Like a lot of people, I can't stand impressionists (insert Monet joke here).

And yet I love satire, particularely political. I like Spitting Image, but can't stand Rory Bremner or Jon Culshaw even though I know full well they provided some of the voices.

Is it because their own shows are too much about themselves? Is there too much emphasis on the impression itself, instead of comedy, where as the puppets in SI effectively hid the impressionists? Or is it just that Jon Culshaw is utter utter crap? (You can always tell the Harry Enfield characters too).

It just strikes me as not really being satire, or comedy, it's just one step on from being a mime. I am fully prepared to eat my words if someone can persuade me otherwise.

I do agree that they intended to be more "look how clever I am" but I suppose that really goes for any form of entertainment.

If they're good they are impressive to me, and entertaining.
Even more entertaining if they actually do something satirical or clever with the script, obviously. But a great impression just on its own *can* be very impressive. I guess the novelty wears off though, eventually, if they don't do something else with it.

There's a certain level of inherent amusement in the first recognition of an impression, particularly if it's a slightly bizarre or unhinged one. Unfortunately many impressionists - or perhaps rather, their writers - don't acknowledge that this lasts maybe 30 seconds rather than 30 one-minute sketches, and some of the laziest, unfunniest sketches that have ever been promoted as 'comedy' are testament to the fact.

See The Trip.

Mike Yarwood always sounded like Mike Yarwood and John Culshaw always sounds like John Culshaw.

Generally I think the women - Ronni Ancona and Deborah Stephenson - are more "impressive".

Impressionists are dull. I've seen a few good sketches and jokes but not many. If you're talented with your voice, put it to work and create some fun, cartoony characters. Oh, I did actually really enjoy Peter Serafinowicz, there weren't just straight up impressions.

This series of The Impressions Show just brought home to me how much crap TV I don't watch. I'm continually asking my lad 'Who's that then?'

Personally, it really gets on my nerves when impressionists do interviews or appear on other shows in character, or can't get through five minutes without pretending to be someone else. It really, really makes me cringe.

The laugh, for me, is when the impressionist spots mannerisms/traits that I hadn't noticed. When they're good, impressionists are like caricerturists.

But I do agree that mediocre 'ooh Betty, I've done a whoopsie' impressionists are a waste of space.

Rob Brydon does it well. He does it ironically, although you can tell deep down how proud of himself he is.

Hehe. I do love his Terry Wogan though, I can't deny it.

Was it him that did an entire radio show impersonating the usual host? Think that was a fantastic gag at the time, although I really can't remember who, when or why it happened....

Quote: GGdown @ October 30 2011, 9:42 PM BST

Was it him that did an entire radio show impersonating the usual host? Think that was a fantastic gag at the time, although I really can't remember who, when or why it happened....

View original

April fool's day he did the Ken Bruce show for 3 hours. He sounds exactly the same as Wogan though.

That was one of the best April Fools of all time, I reckon! Masterful.

Myyyy God Miss Jones