Just A Minute

----- 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
>

--- In just-a-minute@..., Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, from what I've read about people's general disdain for this panel game, it brings to my mind something that happened about 40 years ago on TV. 

--- In just-a-minute@..., "kj.naughton" <kj.naughton@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I've uploaded my MP3s of "The Unbelievable Truth" to MediaFire. If anyone is interested, the link is http://tinyurl.com/cmvl34 - I'll also add it to the links section of the group. The folder contains the first two series in full, all the episodes of Series 3 that have been broadcast so far plus the pilot and a Christmas special.
>
> My personal favourite is Series 3, Episode 2. The show is more mature in Series 3 and this episode has Tony Hawkes (a JaM regular of course) in good form and even a short piece of JaM banter when Tony makes a play for a Nicholas-style bonus point.
>
> I also quite like Series 1, Episode 6 which has Sandy Toksvig "corpsing" as she does regularly on radio panel games and Jo Caulfield completely forgetting how to play the game. Both occasional JaM contestants as well.
>
> The one that Dean didn't like is Series 3, Episode 4 (the most recent one) and, as I said before, I do agree that it's probably the weakest show so far. I quite like Will Self normally but I think he turned this one a bit too high brow and his "lecture" was almost impossible to follow. The only thing I worry about is that if, like "Clue", they record two episodes at once then we potentially have another similarly weak one left to be broadcast.
>
> I do agree that The Unelievable Truth has elements of Call My Bluff and Just a Minute, but I guess it's fairly hard to come up with a genuinely unique panel game for radio these days.
>
> Hopefully people will be able to spare the time to listen - I do think there's more good than bad in this series.
>
> I will upload my "Banter" collection as well for the group's entertainment over the next day or so.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> kJ
>
> --- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@> wrote:
> >
> > fair enough, I'll give them another try. :)
> >
>

>
>
> 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
>