Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 9:44 AM GMT

I'm assuming you do not think that mocking blind people is funny so what was the source of the funny there?

View original

The very fact he is mocking his blind wife. The main characters feel for him a bit when he says his wife recently went blind, but then he subverts their expectations by being pretty horrible about her, finding her blindness funny and annoying. It's not saying being blind is funny, it's a monster character being horrible about something you shouldn't. It seems pretty obvious to me what's supposed to be funny and why, it's a very common technique.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 19 2011, 9:49 AM GMT

The very fact he is mocking his blind wife. The main characters feel for him a bit when he says his wife recently went blind, but then he subverts their expectations by being pretty horrible about her, finding her blindness funny and annoying. It's not saying being blind is funny, it's a monster character being horrible about something you shouldn't. It seems pretty obvious to me what's supposed to be funny and why, it's a very common technique.

View original

What is or is not funny is subjective and hardly worth arguing about but we can certainly argue about what is or is not a common technique.

I'd argue that the makers of Episodes failed in that scene because a monster character is supposed to be laughed at, not with, which they seem to be asking us to do, given that Merc is never given his come-upance(sp?) for his monster-like behaviour.

I'm not sure this is all that common - perhaps you could give us other examples of a monster character behaving horribly and getting away with it.

(Have to run for a bit but will return)

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 10:02 AM GMT

I'd argue that the makers of Episodes failed in that scene because a monster character is supposed to be laughed at, not with, which they seem to be asking us to do, given that Merc is never given his come-upance(sp?) for his monster-like behaviour.

View original

For me, the key part of that scene was that we were supposed to empathise with the dinner-party audience, who were both trying to listen sympathetically to the awful tale of impoverished children, whilst being made to be complicit in Merc's behaviour, through not denouncing it.

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 10:02 AM GMT

I'm not sure this is all that common - perhaps you could give us other examples of a monster character behaving horribly and getting away with it.

View original

Come on, there must be tons. Douglas and Denholm in The IT Crowd spring to mind, or some of the celebs in Extras.

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 10:02 AM GMT

I'd argue that the makers of Episodes failed in that scene because a monster character is supposed to be laughed at, not with

View original

There's no 'supposed to' about it, because that suggests restrictions.

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 10:02 AM GMT

I'd argue that the makers of Episodes failed in that scene because a monster character is supposed to be laughed at, not with, which they seem to be asking us to do, given that Merc is never given his come-upance(sp?) for his monster-like behaviour.

I'm nto sure this is all that common - perhaps you could give us other examples of a monster character behaving horribly and getting away with it.

View original

What about Eastbound and Down - the main character in that is an appalling human being and only seems to succeed the more horrible he is.

One problem I have with the writers is that they seem such passive victims, getting walked on by pretty much everyone. For the series to work they will have to start fighting back at some point and displaying a bit of guile and cunning.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 19 2011, 10:21 AM GMT

Come on, there must be tons. Douglas and Denholm in The IT Crowd spring to mind, or some of the celebs in Extras.

There's no 'supposed to' about it, because that suggests restrictions.

View original

Extras is an intersting point. I have to admit that I didn't find Extras funny either. Having David Bowie make up a song to humiliate you in a crowded bar just doesn't strike me as funny. Though I know lots of people who loved it. Perhaps I'm learning something about my own sensibilities here.

But again - this is subjective territory. I'll concede that it's been done but not that it works all that well. Also, Extras functions slightly differently in that it takes people we're familiar with and intentionally turns them into ridiculous characterisations specifically for the purpose of showing that the given celeb is willing to do it. We're not laughing at their awful behaviour, we're laughing at Patrick Stewart's willingness to play the fool.

Denholm, I think, is less monster than raging idiot. He's ignorant of the effects of his behaviour and so his actions become dramatically ironic. And he occasionally does get his comeuppance - he gets shot in the leg...

'Supposed to' refers to rules, which there are in writing anything, sitcom included. Rules, of course, are meant to be broken but! BUT! If you're going to break a rule it needs to be for a clear reason - what is the statement the writer is after by breaking the rule? In this case, why have this monster get away with bad behaviour? I can only assume it's a set up for later... though I think they missed the real comic opportunity in that scene for his wife, despite her blindness, to whack Merc in the head when he mocks her.

In Episodes Merc is monstrous, you're right, but in a way that I find flaccid and stereotypical (Hollywood execs are shallow? Shocker! - in truth I'm sure there are very excellent execs in the industry trying very hard to make good work. Shame they don't read British comedy forums....)

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 1:13 PM GMT

Denholm, I think, is less monster than raging idiot.

View original

Monster doesn't just mean nasty, or evil; Brittas in The Brittas Empire is someone I would refer to as a 'monster', for instance.

Of course we were supposed to be laughing at Merc (and his mocking of his own wife) and not with him.
Forgive the pun but surely that was blindingly obvious.

Quote: Nogget @ January 19 2011, 10:10 AM GMT

For me, the key part of that scene was that we were supposed to empathise with the dinner-party audience, who were both trying to listen sympathetically to the awful tale of impoverished children, whilst being made to be complicit in Merc's behaviour, through not denouncing it.

View original

Prezunctly.

Quote: Griff @ January 19 2011, 10:46 AM GMT

Isn't it a bit early in the series for Merc to get his come-uppance, if he's the main antagonist?

View original

And indeed, prezunctly again.

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 1:13 PM GMT

'Supposed to' refers to rules, which there are in writing anything, sitcom included. Rules, of course, are meant to be broken but! BUT! If you're going to break a rule it needs to be for a clear reason - what is the statement the writer is after by breaking the rule? In this case, why have this monster get away with bad behaviour? I can only assume it's a set up for later... though I think they missed the real comic opportunity in that scene for his wife, despite her blindness, to whack Merc in the head when he mocks her.

View original

They haven't broken any rules. You're just missing the point because you don't get the humour.

Quote: JPM1 @ January 19 2011, 1:13 PM GMT

In Episodes Merc is monstrous, you're right, but in a way that I find flaccid and stereotypical (Hollywood execs are shallow? Shocker! - in truth I'm sure there are very excellent execs in the industry trying very hard to make good work. Shame they don't read British comedy forums....)

View original

I'd agree with this. I don't Merc is a particularly memorable or original Monster. And weirdly, it feels like a Hollywood executive written by somebody who's never actually met one (weird because I assume both writers have met quite a few, especially Crane).

And the dinner party for me was a mixed bag. When they were sitting around the table I kept thinking, "Curb Your Enthusiasm does this sort of thing so much better." Yet later on, I thought Le Blanc turning on the charm to outmanouvre Grieg was excellent, and it took me by surprise.

Quote: chipolata @ January 19 2011, 5:53 PM GMT

Yet later on, I thought Le Blanc turning on the charm to outmanouvre Grieg was excellent, and it took me by surprise.

View original

Were you so surprised that you had to sit down? Or were you already sitting down?