Australian Tumbleweeds
3 Things
We were recently contacted by Joel Slack-Smith, who along with Heidi Regan, has written and produced a parody of inane tourist guide videos called London Wow. Joel and Heidi are Australians in London and their videos set in UK capital are well made and quite funny. Find them at www.youtube.com/londonwowtourism.
* * *
Also available online is the new weekly podcast 5 Things with Nath Valvo, Stacey June and Sean Lynch (you may remember Nath and Sean from The Shambles). The episodes are short and pithy, and Nath and Sean are thick and fast with the cornball gags, but this is clearly an audition for a shift on Nova so if that sort of thing’s not your bag don’t bother.
* * *
The Australian reported the other day that the remake rights to the 2001 Australian comedy film The Man Who Sued God (which starred Billy Connolly and Judy Davis) have been sold to a US company. The Man Who Sued God, as far as we can remember, wasn’t exactly a great piece of cinema. The idea of suing God sounds hilarious in theory but the script struggled to be both believable and funny, and the only decent lines seemed to have come from John Clarke, who wrote the original screenplay. We suspect the future for this project may be less Wilfred more Sit Down Shut Up.
Interview: The Bazura Project’s Lee Zachariah
You might have noticed that we don’t usually run interviews here, but when the chance to speak to The Bazura Project’s Lee Zachariah came along, how could we say no? Especially when by saying yes we could waffle on about all manner of obscure comedy topics and only occasionally remember to ask a proper question. Fortunately Lee was willing to put up with our crap – at least to our face – and so, after a lot of heavy editing to get rid of the many sections that were just conversational chit-chat, this is the result.
Being a critical website, we have to ask: how do you go about dealing with criticism? Seeing as we’re conducting this interview before the ABC version airs, it’d be criticism of the Channel 31 show…
“The only criticism we really got when was someone said how cheap it looked, and we already knew that. We knew that in our first season when we had blue curtains we couldn’t afford the colour red – people would say ‘that’s a crappy curtain’, and we’d say ‘well, we know’. We escaped most criticism back then because everyone loves an underdog, but that’ll change.”
Is it a concern that critics – people you’ve never met – now to some extent have your fate in their hands?
“Not really – I wrote for Ain’t It Cool News for eight and a half years, and I think that really thickened my skin. At first I was like ‘I can’t believe what these talkbackers are saying’, the really negative comments were getting me down, and then I just found it hilarious, and then I just stopped caring. I think if somebody has a legitimate criticism about the show I’d take that as constructive and try to work on that, whereas if they just want to throw personal insults at us I’m not going to care much about what they have to say anyway. So yeah, I’m pretty happy with what we’ve made, I’m very happy with what we’ve made, so I’m pretty confident about putting it out there.”
So how did Channel 31 help you develop?
“31 is a great starting point for people who are in no way ready – and I don’t mean that in a bad way. There is no better training ground that will teach you what you need to know than 31 does. And it helped doing a show week by week rather than filming them all in advance and asking ‘what worked and what didn’t?’, because we were able to improve week by week rather than season by season. We’d be trying to plan a long way in advance – certainly with the second season, where we figured out we wanted to do that Back to the Future ending, we had to film that over 13 weeks with us constantly changing into our BTTF costumes every time we did a different opening. For season three we shaved out heads for a Full Metal Jacket sketch, let our hair grow back, and then filmed season three. We put that opening, featuring our heads being shaved, way towards the end of the season after our hair had well and truly grown back – but by and large it was done week-to-week.”
What do you think about your timeslot? You’re up against some fairly big-deal shows…
“We’re very happy with the timeslot, I think it’s a great time to be on. We haven’t really looked at what else is on at the same time yet, we’ve had our heads down making the show for so long we haven’t really had time to check what we’re up against.”
It’s Hamish & Andy for the first week, The Slap is on the ABC…
“I don’t think we’ll really have the same audience as Hamish & Andy, Hamish & Andy have the audience that likes funny people who are good-looking and we have an audience that likes funny people with questionable appearances. We can be a little homely, we can be a little battle-scarred.”
Okay, so what are your comedy influences? Please don’t say “we just like to piss-fart about” like every other Australian comedian ever.
“I’ve never been asked my comedy influences before, it’s really weird – I didn’t come from stand-up comedy so I’ve never really thought of myself as a comedian. I think Shannon and I have always approached Bazura as an interesting film show first and foremost, but because we like telling jokes we made it funny. I guess my influences are The Marx Brothers, Looney Tunes. In Australia John Clarke and Shaun Micallef. Douglas Adams, a lot of British comedy, The Goon Show, Monty Python and all that.”
There’s a lot of big names and comedy professionals appearing in Bazura – Shaun Micallef, Tony Martin, Kat Stewart, Julia Zemiro – how’d you go about getting them all?
“The moment Micallef said yes it was like the heavens parting. It was pretty much a wish-list – once we realised we were in a position to get people we liked in our show, we got out our wish list and they all said yes, which is something we did not see coming. That was really insane, everyone was totally into it and we don’t know why, there was totally no reason for them to trust us, but then they did. With most of the larger cameos, the producer handles all that stuff, I think she takes the script and sends it over to their agent. We just handed our wish list over then she takes over. There was certainly a lot of improv – everyone stuck to the script, but there was some improv and a lot of ideas being thrown around.”
Enough serious questioning – that teen movie parody in episode two was hilarious! Just so you know.
“That was Shannon’s idea and I read it and said ‘that is really really funny – there is no way that’s making it into the final draft of the script’. Just from a production standpoint, but draft after draft it kept staying in the script and no-one said anything and I thought ‘are we actually doing to do this? Devote an entire day to this?’. And we actually got it done. That was one of the more fun days, too. And that’s me in the Bee costume, by the way. That was so much fun though, the kids were hilarious.”
So rumour has it that while you were waiting to hear back from the ABC about Bazura, you almost got a different show up on Ten? What happened there?
“We did a pilot for Ten, a completely different show, then we got the green light from the ABC for our show. It was definitely a case of it never rains but it pours after hearing nothing for two years. The pilot for Ten was more issues of the day than movies.”
The Channel 31 Bazura was big on reviews, but the ABC2 version is review-free. Why?
“Part of it was because the ABC already has a review show, and part of it was that they wanted a six-part themed show where we filmed everything beforehand, which was really useful in doing themed segments – if we wanted Shaun Micallef for six segments we’d only need him for a day. No reviews this time around, and I don’t know if there will be in the future.”
It’s a cliché to say that film reviewers are frustrated film-makers – the whole “those who can’t, teach” thing – but in your case… well, you are a film reviewer, and you’ve made television shows, so perhaps ‘frustrated’ isn’t the right word?
“There’s something quite unappealing when you hear about a film critic or someone making a show about film who says they’re a frustrated film maker. On the other hand, that’s my story, I can’t really run from that. Everyone assumes you’re doing that because you can don’t the real thing. But when I got into film criticism it actually had nothing to do with wanting to make films, they actually come from two very different sides – it’s like somebody who likes two completely different things, they just happened to be film criticism and making films. I’d consider it quite separate from my film-making ambitions. But yeah, Bazura, that certainly comes from the film criticism part than the film making part.”
The Bazura path to television success – actually going out and making the show rather than toiling away in writer’s rooms for years – seems to becoming more popular, what with you and Twentysomething being picked up from Channel 31. Did you ever think about going off to write for Neighbours?
“It’s weird that the path to get into television writing is through Home & Away and Neighbours, that’s the path you have to go on. I know one of the Neighbours writers quite well and I wouldn’t want to write for Neighbours not because I think it’s beneath me but it’s really structured and intense and I don’t think I have those particular skills. And also I would have to watch those shows and I’m not sure I could watch them and stay sane. And that sounds really snobby, I know, but I’m just not wired for soaps and reality TV. I know most people aren’t wired for the crap I watch. Or Bazura, for that matter.”
So what is the trademarked Bazura path to success?
“You make the show you want to make and say ‘that’s the show we want to make’. I always get concerned when I hear success stories when – there was a great one about ten years ago of Elijah Wood recording himself as Frodo on his home video and sending the tape to Peter Jackson and getting the part that way, through that method, and I can just imagine a generation of young actors filming themselves reading the parts and sending them to directors thinking ‘it worked for him, why can’t it work for me?’. So whenever you hear a success story you think that’s the way to go – Ridley Scott came from advertising and because I wanted to work in film I tried for advertising courses at Uni. Whenever you hear a success story you think you’ve got to model yourself on that, whereas everyone has come up a different path. ‘You should never ever make a film using credit cards – on the other hand, Kevin Smith did pretty well out of it’. There are ways to work your way up, you start off writing Neighbours and you end up writing Underbelly, whereas for us it was making the show we wanted and putting it on community TV, but there are probably fifteen other paths to getting to where we are now.”
The Bazura Project is on ABC Thursdays – this week’s the final ep in the current series – at 9pm
The Home of Variety
Channel 9’s push to become the “Home of Comedy” this year hasn’t really worked out for them; Live From Planet Earth, the bumping of The Joy of Sets…even Hamish & Andy’s Gap Year. Sure, Gap Year made it to the end and managed decent enough ratings, but it wasn’t the greatest piece of television ever. What Gap Year did do, perhaps, is remind us of what works on Channel 9: light-hearted, inoffensive, variety programs. And in Hamish & Andy Channel 9 even had presenters who could make this kind of show for the 21st Century.
Since the first demise of Hey Hey it’s Saturday in 1999, Channel 9 have struggled when its come to light entertainment. For a network which had a strong history of success in this genre, with shows like In Melbourne Tonight and The Don Lane Show, this struggle has been painful. They sort of noticed that the comedy culture had changed (thanks largely to the 1980s cabaret scene), but couldn’t manage to find a way to make use of that new culture’s stars.
Should you happen to pick up a copy of either The Best of the Don Lane Show or The Best of the Don Lane Show 2, both of which feature classic episodes from the early 1980s, you’ll be struck by how quickly this cultural change must have happened. The Don Lane Show with its club comics, international guests, middle-of-the-road musical numbers and endless promotions for household products, wouldn’t have been out of place on TV in the 50s, 60s or 70s. And yet, despite sounding like the daggiest show ever made, it’s charming, delightful and often very funny.
It was also a variety show in the truest sense of the word, because apart from the ads and the entertainment, there were serious discussions of current affairs (with members of the 60 Minutes team and counter-culture “hero” Richard Neville), science demonstrations from actual professors, a live cross to the National Museum of Victoria to look at old artefacts, an entire show with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, performances from ballet dancers and opera singers, and an interview with a heavily-bearded and rather strange public servant about cryogenics. This wasn’t so much middle of the road, as all over it!
The Don Lane Show was also a program that had serious money thrown at it, meaning they could – and often did – do anything. From motorcycle stunts in the GTV-9 car park, to a live cross to Dame Edna at Madame Tussauds in London, to an entire program from Elvis Presley’s old home Gracelands, in Memphis, The Don Lane Show pushed early-80s TV technology to the limit, and the results are still exciting today. No one would, or would be able to, make The Don Lane Show today, of course, and it’s unlikely that today’s audiences would watch a contemporary equivalent, but there are still some lessons to learned from it.
Amongst these are that good, experienced performers, when given decent material and a bit of time, can turn something as banal as a prize draw into comedy gold. Watch one of Don and Bert’s classic wheel segments and you’ll wonder how much funnier Talkin’ ‘Bout Your Generation would be if Shaun Micallef was really allowed to let loose. Also worth noting is that mainstream audiences will sit down to watch “intellectual” things like current affairs, science and orchestras if they’re presented entertainingly – all you need is Bert Newton taking the piss out of the conductor of the latter, and you’re away.
So, in the truest tradition of Channel 9 variety, here comes the plug: this weekend, why not treat yourself to a Don Lane Show boxset? It’s worth it for the wheel segment which follows the cryogenics interview alone.
Girl I’ll Houso You
Paul Fenech is, for whatever reason, SBS’s premiere contribution to Australian comedy. For over a decade now he’s made basically the same show for them under three different names: Pizza, Swift & Shift and now Housos. That show consists of extremely broad stereotypes played by non-professional actors shouting loudly while the camera tilts and swings around wildly. We’d call it “cartoony”, but we actually like cartoons.
So what’s the depth of comic invention on offer here? Let’s quote some sample dialogue from Shazza, Dazza, Franky and the rest.
“Just for a change he got to buy a car instead of stealing one”.
“What’re you grinning about, cockhead?”
“I think I pulled a muscle in my fucking arse!” “You’re fucking soft Shazza”
“I can see her fucking undies”
“Look, it’s penisaurus on his spastic scooter”
We could go on.
The real comedy here has come from the various serious media outlets wondering if the “politically incorrect” series will cause all manner of social upheaval.
“I get offended by people who get offended. I think there’s some sort of Nazi political correctness happening in Australia. The principals of political correctness are good but we have the top ten per cent of Australia wanting to nanny state everything we do. We’re not responsible for ourselves. We can’t decide what’s funny. What’s insulting is you can’t have a joke in Australia. Housos is the most ango-friendly show I’ve done. I’m copping it for having a go at bogans – are you serious?”
He has a point. Then again, he also wrote this:
“You’re fucked in the face Daz”
So, having watched the first episode of Housos free of the heavy hand of political correctness, let’s treat it with the respect it treats the home viewer: get fucked.
Fenech’s slapstick style is, well, energetic, and he’s not afraid to pile on the jokes. But the jokes are all the same joke: a dickhead swears a lot and does something stupid. Then another dickhead does something slightly different while swearing. Then someone swears. Then someone does something stupid. Then there’s a close up of some boobs. Then maybe there’s a midget.
The big difference with Housos is that some of the characters are bogans instead of wogs. Don’t worry tho, there’s still loads of racial stereotypes, and they all swear while doing stupid things.
“Some people don’t fucking deserve kids!”
“Bring it ya dumb fucking bitch”
“If you ever see Sunnyvale girls punching on, fuck off quick”
So who cares if the “plot” – the whole cast tries to figure out a way to qualify for the disabled pension so they can slack off (well, slack even more off) – might offend some easily offended tools. What’s offending us is that he’s been doing the same thing again and again and again in moderately different settings since 2000. Back then Pizza was a mildly amusing sitcom (and the Pizza movie was stupid but fun too); these days it’s just the same old shit reheated so many times even the stink doesn’t get a reaction any more.
“Fuck off Frankie, now ya cashed up ya can pay child support ya cockhead”
Not that the Australian media’s worked that out, even if Fenech is simply using the same method of stirring up attention as everyone else these days: get Australia’s increasingly rabid tabloid press to pay attention to you and free coverage is yours for the taking. As Fenech told marketing site Mumbrella,
“SBS only does a certain number of marketing recourses. So I have put my own money and heart into this.”
Here’s a tip: next time, put some of the money and heart into coming up with some new jokes. Having every single character be a shouting fuckhead kinda gets old after a while no matter how many burn outs and arse shots you throw in there. And by “kinda old”, we mean “fucking dull, ya cockhead”.
Great Comedy Myths of Our Time #1 – Twitter is killing comedy
We’ve all heard them, people in the media droaning on about how awful it is that decent, honest, talented comedians and shows are being ruthlessly picked-on by bored, unidentifiable people on social media, tweeting and Facebooking their vindictive opinions with the express purpose of KILLING PEOPLE’S CAREERS. Victims of these faceless snarksters include Ben Elton’s Live From Planet Earth, a show which in the pre-Twitter era would unquestionably have been a massive and deserved ratings hit, feted throughout the land as a work of unparalleled genius. Or not.
In this post we’re going to run through the arguments on both sides of this ongoing debate, starting with those of the affirmative. This conversation about the recent sitcom Twentysomething, which took place between Charlie Pickering, Jess Harris and Jon Faine on ABC Victoria’s Conversation Hour on 28th September 2011, covers most of them.
CP: …I’ve been very impressed by the response to the show, which…you have a look at anything vaguely in the realm of comedy in Australia seems to get torn down…
JH: Yeah.
CP: …almost the moment it hits the screen, but you have been very warmly received by the audience. Was that a relief? Were you waiting for the Twitter backlash, for everyone to be really critical once you’d really put yourself out there on the ABC?
JH: Yeah a little bit, I mean I’m so nervous of Facebook and Twitter, anything like that sort of scares me, that whole world, because it’s so instant and can be really nasty, so we were definitely worried. Josh and I actually used to sit down and say to each other the worst possible comments that we could think of, that people might say about us. Like “They’re ageing hacks, who do they think they are?”, and all this stuff, so we were ready for it…
[FAINE LAUGHS]
CP: I like that “ageing” is the worst thing you could possibly say about yourself…
JH: No, but, you know…
JF: Yeah, they’re nearly 30, I mean reeeeaaaalllly…
JH: We were prepared for the worst, hoping for the best, and we were really lucky I think because it does have that sort of element of the underdog, you know, it was on Channel 31, people want to get behind it. It’s more when shows sort of, people are bigger names and there’s bigger hype around it, it gets cut down a lot more.
CP: Yeah.
JH: So, I think because we sort of floated under the radar, and ABC2 is such a great home for it, that really helped us, so we were worried by everyone’s really been positive.
CP: I think you have cracked the code of avoiding a Twitter backlash by saying worse things yourself…
JH: Yeah.
CP: …Tony Martin actually, when The Joy of Sets went to air, he was on Twitter criticising his own show…
JH: Really?
CP: …on Twitter…
JF: Against himself.
CP: …but saying the most offensive, horrible things about himself and about the show…
[FAINE LAUGHS]
CP: …but what I think is brilliant about it is once the faceless people in Twitter who think they can say anything anonymously, once they know that one of the people they’re talking about is in that space with them they all went quiet.
JF: Are they all “flaming trolls”, or something? Isn’t that the…come on, you…?
JH: I don’t know that one.
CP: Is that the terminology?
JF: Yeah, yeah, you burn yourself, you’re a flaming troll, you say the worst possible thing, and of you go from there…it’s insurance, it’s terribly clever if you can be your own worst critic then nothing else is going to hurt you.
JH: Exactly, if you know what the faults are about it… I knew that people were going to have reactions to my character, say quite nasty things, I’m quite emotionally manipulative and I’m not necessarily, I’m an instantly un-likeable person, and people aren’t used to seeing girls play those roles all the time…
JF: An emotionally manipulative person would say that about themselves.
JH: I’m manipulating you right now.
JF: You think you are, but…
JH: I’ve got you in a web.
JF: I’m up to that, I’m up to that!
Wow! Looks like the tweeps and the Facebookers have really got this country’s comedians rattled. Which would be all very well if they themselves weren’t all over social media, spruiking their wares at all hours of the day and night, and stinking up the place with sarky observations roughly akin to the ones they’re objecting to when they come from ordinary people and happen to be about shows they’ve involved in. Could it be that their real objection is to the fact that they are no longer the only ones standing on the stage, as it were?
On social media the power balance is rather different to that of the performer and their audience. Ordinary, everyday tweep @Johnny100Followers can get as many re-tweets as, say, @Wil_Anderson, if he manages to tweet the right thing at the right time. And when it comes to big issues and breaking news, it’s often not the comedians on Twitter who get in first or tweet the best gags. Within seconds of anything happening thousands of amateur gagsmiths are tweeting puns and satirical observations about it. In a lot of cases they’re funnier than anything the Good News World team can come up with, or The Chaser will put to air in The Hamster Wheel – you also don’t have to wait days to hear them. In this context, is it any wonder that social media is full of people picking apart comedy shows, and, essentially, demanding that professional comedians are funnier than the amateur ones? Is that really so unreasonable, or unfair?
It’s not exactly a new phenomenon either. In the pre-internet age whenever two or more were gathered in front of the telly it was on for young and old. Families, groups of friends, whoever…would dissect a show as it went to air, laughing at poor fashion choices, slagging-off lame comedians and dismissing hours of work by skilled professionals with the phrase “Well, that was a waste of time”. The only difference now is that there’s a way to express such views beyond the confines of your family or circle of friends, and, if your ideas have resonance with others, to see them spread like wildfire. No wonder people in the media are scared, this isn’t like the old days when members of the public objecting to their work were essentially confined to private correspondence or the odd letter to a newspaper, people’s views on your TV show or stand-up set are out there forever, and they can’t be dismissed.
So while it’s hardly news that people talk about how bad some shows are, and that this talk eventually filters its way back to the network, what Twitter does do is speed the whole process up. In earlier years general discussion or week-by-week ratings figures would eventually have an effect – in 1999 The Mick Molloy Show was taken off air after eight weeks, but the controversy that crippled it (“Mick’s pissing on his couch!”) was all around episode one. Now that the “get this shit off” response is all but instantaneous, these days The Mick Molloy Show would be lucky to see week two. That causes a bit of a problem when it comes to comedy, which often requires time to settle in. Time that, in the case of anything remotely high-profile, it now rarely gets before being shunted off to a graveyard slot (at best) or being axed (at worse).
The other problem is that if Twitter is accurate – and despite the comedian’s complaints, we reckon it’s at least as accurate as any other method of gauging audience response – the results might prove to be a little depressing. Australian comedy is often crap, but it’s crap because it aims (relatively) high and fails. By “high” we mean scripted sketch shows, panel shows, sitcoms, news round-ups and the like. What we’re not currently getting is a bunch of prank shows and people making jokes about YouTube clips, even though that kind of thing traditionally does fairly well.
It’ll only take one lowbrow prank show to get praise on Twitter for the flipside of the current situation to become clear. After all, shows like MasterChef and Australian Idol get a lot of positive Twitter buzz; it’s not much of a leap to suggest that a show as tired yet pandering as the second series of The Chaser’s War on Everything – which was a rating hit – would also have been a hit on Twitter. Throw more pies at politicians!
Or it could just be that people on Twitter really are just knee-jerk haters trying to get attention for themselves with their nasty comments. In which case that’ll become obvious the first time Twitter hates a show that rates well and is generally seen as a success. Oddly, that doesn’t seem to have happened yet. Meanwhile, back in the past, anyone remember 2005’s Let Loose Live? Live sketch show kinda like Live From Planet Earth, also generally seen as crap, also axed after a few weeks? All that played out before Twitter was a gleam in the internet’s eye.
There are signs that the days of “Twitter took my series away” are already over: both The Joy of Sets and Good News World are still screening (albeit in later timeslots), despite fairly rapid ratings drops. Twitter didn’t kill off Hamish & Andy’s Gap Year either, and it’s had no effect whatsoever on any show screening on the ABC. It seems that Twitter is mostly just a source of easy quotes for media reports on shows that didn’t do all that well. When a show fails, Twitter is to blame; when a show succeeds, Twitter is nowhere to be found.
And while we’re here, we think it’s worth putting into context the tweets Tony Martin posted as The Joy of Sets episode 1 was going to air. Here they all are:
Tweet 1 – This is already shit! I give it twenty-five seconds. #joyofsets
Tweet 2 – Oh, yeah, right, like I couldn’t see THAT coming, you Andrew Denton wannabe! #joyofsets
Tweet 3 – Obviously, the TV guides have mistakenly listed this as a comedy! #joyofsets
Tweet 4 – I’d like to laugh, but I can’t hear what they’re saying over the sound of the show SUCKING BALLS! #joyofsets
Tweet 5 – If this show were a lesser-known Ealing-based screenwriter, it’d be Angus McFAIL! #joyofsets
We disagree with Charlie Pickering’s assessment that they were “ the most offensive, horrible things about himself and about the show”, they were jokes sending-up a certain type of rabid tweep – and they sent them up rather well. They also failed to shut down online debate on The Joy of Sets, which rages to this day – as it has every right to do.
Back In The Ring To Take Another Swing
We’ve already explained where The Chaser got the name of their internet media award “The Schembri” – here, go take a look. Back? Okay, so in this week’s Age Green Guide Jim Schembri – who regularly reviews television there – handled the reviews for Wednesday October 26th. Wednesday, as we all know, is the day The Hamster Wheel airs, and sure enough, there was a review of The Hamster Wheel there. Only thing was, while every other show being reviewed for that Wednesday was reviewed by Schembri, The Hamster Wheel wasn’t. It was reviewed by Paul Kalina, and a nice warm positive review it was too. “More please”? Sure thing!
So what gives? Why didn’t Schembri get a chance to reply to The Chaser? Yeah, on the surface, it’s pretty obvious why: they didn’t want to stoop to playing The Chaser’s game. But who’s “they”? If you didn’t want Schembri to review The Hamster Wheel, why give him Wednesday as his review day? If you had to give him Wednesdays for whatever reason, why not just say “don’t review The Hamster Wheel” and let him do a full page of reviews as usual for The Green Guide? Why, in short, pointedly have him review shows on a Wednesday then get someone else in to review The Hamster Wheel unless you specifically wanted to highlight the fact that he’s not reviewing it?
[Perhaps he did write a review and it was edited out? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.]
This wouldn’t matter so much – though it must be a little awkward around the office for Schembri considering the supplement he works for gave a good review to a show that pointedly makes fun of him and his lack of credibility – if not for the fact that early in 2011 you couldn’t pick up The Age or The Green Guide without reading a glowing review of Laid, a show created and written by Marieke Hardy, former Green Guide columnist.
There’s no need to recap our seemingly endless whining on the topic – check out examples here, here and here. Suffice to say, it seems The Age and The Green Guide in particular have no problem whatsoever in taking a personal interest in a ABC show when it suits. Seriously, one column was written by someone saying “Being a friend of Hardy’s…” without finishing that sentence with “… completely disqualifies me from writing about the quality of her show here”. So why is it okay to use the power of the press to help out one (former) employee, but seemingly not okay to use that same power to defend a (current) one?
Well for one, the Hardy coverage was positive; they were constantly talking up Laid across the board. But why does that make a difference to us, the readers? The Green Guide’s review pages were hopelessly compromised when they constantly praised a series made by a former staffer – it’s difficult to see how they’d be any more biased if they now attacked someone who was taking a swing at a current staffer.
It could be that they don’t want to draw any more attention to it – not that a small review in the Green Guide is in anyway comparable to coverage in a high-rating national television program. It could be that they don’t want to give The Chaser any more ammunition, but what ammunition could they possibly give considering Schembri’s name is already a punchline to an (obscure) joke about shoddy on-line media? Who’s to say Schembri – who’s described himself as “a long time Chaser fan” in the past – wouldn’t have given The Hamster Wheel a positive review? Maybe he enjoys being in on the fun?
Or perhaps they just wish the whole thing would go away. It’s hardly as if the actual story behind Schembri’s on-line antics showers him or The Age in glory. And with The Schembri award quietly dropped from this weeks Hamster Wheel (our guess is that it was crowded out by royal gags – though legal pressure from Schembri can’t be completely ruled out) perhaps they’ll get their wish.
What all this does serve to do is highlight the intertwined nature of television and the people who write about it in this country, and how that makes getting solid, unbiased coverage of television increasingly difficult to find in the mainstream press (hey, don’t expect it here either). Oh, and it also highlights how tough it must be being Jim Schembri around The Age:
“The Hamster Wheel is one of [The Chasers] best outings yet” – The Green Guide.
“[The Chaser’s] satiric takedowns are excellent” – The Green Guide
The Schembri winner in episode 2 of The Hamster Wheel: a story about someone farting on live television.
The Better Project
We’re big fans of Tony Martin, Ed Kavalee and Get This ‘round here, so it pains us to admit that we’ve been a bit disappointed by The Joy of Sets. The first episode was a good start, but things have been patchy since then, and the ratings dip that led Channel 9 to bump the show to 10.30pm seems to indicate that we’re not the only ones who’ve been a little underwhelmed by the series. But hey, at least it’s still on air.
So, what went wrong? We pointed out in our review of episode one that the show had some pacing problems, specifically that Tony and Ed seemed to be trying to cram too much in to the 22 minutes or so they had available. A few episodes later and that’s sort of been fixed, but there’s still a lot of time taken up with exposition, chummy back ‘n’ forths and those almost pointless mystery guests. And that’s a bit of a shame because this format doesn’t really play to Martin and Kavelee’s strengths, which as we saw in Get This were sketches, piss-farting around, and long, slow build-ups to gags which will run and run. When we’ve seen this sort of thing in The Joy of Sets it’s generally been in the form of pre-recorded sequences or the in-studio sketches, such as the Masterchef/glass of water sketch in episode 2, the title sequence recreations in episode 1, Tony’s speech to the jury in last night’s show, or Warwick Capper’s various cameos. These have been the highlights of the show, perhaps there should be more of these?
A number of Get This fans who got studio audience tickets to The Joy of Sets have pointed out that the recordings were really good, and that lots of funny material was cut out. That’s a shame, obviously, but those of us watching at home have to judge the show on what makes it to air – and sometimes that’s been a bit meh.
So, while by no means a disaster, The Joy of Sets is a disappointment, particularly when you consider what it could have been like. The Bazura Project, which premiered a week after The Joy of Sets, is roughly the same sort of show (except its about film), but miles better. Hosts Shannon Marinko and Lee Zachariah set a fast pace, and have crammed their show with sketches, fun facts and gags – and the heart and soul they’ve put into making it simply oozes from the screen.
We’re not writing off The Joy of Sets – there are a few more episodes to go, it’s is definitely improving, and a second series would probably be amazing – but for getting it right straight-out-of-the-blocks, The Bazura Project is by far the better program.
Cutting Julia’s lunch 2: A meatier sandwich
Our most recent blog asked whether ABC publicity have deliberately courted controversy in order to promote their comedy programs. We have since been contacted by an insider who had a few things to say about this.
Amongst other things, our insider said they would be “flabbergasted” if the ABC tried to court controversy about anything. “They want everyone to like them. Really badly” they said, adding that ABC publicists tended to be “conservative” and to “dive under their desks” whenever anyone lays into them.
“You’re right about them [the ABC] being obsessed about ratings. They absolutely are”, our source continued, but, they concluded, “while your theory makes a lot of sense on a logical level, it seems extremely unlikely to me”.
Perhaps our source has a point? ABC publicity weren’t exactly noted for their bravery following The Chaser’s “Make A Realistic Wish Foundation” sketch, for instance, so why assume they’re ringing up Colin Vickery or Andrew Bolt and dropping wild hints about upcoming controversies they might wish to be OUTRAGED by?
That said, it’s not like television shows just make themselves and plenty of people know their contents outside of the publicity department. There could well be a “rogue agent” or two in the ABC, feeding News Limited tit-bits of information, Crikey certainly seems to think so. Even if it’s true, it seems unlikely it’s their publicists. After all, wouldn’t that just be making more work for themselves – and unpleasant work at that?
Cutting Julia’s lunch
We tend to bang on a bit here about the way the ABC seem to be keen to promote every comedy they can as the most shocking and controversial thing since… well, the last time The Chaser / Chris Lilley made fun of dead people. Partly that’s because we’re simply interested in the behind-the-scenes goings on with Australian comedy; partly that’s because this focus on being shocking and controversial may actually extend beyond the promotional side of things and into the offices where they actually decide what comedies they give the green light to.
Look at it this way: in an increasingly crowded entertainment market, a new television show needs all the publicity it can get if it’s to attract viewers. The ABC, having no money, needs to get other newspapers and magazines talking about its’ programming to get the word out. So with that in mind, and with all other things being equal, which comedy show do you think they’d commission – the funny but inoffensive one, or the funny one that’ll get a bunch of outraged stories in The Herald-Sun once word leaks out about the Pedophile Prime Minister (“don’t let him kiss your baby”) routine?
(yes, we know all things are rarely equal. That’s why we dislike this trend: “controversial” comedy is often shit comedy, relying on shock tactics rather than decent performances or solid scripts)
With that said, we move across to the most recent episode of the Boxcutters podcast, which features an interview with At Home with Julia Executive Producer Rick Kalowski. In a frank conversation with co-host Josh Kinnal, Kalowski expresses surprise at the amount of controversy the series generated, saying that before it was broadcast he’d assumed that any initial controversy about the show focusing on the life of a sitting Prime Minister would die away as it progressed.
He continued:
RK: The one thing that we thought probably would engender a bit of controversy was the flag issue, but we never imagined how that would play out, I’ve got to say.
JK: That felt to me, a little bit…because that happened…that’s episode 3 when the flag issue happens…
RK: Yes.
JK: And, I read the press leading up to it…to me that felt a little bit forced, controversy-wise. It felt like the sort of thing that nobody would be aware of unless the ABC leaked it out there.
RK: No, they didn’t. I’m glad we’re speaking because one of the things I’d like to clarify is that in fact the ABC had nothing to do with it. Our attitude was that it was a really sweet, fun scene, and to the extent that it was going to cause any controversy it’d be nice if nobody knew about it before it happened. The way that it happened was there were preview copies sent out, obviously, to TV critics, of the episodes; David Knox who is a lovely guy, he’s the editor of TV Tonight, reviewed the episode and he averted to it without giving it away, because he’s a decent guy, he reviewed the episode positively but averted to the fact that there’s something controversial in it. Someone from the Herald-Sun in Melbourne, I think it was Colin Vickery, which is a News Limited paper, smelled the possibility of a story and tried to find out from David Knox – this is what I understand to be the case – tried to find out from David Knox what the controversial thing was, and Knox wouldn’t tell him. He tried to get, then, he tried to find out from the ABC and the ABC wouldn’t tell him, so as I understand it he took from the TV critic at the Herald-Sun the copy of the episode, which apparently he wasn’t meant to do, it was meant to be seen by the TV critic and not by him, and he then, as I understand it, watched it and took a screen capture of the shot with the flag and put it in the newspaper, and that’s how the story got out.
JK: Right…
RK: The ABC had no intention of drumming-up controversy, and in fact you’ll notice that one of the things that’s aggravated, for example, Neil Mitchell on 3AW in Melbourne so much is that the ABC wouldn’t allow, didn’t want, anybody to speak to Neil Mitchell and drum up further controversy, and in fact the ABC’s attitude was the opposite, which was actually to say nothing.
JK: You know, you could have saved yourself about two minutes of explanation if you’d just said “Colin Vickery”.
RK: Yes, probably…
The conversation then moved on to a discussion about Colin Vickery’s role in “manufacturing outrage” about a number of ABC comedy programs, and how certain sections of the media (the implication here is those newspapers owned by News Limited) have set narratives for covering comedy in general. If a show is on a commercial network (i.e. The Joy of Sets) stories will generally concern ratings numbers and possible dips therein. If a show is on the public broadcaster (i.e. shows made by The Chaser) journalists will jump on anything potentially controversial (indeed, you can virtually hear them pacing around waiting for something to go to air on The Hamster Wheel that they can be OUTRAGED by).
The problem with Kalowski’s version of events is that Colin Vickery – loathe as we are to admit this – was right: the scene in At Home with Julia was news-worthy. Or at least, news-worthy by the dubious standards of the newspaper he works for. Nice as it would be to believe that the Herald-Sun‘s TV reviewer would look at such a scene and go “Oh no, I won’t mention that scene to anyone else here”, finding out about “controversial things” and reporting on them is what newspapers – and all the people who write for them – are supposed to do.
After all, it’s not like the Herald-Sun doesn’t report on television stories on its front pages when it sees fit; to claim that Vickery “wasn’t meant to” report on a news-worthy moment in an upcoming television show verges on bizarre. By the standards of his workplace, that’s exactly what he was supposed to do – if the ABC doesn’t want the Herald-Sun talking about their shows, they can simply stop providing previews.
With that in mind, and considering that the News Limited reaction to pretty much everything on the ABC that’s even remotely scandalous is well-known and firmly understood even by us, did the ABC or Rick Kalowski honestly think that a scene showing the PM post-coital in her office under an Australian flag would be seen as “a really sweet, fun scene”? Realistically, the most positive spin that can be put on the scene is that they were hoping it would spark controversy and get viewers in for the following episode, only to have Vickery rain on their parade by bringing it to light before it actually aired.
So, ultimately, it’s hard to buy much of Kalowski’s argument that the ABC never tried to drum up publicity for this. Indeed, there’s some suggestion (or possibly evidence) that they actually tried to do this. Here’s what Dennis Dugandzic, Simon Band and Dan Barrett had to say in episode 198 of the podcast Televised Revolution (released 20 September):
DD: …I’m sure they [the ABC] realised they were going to get a bit of backlash…
SB: Realised, or deliberately sought?
DB: Well, it’s interesting you mention this gentleman, because I’m not sure if you guys receive the same ABC press releases that I do, or maybe I just don’t forward them on to you…
SB: Oh, what, the “ABC courts controversy” kinda stuff?
DB: Well, none of that, ABC, when they’ve got a show to promote, or whatever, you get a press release…and so I saw a press release come through, I think it may have been on Monday morning [19th September], may have been over the weekend, I’m not quite sure, could have been Friday [16th September]. Anyway, it was saying episode 3 of At Home with Julia is online to watch and there’s, like, a special thing for the media to login to the ABC to be able to preview things, it’s environmentally friendly, they’re not mailing discs around the place and what not, but people are given a login and can check out their media website. And so they said that episode 3’s online on this site and you can go and check it out, and I thought to myself “That’s a bit unusual, I’m sure there’s probably something to this”. I haven’t watched the episode yet, but I’ll be firing it up later tonight and try to get a review up before it airs tomorrow, but it struck me as interesting that they did this when I haven’t seen a similar press release for the previous two episodes, and so I think they really wanted the media to see this episode and then to spark the discussion.
SB: Off the top of my head, it went from one and bit million to eight hundred and something thousand in between that and the second week, so I would dare suggest that there is the desire to create interest in an otherwise uninteresting show.
DB: I would also suggest that this episode two, of a show courted controversy, that was always going to do down, people will tune in for that curiosity factor, but it’s not likely they’ll stick around on those same levels. I would suggest that for a satirical comedy about politics, on the ABC, on Wednesday nights at 9.30pm, 890,000 is a pretty respectable figure, and I believe you’ll find that that figure will also trounce anything that was on Nine or Ten that night.
SB: You raise an excellent point.
Again, it’s hard to be sure how accurate the suggestions in this conversation are – there must surely have been a press release issued for episode 1 of At Home with Julia, for instance – but Simon Band’s point about the ratings dip between episodes one and two of the show is interesting, despite Dan Barrett’s very reasonable counter-argument that a second episode dip was predictable and that episode 2’s ratings were respectable.
Anyway, what can we conclude from all this? In recent years we’ve seen the ABC become increasingly focused on getting good ratings for and generating a buzz about their programs in a desperate bid to justify their existence. All the while they have continued to undergo a sustained and co-ordinated attack from News Limited newspapers, right-wing talkback hosts, and cynical politicians. People like us would argue that the ABC’s continued existence should be justified by its commitment to quality and niche programming, and its services to regional areas, but that is not the strategy the ABC themselves have plumped for. They’re most interested in ratings, and they’ve worked hard to get them. 15 years ago the ABC didn’t make many populist programs, or have as many people working hard to publicise them. Now look at them: you can’t get people to shut up about The Slap.
So, is it really that hard to believe that someone in ABC publicity decided to that if they couldn’t stop News Limited from busting out their pre-determined invective, then perhaps they could use it to their advantage? Because if there’s one thing that will get lots of people tuning in it’s the promise of a shocking or controversial scene. And who cares if they all complain about it later, because lots of them will tune in next week for more.
As for the ABC being under threat because it aired a sitcom showing a post-coital Prime Minister and First Bloke under the flag… no. No government would shut down the ABC or slash its budget for that, or for any of the ABC comedy OUTRAGES of recent years. The truth of the matter is that the ABC has a rusted-on audience who would fight for it if it were under serious threat, and as the ABC make increasingly populist programs that audience is getting bigger and bigger – too big for News Limited or even a Tony Abbott-led government to kill. Maybe that ratings-led strategy was a good idea?
Give a dog a bone
As we often point out ’round these parts, we Australians don’t make much sketch comedy. Particularly the sort of “pure” sketch comedy shows associated with British television, programs like That Mitchell and Webb Look or The Armstrong and Miller Show, or if you’re old enough to remember them, A Bit of Fry & Laurie, Smith & Jones and French and Saunders.
The ABC’s contribution to this genre in the past decade seems to begin and end with 2004’s Eagle & Evans. Before that you have to go back to The Micallef P(r)ogram(me) (1998-2001), or stretch the definition slightly to include BackBerner (1999-2002) and The Chaser’s various shows (2001-present). Commercial TV, meanwhile, has served up Comedy Inc. (2003-2007), skitHOUSE (2003-2004), Big Bite (2003-2004), The Wedge (2006-2007), Double Take (2009), and (again, stretching the definition a bit) Let Loose Live (2005), Live From Planet Earth (2011) and Good News World (unbelievably still on air). Judging by that list it’s not hard to see why pure sketch comedy in this country, if not entirely dead, resembles such a fetid, lurching, zombie-like corpse that networks have mostly steered clear.
On the one hand the move away from pure sketch has resulted in some interesting shows which incorporate sketches – The Joy of Sets and The Bazura Project being the most recent examples. Of these two The Bazura Project is the show which seems to hark back most to those old school ideas of “pure” sketch, perhaps because it comes from Melbourne’s Channel 31, a station whose many strengths include not being run by ratings-obsessed executives who hold views like “sketch comedy is divisive” or “sketch comedy is uncool”. They just seem to let people get on with making the shows they want to make, which is great news for anyone who likes watching interesting comedy with the stamp of its creators all over it.
One such program is Channel 31’s latest sketch show Lost Dog, which airs Saturday at 10pm (or catch up online). Lost Dog combines “six tiny comedy shows in one big kennel” and includes the twisted family antics of The Peep Jeep, deadpan duo Mach/Lap, dark sitcom The Broken Ones and the surreal Neil Adams is Stuck in a Box. Cutting the shows together initially seemed like an odd thing for the creators to do, but it works fairly well and results in a cohesive program. It’s also pretty funny, and looks remarkably good for something which probably had a tiny budget.
If we were a betting blog, we’d lay down money that ABC executives will take a serious look at this show – their best new comedies of this year have come from Channel 31 after all.
NOTE: This post has been amended slightly to correct the detail mentioned in mike’s comment.