Sunday, 12 October 2008

3. BBC Three

There are many that are of the school of thought that television isn't as good as it used to be. Thinking about it in more depth, I'm not sure I necessarily agree. Although much of my televisual viewing tends to be of repeats, I rather think that the issue has been clouded somewhat by the fact that there are so many stations now, through one platform or another, that good programmes tend to just get spread out a bit more. If you dig around, you can find quality.

But for those that insist that today's television can't touch that of yesteryear, I don't think they need any more proof to back up their views than citing the fact that BBC Three is, apparently, 'Channel Of The Year'.

It's slightly misleading when they yell this at you in-between their programming. I'm led to believe that the full award is 'Brodcast Magazine's Digital Channel Of The Year', which does dilute things a little. Nevertheless, it is worrying isn't it? A channel that shows 18 episodes of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps per day doesn't really deserve to win anything other than an award for showing the most episodes of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps in a day.

What I don't understand about the constant repetition of this show is that they seem blissfully unaware of what a running joke it is with so many people. They continue to repeat it with absolutely no self-awareness at all. And what's more, it's a TERRIBLE show. It's just not funny on any level at all, and yet it's about to get its eighth series! I mean, they just have to keep making Peep Show because I'm not sure I can live in a world where Peep Show is commissioned for less series than fucking Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps.

So you can imagine our terror when we heard that there was new sitcom on its way from 'the makers of Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps'. There was a glimmer of hope in that it wasn't written by the same people, so we had a go at watching Coming Of Age. Well, I mean, it was bollocks, wasn't it?

Apparently we're meant not to be too hard on it because it was written by a 19 year old just starting out in comedy writing. I'm not going to do that though because it's just such plain utter shite that I actually can't believe that it was ever commissioned. I can't actually recall seeing a sitcom that seemed to think it could derive laughs from signposting such painfully obvious gags and double entendres, and just outright unnecessarily direct smut. 

I like a bit of smut, me. Obviously. But I do like there to be some semblance of subtlety behind it for it to be funny. Constantly bludgeoning people with it doesn't work. Coming Of Age doesn't possess one ounce of subtlety in its body. It's the Kevin Davies of sitcoms. It bludgeons its way through target after target, apparently unafraid of looking sluggish and crap, hoping that if it piles enough efforts in the general direction of its target that it will eventually make one count.

It's a testament to how dashed gorgeous its two female leads, played by Hannah Job and Anabel Barnston, are that they almost make it watchable. They're miracle workers. And they do seem like good actresses actually. But there's nothing they can do with material like this. Hopefully somebody will reward their efforts slumming it in this cack with a decent script sometime soon.

I don't care if he's 19. Tim Dawson - you're shit.

In fairness, BBC Three does get it right sometimes, but it really is a case of something will stick eventually. Massive, for instance, has proved to be a completely unexpected gem. It's mainly driven by the performances of Beverly Rudd and Faye McKeever who are both hilarious as the rotund members of HearKittyKitty, but aside from an obviously quality turn from Johnny Vegas, who really could have done this role in his sleep, Joel Fry's Swing is absolute gold. There's already spin-off potential with him.

In general though, it's a dreadful channel and no amount of Jessica Jane Clement on The Real Hustle (whose con tricks are sub David Mamet's House Of Games by quite some distance anyway) and Freaky Eaters, where the victims are never actually singularly addicted to the food they're supposed to be utterly dependent on in the first place, thus rendering the programme 90% pointless, can save it. If you're going to have a programme about a woman addicted to fried chicken by rights she should be eating fried chicken all the time. Not Super Noodles and chips sometimes. That's not freaky eating, is it? That's just unhealthy eating, you cocks.

BBC Four though is a different matter altogether.....