So…Only Fools and Horses…

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

…I seem to recall that particular series being highly recommended among at least some of the G&T/Noise to Signal regulars. So when I saw a DVD set purporting to contain “the complete series 1-3”, I grabbed it right off the library shelf. Score! At least, I think so. Is there anything I ought to know/look for/be aware of going into watching this? Anything else in a similar vein I ought to look for?

I also got a VHS of Are You Being Served?, ‘cos old-school comedy as it is, it’s pretty good old-school comedy. I got a couple of Doctor Who novels as well, The Deadstone Memorial (with the Eighth Doctor, who between this, Time Zero and The Book of the Still I’m beginning to really like) and an adventure with the Third Doctor called The Suns of Caresh. I also got what is quite possibly my favorite book ever, Terry Pratchett’s Night Watch. But that’s neither here nor there.

Topic

[mick]

Only Fools and Horses featured the first know TV usage of ‘Twonk’
Which you would all know if the Wiki was up ;)

[Tanya Jones]

Only Fools and Horses is pretty good for he first three series at least, but it’s a shame that it just went on far too long.

[Tarka Dal]

Pretty Good! PRETTY GOOD!

*Head explodes*

As you’ve probably twigged I’m a little suprised by the apathy. Personally I consider OFAH to be one the greatest TV shows of all-time. It’s pretty much unparalled in terms of sitcom. I’d heartily agree that they took it too far but I’d draw a very bold line between the Xmas specials from recent years and the three part finale from 1996 which had it sign out in perfect style at it’s absolute zenith.

Throughout the run of the show even the weakest episodes would feature a memorable gag which would blow holes through the majority of it’s peers. Similarly just consider how much the show covered during it’s run up to that original ending. For starters, the death and replacement of Lennard Pearce could have been a disaster but Buster Merryfield more than made the elder generation role his own and is arguably the more iconic “Elder-Trotter” figure. We witnessed Rodney go through basically every stage of adult life, both the leads get married. The essential dynamic of the show shifted with the introductions of Cassandra, Racquel and later Damien. Also the dramatic edge to to the show whilst mirrored in a number of sitcoms (Dwarf included) has seldom been replicated as well. The scenes where Cass has had a miscarraige switch from comedy to heartbreaking drama and then back to comedy with remarkable grace.

OFAH is effectively part of the national identity deservedly up there with the likes of Benny Hill, Dad’s Army and Morecambe & Wise. That said It’s always been a show that I couldn’t see travelling very well. A lot of the humour seems to stem from identifiably British traits as opposed to universal ones.

[Tanya Jones]

Hmm. OFAH undeniably has many fans, but I think that’s due to a combination of good characterization, excellent performances, and an unusually long run. It’s interesting that the plus points you cite are mainly character-based and dramatic, and I’ve certainly felt that OFAH is a good comedy drama, rather than good sitcom. For me, sitcom should have a lot of jokes per episode which bear re-watching; a sterling example of this is Fawlty Towers, which I can watch over and over again, laughing just as hard each time. OFAH doesn’t have that gag rate, because John Sullivan was too busy on the character development and memorable set pieces. There’s some great moments in OFAH, but it’s not actually consistent enough for me to think it any better than ‘pretty good’. Popularity with the public isn’t really an indicator of consistent quality; rather, it’s an indicator that a particular character strikes a chord with a large amount of people, and Del Boy certainly managed that.

[Tarka Dal]

I’d agree with some of that and disagree with other bits. I believe the secret of great comedy IS great characterisation. Perhaps it’s a personally thing but a joke based on a character I can find infinetly re-watchable whereas conversely the jokes in Fawlty Towers have now lost a lot of appeal. A case of laughing with rather than laughing at.

I’d also argue that in the case of OFAH the longevity was as a result of public popularity which itself was a result of consistent quality. I’d agree Del Boy struck a chord but this alone would be enough to consistently bring in viewers what did that was the fact that character guarenteed laughs from the way he approached and dealt with life.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

Anyway…I just watched the first series of Only Fools and Horses. I like it. There’s some good writing in it, and the characterization is enjoyable; I also noted how the show succesfully incorporated more dramatic moments into a basically comic structure, at least in the first series.

>Only Fools and Horses featured the first know TV usage of ?Twonk?
Which you would all know if the Wiki was up ;)

And in the first episode! But only once so far that I’ve noticed.

Ultra Mega Edit: Has anyone else read any of the Doctor Who novels either? Or, for that matter, what d’you think of Are You Being Served? I like it, but it was something of an acquired taste, and I can see why other people might not be interested much in it.

[John Hoare]

I really like Are You Being Served? a lot (“You’ve all done very well!”), although it’s not the best Croft sitcom. (Which, for my money, is ‘Allo ‘Allo! – even over stuff like Dad’s Army.)

Perhaps it?s a personally thing but a joke based on a character I can find infinetly re-watchable whereas conversely the jokes in Fawlty Towers have now lost a lot of appeal.

I don’t really understand this, as most of the jokes in Fawlty Towers *are* based on character!

I’m with Tanya on this one (surprisingly) – I don’t think OFAH is consistently funny enough. It’s good stuff, but there’s a hell of a lot I’d rate above it. This is a personal thing, though – for me, the best sitcoms are laugh after laugh after laugh – and do the character stuff at the same time. (The second half of the first series of Joking Apart I find far better than the first half, for precisely this reason). But other people respond to different things, which is fine.

Actually, I tend to have the same problem with a lot of John Sullivan’s work – Citizen Smith springs to mind. A great idea, a great cast, wonderfully produced… but not consistently funny enough for me to finish watching the DVD.

[Tarka Dal]

Well again I suppose it all comes down to personal taste. I find the gag rate in OFAH to be as high as anything but then perhaps it’s because I’m just chuckling away at tiny bits of characterisation that aren’t actually scripted gags?

I’m a huge fan of John Sullivan’s work, I haven’t seen Citizen Smith since I was child but both that and Just Good Friends I remember fondly. All three, (including Fools) I’d class as Sitcoms with standard gag rates as opposed to Roger, Roger which felt deliberately darker and more serious in tone.

Whilst we’re on about a high gag rate is Not Going Out after somekind of record? Every other line seems to be a punchline.

*waits for some smart arse to pop-up and point out the gags need to be funny*

Re: Fawlty Towers/character. I suppose you’re right most gags do stem from character (that of Fawlty). The differentiation I was trying to highlight was between the farce of Towers humour and the humanity of characterisation is Fools. Laughing in a kind of understanding manner to Del or Rodney’s reactions whereas only laughing AT the nervous breakdown of a man smacking his car with a branch, which leads back to the last point Tanya made about OFAH. In no way am I out to suggest Fawlty Towers isn’t a great comedy. It’s legendary, it’s just I don’t think it offers as much outside the bigger gags.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

Something else I’ve concluded about Only Fools and Horses: Nicholas Lyndhurst is remarkably easy on the eyes. Not that, in comparison to the rest of the cast, this is a hugely remarkable achievement…

[John Hoare]

I find the Fawlty/branch/car scene unrepresentative of Fawlty – just as the Del Boy/bar scene is unrepresentative of OFAH. The really interesting character comedy in Fawlty comes from his class snobbery, sexual repression, and the like.

Although, y’know, him pulling a funny face when the rat escapes is funny as well.

Anyway, it’s all a taste thing. And I do enjoy OFAH when it’s on, especially earlier ones. It’s just that it doesn’t really resonate with me that much.

[mick]

> Nicholas Lyndhurst is remarkably easy on the eyes.

Yes, In the same way myself and Cappsy naked mud wresting with Ian as referee would be easy on the eyes.

[Tarka Dal]

John, you’re quite right there obviously is a load of character humour present in Fawlty Towers, for whatever reason it hasn’t lodged as deeply in my memories as the characters in OFAH.

[Ben Kirkham]

I have quite a broad taste in comedy. I love the jet black comedy of Nighty Night and Human Remains, and completely adore all of Blackadder (the best sitcom ever with RD second IMHO). But madcap stuff like Monty Python is also gold.

It’s all really a matter of taste. I know somebody that claims to hate comedy. He is either a) lying or b) mentally absent.

“DON’T VOTE SAXON!”

[Author]

Replies