Is it heresy to say that AA Gill might have a point in his review in the Times?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6884266.ece
The Thick Of It - Series 3 Page 7
Not really. But then, AA Gill (like Cosmo Landesman) doesn't actually like *anything* 
A point made in The Guardian piece earlier (and one I similarly thought myself) was what will happen to this show when the Tories get in, though I suspect very much Iannucci is revelling in that challenge and very much looking forward to it. That could bring it back to its own (in AA Gill's eyes).
The other thing is that he seems to thing the comedy is somehow invalid because it's not relevant to (literally) today's government. Fact is, it's still funny. Yes Minister is still funny, but that government's not in charge any more. It doesn't invalidate the humour that it's not current, otherwise it wouldn't necessarily stand up to repeated viewings. Also, up until the specials we never knew who the PM was, as he was never referred to specifically. Now Tom Davis is PM we have a 'genuinely alternative' universe to play in, rather than reality.
Besides, based around the current government, it would be satirical but boring as f**k...
Dan
Quote: Bert Bastard @ October 27 2009, 5:32 PM BSTIs it heresy to say that AA Gill might have a point in his review in the Times?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6884266.ece
I refuse to share the views of a man who goes around shooting baboons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/aa-gill-shot-baboon
Quote: swerytd @ October 27 2009, 5:46 PM BSTNot really. But then, AA Gill (like Cosmo Landesman) doesn't actually like *anything*
True. I nearly fainted when I agreed with some of what he said.
Quote: swerytd @ October 27 2009, 5:46 PM BSTA point made in The Guardian piece earlier (and one I similarly thought myself) was what will happen to this show when the Tories get in, though I suspect very much Iannucci is revelling in that challenge and very much looking forward to it. That could bring it back to its own (in AA Gill's eyes).
It would be about the same except with posher actors.
Quote: swerytd @ October 27 2009, 5:46 PM BSTBesides, based around the current government, it would be satirical but boring as f**k...
They said the same about the Major government when it was in power. Oh yes.
Quote: Ian Wolf @ October 27 2009, 9:31 PM BSTI refuse to share the views of a man who goes around shooting baboons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/aa-gill-shot-baboon
Yeah, bit unfair that. Should have armed the baboon.
I read a book by AA Gill once, The Angry Island: Hunting The English. It was a crock of badly-argued and misconceived shit. I hope this helps to act as a balance to his critcisms.
Quote: Bert Bastard @ October 28 2009, 1:39 AM BSTOh yes.
He's paid well for it though, Tim.
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 28 2009, 1:41 AM BST
Extremely agreeable.
Quote: Bert Bastard @ October 28 2009, 1:41 AM BSTHe's paid well for it though, Tim.
I'm paid a fortune* for this shit. It's a unfair world.
(*your definition of a fortune may somewhat differ from mine)
Er, £5.99?
Quote: Bert Bastard @ October 28 2009, 1:45 AM BSTEr, £5.99?
Ah, a member of the nouveaux riches!
This is an eight part series which I bet will answer most of AA Gill's gripes. Besides the disintegration of the New Labour government was being portrayed on the first series before it became obvious to the public at large.
Interested that Gill signed off by lamenting the passing of Spitting Image as proper political satire. If I remember rightly it very occasionally hit the mark but was mainly a series of hastily written raspberries. A sort of Mike Yarwood meets Week Ending in latex.
Quote: Bert Bastard @ October 27 2009, 5:32 PM BSTIs it heresy to say that AA Gill might have a point in his review in the Times?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6884266.ece
Some very good points in that article. (Although the first episode wasn't written by Iannucci. Simon Blackwell got the credit, IIRC.
Quote: swerytd @ October 27 2009, 5:46 PM BSTThe other thing is that he seems to thing the comedy is somehow invalid because it's not relevant to (literally) today's government. Fact is, it's still funny. Yes Minister is still funny, but that government's not in charge any more. It doesn't invalidate the humour that it's not current, otherwise it wouldn't necessarily stand up to repeated viewings.
I dunno. I do agree that that doesn't make it not-funny all of a sudden, but to pick on the Yes Minister comparison, that was a little more gneralised in its focus; the workings of Government, and its relationship with the civil service. The Thick Of It is more specific (since Langham's departure at least), being more about spin, personal presentation and bullying than politics as such.
Quote: Aaron @ October 28 2009, 2:33 PM BSTThe Thick Of It is more specific (since Langham's departure at least), being more about spin, personal presentation and bullying than politics as such.
That to me is more fuel to my argument rather than Gill's, as far as I see it. There will always be spin, personal presentation and bullying.
Dan
Quote: Tim Walker @ October 28 2009, 2:19 AM BSTAh, a member of the nouveaux riches!
It's that obvious, is it?
A good solid start. Not a classic, but some great lines.
Listening to Peter Capaldi on Jonathon Ross on Saturday, I get the impression this will be the last series. As he seemed to suggest the final would be pretty conclusive.
Quote: swerytd @ October 28 2009, 2:52 PM BSTThat to me is more fuel to my argument rather than Gill's, as far as I see it. There will always be spin, personal presentation and bullying.
But in different ways and to different extents. I don't recall the text of the original article and I don't care nearly enough about the show to go back and check, but I think the point was that the show was focussed on that very, very specific type and manner of Government and behind-the-scenes dealings. Not 'politics'.