Happy Mondays: The Greatest Hits (6)

Continuing our Happy Mondays series, let us spend some time talking about what I consider to be the best talk show, and talk show host, of the moment - Graham Norton and his eponymous The Graham Norton Show. And, both as a way of introducing you to this show, and of supporting my claim, let us briskly go over some of the elements that set this show apart, within a field (or genre) that by now has lost a lot of its glamour and sparkle.

First of all, it is a British talk show; and that matters, both because the rules governing British TV are more lax, allowing for a less straitjacketed and artificial interaction; and also because this means that the guests will usually be a mix of American and British stars (often having a British comedian complementing a lineup of major American stars). This mix also helps in terms of the communication style that the show tries to cultivate - namely, a somewhat loose, entertaining, and as much as possible genuine, tone. And how does having this kind of a mix of guests help? Well, because the Brits, just like the Australians or the Kiwis (New Zealanders), tend to be more direct (one could even say, more genuine) in their public appearances, than their American peers (who, for reasons both cultural and professional, clearly separate their visible and partly artificial “public persona,” from their actual, more genuine, private self; the ones from "the Commonwealth" seem to be more reckless, as it were, in that regard.).   

A good example of this might be found in the following clip, which features two very talented (top-notch, really) American comedians (Steve Carrell and Kristen Wiig) and an Irish one (well, ok - at least he's from the British islands – Chris O’Dowd). Watching this short (and very funny) clip, you will perhaps get a sense of what I am referring to - maybe by observing the American guests’ reactions to O’Dowd’s ridiculous story; and by sensing, perhaps, the inherent difference between the self-deprecating tone and attitude of the Irishman, and the guarded, constructed tone of the typical American public persona.

And this looseness, directness, even genuineness that the show cultivates, all contribute to providing it with a freshness that also sets it apart from its competitors. But this isn't all.

Another aspect that sets Graham Norton’s show apart is its particular format; or, more precisely, how well Graham makes this format work. As you might or might not have guessed, all the guests are brought in at the same time, and all of them share the same couch, throughout the show - and the conversation happens with each of them, and between them, and with all of them. In a way, this is like a prime-time version of a fun and fancy dinner table (by the way, the guests do consume alcoholic drinks during the show). But one has to know how to make this format work – i.e. 'how to be a good dinner party host." Compare, for example, how smoothly this works on The Graham Norton Show, with how clunky this same format feels on James Corden's The Late Late Show (who actually borrowed the format from The Graham Norton Show, just like he borrowed other elements from other successful British shows). But Graham makes this format work, and work well.

Indeed, it seems that for Graham Norton this role of "dinner / talk show host" fits perfectly - both because of natural endowments, and also because he understands what his role actually is, as a host: to facilitate a good, rolling, entertaining conversation, for the delight both of the public, and of the guests themselves (who, at turns, are both protagonists and quasi-members of the public, in the course of that rolling conversation). Keeping the show “entertaining” is also helped by the fact that Graham Norton has, without a doubt, a very keen and quick sense of humor; by which I do not mean a sense for “jokes,” but an ability to sense when humor is "in the air," as it were; a sense for the humorous - for allowing it to happen, for cultivating it, and for bringing it forth, as needed.

A good example of how well Norton performs his role as a host, is the following clip, in which a conversation develops between the guests in such an organic manner, that they almost forget of the host altogether; and Graham Norton allows for this to happen, and for the conversation to flow – and what results is spontaneous, genuine humor, and true entertainment, which delights both the guests, and implicitly the public. This is what it means to do one's job - as a host - exquisitely.

One can be certain that in putting all this together Graham Norton has the support of a crack team – but that would be true of all talk shows, since they all have a sizable team working behind the curtains. What this show’s team does so well, however, and the way in which it manages to support the particular style of this show so well, is by finding and bringing to Norton points of conversation that are also points of shared interest (or common experiences) between the guests - which then allow the host to easily move from one guest to another - involving them each and all in a conversation that engages them all.  

The top notch guests that he manages to book on an almost constant basis also help make the show very successful; but this did not come overnight, but was the result of Graham himself making the show successful, first with lesser-known guests - and then attracting higher profile guests exactly because of demonstrating his abilities as a talk show host.

And one can also assume that the guests actually feel good - that they have a good time - on Graham Norton’s show. And (besides the booze) perhaps the reason for that is that Graham is able to create good relationships, a good communication, with each guest - and with very different kinds of guests – as between very different guests. See him here with a couch that includes a “hard” rapper, Ice Cube (Straight Outta Compton); an “urban” American comedian, Kevin Hart; a British actress whom one might know from The Crown (but also from recently collecting the Oscar), Olivia Colman; and a British (and by now also American) star, Hugh Laurie. Very different personal styles and cultural backgrounds – and yet they all seem to feel at ease, on that couch - and also with each other. Thanks in good measure, I would say, to the skills of the host.

[watch from 20:22 to 28:30; the last part of the segment is especially triumphant]

Of course, there are harder edges to our Graham Norton, as well; for example, what one could call a keen sense for the moment's “hierarchy of fame" (hierarchy that is readily, if gingerly, enforced). For example, although all the guests are brought in right at the beginning, they enter the stage one by one, so that the one with the highest star power always enters last, being thus seated on the couch closest to Graham. And it is indeed funny when one notices how one guest may be “last" to come in (and thus first in the hierarchy) one year, while a couple of years later he is the first to come in (and thus, of course, gets to be seated at the end of the couch).

Similarly, one can also notice a difference in tone and attitude between how Norton interacts with his star guests, and - well, the public, the common Joe. Not that he is rude - but there is clearly a harsher tone, an impatience, a difference in how he relates to them - again, I would say, as a manifestation of his keen sense and respect for the "hierarcy of (star) power." It is also true, of course, that he needs to move the show along, and that non-entertainers always pose the danger of dragging down the tone and dynamic of the show - so a certain briskness..

But the famous “red chair” can be considered quite an apt embodiment of what I was just describing (this red chair is in fact my least favorite aspect of the show; I quite detest it). This is a chair (red, of course) in which (volunteer) members of the public get to sit down, in order to tell what they think is an entertaining story – under the somewhat merciless, often rash and quite arbitrary judgement of Norton and of (some of) his guests. The thing is that, whenever they (Graham & co.) feel that the member of the public (or the story) become uninteresting, they pull a lever - which literally throws the poor member of the public out of the chair, backwards.  

Yes, all is not, nor can it be, fresh and smelling of roses; and yet, for the reasons enumerated above (and others, I’m sure), The Graham Norton Show is without a doubt the most entertaining talk show of the moment (by which I mean that it has been that for many years, already), with a host who, both through natural and through cultivated skills, has managed to elevated his game and his show to the highest levels of the genre. Hats off, therefore, to Graham Norton - and to many more entertaining seasons! 

Other samples from the show:

- a most entertaining episode, featuring Jodie Foster, Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling, and British comedian Greg Davies (who tells what might be one of the funniest true stories ever told on TV)

- a shorter bit in which Christ Pratt and British comedian John Bishop discover that they have a weird connection, a weird shared experience

- another famous episode (part 1 thereof), which featured Matt Damon, Bill Murray, Hugh Bonneville etc. 

Happy Mondays: The Greatest Hits (5)

Continuing our discussion about the discography of the British indie band, Happy Mondays, we are now at the point where we need to cover their collaboration with Bob Mortimer - whom you might already know from his collaboration with Chris Rea on the Let's Dance single, which they made together in support and in celebration of Middlesbrough FC's participation in the FA Cup final. in 1997 (both of them being from Middlesbrough, originally).

***

Much of what I just just said - or some of it - is, of course, untrue. But what is true? Well, Bob Mortimer is true and is real - as hard as that might be to fathom, at times. But what is true about him, specifically? Well, therein lies the question, doesn't it; the question that has preoccupied - nay, that has torn - the participants on the Would I Lie to You panel show, on the episodes featuring Bob. (I have described the premise of WILTY, and the genre of British panel shows, here; to synthesize, WILTY's essence is that, given two teams of comedians / entertainers / public figures, somebody from one team will read, from a card that they have never seen before, a story about something that presumably has happened to them; then, the members of the other team will need to figure out whether that story is true, or whether it was a lie; hence, "would I lie to you?". It sounds simple, but it gets hilarious.)

But what is it, that would set Bob Mortimer apart amid the constellation of entertaining, witty, and amusing guests who have populated the previous seasons of the show? Well, I think that it is what I would call the Whimsical and Wondrous World of Bob Mortimer's Life and Times. Let's start from the fact that Bob is a natural-born comedian and entertainer - the "funny bone" is actually his very marrow, and humor seems to alive at the core of his very being. There is also a childlike quality to him, and to his humor; a sense of wonder and amazement, and a pure eagerness to find the funny in everything - in words, situations, people etc. (see the rainbow variety of his quips on WILTY - links below). Finally, he seems to have had - and to continue to live - a quite wondrous and elfin life, populated with peculiar but homely characters, and with somewhat unexpected paths and choices. (Although you will have to figure out which of his stories are actually true...). And there is also a very down to earth, specifically British quality to his life-stories - which are people and place specific, and are rooted in a regular (albeit ever-so-slightly slightly fantastic, like, say, a hobbit) British bloke existence.

Enjoy, then, the samples below - as another installment within our Happy Mondays series, which (as the title maybe, probably, surely implies) is meant to make our Mondays  - just a bit cheerier.


the legendary episode featuring Jerry Dungarees and Gary "Cheesy" Cheeseman




wherein we discover that Bob is the fourth-born of four male siblings - which has certain implications
[note: in this exercise, a person is brought in, and the members of one of the teams need to convince the other team that this unknown person is related to them, that it is part of their story)




this one actually features Chris Rea




seriously, though?



And you can enjoy more Bob-based delight here and here - collections that also includes other famous Bob stories, but also a variety of Mortimerian quips and contributions. And, of course, stay tuned for future editions (seasons) of WILTY (because if those will not feature Bob Mortimer as a guest on some of the episodes, then they will have just lost their wits).

Happy Mondays: The Greatest Hits (1)

Of course, the Happy Mondays is the prominent UK indie band of the 80s, early 90s; you might know them from hits such as Step On:

But this post is not about this band - nor will the subsequent posts be about them. Instead, Monday is probably the most appropriate day to share some great hits of comedy, or humor, or satire (these terms not being synonymous) - because, why not? If not now, then when? If not us, then who? If not here, then whence?

***
So, for today, here is a bit from a British panel show. British panel shows, as a genre, are a special beast, and a very Brit-specific one, as well. Whatever the theme, or the gimmick - commenting on the week's news, pop music, or being a simulacrum of a quiz show - they are in fact platforms for comedians, music, film, or TV stars, political figures, and other public persona, to appear in front of the public, on a constant basis, and within a - usually humorous - context. As such, they are an excellent bread-giver to the rich British stand-up scene, whose members would scarcely be able to have such constant national (and international) exposure .

One of the best such panel shows is Would I Lie To You, which is helped both by a strong permanent cast (moderator and "team captains" - Rob Brydon, David Mitchell, and Lee Mack), and by (usually) inspired selections of "team members". Over the years, some of these guests received "legendary" status, whether through specific interventions, or through a consistent high quality participation in the show - which simply means that their contributions are consistently hilarious, refreshing, and surprising (which is important, given the theme of the show).

The gimmick of the show is that there are two teams, and the members of the teams take turns to read out a story about themselves (something that happened to them), while the other team, through questioning, need to figure out whether they are telling a lie, or telling the truth. Of course, the stories (whether true or false) are designed to be outrageous, scarcely credible, or of a dubious nature.

This is one of those legendary interventions, featuring Scottish comedian Kevin Bridges - and is also probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV. Enjoy! and Happy Mondays (the band)!

Culture, television, and the nation-state (apropos a surprising new TV series)

Now this looks very enticing! In fact, this is one of the more surprising things to come out of the world of commercial television. Quite unexpected, and this is one of those very rare times when I would actually want to "get TV" (cable or air) in my house. Fortunately, it will surely come out on DVD fairly soon.

Trailer

Usually, to encounter high culture on TV, in Amerika, you have to watch PBS - the much maligned Public Broadcasting System, the closest equivalent to a national (as in, "state") TV station Amerika has. However, in many other parts of the world, and especially in Europe, the national ("state") TV stations are the guardians of high culture, and thus have a civilizing role - or impact.

A case in point is the world of television in Central and Eastern Europe, and the impact of commercial television after the 1990s. They have invaded the market, have become very successful, but true quality television remained with the "national," i.e. state-owned stations.

These states came about as a result of the pursuit of the idea of the "nation-state," that every nation (defined ethnically and culturally, i.e. ethno-culturally) needs to have its own state(hood). In consequence, the very raison d'être of the resulting states became, and is, the protection of the interests of these "nations," defined ethnoculturally: around a "common" language, culture, history (real or constructed? shared or inculcated? - usually both). (This is the German model.) What is a state, however? It is a set of institutions. This is then what the state institutions are meant to do: to protect the interests of a culturally defined nation, which means the protection and promotion of the given culture, as defined by the state. (This is the French model, although the French nation was not defined ethnically, but politically and culturally.)

There are many downsides to such an understanding of nation and state; for example, the existence of a quasi-sacred canon of national culture, whose questioning is almost a blasphemy - and  whose epitome are the "national poets" - usually romantic poets who wrote during and about the struggle for the definition of the nation, in the nineteenth century, intertwining in their work the definition of the language, history, and the struggle for independence.. There are, however, important upsides, namely this self-understanding of some of these institutions of the state, as being the guardians of cultural heritage - not necessarily limited to the past, especially in the case of national TV stations.

Of course, this might also have to do with the fact that, in many countries, when television arrived, it was through state-owned stations, and not through the market. As a consequence, the approach to this new medium has been shaped not by commercial interest, but by the idea of public service (information, news - just like in the case of the first radio stations there), and might also have meant that the input of educated people, with sophisticated cultural backgrounds, was decisive - and they applied their understanding of other branches of culture, to deciding about the very purpose and direction of the programs of this new medium.

Now, I am quite unfamiliar with the history of television, but these seem to be fair enough suppositions, since I have experienced them first hand, growing up in Europe, nourished (in part) exactly by these institutions (sometimes to my delight, sometimes to indigestion).