Pity the same can't be said of modern comedy.
 

---

Aaron
BSG Forums & DVDs Editor
(Half man, half Internet, half TV.)
(Loyal follower of The Magical Aura of Laura.)

 

Fair play to you, man. God loves a reactionary comedy fan!
 

Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 5 2008, 1:19 PM BST

Fawlty Towers was a good period piece, in it's day it worked very well and kind of captured the feel of 1970s television.

It's enduring popularity is more based on a kind of 'comedy of comfort'. Fawlty towers fans' tend to be the kind of people that can recite every line, describe every nuance of the show. This is humour by memory, the fan will watch an episode and be waiting for the line that makes them laugh. In other words, the laugh will be memory based rather than based on a consideration of the material that they are currently watching.

this process is one that tends to strengthen after more and more views. So by this day, we have a piece of work that is accepted as a classic - and as such, in the eyes of many, above serious critique. However, there is an argument to be made that Fawlty towers is, by modern standards, incredibly outdated and totally irrelevant to modern television comedy...

Static characters? CHECK.
1-Dimensional Stereotypes? CHECK.
No deviation from a cut and paste set-scenario? CHECK.
Theatrical, rahter than screen, acting? CHECK.

I can accept the view that Fawlty Towers is a great example of 1970s television, and does provide comfort and familiarity to a lot of its fans - but this does not change the idea that it is almost entirely irrelevant to modern comedy, both in its writing and performance.

View original

This is over analytical. The fact is that we LIKE uncomplicated characters, plots and sets in our sitcoms. Multi-faceted personalities agonising over abstruse, murky corners of the human condition are fine but belong in other genres.

Fawlty Towers if remade, I make the point seriously, would be a hit all over again now or in another forty years time precisely because it ticks most of the boxes necessary to make us chuckle. I think it goes without saying that the Cleese/Scales/Sachs cast was a huge plus but it would take a significant effort at finding someone truly unfunny - as has been successfully achieved in many modern 'sitcoms' - to torpedo the concept.
 

By the way, did you know that Manuel was said to be from Naples, Italy, when the show was shown in Spain?
 

Hmmm.... 'he's from Naples'...


Doesn't quite have the same ring, somehow...
 

'...we LIKE uncomplicated characters'

Do we? I certainly don't. I appreciate that there is a segment of the demogrpahic that does - and I'm not knocking them, it's their choice.

But television comedy has moved on, the modern viewer has a far more televisually sophisticated appreciation of comedy. and again, that is not to say that Fawlty Towers can't still be considered funny; but it does require being put into context of what it is - 1970s television, made for the 1970s television audience.
 

I agree with some of what you say about Fawlty Towers - the "farce" style theatrical acting in places is very different to the hyper-realistic style of The Office etc. which we are used to now.

But I don't consider Basil Fawlty to be uncomplicated or one-dimensional. His views on class, his hangups about sex, his relationship with his wife, the way he treats his staff, his views on politics, his woeful mixture of aggression and cowardice, and above all his Little Englander sense of desperation, are beautifully written and realised. I can think of very few characters in comedy who have been written as well since then - my personal list would include Mark from Peep Show, David Brent, and Alan Partridge.

(I wouldn't want it brought back though, unless someone could find a "lost" episode from the original series.)
 

---

"'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'"

 

Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 5 2008, 1:19 PM BST

Fawlty Towers was a good period piece, in it's day it worked very well and kind of captured the feel of 1970s television.

It's enduring popularity is more based on a kind of 'comedy of comfort'. Fawlty towers fans' tend to be the kind of people that can recite every line, describe every nuance of the show. This is humour by memory, the fan will watch an episode and be waiting for the line that makes them laugh. In other words, the laugh will be memory based rather than based on a consideration of the material that they are currently watching.

this process is one that tends to strengthen after more and more views. So by this day, we have a piece of work that is accepted as a classic - and as such, in the eyes of many, above serious critique. However, there is an argument to be made that Fawlty towers is, by modern standards, incredibly outdated and totally irrelevant to modern television comedy...

Static characters? CHECK.
1-Dimensional Stereotypes? CHECK.
No deviation from a cut and paste set-scenario? CHECK.
Theatrical, rahter than screen, acting? CHECK.

I can accept the view that Fawlty Towers is a great example of 1970s television, and does provide comfort and familiarity to a lot of its fans - but this does not change the idea that it is almost entirely irrelevant to modern comedy, both in its writing and performance.

View original

Blimey!
So it wasn't funny then?
Actually I currently couldn't cite any lines therefore I intend to learn some so I can find it even funnier next time I watch it.

Static characters? I'm sure there was plenty of movement when I watched it.
1-Dimensional Stereotypes? So Basil's obvious character changes (split personality) was a figbox (anyone remember Hope and Keen?) of my imigination?
No deviation from a cut and paste set-scenario? I never saw any computers!
Theatrical, rather than screen, acting? You mean that the acting was dramatic instead of todays nonsensical?
 

Griff, you make a good point there about Basil - fair enough.

Garyd - nonsensical rant.
 

Quote: shaggy292 @ May 3 2008, 11:03 PM BST

Ever Decreasing Circles. Just....nice.

View original

Ever Decreasing Circles is one of the best sitcoms ever made but it ended so perfectly that I wouldn't want another series of it. It wouldn't work if they weren't living in the close anymore.

One of my votes is for Dear John....I'll have to think about the other one
 

---

Never trust a man who can't grow a decent beard
 

Quote: manchester's trendy chorlton @ May 5 2008, 1:19 PM BST

It's enduring popularity is more based on a kind of 'comedy of comfort'. Fawlty towers fans' tend to be the kind of people that can recite every line, describe every nuance of the show. This is humour by memory, the fan will watch an episode and be waiting for the line that makes them laugh. In other words, the laugh will be memory based rather than based on a consideration of the material that they are currently watching.

View original

Aren't all sitcoms pretty much "comedy of comfort"? Name one that isn't?
 

Girls On Top Cheers Ritchie Ritch & Catflap The New Statesman
 

---

"I HAVE PUT MY GENIUS INTO MY LIFE. WHEREAS ALL I HAVE PUT INTO MY WORK IS MY TALENT"
 

Quote:

Aren't all sitcoms pretty much "comedy of comfort"? Name one that isn't?

I think comfort was pretty thin on the ground in Nighty Night...
 

---

"'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'"

 

I disagree. It was pantomime villainy that bore little relation to reality.
 

And arguably little relation to the 'com' part of 'sitcom'.
 

---

Aaron
BSG Forums & DVDs Editor
(Half man, half Internet, half TV.)
(Loyal follower of The Magical Aura of Laura.)