Australian Tumbleweeds
Centrifugal Spin: The Second Cycle
We don’t always talk up upcoming shows unless they fill us with a sense of dread but this one snuck up on us: Dirty Laundry Live is back! Yes, the only survivor (to date) from the 2013 round of panel shows returns tomorrow night on ABC2 to deliver the same mix of celebrity gossip and smutty jokes. Or at least, we assume so. The show’s broadcast live, it’s not like we could sneak a look early or anything.
With the ABC basically giving everything an automatic second series these days – except for the really good shows like Very Small Business and The Bazura Project – it’d be easy to undersell this particular return. So let’s say it again: the only survivor (to date) from the 2013 round of panel shows is back! Not quite as high profile as Tractor Monkeys! Not quite as strong a lead-in as the one This Week Live had!
Still, much as we’d like to think the show’s success is down to the ABC (for once) taking the right approach when it comes to panel shows – start them off small in a no-pressure timeslot and build them around people who are funny together, not big names who talk over each other to boost their profile – the ABC also gave Tractor Monkeys a second series. So it’s probably safe to say this season’s a gimme: if they want a third, they’re going to have to earn it.
Which may be a struggle. Extending the show to 45 minutes probably seemed a good idea at the time – hey, it’s live and the guys are having fun, why not let them ramble – but brevity, as they say, is the soul of laffs. Shorter is pretty much always better with this kind of thing, which is why we’re also a little concerned about the new series of Have You Been Paying Attention dragging out what was a perfectly decent half hour show into an hour.
Last year’s version of Dirty Laundry Live never quite nailed down the format either. It’s one thing to have a bunch of guys messing about on a panel, but even live (especially live?) the energy level is going to flag on occasion. The quiz doesn’t add much more than a loose format to make sure people keep talking, and the inventiveness and spontaneity that should make a live show something special rarely got a look in. As we said last year, if you can’t make a live show feel at least a little bit dangerous, why bother doing it live?
But overall, the pluses with this one outweigh the minuses. It’s an Australian panel show that’s funny more often than not, with a cast that work well together and a bunch of guests that actually add to proceedings. As we say all too often around these parts, it’s the bare minimum we should expect from this kind of show… which somehow means it ends up well above average. Which really means just better than Tractor Monkeys. We’ll stop talking now.
Vale Whatever That Latest Agony Series Was Called
The most recent series of Adam Zwar’s Agony wrapped up this week and… yeah. Don’t get us wrong, we watched it each week – ok, we had it on in the background each week, but we seriously meant to watch it. Apart from that one week we fell asleep during it. That counts as a review, right?
The ABC is well within every possible standard you can hold a television network to when it comes to airing shows like this. They can’t all be winners; they can’t all even be shows that are trying to be winners. Sometimes you have to go for “good enough”. Sometimes you have to go for “yeah, guess that’ll do”. Sometimes you even have to go for “we could probably make this by asking people to record clips on their phones and send them in.”
And that’s not to slight any of the many funny people and Kate Langbroek who appear on Agony whenever it turns up on our screens, as all of them have done very funny and interesting work in shows that don’t have Agony in the title. Because Agony just isn’t the series for that kind of thing: it’s the show for your B-material, the half-baked insight, the down-the-pub chat, the broad generalisation, the anecdote you’ve already told everyone else. The moderately embarrassing thing that happened to you that one time a decade ago? This is its last stop before it’s gone forever, your last chance to wring a final drop of amusement out of its ragged, shriveled carcass.
Sure, it’s sad and annoying and just a little pathetic as viewers that this series keeps on keeping on, and keeps on being shown in a “comedy” timeslot while it’s at it. It might contain laughs, it might be a pill that goes down smooth, it’s a solid payday and good exposure for people who deserve it, but for those playing at home? It’s really little more than a deconstructed panel show with the difficult bits sanded off. None of the guests interact with each other; they all have plenty of time to figure out what they’re going to say; they don’t even have to leave their houses to do it. Someone somewhere must have put some work in but it’s not anyone in front of the camera.
Perhaps if we’d paid more attention we’d be seriously riled up about the idea that we could possibly learn anything about modern life from the collection of c-list celebrities and disengaged comedians served up here. But we’re already kind of riled up that the ABC has already given us what – over 20 episodes now? – worth of a show that’s about as close to utterly pointless as it’s possible to be. It’s a show where the clip footage used in the cutaways is basically as interesting as the segments themselves. Over twenty episodes so far. It’ll probably be back next year.
Again and for the last time, we get it. Not every show gets the big budgets and the huge support crew. Not every show has to be a matter of life and death. Sometimes you’ve got to take it easy, throw something together, keep it light. Don’t bother telling us it takes a lot of hard work to make a show this casual. Whatever dude. Whatever.
Jonah From Tonga episode 1: The Phantom Menace
There’s been a lot of talk online about Jonah From Tonga this past weekend, with all six episodes of the series being made available to view for 48 hours only in Australia on iView and in the UK on the BBC’s iPlayer. As Paul Kalina observed in the Sydney Morning Herald, this sort of thing is now a common strategy, allowing audiences to “binge watch” series and hopefully create a buzz which entices casual views to tune in to the broadcast or catch up afterwards.
This broadcast model also changes the experience of watching TV and therefore how TV should be reviewed. Chris Lilley’s work having been a hot topic on this blog over the years, we here at Australian Tumbleweeds decided we’d review each episode of Jonah From Tonga. But when to do it? After each episode is first broadcast on ABC1, surely? Here’s the problem: we, along with many of you, watched as many episodes as we could during the 48 hour preview period, meaning we watched two or three episodes at once rather than waiting a week in between each one. And in a “binge watch” the distinction between individual episodes, and their problems, starts to blur…especially when, in typical Lilley fashion, Jonah From Tonga is light on plot and structure.
In many ways, binge watching suits Lilley’s work. Unless you instantly hate it so much that you turn off after 5 minutes, you can find yourself watching up to four episodes in one go, blobbing out in your chair as its purposelessness laps over you gently like soft waves. And Jonah From Tonga isn’t a show which requires or demands your absolute concentration, it’s basically a series of scenes in which Jonah and his gang bully other kids in the school and exchange toilet humour-peppered barbs with other characters.
In some ways it’s a more sophisticated Housos, a sitcom with minimal plot about Australians who aren’t white and living in the inner suburbs, but with less slapstick and better-written characters. No, really, we mean that about the characters. After his self-indulgent screen-hogging in Summer Heights High, Angry Boys and Ja’mie: Private School Girl, Lilley actually gives the other characters some meaningful dialogue, even one or two gags. We really weren’t expecting that.
But let’s not get over-excited. Lilley’s still treading an uncomfortable line when it comes to race, gender and sexuality, and not really getting it right. For every half-decent schoolboy dick joke there’s a scene of homophobic, racist or sexist bullying that seems utterly gratuitous, isn’t telling us anything and isn’t funny. Yes, it’s the kind of thing troubled teenage boys do, but so what?
And with Lilley already out there telling us how his characters don’t change but that’s okay, we can be almost certain that even though it looks like Jonah might get his comeuppance later in the series that won’t happen. In Lilley’s shows his main characters never go down, they triumph. And with comedy tending to be funnier when losers lose, that’s bad news for comedy, no matter how good Jonah’s characterisation or toilet humour is.
That which is done is what will be done.
First you have this*:
Regardless of the content of the show, simply by choosing to wear ‘racial drag’ Lilley has put his work in the company of pieces of entertainment history as regrettable as the Al Jolson Minstrel Show. Yet for the most part we seem at peace with one of Australian TV’s favorite sons doing something that we would not, and have not let anyone else get away with.
Then you have this:
http://youtu.be/SphOu1L-GEY?t=18m57s
And back in 2011 we said this:
you might be wondering why S.Mouse won’t be causing outrage, considering that for that character Lilley gets around in make-up designed to turn him into an African-American. But remember, the Murdoch press had no problem whatsoever with the blackface sketch on Hey Hey It’s Saturday, thanks to reader’s polls saying they were a-ok with blackface acts even before chief columnist Andrew Bolt announced Somers et al were guilty of nothing more than stupidity. So while Lilley’s racist comments will fan the flames of hate, his suddenly dark-skinned face will breeze by with a smile and a wave.
But let’s look on the bright side. Maybe there’s no controversy around Lilley’s antics because everyone can see full well that controversy is exactly what Lilley’s after – it’s not like he couldn’t tell the exact same story if Jonah was white.
And why would you give someone obviously trying to stir up trouble the one thing he oh-so-desperately wants?
*We’d also suggest Green gets it wrong by comparing Jonah to an act of blackface – Lilley might be constantly trying to stir up controversy with his numerous dubious stereotypes, but all his characters are firmly shown to be individuals rather than “all Asians” or “all Islanders”, and they’re set against a backdrop where their bad behaviour is clearly frowned upon by other members of whatever race he’s pretending to be. He’s not funny, but he’s not stupid either.
Hate To Say I Told You So
Press release time!
AUSTRALIA BINGES ON A PUCKLOAD OF JONAH!
The ABC created an Australian first for audiences, serving up the ultimate binge-fest with Chris Lilley’s series JONAH FROM TONGA having its world premiere on ABC iview in a weekend-long event. With the ABC initiative replicated in the UK by BBC Three, the binge weekend was a global event that created an international buzz on social media.
ABC iview, Australia’s leading online TV platform, gave superfans the chance to watch every episode of the new six-part series, online and on mobile devices, wherever and whenever they wanted to from 6pm Friday May 2 until 6pm Sunday May 4 AEST.
During the 48 hours there were 551,000 plays of JONAH FROM TONGA making it the most played program on iview over the weekend.
Activity to iview was up 50% over the two days compared to April, peaking on Saturday with a total of 976,000 program plays. And JONAH FROM TONGA delivered 30% of those plays.
“ABC TV is committed to innovation in new platforms to connect audiences with our incredible Australian-made shows and I’m over the moon viewers have embraced our bold initiative to preview the show before its first traditional TV broadcast on Wednesday night,” said ABC Director of Television, Richard Finlayson.
“The Jonah preview binge re-writes the traditional TV rule book but is also creating huge anticipation for the broadcast premiere at 9pm this Wednesday night.”
“Big congratulations go to Chris Lilley and Laura Waters from Princess Pictures, who had the guts and foresight to support this initiative in advance of the series launch on ABC1 and BBC Three this week,” he said.
The ABC was the first into the online video market with iview in 2008. Today, with more than 15 million monthly program plays*, iview is Australia’s most accessible TV on demand service, available on 15 connected platforms including computers, tablets, smart phones, internet-enabled TVs, gaming consoles and set top boxes. ABC audiences need never miss a moment.
Chris Lilley, who’s en route back to Australia to support the Australian premiere on ABC1, adds: “I’m overwhelmed by the positive fan reaction to JONAH FROM TONGA. It seems that people really do like watching a whole series in one hit. I’m really excited for everyone to experience Episode 1 again on Wednesday night on ABC1. It’s the kind of show you can watch multiple times and find the things you didn’t notice the first time.”
JONAH FROM TONGA will screen Wednesday nights from May 7 at 9pm on ABC1, with each episode being made available again on iview after broadcast.
Remember when we said this:
So what this binge session really is – sorry “superfans” – is a naked attempt to rig the ratings: by releasing the whole series in one blurt, they can then claim the initial high ratings figures (that Lilley hopefully still manages to get in week one) are the figures for the entire series.
And then Chris Lilley said this:
“I’m overwhelmed by the positive fan reaction to JONAH FROM TONGA. It seems that people really do like watching a whole series in one hit.
Looks our crystal ball was crystal clear.
We’d love to know exactly how those 551,000 iview plays broke down – did people watch the whole six episodes right through, did they skip around, did they get ten minutes into episode one and quit – but surprisingly it seems the ABC (despite presumably having such information) ain’t talking. Guess they have to keep something in reserve for when the ABC1 ratings come through; we’re sure we’re not the only ones interested to see if the big weekend giveaway proves detrimental to those still-important free-to-air figures.
Of course, the real question is this: if activity on iview was up 50% for the weekend and Jonah only caused 30% of it, where did the other 20% come from? Because if they can get an extra 20% just out of nowhere, that does sound a little like Jonah isn’t quite the awesome draw he’s being touted as.
It’s a Whale of a Sale
For one weekend only, the ABC have made available for streaming all six episodes of Chris Lilley’s new series Jonah from Tonga. We’ll be honest: we couldn’t make it all the way through. Here’s why:
‘Most of my characters never change as [a series] goes along,” says Lilley. ”There’s a familiar structure to television where the character is a certain way and then they go through a certain experience and they become different, but I like the idea that people don’t change. That represents reality more.”
And here we were thinking Lilley’s complete and total inability to write characters with more than one dimension was a design fault. Turns out it’s meant to be a feature. Because we all tune into comedy series first and foremost looking for realism, right guys? Guys? Come back, Lilley’s about to say something funny!
”Jonah’s not the brightest kid. He doesn’t think things through. Watching him make the wrong decisions is fascinating,” Lilley explains. ”The show doesn’t have the cues of a normal sitcom, so some people feel uncomfortable because that hits close to home, but that’s cool and what I like about it.”
It’s an old joke, but it’s one that never fails to make us laugh: “my work is so edgy and out there, the haters are freaked out by it”. But Lilley’s right; his work doesn’t have the cues of a normal sitcom. Or a good sitcom. Or a shit sitcom. It doesn’t have any cues at all, because all it has to offer is “and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened” 95% of the time.
So imagine our excitement when, ten minutes into the first episode, Lilley had managed to throw out everything that was remotely interesting about Jonah’s first appearance in Summer Heights High – basically, the idea that he was acting out because he had learning difficulties that made him frustrated at school, and the idea that his bad behaviour would have actual consequences – in favour of having him back at yet another high school acting like, to quote every adult authority figure on the show, “a fuckwit”.
The formula re-established, Lilley settles into a rut like he was born to it. Oh look, “ranga” jokes. Jonah stuffing a little kid into a locker. A teacher who swears and is physically aggressive towards Jonah. When exactly is this series set – 1955? At least – and we’ll give him this – the theme music wasn’t the usual children’s choir guff he’s bolted onto the opening of everything else he’s done. But there’s still time to fix that before the episodes reach television.
And why is Jonah such a fuckwit? Because, as we see on Tonga itself, he just is. “I like the idea that people don’t change,” says Lilley, and fair enough. But why does he like the idea that they also have to be unbearable idiots at the same time?
Look, we don’t doubt for a second that Jonah will meet an authority figure he bonds with, just like we don’t doubt his stupidity will eventually have actual consequences and he’ll reveal a side that isn’t 100% fuckwit (or that there’ll be a bunch of shit “offensive” songs and lame stage performances): Lilley’s not so stupid that he can’t at least replicate the Jonah formula from Summer Heights High. But he’s already told that story, and it wasn’t that funny the first time.
We’re going to keep watching Jonah from Tonga, and we’ll be reviewing each episode (to some extent at least) as they go to air. But three hours of this shit in one burst? Let’s leave the last word to the Fairfax journalist who interviewed Lilley:
“Jonah pushes the boundary of comic offensiveness, testing both his teachers’ and the audience’s capacity for his incessant retorts and ludicrous attention-seeking.
And when Fairfax is saying that about you, you know you’re in trouble.
Criticial Facilities
Unless you spend a lot of time wading around the shallow end of the music media, you probably missed the recent kerfuffle where a number of high-profile musicians (starting with Lorde) used social media to express their disapproval of magazines – specifically Complex – putting artists on the cover then bagging them out in reviews:
bugs me how publications like complex will profile interesting artists in order to sell copies/get clicks and then shit on their records? it happens to me all the time- pitchfork and that ilk being like “can we interview you?” after totally taking the piss out of me in a review. have a stance on an artist and stick to it. don’t act like you respect them then throw them under the bus.
[Yes, we know we’re not music reviewers. We’re going somewhere with this, trust us]
Unsurprisingly, Complex had their own take on this:
Contrary to whatever Lorde may think, for Complex to give a cover to an artist like Iggy Azalea or current covergirl Jhené Aiko (or even Lorde for that matter) it simply boils down to Complex thinking the artist is someone our audience is interested in. Giving someone a bad review basically boils down to thinking someone our audience is interested in didn’t make a very good record. We can’t speak for all publications, but we imagine it works about the same way for them.
And the internet being what it is, everyone else who’s ever written a word about music chimed in:
This, in turn, is indicative of a more pervasive problem, which is the idea that everyone’s opinion is equally valid, regardless of its premises or coherency. It’s not. You either know what the fuck you’re talking about or you don’t.
Still, you would like to think that most artists have some grasp of the difference between what we might call a “feature”, that is a story and/or photo, usually involving an interview with them, and a “review”, a critical appraisal of their work. And, in understanding the difference recognise the differing roles.
“suggesting that a magazine’s staff – let alone the freelancer who is not on the masthead but is increasingly responsible for producing this type of content in exchange for peanuts and pennies and open bar press passes – owes you a positive record review simply because you and your publicist were kind enough to grant their employers a mutually beneficial interview is tantamount to promoting corporate censorship in arts criticism.”
Why are we mentioning any of this in a comedy blog? For one thing, we’re jealous: can anyone seriously imagine the television critics of Australia rising up if someone famous took a swing at them for being inconsistent? Oh wait, that would never happen because the situation would never arise – the unity between “criticism” and overall editorial opinion that Lorde is asking for is what we currently have in the world of Australian television coverage. We live in a land where TV coverage is based entirely on having a (favourable) stance on an artist and sticking to it no matter what. And hasn’t that worked out so well for viewers?
As for comedy critics… well, not a year goes by it seems without one comedian or another having a go at the critics covering the Melbourne International Comedy Festival. It’s hard to know what’s more depressing about that: the fact that no-one steps up to defend comedy criticism the way these writers have defended music criticism, or the fact that the comedians are usually right.
But mostly we’re just in hysterics. If you said “suggesting that a magazine’s staff owes you a positive record review simply because you and your publicist were kind enough to grant their employers a mutually beneficial interview is tantamount to promoting corporate censorship in arts criticism” to a television publicist you’d see an awful lot of blinking and not much else. Because that’s exactly how television publicity works in this country: if you want access to the stars, you have to suck up to the stars. And if you don’t want access to the stars, what are you doing writing about television?
The winner wasn’t comedy
If there was ever a time when the Logies wasn’t dishing out awards to undeserving winners, we’d like to go there. Seriously, they declared that Housos was the Outstanding Light Entertainment Program of 2013. Even if you factor in that two of the other nominees were Please Like Me and The Voice Australia that’s a bizarre result. Or as the Sydney Morning Herald’s Logies blog put it “one of the biggest upsets” of the night.
The other two nominees, incidentally, were Upper Middle Bogan and It’s A Date, neither exactly amazing but each more thoughtful and better crafted than Housos, a show which eschewed such traditional sitcom features as plots and gags for 25 minutes of mindless shouting and the sort of slapstick sequences that are regularly done better by 15 year olds with smartphones and a YouTube account. Although fending off far better competition to take out this award was, in one sense, an outstanding achievement.
In comparison to this “upset”, Chris Lilley’s Most Popular Actor win troubles us far less – it was teenagers who don’t know better who decided that award, not a panel of supposed industry experts. Ditto Hamish & Andy’s win for Gap Year Asia, which deserved to beat Ja’mie Private School Girl, The Project and two talent shows.
It’s been said before, but it’s a sad fact of the Australian television industry that the Logies remains the most high profile awards ceremony. The AACTAs tend to give their awards to more deserving shows, but they lack the profile that the Logies has. Also, where the hell was Mad As Hell in the list of nominations? It’s been firing for several years and didn’t even get a nomination in one of the Outstanding categories. You really do have to question who sits on the judging panel, and whether they have any sense of humour at all.
The Shadow Out Of Time
One of the more unusual book cover quotes you’ll see is this one from Tony Martin:
“I’m 33 and ready for my first cardigan yet whenever I read a paper I feel like I’m back in short pants. Let go of the wheel you old farts, and let someone else have a drive”
It’s not the quote itself that’s unusual, more the book it’s attached to: Mark Davis’ distinctly non-comedic Gangland, a mid-90s screed against the dead hand the baby boomers then had on the wheel of Australian media.
It seems almost laughable now, in today’s crazy world where it’s perfectly possible to live a well-informed and entertained life without having to pay the slightest attention to anyone in the Australian media, but in the mid 90s the local product was pretty much still the only choice you had. And thanks to a combination of economies of scale and the small size of the local biz, that meant a media dominated by people and products aimed at Baby Boomers; people in their mid-40s or older at the time. Two words: Daryl Somers.
Today only traces of that nightmare remain – The Logies for one, so hope you’ve all got your ballots in – but today’s Fairfax papers provided us with a stark reminder of the golden days of Boomer dummy-spits towards comedians they felt didn’t show them enough reverence. Sure, it may not quite be up there with this Somers classic:
“I don’t think there’d be such a groundswell of support for us if there wasn’t a clear swing back to family entertainment.
We went (in 1999) because we weren’t edgy enough. Andrew Denton used to call us prehistoric and dinosaurs.
He had a huge go at us and said we shouldn’t be on air. We used to cop it simply for trying to do a fun show.”
But digging Ray Martin up yet again is almost worth it just for the reminder of what a bitter, petty, humourless, small-minded fellow he still is. Yes, Martin’s taking a swing at John Safran yet again:
Years after his incendiary encounter with Safran, Martin is no closer to forgiving him for what he says was ”a pissant thing to do at the time”. Filming a pilot that never went to air, although the segment made it onto other ABC shows and YouTube, Safran turned up at Martin’s home posing as a TV news reporter.
What was intended to be a stunt exposing the questionable methods of foot-in-the-door shows such as ACA, which Martin at that time presented, turned ugly when Martin’s temper flared. Martin admits he lost his cool, but calmed down when Safran, realising the skit was backfiring, pleaded with Martin.
Unbeknown to Safran or the public, a week before that, guards had been called to Martin’s house after a death threat in the wake of an ACA story about marijuana trafficking.
This is ”context without giving an excuse”, Martin says. ”[ABC chairman] Brian Johns apologised to my wife, sent a bunch of flowers and said … it wouldn’t go to air. Three weeks later, it did. I put my hand up for being thin-skinned about these things, because in this business there are cheap shots and what you throw at people you should cop, but it was just singularly unfunny to come along.
”I thought it was The Footy Show doing something. Andrew Denton tells me I’d like [Safran], but I don’t think so. He’s a serial pest.”
On this occasion, it seems Martin gets the last word.
(hey, Fairfax fine-diner Paul Kalina, less of the sad clown face: Martin only gets the last word because you wrote your story that way.)
Of course, Ray has form in this area, and not just with regards to Safran. Remember this dummy-spit?
Seasoned presenter Ray Martin has long bemoaned the fact he does not have his own chat show and went so far as to speak enviously of Enough Rope.
Martin received widespread scorn late last year when he said: ‘‘Clearly before Denton’s Enough Rope was on, I owned the genre.
‘‘There’s a bloody big hole in TV outside of what Denton does. I saw the John Laws interview and thought ‘S—, I should have done that. I know Lawsy well and he would have talked to me and we don’t have a spot at the moment’.
‘‘I have 40 specials I’ve done literally while Andrew was still at uni. That’s not to put him down for a second. It seems silly not to have me do it.”
Jesus Christ, do these entitled old farts ever stop whining about how they’ve been hard done by? “Context without giving an excuse”? To use a phrase synonymous with one of Martin’ contemporaries, “pigs arse”. The only problem with Safran’s sketch is – no, not “he didn’t go far enough”, give us some credit – but that simply using Martin’s tactics back on him doesn’t make those tactics right. “How would you like it”, is hardly basis for a decent argument, no matter how oh so very satisfying it is to see Martin crack the shits.
The other problem with all this upper-echelon Baby Boomer media hand-wringing is that you might come away from it all thinking that Andrew Denton is some kind of cutting-edge shit-stirring nice guy. Fortunately, there’s a cure for that, and it’s screening around 11pm Friday nights on ABC1. Yes, Randling is back on the air. The fuck?
In case you don’t remember Randling, here’s a sample joke from last night’s (we think) premiere episode: “the giant squid’s eyeball can grow to a foot in diameter. That’s why it lives in the sea – it simply can’t afford eyedrops”. Dead silence from the audience. Oooh, only 26 more episodes to go and they’ve all been pre-recorded. No wonder it killed Andrew Denton’s television career.
Obviously the real mystery here is why a show that’s become a byword for utter failure is back. The 11pm Friday timeslot is usually when ABC1 repeats its topical comedy shows – repeats of Mad as Hell previously held the time slot – so you’d think Spicks and Specks would be a shoo-in, especially as it’s currently only repeated the once (new episodes Wednesday ABC1, repeats Thursdays ABC2). But no. Noooo.
All we can guess is that the ABC doesn’t have to pay a cent to repeat this crap. And even then, the price they’re paying just for reminding people they let this train wreck happen in the first place is way too high. Having it back on the air is more of a joke than anything that ever happened on Randling. Unfortunately, just like the first time around, the joke is firmly on us.
The Roast with the least
The Roast is a concept which never quite manages to die. We don’t mean in the sense that pretty much every era of recent decades has thrown up a nightly or weekly topical comedy show, more that this particular team’s attempt to make a topical comedy show never manages to get axed. But you know that, we’ve talked about this before, you keep seeing it listed in TV guides and you keep not tuning in. Not even YouTube can bothered if the stats from The Roast’s channel are anything to go by. It’s just not very good. But why?
We’re not going to attempt to work out why this keeps getting re-commissioned – the ABC wants them to be the next Chaser, they’ve got compromising photos of Mark Scott – pick your favourite crazy theory, we don’t know! What we’re going to try and nail is why The Roast sucks.
1. The Host. If there’s one thing the great TV satires of the past couple of decades have taught is that there’s plenty of laughs to be had from a host who’s completely unaware that they and the situation they’re in are completely insane. From Chris Morris (On The Hour, The Day Today, Brass Eye) to Shaun Micallef (Mad As Hell) to Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report), this isn’t about being a straight man introducing wacky news reports, this is about “The News!”. The conventions of news and current affairs shows are kinda ludicrous when you think about it – especially the ones which include any kind of on-air editorial – so comedians need to get stuck in. On The Roast the closest you’ll get is a gag about how the TV built in to the set is actually a microwave. LOLZ!
2. The Reporters. Again, there are plenty of ways you can get laughs by giving the reporters some character. Any character. On The Roast the reporters are a bunch of near-identical middle-class white guys, except for the Asian woman one, who’s different because she’s an Asian woman. Put it this way, it’s a good thing the male reporters have different haircuts or we’d never notice the difference between them. Dozens and dozens of fake news shows in the past have managed to give their league of young white guys various wacky characters; just sticking a wacky hat on one of these guys would be an improvement.
3. The Stories. When The Roast does a parody news report it often goes like this: host Tom Glasson reads out an intro about an actual news story, cut to a sketch which is based around one tiny, often not very pertinent, aspect of that story, the sketch goes on for a minute and there’s basically only one joke in there, which is the one about the not very pertinent aspect of the original story. This is not a roadmap to quality comedy. It’s not even a couple of lines drawn in the dirt directing people to a smirk.
4. The Jokes. Often there aren’t any. Oh, it might seem like you’re watching something that contains jokes, but if you look closely you’ll find that all you’re actually getting is observations delivered with a layer of snark smeared across the top. This kind of thing is fine on occasion, especially when you’re dealing with politicians (as so much of The Roast does). But when that’s all you’ve got to say on a topic, you don’t have a television show – you barely even have the comments on a politics-themed blog.
5. The Perspectives. When you have what looks like a crew made up entirely of smug, entitled, well-off white guys – oh yeah, and that Asian woman written to sound exactly like a smug entitled, well-off white guy – it wouldn’t hurt to occasionally have some kind of perspective that wasn’t that of a crew of smug, entitled, well-off white guys. Usually here we’d say that part of the problem is the format: a send-up of bland news reporters covering the news is by it’s very nature going to contain elements of the bland, middle-class perspective it’s sending up. But then we remembered that Mad as Hell manages to cover an extremely wide spectrum of types and experiences while doing the exact same thing as The Roast and being roughly a zillion times funnier at it.
6. The Jokes Again. You know when you take a current situation – oh no, the government wants old folk to work longer / kids are being told to skip university and jump straight into the workforce / etc – and then you exaggerate it for comedic effect? That’s almost never funny unless you put some actual thought into the kind of exaggerations you’re going to make. So The Roast seems to do it at least once every episode, making sure to only ever go down the most obvious and least interesting path. Let’s bring back child labour and make old people into slaves! Oh ho ho.
7. The Fact It Never Seems To Get Any Better. Even most crap comedy shows change and grow over the course of their lifetimes as the cast and crew focus on what works, ditch what doesn’t, deal with changing interests and cast members, and so on. Not The Roast. Apart from the news being mocked, you could stack a current episode up against one at the start of the show’s run and you’d be hard pressed to detect any difference at all. Does this mean the show achieved perfection out the gate, thus leaving no room whatsoever for improvement? No. No it does not.
8. The Fact That It Never Gets Axed. It’s a head-scratcher! And an annoying one at that. Is The Roast hitting that right level of blandness and inoffensiveness that keeps hundreds of firmly average shows on air for years? Or does someone at the ABC seriously think they’re awesome? Got a theory? Post it in the comments.