Just A Minute

 
<<<<   3503   >>>>

Article + Edinburgh Guest

Messages in this topic: 4 View All
Clitheroe KidAug 20, 2009
 

 
At the risk of being unduely contraversial, I'd have to say that the fact
Kenneth Williams was always worth hearing was largely *because* he was able
to say something intelligent about a subject, due to doing some research
beforehand - not merely because of being witty.

They didn't always have subjects that needed researching. "My favourite
colour" or "Why Kenneth Williams irritates me" were topics that clearly
needed no research. But when they had a historical character as the subject,
that did benefit from some research.

In my opinion, having someone on the show who was not simply waffling was a
real benefit to the show. It gave it some depth, which it sadly lacks today.
(If this week's contestants had done any research, I don't think it showed!)

And Kenneth could be funny about *anything* - a feat which only Paul Merton
can achieve now.

Whereas, at the other end of the scale, Wendy Richard (bless her) - who I
loved dearly - never did anything but waffle. Aimi Macdonald too. But Aimi
was capable, at her best, of being hysterically funny: something which can
excuse a multitude of sins!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Bedford" <dbedford@...>
To: <just-a-minute@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest


I suspect almost no-one goes on stage not having some thought about the
subjects. I'm not sure that's changed either. After all in his diaries
Kenneth Williams describes mugging up on historical subjects days before
a recording.

I do respect and understand your wish for complete spontaneity. Not sure
I feel as strongly - I think I'd rather they had something to say on the
subjects than waffle on saying nothing. But I do see where you're coming
from.


On Thursday, August 20, 2009, at 12:53 AM, nylon net wrote:

>
> I certainly agree that JAM is unscripted, but I wonder how many modern
> contestants refuse to be told what topics their episodes will include.
> They all seem SO prepared when their topics arise. It really, sadly
> reeks of days of careful preparation.
>
> While there are certainly uncertainties after the first challenge
> comes, I wonder how many contestants are really flying off the cuff
> when Saint Nick says "You have 60 seconds starting NOW"?
>
> Preparation surely helps the contestants manage their tendencies to
> vomit on-stage when they get a tricky subject, but it does sound rather
> glib much of the time when the first speaker launches into a virgin
> topic.
>
> JAM is - or is meant to be - the modern equivalent of the Coliseum. We
> oooh and ahh at the vicissitudes and victories of the victims, but less
> blood is spent in the sawdust nowadays. In the early days of "I'm
> Sorry I haven't a Clue" Bill Oddie would pulsate with terror at each
> request for an unscripted poem or song. Are modern performers too
> precious to be stressed like this nowadays in a "theatre-sports"
> environment like JAM? Surely not.
>
> I believe their pluck will be seen, and their spirits more greatly
> admired when it's obvious they are hearing the subject for the first
> time in their lives.
>
> Don't give them the topics in advance! (Except, perhaps for the
> newbies like Paul Merton)
>
> Regards
> Mark
> nylon.net

 
<<<<   3503   >>>>

Back to the Top