This week we have Evan Harris MP giving us insights into Daily Mail campaigns and what Gannets do in their nests.
I wonder if Piers Morgan is so agin Stephen Fry because of his definition of countryside on I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue?
Countryside: the murder of Piers Morgan
Somehow we managed to get Stewart Lee on this week.
I say somehow. Basically iszi stuck a recorder in front of him during an interval at a gig and asked him a load of questions. He answered them. She squeeked. I would have been worse.
Now with six nipples and an invisible cock
Well, iszi bought the Sunday Sport as far as I can remember, which lead her to conclude that intellectually I am less interesting than a nipple.
Who’s hotter, Robbie Coltrane or Lulu? Is Iron Man a pervert? How do you survive an airplane crash? And why is iszi staring at so many breasts?
Now with six nipples and an invisible cock
So, let’s do some more catching up:
This is how I described the episode on the Sundays Supplement website:
Is mixing porridge with Alka Seltzer a dangerous activity for kids? Does Helena Bonham-Carter wear trackie bottoms? And what’s all this got to do with the Queen’s chuff. It’s a Saturday Special.
Now with six nipples and an invisible cock
I like Ken Levine. His blog is great and he’s written some amazing sitcoms. One of them is MASH, a sitcom so huge it has had the academic treatment.
Every so often I’ll read an article or term paper or passage in a book that references a MASH episode my partner and I wrote. The piece is most always complimentary; sometimes overly so. But invariably the authors will analyze the episode. They’ll identify the symbolism, how when Hawkeye hangs up his laundry he’s really representing the Anti-Christ, and they’ll find all kinds of mythological parallel, subliminal messages, and odes to other works of literature. They’ll compare Klinger to Jane Austin, find significance in jeep license plate numbers, and detect hidden codes in Radar’s dialogue.
I’d like to be able to shrug my shoulders and say yes, all of that is in there. David and I write on many levels. Our scripts are challenging intellectual puzzles to be solved by only the most advanced sophisticated minds. Thanks for noticing.
I’d like to say that but it’s all bullshit!
Read the whole thing here.
I think textual analysis is a fun tool, but nothing more. I remember writing an essay about how the lighting in Die Hard symbolised the Jungian concept of the shadow self. I didn’t believe a word of it, and had fun taking the piss.
This made me think of some of the imagery I deliberately wrote into a script a few months ago, none of which anyone noticed. They were more interested in the characters being unlikeable and the dialogue stilted.
There’s a lesson in there somewhere.
