You may remember SOTCAA's Jam article back in April. Since then, 'dark comedy'
appears to have become the new orthodoxy, much to our distress. The
anti-comedy bores have taken over, and they're black as the ace
of spades.
Case in point. At the BBC2 Awards last month, some dick was
nominated for a special BBC Talent
commission on the strength of his proposal for a comedy show. He
didn't win, but his nomination still entitled him to an
additional televised pitch. The show, he said, 'isn't
played for laughs', and would (you've guessed it)
'offer something a lot darker'. He then told us one of
his sketch ideas - about an ice cream van that only stops when it
finds somewhere completely deserted. Y'know, it drives past
crowds of children first n'that? That's the joke. Great,
hey? DARK OR WHAT?
Well, as our old school chum Kumar Panja used to say,
'It's what'. Or, more to the point,
'WHAAAAAATTT???!!!???'
Oddly, those who promote 'dark comedy' (and remain
stubborn about the genre's importance) seem the most ignorant
about its definition. Because, believe it or not, your chums at
SOTCAA absolutely love proper dark comedy. And by proper
dark comedy, we mean ALL GOOD COMEDY. Everything that's worth
adoring, from Monty Python to The Nualas, from Kenny Everett to
Absolutely, could be defined as dark. Because
dark comedy simply means comedy that makes your brain dance.
But there's an important distinction between these comedy
giants and joyless tat like The League of
Gentlemen. Namely, that proper 'dark comedy'
doesn't wear its darkness on its sleeve. Proper dark comedy
doesn't self-consciously bathe in its own
'gosh-aren't-we-dark'-ness. Proper dark comedy
doesn't need a gang of fawning journalists and continuity
announcers to fucking tell viewers how dark a programme is
before they watch it. Proper dark comedy doesn't have to
feature people with scary faces throwing blood everywhere and
saying fuck. Proper dark comedy is simply that which delights.
Chris Morris, Jerry Sadowitz and Derek & Clive are all dark,
yes. But so is Porridge, Frank Skinner, and - as if to
labour the point - Joyce Grenfell.
Because with good comedy, the darkness is part and parcel of the
comedy itself. With pretend-dark comedy, it's an affectation,
designed to win the youth vote. After all, the kitemark of a truly
great dark comedy is the viewer's inability to identify the
show as dark in the first place. Hence Goodness Gracious
Me remains refreshingly bright and spunky and
belly-laugh friendly, despite the general seriousness of its
subject. Similarly, Seinfeld, where the
full implications of its 'no hugging, no learning' approach
to sitcom don't really become clear until you've watched
about 28 episodes and you're already hooked. And Neil Innes, in
creating The Innes Book of Records ,
clearly intended to produce a gently whimsical music series for all
the family, but what he ended up with - simply by being Neil Innes
- was a sinister motherfucker of a programme, the darkness of which
was totally organic. Dark comedy is deceptively light.
In fact, the more cosy or 'anti-dark' a show
appears to be, the darker it probably is in reality. One forum contributor recently argued that Ever Decreasing
Circles, far from being a banal B-list sitcom, was
actually extremely original in its themes and design, and thus very
dark indeed. He would undoubtedly come in for some 'Ironic
Review' accusations if he ever tried to argue this in a pub,
but it didn't stop him being completely right. The world that
Richard Briers et al inhabited was far more unsettling than Royston
Vasey could ever be - no exploding toads or nosebleeds, just a
general, slow-burning feeling that, as the contributor put it,
'something was not quite right in the close'.
Briers' character was also clearly mentally ill, and one
episode saw him visit a psychiatrist - comedy waters not braved
since Frank Spencer took to the couch in the (equally dark)
Some Mothers 'Do 'Ave Em.
There is, after all, something somewhat po-faced about what
people allow into the 'dark comedy' canon. It pretty much
amounts to what constitutes that fellow oxymoron, 'cool
comedy'. Take BBC2's recent series Human
Remains , the "relationship"
"docusoap" "parody" written and performed by
Rob Brydon and Julia Davis. Its desire to be 'dark' (and
thus trendy) is so blatant that it can only fail as a comedy show.
What people continually don't realise, when attempting to ape
the naturalistic, ambient acting of shows like The Day
Today or The Royle Family, is
that said naturalism and ambience only works if it's part of a
bigger picture - namely, a component of a playful comedy package.
The 'Office Documentary' sketch in
The Day Today, for example, works because the
rest of the show is linked by Chris Morris playing silly buggers,
giving the show a context and an identity. Also, the show in
general - like The Royle Family - was
created by a cast and writing team who had a quality threshold
which was important to them, as well as a genuine desire to
entertain people. Ripping off the dark bits from hitherto playful
shows and wallowing in your own missing-the-point darkness is like
Spooky Tooth's cover of 'I Am The
Walrus', and about
as useless as you can get.
What's depressing about Human
Remains (or indeed Marion &
Geoff, People Like Us, The Sunday Format - all
of which should be great, given that they're the results of
talented people influenced by the right things) is the implication
that these shows are operating on a higher plane, or offering
something more than mere comedy. More than comedy? What the
fuck is that exactly? Dad's Army was a
sitcom about a group of people who lived in constant fear of
themselves, their friends and their families being killed at any
point - you can't get much darker than that. But said darkness
worked so well precisely because it was played as gentle,
warm-hearted, silly, traditional sitcom, not in spite of it. All
shows like Human Remains do is fuel the lie
that that darkness is an add-on, an optional extra, rather than an
integral part of comedy itself. All too often, apparent darkness is
used simply to airbrush over the derivative shortcomings of a
script. Either that or they pretend it was meant to be drama all
along.
These cod-dark shows sell themselves as intelligent programmes
where the comedy has to be detected rather than served up on a
plate. Unfortunately, serving the comedy up on a plate is exactly
what these shows do. The Sunday Format
aspires to be a sophisticated satire on magazine junk culture blah
blah, but this is a feeble illusion caused by the dark gloss the
Burroughs-esque tape-splicing suggests - it's actually just
full of twee Big Brother parodies written
by Nick Revell. Human Remains, meanwhile,
is typical in its sheer obviousness - every carefully placed line
and manipulative camera angle seeming to explain (and linger
boringly over) a joke that even a child would understand.
The Royle Family is guilty of this too -
particularly in its recent series - but it redeems itself by having
the right attitude to begin with.
And attitude in comedy is everything. Julia Davis, for example,
may be skilled as an actress and understand that comedy is best
when played straight, but - as a comedy performer - she remains
impossible to love. Truly awe-inspiring comedy actresses like
Rebecca Front or Morwenna Banks are prepared to get their hands
dirty, to grab comedy by its ugly big balls and really make it
their own. The 'comedy is best when it's played
straight' claim is, after all, a bit of a misnomer, and only
partially true - what matters is whether the performer is in tune
with a given script, understands precisely why it is funny, and can
communicate their sheer joy in performing it. Compare Amelia
Bullmore doing her shocked face in Jam with Emma Kennedy as
Nostradamus in TMWRNJ ("Oh,
'cos I could've been doin' with that
fence..."). Both are good actresses, but Kennedy's
approach will - in comedy terms - always be better. Performers like
her make you laugh, and - in doing so - get under your skin.
'Dark' performers just give the impression they want
to get under your skin.
These are, of course, two completely different styles of comedy
- don't think we don't realise that. And when dry, deadpan
stuff is done well, it's great - Rob Brydon is hugely amusing
(and utterly believable) in Marion &
Geoff, despite having Steve Coogan's fucking
face. The series is good not because it 'offers something a lot
darker', but because it's a funny idea anyway. What narks
us is listings magazines insisting that us poor plebs cannot
possibly comprehend such a show, and have to be 'warned' of
its darkness before we're allowed to laugh. It's as if dry,
deadpan comedy is automatically equated with 'dark', and
brash, joyous da-da-da-COMEDY type comedy is viewed as lightweight
and trivial. It's so wrong. Bad comedy is bad comedy, no matter
how slowly you talk.
Our general argument, though, is that the cod-dark school of
thought is becoming so fashionable (not to mention unfairly
elevated - Marion & Geoff may be good,
but it's not exactly Kevin Turvey - The Man Behind The
Green Door) that it's rapidly becoming an
industry standard. Remember how Rhona Cameron's largely
inoffensive Rhona sitcom was criticised for
being 'a little on the conventional side' whereas
Spaced was celebrated for its
'wevolutionary' format alone? Similarly, Peter Kay's
superb Comedy Lab pilot The
Services - a show unashamedly played as comedy, but
full of subtleties and dark as fuck - was developed into the
decidedly less playful That Peter Kay Thing
- a series which was very good, but not the out-and-out comedy
masterwork it should have been.
Dark is easy. Anyone can do it. Creating good comedy which is,
by definition, naturally dark - well, that's far more
difficult. But it's up to you whether you're fooled by it.
To quote Rowan Atkinson's Marcus Browning character, who could
well have been speaking about his search for decent comedy, "We
don't want to end up like the blind man in the dark room
looking for the black cat that isn't there".
RELATED ARTICLES