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.
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...
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?
Nah, at the fringes of east London's trendy "digital" parts, you can hear marital type arguments launched clearly across whole estate (project) courtyards, any given weekend..
Anyhow what was that about being so bad about being loud SPEAK UP DEAR, I CAN'T HEAR YOU?
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.
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.
What you describe is arguably a symptom of people not getting sarcasm. People that enjoy sarcasm have learned the hard lesson that the average listener is oblivious to it, so they talk funny to help them out a little bit.
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 would guess that much of the difference is just in the trajectory of expectations.
There's also probably a survey problem, the American productions that don't take themselves overly seriously and throw in some tongue in cheek humor aren't going to be the ones borrowing their ideas from someone else.
"Burn Notice" comes to mind as a drama series that managed to throw in some humor without making it zany and obvious.
Office U.S. and U.K. are really different shows, US Office dropped all pretence of the reality/mockumentary, veering toward more unreal set-ups. Apples and oranges. Both are great, just different.
> Office U.S. and U.K. are really different shows, US Office dropped all pretence of the reality/mockumentary,
Did it? The US office continued the "looks" at the camera, the interviews; at one point the documentary crew was attacked (and it turned out he was in love with Pam), Jim had them make a video for Pam, and the very last episodes were about the documentary airing and a panel interviewing them about how they felt about their lives being filmed for nine years.
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.
As a German, I don't agree. I think Germans get satire and humor. I'd say we are in that respect closer to the British than the American (But I have to admit that the Brits are light years ahead when it comes to everything entertaining) It's just that our media outlets are characterized by another German trait: fear of risk. If a program works well enough than nothing is going to change. Just think about how long "Wetten Dass...?!" was on air.
As far as tv programs are concerned I think that "Stromberg" or "Tatortreiniger" aren't too bad.
That was a semi-joke and your answer kind of proves my point :-)
Anyway, this is based on my interactions with a German corporation - I guess my sample is from the corporate world and most corporates, regardless of nationality, lack humor, because those business guys take themselves too seriously.
As a German, I have to agree. My favourite comedians are British, Irish or Australian, not one of them is German. I find most German comedy unwatchable at worst or unfunny at best.
The only German comedians I can think of that I at times find genuinely funny are political satirists, actually. Maybe because the subject matter simply lends itself better to deadpan humour and absurdism.
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.
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).
What's more, the British seem to have no qualms about simply ending a series when they think there's nothing more to add.
Consider Spaced: the cast and the audience loved it, but the story had come to a conclusion after the second series and the circumstances that originally gave birth to the ideas had changed, so they refused to consider another series.
Contrast this with American shows which typically only end if they get cancelled and where success is measured in how often you can get a new series funded.
There are plenty of American shows that should have been cancelled after a single season, but weren't because they were popular.
Stuff like Prison Break, Heroes. In fact Prison Break's season 1 had a very clear, obvious conclusion (they broke out) - so there was no clear path for the story to take after that. In Britain it would not have been picked up for a second series.
We share the same viewpoint. When I meant long-run I meant in terms of seasons, not in terms of episodes per season (e.g. Dr. Who).
The US corporate pressure to produce is definitely the problem. There is little counterbalance in the US, whereas in the UK the BBC allows writers like Ianucci freedom to do what they feel is right.
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'll note that Channel 4 has a public service remit in its broadcast license, which, among other things, requires "demonstrating innovation, experiment and creativity".
Channel 5, otoh, does not, and we don't tend to get a whole lot of interesting new stuff from it - they like to play it very safe.
Let's regress this a level further - creating lots of small shows with potentially longer runs could result in a better talent pool (both actors/directors/producers), benefiting even private networks.
How often do BBC actors work with other networks? If there's any cross-pollination there is an argument that the BBC's reach goes beyond it's own productions.
Do not overlook the feeder stream here: alternative standup comedy in the small-club format, and the giant mixing pot of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. There's a definite progression of free fringe show -> paid fringe show -> getting talent spotted and onto TV.
Since partial privatisation much of the BBC's output is actually commissioned through a maze of independents. It's not like the old days when Morcambe and Wise being poached to ITV was a national crisis.
It would be hard to dismiss BBC's influence on the format of British television since the BBC (channels 1 and 2) were originally the only TV channels on British TV. And, as you rightly pointed out, there's always going to be cross-pollination with TV talent as well. However I don't think it pays to look at the BBC as a unique model in the way that you are (ie "The BBC is different from American networks therefore it's the BBC that has uniquely shaped British TV"). I don't consider the fewer episodes per series/season model to be unique to Britain let alone a BBC invention. In America you tend to refer to these runs as "mini-series", but even them aside it's pretty common to have popular shows only run a dozen episodes a season.
I think the differences might be down to writing styles more than anything though. In the UK it's common to only have a 1 or 2 writers behind a popular series (or guest writers who handle individual episodes), where as in America you can have an entire team of writers. I would imagine having more writers might allow for a larger pool of ideas.
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. ;-)
I did once read a comment somewhere that said it's a British quirk to insult those you like while being friendly to those you dislike.
I could see how this might seem absurd to an outsider looking in. But, being English, it's definitely an observable idiosyncrasy for myself and my circle of friends.
I think that in the US this is primarily a male trait. Guys are supposed to make fun of their guy friends. But you'll never see girls doing the same to each other. The cool ones will do it to/with their guy friends.
Nah it just didn't work for what you were aiming at, going about insulting random people is just that. People reading have no idea if you guys are buds or not so it registers as a legit complaint about the parent's comment quality.
"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.
But Basil is totally likeable. He's very reasonable, but the world (and his wife) always conspires against him. His only real fault is his class consciousness, but show me a Brit without any of that.
House is smart, confident, funny, always right and always wins in the end (well almost) against the 'idiots' that surround him. Even when he seems to suffer setbacks they are always minor and he always twists the world to his will to get out of them. The destruction and pain he inflicts on the world never touch him.
I think a lot of people like House, not necessarily as someone they'd want to work with, but as someone they'd want to be like.
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.
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.
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=89S1cej9TyUhttps://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.
Daily Show/Colbert are so incredibly dumbed down and mainstream though. And South Park has the annoying tendency to reiterate its point throughout the episode.
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.
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.
Interesting that the British have basically been doing this for hundreds of years. In medieval times, the court jester could speak freely and criticize the king in a way no others were allowed to.
I dunno. In many cases it's quite clear who is being referred to. House of Cards opens with Thatcher being deposed. A later season has the Princess Diana character (who like in real life, divorced her husband) saying that she was threatened with being murdered if she spoke out.
The main character in The Thick of It, Malcolm Tucker, was based on the spin doctor for the Labour government at the time. Later seasons reflected the current UK government structure.
Worth noting that the laws aren't the same throughout the UK - you can have situations where Scottish newspapers publish stuff that can't be published in England.
We don't have the concepts of libel and slander here in Scotland, it's defamation and works fairly differently (IANAL) so we don't have the crazy cases you see in English courts.
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.
Armando Iannucci said he stopped writing The Thick Of It because too many of his mad plot lines were coming true and he was afraid to predict even madder things.
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...??)
That's mostly because the Independence Day director was known for being very cost-effective and frugal. It was a blockbuster, but didn't start as a big spending production like the Titanic for example.
But even that is 10 times what Fargo cost already.
Sub 10 million have been small peanuts in Hollywood even in the eighties, by Fargo's time a movie was not even taken seriously by big studios if it had such a budget.
Heck -- an A-list actor would command 10-15 million just for himself.
Burn After Reading had Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Can't get much more A-list than that. It also had John Malkovich and Tilda Swinton, who are no lightweights. And it came in at a budget of under 40M.
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.
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!
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+...