Just A Minute

 
<<<<   3064   >>>>

OT: Unbelievable Truth panel game

Messages in this topic: 5 View All
Clitheroe KidApr 19, 2009
 

 
Ah, but...

Reading your posts over the last year, I've sort of gotten the impression
that you're a fan of stand-up comedians.

Nothing wrong in that, certainly. But is a panel that consists *only* of
stand-ups a varied enough mix to succeed in this type of format?

In the old days, JAM didn't have a single stand-up comedian. Kenneth, Derek,
Peter and Clement were all actors or raconteurs. Not even Kenneth was a
stand-up comic; he was an actor, who was funny with a script, and a
blindingly good raconteur.

The Unbelieveable Truth has a panel solely comprised of stand-ups. It's a
bit like the tv game show Jokers Wild, if your memories of 1970s tv go back
that far. All of them good in their own right as comedians, but they didn't
gell as a group.

Also, the panel on The Unbelieveable Truth are just too young!

This is heresy, of course, in an age which prays at the altar of the cult of
youth. But people with no experience can't recreate JAM in The Unbelieveable
Truth. Out of the panel you've named, only Jack Dee is really experienced
enough, in show business terms, to fill the shoes of someone like Peter
Jones or Derek Nimmo.

Just a thought!

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Bedford" <dbedford@...>
To: <just-a-minute@...>
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] OT: Unbelievable Truth panel game


> You always write such interesting notes Clitheroe.
>
> The panel on the show I heard was Jeremy Hardy, Fred MacAulay, Jack Dee,
> David Mitchell and Will Self - all people I enjoy. So for me, the cast
> wasn't the problem. Maybe they needed a Nicholas type in the chair to
> keep things flowing.
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Clitheroe Kid wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm an un-fan(?) of this new panel game.
> >
> > You have to like the people who are on the panel, or like the chairman,
> > in
> > order to stay with a show for 40 years, as we have with JAM. A format
> > alone
> > is not enough.
> >
> > I began listening to JAM simply because I liked Kenneth Williams. I
> > enjoyed
> > "rooting for him" in the shows, and over a couple of years I gradually
> > got
> > to know and like the other regular players.
> >
> > Likewise, I enjoyed watching Call My Bluff because I liked Frank Muir.
> > And I
> > enjoy Brain of Britain (which has *no* regular panellists) because I
> > like
> > Robert Robinson.
> >
> > I don't think you can like the format of a show, and follow it just
> > because
> > of its format. The format is just the pretext for getting the people in
> > the
> > show together. If the people are not interesting, the show won't
> > capture the
> > involvement of the audience.
> >
> > JAM worked because Kenneth Williams had lots of interesting things to
> > say,
> > and was very witty with it. Derek Nimmo, Peter Jones & Clement Freud
> > were
> > also people with a lot of experience, who could tell a good anecdote.
> > Paul
> > Merton is a first class stand-up comedian.
> >
> > If these people had been dull - if they had not had interesting
> > personalities in real life - it would not have mattered that they were
> > great
> > actors when given someone else's script: the radio show would have
> > failed.
> >
> > You can't build a success out of a spontaneous panel game format, which
> > needs wit and improvisation and intelligence, without panellists who
> > have
> > those qualities. That is why JAM and Clue have succeeded, and why other
> > panel games tend not to last.
> >
> > Stephen
>

 
<<<<   3064   >>>>

Back to the Top