I wish they at least do the round table pieces like described in this alternative (comedy) view.
I pasted the whole thing here, because I don't want to lose it to corrupt links:
Lauren Laverne: It's 10 o'clock. We're live on Channel 4. Welcome to 10 o'Clock Live! This is one of the few times you'll see me this evening, so make the most of it. Get a load of my funky outfit and check out what hair and make-up have done with my look tonight!
(Cue opening credits)
LL, DAVID MITCHELL, CHARLIE BROOKER and JIMMY CARR sitting round a table, looking uncomfortable
LL: Well guys, this is the bit where you talk about all the exciting things you'll be doing tonight, and I try not to look like a spare part.
CB: I'll tell you which news item of the week I'll be having a rant about in a carefully pre-prepared segment. Actually, I could be saying burble, bibble, booble right now and you wouldn't care. You're just wondering if my quiff is higher or lower than last week, aren't you?
JC: I'll make a nervous joke because you big bullies make me go first every week and my nerves are shredded.
DM: I'm the only one of us the producers actually trust with hard news, so yet again this week I'll be talking to some Mildly Important People about Very Important Issues and getting cut off just as things get interesting.
LL: I'm off to fetch you hard-working men some tea and biscuits! Here's Jimmy with a review of the news.
JC: Yes, this is the part of the show people on Twitter love to slag off because some of the news I review is more than 24 hours old. Nobody ever says that about the BBC's "special reports", do they? Anyway, these are the stories I can be funny about. So long as I don't get too nervous and screw up my timing, that is. And so long as the audience aren't too dense or too liberal to leave big, awkward silences after the dodgier cracks. David.
DM: Thanks, Jimmy. (Clears throat) And welcome to the studio, Mildly Important Person. I'm now going to ask you a series of questions the producers have written down for me on cue cards. Which is a bit of a pain, to be honest, because it means everyone at home can see my hands trembling, so they and you know how nervous I am. (Clears throat) Also, things go so much better when I put the cards down and interject with a thought of my own. Oh, sorry, we've got to leave it there. It's time for a vaguely amusing sketch before the interval.
(Vaguely amusing sketch; during which LL brings the boys refreshments and introduces the ad break)
CB: (Waves unenthusiastically) Hello. This week, something really funny, odd and/or offensive happened. I'm here to tell you, in much the same acerbic style as my acerbic newspaper columns and acerbic TV shows, how that thing is just the tip of a hyperbolic iceberg! And now, it's time for Listen to Mitchell!
DM: I love this bit. It's just like my iPhone app, David Mitchell's Soapbox, so it's the one part of the show where I don't look like a deer caught in headlights. I get to perch on a stool and have a bit of a rant. Which is just what the audience needs after Charlie's rant. Jimmy.
JC: I also have a degree from Cambridge but I only get to interview sweet, decent, second-string guests and make fun of what they say. Well, there's no point in taking any of it seriously, is there? As soon as a guest makes a hint of a challenging statement, we have to cut to one of those excruciating sketches the producers are hell-bent on shoehorning in. Speaking of which, here's a sketch that's marginally less funny than the last one - this time starring Lauren Laverne! Well, she's being paid, she might as well do something…
(Marginally less funny sketch starring Lauren Laverne; ad break)
DM: (Clears throat) Welcome back. Joining me to discuss one of the Major Issues of the day are a Tory, a non-Tory and a token woman. No, not Lauren Laverne. Though I see what you did there. (Clears throat) Mr Tory, give us your opinion of the Major Issue, please.
TORY: Good evening. My take on all this is…
LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss! (Mocking laughter)
NON-TORY: I completely disagree with everything you just said. Including "Good evening."
LIBERAL AUDIENCE: (Liberal applause)
TORY: But I didn't get to say anyth-
LIBERAL AUDIENCE: Boo! Hiss!
DM: Token woman, would you like to have your say before a pundit gets lynched or the floor manager tells us we have to "leave it there"? Oh, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Time for one more sketch before we go. Come on, people, don't groan. The hour's nearly up.
Final sketch (we hope)
LL, CB, DM and JC sitting round a table, looking relieved
LL: So, why don't you clever boys tell me how work was?
JC: Well, I hope some of the jokes I told tonight made some of my Twitter haters laugh. Even if they'll never admit it.
CB: I think I might have pulled my over-exaggeration muscle.
DM: I have a nice, middle-of-the-road opinion on today's Major Issue. Oh, why can't people just take the time to talk, and then listen to each other? The world would be -
LL: I'm sorry, David, I have to stop you there. And I'm afraid the extra three seconds we gave you to wind up your interview with the Mildly Important Person means we've no time to preview tomorrow's front pages. Tune in next week to see if we've ditched those godawful sketches, if David can get through an intro without clearing his throat, and if the producers finally find something useful for me to do. Good night, everyone!
(Cue closing credits)
Friday, February 25, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - Ed Miliband / Peep Show Piece
The f-yeah-CB site is quick; they already have the piece up. Yeah, was funny; I cracked a smile.
I'll see if I can find a YT-vid for it.
*A few seconds later* Nope,nope, no such luck.
I'll see if I can find a YT-vid for it.
*A few seconds later* Nope,nope, no such luck.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 6
You might have noticed I didn’t do a preview, but if you insist on reading a preview, still, you can go here. I can tell you, you’re not going to get a Twitter review from me. Yesterday around “10 O’Clock Live” time, I went to bed and played a game or two on my mobile phone.
I did however read up this morning, just to check how the show yesterday was received. So far just dark clouds and a bit of rain. Sure no sunshine. Apparently, yesterday was not much good, like last week’s show. Episode 5 (from last week), I didn’t even find in the usual places giving me the impression most people have given up on the show. I’m afraid it’ll go the same for episode 6.
The only review you can find is the Metro review. All the others have given up. Even talk on the forums are slowly drying up. Most discussion can be found on CaB and some on the BCG forum.
By the sounds of it, they narrowed their demographic down to 18-25; that’s definitely not me. I think from now on I will rest happily in my bed when the show is on. Not caring at the ill executed half-baked jokes they unashamedly dare call intelligent. I just don’t feel the need to get disappointed any more.
I will try to find the Miliband/Peep show piece. From what I read, that was ‘ace’.
I did however read up this morning, just to check how the show yesterday was received. So far just dark clouds and a bit of rain. Sure no sunshine. Apparently, yesterday was not much good, like last week’s show. Episode 5 (from last week), I didn’t even find in the usual places giving me the impression most people have given up on the show. I’m afraid it’ll go the same for episode 6.
The only review you can find is the Metro review. All the others have given up. Even talk on the forums are slowly drying up. Most discussion can be found on CaB and some on the BCG forum.
By the sounds of it, they narrowed their demographic down to 18-25; that’s definitely not me. I think from now on I will rest happily in my bed when the show is on. Not caring at the ill executed half-baked jokes they unashamedly dare call intelligent. I just don’t feel the need to get disappointed any more.
I will try to find the Miliband/Peep show piece. From what I read, that was ‘ace’.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
'LUCKY CHUCK FUCKS MUCKY HUQ'
I love this forum. The title of this blog is a quote from the forum.
Now I feel obliged to check out Chris Morris' work propperly. I feel like an incredible git for not having done that yet.
Now I feel obliged to check out Chris Morris' work propperly. I feel like an incredible git for not having done that yet.
"10 O'Clock Live" - Sexism?
The article given as a source for this blog tickled my fingers to explain why all the criticism isn’t sexist, but a reflection on how she has handled her role within the team.
What I think happens here is that the program makers felt that next to all the testosterone and comedy skills they needed 1) a female and 2) someone with actual presenting (live) shows skills. They figured it would be easiest to find a female with said skills; as it were a 2 in 1. That left them with the problem that she wasn’t as “funny” as the males, that she was female and that they didn’t quite know how they wanted to apply her skills to the overly comedy format. As with a lot of things, Laverne’s involvement of the show and how she is perceived has to suffer under the sum of the mentioned problems.
I have to explain, the ‘being a female’ problem has not much to do with misconceptions that females are more stupid or less “funny” and less skilled than males, but rather that the question of sexism and the phrase ‘token female’ would soon raise its ugly heads.
They really tried to give Laverne a good sensible and fleshed out part in the show. It turned out she wasn’t very funny. It turned out she wasn’t as quick and witty as the guys and she had trouble with the delivery overall, which I think has much to do with the pressure of the word ‘comedy’; Laverne seems to feel the pressure to be moderately funny. Maybe if she stops trying so desperately, she might actually make an impression; not as a funny person, but with the skills she obviously has. Her contributions so far haven’t given any reason to extent her contributions to the show.
Even the criticism I read from reviewers and bloggers alike; the point of Laverne is missed. What was missed was a clear role for Laverne. With the missing of that clear role, her skills drowned in the things she wasn’t very good at. That didn’t reflect well on her. It had not much to do with sexism, because we really wanted her to do well.
In some cases it might have been a bit of sexism, of a perceived and expected sexism, because that is what we tend to expect, isn’t it? The combination of Laverne with the gentlemen was always an odd one. It didn’t help the perception she was only there to be pretty. I think if someone else, maybe less attractive and funnier, the question of sexism wouldn’t have been raised by so many. Keeping that in mind, it does look like sexism in Laverne’s case, but is it really? I’ve seen the question raised more often than the statement; “Is Lauren Laverne the token girl?”
It’s not to say the failing of the show so far has been her fault entirely; it hasn’t. She didn’t help to raise the bar though. When we compare her contributions to the ones of the gentlemen we can safely say David Mitchell has a clear and strong contribution, as has Charlie Brooker in a lesser extent. It is also noted that Jimmy Carr’s contribution hasn’t been very successful, but he did make a few ‘ok’ jokes and a few good points around the table during discussions. Laverne has not done any of that. Not because she’s the token female, but because she simply hasn’t, whatever the reasons.
I still come away with the impression she’s a fairly intelligent person with good presentation skills. I have these impressions because of what people have said about her online. Many people have said that. That doesn’t sound like sexism, does it?
Of course there have been people making sexist remarks, but you’ll always have those, especially on a medium that is as open as the Internet. But to say most criticism towards Laverne has been sexist, I think is not true.
Though I agree, describing Lauren Laverne as ‘the token woman’ isn’t very good journalism, but so far she hasn’t done anything to get rid of that title. A lot of us just expected more from her.
Source: Sexism in Disguise?
What I think happens here is that the program makers felt that next to all the testosterone and comedy skills they needed 1) a female and 2) someone with actual presenting (live) shows skills. They figured it would be easiest to find a female with said skills; as it were a 2 in 1. That left them with the problem that she wasn’t as “funny” as the males, that she was female and that they didn’t quite know how they wanted to apply her skills to the overly comedy format. As with a lot of things, Laverne’s involvement of the show and how she is perceived has to suffer under the sum of the mentioned problems.
I have to explain, the ‘being a female’ problem has not much to do with misconceptions that females are more stupid or less “funny” and less skilled than males, but rather that the question of sexism and the phrase ‘token female’ would soon raise its ugly heads.
They really tried to give Laverne a good sensible and fleshed out part in the show. It turned out she wasn’t very funny. It turned out she wasn’t as quick and witty as the guys and she had trouble with the delivery overall, which I think has much to do with the pressure of the word ‘comedy’; Laverne seems to feel the pressure to be moderately funny. Maybe if she stops trying so desperately, she might actually make an impression; not as a funny person, but with the skills she obviously has. Her contributions so far haven’t given any reason to extent her contributions to the show.
Even the criticism I read from reviewers and bloggers alike; the point of Laverne is missed. What was missed was a clear role for Laverne. With the missing of that clear role, her skills drowned in the things she wasn’t very good at. That didn’t reflect well on her. It had not much to do with sexism, because we really wanted her to do well.
In some cases it might have been a bit of sexism, of a perceived and expected sexism, because that is what we tend to expect, isn’t it? The combination of Laverne with the gentlemen was always an odd one. It didn’t help the perception she was only there to be pretty. I think if someone else, maybe less attractive and funnier, the question of sexism wouldn’t have been raised by so many. Keeping that in mind, it does look like sexism in Laverne’s case, but is it really? I’ve seen the question raised more often than the statement; “Is Lauren Laverne the token girl?”
It’s not to say the failing of the show so far has been her fault entirely; it hasn’t. She didn’t help to raise the bar though. When we compare her contributions to the ones of the gentlemen we can safely say David Mitchell has a clear and strong contribution, as has Charlie Brooker in a lesser extent. It is also noted that Jimmy Carr’s contribution hasn’t been very successful, but he did make a few ‘ok’ jokes and a few good points around the table during discussions. Laverne has not done any of that. Not because she’s the token female, but because she simply hasn’t, whatever the reasons.
I still come away with the impression she’s a fairly intelligent person with good presentation skills. I have these impressions because of what people have said about her online. Many people have said that. That doesn’t sound like sexism, does it?
Of course there have been people making sexist remarks, but you’ll always have those, especially on a medium that is as open as the Internet. But to say most criticism towards Laverne has been sexist, I think is not true.
Though I agree, describing Lauren Laverne as ‘the token woman’ isn’t very good journalism, but so far she hasn’t done anything to get rid of that title. A lot of us just expected more from her.
Source: Sexism in Disguise?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" vs "De Wereld Draait Door"
Today I tuned in to one of my favourite Dutch programs and I realized they are actually doing what those Brits with the "10 O'Clock Live" show are trying to do. "De Wereld Draait Door" or in short DWDD is a Dutch current affairs program that goes out every work day and is live for 45 minutes, and has been very succesful for the last nearly 10 years. They're not suffering from most of the stuff "10 O'Clock Live" suffers from. They're entertaining, amusing, informative and actually intelligent. The only thing they do also suffer from is the main left wing leaning. Still, though not as annyong as on "10 O'Clock Live".
I'd like to suggest the "10 O'Clock Live" makers should take a look at that. It might give them ideas. I'm even willing to translate.
DWDD's wiki page. The page is in Dutch, but once again, I am willing to translate. And the official website.
I'd like to suggest the "10 O'Clock Live" makers should take a look at that. It might give them ideas. I'm even willing to translate.
DWDD's wiki page. The page is in Dutch, but once again, I am willing to translate. And the official website.
Monday, February 21, 2011
"10 O'Clock Live" - Episode 5 Review
Nope nope, I definately lost some interest in '10 O'Clock Live'. This afternoon I decided I should watch episode 5 again to form a full opinion of my own. Concentration wise I managed to get through Jimmy Carr's News round; then I lost concentration.
I can say a few things concerning the News round. Jimmy Carr seemed even less comfortable and confident about his round this week. He stumbled through the jokes. He allowed too long pauses waiting for laughs that didn't come and even tried egging the audience on to laugh after almost every failed joke. I'm guessing the reason the audience wasn't laughing was because the jokes weren't funny and not even remotely smart.
Then on to Charlie Brooker's (first) monologue (I know I witnessed 2 CB monologues, but I can't even remember the first monologue). The one I can remember, slightly is the Berlusconi monologue, which was an easy target with even easier jokes. I'm less impressed with CB each week, it seems. Hmmm....
After CB it's David Mitchell's turn to turn my interest off. I honestly don't remember anything of his rant except that it was slightly better than CB's.
It seems Lauren Laverne's role has been even further reduced to linking a bit and spouting out unane things. However, this week she and Jimmy Carr hosted an interview with a 'Freakoconomics'. Laverne taking the lead with Carr backing her up. That was where I left off playing with the cats to write down my first impressions of ep 5.
So I blew it. I only have a very vague idea of what 'freakonomics' is. What I do know is that they let the guy talk with minimum (joke) interuptions. I did like that. Then I lost interest again.
While watching I did make some more notes, but I couldn't be arsed to write them down or remember them. The only thing I remember is that I absolutely hate the sketches. I think Carr did two and Laverne did well. So there you got it.
The ranking I did this afternoon (or a few blogs earlier) was mainly a rating based on episode 4. I'm not sure I can say anything sensible about the ratings drawn from my own experience of episode 5. But this will be it:
1) David Mitchell
2) Charlie Brooker
3) Jimmy Carr (my gawd, he was stumbling last thursday)
4) Lauren Laverne
I can say a few things concerning the News round. Jimmy Carr seemed even less comfortable and confident about his round this week. He stumbled through the jokes. He allowed too long pauses waiting for laughs that didn't come and even tried egging the audience on to laugh after almost every failed joke. I'm guessing the reason the audience wasn't laughing was because the jokes weren't funny and not even remotely smart.
Then on to Charlie Brooker's (first) monologue (I know I witnessed 2 CB monologues, but I can't even remember the first monologue). The one I can remember, slightly is the Berlusconi monologue, which was an easy target with even easier jokes. I'm less impressed with CB each week, it seems. Hmmm....
After CB it's David Mitchell's turn to turn my interest off. I honestly don't remember anything of his rant except that it was slightly better than CB's.
It seems Lauren Laverne's role has been even further reduced to linking a bit and spouting out unane things. However, this week she and Jimmy Carr hosted an interview with a 'Freakoconomics'. Laverne taking the lead with Carr backing her up. That was where I left off playing with the cats to write down my first impressions of ep 5.
So I blew it. I only have a very vague idea of what 'freakonomics' is. What I do know is that they let the guy talk with minimum (joke) interuptions. I did like that. Then I lost interest again.
While watching I did make some more notes, but I couldn't be arsed to write them down or remember them. The only thing I remember is that I absolutely hate the sketches. I think Carr did two and Laverne did well. So there you got it.
The ranking I did this afternoon (or a few blogs earlier) was mainly a rating based on episode 4. I'm not sure I can say anything sensible about the ratings drawn from my own experience of episode 5. But this will be it:
1) David Mitchell
2) Charlie Brooker
3) Jimmy Carr (my gawd, he was stumbling last thursday)
4) Lauren Laverne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)