Ship of Fools: Vicious

Thread: Vicious Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025645

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

This is a new ITV "sitcom", that manages to be the most appalling thing I have seen for a long time.

As a couple of simple examples from the first ten minutes, which is all I could stand, Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi, the two stars, were presented as predatory gays, both salivating at the prospects of fresh young blood, in the form of Ash who knocks at the door. Tawdry.

Followed, soon enough by McKellen saying to Francis de la Tour "Who would want to rape you?". I was shocked, which, I have to say, takes some doing.

And i just had to ask why? What is the point of this pathetic series? It isn't even funny, it is just bad, abusive, stereotyping and cheap.

It has managed to raise "The Wright Way" to being only the second worse sitcom on the TV at the moment, which is an achievement.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

All of these things have already become pretty much standard on Dutch television.

Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :

I've seen the previews and agree that it's queer stereotyping at its very tackiest. It's not even exploiting audience expectations about "stately homos of England" stereotypes for ironic effect (which is what made Crisp so funny) - they're just there, vituperating and foul. The show doesn't even work as Camp because it's so unbearably self-conscious.

Two thumbs way down (no double entendre & apologies to Ebert, RIP)

Posted by Catrine (# 9811) on :

Am surprised at McKellen, he's usually in better stuff than that. Sounds hideous.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Catrine:
Am surprised at McKellen, he's usually in better stuff than that.

So is Jacobi.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There you are, we laughed like drains at it. Over-acting, lots of tastelessness, what's not to like? Great to see Francis de la Tour again, looking very sprightly. 'Milky cataracts' - nice one. Also, 'I killed a prostitute in Coronation St once'. Not bad.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Catrine:
Am surprised at McKellen, he's usually in better stuff than that.
So is Jacobi.

Oh well, at least they will be getting a laugh out of this. All the way to the bank.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Why can't we have members of minority groups in TV shows for reasons other than *being members of minority groups*? Why can't we have a police procedural, or legal thriller, or medical drama, or whatever, in which the main character happens to be gay? Not as a plot feature, but just because their partner happens to be the same sex?

And there's still some way to go with ethnicity too. I mean, you get an asian doctor on casualty every now and then, and Art Malik and Idris Elba. But nothing else to really match the Adrian Lester role in Hustle yet.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Why can't we have members of minority groups in TV shows for reasons other than *being members of minority groups*?

Maybe when we get writers who write without keeping one eye on a BAFTA or some other dreadful luvvie-fest award.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Why can't we have members of minority groups in TV shows for reasons other than *being members of minority groups*?
Maybe when we get writers who write without keeping one eye on a BAFTA or some other dreadful luvvie-fest award.

Not for Vicious. It probably sets McKellens works for Stonewall back by years. I ast through it to get to "The Job Lot"

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Catrine:
Am surprised at McKellen, he's usually in better stuff than that.
So is Jacobi.

In the Night Garden?

I rest my case.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Not seen it myself but a couple of nights ago I was talking to some friends who thought it was the best thing that had been on TV for ages. One of them reckoned it was worthy of Alan Bennett. A big difference of opinion here!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

A Marmite show, then?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There you are, we laughed like drains at it. Over-acting, lots of tastelessness, what's not to like? Great to see Francis de la Tour again, looking very sprightly. 'Milky cataracts' - nice one. Also, 'I killed a prostitute in Coronation St once'. Not bad.

So you think "Who would want to rape you?" is funny?

Yes, there were some good lines, some good acting. There is in pretty much everything, even The Wright Way. That does not excuse the rest of it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I thought you said you only watched 10 minutes of it?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Catrine:
Am surprised at McKellen, he's usually in better stuff than that. Sounds hideous.

Aaah the lure of lucre!

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Clearly need to see this. I haven't.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It was boring rubbish.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought you said you only watched 10 minutes of it?

Something like that. This came in the portion I watched.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
A Marmite show, then?

Fit only for the mad, the masochistic and the bereft of taste?

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
A Marmite show, then?
Fit only for the mad, the masochistic and the bereft of taste?

Hey, I just had a Marmite crumpet for lunch! Not seen Vicious yet.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Followed, soon enough by McKellen saying to Francis de la Tour "Who would want to rape you?".

Bit of a misquote here, I think (having just watched it on the digibox) and taken out of context. de laTour's character - with a touch of self-conscious melodrama - insists that the young man could be dangerous and might rape her and her elderly gay friend says, impatiently, "Nobody here wants to rape you." There was an ambivalence there - and perhaps it wasn't the finest moment in the first half, but I thought the whole thing was jolly good and funny enough, allowing for the fact that first episodes of sitcoms have a lot to do. Well, I like marmite, obviously.

I know what ken's mates mean about Alan Bennett - though don't quite agree. And I don't think it has set Stonewall (etc) back 10 years - I think it's the sign of the growing confidence of the movement that gay men can be shown behaving in that way. And it's not just about being gay, perhaps it's not even primarily about being gay - it's about getting old.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Predictable dialogue, woooden acting and bilge. It will run and run like a bad curry the day after.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Another program consigned to the ass gravy train?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

They should be.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.

Fuck the door or the off button.

<insert Godwin's law and evil committed when good people do nothing here>

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.

We do, however, HAVE to pay a licence fee. Now if it were truly pay per view (which is entirely possible), then I'd agree with your statement about off or door. As it isn't I'm paying for rubbish of the lets-flail-our arms-shout-loudly-look-meaningfully-at-others-with-jokes-so-old-they-can-be-carbon-dated dialogue, that I don't watch and don't want to watch.

Rubbish is rubbish however you dress it up and whoever takes part in it. Quite apart from the subject matter - which actually makes it worse - who wants to be "entertained" in the examination of the everyday lives of two elderly gay men? A fairly low minority interest I'd say.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

The Radio Times gave it an ecstatic write up, and it had a brilliant cast, so I watched it with eager anticipation. By the end I felt soiled - it was like being back in the 70s and watching the crude stereotypes of Love Thy Neighbour.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.

Misrepresenting it is. Or presenting it as a minor issue. Its just bad.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.
We do, however, HAVE to pay a licence fee.

Only if you HAVE to have a television.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

Gosh, rape is SO funny!

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Of course actual rape is not funny. However, some people have rape fantasies (that does not, of course, mean that they actually want to be raped); and such fantasies are IMHO a potentially legitimate subject for humour. The most disappointing thing about that little bit of banter is that it was rather based on a stereotype of a woman of a certain age. If this programme lives up to its promise, its going to have some fun with stereotypes.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Of course actual rape is not funny. However, some people have rape fantasies (that does not, of course, mean that they actually want to be raped); and such fantasies are IMHO a potentially legitimate subject for humour. The most disappointing thing about that little bit of banter is that it was rather based on a stereotype of a woman of a certain age. If this programme lives up to its promise, its going to have some fun with stereotypes.

This programme is having trouble living down to its promises.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Is rape off limits to the humorist or comedian ?
Didn't think anything was , not even paedophilia .

We all know where the 'off' button or door is.
We do, however, HAVE to pay a licence fee.
Only if you HAVE to have a television.

It's like politics, really. Once you engage with the system, you're restricted to the choices offered to you BY the system.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
... Why can't we have a police procedural ... in which the main character happens to be gay? ...

One of the main characters in Between the Lines (early 1990s BBC police drama) was a lesbian. Will that do?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The Radio Times gave it an ecstatic write up, and it had a brilliant cast, so I watched it with eager anticipation. By the end I felt soiled - it was like being back in the 70s and watching the crude stereotypes of Love Thy Neighbour.

The bigger the write up, the poorer the quality IME. Good stuff doesn't need a write up - its quality spreads by word of mouth.

The Radio Times has a vested interest anyway - which it should declare.

It just isn't funny. Worse than that - it's demeaning to those involved and to those invited to watch it.

[ 06. May 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[QUOTE] Only if you HAVE to have a television.

(Screams) But I have to conform ....

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family, but I also get to feel superior to all of you.

Win-win.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family

Explain again how this is a win?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Fuck the door or the off button.

<insert Godwin's law and evil committed when good people do nothing here>

Britain used to have a lady called mary whitehouse who was voracious in trying to clean up crudity and violence on TV . She became a figure of fun, and was ridiculed for being an advocate of censorship .

Not always that easy to know who serves the good or who serves the bad.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family
Explain again how this is a win?

Good point. To clarify- i like my children. And I life far, far away from my siblings.

If they were close I'd probably have a TV on 24-7.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

I've just caught it online. What do the cast think they're doing? Making some ironic stab at stereotyping? Surely not, everyone's known since Alf Garnet that in sitcom, this too easily backfires. Just having a bit of fun? Light relief from 'serious' roles? It doesn't look much fun to me. I don't understand.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

One exchange did make me laugh, it went something like:

You can't unsay that! I don't think I can ever get over it.

I'm sorry.

(melts) Oh, that's alright.

Been there so many times! So why was the rest such crap?

[ 06. May 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: argona ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family, but I also get to feel superior to all of you.

Win-win.

Superior? In recent years American serial television is a golden artform, sucking all the best writers away from film as Hollywood comforts itself with endless reruns of whatever worked last time. Tonight I saw an ad for Fast and Furious 6.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family, but I also get to feel superior to all of you.

Win-win.

You clearly haven't met my family.

In the end, my problem was that it just wasn't very good. It was Alf Garnett era humour, or Brian Rix farce. There were some good lines, and they could have done some really good work with some of the setups.

The odd think is that Francis de la Tour, in character, was probably completely safe from rape, on the grounds that she looked like she would have fucked anything that asked. No coercion required.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family, but I also get to feel superior to all of you.

I wonder how many Shippies don't watch telly.

I don't.

Shall we begin a superiority complex club?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Embrace the world of no television. Not only do i have regular conversations with my family, but I also get to feel superior to all of you.

I wonder how many Shippies don't watch telly.

I don't.

Shall we begin a superiority complex club?

I watch sport on television, so it's a means to an end. If I didn't enjoy sport, I doubt I would watch it at all.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Shall we begin a superiority complex club?

What another one? I thought the Evensong fan club was already one. Even though there is only one member.

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

But then they could compete over who was most superior.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And then the English pedants' club could sweep in over the top.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I didn't enjoy the second episode as much as the first. Some of the jokes are showing their age. I think the theme of ageing is probably one that they should really focus on, as this is both poignant and potentially savage. Thus the idea of the tenth most popular Dr Who villain is nice.

The writers haven't really focused yet, but I am expecting Ravenhill to provide some tasty tastelessness! Come on, Mark, not nasty enough yet.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

This is ITV1.

It can only get as tasteless as the advertisers allow.

Personally I think it is the wrong timeslot, a bit too crude and tasteless for being on just after the 9-o'-clock watershed. It should be on after 10.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Last night's was worse than last week's.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The more I hear about this show, the more I enjoy the prospect of missing it completely if it arrives on our shores in the next few months.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The masochist in me decided to watch the second episode. I suppose the second episode is worse than the first, but that's a bit like saying being burned alive is worse than drowning.

The main problem, for me, is that there aren't any funny jokes in the programme, which is a major failing for a sitcom. But I think there's another failing too: identification. Although sitcoms aren't realistic, I'd say that, broadly speaking, they only work if the setting is grounded in reality.

I have real trouble identifying with the main characters (though I've heard people comment on other boards 'oh, we all knew couples like that when we were starting out on the gay scene' so perhaps there are such repulsive creatures out there). But even if the pair are realistic, why would the simple-minded northerner upstairs (who can inexplicably afford to rent a flat in Covent Garden) confide in them for relationship advice? It's too contrived.

The third thing that bugs is the opening credits - the loud, modern music and graffiti-style graphics seem to me to bear no relation to the nature of the programme.

I'll stop there. The programme is really not worth this much effort.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
....identification. Although sitcoms aren't realistic, I'd say that, broadly speaking, they only work if the setting is grounded in reality.

I have real trouble identifying with the main characters (though I've heard people comment on other boards 'oh, we all knew couples like that when we were starting out on the gay scene' so perhaps there are such repulsive creatures out there)

Repulsive is the word - whether gay or straight it doesn't matter.

Th whole thing is also an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. It all looks like a formulaic comedy - "Oh we haven't had a sitcom about 2 elderly gays yet (we've had young, unsure etc)". Stereotyping at its worst.

It might be someone's reality but it aint mine - nor do I wanyt it to intrude into mine either. I' reiterate my earlier comment - beware anything that has a "must see" tag to it: quality inversly proportional to marketing hytpe.

Good stuff doesn't need publicity: bad stuff doesn't deserve it - this is the latter.

[ 08. May 2013, 07:51: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
....identification. Although sitcoms aren't realistic, I'd say that, broadly speaking, they only work if the setting is grounded in reality.

I have real trouble identifying with the main characters (though I've heard people comment on other boards 'oh, we all knew couples like that when we were starting out on the gay scene' so perhaps there are such repulsive creatures out there)
Repulsive is the word - whether gay or straight it doesn't matter.

Th whole thing is also an insult to the intelligence of the viewer. It all looks like a formulaic comedy - "Oh we haven't had a sitcom about 2 elderly gays yet (we've had young, unsure etc)". Stereotyping at its worst.

"Round the Horne" had Julian and Sandy, two stereotyped unemployed ex-juveniles played by Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick. They too were gay, but that show was on radio back in the sixties. At times it too was vicious.

The difference was that it was novel and brilliantly scripted by Barry Took and Marty Feldman.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

The difference is that Julian and Sandy were two totally bona omi-palones who you could imagine being good, if somewhat arch, fun to be around. Freddie and Stuart are two whining old geezers who I would avoid no matter what their sexual orientation. They remind me of the old gits played by Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse for some reason, but less funny obviously.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
"Round the Horne" had Julian and Sandy, two stereotyped unemployed ex-juveniles played by Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick. They too were gay, but that show was on radio back in the sixties. At times it too was vicious.

The difference was that it was novel and brilliantly scripted by Barry Took and Marty Feldman.

Like most things popular culture has to offer these days, the theme in 'Vicious' has been recycled more times than London's drinking water.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Surely McKellen and Jacobi aren't so short of cash (or decent job offers) that they need to stoop to this sort of thing? McKellen is usually brilliant and Jacobi was excellent in the Yorkshire-set drama where he played a widower reunited with his teenage sweetheart (the wonderful Anne Reid).. sorry I can't remember the title.

'Vicious' is a cross between Rising Damp (even to the de la Tour appearance) and Are You Being Served. If it was intended to send up the dated humour of these it has failed; if it just failed to recognise that taste, and people's knowledge of real gay people instead of stereotypes, have moved on, then words fail me [Disappointed]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0