My thoughts on the show this week, posted on the
blog
I'm sure sometimes I must come across here as an unthinking admirer of JAM,
someone who loves every edition and everything about it. If I do I can't
complain really, because I do LOVE the show and enjoy virtually all of the
panellists.
But anyway occasionally the opportunity is there to say that
a particular show didn't work. That's what I would say about this week's
show.
Paul Merton and Sue Perkins are arguably the two best and funniest
players of the game among current players. (I would put Graham Norton up there
as funnier but he is not as skilful a player of the game itself as Sue.) Liza
Tarbuck, as I've said before, can make good contributions but they are usually
spread thinly. This week's show was typical - of seven rounds, she had the
subject in just two of them, and didn't say anything especially
memorable.
John Sergeant was a problem. John's career was as a political
reporter, but as someone who could come out with a bon mot or two. He won a
couple of games in the TV series of 1999, but against the not exactly stellar
opposition of Brian Sewell, Barry Cryer and Su Pollard. He had one previous
radio appearance in 2005 when he was overwhelmed by the heavy artillery of Paul
and Clement.
Since retiring from day to day reporting, he has become a
sort of part-time game-show celeb, popping up in various places, most memorably
perhaps on Strictly Come Dancing, a celeb dance contest where he was a public
favourite.
So he was worth a try. But I rather think in the context of
being up against players who could keep the comedy flowing. If say Chris Neill
or Kit Hesketh-Harvey or Josie Lawrence had been in Liza's seat, the show may
have worked better.
Instead John became the centre of attention for not
being funny and not getting many points. Jokes were made about his ponderous
delivery, and the last round degenerated into one of those rounds where people
kept challenging him and Nicholas kept rejecting the challenges even though they
were clearly legitimate. That can work to liven things up, but it needs the
person being challenged to come to the party, play along and have a few witty
things to say. Peter Jones was a master of it. John just seemed like a possum
trapped in the headlights.
The teasing of John Sergeant just seemed
over-the-top and boorish to me, as he didn't have the verbal skills to return
fire. And the last round just seemed silly.
The things is from John's
perspective is that all he was trying to do throughout the show was PLAY THE
GAME. He was trying to speak within the rules. But in the Paul Merton era, that
isn't enough any more.
Often people say to me that it would be nice to
have people who aren't professional comedians and entertainers on the programme.
They mention people like Magnus Pyke and Patrick Moore who contributed well in
the 70s. But that was a different era. If John Sergeant had been on in the late
70s with say Kenneth, Clement and Peter, they would probably have praised his
verbal acuity and dexterity. But there weren't enough jokes per second for the
liking of the others so they reacted as they did. Used to be if you had nothing
to say, you kept trying - remember how often the great Kenneth used to turn to
accents or Unwinese gibberish to keep going and hide the lack of content. These
days you're encouraged to shut up once the jokes run out. John
didn't.
And I thought neither Paul nor Sue was at their best either. The
show really needed Paul to race to the rescue with some improvisational
brilliance. He often does. But he's human and in this show, he didn't.
So
yes, John Sergeant wasn't a great choice. I assume there is a second recording
with him still to come. But Tilusha Ghelani must be wishing she had booked Kit
Hesketh-Harvey or Chris Addison or Marcus Brigstocke.