Mini-Correct

Watched an ITV documentary about politically incorrect television comedy from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. It was well-intentioned, but lacked any original research or insight. I’m not sure contemporary comedians and actors are particularly well-placed to discuss sociological developments. Instead, we got a load of ‘received wisdoms’ and wikipedia-level facts (is there anybody left on the planet who doesn’t know that ‘Allo ‘Allo was inspired by Secret Army?)

But, by damning old sitcoms for being ‘politically incorrect’ (a nebulous catch-all term which the documentary never bothered to define but which might as well mean ‘as it is doie now’) it was missing a basic point. Which is this:

All sitcoms are about people who are behaving in a way which is unacceptable. That’s what makes them funny. They are about the ‘gap’ between what-people-should-be-like and what-people-are-actually-like; whether that ‘gap’ be in terms of class, gender, age, generation, a position in a family or workplace, or even between somebody’s inner thoughts and their public actions. Sitcom isn’t about creating role-models. It’s about creating profoundly flawed characters who are likeable. We sympathise with their predicament (the sit) but laugh as their flaws lead them to failure (the com). There isn’t any humour in nice people being pleasant to each other (even Friends is about six of the most neurotic and selfish people you could ever meet.)

Which is why the idea that there is something wrong about depicting racist characters is flawed. Since when did sitcom have a responsiblity to shape attitudes? If it does have that responsibility, the only way it can do so is by mocking outdated or unacceptable opinions.

That said, is there any way in which Mr Humphreys was a negative depiction of homosexuality? A few words from someone who puts it better than me.

Where's Captain Kirk?

I’ve never quite managed to be a Star Trek fan. My problem is this. I love the early stories, where they ‘seek out new worlds and civilisation’ – basically, the stories from the original show where they visit a new planet, answer a distress call or encounter something sinister and blurry in space are the good ones. But I can’t abide the stories where they’re not ‘boldly going’ – when they’re running errands for the bloody Federation, going on diplomatic missions, or falling out with the Klingons, the Romulans or those unlikely-looking blue fellas.

Which is my problem with the 80’s and 90’s Star Treks. Apart from a few stories with the Borg where it looked like the people making it might possibly have a clue what they were doing, it was all about them dealing with relatives coming aboard, or Data learning what it is to be human, or playing Sherlock Holmes on the holodeck, or discussing their problems with Whoopi Goldberg in the space bar, with every episode ending not in a dramatic climax but in a tedium of geekobabble. And, where the original show had strong, well-defined and flawed characters, all the latter series’ characters were just a list of Starfleet Qualifications and were about as exciting as a school trip to see how cardboard is made. For me, you see, Star Trek is action adventure.

Which, brilliantly, the new film got right. It’s surprisingly exciting. It’s a little bit disconcerting to have some of the old characters played by good actors for a change – and to have Scotty played with a proper Scottish accent. Okay, so there’s a massively convenient plot co-incidence at the half-way point but it actually does what your man says it’ll do during the opening titles.

J J Abrams has fixed Star Trek.

Moths

Went to see the one-man show Moths Ate My Doctor Who Scarf by Toby Hadoke last night (other bloggists in attendance were Alex and Simon). He’s only been touring it around the world for about four years so I thought it was finally about time I checked it out. Thoughts.

It’s slightly unnerving to watch a show which so closely corresponds to your own personal experiences. I’m a similar age to Toby, we had similar childhoods, similar formative girlfriend encounters and we certainly watched a great many of the same television programmes during the 1970’s. It could’ve been me up there but I wouldn’t have been anywhere nearly as entertaining.

As an example; at one point in the show Toby launches into the familiar fan rant that the character’s name is the Doctor, and not Doctor Who. To Doctor Who fans, calling the character Doctor Who is like going up to a Star Trek fan and saying that your favourite character is Doctor Spock. It's that wrong. And yet, as Toby delivered this rant, I couldn’t help thinking, ‘ah, but in episode two of The War Machines several characters refer to the Doctor as Doctor Who...’

My mental pedantry was interrupted as Toby said, ‘Except in episode two of The War Machines where several characters refer to the Doctor as Doctor Who...’

That’s how exactly the show mirrored my own thought processes.

It was brilliantly funny, and when I wasn’t laughing I was grinning, until the end when Toby’s story became unexpectedly moving. I didn’t cry, just as I didn’t cry at the end of School Reunion either, oh no.

My only criticism is that the show wasn’t long enough. I want to hear more stories. I want more background detail. I think there might be a book in it.