I have recently caught up with the first three series' of Lee Mack's sitcom "Not Going Out" on DVD and it has got me thinking about how hard sitcom is to get right.
The really nice premise of "Not Going Out" is all in the title. Lee Mack is the layabout who shares a flat with a really attractive girl he is 'not going out' with. In the first series, the girl is his best friend Tim's ex-girlfriend. In series' two and three, it's Tim's sister.
In true sitcom style, the jokes come in quick succession and enough of them are laugh-out-loud funny enough to have me reaching for the fourth series. The production is slick too, with a docklands flat set which oozes New York cool even if the overhead shots of the surrounding city feature Canary Wharf.
So it's a good sitcom but there are a couple of things which, for me, stop it being great.
One of those things is probably a hangover from Lee Mack's life as a stand-up - there are a lot of lines that are clever but rather unnaturally set-up. The dialogue is often quite obviously worked round to deliver a gag, rather than a gag re-worked to develop it into dialogue. As a result, people say some pretty unnatural things and then wait rather awkwardly for the laugh to subside before carrying on with the story.
The other thing is the romantic storyline. Now I love a good romance and the careful plotting of a romantic moment in each episode did keep me coming back for more. Unfortunately the curiously chaste kiss which finally came at the climax of series three was a poor reward for my devotion. "Friends" really understood how much a believable romance could add to a sitcom but Lee and Lucy are no Ross and Rachel.
On paper, "Not Going Out" must read like it has everything it needs to succeed - the situation, the characters and the jokes - but it needs a spark of something extra too. I just hope to see that spark in the next series...
Monday, 24 October 2011
Monday, 17 October 2011
Mutual Support? Reginald D. Hunter and Steve Hughes
I went to see Reginald D. Hunter last night. I actually saw Steve Hughes and then Reginald D. Hunter.
So he had a support act, so far so normal. I usually quite like seeing a support act first because it's a chance to scope out a new comedian for the future. But last night was a bit different.
It wasn't that Steve Hughes wasn't good. It took a while to get used to his slow delivery style but the jokes were well-honed, strong and memorable. As he upped the pace he also upped the political content and he gave the impression of testing the audience to see how far he could go. I'd be intrigued to see where he does go in a full show.
Having given over the first half to his support act, Reginald D. Hunter started the second half with a warning - gently and elegantly preparing the audience for the difference between Reginald D. Hunter on stage and Reginald D. Hunter on TV.
Working without a mikestand, he used his rich, deep voice to develop a warm rapport with the audience which genuinely did turn the Norwich Theatre Royal (which can be a bit cavernous for comedy) into an intimate bubble where secrets were safely revealed. The chat was great but, like his support act, the sections were linked more by swigs of water than by any thematic thread and this was a weak point in both acts.
Reginald D. Hunter came across as a generous man and he took time out of his own set to promote his support act. However, the fact that he has become well known while Steve Hughes has not (yet) still means that Steve Hughes has to handle performing to a room full of people who have come to see someone else, while Reginald D. Hunter has to handle the fact that a man he clearly considers a friend and peer is now his support act.
Despite their obvious pleasure in touring together, it was a slightly uneasy mixed bill. I couldn't help feeling that, like two naughty boys at the back of the class, they might both do better work if they were separated.
So he had a support act, so far so normal. I usually quite like seeing a support act first because it's a chance to scope out a new comedian for the future. But last night was a bit different.
It wasn't that Steve Hughes wasn't good. It took a while to get used to his slow delivery style but the jokes were well-honed, strong and memorable. As he upped the pace he also upped the political content and he gave the impression of testing the audience to see how far he could go. I'd be intrigued to see where he does go in a full show.
Having given over the first half to his support act, Reginald D. Hunter started the second half with a warning - gently and elegantly preparing the audience for the difference between Reginald D. Hunter on stage and Reginald D. Hunter on TV.
Working without a mikestand, he used his rich, deep voice to develop a warm rapport with the audience which genuinely did turn the Norwich Theatre Royal (which can be a bit cavernous for comedy) into an intimate bubble where secrets were safely revealed. The chat was great but, like his support act, the sections were linked more by swigs of water than by any thematic thread and this was a weak point in both acts.
Reginald D. Hunter came across as a generous man and he took time out of his own set to promote his support act. However, the fact that he has become well known while Steve Hughes has not (yet) still means that Steve Hughes has to handle performing to a room full of people who have come to see someone else, while Reginald D. Hunter has to handle the fact that a man he clearly considers a friend and peer is now his support act.
Despite their obvious pleasure in touring together, it was a slightly uneasy mixed bill. I couldn't help feeling that, like two naughty boys at the back of the class, they might both do better work if they were separated.
Monday, 10 October 2011
More stories, less mess - a plea to Adam Hills
When asked if I wanted a ticket for Adam Hills at the Norwich Playhouse, I just said yes. I didn't read the blurb in the brochure. My entire thought process was, I like him, book it.
And I do like him. In fact, he is notoriously likeable. He comes across as genuinely warm and his comedy is inspired by a real love of people and life.
But when I finally did read the blurb for "Adam Hills: Mess Around" my heart sank. The one word which haunted the description (whilst not being part of it) was 'Impro'.
Okay, it's only fair if I say right now that I am not a big fan of Impro. I know some people (actually a lot of people) love it. There are two reasons why I don't...
1) While it is an amazing skill to be able to think up witticisms on the spot (and comics definitely get extra laughs for that) it is quite rare that those witty responses are better than carefully crafted jokes.
2) Similarly, material generated out of banter with the audience or via tweets is also extremely unlikely to be funnier/more interesting/better told than highly polished and neatly edited comic routines.
Admittedly, Adam Hills had warned anyone who read the brochure what his show was going to be like - but even he seemed a bit apologetic for the looseness of the structure at times. He is a skilled improviser and carries the audience with him but the whole thing lost momentum whenever he pulled out his mobile phone.
For me, the frustrating thing was that I really enjoyed the pre-written part of the show - the big set-piece stories he told. I could have listened to him tell stories all night. I just wish he'd done that.
And I do like him. In fact, he is notoriously likeable. He comes across as genuinely warm and his comedy is inspired by a real love of people and life.
But when I finally did read the blurb for "Adam Hills: Mess Around" my heart sank. The one word which haunted the description (whilst not being part of it) was 'Impro'.
Okay, it's only fair if I say right now that I am not a big fan of Impro. I know some people (actually a lot of people) love it. There are two reasons why I don't...
1) While it is an amazing skill to be able to think up witticisms on the spot (and comics definitely get extra laughs for that) it is quite rare that those witty responses are better than carefully crafted jokes.
2) Similarly, material generated out of banter with the audience or via tweets is also extremely unlikely to be funnier/more interesting/better told than highly polished and neatly edited comic routines.
Admittedly, Adam Hills had warned anyone who read the brochure what his show was going to be like - but even he seemed a bit apologetic for the looseness of the structure at times. He is a skilled improviser and carries the audience with him but the whole thing lost momentum whenever he pulled out his mobile phone.
For me, the frustrating thing was that I really enjoyed the pre-written part of the show - the big set-piece stories he told. I could have listened to him tell stories all night. I just wish he'd done that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)