Australian Tumbleweeds

Australia's most opinionated blog about comedy.

The Operation Was A Success, But The Patient Died

From Throng.com:

The 7PM Project is to be commissioned for another year, further demonstrating Ten’s support for the program, which many had written off when ratings fell after just a few weeks on air in 2009. Even early this year, and into the ratings period from February the show failed to attract the ratings it has been achieving now.

The 7PM Project has seen a recent surge in ratings, surpassing the 1 million mark and winning its timeslot over Home and Away on Seven and Two and a Half Men on Nine last Thursday.

Ten’s director of programming David Mott said the network was extremely pleased with the present success of the show.

“I’m so proud of this show after we took a huge risk and everyone wrote it off at the beginning.

“But we tweaked it, gave it a more newsy edge and Charlie’s old look was a victim of that process. The old look wasn’t right and the new one is. We’re very, very happy at how Project is coming along,” he added.

The improvement has been attributed to the team’s recent image and wardrobe overhauls. Presenters Carrie Bickmore, Charlie Pickering and Dave Hughes were all made to look more like news readers.

July 20, 2009 was when the show premiered on Ten, after the conclusion of the first series of Masterchef.

Yes, you read right. But let’s repeat that just to confirm:

The improvement has been attributed to the team’s recent image and wardrobe overhauls. Presenters Carrie Bickmore, Charlie Pickering and Dave Hughes were all made to look more like news readers.

Because no-one would ever in their right mind tune in for the 7pm Project‘s actual content. Which, although it wasn’t mentioned, has also tidied itself up by dumping the “comedy news” angle in favour of running a lot of Today Tonight scare stories about race and diet fads. And let’s not forget this:

The old look wasn’t right and the new one is

Why not just hire Ray Martin? He’s got a better “look” for current affairs than Pickering, after all. That said, my fist with a mouth drawn on it is a more credible newsreader than Dave Hughes, so there’s still room for improvement there.

This announcement is hardly cause for back-slapping over at Ten. All this really means is that the original, “failed” 7pm Project was axed a few months back and replaced immediately by a show with the same name and hosts but a totally different engine under the hood. An engine, let’s not forget for a single second, that is only firing now because the ratings juggernaut that is Master Chef takes off the split-second it finishes, dragging it along in its’ wake.

The real question is, if a crap quasi-current affairs show hosted by a collection of B-listers can have so much time and money and commitment thrown behind it even after months of rating failure, why is it that every Aussie comedy series that comes along gets the boot the second it shows the slightest sign of not being a massive runaway hit?

Darkness falls across the land…

Look everyone!  A press release from Channel Seven!

Channel Seven today announced Tim Ross will make his solo television hosting debut on the new comedy series, Australia Versus.

Australia Versus sees national pride at stake with our leading comedians taking on their international counterparts to prove that Australia is the best country in the world bar none.

England, Ireland and the United States are in the firing line as Australia fights for global supremacy in anything from sport to movies, food to music, and who’s sexiest!

In each episode, it’s a fun battle of wits as the featured comedians patriotically argue and sledge their way through a series of subject rounds, while contemporary and historical archive clips back up their arguments.

An independent international judging panel determines a winner of each round and the overall winning country is announced at the end of the episode.

The roll call of comedians includes Peter Helliar, Rebel Wilson, Anh Do, Fiona O’Loughlin, Corinne Grant, Peter Berner, Julia Morris, Heath Franklin, Dave Thornton, Greig Pickhaver and newcomer Joel Creasey for Australia , while the likes of Hale & Pace, Pauly Shore , John Moloney, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Des Bishop represent the internationals.

“I’m very excited about Australia Versus and I’m very proud to be hosting this show which features some very, very funny comedians,” Ross said today. “Obviously I see this as the first of many projects at Seven and expect to be co-hosting the Australian Open in 2011.”

Australia Versus – hosted by Tim Ross – is coming soon.

Because I know when I cast my eye across the TV schedules, the glaring omission that leaps out at me is the lack of a regular series of those crap GNW debates from the late 1990s. At least the title will provide headline writers with plenty of options when / if it follows every other Seven comedy project this century down the Dick Ritter. “Australia Versus Disinterest”; “Australia Versus Boredom” ; “Australia Versus the execs at Seven that greenlit this doomed pile of re-heated turds”.  Yeah, let’s go with that one.

Seriously though, wouldn’t it be nice to occasionally see the announcement of an Australian comedy series that sounded like it was actively trying to be more than just pointless background noise?

The Wonderful World of Australian Comedy Online Part 4: Sketch comedy

In yet another indication that the future of entertainment is online, a recent-ish episode of the Mediaweek podcast revealed that Andrew Denton’s production company Zapruder’s Other Films has employed nine members of the Hungry Beast team to work on “online projects”. What exactly these projects are was not revealed; it’s also not terribly clear at this stage what types of entertainment will work best in an online context.

Sites like YouTube or Funny or Die?, probably the most popular portals for online comedy, suggest that online audiences prefer comedy videos to be short, making sketches or short series an ideal format, but this may well be as much a reflection on the state of technology as it is on how long people are prepared to sit watching something on a small computer monitor whilst sitting in a hard computer chair (as opposed to watching something on a giant plasma screen whilst sitting on a comfy sofa). And with computers and TV merging, 3D TV and touch screen monitors on the way, mobile devices getting better and better, and broadband getting faster and faster, the future of film and video delivery is far from certain. Either way, with companies like Zapruder’s Other Films making serious investments in the medium, the race to make it profitable in Australia seems to have stepped up a gear.

But, of course, all we’re really worried about here is whether online comedy’s any good or not, so my quest to find something decent continues. My first stop for sketch comedy was the website of 2007 Australian Tumbleweeds Worst Newcomer winners Ministry of Truth, a Brisbane-based “media collective” who’d contributed some sketches to jTV, but alas, they seem to have disbanded. Their website – http://www.ministryoftruth.tv/ – which enabled anyone to sign up and submit their own videos, Hungry Beast style, although without the $1000 prize, no longer exists, but if you’re curious about what they produced their YouTube channel lives on. The channel contains a number of professional-ish looking videos, of variable quality, ranging from student-level sketches, to quirky short films, to a not-that-interesting interview with Barnaby Joyce, to sub-Hungry Beast satire. Indeed the more I re-acquainted myself with Ministry of Truth, the more I wondered if it was an inspiration for Hungry Beast – the concept (and the results) were certainly similar.

My next stop was Funny or Die? I found several hours worth of comedy sketches made by Australians, but unfortunately absolutely every single one of them was so utterly shithouse that my right index finger developed RSI from hitting the Die button over and over again. Whichever of our readers suggested the Americans do it better online got it dead right, at least as far as Funny or Die? goes.

Feeling quite disheartened at this point, I decided to skip YouTube and instead check out a couple of links I’d seen posted on a forum. The first was the website of Melbourne-based sketch comedy group The Consumption, whose shows feature a mix of live and pre-recorded sketches. When you consider the recent history of TV sketch comedy in this country, it’s a wonder anyone’s still bothering, so The Consumption get points for trying, but production values aside, I didn’t enjoy their output much. The main problem with their work is that many of their sketches don’t contain many ideas. Often a single idea or gag will be stretched out for a minute or more, while some of their sketches make the mistake of prioritising weird over funny – the latter may appeal to a certain audience, but not one looking for laughs. The best sketch on The Consumption’s site is PAC: Creativity, which features a cameo appearance from Tony Martin. What’s good about this sketch isn’t Tony Martin’s cameo, more the fact that it contains a couple of funny, clever lines which he delivers really well.

A better site for sketch comedy is that of Touched by an Angle Grinder. Consisting of Greta Harrison, Matthew C. Vaughan and Troy Nankervis, Touched by an Angle Grinder is another collective of emerging artists. Most notable amongst their output is Free Internet, a short series in which Greta’s grandfather “Pops” tells viewers all about the wonders of the internet. The concept of juxtaposing the elderly with modern phenomena is a well worn way to generate laughs, but the twist in this case is that instead of laughing at an ignorant old man, we’re laughing at the internet. Social networking, LOLZ humour, internet entrepreneurs and lots of other stuff with little relation to the internet cop a serve. It’s kind of like watching early footage of Graham Kennedy, as he’s working out how to de construct the key components of television presentation and put them back together again with devastatingly funny effect. It’s exactly the kind of online comedy that should be making it to TV instead of a new series of Beached Az.

Pick’n choose’n loose

“You do the best with what you’re given”. It’s a common excuse: when someone’s reliant on a supplier a little further down the chain, it’s easy to pass the blame along to them. Best of all, there’s usually no way for an outsider to prove them wrong: when a theatre company’s cast is average at best and they say “you should’ve seen the would-be actors we knocked back”, well… you can’t. So you can’t tell whether they really are doing the best with what they were given, or whether they’re just rubbish at their job and turned away a half-dozen Marlon Brando’s because their idea of a brilliant dramatic actor is John Michael “Hollywood” Howson.

What does all this have to do with the ABC announcing that Adam’s Zwar’s sitcom Lowdown will be replaced in the Wednesday 9pm comedy slot by the already seen on Pay TV Andrew Denton-produced advertising dramedy :30 Seconds? Not a whole lot. But the ABC’s been picking up a lot of comedy programming from Pay TV lately, and unlike their home-grown programming – where the “you do your best with what you’re given” line is in full effect, as we never see the shows they knock back – we can see the Pay TV comedies the ABC didn’t think were worth putting to air.

In the last few years the ABC has rebroadcast the following Pay TV series: Chandon Pictures, Stupid Stupid Man, and the upcoming :30 Seconds. So what they want is sitcoms? Well, no: sure, the ABC didn’t pick up The Merrick and Rosso Show, or Charlie Pickering and Michael Chamberlain’s The Mansion, or the cabaret-style The Pan Anne Show, but they didn’t embrace The Jesters or Whatever Happened to That Guy, starring Mick Molloy and Peter Moon respectively, either.

Whatever you might think of them as performers, both Moon and Molloy are certainly bigger comedy “names” than anyone in the three series the ABC picked up. So the ABC isn’t working simply on name recognition: maybe they like their comedies down the serious end of the scale? :30 Seconds is very much a dramedy, and one that’s little more than a thinly fictionalized version of The Gruen Transfer at that. But no: Stupid Stupid Man was about as wacky as they come.

The list goes on: maybe the ABC likes ensemble casts? Well, no: you couldn’t slide a sheet of paper between Chandon Pictures and The Jesters there. Maybe the ABC has a deal with one particular Pay TV channel? Nah: Chandon Pictures was on Movie Extra, while :30 Seconds was on the Comedy Channel. Maybe the ABC wants strong female characters? Nope again: in having two regular female characters, The Jesters outdoes Chandon Pictures there too.

While it’d be nice to think it’s possible to pin what the ABC is after down to a firm formula, it’s not going to happen. That’s because it’s obvious why the ABC didn’t want The Jesters and Whatever Happened to That Guy even though as comedies go both of them were easily funnier than :30 Seconds and arguably better than Chandon Pictures and Stupid Stupid Man.

Based on their Pay TV purchases, it seems that as far as the ABC’s concerned being funny just isn’t enough. In fact, it’s an actual drawback. It’s a drawback because if you make a show that is first and foremost trying to be funny, you’re not going to have the time or money or room to fit in the things the ABC does seem to want from a comedy.

I’m talking about things like production values: The Jesters is funnier than Stupid Stupid Man but looks cheaper, as does Whatever Happened to That Guy. Things like fashionably “edgy” material: Whatever Happened to That Guy is funnier than Chandon Pictures, but Chandon is full of trendy  but stale sub-UK-Office awkward moments and “shocking” plots like cousins marrying while That Guy is a traditional sitcom full of wacky mix-ups and face-pulling that still mostly works comedy-wise. Things like romantic subplots: 30 Seconds has them, The Jesters and Whatever Happened to That Guy don’t.

There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with any of those things. There’s also nothing funny about any of them. Going by their Pay TV purchases (and, let’s be honest, their original programming), the ABC comedy department just isn’t willing to take a shot on a comedy that devotes all its energy to trying to be funny. Which is a big problem, because the less energy a show puts into being funny, the more likely it is that is won’t be.

The ABC can claim that :30 Seconds, Stupid Stupid Man and Chandon Pictures are somehow “better” than the shows they didn’t pick up, but they can’t seriously claim they’re definitively funnier. And when it comes to comedy, I’ll take funnier over “better” any time.

Chuck another dramedy on the barbie

Nothing makes a comedy fan’s heart sink more than the arrival of a new dramedy. Not because comedy and drama shouldn’t ever be combined, but because dramedies always seem to be either populist light dramas with little-to-no actual comedy (Packed to the Rafters) or sitcoms which turned out to be so woefully laugh free that even their own publicists baulk at marketing them as comedies (I Rock).

Even the massive success story that was SeaChange didn’t really get the mix right; it relied on a schmaltzy soap-style storyline for the drama and a handful of wacky peripheral characters for the comedy. Conclusion: don’t expect either quality drama or quality comedy in a dramedy. And if you’re hoping for a more organic mix of the two genres, forget it.

Yet, putting the two genres together needn’t automatically be an unsatisfying, awkward mess. Take the 1986 “pseudo-documentary” BabaKiueria, released on DVD a few years back. Written by Mother & Son creator Geoffrey Atherden, this is a “reverse angle probe” into the relationship between white and Aboriginal Australians, which images that Aborigines arrived on ships in 1788 to claim an empty land for their people. An empty land full of suburb-dwelling white folk.

Coming ashore to find a white family enjoying a barbeque in a local park, the Aboriginal first settlers approach the natives with caution. Their leader asks one of the elder white men what this land is called. Misunderstanding, the white man replies “Barbeque area”, and the nation of BabaKiueria is born.

BabaKiuera may be full of lame-ish gags like this, and the white/Aboriginal role swap scenario doesn’t work perfectly, but the dialogue is top class. The bulk of the show consists of BabaKiuerian television reporter Duranga Manika (a sort of Aboriginal Jana Wendt) spending time with a white family. Her film is characterised by a series of patronising and factually incorrect commentaries on their lifestyle and customs.

Betting on horses at the TAB is interpreted by the Aboriginal elite as a white religious ritual, where offerings of money are made to the Gods and paper tokens bearing mystic writings are received in return. A key part of the ritual is watching a TV monitor showing horses running around a track, something the whites believe will bring them luck. The worshippers who find that the horses did not bring them luck then utter curses and tear up their paper tokens.

As BabaKiuera develops, the light-hearted satire turns darker as an ANZAC Day parade is broken up by the Aboriginal police, despite the lack of violence, and an elderly marcher is arrested. In a distressing scene, the daughter of the family Manika has been staying with is taken away by the police to receive “an education”. Her parents shyly admit to the cameras that this is for the best, while their son angrily points out that this is not the views they have expressed in private.

Eventually the rest of the family are removed from their home by the government. Officials make a big deal of packing up the family’s possessions, but it becomes clear that the government are effectively stealing everything they own, while they will be dumped in a camp. The parents grimly accept their fate, while their son runs off in anger. BabaKiueria concludes with one of the bleakest endings to a comedy programme ever – a suicide.

But apart from the pointed, angry satire (much of it still relevant today), what marks this programme out from many which combine comedy and drama is that the transition between the two is seamless. Everything is played straight, no matter how ridiculous, and what starts out like a slightly weak sketch idea gradually evolves into a compelling, if difficult to watch, drama.

Gear changes this smooth just aren’t seen in your average dramedy, nor is dialogue this good. This is not to say that all dramedies need to be angry satires made in the 80’s, but that a poor drama with some tokenistic comedy or a poor comedy with a vague hint of drama simply isn’t good enough as a piece of television.

Yob Nobs Watch Widescreen Slobs pt 2: The Kings of Mykonos: Wog Boy 2

Australian comedy movies are like a busted watch: annoying and not even remotely funny, but if you time it just right you can suck a lot of people in with one. And no-one’s going to deny that the original Wog Boy timed it just right: after well over a decade of touring various “Wog” shows around the country (starting with Wogs out of Work in the late 1980s), Nick Giannopoulos had both primed the audience for his big screen version and road-tested the gags to a point where they couldn’t fail. Well, unless you expected them to be funny, but that wasn’t the point: this was comedy of recognition on a massive scale –“ha ha, wogs / skips / whoever are EXACTLY like that!” for ninety minutes – and Nick knew his market like the back of his woggy hand.

So the first Wog Boy made an absolute fortune, at least in local terms. Then came Nick G ‘s traditional follow-up dud The Wannabes, a film so crass, crap, boring and unpleasant a nation stood as one and, well, didn’t so much walk out of the cinema as avoid it altogether. For the unfortunate few who did see this, one thing was clear: finally we had our big-screen equivalent to Daryl Somers. They’re both natural entertainers with a rock-solid desire to win people over, and yet it’s impossible to shake the feeling that you wouldn’t want to cross them in any way. Plenty of comedians can give off the impression of being prickly: like Daryl, Nick G gives off the impression that there’s nothing behind his slick façade but a ruthless desire to succeed at all costs.  Which might be great for a businessman, but isn’t really all that funny.

Nick G’s been quoted as saying Kings of Mykonos: Wog Boy 2 was originally going to be a stand-alone story, but then he decided this particular plot was a good way to bring back the original Wog Boy characters. Bad move for the film (as will be explained later), but a smart move publicity-wise. If this was a stand-alone movie it’d be fair to say it’s a massive and unwelcome return to the bad old days of Australian movie comedy, a film you laugh at more than with, a film that plays its jokes so broad it’s a wonder they fit even on a widescreen – in short, a film where, when one of the leads finally get the girl (though all he does is save her from drowning but here that’s as good a reason to pash as any), the donkey he was riding looks at the camera and winks.

But as a sequel to the original Wog Boy, well…  it’s pretty much just more of the same. After all, it’s not like it’s possible to disgrace the proud legacy of the original, right? Even if it was, Nick G already managed that with the excreteable Wannabes. And let’s be honest: while Australian cinema occasionally manages to come up with a film that’s both funny and has wide appeal, you’re just as likely to hit it big with cinema audiences by serving up a steaming pile of Yahoo Serious press clippings. Much as it’d be nice to point out the numerous smart, witty big screen comedies that have turned out to be box office hits, the sad fact is that more often than not it’s moronic crap than wins the day.

This particular piece of moronic crap takes the two hold-overs from the first film – car-crazy Steve “Wog Boy” Karamitsis (Giannopoulos, who’s performance consists largely of pulling a squinty face) and girl-crazy Frank (Vince Colosimo) – out of Melbourne’s western suburbs and off to the Greek party island of Mykonos, where Steve may or may not have inherited a beach. While Frank starts out trying to break the Mykonos record of sleeping with 43 chicks in a month but ends up focussing on just one, Steve has to decide whether to sell to the sleazy property developer Mihali (Alex Dimitriades) or try to make a go of things himself against all the odds. Oh, and there’s a subplot about goat shit.

Pretty much the only interesting thing about this film – which is exactly what you would expect on every single level and so basically review-proof – is that back around the time of The Wannabes, Nick G was popping up in every newspaper and magazine that would have him saying  “Australians want Australian stories”.  He didn’t go so far as to suggest attending local films should be made compulsory, but he did seem to feel that a): Australia films were being too harshly judged by both critics and audiences, and b): people should support Australian stories simply because they were Australian.

So what does he go and make? A movie where, apart from the first five minutes, the action is set entirely on a Greek island and the story revolves around defending the island’s small businesses from an evil property developer. And this is an Australian story how?

You could argue that the subtext is about second-generation migrants returning to their homeland, but subtext? In a Wog Boy movie? Anyway, a few jokes about “Greek-a-nomics” aside, Steve’s story has nothing to do with a culture clash between his Aussie values and the culture of his forefathers. And Frank is Italian so it’s not even his family’s culture he’s returning to. No doubt Nick G’s out there talking up how we should support his film as a local product. But by dragging back characters from his only successful film and dropping them in a story set overseas (and largely funded with overseas money) that has nothing to do with them, he’s not only diluted whatever goodwill those characters might have retained, he’s made it obviously clear that as far as he’s concerned by “Australian stories” he means “me”.

You can’t have it both ways: either “Australians want Australian stories”, or you want to play with the big boys from overseas. If you want people to support you simply because you’re from around here, you’d better make films that only someone from around here would make. Loathsome they may be, but at least stars like Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett  aren’t out there claiming that Robin Hood is an “Australian story” simply because they’re in it. Still, at least in one way the original Wog Boy hasn’t let Australia down: by making a crap sequel to a popular comedy, Nick Giannopoulos has proved he’s Aussie as.

Minor Midweek Musings

*Has anyone else noticed that the promos for The 7pm Project no longer seem to feature Dave Hughes? He’s still in the logo shot at the end, but otherwise it’s all Carrie and Charlie (who now has a much neater new haircut) with the nasally gurner nowhere in sight. The show’s slow march towards becoming a panel version of ACA continues…

*In case you needed confirmation that comedy is no longer seen as any kind of ratings winner, we recently realised that while this time of year (post-Easter) is traditionally the time when the commercial networks wheel out their big guns, none of this year’s big guns looks even remotely like local comedy. Well, apart from The Bounce, which goes some way towards explaining the current situation. And GNW, which just seems to fade in and out of the schedules at random.

*It’d be a lot easier to get excited about Wilfred being made into a pilot for the US market if we didn’t know just how many pilots the US market goes through. Rough estimate: a shitload. It’s good news, sure, but it’s a pilot; get back to us when the series order gets placed. And the occasional report trying to link this story to Rebel Wilson’s current US efforts is just plain sad.

* Remember when Daryl was talking about how the returned Hey Hey would be “fresh” and feature “all new segments”? Whatever you might say about Daryl, he can still make us laugh.

*Isn’t Shaun Micallef nice:  “Asked if he can credit any one person for his success, Micallef said “My wife Leandra. She’s the one who, 15 years ago, told me to give up my job (as a lawyer) and do what I really wanted to do – which was writing comedy. I wouldn’t have done it without her encouragement. This week, Leandra and I are celebrating our 21st wedding anniversary. I’m a very lucky man” (from The  Herald-Sun 19/5/10).  All together now: awwww. That said, rumour has it that Shaun could be currently too flat-out with various projects to have time to record any commentary tracks for the long awaited DVD release of Welcher & Welcher.  Al together now: awww…

Yob Nobs Watch Widescreen Slobs pt 1: I Love You Too

Australian comedy movies are like buses: you wait for ages for one and then two come along at once and they’re badly designed and clearly unroadworthy contraptions full of scary, crazy, smelly people you’d much rather have nothing to do with. Everyone knows the Australian film industry is in a mess, but it’s hard to appreciate exactly how much of a mess until you realise that The Kings of Mykonos: Wog Boy 2 managed to get made while Shaun Micallef’s film project Teacher Boy is nowhere to be found.

First things first though, and Peter Helliar’s film I Love You Too has been around long enough now to make two things obvious: most film critics in this country don’t know shit about shit, and Peter Helliar is a very smart man. He’s a very smart man because it doesn’t take long in watching this film – which he wrote and co-stars in – to realise that it’s not actually trying to be a comedy. Or if it is, it’s a romantic comedy that’s way, way down the romantic end of things. This counts as a smart move because while Helliar isn’t all that funny, he does seem (on the strength of this film) to be a fairly romantic kind of guy.

(in a gratuitous and unfair contrast, for all Tony Martin’s comedy strong points, it’s a little difficult imagining him making a film that was romantic in anything but an understated, ironic way. It’d be funnier, but it wouldn’t be able to do the “run for the airport to stop the love of your life leaving forever” run without putting a comedy spin on it.)

So while there’s not really a lot of quality laughs here (if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen most of them), it doesn’t matter because the romance side of things is what’s moving the film forward. It’s hardly a great romance either, but director Daina Reid  (who might remember from her performing days on Full Frontal, or her directing work on Very Small Business) does a great job of making this look like an actual movie (not a charge you could lay against most Australian film comedies) with a very warm and romantic feel to proceedings. And that makes a hell of a difference.

So rather than failing at one thing massively, I Love You Too fails slightly at a couple of things, which means that a lot of the time you don’t even notice it’s failing at all. This is where the other half of Helliar’s genius comes into play, as – hang on, here’s the plot: Jim (Brendan Cowell) loves his girlfriend but can’t say it to her so she dumps him.  He then tries to win her back with the help of an American dwarf (Peter Dinklage) he met while breaking into his car. There’s also a miniature railroad, but it’s not really vital to the plot.

Anyway, having Jim’s love sidekick be a dwarf is both totally gratuitous – there is no reason whatsoever for the character to be a dwarf, though rumour has it a number of dwarf-joke heavy scenes (including one set in a dwarf-tossing bar) were cut from the script at Dinklage’s request – and totally brilliant. That’s because it means they were able to cast Dinklage, who is a first-rate American actor (as seen in The Station Agent and Death at a Funeral) who’s performance lifts the film greatly but who is a lot less likely to be being offered major roles compared to comparable actors of regular height. Basically, a five foot plus tall actor as good as Dinklage would be, say, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and chances are Hoffman wouldn’t come out to Australia to star next to Helliar… mostly because people would get them confused.

Where the bit about Australian film reviewers not knowing shit comes from is that pretty much all the major reviews I’ve read of this film have taken it to task almost entirely because it’s not that funny. This is true, but it’s besides the point: anyone who actually pays attention to what’s happening with this film – and doesn’t just go “if  Peter Helliar wrote it, why isn’t it as gag-packed as PeteSpace was on Rove MOVIE FAIL” – should be able to spot that a lot of the time it’s not really trying to be funny. This isn’t full of jokes that flop (that’s Wog Boy 2), this is full of scenes where a couple of wry comments are thrown into a semi-serious chat. In failing to spot that basic difference a lot of reviewers have been writing / talking a lot of crap.

Basically, if there was a romantic version of “dramedy” this would be its Platonic ideal. The irony is that while Australian review culture is constantly falling all over itself to praise shithouse no-joke comedies because the label “dramedy” gives them a get-out-of-laughs-free card, this film – which again, has clearly been built to be a romantic film with some laughs, and succeeds at this limited goal fairly well – gets dissed and dismissed because it’s roughly as funny as everything else Helliar has ever done but tries hard to give you something else to enjoy alongside the limp gags.

The time to beat up on Helliar was / is when he’s out there flat-out trying to be funny: with this – where for once he’s realised his limitations in the comedy area, worked hard to work around them and create something that works despite his flaws – a cautious and limited thumbs up for once feels like the right response.

I Rawk

If you want to sink the boots into I Rock – and it’s an Australian show, so who doesn’t – it seems that attacking its credibility is the way to go. We’ve already had this review pointed out to us; Helen Razer takes a similar tack in the latest Australian Rolling Stone. Only problem is, last time I watched an episode of I Rock, the word “documentary” didn’t seem to appear anywhere. And if someone passed a law saying that all comedy dealing with a subculture had to accurately reflect that subculture… well, we’d better get those Hogan’s Heroes repeats off the air quick-smart.

Sure, you can get laughs and plenty of them from really going into a subject in depth. It sure worked for Frontline. But to pull an example out of nowhere, no-one sane attacked Fraiser for not accurately replicating the working conditions of a radio psychiatrist. I’m guessing most nuclear power plants aren’t like the one Homer Simpson works in, most party hire outfits aren’t like the one in Party Down, most community colleges aren’t like the one in Community, very few law firms resemble Welcher & Welcher in the slightest, and, well, hopefully you get the idea.

I Rock’s real problem is that the niche it so clearly should be occupying – the “yoof TV” drama slot – no longer exists. So, like pretty much every other show these days that isn’t a flat-out super-serious drama, it gets labeled “comedy”.  Not “documentary”, mind you and not “re-enactment” either.

So if you’re going to sink the boots into I Rock, how about pointing out that the entire cast – with the possible exception of the feisty lesbian – can’t seem to act? Or that the last thing anyone needs is yet another show built entirely around an annoying, self-centered prick? Or that, for a show labeled comedy, there seems to be a remarkable lack of jokes past having the lead piss people off? Why is it so difficult to simply dismiss the show on the basis that, for all the effort that’s gone into making it, very little effort seems to have gone into trying to make it funny?

No doubt it’s annoying for people working in the music biz to see the reality of their situation misrepresented yet again. But it’s even more annoying for the rest of us to see yet another ABC “comedy” series that turns out to be little more than a vanity project for the writer / producer / star where said star simply acts like a dickhead and expects everyone else to laugh. It’s as if the entire spectrum of comedy has shrunk down to one tiny sub-Office point. And this is coming from someone who actually likes The Librarians.

I Rock is instantly forgettable, totally unconvincing, only marginally entertaining and packed to the ceiling with clichés and banal observations that bare little relation to reality. All of which comes a distant second to the fact that it’s simply not very funny. Around these parts, that’s all that counts.

Defending Deveny

“Catherine Deveny’s column will no longer appear in The Age.”  Ahh, does it come any sweeter than this? Of course, there was a whole entire story behind that sentence in Wednesday’s Age, a story that began when Deveny fired off a bunch of her trademark “comedy” quips via twitter during the Logies, continued through the tabloid “outrage” over her comments (and Wil Anderson’s, but he had the advantage of being marginally funny and not currently in steady employment) the following Monday, and ended with her being shown the door at The Age when the “controversy” dragged on into Tuesday.

It only takes a moment’s thought to realise that Catherine Deveny should never have been sacked by The Age yesterday for her Twitter comments. She should have been sacked by The Age years ago for being shit. Anyone unfortunate enough to have been following her career with even one bleary eye knows full well that Twitter “gags” like “I do so hope Bindi Irwin gets laid” and  “Rove and Tasma look so cute… hope she doesn’t die too” are pretty much what she does. IT’S ALL SHE DOES (in the voice of Kyle Reese from The Terminator).

Time for a quick history lesson: her newspaper career started out with a television column for The Age’s A2 supplement. Before that she’d been a writer for Rove and a string of forgettable duds like All Star Squares, Frankie J Holden’s IMT, Super Debate Series, Something Hot Before Bed, Unreal TV, Unreal Stuff Ups, and Unreal Ads. Somehow from that wealth of quality experience The Age figured she was qualified to talk television.

This column tottered along for a while, but by the final year it was little more than a weekly out-of-nowhere swipe at Channel Nine’s “bomber jacket-wearing” management. Which is fair enough except that they weren’t actually starring in their own television series, which is the kind of thing she was meant to be writing about at least some of the time. Eventually she walked away from the slot, telling us what had become screamingly obvious six months earlier: she no longer cared about television.

And why should she? While her career as a television writer had been c-list at best, working for The Age had pushed her into the spotlight with successful stand-up shows, appearances on the ABC’s Q&A, a series of book collections of her columns, and her photo all over the place. Plus she had a regular non-television Wednesday column in The Age, which again rapidly devolved into little more than swipes at organized religion, women who take their husband’s last names, people who drive four wheel drives, people who don’t firebomb private schools, and so on.

Again, fair enough, but they were nasty, bitter, shrill swipes that more often than not left this reader feeling sorry for the often deserving targets she was attacking. Which seems to be a trick she’s managed yet again, only this time she’s the target I feel sorry for.

See, if her comments had come out of the blue, then you could maybe make a case for The Age sacking her over them. Not a very good case, as it’s clear The Age was just bowing to the kind of tabloid pressure that threatens good comedians (remember The Herald-Sun’s attempts to whip up controversy over John Safran’s Race Relations) as well as bad. Unfortunately for that piss-poor case, Deveny’s been pulling this kind of shit all damn day.

As others have pointed out, as recently as Anzac day she was twittering “Refuse to celebrate a glorification of war that ignores the suffering and carnage of (mostly female) civilians” and “They didn’t die for us but because they were risk-taking, testosterone-fuelled men with a pack mentality”. Perfectly reasonable views, but saying them on Anzac Day is a little like visiting a funeral and calling the deceased a child-molesting drunk. It’s probably true and it might make you feel better, but – just at that moment – there are other people’s opinions to consider.

Because if you’re a comedian – and Deveny calls herself one at every opportunity, even claiming her Bindi comment was “satire” – you want to try and make people laugh. Clearly there are plenty of ways to make fun of Anzac Day, and even more to crack wise at the hack parade that is The Logies. Perhaps the slow kids would like to point out some of those ways to Deveny.

Again for the people up the back: THE AGE KNEW ALL THIS. In fact, you’d have to say they encouraged her humour-free style of “satire”. After all, when her A2 column veered away from television reviewing into routines left over from her failed stand-up act about making her kids play in traffic, they didn’t say “hey, back to TV please” – they gave her a whole ‘nother column. Why? Presumably because they figured her brand of “controversy” would attract readers.

So what the fuck? They have a columnist hired pretty much to stir up controversy who – deep breath everyone – STIRS UP CONTROVERSY, and then they fire her? What, is it suddenly a bad thing to have someone writing for you who is being talked about all over town? The Age were idiots for hiring her in the first place, and they’re even bigger idiots for giving her the boot: how they’d manage that trick?