▲ 123 points
back
110 comments
Yes Minister. One of the smartest (and timeless) comedies of all time. The power play between politicians, bureaucrats, and the public/business.
The series is better than a Political Science course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister #5 in this poll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Best_Sitcom
Start with a classic "Open Government" http://www.veoh.com/watch/v21037637mzbJZ9n4?h1=Yes+Minister+...
If you want to know more about 'Yes, Minister'check this book:
A Very Courageous Decision: The Inside Story of Yes Minister
http://www.amazon.com/Very-Courageous-Decision-Inside-Minist...
As a Brit, I think this rather overstates the case. Take The Thick Of It. The article says there's no likeable protagonist, but Hugh Abbott, Nicola Murray, Peter Mannion are not unsympathetic characters, even if they're generally incompetent. I don't find the tone of Veep to be particularly less excoriating than The Thick Of It. If anything the members of Selina's team seem to be even more abusive to one another.
Whenever there's a discussion of US vs UK comedy and satire, I see the same cliches about unlikable protagonists and winners vs losers being trotted out, and I wonder if I'm watching the same shows as everyone else. Are the characters of Arrested Development likeable winners? Or Delocated? Or Bojack Horseman? Or Girls? Or Always Sunny?
Bojack Horseman in particular has a tone and style close enough to British satirical cartoon Monkey Dust that it's a fantastic counter-example to a significant America-Britain disconnect. It also fits the bill in terms of being actual satire, however soft the target might be.
In turn, Metalocalypse - another spot-on satire of an off-beat target - is American. So is Best In Show, and for that matter This Is Spinal Tap is American.
Always Sunny is another great example, and I'm thinking of ever more now - I mean, Seinfeld would be the quintessential example of unlikeable losers losing, no? Or Frasier?
The remake of House of Cards is hilarious for a different reason, in that it resembles a telenovela set in the White House. "Push her down the stairs! Push her down the stairs!" as the cast of Friends might chant.
I don't necessarily believe in a huge gap between America and Britain in terms of satire, but I do think there's some structural difference that enabled a particular class of Britons to criticise the establishment with impunity - primarily disillusioned public schoolboys, and later Oxbridge types. My impression (it may easily be wrong) is that it is this class from which most of our overtly political satire has come from.
It's not just satire: Irony, sarcasm, comedy above the level of a 5 year old (i.e. where there's more than just a setup immediately followed by a predictable punchline: "Don't open the box Tommy!" Tommy opens the box, etc.).
Classic quote: Speaking to an American about not having ridden a motorbike in years, my brother said "I'm sure it'll come back to me - it'll just be like riding a bike". The girl replied in all seriousness "Well, it IS riding a bike."
Our appreciation of comedy must be different (or there's NIH syndrome), or Americans wouldn't keep remaking British comedies.
We aren't as good at being loud though, so we don't have it all...
"We aren't as good at being loud though"
In what context? I can think of a few situations where the British are world leaders in being loud and obnoxious - one of our main summer exports I'd have thought?
As someone who is neither America nor British, I much prefer British humour as well.
At times my work has brought me into contact with Americans and in general they just do not get sarcasm and satire. Obviously not true of everyone but in general in my experience, Americans (not sure about Canadians) take things that you say very literally. Take my advice, when dealing with people from the USA, as a default, avoid irony/sarcasm/satire and even humour until or unless you know they will appreciate it. Not just in a business environment, (where it is a bad idea to attempt this with anyone) but all initial interaction.
Not a crticism, just a reality.
I've heard people attribute the failure to perceive humour to the influence of ancestral, puritanical European emigrants to America. With whom "your word" was your bond.
I would lay a very large bet that the "/s" tag is an American invention. I find people pleading for unambiguity in sarcasm on the internet amusing, "sarchasm" being one of the better words invented over the last few decades. (Also an American invention?)
In America sarcasm in speech is usually heavily signaled via the tone of voice. You don't usually just drop it in deadpan. So it's not so much that we don't get sarcasm or satire but we're used to having it more clearly demarcated. At least in speech - satire is quite popular and common in print.
You can see that if you look at U.S adaptation of Britain or French series or movies, they often lose the tongue-in-cheek humor (if that term makes sense) in the process.
The Office U.S became great when they stopped copying the U.K version and I don't think it's just a difference of bleakness as the article states.
I'd say to avoid complex signalling in all early communication with people. Until the other party is understood,it seems logical to stick to as clear of communication as possible.
I think this is done because American culture can be a very diverse thing. In an effort to be universally understood, we stick to more straightforward communication.
Well, for what is worth, many Europeans, like the Germans, are even worse at satire and humor than Americans are.
I'm an American and admit that I hate sarcasm. Sarcastic people come across as cowardly; if you have something to say, just come out and say it.
No doubt this is cultural. For example, the sarcastic, eye-rolling banter found in Parliament raise my American hackles, making me wonder if any of those MPs had ever been "called out" for their insolent language when young. My wife and I typically sum up such sarcastic people (whether British, American, or otherwise) with the conclusion that "he's never been in a fight".
This may be an urban vs. country issue, as in the States I associate sarcasm with the effete, latte-culture found in metropolises, whereas laconic terseness seems more common in America's small towns and agricultural areas.
I've always felt like my humor doesn't fit my upbringing. The bakery at my good old southern grocery store had "Bavarian cream filled donuts." I asked the person working there how many Bavarians it takes. They never got it. But all the other Americans in my internet social group get it, so it's probably not a universal thing.
It does have a downside though. Speaking as a Brit, the kind of generous, unqualified praise that Americans seem to dish out to each other at the drop of a hat (EG You are so awesome, you are such an inspiration to me, I am so glad I have you in my life etc etc) tends to make a Brit think they are being mocked, as no British person would say something like that unless talking to their family on their death bed.
As a Brit who is occasionally effusive in his sincere praise of other people and things, I frequently suffer as a result.
I remember once enthusiastically complimenting a groundsman on his ride-on-lawnmower, resulting in my being subjected to a torrent of abuse.
Incidentally, I think South Africans are even worse at spotting insincerity and facetiousness than Americans.
Could it because the BBC (state owned television) effectively nurtures small series and lets them run for far longer than you would have in the US market, which suffers from both viewer and producer short attention span?
Essentially, not trying to have a hit for every show results in a far greater overall success rate.
If so, the analogy between the TV show market and startup scene could be instructive (i.e., nurtured small investments across the board rather than "go big or go home" every time).
I think you've got it the wrong way round, actually. British shows typically run for a 6 episode series and then might go several years before a new series is produced. The Thick Of It has had 24 episodes since its inception in 2005, whereas its US adaption has already had 28 since 2012. Armando Ianucci (the writer) has straight up stated that he won't write any more The Thick Of It until he feels he has material worthy of new episodes.
I think it's the US networks putting pressure on writers to produce produce produce which ends up being the difference between the perfection of The Thick Of It and the greatness of Veep (in my opinion).
While there maybe some truth to that, it's also worth noting that we see the same with all our (British) terrestrial TV networks. Particularly channel 4, which has given us classics such as The IT Crowd, Father Ted, The Inbetweeners and Black Books.
Edit: and Brass Eye. How could I forgot Brass Eye when this topic is specifically about satire? Awesome show.
I think that has a lot to do with it.
Here in Oz we have the ABC which is the BBC equivalent in that too is state owned.
When it comes to all forms of locally grown TV, the ABC has a much better record of creating quality programs, when compared to the three major private broadcasters.
I wonder how difference between TV show productions affects this. Broadcoast TV shows in America are expected to run 22 episodes a year. In the Thick of It has made about that many episodes over 7.5 years. I don't think you can get people to watch that much biting satire in such a small time period.
But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.
> But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.
Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, but when British people "take the piss" they're not trying to suggest someone is subhuman, it's more often than not just playing with the absurdity in everyday life. It's not done with malice in mind, we "take the piss" of ourselves as much as we do others.
It's partly a freedom thing too, you can slag off your mate to his face, and they'll do the same back to you, because you know you don't mean it. You really need to be comfortable with someone to do that though, wouldn't recommend it as an ice breaker. ;-)
Here's one American who gets it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU7L3D8Ndqo
"But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters."
I used to work in TV series development. One of the ongoing legends in the TV development business is how every American TV exec loves Fawlty Towers, and even though everyone's tried to adapt it for American TV, none of their attempts has been successful. The reason being that American audiences need the protagonist to be "likable," and making the John Cleese character "likable" totally saps the comedic power of the show.
I suspect there's more to it than that. Fawlty Towers plays to some decidedly more British cultural issues surrounding class and social climbing. Also, it's really freaking hard to find someone who can fill Cleese's shoes. Nevertheless, the likability issue is a big one.
I think it's been mocked a bit in Community. One character was utterly fond of short British TV shows that would end abruptly after 6 episodes, while American shows would be milked seasons after seasons.
>But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters. If not good, at least some humanity.
What's more human than trying and failing (or being beaten by the system)?
A good example of 'seeing the good in people' is the difference between The Office and its US version. The former is bleak and even the supposedly 'nice' characters are quite unpleasant in their own ways. In the US version, everyone's good at heart. Except Ryan.
On the subject of Prime Minister's Questions here are some clips showing how rowdy it can get;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1iL2jGZiZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUqhqsfE0YQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVs1jN85w10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUX9LvYlAps
It should also be noted that PMQs are a "pressure release valve" for British politics. If you turn on BBC Parliament at any other time outside of that 30 minute period it is all very serious, very respectful, and a lot is accomplished.
I had BBC Parliament on almost the entire day during the "Gay Marriage" debates, and to be frank it was some of the best political discourse I've ever seen. Even though some people took the topic personally (e.g. old religious conservatives) they were always extremely respectful to both gay people AND to other members.
Keep in mind that debate was not whipped. So it made for quite an interesting dynamic with conservative debating other conservatives and some labour people coming out against gay marriage.
That said, any politician interrupting with "you lie" as in the example the original article provides for contrast would rapidly find themselves directed in a schoolmasterly manner by Mr Speaker to withdraw their words and apologise for their "unparliamentary" behaviour.
e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89S1cej9TyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9hrfc40Lko
I doubt any Brits would consider politician's jibes - especially the scripted ones - a high point of our humour. The best thing that can be said for the schoolboy humour of Opposition questions in PMQs is that it represents a welcome break from the dreadful toadyism of questions planted by government backbenchers.
I saw 'The Day Today, Episode 1: Main News Attack' in the YoutUbe sidebar of your linked videos, well worth sharing as a staple, neigh bedrock, of 1990s UK satire that Iannucci, mentioned in the original article, was also heavily involved in.
Those look a lot like political rap battles.
Is there any equivalent in the US of Private Eye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye?
Here's a recent cover: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1383 and another: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1378
Daily Show/John Oliver/Colbert are the closest the US comes as far as I know. Maybe South Park occasionally?
Although both the Daily Show and Colbert have now wrapped up. And John Oliver is more like 60 minutes (before they sold out) than Private Eye.
I do love the PMQs of British politics. US Congress is not nearly as entertaining, we tend to have hour long monologues with lots of charts and little debate.
US politics does have it's moments though ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwW8nBVc0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcsNbQRU5TI
Maybe it's driven by the UK's libel laws, and lack of a First Amendment?
In the US, the media can report on powerful people, then claim protection from the US constitution.
In the UK, there is no such protection, so reporting facts about powerful people is a dangerous business. Instead, the strategy is to turn the events into a satire. One has to walk a fine line with the satire. It has to be realistic enough that the audience can have an inkling about who is being referred to. At the same time, it has to ridiculous enough that no powerful person will be prepared to turn themselves into a laughing stock by claiming that the satire is actually refers to themselves, which would be the implication of a claim of libel.
I think our friends across the pond are doing themselves a disservice.
We need satirical TV because our politics is largely inanity e.g. Question Time or slapstick e.g. PMQs.
The US has a system that allows them to have Sarah Palin run for VP. You can't write that stuff, it's comedy gold.
This is culturally related to the US dislike of dark comedy. Very few movies in this genre have ever been successful in the US whereas they are a stock in trade in Europe.
(Dr Strangelove, Bad Santa...??)
I think Parks and Recreation is a great example of American satire. I get the impression that local government in the US is as dysfunctional as it is here (in the UK) and, let's face it, that's a great source of comedy.
I found political satire to be a very good way to learn about British politics and a bit of culture before, during and after I lived in the UK. I have looked for something similar in Ireland, and even with a country that has some shared history and a lot of exposure to British culture, it doesn't seem to be able to replicate it.
And no mention of the best of breed - "The new statesman" with Rick Mayall ... he will be sorely missed.
I think it has a lot to do with attention span. Watch any typical British Comedy, although littered with occasional quips, the main joke is an episode in the making and delivered with full flourish long after an American audience has switched to another show. There's a reason Benny Hill was popular here!
'Sarcasm' brain areas discovered
Saturday Night Live has done good political satire over the years.
New England's native tongue is sarcasm and I think we do it just great (no sarcasm)
BUT people who hate sarcasm I just LOVE them.