Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   3503   >>>>

Topic: Article + Edinburgh Guest

Message 1 / 4
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

 
<<<<   3506   >>>>

Topic: Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest

Message 2 / 4
nylon netAug 20, 2009
 

 
Must agree. Wendy always seemed rather po-faced and irritable, especially when Clement listed. And she *always* objected to lists, which grew rather tiresome.

nylon.net
nylon@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: clitheroekid@...
> Sent: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:57:59 +0100
> To: just-a-minute@...
> Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!

 
<<<<   3507   >>>>

Topic: Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest

Message 3 / 4
Dean BedfordAug 20, 2009
 

 
On Friday, August 21, 2009, at 12:55 AM, kj.naughton wrote:

>  
> --- In just-a-minute@..., Dean Bedford <dbedford@...> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> ...although I do remember one round on the subject of "Tautology" where
> no-one on the panel except Sir Clement appeared to know what a
> tautology was. And I don't think Sir Clement would have had to look it
> up. :-) Perhaps it's just that the panelists don't always mug up on the
> subjects, even if they know what they're going to be. But, I have to
> say, if there was a chance I'd have to speak on a subject like that for
> a minute then I'd definately mug up!
>

A few years ago Claire Jones said the players had the option of looking
at the subjects when they gathered 30 to 60 minutes before the show. You
can see at a recording that many of them do have a few notes with them.
But these days they very rarely have subjects that require actual
research. Kenneth would always get a historical or artistic subject but
I really don't imagine say Paul Merton getting out a library book to
research some obscure subject even if he had the subjects early enough
to do so. He'd be far more likely to make up some tale about them.

I agree with Clitheroe that it added something different, depth to use
his word, to have some factual subjects and have them discussed at least
semi-seriously. It would be dull if every subject was like that but one
per show was good, I think. Even among the current panellists who are
pretty much all comedians now, there are people who I'm sure could be
erudite on a subject given the chance. Stephen Fry, Kit Hesketh-Harvey
and Gyles Brandreth spring to mind for example.

 
<<<<   3510   >>>>

Topic: Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest

Message 4 / 4
stevenwickhamAug 21, 2009
 

 
I was lucky enough to attend the recording at the Drill Hall when Wendy was a panellist and she seemed in such a foul mood from the outset, and said quite brusquely at one point that she didn't like her subject and wouldn't talk on it, so he gave her the subject meant for Kit...

--- In just-a-minute@..., nylon net <nylon@...> wrote:
>
> Must agree. Wendy always seemed rather po-faced and irritable, especially when Clement listed. And she *always* objected to lists, which grew rather tiresome.
>
> nylon.net
> nylon@...
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: clitheroekid@...
> > Sent: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:57:59 +0100
> > To: just-a-minute@...
> > Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Article + Edinburgh Guest
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
> Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
>