SOTCAA's 'I'm Alan Partridge Was Rubbish' article and IAP as a mockumentary

[Munday's Chylde]

I always seem to go around in circles when defending SOTCAA, continually having the same arguments again and again. On the Extras thread yesterday, I addressed the 'Why don't you watch things with an open mind?' question for the millionth time, and what happens? The thread drops rapidly down the page, because no one's really up for an argument. But I know that, in a few weeks, the 'Why don't you watch things with an open mind?' question will be asked yet again. .

People here not wanting an argument?! I pray for the day!

Well if you genuinely believe that Lala then your approach doesn't really work does it? Perhaps you should try pointing out the positive aspects in things as well if they're there even if you still hate the sum of the parts. That way people won't be able to just dismiss it with a 'oh its just him, he hates everything, next!' and will end up cheerfully engaging in talk over the negative points in the same post.

[Slackboy]

Yes. You're the BEST!

Sorry, I hadn't realised that I'd brought that up in order to be 'better' than everyone else. There was me thinking that it was a genuine question. I'll go and read the "Are SOTCAA autistic?" thread then.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

There was me thinking that it was a genuine question. I'll go and read the "Are SOTCAA autistic?" thread then.

No, I think Asperger's is covered on this page:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/sotcaa/sotcaa_glossframe.html?/sotcaa/comment/glossary_ab.html

[Slackboy]

ASPERGER SYNDROME
(n.) Autism-like neurobiological disorder which affects social or communication skills in otherwise intelligent people. Viennese physician Hans Asperger originally published his extensive paper about the disorder in 1940, but it's only recently been recognised by snide bastards as a clever way of calling someone a 'spazzy' while affecting an air of academic interest.


So, the answer to my question is 'yes, other people have entertained that notion before' then.

Thankyou for helping me realise what a snide bastard I am, and that I was really calling you spazzy and trying to look clever. If only I'd known sooner.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Well if you genuinely believe that Lala then your approach doesn't really work does it? Perhaps you should try pointing out the positive aspects in things as well if they're there even if you still hate the sum of the parts. That way people won't be able to just dismiss it with a 'oh its just him, he hates everything, next!' and will end up cheerfully engaging in talk over the negative points in the same post.

But I addressed that point in the Extras thread too! Why should I look for positive bits? By that logic, every article which is celebratory must include some token criticism - that certainly doesn't happen very often, either in the press or on the internet. When was the last time you saw someone complaining 'You only love things because they're new! You're too positive!'?

Some people have a real problem with opinion-pieces, and seemingly want to reduce everything down to the level of a school essay. I don't really know what they want - lots of IMOs all over the place? I hate IMOs.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Thankyou for helping me realise what a snide bastard I am, and that I was really calling you spazzy and trying to look clever.

The thing is, if I said to a fan of IAP 'You don't really like the show - you only think you do because of x, y and z', they'd (rightly) consider me a bit patronising.

So why is the assertion that the only reason I could possibly dislike IAP is because I have Asperger's meant to be taken as a genuine enquiry?

By the way, is there a neurobiological disorder that causes people to be unthinkingly Pollyanna-ish all the time? If so, I'll try accusing a few people on here of having it and see how much grief it gets me.

[Munday's Chylde]

But I addressed that point in the Extras thread too! Why should I look for positive bits?

You shouldn't have to. You should do what you want. It was just that you were saying people were ignoring your points and not wanting to engange in discussion over it, I was just suggesting if thats happening then it might be worth trying a different approach to get your points across.

[Slackboy]

So why is the assertion that the only reason I could possibly dislike IAP is because I have Asperger's meant to be taken as a genuine enquiry?

Because I've been reading and posting here for a while now (and have read lots of SOTCAA) and I still don't understand how some of you can't like IAP and the Office and so on. I thought the Sophie comment was an indicator that the writer of that article had a basic inability to read the emotions and characters of other people because I still can't remember any part of IAP where she could have been in any way coy or timid. Maybe someone's about to remind me of a scene where she was and I'll realise I was wrong and then feel a bit silly. Otherwise, it would make complete sense that IAP would appeal to someone who couldn't read people in that way since that's where most of the humour comes from in the first place, and not from cleverly constructed gags that would appeal to someone more analytically minded.

Sorry that I caused offense, it wasn't intentional and I do realise the churlishness of appearing to give people a psychological assessment via the internet. Maybe my inability to realise this means that I'm the one with Asperger's after all. I'm just struggling to understand the IAP bashing that's all. Maybe I just need to rewatch it again.

By the way, is there a neurobiological disorder that causes people to be unthinkingly Pollyanna-ish all the time? If so, I'll try accusing a few people on here of having it and see how much grief it gets me.

I don't agree with Munday's in that you should have to make positive comments just to appear more well balanced, in fact I think that that is totally wrong. If by "Pollyanna-ish" you mean being naively positive all the time then I can't think of anyone I've seen post here ever doing that. As far as I can tell people are being positive about IAP because they genuinely like it and I can't imagine someone who liked it having that kind of mentality. IAP surely appeals more to people who can see the negatives of life and are happy for the chance to laugh at them.

[Slackboy]

The thing is, if I said to a fan of IAP 'You don't really like the show - you only think you do because of x, y and z', they'd (rightly) consider me a bit patronising.

Come to think of it haven't you said something like this before where IAP="The Office", x="it being popular" and y=z=0?

[alan strang]

That anti IAP article is just stupid. It's clear that they took a popular opinion (That IAP is great) and decided to rally aganist it then started looking for evidence.

No we didn't, you great big silly. If you really want the full chain of events, I can provide...

1995 - 1997
Post-KMKYWAP - Steve Coogan does some rather mediocre comedy programmes which aren't really very good, including 'Coogan's Run' and Tony Ferrino. We shrug our shoulders and blame it on the cocaine. In comedy terms we're still on a high after 'The Day Today' and 'Knowing Me Knowing You', plus there's still 'Fist Of Fun' to make us smile. Things haven't gotten too desperate yet.

May 1997
Coogan announces that they're working on an "Alan Partridge sit-com" (which would have arrived sooner but the team had been tied up with the 'Election Night Armistice'). We have a giggle about what such a sit-com would entail (hence the parody capsules at the end of that article) but refuse to get too excited. Stuff like Ferrino proved only too well that it wasn't worth expecting every Coogan project to be perfect (or indeed at all watchable at all).

Nov 1997
'I'm Alan Partridge' is broadcast. It's not very good. It's badly conceived and poorly executed. The sheer care which went into creating previous Partridge outings is seemingly missing, replaced by an odd, unsubtle shadow of what it once was. The party's over. We shrug our shoulders and blame it on the cocaine. Otherwise it's hardly discussed at all between us (although ELW10 sends me a letter, the header of which features an amusing drawing of Coogan with his thumbs up, captioned 'Hi, I'm Steve Coogan! Welcome to my shit!").

1998
Things start going very odd. Our usual meet-ups at media gatherings seem to be punctuated by much talk of 'I'm Alan Partridge' being "The best sit com of the last ten years." When we respond with "Well, it wasn't very good..." we're greeted with something approaching blind panic. "No, you must love it, surely!!", they squawk. A 'consensus' is growing within the industry and it doesn't seem to be based within any kind of reality we're used to. Richard Herring, desperately flailing about for reasons for my reticence, suggests that the only reason I don't like IAP is because Coogan hasn't paid me money to do a cartoon thing for him, whereas he had. I tell him he's full of shit, to which he replies "Oh, well, I just like spotting the bits Pete wrote really..."

Although it's not elligable for an award in its own right due to falling outside the actual time period, Jonathan Ross namechecks IAP at The Comedy Awards (while Coogan's there to read out some nominations) in a "wasn't it great, ladies and gentlemen?" kind of way - the first instance of a mutual selling technique between himself and whichever new hot comedy talent needs an extra push, a technique which he'll come to employ many times over the next few years. The industry applaud in that creepy way they do.

Outside the industry things are no better. The opinion that 'I'm Alan Partridge' is anything less than 'a work of genius' simply isn't allowed. Everyone is too cosied by by mutual agreement to allow such dissent. We grow to hate the near-fascism of opinion that surrounds the show. We know the alternate viewpoint exists and we're not completely alone but it's nowhere to be heard - being as it is continuously drowned out by sycophantic cattle happy to crawl behind a consensus viewpoint.

So, ELW10 and I begin writing SOTCAA, just so that alternate viewpoint is ossified somewhere. Arguably, by this time it's too late anyway. The consensus is too big, the dye has been cast, the bull has bolted, the Queen is Dead, the old school tie, the fluff gets up your nose...

2000
SOTCAA, and that article go online. We're told we're just trying to be clever, that we've deliberately chosen something 'popular' and are saying the opposite just to get attention. We also get quite a bit of mail from people saying "Thank fuck for that - I knew there was something wrong with it!"

2001 - PRESENT
And, well, blow me tight, if the same old toss didn't happen all over again with The Office! The same media selling. The same mediocre show praised to the skies by a dying industry. The same panicky reaction towards people who refused to acknowledge the genius. The same old hackneyed 1999 arguments: "Oh, you're just trying to be clever...", spat out by people who can't even be bothered to try. The same "latest series isn't a patch on the genius of the previous one" prattle.

Well, don't know about you guys, but I'm just going to shrug my shoulders and blame it on the cocaine from now on. It seems easier somehow.

By the way, is there a neurobiological disorder that causes people to be unthinkingly Pollyanna-ish all the time?

I think it's one of the side-effects of prolonged use of cannabis, but don't quote me on that one...

Hey, Mike, isn't this fun! Just like the old days, but with more angular plebs!

[The Mumbler]

I've made the comparison before about The Office mopping up business for those who were waiting for Series 2 of IAP.  There's a fucking huge post somewhere with my name on it.

I like *some* of I'm Alan Partridge - parts of the Radio Norwich scenes work pretty well, and the programme title Cooking In Prison is wonderful.  There are some nice comic ideas (I still find myself saying "Never gonna use them....never gonna use them") and the plots (unlike S2) just about hold water.  But there are huge problems with the characterisation of the supporting cast - I would agree that the Sophie character is very inconsistent and her approach changes from scene to scene, let alone week to week.  Sally Phillips simply isn't given enough to do here - unless you count "trying to stop sniggering" - and the same goes for Felicity Montagu who is barely given an amusing line throughout the whole two series (how many times the script reads "Lynn reacts", God only knows).  I can't dislike the series as a whole, but the "masterpiece" it's often painted as is deeply pushing it.  It's not as good as The High Life, for instance.  And it's a pale shadow of Knowing Me Knowing You (either incarnation).  Too much of it is just "Alan - what a sad bastard you really are", which is of limited appeal for this viewer.

[slim]

By that logic, every article which is celebratory must include some token criticism - that certainly doesn't happen very often, either in the press or on the internet.

I'd love to see more of this. Whenever I write about any comedy programme (not very well, admittedly) I try to put forward my honest opinion, including parts of the show both good and bad.

However, I imagine that were I to review my previous posts now, I'd find I've done nothing of the sort... I certainly intend it that way.


On a separate note, regarding the SOTCAA bashing here and in other threads, I think people need to remember this is a discussion forum. People hold differing views on differing shows, and they post them. It's really starting to grate that there are perpetual accusations of agenda setting, not enjoying comedy, etc. This whole forum would be a lot more enjoyable if people engaged the points in hand and discussed, trying to isolate and compare motive, reason and so on, instead of picking away at other people. It's tiring, it sends more threads than I care to remember off topic and it's pointless. They're just posters here like everyone else.


Regarding IAP2, I like it. I like it because, despite it not being up to the standard of KMKY or the first IAP, it still makes me laugh. There are certainly good arguments as to why it's inferior as a piece containing the character and I agree with a lot of them. However, I've watched it again and again and still it makes me laugh.

I can think a bit harder about that if anyone wants, but it's been a long day and that'll have to do for now. :)

[Robert Dyas]

KMKY is abysmal compared to IAP, i found it a really forced parody of a chat show.
the one joke being everything went wrong, ooh funny. The interviewees were badly acted, the things that went wrong were contrived and unconvincing. I know most people here hate comedy of embarassment but KMKY paved the way for this more than any other show, most of the writing centred only onPartridge annoying or embarassing his guests.  I loved his appearances in THD and OTH but thought KMKY dumbed down his character much more than IAP did.

[Bert Thung]

This whole forum would be a lot more enjoyable if people engaged the points in hand and discussed, trying to isolate and compare motive, reason and so on, instead of picking away at other people.

You're only saying that cause you're bitter.

Seeriouzly though, here here.

KMKY is abysmal compared to IAP, i found it a really forced parody of a chat show.

The radio or TV version, or both?

[Robert Dyas]

KMKY is abysmal compared to IAP, i found it a really forced parody of a chat show.

The radio or TV version, or both?

the tv version sorry

[Little Hoover]

I also don't think KMKY t.v series was anything special. much of it felt underwritten and underjoked many characters failed, was it  Lawrence Knowles that was, hairy back guy, that was incredibly unfunny, lacking in any jokes and any satirical point.
In fact you could easily say the french episode was just an excuse for Alan to make racist french jokes but get away with it because he's playing a character, Or the last episode was partly just an excuse for cheap lesbian jokes. Something you criticise gervais for.


You're articles do have a lot of valid criticisms to make but you also make some serious missteps when look at the writing process and try and draw conclusions about that, like in Jam the idea that no one had the guts to tell chris the ideas were bad.
It's insulting to people involved and shows a lack of understanding of how it was written, multiple people were involved, but you don't' actually know the in's and out's how each sketch was concieved and written and it's insulting to make judgements based on wild speculatory theories.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

It's not insulting to speculate - it's interesting, and opens up whole new avenues of comedic understanding. It's done in all other areas of art criticism, so why shouldn't we do it with what we enjoy?

I hate the idea that comedy shouldn't be discussed in detail, as if it's some form of magic. The notion that it stops being amusing once you think about it - if this was true, no-one would become a comedian!

[Little Hoover]

I'm not saying speculation is wrong it's when people assume their speculations are correct and make judgments about the writers that I don't like.

[alan strang]

KMKY is abysmal compared to IAP, i found it a really forced parody of a chat show.
the one joke being everything went wrong, ooh funny. The interviewees were badly acted, the things that went wrong were contrived and unconvincing.

You see, I really can't fathom this response at all. Although arguably hitting less targets than the radio incarnation, KMKYWAP still managed to blow some sizeable holes across the industry conceit of the day and was full of great lines and performances. Would that we had something similar now which pilloried the cliches and egos of the Lawsons and Rosses in the same way.

So how many actual jokes were there in IAP? "He's a sad, washed-up broadcaster without a life"? If we're discussing things at that level, I mean.

It would be very interesting to hear the chronology of people's introduction to the Partridge canon. Would it be fair to say that most of the people who diss KMKYWAP saw IAP first? I can't really imagine someone seeing the former and thinking it was crap but then saying "Ah, now this is more like it!" when the latter came along.

I also don't think KMKY t.v series was anything special. much of it felt underwritten and underjoked many characters failed, was it Lawrence Knowles that was, hairy back guy, that was incredibly unfunny, lacking in any jokes and any satirical point.

I thought it was an attack on a) Max Clifford and b) the idea of an ineffectual taste-of-your-own-medicine campaign. Certainly there are bits of Partridge's behaviour in that sequence that could be compared with that of Piers Morgan's equally ineffectual 'revenge campaigns' during his stint at The Mirror.

In fact you could easily say the french episode was just an excuse for Alan to make racist french jokes but get away with it because he's playing a character, Or the last episode was partly just an excuse for cheap lesbian jokes. Something you criticise gervais for.

That rather depends on whether you think the Partridge team were aiming for cheap bikeshed laughs from the racist/lesbian terms. I'd argue that they weren't, whereas Gervais and his ilk certainly are. I've never been over-fond of the lesbian bit in KMKYWAP though - as ELW10 said at the time, making him an out-and-out homophobe (rather than the closet homosexual he evidently was in the radio incarnations) was something of a missed opportunity, especially in terms of that sequence. They could have done a lot more with it.

You're articles do have a lot of valid criticisms to make but you also make some serious missteps when look at the writing process and try and draw conclusions about that, like in Jam the idea that no one had the guts to tell chris the ideas were bad.
It's insulting to people involved and shows a lack of understanding of how it was written, multiple people were involved, but you don't' actually know the in's and out's how each sketch was concieved and written

I'm sure the article acknowledges other people's writing contributions - but suggested that they were very much written to order as 'the sort of thing Morris would like' rather than anything they may find funny themselves. In other words, the notion of creating great sketches being very much secondary to the utter thrill of working on a project with such a great commodity, er, artist.

and it's insulting to make judgements based on wild speculatory theories.

Aw, they're not so wild.

As luck would have it, at least one of us thought Blue Jam was pretty good anyway. At least most of the contributors sort of understood where Morris was coming from at that point - and it didn't really start to go off the boil until Series 3. It's when the same scenario occurs with lesser projects like 'Nathan Barley' that the cracks really start to show.

[Slackboy]

Would it be fair to say that most of the people who diss KMKYWAP saw IAP first? I can't really imagine someone seeing the former and thinking it was crap but then saying "Ah, now this is more like it!" when the latter came along.

I saw KMKY first and then IAP. Haven't heard the radio series. IAP is better than KMKY for the same reasons that lots of people over the years have already said to you, except for the ones that were wrong.

And my name is Slackboy and I really liked Nathan Barley.

And I can't believe that you told the man I love that he was full of shit.

[Melth]

The laughs got cheaper as the Partridge character progressed, no doubt about it. The perfect example comes from the untransmitted pilot for KMKYWAP when Front's post-feminist character tells him about her much younger boyfriend. AP's squeamishness about the age-gap is wonderfully observed,  totally unable to defend his position eventually admitting that if his own son were to go out with a 63-year-old, he'd give her a firm push.

In 2002, however, when Michael sleeps with a 60-year-old, that fact alone brings an (unjustified) whoop of laughter as do Partridge's sneering quips about her that just seem childish and petty.

Much of 'I'm Alan Partridge' seemed to be playing up to an imagined audience who could quote lines to each other while the consistency of the character went out of the window. Certain individual lines were very funny indeed but the writing seemed like it was stitching together jokes as the writing team flicked through a notebook of ideas. Another example: in the worst scene of the series, AP fucks up that Christian radio show and embarasses the host. She, however wants to offer him the chance to work with her - and she's invited to Lynne's baptism. Why? Could it be because Coogan &co had that scene at the baptism that they couldn't shoehorn into the plot at any other point? I don't know why else it's in there, to be honest.

[The Mumbler]

Haven't heard the radio series.

You must hear it.  You simply must.  If you want to give just one episode a try prior to shelling out for the lot, BBC7's including an episode as part of (ulp) Jenny Eclair's Comedy Controller stint this Saturday.  As well as The Shuttleworths, Fist of Fun, Radio Active and People Like Us.

It's on Saturday (30th) between 9am and noon, or between 8pm and 11pm, or even in the small hours of Sunday morning (3am - 6am).  Or there's Listen Again.  I promise you that you will not regret it.

[Pepotamo1985]

Another example: in the worst scene of the series

There are so many instances of this in IAP2, and I attribute that to certain scenes being shot nearly a year in advance of the studio material. I also attribute that to the final scripts often being finished on the day of recording.

[butnut]

You must hear it.  You simply must.  If you want to give just one episode a try prior to shelling out for the lot, BBC7's including an episode as part of (ulp) Jenny Eclair's Comedy Controller stint this Saturday.  As well as The Shuttleworths, Fist of Fun, Radio Active and People Like Us.

Off topic - wow that's a great line up. I've always hated Jenny Eclair, but that list has forced me to give some credit it to her. Thanks for the heads-up!

[slim]

I've never been over-fond of the lesbian bit in KMKYWAP though - as ELW10 said at the time, making him an out-and-out homophobe (rather than the closet homosexual he evidently was in the radio incarnations) was something of a missed opportunity, especially in terms of that sequence. They could have done a lot more with it.

Do you think of the various radio & TV ventures featuring Partridge as one overall indicator of his character or very separate entities? I thought the homophobia in KMKY was just a part of the overall impression I got of Partridge - a repressed bisexual. It's quite common for homophobia and closet cases to be linked (fairly or not) in real life, I thought the differing character actions were based on this overarching premise.

[Peking O]

I saw KMKYWAP before IAP but still prefer the latter (well, the first series of). My problem with KMKYWAP was that it was too similar to Larry Sanders, yet Larry was so much better, funnier, and more inventive. I'm sure the Partridge character has been around longer than Shandling's creation on radio, the Day Today and so on, but by the time KMKYWAP came around for its TV offering it had been made redundant by the yanks. It was still pretty funny, I just couldn't see much point in it when the concept had been taken to a whole other level by our friends across the pond.

[alan strang]

It could be argued that the 'Week In The Life Of Pear Tree Productions' spoof doc did Larry Sanders before Larry Sanders.

Oh, 'Extras' is on everyone...

[Robert Dyas]

I saw KMKY before IAP and liked it. But after looking back, i think the character was inconsistent. The big laughs from Partridge in TDT and OTH were nothing to do with whether he was supposed to be based on Lawsons or Morgans or whoever. He was obviously an ineffectual commentator but that was never important, it was the brilliance of the way the commentarys were subverted, whether it was the names of horses or football teams. Moving the character on they just concentrated solely on him being a useless presenter and that was it, at least in IAP there were lots of surreal moments again that harked back to TDT.The radio sequences at the start  with hairy mary, or the chat with the guy who thinks that sean connery would only want to go to legoland were the peak of the whole partridge character for me

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Key differences between KMKY and IAP which I reckon made KMKY superior:

1) The guests were not just sounding boards for Partridge's 'inappropiateness', like Linehan and Mathews cringing in the breakfast bar - in most cases, they were far more appalling than he was. KMKY was richer because, a lot of the time, you were kinda on Alan's side.

2) KMKY was an attack/comment on the media and media attitudes, but IAP was just about 'Ha ha, he's such a loser'.

They're the main ones.

By the way, is there a lovelier moment in comedy than the 'The format...?'/'THE FORMAT...' bit  in the final radio-KMKY? Absolutely perfect, and the audience know immediately what it's getting at. Again, the joke is about bollocks attitudes and those who turn a blind eye to bollocks attitudes. I suspect, in the viral marketing age, a lot of comedians would find that exchange a bit too close to home.

Oh, and Sophie being inconsistent? The 'And that's why you watched it for 15 minutes?' line about the ladyboys video stuck out sore-thumb style, considering how shy/polite she is elsewhere. That and 'Tosser?'.

[Robert Dyas]

But KMKY  might be satirising the media, but just having one interview going wrong after another ending up with the classic punchline "and on that bombshell" doesnt seem as insightful as TDT or Brass eye.
And the linehan and matthews scene is one of the few moments that reminded me of KMKY as its just another moment when you think, ooh its all going wrong. Not one of the best bits anyway