it at all.  If there were some truth in it, Blue Jam and the R1 shows wouldn't be prized so highly among fans.

There's some terrific stuff in Barley, if anyone else had of done it it'd be more appreciated.

And that's another.  I'd say it's rather more likely that if anyone else had done it, it would be LESS appreciated.  And Barley itself seems to touch on this state of affairs with stuff like The Preacherman.

EDIT:  Also, Sacha Baron Cohen's HBO work may have been "derivative", but it was by far and away the best work he'd produced at that point.

[Neil]

Interesting post, mind you, klaus.  I have to say I both disagree and agree with the central thrust of it.  I think the main problem with Morris set in when he started to recycle himself in earnest with Blue Jam.  So while the styilistic approaches may have been very different with each project (and arguably had to be due to the various formats), he was still continuing to rip the arse out of the same damn material over much too long a period. 

To be honest, I think he's much, much too wrapped up in style these days, and the presentation of his work.  I suspect he's also become much too much of a control freak as his career and reputation has progressed, and so ends up spreading himself far too thinly, instead of focussing his efforts on just one area.

[klaus]

The infrequent Morris projects would appear to further your point about his creative control becoming an issue.  Or that no one wants to give him money for a project.  I thought that might be the reason he made MY WRONGS because it was the only way he could show people he was still out there working (no proof of this). 

I don't buy the argument that he is suffocated by style (paraphrase).  What makes his programs so fascinating is that each program has its own style.  He allows the material to dictate the style.  Barley 1 is all jerky (re: hip) camera work.  I realize that Barley is not loved by the majority but see if you just compare the Barley pilot with the finished project, the pilot lacks the look and life of the series.  Even the scene of Ashcroft getting his haircut appears to be the same in both is better once the image is taken off video.

Who else is creating programs that you can point at every time and say I haven't seen that before?  Paul Thomas Anderson.  David Milch is doing a good job with John From Cincinatti though it isn't very good.  For a while, Canadians had Ken Finkleman (did the Brits ever get The Newsroom, The Campaign episode looks like a less vulgar prequel to The Thick of It).  Problem with Finkleman is that he was so caught up proving he watched and read deep works that his programs collapsed under the weight of his references.  Fascinating viewing.

One last point, I don't agree that Blue Jam was beat to death by going for three seasons.  Each episode was about an hour, more than half that was music.  Take away the Morris monologues (which are the weakest part of the program - failed novel? It certainly read as wooden) and you probably have at most 20 minutes of material.  Even then that might be too much.  All those writers and performers needed room to explore situations they would never get the chance to do again.  Why would Kevin Eldon want to give up the Jam gigs for Hyperdrive (or whatever that space show is called).  Well the money must be nice.  At least Hyperdrive is on BBC Canada and BBC America.  Not a one Morris show has been on Canadian airwaves.  No, BLUE JAM and it's brother JAM and even JAAAAAAM were a one time opportunity to really do something unique.  INLAND EMPIRE unique. 

[thehungerartist]

this is an interesting thread but I can't help thinking you contradicted yourself slightly in the first post klaus - are you saying that Morris has avoided becoming derivative whilst at the same cannibalising his own work?

[klaus]

No way am I saying Morris is eating his own.  If anything, I'm saying that each show he creates is an attack on his old program.  I mean this is what Morris does best.  Attacks people, ideas, and his own work.  Brass Eye and JAM couldn't be further from one another. They share the same cynical and dark tones, they still attack the same targets but in different manners. 

[Jemble Fred]

You do realise that we're supposed to be discussing comedy here, right? There's nothing in your post that acknowledges that any of it is funny, or even meant to be. You could be discussing sculpture or something. But then I suppose liking Jam is synonymous with putting almost anything before laughter – film speed, background beats, whizzy-crazy-ooh-I've-got-a-funky-editing-suite special effects... anything before jokes.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

I think the point being made is that after 3 series of Blue Jam, the TV transfer, and later, My Wrongs were each a retread of past material.  Considering that The Day Today featured - almost - entirely new material when it transferred from On the Hour, it's clear that the Jam period contains his largest body of repetition.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

After a point he decided to concentrate more on direction than comedy - and plenty of people can do the former, but Morris was amazing at the latter.

And Morris can pretty much get money to do whatever he wants. C4 give him carte blanche. The fault is with the artist.

[NoSleep]

it's clear that the Jam period contains his largest body of repetition.

And what had been funny as radio was completely lost in the transfer to TV.

[Sexton Brackets Drugbust]

And what had been funny as radio was completely lost in the transfer to TV.

Exactly, it became apparent that the suggestion and imagination that comes with radio was ultimately funnier than simply seeing the same ideas on TV.  The visual effects, that have dated remarkably quickly, couldn't hide the fact that the listeners imagination was much more powerful and helped the comedy.

Couple this with the fact that a lot of the Jam material's humour comes from shock and surprise, and that repeating familiar routines loses this initial impact, you end up with a hugely derivative end product.

Edit to add: The majority of the sketches were also originally written with purely audio format in mind, so the direct transfer spoils the jokes somewhat.  A sketch that on the radio gradually unfolds, culminating in the listeners eventual realisation of what's occurring, is lost on TV where you are immediately presented with the information visually.

[DJ One Record]

   And that's where NATHAN BARELY comes in to play.  Why have so many people reacted so harshly to it?  Morris, for the first time, has created a long work, with multiple characters, has even made them more then caricatures.  Further to this, BARELY has a very filmic feel to it, sorely missing from much on television. The rhythms, the subject matter (the blow job, hand job, Ashcroft in the hospital) are completely foreign to majority of television programs.

If Barley was at all cutting edge, it wasn't for the subject matter that you've listed. Both Nighty Night and Peep Show have dealt with similar issues before and after Barley, and in the case of Peep Show it's been done considerably better and more believably. Barley's strengths did lie more significantly in its stylistic approach - there's clearly been some quite hefty design work gone into the look of the show - but this factor always seemed so laboured that the characters in the show actually DIDN'T have the chance to develop beyond caricatures. Morris and Brooker stumbled into the pitfall that has occasionally plagued a myriad of shows from The Simpsons through Red Dwarf to Scrubs, namely of tailoring their characters to the plot rather than vice versa. However, whereas in the other shows mentioned this was more a rarity and tended to happen a few seasons down the line, Barley showed signs of this in its first series. Given how dragged out most of the wafer-thin plots actually were, this practice only served to play up the weaknesses of the characters.

Bottom line is that people reacted harshly to Barley because it wasn't very funny, largely owing to these reasons. The whole stylistic, filmic quality only barely (hoho) comes into it, although I must admit being slightly troubled by your notion that television shows should be more filmic in general. Why?

[Ciarán]

And that's where NATHAN BARELY comes in to play.  Why have so many people reacted so harshly to it?  Morris, for the first time, has created a long work, with multiple characters, has even made them more then caricatures.  Further to this, BARELY has a very filmic feel to it, sorely missing from much on television.  The rhythms, the subject matter (the blow job, hand job, Ashcroft in the hospital) are completely foreign to majority of television programs.

I thought 'Nathan Barley' was hit and miss, but what I didn't like about it was a kind of mean-spiritedness about it. the subject matter you mention were part of that, I just found it unnecessary, unfunny, eager to shock TV at its worst. The episode about the cocaine-addicted model was dreadful, really. Embarrassing.

[Neil]

I realize that Barley is not loved by the majority but see if you just compare the Barley pilot with the finished project, the pilot lacks the look and life of the series.  Even the scene of Ashcroft getting his haircut appears to be the same in both is better once the image is taken off video.

To be honest, I much preferred the pilot when I saw it on the DVD.  And I also thought that the characters in the pilot were a lot more believable and less like "caricatures"; a lot of that was down to the addition of The Idiots.  Ned and Rufus were far too broadly-drawn (and badly-acted) to be funny (and I say that as someone who generally LOVES stupid character like Phoebe and Joey in Friends).  And their inclusion really sucked any kind of subtlety or trust in the viewer out of the programme for me.

One last point, I don't agree that Blue Jam was beat to death by going for three seasons. 

As Sexton Brackets Drugbust says, I was more referring to the continual reusing of that material in post-Blue Jam projects, such as the suicide journalist in the newspaper etc.  Having said that, I vividly recall laughing my cock off at Blue Jam 3-1, and then from there on in I suddenly found that I was responding with 'oh, that's quite a nice idea' and the odd chuckle.  I should relisten to the third series some time, but back then I found that it had become...eek...FORMULAIC!  And you could predict the arc of some sketches, because by this point you were so attuned to the world of Blue Jam.  I think that was a damn shame, and he should have canned it at the end of the second series, and brought it back for a couple of specials. 

Take away the Morris monologues (which are the weakest part of the program - failed novel? It certainly read as wooden)...

Hehe, sorry to disagree with almost everything you say, but, Jesus, YOU ARE SO WRONG KLAUS.  Have you heard the 1993 GLR shows?  Maybe you'd appreciate them more in that context. 

[Neil]

If Barley was at all cutting edge, it wasn't for the subject matter that you've listed. Both Nighty Night and Peep Show have dealt with similar issues before and after Barley, and in the case of Peep Show it's been done considerably better and more believably.

Peep Show is a good example.  And the hand-job actually had to be a direct reference to that Russell Brand show where he gets a gay bloke to wank him off in a pub toilet in order to explore his sexuality, or some-such.  Re:Brand I think it's called, surprisingly enjoyable given the torrent of unremitting shite he's unleashed ever since.

Morris and Brooker stumbled into the pitfall that has occasionally plagued a myriad of shows from The Simpsons through Red Dwarf to Scrubs, namely of tailoring their characters to the plot rather than vice versa.

Oooh, that's really interesting, would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.  Do you think that accounts for the change in the characters from the pilot?  I loved the Dan Ashcroft in the pilot, much better.  I like the ambiguity that's present in Nathan Barley, but I'd like it a lot more if it didn't seem so...confused.  In other words, it's hard to know what is intentional, and what is just sloppiness.   Anyway, I think Barley was also a much more effective character in the pilot, much less of a cartoon character.  I love the scene where he's joking and messing around with Clare, apologising to her for something I think.

[lipsink]

I found BARLEY painful to watch at points (and not in a good way). The writing just didn't make you care about the characters or the stories. Episode 2 in particular I found difficulty getting through because as Dan was trying to get out of the nightclub I just didn't care if he got out. I nearly turned the video I taped it on off because I just thought "Why am I watching this?" There were some nice ideas thrown in throughout that had no effect on the story but just seemed ideas that would be put into BrassEye. They usually seemed inconsistent with the tone. For example the Junkie Choir would probably work well as a stand alone sketch or in a BrassEye/Day Today episode. But in BARLEY it doesn't work because Claire Ashcroft wouldn't direct something like that. Her character is meant to have her head screwed on and would see how ludicrous something like that is. I don't think it's a concern about Chris Morris branching out, it's just a lot of Morris fans would like his stuff to work when he does branch out.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I'm finding the discussion an interesting read for sure. I think I heard a little nail being hit inside my head when I read this though:

namely of tailoring their characters to the plot rather than vice versa.

Even though this is something you give credit for, I think Peep Show could easily fall prey to this if they aren't careful. Watching repeats of series 4 I noticed that Jez is starting to get lines that resemble Mark dialogue rather than his. They should be extra vigilant to make sure that Webb's delivering lines he's good at, not delivering lines Mitchell would be good at. I often wonder if Armstrong & Bain occasionally take on the roles of Mark and Jez in order to rehearse dialogue during writing, in fact I may have read that from somewhere.

On the other side of the coin (tailoring the plot to fit the characters) you run the risk of predictability and stripping away the dimensions of the characters into parodies of themselves. So it's not an either/or choice in my opinion, you've just got to work at the character and plot continuity like a neurotic beast to make sure it all fits in and isn't just a shoutier, less layered retread of a previous series. I'd credit a show like Frasier for being very good at this, and to be fair, Peep Show series 4 had more than a whiff of Frasier in my mind, none of the other series do, but the new Mark/Jez dynamic opens up the scope for comedy, and gives the series a potential longevity. Hope that makes some sense.

[klaus]

I'm not sure how I could convince any of you of Nathan Barley's success.  I don't  understand plot (events that happen?) or how the Barley characters are so heavily tied to it.  If plots is "events that happen", I'd say that we see Ashcroft and company's personalities because of how they reacted to the situations they're put in.  As for Claire seemingly selling out, I think sadly that's what happens to people.  Where she's lucky is that she's trying to use the companies she works for to get her message across.  Unlike here brother, who does not know how to manipulate the people around him to do what he wants.  What's perfect about BARLEY is that a guy like Nathan Barley is the one most people end up listening to.  Or is the one advertised as the one we should be following.  What's great about Barley is that he is as lost in the world as the cynics are.       

The idea that JAM was all flash, or that by seeing rather than only hearing the skit, that we somehow get it immediately is not accurate.  The scene between Eldon and Davis in which Eldon explains he wasn't cheating on Davis but merely raping a woman, sets up the audiences' expectations initially because we think he's had an affair as well.  That their faces are blurred does not reveal that the punchline of that scene is rape.

Television does not have to be filmic.  What television misses, what it needs more of, are more personal programs.  That's why I enjoy Morris' work because his humour, no matter what project he does, attacks the kind of staid, sentimental ideas, or worse, the kind of lifestyle comedies (FRIENDS comes to mind, or the fat man and skinny wife sitcoms that are all over American television these days.  Imagine how great Friends would have been if Ross and Monique slept together).

Which takes me to PEEPSHOW.  I know many of you enjoy it but first, give me BARLEY any day over PEEPSHOW.  I won't attack it too much other than to say, the drip character that narrates Beauty and the Geek (that he does that is a telling sign of this man's character) is awful.  He is all style.  All navel gazing.  All...no, sorry.  PEEPSHOW will age badly.  Hopefully it will implode like LITTLE BRITIAN.  Then, and only then, can THE LEAGUE OF GENTLEMEN finally get its rightful place as the real genius comedy troupe.  Those guys from LITTLE BRITIAN made 10 million pounds?  Walliams scores tons of pussy?  How can either of those things be true?

Does anyone know how JAM and BLUE JAM were created?  What was the writing process?     

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

give me BARLEY any day over PEEPSHOW

Hah, the argument equivalent of punching yourself in the face.

Peep Show succeeds in making me laugh regularly and is now a genuine body of work. It will age well because it accurately portrays human behaviour and internal machinations, which is in itself, timeless.

Nathan Barley is paralysed by its self-inflicted ironic visual and dialogueic posturing (and most importantly, its chronic unfunniness). Plus as Ciáran rightly points out, the tone of the show is mean-spirited and it's a failed experiment. Brooker's anger is much better served on Screenwipe where his targets are well-defined and actually appreciated by the majority of the audience rather than a substrata of meeja sneerers.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

Imagine how great Friends would have been if Ross and Monique slept together.

Well, there were at least two incest storylines in Friends.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Nathan Barley is paralysed by its self-inflicted ironic visual and dialogueic posturing (and most importantly, its chronic unfunniness). Plus as Ciáran rightly points out, the tone of the show is mean-spirited and it's a failed experiment. Brooker's anger is much better served on Screenwipe where his targets are well-defined and actually appreciated by the majority of the audience rather than a substrata of meeja sneerers.

Screenwipe/Screenburn goes to the other extreme, though, where things only get attacked if the audience are likely to nod with agreement. I've no problem with the Nathan Barley targets being obscure (doing pointless piss-takes of Selfish Cunt that only three people will get - that's fine by me), it's just that the satire was never particularly interesting, challenging or satisfying to watch. It was just all over the place, to the extent that it often just boiled down to 'Aren't students with mobile phones irritating?'. 

[thehungerartist]

Barley does have its dead funny moments but to compare it favourably with Peep Show really is tearing the arse out of subjectivity.

[rudi]

regarding the note that Peepshow will date: Barley's biggest problem was that it was YEARS too late.

The fanzine Shoreditch Twat had already come, done it and folded before Barley reached the screen.

I really, really wanted to enjoy it and I certainly didn't hate it, but I was genuinely amazed that two men who I felt were at least in touch with the zeitgeist could be so out of touch to think this was a current target worth lampooning.

The media cunts I know rather liked the show as it was taking the mick out of the previous generation to them - something they were doing anyway.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The fanzine Shoreditch Twat had already come, done it and folded before Barley reached the screen.

They'd also made a Comedy Lab pilot in 2002, three years before NB.

Normally, you could defend it by saying 'Ah, but the Shoreditch references were fairly superficial - its general themes were pretty universal'. But what were its general themes? What was it saying? Take away the Shoreditch specifics and you're effectively just left with Grumpy Old Men. Which is fine, but why pretend it's some incredible satire for our times?

[rudi]

They'd also made a Comedy Lab pilot in 2002, three years before NB.

Normally, you could defend it by saying 'Ah, but the Shoreditch references were fairly superficial - its general themes were pretty universal'. But what were its general themes? What was it saying? Take away the Shoreditch specifics and you're effectively just left with Grumpy Old Men. Which is fine, but why pretend it's some incredible satire for our times?

Wellllllll no.

There is/was a Shoreditch Twat (arguablly it's now a Living in Hoxton/Working in Soho Twat) tat really was localised yet its product could be witnessed by anyone bumping up against or into media in all its forms.

The look, style, ethics hadn't so much been eradicated by the time NB turned up, it'd just been assimilated by general 'Twats' if you like, thereby becoming a general Media Twat class rather than the hilarious localised twat of the time.

I guess you had to have been there, maaaaaaaaan...

[the_limping_scorenzo]

They'd also made a Comedy Lab pilot in 2002, three years before NB.

Normally, you could defend it by saying 'Ah, but the Shoreditch references were fairly superficial - its general themes were pretty universal'. But what were its general themes? What was it saying? Take away the Shoreditch specifics and you're effectively just left with Grumpy Old Men. Which is fine, but why pretend it's some incredible satire for our times?

Hello. I'm Adam and I'm going to make a stab in the dark with:

It's theme was the proliferation of irony in the media and how its general acceptedness is exploited by those who engage in cuntish behaviour. It's message - that the "unethical = cool" ethos is shallow and unpleasant. Not original observations, but they still have some relevance in this dark time of internet memes and Jackass style youtube antics. The problem with the show was that because of its mean-spiritedness and ironically trendy editing style it ended up deflating its own arguments, neutering the satire and the jokes.