Nathan Barley comes to TV

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1030 of them)
I didn't really like this one so much. Beginnings and endings are the weakest quality of Nathan Barley, I think. Episodes 3-5 are very strong because they're a "locked groove" that is independent from history (what is established in episode 1) and only vaguely moving towards episode 6. Postmodern, etcetera.

fields of salmon (fieldsofsalmon), Saturday, 19 March 2005 04:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm, yeah, strange one. Big laughs in the pub scene, yep. But then that was just a direct lift from the old Chris Morris radio one shows, with dan = morris, and nathan = peter baynham. Interesting thing was Nathan's voice during the pingu-out-the-window scene, when in a state of panic he seemed to switch back to what was presumably his original, posher accent. That's the first time we've seen actual evidence of his affluent background in the show, isn't it?

JimD (JimD), Saturday, 19 March 2005 15:06 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, that is true, about the accent.

RJG (RJG), Saturday, 19 March 2005 15:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Watching it back - I don't think the final window jumping scene was rehearsed at all. It looks as if Morris gave them some vague directions and shouted go, you can see the actors glancing behind the camera for what to do next. Like the rest of it the series doesn't get dramatic enough to be engaging, the actors seem petrified of messing up the delivery of their Morrisisms and it isn't clear enough in intent to be making a satirical point.

The hospital bed bit was a bad move too - if it'd've ended on the rewinding tape and Nathan's grinning then we'd've got the point and we'd've had the idiots winning on their terms, making the incident part of Nathan's TV series and getting Dan to sign for it just wasn't needed. It seemed to be there for 2 purposes - one to bring back the rest of the cast and secondly for those "you can be a producer on my show" pronouncements. Fuck knows what conclusion you draw after that. That Morris and Brooker are saying that THEY are Nathan Barley? God knows. Seeing how we knew that Nathan was an idiot, the culture farm is being taken over by the idiots and that Dan was a bit rubbish during the first five minutes of episode one it's no sort of ending.

I can count a hideous amount of elements throughout that are like that - the right elements misplaced, wrong tone at the wrong time. I think when it comes down to it Chris Morris isn't a director. I wonder how script reads? I've already heard someone who worked on the show say they're mystified how such a fantastic script misfired so badly. Brass Eye and The Day Today seem tightly scripted almost to the frame, I'd be interested to see how detailed this one was. I suspect there was some Mike Leigh style "improvise the scene together" stuff involved.

There was a really good TV show in there somewhere, but its just didn't go hard enough in any direction to be anything. Not comedy enough, not comedy-drama enough, not sitcom enough. Too much mish mash. And certainly not hard enough on its targets.

A / F#m / Bm / D (Lynskey), Saturday, 19 March 2005 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

if not for the hospital scene, you wouldn't have had jonattan yeah with the crow!

cutty (mcutt), Saturday, 19 March 2005 16:03 (twenty-one years ago)

No-one save for me seems to have noticed the death motif thing with Johnatton. Toy gun in Ep 1, crow on a tray in Ep 2, gun in mouth gesture in Ep 3. Only happens when he's talking to Dan. Oh what might happen there then.

-- why must we cut onions? (pau...), March 1st, 2005 3:29 PM. (Lynskey)

I stand atop the Clever Clog, riding the waves of recognition and respect. I also am aware in the back of my mind that I am now Comic Book Guy. Strangest. Few Seconds. Ever. . . . . Shut up. *falls out of window*

A / F#m / Bm / D (Lynskey), Saturday, 19 March 2005 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, way too much plot and way too few laughs in the last one. It just felt mechanical and false, with the characters doing things they would never have done (Nathan in particular) and silly devices to explain it (Dan's blackmail tape). I really think this could work over a much longer run, as a kind of soap-satire for creative people. Without too much plot, just observational / character stuff driving it. They should commission that instead of "Nazi Experiments in Colour".

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 19 March 2005 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd like to carve a little epitaph on the headstone of the series, if I may. It's a quote from Nietzsche:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 20 March 2005 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Nathan Barley? What the Channel 7 producer said, "it's not funny... but we are laughing".
Or should it be 'it's funny but we aren't laughing' viz NB?

David Merryweather (DavidM), Sunday, 20 March 2005 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

with the characters doing things they would never have done

Claire should (would?) never have TOLD Nathan about her interview/pitch

Dan should've (would've?) known better than to try and play Nathan at his own game


the end scenes were really disturbing i thought - all throughout the show Dan seemed helpless and unable to control what was happening anyway, so he may as well be in the hospital bed for all the power he has. it was 'awful' to watch but then neither he or Claire were 'strong' enough to just tell The Idiots to stop/make them stop/take a stand - so they don't deserve the sympathy. it's this 'no hero/nobody wins' msg that seemed to emanate from the piece overall that i found unsettling (tho expected, this ain't Gervais & Merchant after all), but pretty fascinating to watch unfold. of course no-one is really satisfied by the end are they? but i don't expect a second series.

did you watch the whole series RJG? despite thinking it was rubbish?

Sven Bastard (blueski), Sunday, 20 March 2005 22:18 (twenty-one years ago)

The "no hero" thing was almost inevitable, though. This was a show about hipsters, people who are widely resented by others not so much for their taste (generally poorly understood by the people who deride them) but for their arrogant conviction that their taste is superior to other people's. The trouble is, hipsters are in a way the model consumers, early adopters, affluent, working hard on being original, etc. It's impossible to dismiss them, because the general populace will probably be doing versions of the things the hipsters are doing a few years down the line. Things hipsters were seen doing in NB -- talking loudly on their cellphones in public places, for instance -- are already universals, and it's to the series' credit that it also showed "normal" people as highly pretentious, like the immigrant barber who reads "Why Cats Paint".

In the TVGoHome version, it was possible to have the apoplectic narrator represent "all right-thinking people" in his condemnations of Barley (although in fact his Hitler-like fury made him sound deranged), but in the TV show the enemies of hipsterism had to be "situated": you had to see what clothes they were wearing. When that meant, in Dan's case, a grunge shirt and grunge hairstyle, it wasn't so obvious that the taste of the accusers was all that much better than the taste of the accused. The sad truth is, people who hate hipsters are usually less adequate human beings than hipsters, and their hate is finally less attractive than hipsters' self-love. What's more, in a couple of years they'll grudgingly embrace many of the Barleyisms they think they disdain. Their rage is just a way of paying attention.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 04:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i think it went wrong with the gunman stuff. But:

"is something brilliant happening?"

was fucking genius.

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

The sad truth is, people who hate hipsters are usually less adequate human beings than hipsters

hahahahahahahahahahahaha! preach!

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Less adequate by what criteria?

Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 21 March 2005 09:19 (twenty-one years ago)

genetic. non-hipsters need to be supervised and if possible reformed.

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 09:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Man! I can't believe I missed it. :-(

I rushed home early from the party in Shoreditch and everything. And now I'll never know how it ended...

Masonic Cathedral (kate), Monday, 21 March 2005 09:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I missed episode 5, stevem.

I missed episodes 2 and 4, too, but downloaded them.

RJG (RJG), Monday, 21 March 2005 09:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Yo! Momus! Preacher man!

Johnney B (Johnney B), Monday, 21 March 2005 09:45 (twenty-one years ago)

it's the kind of idiot comment that's made momus an interweb legend.

The trouble is, merchant bankers are in a way the model consumers, early adopters, affluent, working hard on being original, etc. It's impossible to dismiss them, because the general populace will probably be doing versions of the things the merchant bankers are doing a few years down the line. Things merchant bankers were seen doing in NB -- talking loudly on their cellphones in public places, for instance -- are already universals

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 09:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Less adequate by what criteria?

The Nathan Barley series shows this quite well, I think: you can't win when you hate a group of people who are more affluent than you, more positive than you, early adopters, and creative. The scene of Dan playing "cock muff bumhole" or gambling on Russian tramps shows that "the Idiots" have powerful memes on their side. When Dan wants to attack them, he'll either see his counter-memes enlisted and recruited by the Idiots, or he'll fail to come up with anything as interesting (see his pathetic attempt to dismiss 15Peter20). He ends up joining them, but half-heartedly. They win. His half-hearted passive aggression is puritan, uncreative, dour and doesn't stop him becoming just as pathetic as they are.

As for Henry's merchant bankers point, if only that were the case. If only society were really structured in such a way that we would all become as rich as merchant bankers are now. Surely the point is not that merchant bankers ought to remain a universal hate object just like hipsters (which seems to be Henry's thinking). The point is that there shouldn't be class divisions impossible to cross. Major cataclysms aside, it seems likely that developed nations will continue to double their wealth every few decades. People will advance further into consumer culture, mediation culture, gizmo-friendliness... all the things that we deride the Idiots for. We should work to ensure that these things are available to as many people as possible, not work to discredit them as inherently evil or elitist.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:13 (twenty-one years ago)

consumer culture, mediation culture, gizmo-friendliness

I should add "kidulthood" and "ludic behaviour", two tendencies NB is also satirizing with its scenes of hipsters riding around on tiny, brightly-coloured tractors. It is, inchallah, the fate of all advanced peoples to become ludic kidults.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

cf. penultimate episode of the prisoner with mcgoohan and mckern riding about in toy cars, on seesaws, etc. "even as a child there is something in your brain that is a puzzlement."

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:25 (twenty-one years ago)

And by the way, I think I only have the perspective Henry is calling "idiot comment" because I was able to live in cities like New York and Tokyo. I think if I'd stayed in London I would certainly have Henry's kneejerk resentment: this fixed idea that you attack anyone who's going places. It's a very good argument for getting out of London. I blame low-flying clouds and the legacy of the puritans, personally. I don't know how Shakespeare avoided it. Probably by reading all that Italian stuff.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)

The scene of Dan playing "cock muff bumhole" or gambling on Russian tramps shows that "the Idiots" have powerful memes on their side.

No, it shows that Dan is too weak to resist trying to join in and get acceptance. If Claire - or, say, the receptionist - had been playing cock muff bumhole too, you might have had a point.

caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't like the fact that this has given TV critics an excuse to crow about "The Idiots have won, which is a good thing." They won't be saying that after the election.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Qutie frankly, the vision of people riding around the streets of London on tiny, brightly-coloured toy tractors is not only way to the left of anything New Labour are likely to endorese, it makes Ken Livingstone's wildest traffic-taming schemes look like Fordism.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

it isn't just the actual gizmos and wealth that NB is sneering at, though, momus: it's the use to which they put their enviable assets that is the problem. if the hipsters really are superior beings, they need to demonstrate it, not by simply being front-rank consumers but by, y'know, creating things, having the occasional thought. i don't see how you can enjoy the show if you think 15peter is a good egg or that sugar rape looks like an engrossing read.

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The kind of system I want to live in, and the kind I think we're inevitably progressing towards (again inchallah) is one which does require there to be a kind of license to ponce. That license must be as freely available to the Bangladeshis of Brick Lane as the slumming Home Counties debs. It requires a huge amount of over-production -- of memes, not goods. (From an ecological point of view, 15Peter20, recycling his own urine, is a saint compared to Damian Hirst.) It requires a whole ecosystem of magazines like Sugarape, and independent film makers. Good ones, bad ones, salient ones, absurd ones. It's the world Josef Beuys talked about when he said "Everyone is an artist".

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

If Claire - or, say, the receptionist - had been playing cock muff bumhole too, you might have had a point.

Well, does the future belong to Claire? Let's see, she's from oop north and she's into gritty social realism. That means exposing children to grim realities like heroin addiction, and turning it into entertainment which, inexplicably, everyone down south finds funny. So let's say Claire wins, gets her series. She joins the media elite. She does eventually start doing coke, you know. And that Tiny Tim-type junky gets a record contract and becomes a yuppie too.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

This is the Rortian line, of course - "I have no objection to yuppies, as long as everyone gets to be one." But Rorty continues "they have become very greedy and successful at halting social mobility and denying other people access to that wealth."

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think anyone is in any doubt that Claire isn't the innocent she first appeared. But she is self-powered. The incidents with Dan are instances of him falling, but Claire jumps, given the opportunity.

That license must be as freely available to the Bangladeshis of Brick Lane as the slumming Home Counties debs.

Yeees, but relying on the free market (or Daddy's money as it is more commonly known) isn't actually going to do much about that.

"Cock Muff Bumhole" isn't much of an example of a powerful meme, anyway: the only originality is a thin layer of "it's not good because it's rude, it's good because it looks like it's good because it's rude", which someone told them once, and they scribbled down (after looking at an older boy for reassurance) in their catechism of "why it's all right to be us".

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The people who infuriate me are the ones who kick the ladder away. This seems to be the implication of Why I Don't Love Richard Florida by Karrie Jacobs in Metroplis magazine. Karrie says:

"Florida has taken something qualitative and turned it into something quantitative. That's what social scientists do. It's their special form of creativity. But in his argument in favor of economic development based on the arts and on businesses favored by the kind of people who enjoy the arts, he seems to have exaggerated either the size or the creativity of his Creative Class. I don't have any more faith in the prevalence of Florida's class than I do in the so-called values voters who cropped up after the elections. Both groups exist in nature but have been somewhat inflated for the sake of argument.

"These days every time I walk down, say, Rivington Street, on Manhattan's Lower East Side, or Fifth Avenue, in Brooklyn's Park Slope, I notice how the distinctions between the hip places are beginning to blur. One cool business district looks pretty much like the next, just the way one suburban mall looks pretty much like the next. And once you start thinking about creativity in terms of class, hipness as a monoculture seems like the inevitable outcome."

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you believe it's a valuable and/or neccessary thing to be uncertain about what you are doing, Momus?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:25 (twenty-one years ago)

So essentially, Momus, you see NB not as satire but as a fictionalised account (highly exaggerated, bien sûr) of how the world really should be? I'm in favour of a right to ponce, but quite apart from whether hipsterism addresses the real problems of poverty, the environment etc. (and you seem to think it does), I'm not sure total immersion in hipsterism actually produces any good art, design, fashion etc. It tends towards reductio ad absurdam. Hipsterism is a little like sentimentalism - something you need to dip your toe into once in a while but also keep your distance from.

Stenton Jones, Monday, 21 March 2005 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem I see w/the idea of a "right to ponce" is that, you know, someone has to make stuff, and keep stuff working?

Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

We have racist robots for that!

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 13:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Just had a thought while picking my nose (at the basin, admiring my new Sherlock Holmes-as-futuristic-Japanese-carpenter look): one thing I really appreciated about NB is its moral ambivalence. What nauseated me about Lost In Translation was the way it ranged COGs -- centres of goodness, in Scriptwriting 101 lingo -- against Evil Media Folk (the ditzy actress, the John Ribisi character who wears the same watch as I do, but is a villain!). I hate that sort of "moral clarity", especially when it's accompanied by schmaltzy music and earnest encomia to the joys of parenthood.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)

haha, am I alone in doubting that 'but' there? You are British, living abroad and you wear an eyepatch = you are already a villain, almost certainly an evil mastermind.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 21 March 2005 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

kevin shields is schmaltzy now?

N_RQ, Monday, 21 March 2005 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Unfortunately, the closing (hospital bed) section of NB, as with the section in Clockwork Orange which it ripped off, would suggest to me that Morris isn't so much advocating Freedom To Ponce as much as that dreaded old camouflage of the Right: "Conservative Christian Anarchism."

Dennis Potter did it so much better in Blue Remembered Hills.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Monday, 21 March 2005 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Scenes of Dan giving in doesn't mean that the idiots have something good going -- they're playing fucking "rock, paper, scissors" with dirty words in! They're watching the destitute injure themselves for money! Dan seems repulsed every time he participates, because he's painted himself into a corner.

Dan was skilled, but not marketable anywhere outside of his niche at SugarApe. He could probably go get an entry-level job elsewhere but he's doing fairly well, so he'd rather play the game and flog himself for it.

mike h. (mike h.), Monday, 21 March 2005 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

"It's just a simple matter of comparison"

That scene with the idiots discussing NB's column, reminded me of some of the Spinal Tapp moments.

Ste (Fuzzy), Monday, 21 March 2005 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(Here's the Japanese-carpenter-meets-Sherlock-Holmes look I mentioned above, in case anyone's taking fashion notes.)

Momus (Momus), Monday, 21 March 2005 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

"I blame ... the legacy of the puritans, personally. I don't know how Shakespeare avoided it"

erm by carefully dying before the puritans turned up?

mark s (mark s), Monday, 21 March 2005 19:47 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't believe this is over already, it was just getting good! six shows is a season, wtf.

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 21 March 2005 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Six shows is your standard British comedy series length.

caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 21 March 2005 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Fashion Note Noted: You've been Bobo-ified.

J.D. Wick (jdw), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 01:54 (twenty-one years ago)

i know caitlin, doesn't make it any less wtf.

mark p (Mark P), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 02:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Nathan Barely, more like.

James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

That is fucking gorgeous.

Masked Gazza, Tuesday, 22 March 2005 03:53 (twenty-one years ago)


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