Welcome to a new column called Channel Surfing, in which I sporadically look at current TV shows and talk about them. These are not ones that I care to write weekly recaps for and are instead reflections either on the episode, the series, or particular moments. This will hopefully help to share personal opinions as well as discover entertainment on the outer pantheon that I feel is well worth checking out, or in some cases, shows that are weird enough to talk about, but should never be seen.
Last time I reviewed a Comedy Central show, it was for Inside Amy Schumer. I received feedback that said that comedy shouldn't be dissected to the degree that I did. In reality, it may have had a lot to do with not finding Schumer particularly interesting before coming across the show. Still, it was an interesting criticism, and one that I thought of heavily when approaching the latest series Drunk History.
I am aware of its origins on the comedy website Funny or Die. I was aware of its premise. Before I continue, I would like to state ahead of time that any dissection I make will be drawn from the fact that I don't find alcoholism to be all that funny. That may be too broad of a statement. There have always been funny alcoholics and continues to be. However, the gateway to me liking or hating an inebriated performance comes down to this: does it benefit the character? Does the humor come from him stumbling because he's drunk, or does it symbolize a radical shift to the story in a clever way?
With this said, I have never seen the Funny or Die version of Drunk History. However, I have stated numerous times that I find some odd fascination with the Comedy Central programming line-ups this year. It seems like they have given anyone who has told a joke a show. Some I liked (Nathan For You), some I loathed (The Ben Show), and even some with potential (The Jeselnik Offensive). So where does Drunk History fall in the Comedy Central class of 2013?
 |
| Left to right: Adam Scott and Will Forte |
To date, it may be the most loathsome show I have chosen to review in the Channel Surfing series. `The choice to turn this random man (Allan McLeod) and force him to recount history while footage reenacted by famous comedians left me wondering where the punchline was. Besides a few slurs, there didn't feel like a clear gimmick. Occasionally McLeod would screw up a date or say something weird, but it was essentially listening to a drunk man recount history over footage that frankly lost its muster simply because they were miming McLeod's words.
I'm not saying that the very idea of historical alterations doesn't have a world of potential. Comedian Paul F. Tompkins performs shows and releases it as the Dead Authors Podcast. It is a brilliant, hilarious little show in which Tompkins takes on the guise of H.G. Wells and interviews random authors who perform as varying authors in history. While it allows room for making fun of their simple-minded ways, it manages to bring the history to life by being sincere to the characters and their works. It is simultaneously some form of education mixed with some form of entertainment.
That is what I feel like Drunk History is missing. In their debut episode "Washington D.C.," they tackle stories like Watergate, John Wilkes Booth's brother, and when Elvis Presley met the president. All of these parts were played by comedians such as Jack Black, Adam Scott, Bob Odenkirk, and Nathan Fielder. In their own regards, they are all funny people. Allow them to perform, and you may have given this show's 22 minute run time way more potential.
I am not entirely sure how this show will work week to week. Will there be a new narrator next time? Maybe it is just that even as a drunk person, McLeod just couldn't bring history to life. I am all fine with comedians wanting to do more low brow shtick, but this seems lower than that, also more expensive. It seems like a waste to dress people up only to have them mug for the camera without speaking dialogue. Admittedly, they are great mimes, but recounting history just lacks muster if very little is changed. Not even subtle humor seems to be added in.
I don't really feel like the show has a sincere gimmick to last it longer than brief online videos. There is even an idea present in the show where they interview people at bars about historical figures. That is the closest that the show comes to a realization of potential. Listening to a random person talk for 30 seconds about how Lincoln was the 16th greatest president is the hilarious slip-up that you keep waiting for from the actual paid performers to do.
Maybe it just feels that way because there is little that talking with slurs and a shot memory can sustain in a narrative lasting more a half hour. These are all just segments, and it doesn't feel special, even if it slams everyone into one room to do it. If you want to see comedians doing bizarre stuff in edgy ways, just check out Comedy Bang! Bang! on IFC. At least there they give the performers more to do than have to deal with a narrator whose biggest laughs come from vomiting and falling over. By performing inaction, it sort of ruins any muster that the show could have had.
Maybe the Funny or Die videos are better examples of what Drunk History wants to do. I am aware of shows translating to networks very poorly. Doug Benson's Benson Interruption is a slightly more successful take on this subject. He took a live show of interrupting his guests and turned it into a very brief series that unfortunately got interrupted by commercials and ruined the flow of a half hour version of a regularly hour plus live show. Somewhere in the fray, most of these shows have to be tampered for ads or just content. While Drunk History doesn't seem like it has much to lose, I think beefing up its run time doesn't help.
I sort of wish that Comedy Central would adopt that Adult Swim model for some of its shows. Many of their programs are already segmented. Still, Adult Swim has a huge line-up of shows like Robot Chicken and Children's Hospital that are 15 minutes long. They are hilarious at that length, but double it, and you might have just signed their death warrant. I am not telling comedy how to do their job, as it is subjective, but if you want to sustain a show in which slurring and falling over is your prime goal, at least don't make it filler for 30 minutes at a time.
I may visit the online version just because I don't want to believe that Drunk History is this popular based on the episode. It is just awful and has nothing to offer in terms of comedy. It may have a great cast of performers, but I keep wanting to say that they are poorly used. Based on "Washington D.C.," I stand by that statement. I couldn't wait for the episode to end and this piece to get written, because watching drunk people fall over is depressing if there is nothing that it is adding to the overall story.
Maybe it just feels that way because there is little that talking with slurs and a shot memory can sustain in a narrative lasting more a half hour. These are all just segments, and it doesn't feel special, even if it slams everyone into one room to do it. If you want to see comedians doing bizarre stuff in edgy ways, just check out Comedy Bang! Bang! on IFC. At least there they give the performers more to do than have to deal with a narrator whose biggest laughs come from vomiting and falling over. By performing inaction, it sort of ruins any muster that the show could have had.
Maybe the Funny or Die videos are better examples of what Drunk History wants to do. I am aware of shows translating to networks very poorly. Doug Benson's Benson Interruption is a slightly more successful take on this subject. He took a live show of interrupting his guests and turned it into a very brief series that unfortunately got interrupted by commercials and ruined the flow of a half hour version of a regularly hour plus live show. Somewhere in the fray, most of these shows have to be tampered for ads or just content. While Drunk History doesn't seem like it has much to lose, I think beefing up its run time doesn't help.
I sort of wish that Comedy Central would adopt that Adult Swim model for some of its shows. Many of their programs are already segmented. Still, Adult Swim has a huge line-up of shows like Robot Chicken and Children's Hospital that are 15 minutes long. They are hilarious at that length, but double it, and you might have just signed their death warrant. I am not telling comedy how to do their job, as it is subjective, but if you want to sustain a show in which slurring and falling over is your prime goal, at least don't make it filler for 30 minutes at a time.
I may visit the online version just because I don't want to believe that Drunk History is this popular based on the episode. It is just awful and has nothing to offer in terms of comedy. It may have a great cast of performers, but I keep wanting to say that they are poorly used. Based on "Washington D.C.," I stand by that statement. I couldn't wait for the episode to end and this piece to get written, because watching drunk people fall over is depressing if there is nothing that it is adding to the overall story.
Comments
Post a Comment