Very interesting and very insightful views Julian. These are things I'm sure many of us have probably never thought about, or things we have thought about but could never find the words to express it. Although I would disagree that Peter Jones was rubbish at playing the game, there is plenty of evidence on display that showcased that Peter could play the game just as well as Kenneth Williams and Clement Freud. in point of fact, there was one particular episode from the 1970's, I'm not sure the specific year, and I believe the subject was 'Why I Am Not Winning at the Moment', where Peter spoke quite well about how restrictive he felt the rulings of JAM were when compared to the natural way people talk, repeating things for emphasis and coloring a story with other side anecdotes which can be counted as deviation. I understand that as the years progressed, Peter seemed less willing to argue against someone to try and keep the subject and was more than willing to allow someone to have it. Even though Peter never took himself seriously and was always the first to decry the program's over serious nature and poke fun at how ludicrous it is for anyone to be desperate enough to want to win such a 'fruitling' game, I personally never found how Peter was treated during his latter years to be at all amusing. I do agree that Peter Jones was never at a loss for a humourous line, as he always had the funniest things to say, which is normally based on his particular brand of observational humour. Peter was always a keen observer on what had been going on throughout the show, and more often than not his wittiest and funniest lines usually arose out of how unfairly he himself had been treated in being denied what he felt were justifiable challenges. I love Pam Ayers, I think she is definitely a welcome presence on the program, but I'll talk about her in more depth when she becomes the subject of a future 'Brief But Memorable' post. I also agree that much as you want the show to remain fun and entertaining, you also cannot have panelists on the show who don't give a damn about the rules or about playing the game. i guess the show really is a lot more complex than one would imagine. --- On Fri, 8/13/10, Julian Personal <julianxbishop@...> wrote:
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 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>
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 1:55 PM 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
|