Nathan Barley comes to TV

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1029 of them)
The sister character is totally lame and unbelievable (so far)

Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 14 February 2005 11:41 (nineteen years ago) link

people assume ashcroft is less posh cos he has no money ("i'll get this... lend me a tenner?"). kate otm, though, he is irritating cos he's so passive and shiftless, and you sense a certain arrogance behind it. maybe he will be galvanised into brutal reprisals in future episodes, though.

xpost

debden, Monday, 14 February 2005 11:41 (nineteen years ago) link

The only thing that really hit a nerve for me was actually the editor at the Weekend On Sunday - the way he picked up a guitar - EXACTLY THE SAME BLOODY WHITE STRAT THAT MY COLLEAGUE AT THE AD AGENCY USED TO PLAY - and started fiddling around with it to show "Look how cool and creative I am I can fiddle with this guitar while talking to you like you're boring me or something". That was like nerves on a blackboard to me.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Monday, 14 February 2005 11:45 (nineteen years ago) link

ha ha
that was good, if they'd given him a ponytail it would have been a bit too much, but the white strat was devastating

debden, Monday, 14 February 2005 11:47 (nineteen years ago) link

"nerves on a blackboard". Great!

Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 14 February 2005 11:47 (nineteen years ago) link

Dan is THE PREACHER MAN in the next episode, and doesn't enjoy the messianic role one bit.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 11:56 (nineteen years ago) link

(I'm also looking forward to Nathan Barley adopting Celtic Leprechaun chic, as seen for a split second half way through the trailer. Does this mean he's in a Fake Folk phase?)

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:00 (nineteen years ago) link

It's just a tartan hat, man.

The Leprechaun Police. (afarrell), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Faux Folk? You mean like half of ILM?

Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Kate is OTM in some ways and off the mark in others, I feel. The characters were too over-the-top and caricatured to be actually hateable - like a less funny version of Derek's doomed flatmates in Zoolander. Although the tiny hat was a masterstroke (the incidental bits were so much funnier than the main wedge of the thing, I found).

She's off the mark in comparing NB to The Office as "an excercise in pointless cruelty". The Office wasn't pointless cruelty, it was perfectly emotionally pitched, you found yourself really caring about these atrocious or pathetic characters - Brent finally getting the sack dressed as an emu etc.

Ditto Spaced, possibly a better reference point here - I watched the opening, scene-setting epsiode of that yesterday and it was a great example of how to move all the main characters into position and yet do it properly. You had a handle on the characters from day one - I'm none the wiser about some of the people in NB - especially the women who have next to no personality. Likewise the episode where Daisy has the interview at Flaps magazine, and they go to Vulva's performance art thing = better satire than anything in the first episode of NB. Modifying the Nipper's OTM comment upthread, its also a bit like an episode of Spaced where everyone is Twist (the worst character in that series by some way).

Dada - no, you're not supposed care about anyone or anything in the Day Today or Brasseye, and both programmes are far the better for that, because they are not character-led sitcom. NB defineably is, satirical or otherwise, and I'm not convinced Morris is any good at it.

I've got a bit of a bone to pick with the 'Dan as viewer identification character' thing as well. Perhaps, in that NB is 'Losing My Edge' satire, its designed to appeal to the very people its satirising. All the Idiots think Dan's 'Idiots' piece is wonderful, oblivious to the fact its them he's attacking. But the fact is that the Idiots piece is rubbish, its lame student comment section quality at best - Dan is a pretty talentless hack as clearly shown by the interview scene (best bit of the episode I thought). He has nothing to offer the world other than his opposition to it, this mix of bitterness and ill-deserved conceit. He's not much better than the people he's surrounded by - playing Cock Muff Bumhole after a couple of drinks etc.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:20 (nineteen years ago) link

matt's last par = otm.

Henry Miller, Monday, 14 February 2005 12:22 (nineteen years ago) link

Dada - no, you're not supposed care about anyone or anything in the Day Today or Brasseye, and both programmes are far the better for that, because they are not character-led sitcom.

Did I say anything about this? I'm all sixes and sevens today.

Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:25 (nineteen years ago) link

He has nothing to offer the world other than his opposition to it

Spot on. As much as the Nathan Barleys are stereotype of the whole meeja scene, so are the Dan Ashcrofts - so WAY above it all... and equally as tragic.

Huey (Huey), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:25 (nineteen years ago) link

Sorry Dada - I'd conflated a bit of Henry's "why do you need to identify?" post with an argument we were having in the pub last night. Don't know where your name came from.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 14 February 2005 12:38 (nineteen years ago) link

well put Matt, Dan is no hero!

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:08 (nineteen years ago) link

but he may still become the hero. Charlie Brooker thinks he's The One!

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:09 (nineteen years ago) link

It's interesting that Dan Ashcroft's look is pretty much grebo-gonzo. He's a sharp stylish yoof commentator in his magazine logo, but in real life he's gone to seed a bit, let his hair grow. He sort of reminds me of an American rock critic (when he's not reminding me of John Peel, Moliere's Misanthrope, etc etc). Those people (I don't know, is Metzger one of them?) who are dug so deep into their trade that they have to keep doing it, despite mounting revulsion and diminishing touch. If there's a 'machismo of competence' in the American male psyche, there's also a 'machismo of revulsion'. These things both work with a certain image of masculinity. What doesn't work so well is gushy enthusiasm, which is a gay attribute. Think Warhol, for whom everything was 'Great'. Warhol was like a supportive wife to a whole scene of attention-seekers, and his enthusiasm was an extremely clever pose. So who in NB is enthusiastic in this clever, Warholian way? Actually, the Idiots themselves are. They're happy, positive, encouraging even when attacked, creative and productive. They are, as Darwin would say, adapted and fit for their ecological niche.

Another thing just occurred to me. There are black characters in this, but no gay characters. How would the satire be different if, say, Nathan Barley were gay?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:11 (nineteen years ago) link

oh, yeah 'gay attributes', nice. what are 'black attributes' while we're here?

Henry Miller, Monday, 14 February 2005 13:17 (nineteen years ago) link

What, being gay is an identity without attributes?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:20 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm sure Barley's sexuality will be questioned/compromised at some point in the series. it's Sitcom Law.

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:22 (nineteen years ago) link

there are non-enthusiastic gay people. being gay does not shape your whole persona, any more than being straight does. in any case only barley was revealed as being straight in ep one -- there may well be gay characters.

Henry Miller, Monday, 14 February 2005 13:23 (nineteen years ago) link

So who in NB is enthusiastic in this clever, Warholian way? Actually, the Idiots themselves are. They're happy, positive, encouraging even when attacked, creative and productive.

yeh but unlike Warhol there is nothing at all clever about these Idiots (stating the obvious here?)

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:24 (nineteen years ago) link

There are black characters in this, but no gay characters. How would the satire be different if, say, Nathan Barley were gay?

the two things continue to be bugbears - attention is drawn to the ethnicity thing only because of Nathan's use of 'my nigga' on anyone (regardless of their ethnicity), otherwise it would be completely irrelevant i think. i expect there will be some sort of 'faux pas' re homosexuality/phobia to come that will draw the second thing to attention also (as with The Office et al).

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:28 (nineteen years ago) link

there may well be gay characters.

I suspect that even two nothing sacred 'comedy terrorists' like Brooker and Morris will not go there. It's a lot more acceptable to 'bash' hipsters in a sitcom than it is to bash obviously gay characters. Hipsters have been designated 'okay to hate' in our culture.

The shot near the beginning of episode one, where Dan looks up the street and sees a guy with flip flops on his ears. Dan looks with withering scorn. Now, what if Flip Flop Guy were mincing, or butch or some other gay signifier (a 'big ole bear')? Dan's withering scorn would be... well, simple homophobia, wouldn't it?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:29 (nineteen years ago) link

morris has been there before. didn't day today have that whole 'this week's gay motorways...' thing?

these comments on 'NB' are considerably more interesting and entertaining than the show itself.

Pete W (peterw), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:33 (nineteen years ago) link

also, something about Dan Ashcroft makes me think of Jacques Perretti.

Pete W (peterw), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:34 (nineteen years ago) link

those 'gay signifiers' belong to police academy films. morris has spoofed aspects of gay culture before i think -- but in any case spoofing cultural faux-pas is not like spoofing sexual orientation.

re peretti -- i said that!

Henry Miller, Monday, 14 February 2005 13:34 (nineteen years ago) link

xxpost
Morris does this in the gay seamen sketch in the Brass Eye sex episode

Masked Gazza, Monday, 14 February 2005 13:35 (nineteen years ago) link

There are black characters in this, but no gay characters.

wait, that black guy with the little hat isn't gay?

cutty (mcutt), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:36 (nineteen years ago) link

I do think dandyism is an 'orientation', not a 'cultural faux pas', actually.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:38 (nineteen years ago) link

(To be honest I thought some of the satirical fashions in NB were bloody good. I'm prepared to try hanging flip flops on my ears after seeing how good that guy looked with them. If you hate fashion, I suppose that image just sums up 'keepin' it futile'. But if you love fashion, that image is actually a very glamorous one. Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!)

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:43 (nineteen years ago) link

You're self-aware, but somehow it doesn't seem to help.

Masked Gazza, Monday, 14 February 2005 13:45 (nineteen years ago) link

just the fact that this show has caused all this "discussion" already, and has momus trying to hang flip flops on his ears, makes it good.

you are ALL going to watch every episode, whether you've said you like it or hated it upthread.

cutty (mcutt), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:49 (nineteen years ago) link

momus, will you post a picture of you dressed up like that?

cozen (Cozen), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:51 (nineteen years ago) link

I'll post the originals first. They're the commanders, I'm just the space cadet.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:52 (nineteen years ago) link

I've got similar shades to Flip Flop guy, at least.

http://www.imomus.com/skishades.jpg

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:54 (nineteen years ago) link

This guy has flip flops inside his head:

http://www.cucamonga.be/afbeeldingen/DevendraBanhart0504.jpg

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:57 (nineteen years ago) link

i am already campaigning for the american re-make of nathan barley:

it takes place in williamsburg, brooklyn and VICE magazine is SUGARAPE.

momus have a walk-on cameo as flip flop ears.

cutty (mcutt), Monday, 14 February 2005 13:59 (nineteen years ago) link

All those crowd members at the GOP convention were just a whisker away from being Nathan Barleys then

Masked Gazza, Monday, 14 February 2005 14:00 (nineteen years ago) link

ha, reminds me of the big 'hipsters and the things they wear' fite we had last Summer/Autumn. if Brooker and Morris are sneering at this aspect i don't sneer with them because that's such a petty little thing to criticise - i mean The Idiots at SugarApe and elsewhere often look pretty good! and Morris and Brooker have terribly dull dress sense judging by their TV appearances, but then they're scatter-brained/neurosis addled writers bigger on substance so it's par for the course (and Dan wears dull clothes in the programme too, because he doesn't care either - which is a philosophy i often go along with myself, but it doesn't mean The Idiots are idiots just for wearing 'daft gear').

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 14:00 (nineteen years ago) link

But it's not a petty little thing to TVGoHome's Nathan Barley, it's something that he spends much more time and energy on than his rubbish media.

You're also maybe making the mistake that people who don't look 'smart' don't care what they look like, when usually they care at least enough to not want to look 'smart'.

(I still haven't seen the episode, though I have it on tape somewhere)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 February 2005 14:15 (nineteen years ago) link

There is the thing where it's much easier to write a story about the most amazing song/dance/etc in the world ever, and much harder to translate this to a medium where you actually have to produce something that good. Except now with 'bad' :)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 February 2005 14:21 (nineteen years ago) link

Most of the fashions so despised in TVGH were (perceived) futile grubbings around in irony and kitsch and backward-looking stuff, like a foretelling of PornStar, rather than actual new stuff like the flipflops. The only new element was low-slung trousers, which is a pretty rubbish innovation in the first place.

(cue the fashion cognoscenti telling me that actually PornStar was around ten years before TVGH, and people have been wearing low-slung trews since 1929)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 February 2005 14:27 (nineteen years ago) link

Okay, I've been experimenting with slippers and pink thread and here's what I got:

http://www.imomus.com/slipperyears.jpg

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 February 2005 14:42 (nineteen years ago) link

surely the machismo of revulsion incarnate! ;-)

debden, Monday, 14 February 2005 15:09 (nineteen years ago) link

fancy a quick round of cock muff bumhole Momus?

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Monday, 14 February 2005 15:13 (nineteen years ago) link

I am just wondering how many people contributing to this thread are actual media types? ie people with first hand experience of what's being portrayed in the program. I mean how many people know the ins and outs of pitching ideas to newspaper editors? I'm guessing more people on this thread than in your average suburban estate.

elwisty (elwisty), Monday, 14 February 2005 15:19 (nineteen years ago) link

People enjoyed 'Ab Fab' though, didn't they? And unbelievably some people in the media or on its fringes grew up in the suburbs.

I mean fair play. The last time I went out was to a bar near Old Street decked out in Communist kitsch, with a DJ who veered between undi hip-hop and George Formby where they served Polish beer at £2.80 a bottle. But I'm no media wanker, trust.

Henry Miller, Monday, 14 February 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

momus, that is truly delightful :)

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 14 February 2005 15:23 (nineteen years ago) link

this thread is making me like the show more, for sure.

cutty (mcutt), Monday, 14 February 2005 15:27 (nineteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.