Полная версия
Sunshine on Putty: The Golden Age of British Comedy from Vic Reeves to The Office
The second incident involves Scott Capurro – a raffish, catty, minutely boss-eyed, gay comedian from San Francisco, who briefly set down his picnic blanket on the banks of the British comedy mainstream in the early to mid-nineties. The high point of his career was probably an appearance on Pebble Mill, where Alan Titchmarsh asked him the immortal question ‘So you’re a gay comedian, how do you go down in America?’
The fun in a Capurro live show comes from a consensual over-stepping of the mark. (‘Are you heterosexual?’ he taunts straight audience members. ‘Really? You were the last one I would have expected.’) The edge comes from our – and his – awareness of how easily consensus can turn to conflagration.
At an early live appearance at the Hackney Empire, a gang of rough-looking individuals in the front row begin to get restive about five minutes into Capurro’s set. One of them calls him a ‘faggot’. Capurro says: ‘I want to love you – help me.’ The situation simmers and then gets uglier. People at the back of the crowd start to shout at the people in the front, one of whom gets onstage, grabs the microphone and roars in fury and bewilderment, the scar down the side of his face pulsing eerily, ‘What is it, are you all faggots?’
The rest of the audience shouts ‘Leave! Leave! Leave!’ – at first tentatively, but then with increasing fervour as the Hackney Empire remembers its former status as the home of alternative cabaret. Eventually, the front row gets up and storms off en masse, Capurro’s taunts – ‘He wants me!’, etc – ringing rather half-heartedly in their ears. The violence in the air has hobbled the comedian’s instinctive bravado, but though visibly and understandably shaken, he still manages to have the last word: ‘Oh, I was wrong, it wasn’t the gay thing…It was the Vietnam thing.’
At Last, The Theodore Hook in 1812 Show
In the mid-1960s, when John Cleese and a group of his up-and-coming acquaintances (including the brace of comic colossi who would later be known as The Two Ronnies) were looking for a title for their shiny new topical TV revue, they called it At Last The 1948 Show in a bid to sum up frustration (previously and more vehemently expressed by their non-Oxbridge-educated role model, Spike Milligan) with the slow-moving institutional nature of the BBC.
Any true appreciation of what is or is not golden about the Reeves/Office age will have to avoid overestimating the differences between this and other periods of comedic endeavour. Especially as one of the main creative themes of the period will prove to be reconnection with preceding generations after the supposed ideological breaches of the 1980s.
Consider the brilliant career of nineteenth-century rabble-rouser Theodore Hook, editor of such outspoken publications as John Bull and The Arcadian. A. J. A. Symons’s 1934 biographical essay15 outlines an armoury of comedic attributes which will not be unfamiliar to comedy aficionados of the present day.
Alongside the mid-stream political horse-swapping of the aforementioned Mr Rory Bremner (‘his power of producing in parody a complete House of Commons debate, imitating one speaker after another…taking off Peel, Palmerston or the Duke [of Wellington] without a moment’s pause’), the eagle-eyed might discern the poker face of Jack Dee (‘his extreme power of keeping a straight face when all his listeners were eclipsed in mirth’), or the institutional subversion of Chris Morris. (Taking up position on an empty cart by the roadside, Hook once posed as an itinerant preacher. Having assembled a suitably rustic audience, the metropolitan mischief-maker ‘suddenly altered the tone of his voice, thundered the most appalling curses at the throng and ran for his life’.)
Even the legendary drinking prowess of Johnny Vegas gets a look in. Symons describes Hook ‘drinking experimental gin and maraschino cocktails by the pint with an American bon vivant, before dining soberly at Lord Canterbury’s where he ascribed his poor appetite to “a biscuit and a glass of sherry rashly taken at luncheon”‘.
This is not to say that life was necessarily richer or more satisfying – comedywise – in the early 1800s, but it is probably worth bearing in mind that the late twentieth century was not the first historical moment at which the professional laughter-maker has loomed large in our culture. The medieval scholar Erasmus disparagingly described the mid-thirteenth century as a time when ‘Fools [i.e. jesters] were so beloved by great men that many could not bear to eat or drink without them, or to be without their company for a single hour’.
The picture of the wearer of cap and bells painted in R. H. Hill’s Tales of the Jesters - ‘Stealing titbits from the kitchen, falling into fits of violent fury without reason, breaking furniture and crockery, fighting with the pages and worst of all giving himself insufferable airs’ – will not be wholly unfamiliar to anyone lucky enough to have spent time with Britain’s turn-of-the-millennium comedic élite.
Elements of unexpected continuity are just as rich a source of fascination in the history of comedy (or, indeed, anything else) as unarguable new departures. To achieve a true understanding of the achievements of the Reeves/Office epoch, it will be necessary to delve deeply into the historical (as well as the comedic) background of the previous half-century – from the victorious memory of the Second World War to the traumatic loss of the British empire; from the bright new dawn of the swinging sixties to the sour fag-end of Thatcherism. At the same time, the dramatic unfolding events of the 1990s and early 2000s will be recounted – wherever possible16 – in the present tense, in the hope of capturing the immediacy with which these developments were initially experienced.
If by these means it were somehow possible to root the glorious comic legacy of this illustrious era in timeless verities of national character and cultural heritage, well, that would certainly be a goal worth aiming at. In his lofty 1946 panegyric The English Sense of Humour, Harold Nicolson describes that most oft-speculated-upon of national attributes (whose ethnic remit is, for the purpose of this volume – and in acknowledgement of the partial success of Tony Blair’s devolutionary reforms – graciously also extended to the Scots, the Welsh and even the Irish) as ‘existing at a level of consciousness between sensation and perception’.
In the hope of getting across how this idea worked, Nicolson came up with a novel illustrative formula. To approximate what he called the ‘simultaneous awareness of doubleness and singleness’ which it entailed, he invited his readers to enjoy for themselves ‘the curious sensation produced when we cross the middle finger over the index and then push the v-shaped aperture up and down the nose’.17
1 On the Launchpad
The Reeves and Mortimer despot/democrat trajectory is about to commence
‘The present time, together with the past, shall be judged by a great jovialist’
Nostradamus
‘You’ll never guess what I just saw backstage…Nicholas Witchell with a barrage balloon Sellotaped onto his back, trying to convince all these termites that he was their queen’
Vic Reeves
In a late-nineties BBC TV documentary about Steve Martin, the stadium-filling stand-up balloon-folder turned Hollywood leading man recalls looking around him at the angry political comedy which prevailed in his homeland in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam protest era. ‘Hmm,’ Martin remembers his mid-seventies self thinking, ‘all that’s gonna be over soon…and when it is, I’m gonna be right there. And I’m gonna be silly.’
It would not be the act of a madman to imagine Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer making a similar plan in downtown south-east London a decade or so later, with Margaret Thatcher as their Richard Nixon and Ben Elton as their Richard Pryor. If you hadn’t ever spoken to them. But once you’ve listened to them talking about what they do (in this instance, over tea and biscuits at the BBC, at around the same time the Steve Martin documentary goes out) it’s hard to conceive how the massive cultural impact Reeves and Mortimer have had on this country in the past decade or so could possibly have been a matter of prior calculation.
They have always been endearingly incapable of guessing which of their ideas will go down well and which won’t (‘You imagine everyone will like everything when you first think it up,’ Vic muses, ‘then when you actually do it, you think “Oh, maybe not”‘), seeming to clutch to their hearts with especial tenderness those comedic sallies which are greeted with total incomprehension on the part of their audience.
Vic remembers an infamous early appearance at the Montreal Comedy Festival: ‘There were 7,000 people, one of the biggest crowds we’ve ever had, and it was absolute silence for twelve minutes. We went out and we had the lucky carpet with us. The basic joke is Bob comes on and says, “I’ve been having some bad luck.” And I say, “Well, have you got a lucky charm?” And I turn out to have a lucky charm which is too big to carry…’
Vic shakes his head contentedly: ‘You could hear people in the audience saying, “That carpet’s too big” – they just couldn’t accept someone having a twenty-foot roll of carpet for a lucky charm.’18
Bob has similarly fond memories of 1998’s notoriously impenetrable BBC2 series Bang Bang…It’s Reeves & Mortimer. ‘We have this hope,’ Mortimer insists, rather poignantly, ‘that if there’s anyone left bothered about us in fifty years’ time, that will be the one they’ll remember.’19
It seems jokes nobody understands are like pop stars who die young. They never get the chance to let you down.
‘There’s such a thin line between what works and what doesn’t,’ argues long-time Vic and Bob associate and Vic Reeves Big Night Out catalyst Jonathan Ross (while pretending not to care whether any fellow customers have registered his presence in a Soho Star-bucks in the early summer of 2002). ‘It’s all delivery and perception and context. And I think they understand that better than anyone. That’s why they never get beaten down – because they find what they do genuinely funny. That’s what makes them different from what you might call more workmanlike comedians, or some of the sort of stuff I do,’ Ross grins.
‘You sit down and write material which you think people might find funny,’ he continues. ‘Then you try and hone it so they definitely will do, but you’re not living life for yourself. It’s purely work. It was never like that for Vic and Bob, though. They’re not a service industry: even when they’re doing things to pay the rent, they’re still enjoying themselves. And something like that time in Montreal – where they were doing stuff with a miniature Elvis and some monkeys on a plate to a bemused bilingual audience – they just enjoyed the whole experience. For them, it doesn’t represent the death of an act or a step back in a possible career plan, it’s just another funny moment in an already amusing day.’
Reeves and Mortimer used to commemorate the jokes which no one got with a weekly memorial service in the ‘tumbleweed moment’ running gag on Shooting Stars. Now that they themselves are verging on institutional status, it’s hard to remember just how roughly they once rubbed against the comic grain. But when the Big Night Out first appeared – in a succession of (to use Vic’s characteristically art-history-informed adjective) ‘Hogarthian’ south-east London pubs, in the second half of the 1980s – the ideological tyranny of alternative comedy was still at its height.
‘It just didn’t interest me,’ Vic remembers scornfully. ‘I hate being preached to. I can make my own mind up: tell me something new.’ In Vic’s case, something new meant a potent blend of old-fashioned vaudeville and a spirit of the purest comic anarchy.
Consider for a moment the Big Night Out’s warped talent contest ‘Novelty Island’ (in which Mortimer’s increasingly poignant alter ego Graham Lister strives to impress the unfeeling Reeves with a series of doomed variety acts, such as pushing lard through the mouth and nostrils of a picture of Mickey Rourke). Now cast your mind back to its most obvious comedic precursor, ‘Alan Whicker Island’ – a vintage Monty Python sketch about an archipelago inhabited entirely by people who look and behave just like the abrasive TV travel-show presenter turned spokesman for American Express. The fundamental difference between these two comic conceits is that the latter addresses the entertainment apparatus it is attempting to deconstruct from the top down, while the former does so from the bottom up.
This levelling tendency in Vic and Bob’s work is balanced from the first (for example, in the marvellously arbitrary adjudications of the terrifying Judge Nutmeg) with a healthy respect for the comic potential of absolute rule. Their unique ability to combine the insurrectionary fury of the eighteenth-century mob with the icy hauteur of the pre-revolutionary aristocrat is the basis of what rocket scientists of the future will term ‘The Reeves and Mortimer despot/ democrat trajectory’.
3. Primary Ross/Reeves interface
As with the initial encounter between Lorenzo de’ Medici and Michelangelo – to which it has often been compared – the bare physical facts of the first meeting between Jonathan Ross and Vic Reeves are a matter of historical record. It was the start of the second series of The Last Resort in the autumn of 1987, and after the runaway success of his début season, Jonathan Ross was looking around for fresh inspiration in the midst of a ‘horrible second album moment’.
His brother Adam, who was running a club called The Swag at Gossips in Soho at the time, had mentioned a ‘slightly crazy DJ guy…the only person he knew who admitted to liking prog-rock when no one else would even acknowledge that stuff. He’d put on a record like “Alright Now” by Free and mime to it while wearing a horse-brass round his neck.’
When Ross senior discovered that this individual also did ‘strange paintings of Elvis’, his curiosity was definitely piqued. A meeting was set up at a Japanese restaurant in Brewer Street, where Reeves would bring his pictures and Ross would pick up the tab. Fifteen years later, the latter remembers the occasion in tones endearingly reminiscent of one of those scenes in a TV dating show where someone goes to the toilet between the starter and the main course to tell the cameras how it’s going.
‘I liked the way he looked,’ Ross remembers. ‘I liked what he’d done with his hair – he was the first person I’d seen with what was sort of the George Clooney cut. I’d always been interested in the evolution of male style but never really had the courage to do anything about it. Jim [it is a tribute to the power of the Vic Reeves persona that even people who know him really well seem slightly uneasy about using the name on his birth certificate] certainly led the way there.20
‘I’d never seen anyone who was quite so comfortable about looking ridiculous for the sake of style,’ Ross continues, ‘which is something I deeply admire in people – that almost complete sublimation of the ego in pursuit of “the look”. He was wearing all black, and he had his hair done very short. He looked great and very unusual – kind of like a mod, but those early ones who were inspired by the American beats. Anyway, it was a very interesting look and I knew he’d done it consciously, so that really impressed me.’
What was the atmosphere like between the two of them? ‘It was reasonably friendly, but a little awkward. I was slightly embarrassed at the time about the way people might perceive me as being the epitome of Thatcher’s young man. I suppose it was because of the shoulder pads—shoulder pads equating in a post-Dynasty kind of way with flash and success. Anyway, I was very conscious of going out of my way not to seem like that person.’
And yet Ross felt comfortable buying two paintings (for a hundred pounds each, though Vic only asked for ten) on the spot – one of which featured Elvis ironing Tommy Trinder’s trousers?
‘I do remember thinking immediately afterwards, I hope I haven’t offended him in some way. I was always concerned about the north-south thing as well…especially back then. It was very important at that stage for any vaguely sensitive southerner not to act like a prick in any way to do with money or status or feeling proud of being brought up in the nation’s capital city when in the company of northern gentlemen.’
Vic and Bob seem to have had a talent for reflecting this feeling back at people. ‘Yes, but very nicely, never in an anti-southern kind of way…It was almost a casual acknowledgement of who they were. One of the things that always really attracted me to them was that they were clearly from the north-east, yet it wasn’t like “Hello, we’re northerners, look at us”. Their unapologetic use of phrases and terms that either were peculiar to their region, or seemed like they might be to people from the south, made the whole thing feel kind of true, even when it was anything but.’
Ross first encountered the two of them together a few months after the Brewer Street meeting, when he went down to see Vic DJ-ing at Gossips. ‘There were about three people in the audience and some bloke pretending to be a playboy singing “I’m the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo”. Bob turned up afterwards and I assumed he and Vic were a gay couple, because they seemed quite tender with each other. Bob was concerned that it hadn’t gone well and I didn’t understand that they worked together, I just thought, Oh, he’s gay and this is his little partner. So when Vic said “I’m doing a thing with Bob” I just thought “Oh fuck, it’s a Linda McCartney situation”. But of course, it wasn’t.’
Right from the start of his own TV career, Ross seemed keen to rehabilitate British comedy’s old guard – the Frankie Howerds and Sid Jameses – who had fallen by the ideological wayside in the 1980s.21 Was one of the things that impressed him about Vic Reeves the way he seemed to be referring to a pre-alternative tradition?
‘I think early on I was just struck by his originality and his fearlessness…the way he presented himself as an exotic figure, not so much in terms of being from the north-east, just in a kind of “Hello,I’m Spike Milligan’s illegitimate son” sort of way. It’s just that unique manner Vic has of observing things and presenting himself…It’s not so much courage, because courage is when you know that you might fail. It’s more like an insane confidence in his own world view.’
2. Seven days in the sitcom wilderness: ‘Listen very carefully, I will say this only once’
There’s a great bit in Graham McCann’s 1998 biography of More-cambe and Wise where, as a means of establishing the weight of expectation resting upon his subjects’ disastrous 1954 small-screen début Running Wild (the one which caused the People’s television critic to pen the somewhat premature epitaph ‘Definition of the week. “TV”: the box in which they buried Eric and Ernie’), the author outlines the other entertainment on offer on Britain’s only small-screen channel on the night Morecambe and Wise staked their first claim on the medium. Bear in mind that this was a time when, in McCann’s suitably austere phrase, ‘Hours of viewing, like public drinking, were limited in the interests of temperance’. Thus, the early evening newsreel was followed by the rather Reevesian-sounding Coracle Carnival (with its exciting coverage of people paddling up and down a river in Roman-style boats). Then came that eternal televisual staple, ‘Association Football’ (Aldershot versus the Army), followed by Gravelhanger, a drama so bad it made Heartbeat look like a mouth-watering prospect. The ill-fated Running Wild was next up, before the evening reached a somewhat anti-climactic conclusion with a discussion of the situation in Indo-China, followed by the national anthem.
There would seem to be plenty of ammunition here for those who claim that the now unthinkably large audiences often cited as evidence of the superiority of previous generations of TV were actually just a result of there not being anything else on. Yet Running Wild got dreadful viewing figures with no competition, while more than half the nation would watch Morecambe and Wise Christmas shows a couple of decades later when it had two (count them, two) other channels to choose from.
Anyway, to extend the reach of McCann’s licensed-premises-based viewing metaphor, British TV at the start of the 1990s had left behind the old Scottish Highlands and Islands Keep the Lord’s Day Special scenario, but was still a long way shy of the non-stop twenty-four-hour lock-in that would be the digital epoch. In short, this was an era of limited Sunday opening and the occasional late-night extension.
What we really need to help us understand the dramatic impact of Vic Reeves Big Night Out is some kind of contemporary record of 1990’s primitive entertainment landscape. A diary, say, of a whole week’s worth of British sitcoms in that last grim Thatcherite winter…Thank goodness I kept one!22
Friday, 21 February
‘Allo ‘Allo
This failsafe blend of Carry On-style innuendo and hoary World War II stereotype has entered the national subconscious at such a high level that it’s hard to know what to think about it. Except that the catch-phrase ‘Listen very carefully, I will say this only once’ will be remembered long after ‘Alb ‘Allo’s source material – late-seventies BBC drama series Secret Army – has faded from the collective memory. And that the only way to truly grasp this show’s ethical daring is to imagine the likely tabloid reaction to a French TV network essaying a comedy series about the humorous experiences of British prisoners in a Japanese POW camp.
Watching
Once the impact of its punkily downbeat theme tune (‘It was boredom at first sight, he was no one’s Mr Right’) has worn off, this amiable chunk of Scouse whimsy actually puts together its clichéd ingredients (interfering mother and put-upon only son) in a modestly charming way. Tonight, chirpy Brenda and her lovably gormless motor mechanic boyfriend Malcolm indulged in a bit of furtive courting aboard a friend’s beached pleasure craft, and were surprised when the tide came in and they had to be rescued by a lifeboat. Malcolm’s last line – ‘Nothing ever happens’ – made the influence of Samuel Beckett even more explicit than it was already.
Home To Roost
It’s hard to believe that this depressing rubbish with John Thaw and Reece Dinsdale in it is actually churned out by the same writer (Eric Chappell) who brought us the immortal Rising Damp. And yet, it is.
Colin’s Sandwich
Even those who have never previously harboured warm feelings towards Mel Smith have to admit that this is quite good. The prevailing mood of world-weary cynicism recalls the great early days of Shelley, and by working through its desire to use the word ‘buttocks’ in its opening few moments, tonight’s edition freed itself from that perennial concern to become genuinely humane. The man whose attempts to take control of his own life are constantly thwarted by his own essential decency, yet he can’t help speaking his mind however horrific the situation he has become enmeshed in, is a perennial theme of all great drama, from Hamlet to Ever Decreasing Circles.
Saturday, 22 February
Not traditionally a big night for sitcoms. Luckily, Keith Barron will soon be back on our screens in Haggard.
