Nathan Barley comes to TV

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1029 of them)
Was it a good or bad thing that i recognised/like most of the soundtrack songs e.g prefuse 73, DM + jemini.

Hari A$hur$t (Toaster), Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:09 (nineteen years ago) link

Are you sure? Maybe I need to adjust the contrast on my tv or get my specs checked. Your version is funnier, true.
Having had the dubious pleasure of meeting the man I can say that the Nicky Campbell headline was OTM.

stew, Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:09 (nineteen years ago) link

We are supposed to identify with the Ashcrofts here.

i'm not sure - i thought so at first but it soon became clear that he was a pitiful character, somewhere between David Brent and Tim for me. actually that's me in a nutshell, maybe. ack.

the timing thing isn't so relevant for me because of this 'nostalgia' aspect mentioned upthread, plus the humour relying a great deal on just the absurd exaggeration of it all. i can enjoy it whilst thinking back to my own experiences as a numeeja design underling and personal hatred/envy conflicts re Hoxditch hype.

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:09 (nineteen years ago) link

i chuckled out loud several times too i must say

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:10 (nineteen years ago) link

goodness I forgot abt DM & jemini!

cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:23 (nineteen years ago) link

It was pretty good - not great - and there's plenty of scope for plot and character development which Morris simply hasn't done before cos he's never done a sitcom. If Green Wing can turn itself into something actually worth watching by the end of its run, then this is certainly starting from a better place.

I'm bored to the back teeth of the SOTCAA/NotBBC/Cook'd and Bomb'd crowd - those forums were always like the most soul-sapping aspects of ILX and it's no surprise that they loathe this. Imagine an ILM where all the threads were about much worse everything is getting and how even the bands we liked have lost it. Oh, wait...

Morris is stuck with being lorded as the undisputed heavyweight comic genius of our time so if he turns something out that's slightly to the left of the money, or three-fifths as good as Peep Show or whatever, it's a calamity and a Slade musical written with Richard Stilgoe can only be round the corner.

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 12 February 2005 00:57 (nineteen years ago) link

I'd like to award that comment an OTM, please.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 01:45 (nineteen years ago) link

But this was, mainly, shit. I didn't realise Barley was just supposed to be a ridiculously caracatured moron. It would have been nice to have some (ANY!) subtlety in there. And the wedged-in Morrisspeak by numbers seemed boring and out of place. Julian Barratt was pretty good, though.

Ally C (Ally C), Saturday, 12 February 2005 02:50 (nineteen years ago) link

The trailer for episode 2 has just gone up... shades of 'Life of Brian', with Dan Ashcroft being hailed by various pantomime wiggas and nazis as 'the preacher man' and getting very angry about it. He's 'the preacher man' because his article about The Idiots (the very people running the article) has 'slaughtered the pig of ignorance' (said with a rising intonation). I snorted like a pig watching it! Fuck, I wish UK Nova were accepting new members!

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 03:41 (nineteen years ago) link

Okay, thanks to a kind filesharer I just saw the first episode. I thought it was good. Barley was made a lot more unsympathetic than I thought he would be, but wasn't the central character. Dan Ashcroft was, and his plight, trapped in a world he's too old (and too intelligent) for was surprisingly moving. You actually felt for him as he beat against the glass ceiling of his little world. Weirdly enough, something about him reminded me of John Peel, also too old and too dignified for a metropolitan media set who deified him, also trapped under some kind of glass ceiling. Except that Peel loved what he played, whereas Ashcroft (hmm, Ashcroft / Ravenscroft?) hates it, yet can't transcend it.

The reviewers who've said it gets uncomfortably close to The Office are right; it's The Office transplanted to a loft where The Play Ethic has gone mad. But I think that's okay; The Office was simply the precursor of a new school of 'embarrassment comedy', and Morris and Brooker are big enough not to stand in its shadow. What's good about this embarrassment comedy thing is that it really makes you feel with the characters. That keeps it from being a Vanity Fair or Rake's Progress or Beggar's Opera-style ensemble piece, just a parade of unsympathetic fops and bullies.

And I have to say I was snorting with embarrassed laughter at scenes like the one where Nathan goes into an Asian newsagent and calls the owner 'my nigga'. Horrific, yes. Over the top, well, not really; I know people who would almost do that.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 08:18 (nineteen years ago) link

Barley actually reminded me of the central figure in 'Absolute Beginners', the mod who looked like a young Cecil Parkinson.

There's a constant stream of references to massacres, exploitation, atrocities... 9/11, Mai Lai, Hitler, 'that cool e mail of a woman being bummed by a wolf...' These events are all trivialised by Barley for the sake of some kind of banal 'normative aggression', and seen as essentially no different from the pranks he plagues his shy, sensitive assistant with. Or perhaps the pranks are just massacres and atrocities scaled down to chick-pea size, web dimensions. The thing I'm wondering, though, is whether the reverse situation wouldn't be worse. If The Idiots made no reference to Vietnam, Hitler, gangsta rap etc and were simply privileged white kids in a playpen, would they be exonerated? In other words, what is the function of this constant transpostion of their antics with atrocity? And if they were no longer pedalling along the streets on tiny bicycles, the cars would have the street to themselves, right? And that would be better... how?

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 08:48 (nineteen years ago) link

I thought it was OK.

I haven't seen much Morris stuff, but what I have seen made lots of references to atrocities of one kind or another (dog bomb, spot the assassin or something). In fact, that was why I didn't like him.

Peter Stringbender (PJ Miller), Saturday, 12 February 2005 09:55 (nineteen years ago) link

I think it's Jesuit guilt. He was educated by Jesuits, you know. The thing is, it's kind of dangerous to use atrocities as a kind of universal moral measure. First of all, it makes every architect of atrocity into a kind of Moses, a kind of lawgiver. Secondly, the ultimate moral lesson atrocities teach is nihilism.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 10:10 (nineteen years ago) link

i: Nathan Barley isn't a dotcommer, he and his friends are twentysomething upper-middle-class London media shitwhore trustafarian toff poshboys who get jobs in the media through nepotism and favours. Their like has been with us long before the dotcom boom and remain with us. Some are on boards like these.
ii: TVGoHome and Cunt were already filled with 'Morris-isms'.
iii: the TV version was fine if oddly stilted and the portrayal of the 'undeserving media do-nothings' was probably a little too broard, although Barley himself wasn't bad at all. Torturing his long-suffering collegue and filming it on his absurd little gadget and showing it to Ashcroft's sister: "one day he's gonna get me back big time. Aren't you?"
"... yeah"

David Merryweather (DavidM), Saturday, 12 February 2005 10:53 (nineteen years ago) link

better than family guy.

RJG (RJG), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:03 (nineteen years ago) link

DH said to me during the commercial break: "it's like an episode of AbFab where everyone is Bubble".

Very poor.

Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:31 (nineteen years ago) link

Saw it last night. I really don't like it. I don't have any nostalgia for my Hoxton years, so it's kind of too close to judge on that call. My problem is that I don't find *any* of the characters sympathetic or appealing in any way. It's the same reason I don't like The Office. Nothing seems funny, everything just makes me wince, I guess the humour is supposed to derive from cruelty. But I just don't find it amusing, I find it painful.


I guess maybe it would be different for me if I could experience it from the Class Envy aspect, with an edge of schadenfreude but I just don't. I just feel sorry for the Trustafarians because I know too many of them and know how empty their emotional lives are, so I can't see them as figures of fun or hate, just of pity. [/poor little rich girl routine]

I'm not really sure who this programme is supposed to be aimed at. Not me, I guess. Are those ads in the tube actually ads for those silly phones, or are they some kind of weird guerilla advertising for NB? That confuses me.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:34 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm bored to the back teeth of the SOTCAA/NotBBC/Cook'd and Bomb'd crowd - those forums were always like the most soul-sapping aspects of ILX and it's no surprise that they loathe this

If you would actually care to look, there isn't a consensus on those boards. Some liked it, some hated it, some expressed mild apathy. I didn't care for it, but then I was expecting some comedy rather than one extended media in-joke. Nice use of Broadcast, though.

I predict Pingu will crack and attempt to kill Nathan by episode six.

Philip Alderman (Phil A), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:35 (nineteen years ago) link

ooh controversial then.

i quite enjoyed it, from the TCP joke at the beginning onwards. it is rather officey, but i think momus is right about the comedy of embarrassment thing.

also if arsehole beats muff, then muff must beat cock and cock must beat arsehole, which i'm sure you could get a psychology dissertation out of...

CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:41 (nineteen years ago) link

I clearly missed the bit where someone explained why embarrassment was funny.

Kate Kept Me Alive! (kate), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:45 (nineteen years ago) link

I nearly switched off when Broadcast came on.

Peter Stringbender (PJ Miller), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:52 (nineteen years ago) link

i'm left bemused by 90% of the refs on this thread (ie too old and out of the relevant loop), so thus in a good moral-highground position to put forward this argument:

that one of morris's touchstone themes seems to be "fuck the world for it is infested w.ppl self-convinced they're at the cutting-edge-of-where-it's-at but not (=A), at the expense of the ppl who ARE at the cutting-edge-of-where-it's-at (=B)" - but actually the overlooked victims are all the ppl nowhere near the CEoWIA (i mean, whether or not you grant this mythical beast walks the earth anyway, or is worth seekin out) (=C)

ie it (unintentionally) fosters a dubious gradient B » A » C

peel is an interesting person to mention in ref this, since HIS moral gradient (i think always) made a link between A and C: momus and i (and lots of others) had a big fight abt this years ago, where i wz confusedly arguing that Peel saw Ivor Cutler and "Home Truths" as equivalents, not opposites (not to deify particularly: i just mean that for him a similar rule-of-thumb caused him to gravitate to these apparently difft cultural areas where)

anyway, switching randomly across TV in the last two weeks, I arrived at some former scriptwriter/comedy maven - a retired old guy - being interviewed abt the "state of things", and CEoWIA (to me rather charmingly i must say, bz SO off the map of all possible ) declaring that the funniest thing on television at the moment as the talkin baby in MY HERO!

the point i'm makin might be clearer if i could remember who/what this guy actually was/had been, obv - i find a year of writin a book and lookin after ailin parents has FUCKED w.my cuttin-edge-of-where-it-used-to-be-at memorybanks (i had to hunt for jennifer saunders' name in conversation a few days back: as in, "dawn french but the other one, you know")

the point i spose is that morrisism not-entirely-inadvertently fosters a shinin ideal of media-meritocracy - a fuzzin utopia of the in-the-know - but the effect of pushin so relentlessly for this is actually to ENABLE the Bs of the world

hmmmm, is a single word of what i just wrote clear? i didn't actually watch NB (i watched the simpsons) (haha i shd have said i watched "according to bex")

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:54 (nineteen years ago) link

i'd say "nurse more coffee" but she'll look at the cups i drunk so far and not let me

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 11:57 (nineteen years ago) link

if you factor thr "humour of cruelty" into the gradient, you get this: if it's funny cruelly to mock the ppl that eg alan partridge is based on (a trope the morris p4edo brass eye took v.far), then surely it's funnier still - plus easier - to mock the ppl who enjoy the contributions of the ppl that eg alan partridge is based on: and you get eg dom joly - who is "in-the-know" difft from jeremy beadle and noel edmunds how?

ps i think this is a complicated conundrum btw
pps = i think lady-one-question IS FUNNY and so do you

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:04 (nineteen years ago) link

jeebs i mean:
and you get eg dom joly, who is "in-the-know", AND YET difft from jeremy beadle and noel edmunds how?

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:05 (nineteen years ago) link

also known as the zappa/comic-book-guy question, i guess

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:07 (nineteen years ago) link

let it go, rich.

cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:12 (nineteen years ago) link

If anything the charecters, for me, were far too sympathetically portrayed. They come over as just harmless, dizzy-headed twits and that's not the point, it should play less for laffs and be crueller. Should have hit harder. Much harder.

Nathan Barley followed The Simpsons on Ch4.

David Merryweather (DavidM), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:24 (nineteen years ago) link

i told you i wz out of the loop david!

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:28 (nineteen years ago) link

dom joly does = beadle/edmonds though

zappi (joni), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:34 (nineteen years ago) link

I clearly missed the bit where someone explained why embarrassment was funny.

That must have been the bit where Alan Partridge shouted 'AHA!' for the first time. Or perhaps the bit where the molasses spilled all over Stan Laurel's dungarees...

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:34 (nineteen years ago) link

I missed it last night, but it's repeated just after midnight tonight.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:39 (nineteen years ago) link

mark s was probably watching The Keith Barrat Show

The TV Nathan Barley did come across like a harmless Partridge/Brent deluded fool type for his sensible-like-us stooges (Ascroft, Tim etc) to roll eyes at, but as a charecter he paled next to those, therefore it dissapointed me.

I mean, the crueller it is, the funnier it will be. What I liked about Cunt in TVGH was how it quickly built itself up into an apoplectic fury at it's subject, which was largely missing from the TV version. Pile on the spite and the righteous, bordering-on-unhinged anger and we'll have something special.


9.00pm Cunt
Nathan Barley perches on a bench in Battersea Park fiddling with the special effects settings on an achingly futuristic Sony digital camera, taking motion-blurred monochrome snaps of his old schoolfriend Crispin, who needs a portrait for the opening page of a website showcasing his own downloadable garage MP3s, and is currently standing in front of the Peace Pagoda, sucking his cheeks in and staring at a tree in the distance.
Do you think you're some kind of fucking Renaissance man just because you've got a few ostensibly creative applications and a shitload of money to spend on high-tech gagetry? Do you have any idea how many other fuckheads all over the world are, right at this very minute, using precisly the same technology to produce precisly the same pedestrian results as you? Why don't you just take all your software, all your gadgets, all your pointless digital fuckery-foo and hurl the lot of it right into the fucking sea? You're using it to churn out shit. Get a fucking grip. You're a cunt; you have always HAVE been a cunt and you always WILL be a cunt - a useless, artless, soulless, worthless, hateful, sickening, handful-of-you-own-shit-fucking, cunt-chewing, cunt-eyed cunt. And your lazy, delusional stabs at creativity aren't fooling anyone, so stop trying. Prick. Our research team would like to talk to you: call 020 7656 7018
Producer Lo-Slung Denim

David Merryweather (DavidM), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:46 (nineteen years ago) link

It's fun to read the whole thing as a ballet of exasperation / bewilderment. The half hour of bewilderbeast! Dan Ashcroft is a barometer of exasperation, but everyone gets their share. Even Nathan is bewildered at himself: (Confident) "Trashbat dot cock. Okay, here's the credos. Trash... as in what surrounds us. And... (suddenly bewildered) bat." Now, the thing is, there's nothing wrong with things not making sense. It's actually fun to be bewildered, and we all need bewilderbeasts to give us the odd disorienteering lesson. One of the best things about the way Chris Morris writes is that you can see him coming up with phrases which only his unconscious could possibly be dictating to him. In other words, he trusts his own inner bewilderbeast. Here's a bit of his Suicide Journalist column in the Observer:

"I imagined the dreadful day when I can no longer derive the faintest pleasure from my Paul Smith polished berunia condom applicator. But, then again, I might be rapturously anticipating my life as a sunbeam, singing tra-las to the season of mists and kissing the pates of the ludicrous. Or what if I've been run over, pierced by a spear of frozen piss from a passing airliner, or stabbed by one of The Observer weirdos who've set up a daily Geefe vigil in the pub on the corner?

In turmoil, I faxed the editor a selection of starts for my column for 22 August. He hated them all. `… what the fuck's this: "I've been wondering this week whether sharble should be the word for a grain of instant coffee that hasn't dissolved by the time you drink it"?' I told him that would be what I'd write if I'd come to terms with my death to the extent that I no longer bothered to mention it at all."

It's funny and it's bewildering. And it's hard to say that The Idiots, with their unpredictable new fads and foibles, aren't just as funny and just as fruitfully brow-furrowing. Or am I mixing up Mark S's As and Bs? Is it always clear which is which? Which is good bewilderment and which bad? Which deserves BAFTAs and which bullets?

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:49 (nineteen years ago) link

my point = the crueller it is, the more it enables (rather than disables) the twats it purports to attack; bcz it gives them an easy lee* in which to operate (and to gather fandom from the always-many not able to keep up w.the "cutting edge")

(i mean maybe the above: i'm not saying it's an iron law) (i kinda think it is but i wouldn't know how to prove this)

i think i wz actually watching futurama on DVD: the second simpsons wz v.poor and i needed cheerin up)

* = iain lee

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:53 (nineteen years ago) link

If you would actually care to look, there isn't a consensus on those boards.

That's fair comment - I became so exasperated with various exchanges on those boards 2-3 years ago that I now have a tendency to tar everyone with the same broad brush of disdain; SOTCAA seemed to have been set up with the premise that everything was going to rubbish and no one else would say so (but here are some nice downloads/articles/edit logs) and I was never very comfortable with that. It's rather like when someone 'leaves' ILX - "Why did you stop posting?" "Cos they're all wankers." Not remotely true but you can kinda see their point...

("Actually caring to look" would unfortunately involve scanning down page after page of commentary on various threads some possibly started months and months ago; it's not really worth the effort once you've left that circle. I was really reacting to the front page editorial piece).

I do feel like I've semi-arbitrarily decided to stick up for NB, or at least give it a go, because of the assumed comedy-webgeek negative consensus, but the points made above are good (and some actually sting. "Bubble"?)

many xposts

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Saturday, 12 February 2005 12:57 (nineteen years ago) link

my point = the crueller it is, the more it enables (rather than disables) the twats it purports to attack; bcz it gives them an easy lee* in which to operate (and to gather fandom from the always-many not able to keep up w.the "cutting edge")

Also see Barley and the idiots chuckling over, bigging up and claiming Dan Ashcroft's The Rise of The Idiots piece, which they somehow didn't realise was an attack on them - they liked it because it was 'cool' or whatever. That can't be helped, it seems. Yeah? Totally.

David Merryweather (DavidM), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:06 (nineteen years ago) link

x-post: yes that's kinda my point too momus, the Bs can only exist cz the As exist, and the As are empowered by the Bs, and clearly some ppl graduate from A to B and some vice versa

the unclarity of the line is what makes the comedy, or something? when does "you"ll always be a cunt" stop being pitilessly OTM and start being a bit fascist? depends on who's saying it, and what their access to power and airwave-policing is: ricky gervaise = someone (for me) who keeps stepping back and forth over the line (consciously: i mean, its the line he's playing with, the line that makes him funny - and the fact that it unsettles me rather than makes me complacent is what i like abt it - but to do this it has to risk being actual real bullyboy stuff)

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:06 (nineteen years ago) link

ps "purports" wz a silly word for me to use: clearly it really DOES attack them!!

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:09 (nineteen years ago) link

I guess the line becomes a bit fascist when people w/brooker's viewpoint gain some degree of control over at least some of the levers of culture (?) It is easy to see why "Cunt" was so apoplectically angry in its tone, surely. Several people upthread have pointed out that the character is rooted in some kind of real situation at least - some individual who is full of shit, ignorant, and only in his job b/c he is being supported by wealthy friends/relatives, and this person allegedly has/appears to have some small amount of power as a tastemaker? The point I got quite strongly from TVGH was that much/most of this is really totally irredeemable shit, and when did it become "elitist" or whatever to point this out? My personal solution to this was to cut the plug off out TV, and give it away to my father in law. I suppose brooker's was to make money out of it. Obv, I haven't seen "Nathan Barley", perhaps I'll pick it up on DVD when it comes out. I haven't seen "The Office", so it might seem a bit fresher to me.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:27 (nineteen years ago) link

the Simpsons episodes shown by C4 lately leave just as nasty a taste in the mouth as Barley does (oo-er)

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:35 (nineteen years ago) link

i suppose future episodes will reveal just why Dan is so weak (i.e. letting Nathan write Trashbat on his hands in the first place - WHY?). normally i would find the humiliation of Nathan's colleague by Nathan too distasteful as a comedy device but i) it highlights well enough the danger of the prank trend peddled by Joly and Jackass and ii) hard to reason why the guy was there at all, is Nathan paying him?

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:38 (nineteen years ago) link

I saw this show, it wasn't special.

jel -- (jel), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:38 (nineteen years ago) link

why have you avoided The Office pash?

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:40 (nineteen years ago) link

Dom Joly is not, and never has been even remotely funny.

(x-post because I haven't got a television, Stevem)

Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:42 (nineteen years ago) link

you mean because you have no desire to own a TV?

Alienus Quam Reproba (blueski), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:43 (nineteen years ago) link

At the moment, I don't have any desire to own a TV, no.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:45 (nineteen years ago) link

"the Simpsons episodes shown by C4 lately leave just as nasty a taste in the mouth as Barley does (oo-er)"

OTM. Homer was always lovably stupid, but there was a point when the writers decided to make him a jerk. It seems they were trying to catch up with South Park by injecting some cruelty, but Homer isn't Cartman. The heart has gone from these episodes and the jokes aren't all that great either.

stew, Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:54 (nineteen years ago) link

the simpsons prob = they are v.patchy rather than uniformly awful

out of the recent C4 run two or three (out of what, ten?) have been pretty funny (eg i quite liked run lisa run) (tho actually i wz on the phone for half of it), but this just sets you up for sadness :(

what i disliked abt ned's themepark to maude wz that misplaced "heart" rather than the absence of it

mark s (mark s), Saturday, 12 February 2005 14:11 (nineteen years ago) link

That's a fair analysis Mark. The only Simpsons episodes that didn't make me chuckle at least once are the one where Homer becomes a missionary and the awful Prisoner episode. It wasn't even a good parody of the Prisoner. Really poor. Most of these have been at least watchable.
As for the heart - I agree, it was misplaced in that episode; jarred with the cruel and absurd humour. The problem is one of writing - the emotional moments tend to be mawkish and sentimental as opposed to genuinely touching (compare the death of Maude to the early one where Granpa Simpson's girlfriend passes away). Similarly the absurd plots are absurd for their own sake, lacking wit or skewed logic. There's been a tendency to rely on absurd situations at the expense of character. You just need to watch the vintage episodes on weekdays to see the difference.

stew, Saturday, 12 February 2005 15:03 (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.