“At the other end of the spectrum is Dan Ashcroft (Julian Barratt), a journalist who writes about the “idiots” and their fallacies. Much to his chagrin, he is a big hit with said idiots, Barley among them, who can’t seem to grasp the fact that he is writing about them. It’s not hard to see Dan as a stand-in for Morris: a world-weary writer who can’t quite believe that his work has been embraced by the very people that he set out to criticise. In fact, and argument can be made for Nathan Barley being the Charlie Brooker to Chris Morris’ Dan Ashcroft.”
To me it seems a little unfair and a bit of a weird stream of logic. What I get from that piece of writing is that the author doesn’t find Brooker’s work as worthy (if at all) as Morris’ with also the question what Brooker has done outside online stuff. I realize this was written pre-Screenwipe, but even then Brooker had done work in the media (comics and reviews in magazines and a radio show). Another problem I have with this piece is that it makes me wonder very hard, if Morris’ criticizes his followers of which Brooker is one and he finds Brooker an idiot, why does Morris choose to work with him on a series? I genuinely believe Morris liked Brooker and his work enough to try and make that series together with him.
I have to admit I’m a little surprised about Morris’ involvement and specifically about him willing to work with Brooker. I also think Brooker’s work is nothing compared to Morris’ work. But to say Brooker is Nathan Barley to Morris’ Dan Ashscroft goes too far.
On the other hand, like many others have noted, Ashcroft realizes he might be another idiot. If Morris’ is Ashcroft and realizes he’s another idiot, he might also find fewer objections in working with Brooker. However, looking back on the line of people Morris used to work with (the brilliant Armando Iannucci, Peter Baynhem, etc) I think it’s more to the point Morris’ saw potential in Brooker and the character Nathan Barley. I ask you, why would an idiot opt for another bigger idiot when he once knew brilliance? Even Dan Ashcroft doesn’t do that wilfully.
“With all the scene-setting out of the way, let’s move on to the merits of the show itself as a piece of entertainment. How much you get out of it will depend on how familiar you are with the sub-culture being satirised, because, when it comes down to it, there isn’t much else in the show.”
Besides dodgy punctuation, that piece is not true either; there’s more to it then the eye meets…apparently. At first sight it’s about the young trending media crowd. Look again and realize the weird hairdo’s and obnoxious gadgetry is not the aim. Like the author said before the aim are the unoriginal followers who quote while missing the point. Earlier on he wrote:
"If all this sounds familiar, then it should. In a sense, this would appear to be precisely the cult that have latched itself on to Morris’ work, proclaiming him to be a genius and the saviour of television. For many people, his work on The Day Today and Brass Eye was appealing simply because it was filled with off-beat, non-sequitur humour and controversial subject matter. In turn, these people tend to believe that, by parroting the same material, they too are being original and thought-provoking, completely missing the subtler political and social comments that Morris was making."
And now he says if only you know these types you’ll enjoy it, because the aim is so narrow. If you are willing to look beyond the superficial decorations you will find a richer base on which ridicule is made. If you find it funny is a different question.
Source: Home Cinema: DVD review
No comments:
Post a Comment