10 O'Clock Live

[ian.64]

Just wondering if anyone gave this attempt by Channel 4 to fill in the satire gap left by their inexplicable decision to reduce the Daily Show to an edited weekly spot a gander. My own feelings about it are mixed, rather like the first edition of this show.

It's a show in search of a direction with its comedy and discussion spots crowbarred in a slightly messy structure, although with the talents on offer, it doesn't exactly suck. I hadn't seen the Alternative Election Night special from which this show had sprung, but I can see the positives of having something else other than just another edition of HIGNFY for any British-based satire fix.

But it's the pass-the-parcel structure of 10 O'Clock Live that might take some getting used to, which somehow undermines the relaxed (I suspect) feeling that the programme-makers want, a somewhat jumbled comedy bit/discussion/stand-up/discussion/table chat that trundles like a shambly conveyor-belt in front of our eyes. But this is the first live show of a new series and it can't be expected to run before it can walk, so I'm being a bit harsh.

Negatives: they can get rid of the World News Now spot which is unfunny and, frankly, shit. A parody of a parody of a parody is as funny as kneecapping.

Positives: The bracing thought that most of the programme works under its presenters, who can guide it along under the strength of their ability to be funny and intelligent. Yes. Yes, even Jimmy Carr, who, for all his faults, even that robotic stare and penchant for casual verbal offence, is a plus. Brooker brings bits of his Screen Wipe touches to the programme, which seems to fit in a pleasing bite-size way.

But David Mitchell is the true spark of it all with his Jeremy Hunt rant a priceless few minutes of comedically rancorous opinion. He's magnificent.

Negatives again: Laurene Laverne. The sore thumb. Unfunny with that 'why is she here?' vibe when compared to her fellow presenters.

Promising stuff, though.

[wingco]

10 O'Clock Live

I missed it but my concern on seeing the posters is that they were trying to load too many established celebs into the thing, as if to ride shotgun with one another. Lauren Laverne or Jimmy Carr alone might have been too mainstream/insubstantial, so load Mitchell and Brooker in there as counterweights - but they couldn't be trusted alone either, too maverick, so have Laverne and Carr to balance it.

[ian.64]

10 O'Clock Live

A fair point - it can be seen to be a little incongruous to have someone so identified with the stand-up scene like Carr to rank alongside more complex (for want of better word) talents like Mitchell and Brooker, but he's also about performance (as well as ad-libbing, which might help a live broadcast) and that helps with the one-line topical comedy material.

But Laverne? She just 'presents'. I'd have thought Victoria Coren might have been a better, sharper choice.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

10 O'Clock Live

It was too contrived.

Shotgun style attacks at the "main topics of the day", where it was fairly apparent that the 4 main comics had prepared their opening 30-second bon-mot shpeels (which were funny), but had not a lot to offer after that.

David Mitchell interviewing the Tory bloke about education fees was almost embarassing in how quickly the MP guy got everyone in the audience agreeing with "well, actually, yeah, poor people paying for students to get degrees that lead to higher-paid jobs isn't fair, and never was" and was a whisker away from getting everyone to round on Mitchell's ridiculous assertion that "[paying to] educate everyone to degree standard is its own reward, isn't it?" when they hastily cut it short after 4 minutes.

Nice idea, very poorly executed. A shame, I was really looknig forward to this based on the advertising campaign.

[Ray de Galles]

10 O'Clock Live

Largely good stuff, I thought. A bit clunky in places but that's to be expected for a debut live show.

The best bits were Mitchell and Brooker's monologues, unsurprising as they were basically reading out examples of their columns. Brooker's taped piece on Palin was awful though and I agree the 'World News' thing was painfully poor and has to be dropped.

Carr's a really fantastically skilled under-rated performer and really should probably anchor the show a bit more (though I can see the sense in not making it look at all like his vehicle given how appalling most of his telly work is) and I'd agree they don't seem to have found a role for Laverne who fouled up the round table discussions between the four of them badly.

Rogin was clearly watching a different interview from me if he thought the Tory "got everyone in the audience agreeing with him", nothing of the sort.

[Wyatt Earp]

10 O'Clock Live

I thought it erred far too much on the "clunky" side, and that Laverne dragged it right down. It's rescuable, but only through ruthless and rapid optimisation. In particular, Lauren out. At the moment, not very good. I hardly laughed at all.

[Hofzinser]

10 O'Clock Live

I thought it showed real potential without being immensely enjoyable.

I agree that Laverne - who I generally really like - was the weak spot, and it felt like tokenism to have her in there. If they want a woman as part of the team then Vicky Coren's not a bad shout at all - the person I thought of was Josie Long, who is a very good comedian who would add a different dimension and style to the show, and who is also fiercely political. She'd be ideal.

But I thought Mitchell was generally excellent, and Brooker and Carr both had good moments.

The program just didn't seem to quite hang together as a coherent entity - but that's not a huge surprise given that it was the first ever edition of a program going out live. It's bound to take a bit of time to get the balance right and to iron out any glitches.

I was disappointed with it, but not in a way that will stop me tuning in pretty much every week.

[Tony C]

10 O'Clock Live

Yes, I'll go with Hof's summary, and maybe I'll have to re-evaluate Jimmy Carr's contribution based on what's been written here because I didn't like him at all. That's more a personal thing, though.

[tracteurgarcon]

10 O'Clock Live

In my opinion the only really good bits were David Mitchell's rant, which he does on his Soapbox internet thing, and Charlie Brooker's "Newswipe-lite" segments, the rest was unnecessary filler really, with too much crammed in so that everything was far too superficial and vacuous.

However, it was the first show in quite an ambitious project and if I'm in on a Thursday night I might just give it another chance.

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

I will gladly give it another go. I thought that David Mitchell excelled, even himself, and perhaps Lauren Laverne could do that job, leaving Mitchell to do the 'to screen' thing, which he is/can be, brilliant at.

Brooker and Carr, can do better, and if allowed, this may turn out to be the possible legend, which it could be. I liked it. I laughed out loud twice, and almost lost my lungs once. Good stuff.

[E10 Rifle]

10 O'Clock Live

Lauren Laverne's a classic example of someone who, when they're a doing a 'straight' job (presenting on the radio or, in her younger days, giving interviews as a pop star), can come across as quietly and naturally bright and witty, but when asked to front up for actual comedy, can't quite hack it.

I can't really run with the praise of Carr though. Sure, his delivery and timing is textbook-slick but he just doesn't ever say anything very funny or inspired.

I'll keep watching for Mitchell and Brooker though.

[Er Liquidatore]

10 O'Clock Live

Mitchell's ridiculous assertion that "[paying to] educate everyone to degree standard is its own reward, isn't it?"

Why is that ridiculous?

[hobbes]

10 O'Clock Live

I think I must have been watching a different programme.
I'm no fan of Lauren Laverne generally, but I thought she anchored the show very well. There was no call for her to be funny - she seemed to be there to keep the others in order, which I think she did pretty well. She did well in getting the programme from one section to the next without it getting too bogged down. Not perfectly, admittedly, but then none of them were particularly on top of their games.
They all looked a bit scared, but given that this was the first one, that's forgiveable I think.

[Ginger Yellow]

10 O'Clock Live

Well, I'm a big fan of Laverne generally, and based on the bit I saw last night, she just didn't seem very comfortable. It wasn't about being funny or not, but she stumbled over her lines a fair bit and her autocue manner was much less "natural" than it is in her pre-recorded shows. Overall, I quite liked it, but then again I did only see about 20 minutes. And that terrorism professor was a proper arsehole.

[Hofzinser]

10 O'Clock Live

I actually thought last night's show was much better than the first. They all seemed more comfortable, I thought, and it seemed to flow better. Although it may also be as much about as a viewer getting used to some of the quirks.

[ian.64]

10 O'Clock Live

And that terrorism professor was a proper arsehole.

Oh, fuck, yes. The condescension and the sense that his mind was so impenetrably made up that 100 hours of debate wouldn't evince any understanding of his fellow panellists was tangible. A prime git who looked as if he was trying to live up to his surname - Glees - by smiling like a twat all the way through it. Bad move: (no. 1 of a countless series) Never take the piss out of an audience because you think they'd applaud every supposed 'right-on' issue or opinion. Your platform of credibility crumbles there and then. If he had one.

Last night's edition was still watchable (and they have - thankfully - gotten rid of the World News shit), but there are still signs that it's a show uncertain of itself, going through growing pains even if - in curator's egg terms - parts are better than the whole. Discussion elements still have to jostle untidily with comedy elements, and some aspects are shoe-horned in with lack of subtlety - Laurene Laverne's Serco rant was a weird thing that somehow managed to bring things to a halt. It wasn't that it wasn't essential or important, it's just that it appeared suddenly and awkwardly, as if someone had shoved a script in her hands and hoped for the best. It needed a surer handling and perhaps more time. Serco, they're dodgy, blimey, the end.

The Alistair Campbell/David Mitchell discussion was a bit mundane, with Mitchell's unsure, slightly scrappy approach not getting any value out of Campbell himself. At once, you could tell Campbell's experience - have prepared answers ready, cover all bases, don't fall into traps - was as solid as rock in handling Mitchell's questioning. Campbell must have done hundreds of face-to-faces like this and it showed. Mitchell got nothing, so did we.

It's the discussion parts of the programme that are one of 10 O'Clock Live's problems. Any chats or table debates are given a matter of minutes, by which any subject discussions are curtailed even before they've warmed up. Such is their brevity, you might as well as be watching people talk about curtains such is the amount of information or insight you're liable to get.

Once again, it's a show in its formative stages - a suggestion might be to have a couple of performers help out with the comedy bits to save Jimmy Carr doing everything - and it might be turning into something good, but teething problems remain.

[evilC]

10 O'Clock Live

I agree about the time-restricted table-based discussions and I'm also a Laverne nay-sayer. It's as if she's trying to present a news show in a pop-show style, I think. It just doesn't quite work.

I do reckon the creators have simply tried to shoehorn too many celebrity presenters into one show. (I think this is perhaps to make 'their gang' look just as intimidating as any 'gang' that haughty guests might think they're a member of. A psychological thing, in other words.) Thus, I think they could do without Laverne and Carr, basically. However, conversely, I think that the show might also have benefitted if they'd got some relative seasoned heavyweights like John Bird and John Fortune on board. The show in general would have benefitted from their experience and knowledge - in particular in any one-to-one or 'in the street' interviewing type sketches/scenarios, where their insights and cutting off the cuff remarks would be of most effect.

[Wyatt Earp]

10 O'Clock Live

Much better this week.

[E10 Rifle]

10 O'Clock Live

Yeah I thought it was much better - tighter, more focused and funnier. I even enjoyed Laverne's Serco rant, if only because it was a political point worth making (and one never made on fucking Newsnight or Question Time or general 'heavyweight' news programmes).

The weakest point was Mitchell allowing Campbell to run rings round him. An easy win for the bullying Burnley cunt there.

[Sean of the Shed]

10 O'Clock Live

I reckon it's been pretty good so far. Agree that Laverne doesn't really belong in there. There are some perfectly good female comedians who could fill that role such as Sarah Millican or Shappi Khorsandi. I get the feeling that the criticism of Jimmy Carr is out of personal dislike, though. There's some slick stuff in there and he delivers it well. When the alternative is the likes of Andy Parsons, then give me Jimmy Carr any day.

[evilC]

10 O'Clock Live

Oh no - I actually like Jimmy Carr. Possibly because he is even more cynical and un-PC than me. I just wish he'd learn when to step out of character, which it seems he's almost afraid to do. I simply think this format isn't best suited for him. He's a stand-up and presenter of end-of-year reviews and 'best of' run-downs.

[Guest]

10 O'Clock Live

Brooker's the one I don't like. I never really got why people want to see him go beyond the rant-in-the-Saturday-paper thing. Call me a sexist bastard but Laverne is cute & pretty enough ot make up for not quite being as good as the othre 2 at presenting comedy. I have a ludicrous crush on Mitchell, so whatever he does is great - and then he goes and defends learning Classics!

[Gerontophile]

10 O'Clock Live

This week was much better than last: the whole 'pace' of it (possibly after last weeks' criticisms) made it a lot more, unhurried, and yet, more hurried.

I agree that Mr Spin wasnt a good guest, but he was actually a good guest. Not sure that David Mitchell would have caught him out, but a couple of googlies (although he did try to TALK OVER him a bit too much) did help. I thought that Campbell came out of this, and a couple of other things recently, very well, but I still think I disbelieve him about stuff.

The Serco thing was pretty good.

Brooker is god. Although, the hair...

And Jimmy Carr, in my eyes, can do no wrong. His monologue had me wheezing with laughter. (The 'Watchcrime' bit was pretty funny too.)

I give it a strong 6.5.

I read the S*n review of the first show, and it was like TV had never existed before, until S*y invented it. I dont normally read that particular brand of anal interface, but it was so covered in bile, I was able to clean my drains with it, after.

[Ray de Galles]

10 O'Clock Live

evilC wrote:

Oh no - I actually like Jimmy Carr. Possibly because he is even more cynical and un-PC than me. I just wish he'd learn when to step out of character, which it seems he's almost afraid to do. I simply think this format isn't best suited for him. He's a stand-up and presenter of end-of-year reviews and 'best of' run-downs.

What does "un-PC" actually mean?

[Sean of the Shed]

10 O'Clock Live

One Gendarme?