okay I'll weigh in on Paul. He said in one of the
shows last year - and made a similar remark either on the Classic CDs or in an
interview somewhere - that he was conscious of winning the show too
often and dominating too much, and was trying to let the others all have a
fair go. There are shows in the early 90s where Paul probably says more than the
other three panellists combined, and we don't hear very much even from people as
funny as Graham Norton, Linda Smith and Julian Clary. Whether this is at the
behest of a producer or off his own bat, Paul seems to be less competitive, less
willing to get into every round. I do think it's good that we are hearing more
from some of the others, though I'd hate to feel Paul felt too constrained.
Sometimes we go five minutes or more without hearing Paul in some shows this
year and I'm not sure that that's a good thing.
Still I do feel that Paul remains the glue that holds
things together. I've referred before to the remark David Hatch once made that
he used to occasionally signal to Kenneth Williams to jump in if he felt the
show was becoming a bit dull and people were getting bogged down. That's
always the fear to me, that the show gets bogged down in "repetition of he" type
challenges and no-one gets going. I think the show this week got derailed a bit
with trivial challenges. It would be interesting to know how many times people
talked on the subject for more than say 10 seconds. It's not impossible to be
funny in a few seconds, but the show works better if people are allowed to get
their "flow" going. It's no coincidence that Paul wasn't there this week. He
always jumps in if what's being said is boring and says something that gets
people laughing again. The only other person with a similar command, I
think, is Graham Norton, and personally I would have Graham on the panel if Paul
isn't there. I suspect though that Paul will miss few shows in the immediate
future.
Has Paul mellowed? I don't know if that's the word I'd
use. He's not one of the "alternative" younger comedians any more. He's in his
mid 50s and he's been lead comic on a leading BBCTV comedy show and a leading
BBC radio comedy show for 20 years each now, so he's clearly mainstream these
days. I haven't seen Have I Got News For You for a couple of years but before
that I didn't notice him getting any softer in his jabs and on JAM he's still
quite capable of cutting remarks. I wonder though if he is trying to broaden his
comedy a tad. Insult humour is good and works on JAM - it doesn't have to be all
that he does. Improvisation is about trying things out and if anyone on the show
is in a position to be original, it surely must be Paul.
Turning to whether "he accepts all of Nicholas'
decisions without a fight now, just tows the line and accepts his judgement like
a good little boy" I think the first thing to say is that whether the panellists
are praising Nicholas or rubbishing Nicholas, it's all meant in humour. It all
plays to JAM's longest running joke, commentary on how Nicholas chairs the show.
Same with Kenneth Williams. The joke works either way because Nicholas is
neither as bad nor as good as they say and because Nicholas is such a
willing target. It's clear from the Classic CDs that Paul does have a great deal
of respect for Nicholas.
Paul and the others do still take jabs at Nicholas.
Perhaps they do not make the full production number of it that they used
to.
But I do think that the death of Clement and Nicholas's
advanced age combine to make criticism of Nicholas more problematic.
At 86 and still with a reasonably busy show biz career, Nicholas almost
certainly has the respect of all of the others on the show. His is an
incredible record. The fact that the other panellists are between 30 and 50
years younger than Nicholas makes some insults off-limits I think. Remember when
Kenneth used to say "they have to wheel him out here in a bath chair, and inject
him with Queen's royal jelly!" Now that Nicholas is of an age when many people
would be under nursing care, that sort of remark doesn't work so well. I think
while Clement, roughly the same age, was there and if not leading the
charge against Nicholas, certainly supporting it, these taunts were more
acceptable. But now Clement isn't there, I'm sure that the panellists are wary
of seeming too harsh about Nicholas.
As I say the panellists do still make jokes about
Nicholas, but I think they are wary of sounding too mean.
The interesting thing is what this means for the future
of the show and what effect Clement's death is having. It seems from the various
things that have been said that while people had a lot of respect for Clement,
he did at times make some people uncomfortable. I think this season in
particular had a lot of fun and laughter. Is it possible people are more relaxed
without Clement's brooding presence? On the other hand the possibility is always
there that the show will lose its shape without Clement to care about the rules
and the score - though Gyles Brandreth and Sue Perkins are perhaps taking over
that role as the competitive players of the game.
I expect if Nicholas retired/died and say Gyles
Brandreth took over as chairman, he would immediately become a target for
insults and abuse, because it works in a game where so few rulings are
clear-cut, and because, like Nicholas, he is a great target.
It'll be interesting to see how the show develops in the
next few years but with an established core cast, Paul, Graham, Tony, Sue,
Gyles, Kit, Jenny, Julian, Chris, Stephen, Josie, Charles, Liza, Tim, Pam, most
of whom have now been around 10 years or more, I feel that the show is in a
strong position - and also perhaps poised to develop into something
slightly different from how the show sounded say 10 years ago.