Just A Minute

 
<<<<   2885   >>>>

Deviation of language

Messages in this topic: 1
Clitheroe KidJan 23, 2009
 

 
I've followed the show since the mid 1970s, and have heard recordings of
many editions which were broadcast even prior to that.

The programme has never had a serious purpose. It's always been light
entertainment.

And the rules were always chaotic. In its very earliest days, it was not
even certain what amounted to repetition: Nicholas Parsons made arbitrary
rulings in many early shows, and - for instance - often allowed panellists
to repeat particular words a certain number of times.

The rules were so arbitrary that at one stage, in the early 1970s, repeating
even the words on the card was forbidden.

Gradually, the rules as we recognise them today began to emerge from the
chaos of those early years. But it took a long time. By the late 1970s a
body of recognised rules existed. Today, most of those same rules are still
recognised, at least in theory.

But the players of today (save for Clement, of course) lack the erudition
and skill of the original foursome. The rules have been largely abandoned,
in favour of the "bonus points" scheme. All intelligent discourse has been
lost, and the surreal style of Paul Merton has changed the show out of all
recognition.

The players in the 1970s could talk intelligently about the subject on the
card, particularly Kenneth Williams and Derek Nimmo. Nowadays, most
panellists talk rubbish (or surreal rubbish). It may be funny, but you never
come away knowing more about the subject itself. The game use to be played
at a much higher intellectual level; yet it was still hysterically funny.

Was it more "serious"? The subject on the card was often serious; but
Kenneth could make absolutely any subject funny, and yet do so in such a way
that you actually came away from the show knowing something about the
subject that you hadn't previously been aware of.

I like Paul Merton. He would have fitted into the show nicely in the old
days, as a contrast to the others. But the show loses something, now that
nearly all the other panellists are emulating him by affecting a surreal
style too. It can work when only Paul is doing it; but it does not really
succeed if all the other panellists are doing it too.

The problem lies in too many of the panellists being stand-up comedians. In
the old days, none of the panel were. Not even Kenneth was a stand-up.
Sadly, there has been a certain dumbing-down, such that the 1970s are now
looked back on as being "serious".

At the time, they were not.

----- Original Message -----
From: "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@...>
To: <just-a-minute@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Deviation of language


> Hello Robert,
>
> If you genuinely are "punching the walls in anger" or anything
> remotely like that then may I gently suggest that you are probably
> taking Just A Minute a little too seriously?
>
> Just A Minute is not a quiz show. There are no real rewards for
> the "winner". There is no need for Nicholas (or anyone else) to be
> consistent between episodes, or even within an episode. Just A
> Minute is a show which provides light, humorous entertainment and
> nothing else. It is played for laughs.
>
> I've not been listening long enough to know whether Just A Minute
> originally started out with a "serious" purpose. It's perhaps
> heretical to say this, but I find most of the older shows utterly
> dull. I don't even (much) like the contributions that Kenneth
> Williams made, although I love the contributions from Peter Jones.
>
> So, as my daughter would say, "take a chill pill".
>
> Incidentally, the MP3 from Monday's broadcast (episode 4 of series
> 57) is now available for download. Please see the "Series 57" entry
> in the "Links" section of this group.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> kJ
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., "Robert L. Torres"
> <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
> >
> > However, something has occurred very recently that has me punching
> > the walls in anger. It was the very first episode of the new
> series,
> > it took place two days before New Year's Eve, and it was the
> > subject 'What I Got For Christmas' and Nicholas stops the entire
> show
> > to complain about the ungrammatical nature of the statement and
> over
> > the general ungrammatical nature of the subjects he's been given
> up
> > to now.
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

 
<<<<   2885   >>>>

Back to the Top