Australian Tumbleweeds

Australia's most opinionated blog about comedy.

yet again with The Chaser…

It was probably around the “Baby Day Spa’ sketch on this week’s episode of The Chaser’s War on Everything that I realised a couple of things…

1): If you’re still keeping tabs on the number of Chaser ‘references’ to earlier sketch comedy shows, then the gag about the baby getting a massage could very well have been lifted from US sketch comedy series Mr. Show.  Who also did a ‘Make-A-Wish’ style sketch a decade or so ago, by the way.

2): Or they could just think seeing a baby getting a backrub is funny.  Which it is.

3): Being dubbed “controversial” is pretty much the worst thing that could have happened to The Chaser. Take this weeks episode – a passably but bland collection of fairly safe gags enlivened mostly by Chaz’s extended sketch about using those text message “love calculators” in real life –

(a sketch, by the way, he seemed to have worked up pretty much on his own, much as he was the driving force behind the consistently entertaining “What Have We Learnt From Current Affairs Shows” in earlier series of TCWOE.  Could it be that Chaz is the series’ real stand-out star?)

-and a couple of passable musical numbers.  Not a controversial edge in sight, no matter how hard I shouted “controversial” at the television every time someone said “arse”.  Unfortunately for The Chaser, what was by local standards a relatively competent slice of aimless sketch comedy stood no chance in hell of living up to their reputation as “rebels”, even if they did wave some fake e-mails at Malcolm Turnball early on in proceedings.

4): That said, this episode was an improvement over, say, pretty much all of series two, not to mention the first two episodes of this current series.  It’s almost as if, without the crutch of their “edgy” material to lean on, they’ve been forced to go with ideas that are just plain amusing.  Fingers crossed their next series is a revival of A Country Practice – no doubt they’d come up with something hilarious.

5): And then the next morning I picked up this week’s copy of Melbourne street paper InPress and read the following in occasional television column: ‘The TV Set’ by Andrew Mast.  It’s worth quoting at length because, to the best of my knowledge, it’s the first non net-rant example of someone actually buying into the hype around The Chaser:

“So, anyone else feeling like the rebels are without a cause? That The Chaser rolled over where you expected them to fight (or at least arm wrestle)?”

[some discussion of the mild nature of the Make-A-Wish sketch, the overwrought reaction from the tabloid press, and the excessive nature of the ABC’s two-week suspension response follows.  We rejoin The TV Set already in progress]

“Did The Chaser lads apologise in the hope that they could save the job of Amanda Duthrie, the head of comedy who was eventually rolled?  Did they not arc-up about this ridiculous over-reaction because they wanted to show the BBC what easy-going, un-Brand-and-Ross guys they really are? [Mast had earlier mentioned that compilation episodes of TCWOE have started screening on the BBC – he doesn’t seem to have realised these comps were the ones made for US television tho’] Or do they really believe they went too far?  We will probably have to wait a long while before the real behind-the-scenes stories surface… Hey Foxtel, how about a Chaser biopic? For now it seems that The Chaser didn’t just lose this war but didn’t even bother manning the tanks. Can audiences sue the team under the Trade Practices Act for their deceptive title?  Or perhaps they should re-imagine themselves as The Chaser’s War On Government-Approved Targets?”

By all reports Mast is a decent guy, but he seems to have missed the point on this one.  As much as it’d be nice to imagine The Chaser telling the Murdoch press to get fucked before driving off in a stolen outside broadcast van to beam pranks involving them vomiting on Don Bradman’s corpse direct to the public, once it became clear that The ABC wasn’t going to support The Chaser against the tabloid press they had no realistic choice but to cave.  Even their first apology – made when it still looked like they could wriggle out of things – was savaged by The Herald-Sun and others as not going far enough. It was fairly obvious fairly quickly for those who remembered how The Mick Molloy Show was kicked to death over something far less offensive that unless The Chaser showed their bellies to the tabloids on this one they were going to go down in flames.  Sadly, in this country you can only be as offensive as The Herald-Sun allows you to be.

More importantly, expecting some kind of flat-out rebellious response from The Chaser in the face of real opposition indicates a basic misunderstanding of what they do. It’s the same (willful?) misunderstanding that has noted right-wing commentator Gerard Henderson currently campaigning – read: trying to piggyback on their ratings – to send them to Mecca (http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wordpress/).  In the fantasy world where The Chaser are “rebels”, once they touched down they’d instantly do a prank that would get them executed: in the real world they’d probably just annoy some Saudi taxi drivers by asking them if they listened to Alan Jones.

(and isn’t it a good thing that the Catholic Church is no long a collection of infidel-murdering killers?  Surely a sketch showing The Catholic Church’s current tolerance of opposing viewpoints and mockery – the Vatican balloon sketch seems to have inserted itself up Henderson’s arse, judging by his current desire to have The Chaser killed – is actually a positive for the Church?)

Let’s be blunt: The Chaser’s comedy rarely exposes any kind of underlying “truth” behind the topics they tackle – if it did they wouldn’t have had half the success they’ve enjoyed (just ask John Safran). At their best, they make broad gags about baby day spas and stupid commercials; at their worst, they wave bits of photoshopped paper in politicians faces while wearing a silly costume. How either makes you a “rebel”, let alone someone who should be waging a war against the ABC – an ABC that has been very willing to give Chaser member Chris Taylor plenty of odd-jobs around the place, by the way – remains a mystery.  Not one that needs the Foxtel biopic treatment, mind you.

Never forgive, never forget…

Our love of The Mick Molloy Show isn’t exactly a secret – as the closest thing to an One True Successor to the wide-ranging genius of The Late Show (well, at least it tried), its demise at the hands of the tabloid press remains a true tragedy. So it was interesting to hear from a friend of a friend’s friend recently the following story…

It seems that, years after The Mick Molloy Show went belly up, a producer on the show was at a party where s/he got to talking to someone who turned out to be a producer on a major Melbourne talkback radio station. Turning the topic to Mick’s show without revealing his / her interest in said topic, the radio station producer revealed that not only had the station made a conscious, commercial decision to run a campaign to get Mick’s show taken off the air, but that various people at the station had received raises / promotions when they succeeded.

Not exactly a shock to anyone who remembers the heady days of 1999 (we’ll get around to discussing then-Herald-Sun TV critic Robert Fidgeon soon enough), but it’s always good to have these things confirmed. Even at fourth hand…

The Chaser is still exactly the same

A recent article which appeared in the Herald-Sun and various other Murdoch-owned newspapers and websites argued that The Chaser had “gone soft”, “looked tentative” and was now taking “aim at some easy targets”. “Like all episodes of The Chaser, there was just as many misses as bullseyes” said authors Colin Vickery and Patrick Horan. They concluded:

In the current environment The Chaser seems a bit old hat – a sort of comedy version of Gordon Ramsay, whose foul-mouthed tirades seem so 2007. Who knows whether they can get their mojo back, and even if they do, whether anyone will care.

It’s hard to not ask where Vickery and Horan were during the first two series of The Chaser’s War on Everything, or even the first two episodes of the current series. Looking tentative and taking aim at easy targets has been the CWOE’s stock in trade throughout its entire run, with large numbers of their sketches being neither funny, satirical, topical, well-judged or original. Last Wednesday’s episode, by contrast, was an improvement, at least in the first half of the show.

The episode started with a quick mention of the “Make A Realistic Wish” scandal before swiftly turning to Kevin ‘I didn’t see the sketch, but I was told it wasn’t very nice’ Rudd, the government’s media management style (making it hard for journalists to cover events; arranging for minders to stand behind spokespeople and nod at what they say) and Rudd’s notorious temper. This section was funny and made some good satirical points. A sketch which appeared a little later in the programme, where Julian Morrow asked a priest to join him in a prayer that the Catholic church, having committed the modern mortal sin of “accumulating excess wealth”, would be saved, was similarly praiseworthy. But thereafter, the quality dipped to what, sadly, has been the CWOE’s usual level.

There was the weak sketch which wondered what would happen if sports-style commentaries were applied to shows like Lateline, followed by a long and dull attempt to get free travel around the UK by dressing up as The Stig. The show ended with another “what would happen if…” sketch, although this one asked boxers not to fight by punching each other, but by using modern counselling techniques. Even the punchline to this, where the boxers realised the counsellor was the guy from the “Make A Realistic Wish” sketch and decided to go him with a chair, fell a little flat.

But the good sketches from this episode had their problems too. The press has been talking about Rudd’s anger management issues for months, the Catholic church’s list of modern mortal sins was first reported in the media more than a year ago, and that cameraman are now interviewing politicians in place of journalists was first reported by Media Watch weeks ago. Even if they were amusing and well made good points, is there much point in airing them well after their topicality has passed? And more to the point, why weren’t The Chaser striving to make different observations about what’s happening in the news, rather than taking relatively recent news stories and re-tooling them into a lame pranks?

Originality and daring have never been their strong point in the CWOE, though. Compare the stilted, been-through-so-many-lawyers-it’s-not-funny-anymore linking material in any episode of the CWOE to the often shambolic, but always funny interludes on The Late Show. And speaking of The Late Show, it’s one of the many series keen-eyed comedy fans have accused The Chaser of ripping off. Others include:

  • This sketch from CWOE series 2, episode 16 about inappropriate movie roles for Hugh Grant which is strikingly similar to this sketch from the 1999 series The Mick Molloy Show.
  • This sketch from CWOE series 2, episode 22 about finding the face of Jesus in a toilet, which turned out to be very similar to this sketch from Channel 31’s The Ugly Stick.
  • And this sketch in series 2, episode 9 where The Chaser sent donations to the Liberal and Labor parties from the Ku Klux Klan, the Man-Boy Love Association and Al Qaeda Australia, a prank strikingly similar to one Michael Moore did in 1996 (documented in his 1997 book Downsize This!) in which Moore sent small donations to leading Presidential candidates from fake organisations such as Pedophiles For Free Trade and Hemp Growers of America.

In more recent allegations of ripping-off other comedians, Media Watch (among others) have pointed out that Foxtel’s The Mansion did a similar sketch to “Make A Realistic Wish” last year. And the other day Shaun Micallef reminded readers of the Sydney Morning Herald that he and Gary McCaffrie had written a sketch for The Micallef Programme in which a dying child had contacted the Make A Wish Foundation and requested to be masturbated by Lisa McCune.

Micallef added that The Chaser’s Chris Taylor had offered Newstopia the “Make Realistic A Wish” sketch last year, but:

Micallef turned the sketch down but not because it wasn’t funny. “It makes you laugh; it is funny.” He turned it down because he didn’t want to repeat himself and he’d decided his character “wasn’t going to be that nasty any more”. He also admits he “couldn’t really think of a way to justify it”.

What Micallef seemed to hinting at was that the major problem with the “Make A Realistic Wish” sketch was that it was misfocused. It certainly seems unlikely that The Chaser team hate children or think dying kids are selfish as the tabloid press and current affairs show have hinted, poor writing is far more likely. My theory is that the sketch was based on the notion that it would be amusing if the Make A Wish Foundation ran out of cash and could only afford to give dying kids cheap gifts. Unfortunately, what appeared on the screen was not, say, a Make A Wish representative going up to a dying child and trying to fob them off with a stick or a pencil case (thus making the baddie in the sketch the cheapskate Make A Wish representative, rather than the dying kid), but a spoof ad with a voice-over man saying lines like “…curbing their extravagance and greed…”, which made it look like The Chaser were saying that sick and dying kids who wanted to meet celebrities or go on overseas trips are nasty little takers milking people’s sympathy.

Shaun Micallef also told the SMH: “Self-censorship is a really insidious thing and I hope it doesn’t affect their writing”, a very generous statement given that self-censorship (as well as lack of focus) have always been the biggest problems in the CWOE. During the later part of the Howard years, when the show was supposedly in its prime, The Chaser spent far more time making sketches involving the Surprise Spruiker, the Citizen’s Infringement Officer or the Crazy Rug Warehouse Guy, than they did satirising politicians or government policy. And when they did satirise government policy it always seemed toothless, like they were more interested in the fact that John Howard went power walking every morning and that was kinda goofy, rather than that he was trying to reduce the earnings of the average Australian, had engaged the country in two unjustified wars, was doing bugger all about global warming and wouldn’t apologise to the Stolen Generation.

And yet it has only been during the current series, when the quality of the show has been about the same as ever, and it’s been kinda clear that this would be the final series of the show anyway, that commentators and fans have tentatively suggested that The Chaser are past their prime. Whether this is part of the same “neutrality and balance/please don’t sue us” trend that seems to prevent The Chaser from doing any decent satire at all, or just that they can’t see the wood for the trees I’ll leave you to judge, but one thing’s for sure – as the Herald-Sun, Shaun Micallef and everyone else has noted, they still rate and that’s, seemingly, all that matters.

It’s in the stars

TV networks don’t like talent. They’re in the business of making programs, not making stars. Which is hardly surprising: once you’ve seen Eddie McGuire become a household name, clearly that side of things is in the hands – or tentacles- of some kind of morality- and sanity-free Lovecraftian Elder God.

But so ingrained is the notion that shows make stars and not the other way around that… well, let’s take a step back for a second. Last week on ABC radio Green Guide writer Debi Enker suggested that Ten’s 7pm cooking show Master Chef was doing so well its high ratings were lifting the ratings of the shows around it.  The show that she used as an example was the Shaun Micallef hosted ratings smash – and there’s a phrase we all never thought we’d read – Talkin’ ‘bout Your Generation.

That’s right: supposedly fans of a cooking demonstration wrapped in a soft-sell reality show are sticking around to watch Shaun Micallef do his Woody Allen impersonation. And yet, from a TV insider’s point of view, this obviously dim-witted statement makes perfect sense. That’s because from a format point of view – and for insiders format is king – TAYG is hardly the stuff ratings dreams are made of.

It’s yet another limp comedy quiz featuring a collection of mostly also-ran guests, with question segments that drag on too long and an angle – generational facts and fads – that covers all the viewing demographics without doing much to make it appealing to any of them. So if you’re of a mind that the format is what viewers are coming to see, then clearly TAYG’s success (and it’s bringing in around 1.7 million viewers each week) must be slipstreaming from an earlier, even more successful show where the format actually is the reason why people tune in. After all, if viewers only tune into shows for the format, why aren’t they also tuning in for SBS’s mostly-ignored sports-themed comedy quiz The Squiz?

Leaving aside why Enker’s Green Guide fails to bring this angle up when covering every single locally-made ABC comedy shown at 9pm Wednesdays – where the slipstream effect from equally successful comedy quiz Spicks & Specks should apply just as strongly – this view pretty much sums up why so much Australian comedy each and every year is nothing more than steaming clumps of dung dropping from the gassy rectum of a bloated milk cow.

Who cares if the latest sketch comedy show is nothing more than the same old hack faces scraped together to do exactly the same face-pulling that failed the last time? Who cares if the latest panel show features the usual kak-handed suspects drivelling away with the jokes they couldn’t get up on their breakfast radio gigs? It’s the format that counts, not the people plugged into it.

(By the by, this is also a large part of why sitcoms hardly ever get up on Australian television: even at their most generic, a sitcom usually doesn’t look a lot like another sitcom. Kath & Kim didn’t lead to a new dawn for the Aussie sitcom, and yet The Panel spawned a good half-dozen knock-offs and Spicks & Specks is still spitting out imitations to this day.)

It’s little wonder that TV insiders are starting to put out the notion that TAYG’s success has something to do with what’s going on around it; the only other possible explanation for its success (bearing in mind that as a comedy quiz goes it’s hardly surprising or new) is that Shaun Micallef is a funny guy. And if viewers are tuning in to watch a funny guy be funny… well, what’s left for the people who think up (read: rip off other) TV formats to do?

Catherine Deveny knows comedy

We all know what the tabloid press were doing during the furore over The Chaser’s “Make a Realistic Wish” foundation sketch: they were obsessed with making rational and well-reasoned contributions to the debate, if the Herald-Sun’s “They spat in the face of dying children” headline was anything to go by.

And that kind of demented rabble-rousing is easy for them to say: if you discount the people who write those tiny “choice pick” blurbs at the top of the TV listings, the Herald-Sun doesn’t employ a single television critic who could have pointed out that The Chaser’s sketch was just something on television and not some kind of real-world living nightmare that was actually happening to sick kiddies every time the clip was viewed on YouTube.

But what about the “quality” press?  Where were they in all the Chaser outrage? Hedging their bets for the most part, by covering “the outrage”, and running the same trashy stories while pretending to be above it all.  And who can blame them?  Like all media in this country, they’re running scared of shrinking readerships and revenues. But at least a paper like The Age actually has television reviewers to balance out the opinion pieces claiming that The Chaser’s sketch symbolised the Death of Compassion (Shaun Carney, The Age, June 9th), right?

Well, maybe.  Marieke Hardy couldn’t pull herself away from her cappuccino long enough to comment – hardly surprising, as she’s also an ABC employee.  Gee, that policy of only hiring media insiders to comment on the media is really working out, hey?  And in the other corner we had Catherine Deveny’s ‘Couch Life’ column of June 13th. Surely a major metropolitan newspaper’s chief TV columnist would be able to point out that the sketch was merely a joke, right?  Guess again, as she sums up life itself with impressive brevity:

“Wrong. Simple as that.” Wow.  And they pay you to review television?  Why bother giving you a full third of a tabloid page when all you need is a single word?  Underbelly: “nup”. Four Corners: “hmm”. Master Chief : “burp”.  But wait, there’s more: “And not funny. Not because it was offensive… Wrong because it didn’t make people laugh or think.” Not because it didn’t make Deveny laugh or think, mind you, but “people” in general.  As Margaret Thatcher said to George Negus, “name six”.

So if it had made “people” laugh or think it would have been okay, right?  Well, maybe not think: Deveny’s column is usually full of comedic references to her rough’n ready lifestyle and how she’d like her kids to play in traffic. It’s fair to assume she doesn’t really want people thinking too long or hard on what those jokes might mean – after all, they’re clearly just jokes, right?

(And it’s interesting to note also that the choice being offered is to “laugh or think”.  Judged by those rigorous criteria, even Ian Kershaw’s two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler could get under the wire as a non-stop kak-fest in the newly discovered “think” comedy category. Sure, you’re mostly thinking what a tool this Hitler guy is, but at least you’re thinking – something that’s rarely at risk when Deveny picks up the pen.)

Perhaps if she’d simply stuck to “not funny” she could have added something to the sum total of useful human knowledge.  And if she’d then gone on to explain exactly why it wasn’t funny in coherent, non-emotive terms, all would have been right with the world.  But of course, not only did she say it didn’t make “people” laugh – declaring it one of the very rare events in human history that no-one at all will ever derive amusement from – she went on to say “The point wasn’t strong enough to warrant the offense”.

Jokes now need to have a point beyond making people laugh? Well, no. Jokes can have a point beyond getting a laugh, but when you argue that a joke fails because it doesn’t make a strong point… well, where were you when The Mighty Boosh was getting a run? Why aren’t you complaining about Sam Simmons each and every week? Or more to the point, what exactly is the higher meaning behind your jokes about you mistreating your kids that excuses their (on the surface) horrific content?  Oh, it’s just a joke? So The Chaser’s sketch wasn’t?

To be fair, compared to the tabloid drivel on the topic Deveny’s a searing light of truth. But compared to the tabloid drivel on the topic the text message “LOLfagz 6 ded kidz” is the wisdom of Solomon. It might be difficult to imagine a sketch about dying children that was hysterically funny. It might be even more difficult to imagine The Chaser being the ones who came up with such a sketch. But it’s flat out impossible to imagine anyone taking Catherine Deveny’s views on comedy seriously when the best she can come up with is this barely coherent ramble designed more to justify her readers’ outrage than explain to them why sometimes comedy just might offend someone.  And why comedy should always be treated first and foremost as a joke.

The Chaser’s controversial “Make a Realistic Wish Foundation” sketch examined

It was a joke.

Welcome

This blog is a spin-off of the Australian Tumbleweeds – Australia’s most opinionated awards ceremony. 13 schoolyards and Bean Is A Carrot will start posting their usual mix of news, views and snark very soon. In the meantime, check out the 2008 awards.