Special Guest Bloggerspondent asks, "Where's the Cavemen love?"

IT LOOKS LIKE we've received a missive from the outer provinces, where friend of the blog Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder has taken time out from his ether and ginger snap constitutional to weigh in on matters comedic and half hour. Over to you, Matt.

Dead Mr. Dead Things on Sticks,


Need a topic for your blog? No, of course you don't, but I'm asking you for a favour anyway, since I know you've covered a lot of the new one-hours but I haven't seen a whole lot of DTOS debate about the new comedies.


I need help. I watched the pilot episode of "Cavemen" this week. By now, most people know the backstory. It was announced last March that ABC was going to create a pilot based on the characters from the Geico insurance ads. Much grumbling ensued, including my own, and likely yours.


That first pilot was then screened in the summer for critics and met with much derision. I haven't seen it, but am told it took place in Atlanta, was not terribly funny, and made a ham-fisted attempt to liken the cavemen to a non-descript minority living in the south that apparently wasn't so non-descript at all. The cavemen supposedly refered to themselves as "maggers" and there were lots of jokes about their sexual process, etc. Well, Eww. It sounds horrible and offensive and likely got the reaction it deserved.


The pilot was re-shot, re-written, partially re-cast, transplanted to San Diego, and the whole cavemen-as-minority thing has been played way down. Now that new pilot has aired. Variety has just called it "the lowest rung of comedy's evolutionary ladder." The LA Times called it "dismal", "pointless" and "not funny". The San Diego Union Tribune called it a "big hunk of comedic deadwood" and the Bloomberg critic said it felt as "interminable --- and about as funny -- as the stone age." These are some of the more positive pull quotes I could find.


People hate this show. They hate it. As Roger Ebert might say, they hate hate hate hate hated it.


And here is where I put myself on the line: I liked it. I thought it was fast, funny and on occasion even sort of sweet. The cavemen-as-minority angle has indeed been played down, but not completely excised, and it works. The guys are sometimes treated like outsiders, but the joke is clearly on the bigots, not the cavemen, and one routes for the lead characters every step of the way.


But however one feels about the part of this show that might scream "this is SOCIAL SATIRE," it really has to live and die on the strength of its jokes and its comedy, which is largely routed in the interplay of three or four slackerish, underachieving young men as they work and date. In that regard, "Cavemen" passes, for me, the ultimate litmus test which is, in this case: "Would this be funny even if they weren't cavemen?" I think yes.


Keep in mind that the argument here isn't whether or not we need another show about men and the way they interact with one another. One could argue (not me) that we don't, but my point is, the hatred of this show hasn't actually been framed in that context at all. Most of the reviews accept this mini-genre as a given, and simply hold this one out as a bad example of it. In fact, I've seen it compared, unfavourably, to other new series in this genre, including Carpoolers and The Big Bang Theory.


Well. I've seen those shows now, didn't laugh, and they only serve to make Cavemen look better.


The laughs are frequent. The little details are spot-on. The actors know how to land a joke, and how to throw one away. The casualness of the gags, which rest as much on the reaction shots as they do to the lines themselves, resembles no show so much as (gasp) The Office, which is almost universally loved. Finally, there's a general sharpness and specificity to the writing and a level of observation that, for one reason or another, struck a chord with me, and is funnier than any laugh-track comedy this fall. ("I thought you were gonna stay home and work on your dissertation?" "I was. Wikipedia's under construction.")


At any rate, all I'm saying it that the show seemed likable and funny to me at first glance -- it is not the second coming of comedy, and my opinion may change as the season continues. But I'm positively flummoxed by the level of hostility to this show and would love to know what your readers think. Are people simply reacting to the baggage this show carries with it and unable to judge the show itself objectively? Or have I completely lost my mind?


Signed,

Matt Neffer, Boy Spotwelder.

So, readers, what do you think? Is Matt cuckoo for cocoa puffs here? I don't know. I wish I'd PVR'd the thing now, because I didn't see the premiere so I can't say one way or another. Thing is, Matt is not alone.

It's been a while since we really did a big Comedy thing here. I think my heart is still bruised by the loss of Andy Barker.

I do think, however, that the narrative about comedy being in trouble on TV has now taken on a difficult life of its own. Comedy is always tricky. Nobody's ever going to laugh at everything. We're constantly arguing on this blog, for instance, about Corner Gas and Trailer Park Boys. Even when something's a success, you're not going to find unanimity.

It's way more difficult for new shows. I remember last year, the show that was universally excoriated by everybody was "Happy Hour." The only critic I remember sticking up for it was John Doyle. I watched it on his recommendation, and I thought it was funny. I agreed with Doyle's assessment that the hate-on for the show was more about prudishness over the fact that the show invovled cocktails.

So, Cavemen. And the other new fall comedies: what's the deal with them?