The lack of interest from Twitter made it harder to analyse the perception and reception from the viewers. The ones that were left were going to watch anyway, because they’re Carr/Mitchell/Brooker fans or some stray Laverne fans; nothing credible to go by (as if ever…). Though there were some people there dipping in their toes before moving back to Question Time. (Obviously @bbcqt is Question Time twitter) Overall Twitter gave a very mixed, incoherent and useless commentary.
The show started late like it had the first two weeks. I think this time they were about 8 minutes late. The first reactions were about Lauren Laverne’s hair. I don’t know what was up with her hair, because that never came through on Twitter. However, earlier that day Jimmy Carr tweeted a picture of her with curlers in her hair saying she had “hair from the future”. That might have something to do with it.
As good traditions do, the observations and commentary soon turned around and settled on the old topic of Charlie Brooker’s hair. Apparently, “his quif” was exceptionally high yesterday. Some liked it, but most were scared/unsettled/uncomfortable/confused and therefore left or fell asleep. This observing of his hair went on for about 15 minutes in which presumably Carr’s News round and Brooker’s pre-recorded quip were happening. I have no reference to what was happening since it wasn’t reported on Twitter and the show’s producers haven’t decided on a standard flow of events yet.
About 15 minutes in (10.22 pm) a load of confusion came through. Something happened what sounded like a “fuck up” by Brooker. Or maybe not, maybe it was planned? All I got to see were 40 tweets filled with question marks, exclamation marks, the name “Brooker”, the words “Fuck(ed) up” and in about 20 tweets the word “fake” was added. Let’s guess what happened:
1. Brooker choked on a piece of paper, but fortunately he only ate the words he had already spoken.
2. Brooker tripped over his “quif”, but fell comically which gave away it was an act.
3. The “quif” started to threat to take over the world, Brooker told it to shut up. (It was obviously scripted)
4. Brooker’s “quif” was reaching out for Laverne’s hairdo. A few pats on the head made it settle down, relatively.
After 40 tweets of confusion we returned to the regularly schemed non-specific and non-eventful twittering (here Twitter really lives up to its name). It was time for one of the Mitchell interviews. I’m guessing nothing much changed in his techniques, which isn’t good but people ceased to report on how his interviewees ran away with the interview. I’m concluding it couldn’t have been too bad this time. A complaint was that he was mixing up his facts which he’s done before in the other runs as well. I would be one of those people who can get quite irate over that, but since I’m pretty clueless about what happens in Britain I tend to not catch the little incorrectness’s. Still, freakingly annoying.
And then this was reported, or did I dream it? For the first time some advantage was taken from the aspect of being live. Did I read right that the possibility was given to phone in to discuss science with Carr and presumably with his guest? No idea if this was true, because I didn’t read any comments on callers.
To me it sounded like the quality of the show has not gone up much since episode two. The presenters however seemed more relaxed and some people believed the show was finally finding its feet. Still the subjects still didn’t get enough time to be properly explored and especially in the first half of the show a guy in the audience with a tiger jumper on attracted more attention than the subjects at hand.
Somewhere halfway through even me got bored and was longing for bed. Even though I was only half reading the tweets at that point I was still refreshing to get the latest 20 tweets in. Thirteen minutes before ending even Twitter seemed to have given up and refreshing resulted in the message: “No nearby Tweet results for #10oclocklive”. Oh dear.
I did manage to get Twitter to work properly just in time to register that the best jokes were made in the last minutes. A shame they made us wait so long.
Based on Twitter there’s no way I can make a good ranking for yesterday’s show. However, I have a little clue for the ranking:
1. Charlie Brooker: Still consistent, but mixed reactions. His pre-recorded stuff is usually received well. This format is not for him. Call for new series of Newswipe gets stronger.
2. David Mitchell: can’t actually do a proper interview, but his ‘Listen to Mitchell’/Soapbox piece tends to be a high point for the show.
3. Jimmy Carr: Reasonably consistent though his News round was not as topical as the other two shows according to someone. I think I lifted that from the below first article. He just doesn’t stand out enough.
4. Lauren Laverne: Good presenter, but pointless in this format. She’s not very good at the comedy stuff.
I’m hesitant to put Brooker on top, but considered he’s the only one so far who didn’t make a complete twat of himself in this show yet, leaves him still at the top. Also the fact that I know ‘Live’ is not his thing adds to his points if I was giving out points which I’m not.
I bumped Mitchell up, because his soapbox thing tends to pull the quality up, be it for 5 minutes, but still. Jimmy Carr has not done such thing, though he’s rather good at the table when they come together for… what exactly?
Last and unfortunately least, Lauren Laverne can’t seem to lift her contribution from the ‘token woman’ level. I honestly feel sorry for her, because I’m convinced she’s a good presenter and reasonably smart. This is certainly not the right vehicle for her.
Leaves me to question why these four people have been selected to do this. I can half answer that: For the Alternative Election Night show that was the line-up you want. The concept was partly and obviously lifted from that night. Unfortunately for them, the elections are over and they can’t deal with a normal week’s news. (I am convinced Brooker can, but his newswipe like segments fall somewhat flat somehow)
I do have some complaints of my own: The promo said this was going to be:
“a fresh and unashamedly intelligent take on current affairs from a young perspective.”
1. It’s not fresh; this has been done in many forms at many times more successfully.
2. It’s not that intelligent; half of the time people leave feeling talked down to and it’s not as insightful and high brow to be called intelligent or satire. Might have something to do with the pace and interviews being cut short.
3. If the “young perspective” means whooping and booing I don’t want to be young anymore. It also doesn’t add to the “intelligent” -take, rather to the dumb run-along-take.
4. The “intelligent” thing really gets me annoyed for several reasons:
a. It’s not that intelligent and I’m not completely ignorant.
b. I honestly believe all four of them are more intelligent than loads of the jokes have been. They could have gotten more out of the subjects than they have.
c. Even though I don’t mind swearing, it’s not per se funny. If it doesn’t add anything I’d rather not have them swearing, cause it’s just swearing and dumbs down. Then again, the audience seems to love it. Cheap laughs.
5. The only thing it is is “unashamed”, which is not necessarily a good thing.
It seems my analysis becomes lengthier every week. I think it has everything to do with a deep fear this thing will kill both Brooker’s and Mitchell’s career. I’m not convinced it will, I think if this one fails they could bounce back from it. Especially for Brooker it’s a bit of a painful thing considered his CV so far looked incredibly pretty.
I don’t care enough for Carr or Laverne to be afraid for them. I only feel sorry for them for many reasons. And who could hurt Jimmy Carr’s career more than Jimmy Carr?
…BTW, who is Lauren Laverne?...
Here is a more coherent piece and advice:
Six Ways to Fix 10 O’Clock Live
And here’s a nice titbit about which links from external websites were used for episode 3:
Extra links: episode 3
Gotta love that picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment