Nathan Barley comes to TV

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1030 of them)

there WAS a day today skit with street dentists pulling teeth out of peoples mouths on the black market...

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I recant my earlier views, I have a bit of a hard time drawing the exact line between them. Morris is obsessed with language, whereas Brooker tends to let the words pile up in fury. But then Morris can do the same thing in cold blood.

Dan and Nathan are in different sitcoms - when confronted with adversity, Dan blathers and fucks up, like Ronnie Corbett in Sorry, whereas Nathan is just gormless, but the world revolves in such a way that this doesn't hurt him "Los Banditos Boleros". Or perhaps it's a comment on how low the bar is set.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 00:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Somewhat of a surprise when the payoff shot is actually, funny, though. And shortly afterwards, kind of sweet.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 00:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I've got an essay on my blog now connecting Barleyism to self-mediation culture as outlined by NYU anthropology prof Thomas De Zengotita, who's interviewed in Salon magazine, and describes a scenario in which we all become Nathan Barleys, ludic self-mediators... and then help the poor and disadvantaged to do the same thing! It's very interesting to contrast Zengotita's cautious optimism with Morris and Brooker's pessimism. M&B have used a backdrop of atrocity throughout the series to make Barley's self-mediation look vile. But Zengotita sees self-mediation as, well, almost some kind of new socialism!

Late in his interview, Zengotita talks about the things that can knock a self-mediator back towards some kind of "reality": accident, disease, death, and having children. So I'd like to ask people to speculate on what might happen to Barley in episode 6... or later in his life. Does he get hit by a car, become paralysed, and find himself terribly grateful when people visit him in hospital? Does he marry Claire and have kids and become responsible? Does he become some sort of Bono figure, and transform his self-mediation skills into a political quest for third world debt relief? Or does he just become some sort of locust with a camcorder, pillaging the world of its last resources and videoing himself as he goes?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 03:34 (twenty-one years ago)

hey, momus, can I send you an e-mail?

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 03:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, may I?

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

(Speaking of Bono, it's interesting that NB has chosen Dave Stewart to pillory and not Bono. Perhaps it's because Morris was brought up by Catholics.)

Sure, RJG, the address is momus at t-online.de

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 03:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Well Borges could redeem Judas Iscariot but NB lacks Judas' necessity.

― Ferlin Husky (noodle vague), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 03:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I can confirm, though, that if you know there's a conjunction between a cat's head and a pair of scissors, the scens with Kevin Eldon are absolutely unbearable. "Could we get to the joke, please? Could we get to the bit that's actually fucking funny?".
Somewhat of a surprise when the payoff shot is actually, funny, though. And shortly afterwards, kind of sweet.

Andrew, this was the essence of most of the scenes from the Big Train series, I recall.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I just noticed a funny little in-joke. If you pause the frame on the scene where Dan is inventing the name of his haircut by looking at posters, you'll see a sign that announces a band playing at the Nailgun Arms called "Detail-Obsessed DVD-Watching Fuckwits". It's a nice little moment of "insult collusion" with the viewers. But if Morris and co. were really on the ball they'd know that even before the DVD release some of us would be pausing pirated torrents. Detail-obsessed tardy satirist fuckwits! Took your eye off the memes there for a second, didn't you?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 09:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(or VHS)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 09:50 (twenty-one years ago)

"detail-obsessed dvd-watching fuckwits" is an extension of morris' old jokes in the configurations of the day today and (more apt.) jam dvds. but yeah.

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I keep thinking that they should have gone the whole hog with this and simply not called it 'Nathan Barley'. Even four episodes in I still keep expecting the 'real' Nathan to show his head. When I go back to the original columns NB seems far more than the bumbling chancer he's become. The problem is he's become that mainstay of TV sitcoms, a likable fool. He may be parasitcal and an indication of a bankrupt system but what he's not is threatening.

Looking back over this thread (and, compared with the kind of debate about this going on elsewhere, it's been a delight) I realise that the connection in my mind between NB and Patrick Bateman had struck a few other people. The original NB is presented as a winner - venal, small-minded, blinkered and often plain evil but ultimately a sucess in his own little milieu. It's the moral sense of horror at this sucess that seems to be missing on the screen.

― winterland, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Momus if they were really on the ball they'd know that we'd be reading on internet message boards about people pausing pirated torrents.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

winterland is otm -- i think the lesson of this thread has been "learn to love it". the show has its own merits, which are not those of the website. perhaps the website's merits were greater, but the show is still halfway classic.

― NRQ, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it "the" Momus talking on this chat board? The one who did Stars Forever etc?

― Lisa G., Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

The original NB is presented as a winner - venal, small-minded, blinkered and often plain evil but ultimately a sucess in his own little milieu. It's the moral sense of horror at this sucess that seems to be missing on the screen.

but he does win on TV as well, see the Japan TV thing last week. the horror is there too - for anything he does or says there is at one person in the same scene looking aghast or bewildered.

― Sven Bastard (blueski), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 10:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it "the" Momus talking on this chat board? The one who did Stars Forever etc?

yes

.
.
.

It was amoebas.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i saw the dan ashcroft fellow in a shoreditch cafe a little while ago. he looked so surly!

― lauren not logged in, Tuesday, 8 March 2005 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I met you once Momus - introduced to you by Pat Kane a few years back. I was working for him at the time - my name's Lisa Groome. Do you remember me?

― Lisa G., Tuesday, 8 March 2005 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Cunt drew the Bateman parallel at least once, didn't it? Can't remember if it was ever explicit but there's that bit where he imagines himself in a film casually killing a bunch of people to the strains of 'Caught By The Fuzz' (I'm not sure if Brooker erroneously regards Supergrass as some hipster reference point, they've been mentioned in relation to the show as well).

― Michael Philip Philip Philip Philip Annoyman v1.0 (Ferg), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Hello Lisa!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 18:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Hy Momus!
I've just been talking to Pat on the phone, mentioned that I'd bumped into you online, and he told me to make sure that I give "that old rake" a hard time for him (has something to do with an unsettled semiotics score apparently) but I'm sure I don't know how I would go about doing that!

― Lisa G., Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Most of ILX do our best to give him a hard time. (Not so much on here, where he has been on mostly excellent form.)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:27 (twenty-one years ago)

pay kane!

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

haha, whoops!!!

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

"chat board"

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

are we the "detail-obsessed DVD-watching fuckwits" or is morris the "unnecessary prop-detail-inserting fuckwit"?

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 8 March 2005 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I'm still grateful to Pat for having given me a job once on the Glasgow Herald. But it doesn't sound like he's grateful for me being just about the only person who ever leaves comments on his blog, PlayJournal! Or perhaps he's heard that I've been called into The Scotsman and told by the editor "We'd like to get a bit cooler, and we think you're the man to do it for us."

By the way, this thread has now fuelled no less than two blog entries (one for each of my headset cellphones) elsewhere: on Click Opera and on Design Observer. Waste not, want not, as we say in Scotland.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 9 March 2005 07:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a a shame - I'm not sure either why more people don't comment on Pat's pages. I do read his blog occasionally. It's excellent, but I can only ever think of platitudes in response to his entries. I'm certainly not the heavyweight he is (or indeed you are). Pat's planning a return to music, working with Kaija Saariaho, among others, on a soul-opera. Maybe I'll run into you somtime, especially if you do come to be with us here at The Scotsman ;-)

― Lisa G., Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure if Brooker erroneously regards Supergrass as some hipster reference point, they've been mentioned in relation to the show as well).

Possibly the real-life 'coolness'/connectedness/Primrose Hillness of the band is what the have in mind.

― NRQ, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 11:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry. I don't even know Pat Kane, and I'd not visited his blog before following your link.

― Lisa G., Wednesday, 9 March 2005 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

― Ste (Fuzzy), Wednesday, 9 March 2005 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, next time you, er, don't speak to him, tell him I'm not at all upset that he calls me "that old rake". In fact, I'm going to have it printed on my business cards. It'll fit a lot better than "furtive, crepuscular art rude-boy".

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 9 March 2005 14:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Viva the Rakeways Institute!

― Lisa G., Wednesday, 9 March 2005 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm so confused.

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 9 March 2005 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Is this, like "the" chat board for sucking Momus off?

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 9 March 2005 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha, they're even showing ads for the LCD Soundsystem album in the ad break during Nathan Barley now.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I counted lcd, daft punk, the bravery, and the futureheads.

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

At least they know their target market, I guess.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 11 March 2005 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Technically a Polanski!

― fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Saturday, 12 March 2005 06:11 (twenty-one years ago)

the Manic Miner loading screen made me laugh a lot = i am the target audience

― zappi (joni), Saturday, 12 March 2005 08:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Is this, like "the" chat board for sucking Momus off?

Sorry, I'm not accepting any new applicants just now.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 March 2005 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

best ep yet, yeah?

― N_RQ, Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)

it was the first to capture the website's moral etc. also jonatton's gestures are well brown, though hard to render in text.

hahaha and vice got pwned! michael fuckin' jackson.

― N_RQ, Saturday, 12 March 2005 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)

YES MICHAEL FUCKING JACKSON! love it.

― cutty (mcutt), Saturday, 12 March 2005 14:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha ha!!! Finally Nathan has turned into the old Nathan from the website that we *love* to hate...

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Saturday, 12 March 2005 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Though I guess Claire's callous and exploitative side has finally come to light. I'm glad that she didn't stay squeaky clean forever. The difference between her reaction to a 13 year old cokehead (oh my god, I want her for my film) and her reaction to an 18 year old cokehead (ugh, how offensive, get her away from me) really showed her core Guardian reader hypocrasy, didn't it?

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Saturday, 12 March 2005 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Just watched it. Phew, a bit close to the old boner. The laughs were big and uncomfortable... as they should be, and as they were in TVGoHome. Best of the series, combining Morris' Brasseye pedo schtick with a very direct hit on Vice magazine, for whom I'm sure I've at some point been asked to jerk off a builder. (Repressed memory syndrome, obviously. I don't even have an uncle.)

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 March 2005 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i know it's funny that he jerked the builder off, but still, WHYYYYYYYYY do it?

― Sven Bastard (blueski), Saturday, 12 March 2005 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Skipping 930 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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