Classic Comedy - YES, MINISTER/YES, PRIME MINISTER

I think it's high time we had another dose of Classic Comedy. This time, it's a bit of a left field entry, not because it is unpopular or unfunny, quite the contrary, but because this time things get a bit political. However, it is political done in the best possible way. Yes it is that bastion of comedy - Yes, Minister, which later became Yes, Prime Minister.
1980 to 1984 saw audiences react wonderfully to an insanely witty, sharp, chaotic and hilarious comedy, set around the political life of a newly elected minister, his suave and manipulative Permanent Secretary, and his good-natured Principle Private Secretary. Though portrayed in a fictitious department of the government (the Department of Administrative Affairs) that more often than not are seen to be dealing with ridiculously trivial matters that quickly escalate, the hilarity comes thick and fast. It is a cliche with this show now, but what's more it is still utterly recognizable today, it is still just as funny, and just as great to watch.

I do go on about casting, but here I think it is especially key, as I shall explain later. We see Paul Eddington (also of The Good Life fame) as Jim Hacker MP, the well-meaning but often clueless man trying to struggle through all the trials and tribulations of British politics. "Assisting" him through it all is Civil Servant Sir Humphrey Appleby, played by the brilliant Sir Nigel Hawthorne. Seriously, just watching his "big speeches" is a brilliant treat!  On their own these two are utterly peerless actors playing two greatly crafted characters, but when you put them together, prepare to sit back and enjoy. And shake with laughter. Each episode brings oodles of chemistry and resulting comic genius flowing from them. Also adding to that is a third party, the affable Bernard Wooley, a marvelous and integral character to this great trio, played by Derek Fowlds.

After a glorious 4 year career in politics and comedy, in 1986 the team came back and were transcended to the top at number 10. Hacker became Prime Minister, Humphrey was promoted to his Cabinet Secretary, and Bernard was...Bernard. Different sets, different titles for the characters, bigger political "situations" to get into and out of; same glorious comedy gold.
The only reason I am not totally and unabashedly gushing about Yes (Prime) Minister, is that in 2013, they remade it. It aroused similar issues to that which I shared with you about Open All Hours a while ago. I was afraid they would sully the legacy of this great 80's series. In a way they did, but it wasn't entirely their fault. Same characters, same brilliant writers, but 21st century set up. This would have been fine, yet tragically both Eddington and Hawthorne passed away many years beforehand, and Derek Fowlds didn't come back, so a new crop of actors were brought in to fill such iconic boots. Many of them had received good practice in the stage show (again based on the original which is to this day enjoying good receptions in the West End) but I think the shadow of their original forbears was too great. The 2013 Yes, Prime Minister was good don't get me wrong, and there were still funny moments. But compared to the originals (which is unavoidable in this case) it fell quite short of the mark sadly.

Regardless, the original Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister remain, for me, a sitcom triumph. I urge you to watch it, even if you have no interest in politics which I don't particularly, it is still a comic master stroke, and will be referred to as a comedy classic for some time to come.

The Musketeers - What's going on here then?

Right, another day, another new BBC drama series. This time - it's a revamp of those age old heroes of Dumas, The Musketeers! We're three episodes in now of this new Sunday prime time series, so I thought I would offer up another on-going review of things so far, and share my thoughts. I had to think hard about this one, not least how I would initially rate it (because I KNOW you readers live and die by my sophisticated star system!). I think in essence, whilst I'm currently sticking with it because I have not yet lost all faith, The Musketeers for me is quite a mishmash of a let down.

Before we even get into who or what's in it, I get the impression that those who conceived this show were not very clear about what they wanted it to be, something I've brought up before on this blog but I think you'll agree it is essential. This uncertainty has just translated into the feeling of the show as the audience sees it, and if anything it has gotten steadily worse as we have gone on. Yes I know, only three episodes have gone out, and I could forgive an initial shaky start (which I think episode 1 was) but by now most people would have given up, as The Musketeers has failed to deliver a solid seat-grabber yet. It hasn't even delivered a conceivably good episode really, and the viewers abandoning ship each week seem to be of this view too. BBC One has been renowned in recent years for producing great, consistent, new and more mature, drama series and wowing audiences again and again, sometimes for years. I feel The Musketeers was trying way too hard to be the next in line for this coveted position, following things such as Atlantis ending a successful initial season at Christmas, and of course to fill the seemingly cavernous void in between series of Doctor Who. It also strikes me that, there was an air of arrogance here too. This is a show no one had ever seen before, had no idea what to expect, and they gave them 10 episodes from the off! 10!!! Am I the only one who believes in the old fashioned Pilot? Or at least a limited number of 3 or so? I admit it has worked for things like Merlin, and broadly speaking the more recent Atlantis, but come on! 

Anywho, The Musketeers was not I feel, clearly worked out at conception, and is no nearer finding it's feet in it's early time of life. Closer in content to the perhaps more innocent Merlin, yet it has a 9PM slot, so we get a bit of sex, a bit of violence, and attempted drama, but not a lot too hard hitting; like I said - mishmash. We have cliched plot and characters, highly suspect acting in too many places, and time and again those fabled Musketeers seem to be missing the mark.

OK, initial slandering over, lets get into content. It says something that for me, the most interesting actors/characters have been the guest stars of weeks 2 and 3. The men in question are James Callis and Jason Flemyng; two very fine actors who played two very watchable characters, but only for a fleeting hour each. That's all very well, but without a good core cast (who are supposedly introduced then developed throughout the series) it's still a no no. That's like investing heavily in a brand new car, and just lifting the bonnet up for an hour a day to stare at the engine; it's interesting yet without ever actually getting to the essential, idiosyncratic and brilliant bits.

So, the core cast, the driving force some might say, of this whole shebang. Wanting, severely wanting. If I had to pick a favourite Musketeer, I would say Aramis, played by Santiago Cabrera (who Merlin fans will undoubtedly recognize!) for he to me pulls off the combination of dramatic moments, comedy, and swashbuckling charm the best. Yet if I'm honest, he's the best of a bad bunch. Howard Charles' Porthos is OK to watch because his character seems fairly simple, and you know pretty much what you're getting, but after that it quickly becomes boring. Tom Burke's Athos is such a dissapointment to me because he had the potential to be a great dark horse, but bad writing, predictable reaction, and cold acting leaves a lot to be desired. Finally D'Artagnan, played by Luke Pasqualino, who I'm sure in his mind was doing his utmost to provide a character full of youthful charm, devilish dramatic ability, reactionary prowess, watchable magnatism, and a whole other host of actor/character plus points. In essence, 9 times out of 10 the result is a character wafting around either trying to look pretty or confused.

Of course, the Musketeers are not the be all and end all, oh no. There are more regular characters to invest in heavily. Maimie McCoy's Milady is supposedly the mysterious yet beautiful villainess of the piece. Whilst the latter may be true, the former definitely fails to hit home. Milady does generate some chemistry with her fellow characters, but nowhere near enough to generate enough audience interest really. Also, it might have been an idea, if one wanted to keep intrigue up, to not reveal this character's big yet predictable plot mystery in the third episode in. Just saying. 

The regal overlord of proceedings is supposed to be Ryan Gage's King Louis XIII. But honestly. This guy couldn't look like he was trying way too hard to be way too subtle in being feebly foppish if he tried.

Happily however, there are a few glimmering jewels of hope in the regular cast. The pretty, charming and measured Tamla Kari is easily the most watchable female lead as Constance. Let us hope we get to see more of her developing character. Easily the most recognizable (due I'm sure in no small part to his recent outing as the next Doctor) and easily one of the most talented cast members, is Peter Capaldi as the villainous Cardinal Armand. I kind of feel like The Musketeers is diminishing Capaldi's talent as an actor, which trust me is formidable. Bad plot and poor fellow actors make even his scenes a bit of a struggle, yet thus far he has saved them. The producers have said that, following his announcement as the latest Time Lord aboard the TARDIS, a prospective second series (hmmmm) will have to be done without his character in it; shoot yourself in the already lame foot why don't you?  

It may seem like I'm being mean and having too much of a go at The Musketeers (not linking up with even a hallowed 3 stars!). I maintain all I have said, both good and bad, don't get me wrong, yet I am reminded that we are only on episode 3, and that I may be yet proven horribly wrong. Who knows? Maybe the team behind The Musketeers did work their absolute socks off on it. And who knows? Maybe at some stage they'll let it show, and prove to us all that it was at any point worth it.

RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman

1967~2014