What do we do about comedy? Seriously?
It's a question much on the minds of mandarins and networkies everywhere. This season, we've already had a half hour, How I Met Your Mother, that's noteworthy for the fact that a show that's marginal-at-best can be seriously overpraised now, just cause the field is so anemic. A couple years ago, Two and a Half Men filled that psychic sweet spot. The reality is that the mighty half-hour comedy engine has been sputtering diesel oil and PCB's for several seasons now.
There are shows that solidly deliver laughs, of course...Scrubs, for one. Nobody's really watching. Arrested was a gutbuster. Ditto. There's Earl and The Office staking out Thursdays on NBC, but they're a long way in the ratings from those glory days of Cheers and Seinfeld. Now, Will & Grace is gone too.
In Canada, it's worse. Corner Gas. Maybe Trailer Park Boys. That's it. Jerry Seinfeld once famously observed, "I'm not sure comedy wants to be a movie." Well, it certainly doesn't seem to be too horny for TV these days, either.
So out of this comes a vague hope: ape Curb. Bravo in the U.S. had a bit of luck with Significant Others -- a show I haven't seen -- so the new rage is partially scripted. Hey, why not? The shows aren't working. Must be all the writers. Let's throw them out and see how we do.
Except, of course, Larry David is a writer. Some might be cheeky and say the writer. I've never been as much of a fan of Curb as some, but there's no denying that it's funny. That ensemble is talented, and tight. I'm not sure it's a trend that can transfer -- and even if it can, it's not the magic bullet to cure comedy. Anyone who's suffered through an entire improv "show" can tell you that.
So now a couple of mid-season U.S. shows are clinging to the partially scripted come on as a possible defribulator -- a much needed shock-to-the-heart of the moribund state of television comedy in North America.
How are they doing?
Well the first two candidates are Free Ride and Sons & Daughters. I must say that the promos for Sons & Daughters are certainly funny. But FOX got out of the gate first with its semi-scripted Free Ride, which bowed last night after American Idol -- predictably, to great post-Idol ratings. Ryan Seacrest, ladies and gentleman -- the most important tastemaker in America. Brrrrr.
Free Ride doesn't have anything close to an original premise: guy returns from college and moves back in with his parents, whilst trying to romance a high school crush who's recently engaged. Shades of Ed, Garden State, Get a Life, and half a dozen other workmanlike concepts through the years. He's got a jerky mullet-headed sidekick, much mirth is made of his parents' attempts to have sex and get along. The whole thing actually comes off as reasonably joyless -- and that's with a very likable cast trying really hard. Josh Dean and Erin Cahill are cute, and diverting. And the shaggy rhythm of improvisation means that it's not labored like the worst of the clone-sitcoms we've seen for the last few years. But as for the central conceit, there's a commercial that runs here right now in Ontario that covers the same ground: old parents redecorate their sons' bedroom, throw out all his cool stuff, and put up a moose head. Turns out he loves it. He sits down to dinner with them and this old woman walks out of nowhere and rasps in this death-rattle voice: "Want your kids to leave home? Stop cooking with cheese!"
That commercial is funnier than this whole series. That's sad.
The series inherits the post-Family Guy slot Sundays starting March 12, but seeing that's also S-Day in my household, I think the likelihood of this show getting another click from me is pretty low. Only the first ride is free, guys. (Oh, see what I did there? Yes he did. He went there. Snap.)
In Canada, we had our own cute and shaggy little post-Idol carpetbagger, Jeff Ltd. which is written by and stars Jeff Seymour.
I don't know how much improv was involved in this show. It's possible, since the star also is the scriptwriter -- something that always sets off little alarm bells for me. But it's certainly not trying to run with the partially scripted ball like Free Ride, Sons & Daughters, or Curb.
This show is a bit more problematic. I want to be a cheerleader for my industry and local talent, I really do, but sadly the best thing I can say about Jeff Ltd. is that it's directed pretty well: there's a nice, crisp movement to Steve DiMarco's camera that makes me want to see more from him. I've seen comedy killed in Canada by bad direction. This is not that.
No, this is exactly the thing that you have to come to expect when an actor overextends himself. Jeff Seymour's a good performer, and he can be magnetic. But not in this show. Why not? He's got no character. There's nothing to suggest why you should watch this guy, like him, hate him, care what happens for him, wish for him to succeed, or root for him to fail.
You know how Larry David on Curb often starts out with the best of intentions, and then it all goes to hell and that's why it's funny?
Well, Jeff in Jeff Ltd. is a marketing guy. He's venal, shallow, opportunistic, with a huge ego. He's driven by greed and lust. Sounds good so far, right? He's got a female partner/co-worker. How does she feel about him? Vague disapproval, but ... otherwise unclear. He's got a sidekick, but...well, that's unclear, too. He casts an Eastern European stripper in a World Food Organization ad and sleeps with her. At the same time, he's trying to romance a teacher who teaches at the Catholic girls' school across the street. Just so you get that Jeff's a bit of a cad, there's a couple of scenes of him checking out the schoolgirls' short skirts. In the end, the teacher catches him fucking the stripper on a hood of a car. She drives off horrified, and he runs after her...
...but...why? You know? I mean, there's nothing that's been put out there to tell you why he actually cares about this woman. Why would he bother chasing after her? Why do his co-workers act the way they do? Why don't they have characters? Why is no one allowed to outshine or upstage Jeff, even for a moment? And why should we care about Jeff, even for a second, when he shows no redeeming or even interesting qualities whatsoever?
Does that sound harsh? I don't mean it to be. But watching this pilot, I was just shocked by the number of easy, clarifying fixes that could have made the thing funnier and clearer, that were just missed opportunities. If the female co-worker had been Jeff's boss, then he would have had to scheme without her catching on. There's a hint of that in there still, but it doesn't go far enough. What's the stake? Beats me. This is sometimes the blind spot that actors bring to actor-driven projects. They assume that if they're a compelling enough performer, that the viewer will just fall into line and love them. But that's not the way it works. It's understandable if you come from the school where "you create the character you play." But the character, like it or not, has to exist on the page before you pick up and imbue them with life. That's the common thing that both these semi-scripted shows, and Jeff Ltd. seems to miss.
A character who's slightly unlikable but still compelling? See, that kind of character is a real trick to pull off. Steve Carell and Ricky Gervais pull it off in their respective flavours of The Office because you see the loneliness and need lurking just underneath the surface. Larry on Curb is at least trying to do the right thing --sometimes.
Recently, I've been watching back one of those legendary old comedy series that never caught on but everyone still talks about: Buffalo Bill. At the time, Dabney Coleman's character was considered just too mean. (Now, of course, Hugh Laurie's Dr. House would have him for lunch and cure his ball cancer too -- probably while inducing a therpeutic heart attack.) You know the genre's in trouble when the funniest characters are on Drama shows.
Even in Buffalo Bill there's a window in. Because though he's a cad, he's got the love of Joanna Cassidy's character, JoJo...he's got admiration from a very young Geena Davis, and that other actor who did the voice of Piglet back in the day. See? He may seem like he's a jerk, but these other people see something in him...so there must be something else going on there.
Go back to the well on Cheers and in that first episode, you've got a tough sell. Sam Malone is a womanizing, ex-baseball player, alcoholic who owns a bar. But you know what? By the end of that first episode you see how much he loves Coach, how loyal he is to Carla, and he's even decent to Diane when her fiance leaves her high and dry. That's why you want to come back.
It's not enough to ask us to care about characters because they're the leads in your series. What is the world? Who are the people in it? How do they feel about each other? And why do I want to go back there again? Ultimately, by the end of Free Ride and Jeff Ltd. none of those questions are answered. And that's why I don't want to go back.
This is about the time that I'd get depressed. Luckily, in the last couple of weeks, I've read a couple of half-hour series scripts that are either shooting or on the verge of (hopefully) going into production -- and these scripts have heard. They hit all those points. You see the world, you get the relationships, and you want to come back. It can be done.
Improv isn't the answer, and neither is widening the auteur theory to include Actors. The answer is writing. Heartfelt, funny, well-drawn characters. A solid template. A believable world. An engaging premise.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
But that's just me.
I could be wrong.
12 comments:
Sons & Daughters IS quite good, even if its tone is a little more Freaks and Geeks than Arrested Development (less wacky farce, more "heart" moments).
But my understanding is that S&D DOES have a writing staff, which comes up with a story arc for every episode, plus a few choice lines. Then the actors are given free reign. BUT. The writers are on set to pitch lines if the process hits a brick wall.
It all sounds too complicated.
And I think HIMYM gets overpraised (and I genuinely LIKE the show) because. . .
1.) the performers go out of their way to elevate the material (though I think the jokes and plot constructions have gotten sharper as the series has gone on)
2.) the series is the first pitched at those who were born(roughly) between 1975 and 1990. We're so goddamn sick of the baby boomers we'll take anything.
3.) That acronym is just great!
HIMYM is a show I can take or leave, but I think it has the right parts to grow into something better.
Also, have you seen Everybody Hates Chris? That show's world (though I love it) may be TOO specific. Actually, that might be part of the problem of some of these other shows. The audience is so splintered that anything that specific is doomed.
I'm rambling.
Both my wife and I laughed out loud quite a few times during JEFF LTD., which is all I ask from my comedy.
I definately was impressed and liked the show.
Was a little put off by the location and set, but once I get used to it I won't care.
Call me lowbrow, but "Kenny vs. Spenny" makes me cackle out loud.
Well, I liked Jeff Ltd.. It made me laugh out loud several times -- and I don't like comedies. Give it a few more eps to find its voice, its footing, Denis. I don't think this one's a hopeless case.
Wow you must be terrified of loosing your job to improvisors if your actualy going to say "the pilot wasn't really funny so I won't watch anymore".
Did you see the pilot for the American version of The Office? That was horrible. As a matter of fact, most pilots aren't that good. They have a lot to do in a half hour.
As a matter of fact, didn't you watch a few episodes of Three Kings after seeing the pilot?
Todd:
Yes, Sons & Daughters and Free Ride both do have writing staffs that work exactly as you described. That's why they're called "partially scripted."
I'm not sure if it's too complicated - but the impulse to go to this as the 'savior' of TV comedy is, to me, a false lead. Yes -- occasionally a little improvisation will get you to a place that's great. But you need very special actors -- like the ensemble Chris Guest brings to his movies. You could also get to a good place by focusing on better writing.
I also gotta quibble with your categorization of those born between 1975 and 90 as the first ones to be sick of the baby boomers. You're stealing my light there, slick.
Jutra and Kelly : I'm glad you liked Jeff Ltd. Just cause it's not my cup of tea doesn't mean I don't hope that it doesn't do well. A few more homegrown hits will be good for everybody here. And I also don't want to leave the impression that I didn't think anything in the pilot wasn't funny. There were certainly funny moments. But to me, that's all they were: moments.
And dear old Whaledawg -- fast becoming Dead Things Labs favorite contrarian. First, I dispute your contention that the Pilot for the American Office sucked. I've watched it in a side by side comparison with the British pilot recently, and the truth is that there are moments where it's clearly better. Even Gervais has admitted that. Especially in the way the U.S. version kicks off the Jim/Pam romance. Way stronger.
Pilots for shows are certainly usually not among the strongest episodes -- but the whole point is that successful ones show the elements that will lead to the show's success. Friends' pilot was not the funniest, but it did hint at the formula. The Pilot for Cheers, again, not the funniest ep -- but representative of where they're going to go. The Simpsons Christmas Special that preceded the series was rough indeed - but the charm of the concept was on full display.
It's possible that I will dip into Jeff again, just cause I'm likely to see Actors I know, and as a local show, I'll give it the hometime try one more time.
But the difference between Free Ride and Four Kings is instructive. Free Ride isn't really anything that's trying to be bold. Whereas Four Kings was tipped as NBC's attempt to resuscitate comedy Thursdays, and the show came with an actor I love, and a pedigree from two creators of probably the last major sitcom to hit gold in US television. Not the same situation at all.
I'm not scared of losing my job to improvisors. Thanks to Stephen Colbert, I know the only thing I have to really fear is bears.
From the blurb on CTV, it sounds like Jeff on Canadian Perfect World always loses. The novelty of the UK version was that Slay would approach the brink of ruin yet always win in the end.
... I'm not sure the character works without the accent.
I also gotta quibble with your categorization of those born between 1975 and 90 as the first ones to be sick of the baby boomers. You're stealing my light there, slick.
Maybe they need a new generational slogan or something. The Baby Boom: Pissing Younger People off since 1965. :)
I was not aware Free Ride had a similarly structured writing staff. I fell for Stephen McPherson's "unprecedented" comments about the S&D episode construction process. Though he may have been referring to the 14 HOURS of film they shoot per half-hour episode. I must learn to never trust network executives.
I had thought Free Ride used a system similar to Curb wherein one or two people came up with the story, and then it was a free-for-all.
But I have to admit I haven't seen as many stories about the construction of a typical episode of Free Ride on the Internets, which may be because ABC has a better publicity department.
And dear old Whaledawg -- fast becoming Dead Things Labs favorite contrarian.
I'm not the favorite? This is bullshit. I demand a recount.
I'm not sure if it's too complicated - but the impulse to go to this as the 'savior' of TV comedy is, to me, a false lead. Yes -- occasionally a little improvisation will get you to a place that's great. But you need very special actors -- like the ensemble Chris Guest brings to his movies.
Firstly, I don't think I've heard anyone call this the savior of modern TV comedy. I think they are just trying something new. Second, it's not so rare a skill that only Christopher Guest's cabal can improvise something funny on camera. Almost every trained modern actor has taken some improv and anyone who seriously wants to be a comedic actor now is a proficient improvisor. Thirdly, this will save modern TV comedy.
First, I dispute your contention that the Pilot for the American Office sucked. I've watched it in a side by side comparison with the British pilot recently, and the truth is that there are moments where it's clearly better. Even Gervais has admitted that. Especially in the way the U.S. version kicks off the Jim/Pam romance.
Gervais said the show is better, not the pilot. The pilot was almost word for word the British pilot with a few Americanisms thrown in and with entirly the wrong tone. You're entitled to your opinion but everyone I know who is a fan of The Office did a big WTF on the pilot.
Free Ride isn't really anything that's trying to be bold. Whereas Four Kings was tipped as NBC's attempt to resuscitate comedy Thursdays, and the show came with an actor I love, and a pedigree from two creators of probably the last major sitcom to hit gold in US television.
Being tipped to save comedy, having a great actor and having a pedigree are not bold. And quite frankly, how many truely bold shows are there right now? And is bold always a good thing? Arrested Development was very bold and also very low rated. Yet Yes Dear is going strong and According to Jim has done like 6 seasons. I'm not sure bold is the order of the day.
Too funny.
I think we just need to start Whaledawg's Contrarian Index. In this episode:
Actors everywhere can and should improvise.
Improvising is not the savior of comedy. Despite the raft of articles that are now saying that. Stop reading those articles.
The show works, but the pilot totally sucked. But that's because they changed and got better, not that I got used to it.
Bold is not good.
According to Jim is.
And let's not forget my favorite:
Pink is the new black.
DMc
Actors everywhere can and should improvise.
Actually what I said was any modern comedic actor should be able to improvise yes. But what they should do is what's best for the scene, and sometimes that is improvisation and sometimes that's filling out the beats and sometimes that's going from the script. I don't see what's so controversial about that.
Improvising is not the savior of comedy. Despite the raft of articles that are now saying that. Stop reading those articles.
Or you could cite them since I've never seen them. Granted they may have escaped my attention, I'm not as omnipotent as I used to be, but you should still support this assumption.
And even if this raft does exist it's only as false as saying single camera shows will save comedy or more heartfelt writing or any 1 thing will save it. It's obviously too simplistic a model if one key solves the puzzle.
The show works, but the pilot totally sucked. But that's because they changed and got better, not that I got used to it.
If you're refering to the American version of The Office, they did change from the pilot. Steve Merchant and Ricky Gervais wrote the pilot and Greg Daniels and crew wrote everything else. That seems like a pretty big change to me.
Bold is not good.
According to Jim is.
I don't recall ever using the term good. I spoke about "on the air". Good is subjective, on the air is not.
And in my opinion it is inherrently bolder to try a different style, be it semi-improvised or other, then to say "no no no, we need to do things the same but better."
I don't see why you feel the need to try and satirize my arguments. I didn't say anything outlandish or outside of the realm of rational thought.
Post a Comment