Over the weekend, actually Friday, I watched the 3rd episode of ’10 O’Clock Live’. For the first two episodes I didn’t write a proper review, because the Twitter feed gave me enough information on how things were going. Beside that, there were already good reviews available by people who are more skilled in writing and program reviewing than me. The reasons I choose to write a review for this episode is that my Twitter response review didn’t really say much about the show and was inaccurate on several accounts. I feel I should address what actually happened rather than what Twitter said that happened, or neglected to say what happened.
I’m not going to review it chronological, because I can’t remember the order everything happened in and it would just be boring if I discussed every single item/piece separately. For my comfort and other purposes I’m going to review it per presenter. This will also help in giving valid arguments for the ranking of the presenters. But to keep my reviewing traditionally confusing I will start with what happened next and with who has his first piece.
The show starts with the four of them planted on and around a desk stating their names and one of them reminding you what show you stumble upon. This has been like this since episode 2 and makes me miss the start of episode 1. In episode 1 the camera was first aimed at David Mitchell sitting on a desk stating his name then moving to Charlie Brooker just walking away from his spot and stating his name to Jimmy Carr just walking away from his desk stating his name and finally ending its round on Lauren Laverne standing somewhere stating her name. When the camera zooms out the gentlemen will have arrived in a line next to Laverne and someone announced which show you were watching. Cue theme music. I loved the coordination it required, but maybe that’s just my weird mind.
Like every week they started around the table telling us what we could expect of the show this week. Lauren Laverne typically leads this conversation touching on every subject each of the presenters will present with the 3 gentlemen chipping in on their contribution with a funny line. Laverne is last to say what she’s going to contribute.
The first item always is the News round of that week presented in stand-up form by Jimmy Carr. One liners and predictable (edgy) jokes as can be expected from Carr. Usually I’m not a big fan of Carr’s work; I don’t find it very smart or funny. To me it always feels like easy shots at easy targets. His News round in episode 3 is a good example of what he does. I must admit I did laugh at his round in episode 2.
Next to the News round Jimmy usually does 1 sketch and 1 interview. Much has been said about sketches and interviews, usually aimed at Laverne (sketch wise) and Mitchell (interview wise).
Compared to Laverne Carr is obviously a comedian which you can tell when you compare his execution to Laverne’s execution of sketches. Even though he does better than Laverne, I usually don’t like his sketches much. I’m not sure it has anything to do with the lame jokes he gets to make or with his delivery; probably with both I think.
His interview techniques are less obviously bad compared to Mitchell’s, mainly because he doesn’t get to do the big interviews. It’s still not very pleasing though. What seem to be lacking is him listening and the interview going into depth. What it overbears are, once again, lame jokes. I find his jokes more bearable than in his News round, so that’s not exactly why I don’t care for his interviews. Maybe it has something to do with the interview not touching on really interesting stuff. Thinking back at his 3rd episode interview…To be honest, I don’t even remember that interview anymore; can’t have been very exciting.
Charlie Brooker was up next in episode 3. Next to his monologues he doesn’t seem to be contributing to the show much more, though in episode 3 he did a sketch like thing with Laverne which was actually excellent. In that sketch he showed what he is capable of, that he is more a performer than he always says he is. Even after watching it countless times it’s as convincing as the first time and an absolute joy to watch.
His monologues, no matter how small, are usually the funniest thing about the show. Unfortunately, it does remind us a lot of Newswipe and makes us wish he would make a new series of that rather than the small titbits he does for ’10 O’Clock Live’. Unlike in episode 1 he does all his stuff live though it did reduce his contribution somewhat. In episode 1 he had a pre-recorded piece about Sarah Palin next to a live monologue about Tunesia. The only negative about Brooker is his lack of contribution at the table when they’re sitting down together.
This morning I took part in a survey about the show. One of the questions was who I thought was the most important contributor. I answered David Mitchell, because he does the big interviews. That doesn’t mean I like those contributions. Watching him getting grilled rather than his interviewees is cringy. It could be a great part of the show if only they would figure out the balance between seriousness and comedy. It can be done, only Mitchell hasn’t found out how. Neither does he show real leadership which you have to as an interviewer. Interviewees easily run away with the interview leaving Mitchell looking lost and beaten. I’m suspecting he’s a bit too preoccupied with his questions and trying to lead the interview to be sharp and truly witty like he can be.
I’ve said this before and I repeat it here; David Mitchell is not a host/presenter/interviewer. As a panellist he’s the best you can get. He needs the freedom to run free and kick around. As an interviewer you don’t have that freedom and you can only kick around in a confined space.
Lauren Laverne is still a weird choice to me. Even though she might be a great presenter, in this format she has not much to offer. She’s not a comedienne and she’s not an (comedic) actress which goes to show quickly. A good example is the piece around the table about Rebranding Ed Miliband. For good measure some jokes were thrown in, in her explanation what was going on, but all it evoked were blank stares and some polite muffled laughter. Must be said that the 3 gentlemen didn’t really help; I was mainly laughing at their blank stares. It might have had something to do with the subject; any conversation about Ed Miliband seems to end up just as dusty as the subject itself.
Yet her sketches don’t go very well either. It’s simply not funny, badly delivered and just not funny. Her guidance around the table is not much funnier either. Just not funny.
Overall I think the show is slowly finding its feet. Yet the feeling remains the show is missing something. I’ve been complaining about the level of intelligence, but I think they pulled that up, though still not completely satisfied. I think the show could be funnier and I’m missing the satire. And last, the show still skips around ego’s which doesn’t seem to merge very well. The magic is not quite there. Somewhere an advantage is left unchallenged.
Still quite a crap review with all things already said in better ways by many others. Sorry for hogging your time.
In my next blog I’m going to write about some ideas to make things better.
No comments:
Post a Comment