Let me count the jokes... (A rant)
May. 29th, 2010 05:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tigerfortSome time ago, a friend recommended "The Thick of It' as TV comedy that was intelligent and, you know, funny. While his taste in music is sometimes questionable (how can anyone prefer "Revolver" to "Sergeant Pepper", I ask you?), we seemed to have reasonably similar tastes in humour, so I gave it a try.
Conveniently, there was a series on at the time, so I looked up the previous week's episode on iplayer. I watched it for ten minutes before giving up in disgust: not only was it not actually very funny, it managed to be amazingly offensive at the same time. Maybe I just hit a bad week? So I tried again when the next episode was available, and stopped after only about five minutes. It was much less offensive, but still suffered from being not funny.
The friend (who'd been away for a week) admitted he'd not actually seen the first of those two episodes, and hadn't thought highly of the second one.
Rather more recently, he bought the DVDs of Series Three (for his own pleasure, not for me:) and persuaded me to try again. I managed to struggle my way through the whole of the first episode, but I really can't bear to watch another. I mean, I found it funnier than "The Office", but only because that's about as funny as a typical concrete paving slab. I've had head injuries that gave me more pleasure than watching either "The Office" or "The Thick of It", and I do mean that literally[1].
So where is the problem? It isn't the swearing - while swearing is very rarely funny in its own right, I don't have a problem with it; it can even (rarely) be effective for enhancing a joke or (more often) for character or situation development/revelation. The swearing in TTOI doesn't achieve either of those things, though; Malcolm Tucker's swearing doesn't tell us anything about the situation, or even about him as a character except that he swears all the fucking time.
The primary subject matter is fine too: I have a long history of enjoying political satire both ancient and modern, including plenty that has a low opinion of politicians and their dirty-handed minions. Much political satire is polite to its targets, and indirect in its complaints and assertions, but much of it isn't - "Spitting Image", for example, was capable (at its best) of pointedly shredding a politician's argument (or policy), whilst simultaneously being hilariously funny (and frequently obscene as well).
The problem lies in the attitude the writers take to society; the casual (but often vicious) kicks down at people in less privileged positions, or fighting for causes they think are good. The first episode of Series Three, in one short scene, takes stabs at:
And the whole of the rest of it is like that - that scene was particularly concentrated, true, but everything that seemed to me to be intended to be a joke was aimed at a disadvantaged group. (With one exception, which was also, by a remarkable coincidence, the only time in the episode I was actually amused.)
The bits of other episodes I saw were much the same. The main focus of the first one I saw, which I switched off in disgust, was the best way to make political capital from a woman's legal campaign against the safety-regulation-dodging employer whose tactics had killed her husband and coworkers. After all, what could be funnier than corporate manslaughter? It's right up there with rape and genocide, don't you think? Personally, I'm with the writer on the "Spitting Image" pilot (a couple of months before the actual series, for some reason) who, when asked by a member of the production team why they hadn't done a sketch on the week's main news story (the Harrods Bombing) replied "It isn't fucking funny".
According to the back of the case (quoting the Observer), "The Thick of It" is
[1] I was about five years old, and the nurse gave me a cream egg after stitching me back together. The cream egg more than made up for a bit of blood and inconvenience, and the experience was definitely positive overall. If I'd fallen about an inch further along I'd have lost an eye on the same sharp edge, and it would be a much less amusing story.
Conveniently, there was a series on at the time, so I looked up the previous week's episode on iplayer. I watched it for ten minutes before giving up in disgust: not only was it not actually very funny, it managed to be amazingly offensive at the same time. Maybe I just hit a bad week? So I tried again when the next episode was available, and stopped after only about five minutes. It was much less offensive, but still suffered from being not funny.
The friend (who'd been away for a week) admitted he'd not actually seen the first of those two episodes, and hadn't thought highly of the second one.
Rather more recently, he bought the DVDs of Series Three (for his own pleasure, not for me:) and persuaded me to try again. I managed to struggle my way through the whole of the first episode, but I really can't bear to watch another. I mean, I found it funnier than "The Office", but only because that's about as funny as a typical concrete paving slab. I've had head injuries that gave me more pleasure than watching either "The Office" or "The Thick of It", and I do mean that literally[1].
So where is the problem? It isn't the swearing - while swearing is very rarely funny in its own right, I don't have a problem with it; it can even (rarely) be effective for enhancing a joke or (more often) for character or situation development/revelation. The swearing in TTOI doesn't achieve either of those things, though; Malcolm Tucker's swearing doesn't tell us anything about the situation, or even about him as a character except that he swears all the fucking time.
The primary subject matter is fine too: I have a long history of enjoying political satire both ancient and modern, including plenty that has a low opinion of politicians and their dirty-handed minions. Much political satire is polite to its targets, and indirect in its complaints and assertions, but much of it isn't - "Spitting Image", for example, was capable (at its best) of pointedly shredding a politician's argument (or policy), whilst simultaneously being hilariously funny (and frequently obscene as well).
The problem lies in the attitude the writers take to society; the casual (but often vicious) kicks down at people in less privileged positions, or fighting for causes they think are good. The first episode of Series Three, in one short scene, takes stabs at:
- single parents
- teenage pregnancy (I mean, that's inherently hilarious, right? Oh, not so much, actually)
- 'mixed-race' couples (if a white teenage girl has a black boyfriend, obviously he must be a drug-dealer)
- disabled people
- at least a couple of other groups that escape me now (I'm hoping to expunge the whole thing from my memory if at all possible, and this seems a positive start)
And the whole of the rest of it is like that - that scene was particularly concentrated, true, but everything that seemed to me to be intended to be a joke was aimed at a disadvantaged group. (With one exception, which was also, by a remarkable coincidence, the only time in the episode I was actually amused.)
The bits of other episodes I saw were much the same. The main focus of the first one I saw, which I switched off in disgust, was the best way to make political capital from a woman's legal campaign against the safety-regulation-dodging employer whose tactics had killed her husband and coworkers. After all, what could be funnier than corporate manslaughter? It's right up there with rape and genocide, don't you think? Personally, I'm with the writer on the "Spitting Image" pilot (a couple of months before the actual series, for some reason) who, when asked by a member of the production team why they hadn't done a sketch on the week's main news story (the Harrods Bombing) replied "It isn't fucking funny".
According to the back of the case (quoting the Observer), "The Thick of It" is
The funniest program on television. That would probably explain why I haven't watched much TV in the last few years.
[1] I was about five years old, and the nurse gave me a cream egg after stitching me back together. The cream egg more than made up for a bit of blood and inconvenience, and the experience was definitely positive overall. If I'd fallen about an inch further along I'd have lost an eye on the same sharp edge, and it would be a much less amusing story.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-29 09:05 pm (UTC)BTW it does seem to me (sorry!) that you've 180 degrees missed the writers' point re the construction industry plot. They're not saying it's funny that someone died in an industrial accident. They're satirising the politicians who seek to make capital out of such tragedies.
Similarly, I would have no problems with a biting satire about politicians' response to a bombing, or indeed about the bombers themselves (a la Four Lions, which I'd like to see). But that sort of thing definitely has to wait a few years; you couldn't possibly do it the week after the event. Thing about comedy is, I think it has to be laughing at the powerful, or the threatening. So that's why it's fine to laugh at the politicians or the bombers, but would be beyond the pale to laugh at the victims.
Oh well, sorry you didn't like the show! Maybe there'll be a satire
more to your taste on the Coalition - it seems to me ITTOI was very much a New Labour satire, so someone will have to come up with something different now.
Neuromancer
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 12:07 am (UTC)I think you've picked up on exactly what makes The Thick Of It funny (to me), kargicg, and I'm only just starting to accept that tigerfort is never going to like it. To me, it's just so true to life (or rather, true to my warped and overly-pessimistic perception of life), in a way that's refreshing to see on TV.
Furthermore, it's all about people breaking taboos; doing and saying the stuff you'd never do or say because it'd be totally wrong. If tigerfort sees it as endorsement of such behaviour, he's missed the point; there's an implicit expectation that the viewer will notice all the subtly (or not-so-subtly) horrible things the characters are doing, and perhaps remind themselves of why those things are horrible. The humour comes from the fact that the characters fail so badly at being decent people (or something; it's kinda hard to explain just why that's funny).
Maybe it'd be illuminating to compare it to shows that I've found thoroughly unenjoyable to watch: Green Wing and Skins are some examples which immediately spring to mind. In the former, the viewer is supposed to sympathise with the suave, charismatic "cool guy", and be amused by the how uncool the underdogs are by comparison. Yuck. Skins is worse; when the characters are thoroughly selfish and amoral, you're supposed to be impressed by how "fun" they're being. Yuck. The key difference from The Thick Of It: the viewer is supposed to dislike most characters in TTOI, even if they're funny. Olly would be the best example.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 12:39 am (UTC)Perhaps it's because it wasn't a result of anyone doing anything especially wrong: neither Nicola nor the viewer had any idea what the eventual consequences of her actions would be when they occurred; the viewer doesn't feel that she's doing anything wrong. When the consequences are revealed, the viewer, having agreed with Nicola's behaviour earlier, now feels exactly like she does: utterly mortified. Where's the fun in that?
In the case of all of the *actually* funny content in the series, it's funny because you know that what you're seeing is wrong and unacceptable *when it takes place*. You don't agree with what the characters are doing, and that (I hypothesise) is the basis for the humour. In the example above, where the viewer most likely does agree with and feel sympathy for Nicola, it's the very opposite of funny. I'm surprised they dropped the ball so utterly with that one.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 07:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 07:16 am (UTC)The other Kargicq here -- my wife shares this account, mainly because the pseudonym she wanted was already taken. Just to say that a Senior Civil Servant friend of ours finds TToI painful to watch because it is exactly true to life. She found the episode in which they invent new policy en route to a press conference particularly well-observed.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 07:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 08:33 pm (UTC)Oh, absolutely. And there's stuff that I think hilarious that some other people consider to be in very dubious taste. But...
It's funny, and cringey, because it seems to me so TRUE
Yes and no; being true to life doesn't inherently make something funny, and I simply wasn't able to identify any points (except the one where I actually did laugh) where the program makers seemed to be mocking the attitudes shown. The rest of the time they were simply presenting them and expecting people to laugh. Malcolm Tucker is less distressing than Nick Griffin because Griffin really exists, but he isn't any inherently funnier.
BTW it does seem to me (sorry!) that you've 180 degrees missed the writers' point re the construction industry plot. They're not saying it's funny that someone died in an industrial accident. They're satirising the politicians who seek to make capital out of such tragedies.
I'd assumed that that (satirising the politicians) was what they were trying to do; I just didn't see any satire. I didn't see anything that couldn't just as easily have been a fly-on-the-wall documentary about some of our less appealing real-life MPs.
Similarly, I would have no problems with a biting satire about politicians' response to a bombing,
Nor would I - the problem I had with TToI was that I didn't see any satire. "Spitting Image" did satire, although not always reliably; "Drop the Dead Donkey" and "Yes, Minister" were more reliable, and (like TToI) had fictional characters (with recognisable characteristics) rather than identifiable real people. But Damien in DtDD (to choose a repulsive character) wasn't just presented to the audience; he was deliberately mocked by the writers in a way that the characters in TToI didn't seem to be.
or indeed about the bombers themselves (a la Four Lions, which I'd like to see).
Likewise. (I've not seen much of it, but
But that sort of thing definitely has to wait a few years; you couldn't possibly do it the week after the event.
Why not? Topical comedy has a long history - DtDD and SI both did it successfully week after week for years, and "Not the Nine O'Clock News" before them, not to mention TW3 all the way back into the 1960s. You have to be careful, and do your targeting very carefully, which seems to me to be where TToI falls down. But your mileage may vary :)
Thing about comedy is, I think it has to be laughing at the powerful, or the threatening. So that's why it's fine to laugh at the politicians or the bombers, but would be beyond the pale to laugh at the victims.
Absolutely. Fundamentally my problem with TToI was that I didn't see any humour; there wasn't any laughing at the politicians, just them laughing at the victims. Thus, it gave me the same feeling of anger that a documentary with the same content would do - but that anger was directed towards a bunch of fictional characters I can't even refuse to vote for....
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 01:24 pm (UTC)Did you like Drop the Dead Donkey or Yes, Minister?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-30 08:39 pm (UTC)Yes, DtDD and YM were both extremely funny. Both shows dropped the ball on occasion, but even their most unfunny episodes didn't leave me offended and angry the way that TToI reliably seems to. The difference was that they actually appeared to be mocking the unpleasant views held by many of the characters, whereas TToI just seemed (to me) to be presenting them, like a documentary about the BNP.... (See my response to Neuromancer further up for more detail if you want it.)