We’re now four episodes into the new, streamlined version of
last year’s hugely trumpeted, all-star casted 10 O’clock Live so now is probably a good time to see what’s been good
so far this series and what could do with some improvement.
The Pluses
1. Streaming down to
45 minutes worth of content
The first series weighed in at only 10 minutes longer per
episode than this series but the slim down has done 10 O’clock Live the world of good for three main reasons.
Firstly, the over-reliance on David Mitchell for both
serious interviewing and humour has been reduced now that he anchors just the
one leg of the show, instead of his previous three. Although this meant cutting
the usually amusing “Listen to Mitchell” segment, it does allow a stronger
debate with the experts section and means he can contribute to the roundtable
discussions more (more on that later).
Secondly, as a result of the loss of “Listen to Mitchell”, Charlie
Brooker now has the sole ‘ranty’ section of the show and with good reason to as
it’s what he does best. Dropping his to-camera,
fast-as-a-bullet-but-still-eloquent rants from two to one an episode has allowed
him to refine his piece and the show is not overloaded with to-camera
shouty-ness.
And thirdly, 55 minutes of live, largely unscripted
television is a difficult enough task for long running programmes, let alone a
new kid on the block. As such, the show felt overextended with not enough
content spread too thin. Whilst the reduction in running time has meant certain
positive elements of the programme have had to be cut, it is to the benefit of
the show as a whole.
2. Increased
frequency of group, roundtable discussions
Along with the reduction in running time, using a roundtable
discussion (technically a square-table discussion I guess) to bookend each
segment of the show before the ad breaks has given greater structure to 10 O’clock Live, helped bridge the gap
between the political and the humour aspects of the show and given the
presenters greater scope to showcase some rapport and eliminate any lingering
clunkiness from the first series.
3. Better usage of Lauren
Laverne
As the only presenter with real experience of how live
broadcasting works, Laverne was given the role of leading the show in the first
series of 10 O’clock Live and she
has, rightly, been given even more responsibility this time around, being
charged with leading the discussions and steering the show in the right
directions.
Whilst her pieces aren’t quite as humorous as the other
presenters (naturally, as she is a broadcaster by trade rather than a humorist)
and she sometimes struggles to keep the discussions on the straight and narrow
(in fairness, God’s own job with three men trying to out-humour each other),
her role in the programme is the most important of all the presenters and she
has risen to the challenge.
The Minuses
1. Questionable usage
of Carr
The first series of 10
O’clock Live had a clear role for Carr which consisted of; get the show off
to a flier with some near-the-knuckle topical jokes at the start and interview
someone newsworthy that week (a skill which he proved surprisingly adept at).
Towards the end of the first series, a strange, weekly attempt at putting Carr
into a sketch came into place, an element of the show I was hoping would be
quietly dropped seeing as Carr is a comedian and presenter, not a comic actor.
However, this second series, his interviews have been
abandoned to be replaced solely by these weekly sketches which, if last night’s
was anything to go by, are getting worse; even worse than that ill-conceived
Vladimir Putin impersonation in the first episode, somehow.
Better use of Carr’s talents should be made. The ambiguity of
his political leanings should be made better use of in an otherwise very
left-leaning presenter line-up.
2. Equalling out the
humour/politics ratio
Perhaps the biggest challenge still facing the show is
consistently keeping a balance between the humour and political aspects that
the programme wants to get across.
By vacating the Thursday 10pm slot, Channel 4 has rightly
pulled 10 O’clock Live out of the
firing line of juggernaut Question Time and
so might be able to gain some politically-minded viewers from the rescheduling.
However, segments like the Putin sketch feel a bit too
lightweight (almost patronising) for a show aiming to attract a more political
audience, if indeed, that is the aim.
3. Continued issues
around the live aspect of the show
Whilst this is less of an issue than in the first series, where
the presenters lack of experience on live TV (despite their Alternative Election Night together) was
clear to see, there still remains some slip-ups, whether it be with slight
fluffing of lines or presenters appearing in the background of someone else’s
piece.
But this might be something of a harsh criticism as it is
live TV and there never will be a 100% gaffe-free live TV show as we’re all
humans and we make mistakes. That’s why they put editing suites at TV studios…
No comments:
Post a Comment