Just A Minute

From: Julian Personal <julianxbishop@...>
Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Brief But Memorable - Maureen Lipman
To: "just-a-minute@..." <just-a-minute@...>
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:04 AM

 

I think the JAMs that work best are those that contain a mix of different performers with slightly different roles.  For example, you couldn't have a successful edition, in my opinion, where all 4 panellists want to win the show.  It would get bogged down in repetitions of small words.  I know, Dean, that you and I both agree that one of our favourite panellists was Peter Jones.  He played the game for decades and still was rubbish at the game!  However, he was likeable; introduced the clever challenge into the game; was the butt of others' jokes; and a high % of his  challenges were very funny.   

The reason I say the above is to make the point that you cannot therefore compare Pam Ayres and Chris Neill.  They perform very different roles.  I love it when I hear that Pam Ayres is on the panel.  Her command of language, fluency, different cultural background and subtle sense of humour mean that you are going to get a particular contribution.  Whether, you would prefer one over the other depends on the composition of the rest of the panel.  What I like about Pam Ayres is that she doesn't choose to play the game the same way as others.  She isn't a flexible performer though; she performs one type of role.  Paul Merton and Kenneth Williams change(d) the role they play(ed) depending on what other players are doing.  If the show is/was dragging, they explode into life.  If others are showing great humour, they remain silent.  You wouldn't want Pam Ayres every week, but - in my view - she is a great panellist and adds a balance to the show.

In terms of other women on your list, Sue Perkins is a fantastic player.  Competitive, argumentative, good at the game.  In the same way that you can't have a show where everyone wants to win, you can't have one where nobody cares either!  I think Jenny Eclair can be good.  She's different and self deprecating.  Sheila is good too, but presumably only wants to commit herself to a small number of shows.  With Pam, that makes 4 very good current female panellists.  That's a good start.  I would suggest that the producers continue to experiment with new female talent, but drop the talent that doesn't offer anything (Lisa Tarbuck is obviously a nice person, but I can't see she adds anything to this format).  Before you know it, 2 other great female players will have emerged and you could have an all women show that was every bit as good as the best shows in history.      

Julian

www.julianxbishop.wordpress.com

On 11 Aug 2010, at 05:28, "Dean" <dbedford@...> wrote:

 

I raised the issue about a year ago of why women seem less successful in the competitive game show environment. I think it's a fascinating subject, if you have thoughts about it KJ.

 

Here are the women appearances in the past five years, since Linda Smith's death, as the last woman who was definitely a semi-regular. This is out of 106 shows and includes shows recorded this season...

 

Sue Perkins 20

Jenny Eclair 12

Liza Tarbuck 10

Pam Ayres, Josie Lawrence, 8

Shappi Khorsandi, Pauline McLynn 6

Janey Godley 5

Sheila Hancock 4

Maureen Lipman, Maria McErlane, Kate Robbins 2

Jo Caulfield, Lynn Ferguson, Helen Lederer, Josie Long, Suki Webster 1

 

Of the men, apart from Paul and Clement obviously, only Tony Hawks and Gyles Brandreth have more appearances than Sue. Graham Norton has the same number.

 

I guess I think looking at that list, that women aren't exactly demanding more shows with their great performnaces. Would you have for example, more Pam Ayres and less Chris Neill? More Pauline McLynn and less Julian Clary? I'd be interested if people do feel that women are getting a raw deal. I'd like to hear more of Sheila and Maureen Lipman myself - but then I also think Pam Ayres and Liza Tarbuck are generally not top performers.. .

 

Interestingly too, there have been more women in the last couple of years, though it's only a small rise. For example, we have had six two men/two women shows this year... that never happened at all between 1985 and 2002.

 

Stats nerd signing off... <Emoticon1.gif>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: kj.naughton

Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:55 PM

To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: [just-a-minute] Re: Brief But Memorable - Maureen Lipman

 

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> the fact that she is such high demand is probably why she's kept her appearances on panel shows to a minimum, but that's quite alright.  I find her contributions on the program rather entertaining, and she certainly doesn't overstay her welcome by appearing too often, because I'm uncertain if I'd like her on the program in a regular capacity. 
>

The thought of Maureen being a regular raises an interesting point. How many women could be counted as even semi-regulars on JaM recently?

I don't have the data (or the inclination) to be able to answer that question but, off the top of my head, I reckon Sue Perkins would have been the leading female contributor, with Lisa Tarbuck, Jenny Eclair and Shappi Khorsandi being in the running as well.

JaM has always been male-dominated, but efforts seem to have been made in recent years to include different voices, nations and accents in the show - very important in radio - but less of an effort to include a more balanced mix of male/female voices. It can't simply be that there aren't as many women who would be good at JaM, can it?

Cheers

kJ