Not Going To Make You Laugh
Today is Sunday. The sitcom Not Going Out is on Friday. Henceforth, it received its all-important first previews in today's newspapers. This was different to last Tuesday, the day the listings magazines came out, as apart from the editorially rigorous Radio Times, they don't devote an awful lot of energy to criticism. It's usually a picture and a precis of the plot, and we had plenty of those, thanks to a lucky roll of the dice in terms of what else is on (ie. not much that Friday night). But the ever-expanding Sunday papers fancy themselves something rotten and like to tell you what you're supposed to think in advance, with TV reviewers a particularly untrained and frustrated lot, little more than staff hacks given something to do. (As I always say, theatre critics and art critics are expected to have some kind of training or at the very least knowledge of their subject, but hey, fuck it, everybody watches telly, so how hard can reviewing telly programmes be?) Henceforth, trawling through the papers at 6 Music today in preparation for our news review was filled with a sense of trepidation. Previews can, after all, be more damaging than reviews.
To be honest, Lee and I always told ourselves this wasn't a critics' sitcom. And certainly the Observer proved that to be the case. Unfortunately, it was the first one I read this morning. Whoever Nicole Jackson is, she wrote this:
"Anyone who has experienced the genius of Seinfeld will attest to the fact that, provided you have fantastically brilliant characters who are brought to life by fantastically brilliant actors, plot in a sitcom does not need to amount to very much. But you cannot have a terrible script and terrible acting and no story. Well you can, but then you end with something like Not Going Out, a disastrous new six-part series that's calling itself a comedy but has forgotten the jokes."
I won't go on. It also "looks horrifically cheap" and has had "one pound fifty" spent per episode. That, you see, is Nicole Jackson's idea of a joke, to vastly underestimate how much has been spent on an episode to the point that it's actually so low it's mad. We must therefore take her word for what's funny and what's not funny. She is also happy to use the phrase "fantastically brilliant" twice, which rather suggests she is 12. Hey - no more low blows. She's just doing her job. She doesn't like our sitcom. Fair enough. "Remember," she adds. "You'll never get that half-hour of your life back." An original thought, and one that falls down when you remember that she was paid for the half-hour she spent watching it.
The Independent hadn't troubled themselves watching it, as their listing was just the plot. Likewise, the News Of The World's Big On TV supplement. The Mirror's Celebs spoke of "hilarioius shenanigans" but I suspect they hadn't watched it either. The Telegraph's Seven magazine made if Pick Of The Day, with a large picture of Lee, and devoted a couple of hundred words to contextualising his career and analyising the show. Though their anonymous reviewer mentioned "a few groaners" (which of course there are), it balanced that with "amusingly convoluted lines and tasty quips" and called the script "pretty solid". It also said that Lee "carries the whole thing with an effortless charm, while Dodds enjoys herself as his sparring partner." That's certainly the Not Going Out I objectively recognise. Three stars, anyway.
The Mail - or at least their Live supplement, which I wrote a column for, for three weeks last year - were also kind, noting that the main characters "are refreshingly quirk-free and seemingly more normal than the average sitcom resident." But it was the Culture magazine in the Sunday Times that gave us our best notice. Martin James said, "it is to be welcomed," which warmed the cockles. "The show looks good," he writes (hmmm, I thought it looked like one pound fifty had been spent on it), "contains slick dialogue and good gags and has potential." He is also astute enough to notice a "peculiar pervasive mid-Atlantic tone", naming Friends as a stylistic touchstone. He's bang on. Even if the stings and the big apartment set don't quite ring true, at least they echo a US sitcom, and misguided or otherwise, this was an early ambition of Lee's, even when we just writing it.
Clearly, Martin James and Nicole Jackson saw the same preview tape and felt differently about the programme. That's criticism. That's subjective opinion. That's the bear pit. On balance, we had more positive (or not-negative) previews than howlers. It's back in the lap of the gods again now. And then the day after it goes out, we're back in the bear pit.
Last word to Nicole Jackson, just to prove there are no hard feelings:
"Not Going Out should be renamed Aaagh, Immediately Leave Your House As Soon As This Comes On."
Boom boom!
posted by Andrew Collins @ 12:45 PM
36 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
36 Comments:
Nicole Jackson - is she having a laugh?
Purely on the basis of this review, I will illegally download every episode of this show at my earliest possible opportunity.
I will be ignoring the previews/reviews – as I journo myself I know that sometimes copy is written without extensive consideration of the subject matter, either because of lazyness or deadlines. So I will be judging Andrew's gagsmithery for myself. The only problem is that 'not going out' on Friday evening always requires discipline. Perhaps it will be repeated in a more/less socialble slot?
Justin
Apologies for typos - I am both lazy and on deadline
Justin
Being both a TV reviewer and a film reviewer yourself Andrew, you know you're just going to have to roll with the punches.
Relax, and let the viewing public decide.
I get the Saturday Daily Mail (not for their political views, for their Weekend Supplement). The critics - Nigel Andrew and whoever else it is usually offer praise where it is deserved. They give NYPD Blue, The Wire, Slings and Arrows, The Sopranos, Arrested Development, American Dad etc. usually four out of five stars and have raved about Seinfeld, Larry Sanders and Homicide: Life on the Street when schedulers were all too keen to bury them in graveyard slots.
Imagine my dismay when I saw Not going out get one star. It worried me because I liked Grass, I like Lee Mack, and I like Tim Vine. Granted, they may well be wrong or lack the open-mindedness to embrace a show that may be a slow-burner, but when I concur so often with their reviews of other shows, I worry on a subconscious level I will agree when I see NGo on Friday. I hope I don't - I hope it's very good.
And anyway, as long as it makes its target audience happy, who cares what critics think?
I'm a journalist to and on deadline I've reveiwed program that I later think yeah I like it now but its to late now argh. I'm won't see this cos I'll be socialling. Ha, I'll be out!!!
STOP PRESS! (And I am relaxed really, Jon. Since nobody here has seen the show yet, I'm not angling for sympathy. Nicole Jackson might be right.) OK! magazine said it was "a low-on-laughter comedy" and that Tim Vine is "a man with a face that always promises to be funnier than he actually is." Now that stings!
Don't mean to be confrontational but it's Monday and I'm in a bad mood so.....
Why does everyone who has commented on here and said that they are a journalist sound like a fool with no grasp of the language?
Also shocked to see that someone who reads the Daily Mail may agree with it's editorial opinion......well blow me down.
You must roll with the punches Andrew and let the viewers decide! I bet that makes you feel better....
Seriously though, I'm sure you and Lee wouldn't have put your name to anything you didn't think was excellent so you have nothing to worry about.
Now you see when I see reviews containing "personal" (almost always derogatory) comments like that I immediately disregard the whole review because clearly the reivewer does not have the ability to actually give a good reason why they don't like the piece they're meant to be reviewing. That kind of comment it irrelevent to the review and is just filling up column inches. The kind of reivewer who tends to make that kind of comment usually has the literacy level of a pre-schooler. (Do you see what I did there?) ;-)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew, I can't wait to see your new sitcom. If it's as witty, good natured, aesthetically pleasing and charming as yourself than it will be brilliant.
I liked the feature in Radio Times. It's nice to finally have a decent size hard copy of your infamous "knees/sofa" photo which I will cut out and keep in my scrapbook of TV presenters that I have secret crushes on and would love to invite to a dinner party. For the record your picture will go somewhere between Kevin McCloud and Jon Stewart and way in front of Dave Gorman.
My only problem with watching Not Going Out is that I'm out for a Chinese on Friday night and my VCR's knackered. Do you know if BBC3 (or indeed BBC1, BBC2 or BBC4) will be repeating it during the week? I had a quick perusal of the Radio Times but couldn't see a repeat (although I must admit I didn't squint to hard at the right hand side of the pages where they list all the decent Freeview channels)
In case you haven't seen it, the Saturday Times made it 'pick of the day' and, as I recall, said lots of nice things, the only negative being that they hated the 'laugh track'.
Did I read somewhere (here probably) that Catherine Tate was involved with the show? Does she appear later in the series?
Also I'd have thought the BBC would have made a bit more effort on their website - the only thing I can find is a one line synopsis in the TV Guide.
Best of luck with the show, if it's half as good as Grass, I'll love it
No repeat that I know of, I'm afraid. And yes, you'll search in vain for anything about Not Going Out on the BBC website! I think it's in the public domain that Catherine Tate was in the pilot but she's not in the series. It's very different to Grass, by the way, because Lee is very different to Simon Day, and because BBC1 is very different to BBC3 and BBC2! (Just a warning.) I love the way critics complain about "laugh tracks". I was at the recordings. There was a real audience, and they were really laughing. All that's done in the edit is to occasionally "punch up" the laughter, sometimes even to tone it down. It's just snobbery to associate studio laughter with inferiority.
I only hope that it's as funny as the Basil Brush episode I accidentally taped for the kids last week, which had some corking groaners.
And come on, people, quit with the excuses and get yourselves a Freeview hard-drive recorder pronto: it's the future, now.
PS Loved Neil H's comment too.
Tell you what Ed, you record it your Freeview hard-drive, then burn it to DVD and send it to me. I will happily reimburse you for any administrative costs you incur along the way. Do you have a Paypal account?
:^)
Accidentally recording Basil Brush is not necessarily the best advert for a Freeview PVR (but I'd recommend getting one anyway).
Andrew, if Nicole Jackson had said she liked your show would you have quoted her with the proviso that her review was a bit shite and she writes like a 12 year old? Criticising her whilst describing positive reviewers as "astute" seems a bit childish, if entirely understandable. That's not to say her review wasn't a bit rubbish but its impact will be minimal. Letters from bands to the NME about bad reviews rarely reflected well on them. The Half Man Half Biscuit song comes to mind.
I do admire writers and performers for their ability to keep putting stuff out there for the scrutiny (and abuse) of the critics. I don't think I could do that, even if I had anything to put out.
Incidentally, did I hear your name at the end of the repeat of The Sunday Format on BBC7 this morning? If you were even remotely involved in that show then surely you've said all that needs to be said about those who write for the Sunday papers.
Andrew, I'm going to see Delays at an Embrace gig on Friday but I will find a way of watching this. Some of the people at "The most humourless site on the internet" were in the audience and they quite liked it so that must be good news!!
Dave, I think I'm as entitled to criticise Nicole Jackson's hurriedly-written review as she is the sitcom I spent a year of my life helping to create! Also, I only called Martin James "astute" for spotting the American influence, not for liking it. I'd love to think the impact of previews is "minimal" as you say, but if the Observer was the only paper you read on a Sunday and it told you to avoid a new comedy at all costs as it has no jokes in it, you'd be within your rights to do exactly that. She wields power.
Incidentally, yes, I did write some stuff for the second series of the Sunday Format. It was a proud moment. Don't forget, I wrote for the Observer on a weekly basis - about TV and film - for the best part of three years. I know of which I speak. And as a freelancer I was never allowed to write TV previews as they had to give staff writers something to do.
As for putting stuff out there in the public domain, when it gets this close to that very moment, I get nervous and self-conscious and wonder why the hell I do it.
Andrew, you are of course entitled to criticise the review, it's just that your comments - however valid - will inevitably end up looking like sour grapes. (And Nicole Jackson clearly also spotted the show's American influence.)
I only get the Observer and the Independent On Sunday, so this was the only "proper" review I saw this Sunday. While I can't claim to be representative of the population (there'd be no population if I were) I can honestly say that I would never choose to watch or not to watch a show on the basis of one review - bad or otherwise. And that's especially true if the review's by someone I've never heard of. In fact, if it had any effect at all, a really bad review would actually make me more likely to watch a comedy show. Mind you, I've seen a lot of shit comedy shows that way...
You should be proud of any involvement in TSF; it would certainly make my top twenty comedies (radio or TV).
As the old saying goes "Don't read your press, weigh it" - and from what you've listed there are reviews across a broad print media demographic. So, most newspaper readers will recognise the name when they kick their shoes off on friday night.
You won't welcome the allusion, but what was Nicole Jackson's review of "My Family" like? I'm sure you'd be happy if NGO got its audience share but I'm equally sure that she'd have slated it.
Good luck!
At the end of the day, a BBC1 sitcom is under greater pressure to draw an audience. It's all about numbers. It's a pretty mainstream comedy, so ought to appeal to a fairly broad audience. If it was on BBC2 or BBC3, it could get away with being a critical hit.
By the way, I'm happy to admit to sour grapes over what was an assassination of the show. Anyone's grapes would be sour over that.
I know I'll get some honest criticism on this blog after Friday. I welcome it. It's too late to back out now!
Andrew, i'll make a point of watching it on Friday night. It will be the only thing I watch, so I hope it's good. ;D
I'll be honest and say the prescence of Lee mack and Tim Vine do not fill me with great hope, but then i'm an incurable snob. What can ya do?
Grass was quite good, but suffered a bit, certainly up here in Scotland from following on in it's timeslot from 'Still Game'. One was a fairly subtle comedy/drama, the other was straightforward gut laughs. No contest.
Pearls before swine and all that.........
Interesting, Ill Man ... Grass was on before the excellent Still Game on BBC2 down here, if I remember rightly. Actually, it was on at a different time every Saturday, depending on snooker. I think the first week it followed something like a classic episode of The Good Life! You can't win. Still, Grass comes out on DVD in time for Christmas, so at least it will exist.
You just got a network trail after Film 2006.
What would you rather find out on Saturday: a 5 million audience and poor reviews in the morning press or 2 million watching but universal acclaim with the journos?!?
Best of luck with the show.
Andrew
I was dismayed when I read "The Observer" review too - I only buy a Sunday paper occasionally now & always The O (though Nicole Jackson - who she ??)It wasn't a well-written piece & I hope she judged the show all wrong. I will make up my own mind, but will wait for the Blessed Nancy Banks-Smith to say what she thinks in The Guardian too, if she gets a chance.
Now I remember why I don't buy and/or read newspapers.
I don't care what journalists think. The only difference between my opinion and that of a journalist is that I don't get paid to express mine. Oh, and I haven't convinced anyone it's worth listening to. Hang on. That's two reasons isn't it ?
Maybe I'm not cut out for this writing lark.
Andrew, I'll be watching on Friday. It's a BBC1 sitcom and I'm not the target audience. I'll watch it for the same reason I listen to my friends new album - I want to see what they're up to.
Those who can do.
Those who can't merely write about it.
I'll be watching on Friday and listening tomorrow to Radio 4 at 6.30pm.
Writing a bad review is probably more fun than writing a good one (I remember a few 1 out of 10s in NME that were very amusing), but I'm sure the readers are not likely to take reviewers opinions as some kind of objective truth.
Andrew, what's the demographic of BBC1 viewers at that time slot on a Friday night? Presumably that's about as "peak" as BBC1 gets and I would imagine that the TV execs must have been suitably impressed by your show to schedule it as such.
I can understand your anxiety but you should remember that you're an accomplished writer and whether this sit-com is a hit (commercial or critical) or not it's all invaluable experience and will prove to be character building.
Incidentally, the Radio Times said you were on holiday. Are you enjoying your time off or has it been and gone?!
Andrew
Critics, critics everywhere nor yet a chance to think ... for ourselves. It's almost impossible nowadays to stumble across something new (especially a peak time sitcom.) without having had the dubious benefit of reading at least half a dozen other superior beings' carefully constructed previews. And I can't honestly say that I am uninfluenced by the punditry. Can anyone? Either you approach the new show determined, despite the negative criticism, to find something good in it (because you are a huge fan of Andrew Collins or Jeremy Vine's brother or the first assistant director or whoever) or you find yourself nodding in cosy agreement with the smartypants who somehow get their valued opinions into the serious papers. Either way, the chances of being objective are fairly slim, I would have thought.
I'm already, having seen The Guardian's TV Guide, vacillating about watching NGO instead of (say) GO or updating my garden bird records spreadsheet. But, having read that you are (surprisingly, in view of your many and varied accomplishments) "nervous and self-conscious" about the big night, I shall probably be supportive and add to the massive viewing figures.
Break a leg!
Good news, the BBC have now given the show a web page, with a link from the 'comedy' home page. There's even a couple of preview clips (I particularly liked the clown make up jokes).
The problem is with so much stuff competing for our attention these previews do sometimes put you off. I suppose it depends if you normally have the tv on or not. That preview could've put me off, but actually it's so sure of itself that I might just have been inspired to defy it. My guess, having seen not one second of NGO, is that there's potentially a lot of younger and older people who'll like the actors, and whose tastes aren't reflected by most reviewers. Someone I'm almost related to is in the same position but I won't say what they're involved in - you might be reviewing it yourself ...
Thanks, Dave C. See: above for link to website.
Peter in Dublin is absolutely right: I've never even heard of Nicole Jackson. By the sound of it, her comments are intended to be funny, but in fact she just comes across as a bit of a smart-arse. Reviews before any real people have had a chance to see anything always seem a bit daft to me anyway as they imply that we mere mortals are incapable of making up our own minds, so Andrew is quite entitled to sour grapes: you work hard on something only to have it highjacked by some journo random.
Also may I remind everyone that "Banter" is back on Radio 4 tonight.
Hope you're well.
Px
argh, missed it and the Radio 4 listen again is playing me Dave Gorman's Genius instead. Who can I shout at?
sorted out now
Post a Comment
<< Home