Lab Rats: A Snail
And so, slightly later than planned due to our relaunch, we finally start our episode-by-episode reviews of Lab Rats - the new BBC TWO audience sitcom by Chris Addison and Carl Cooper. And it has to be said that I was going into this first episode with high hopes. Because let's get one thing straight - I love audience sitcom. I love all sorts of things, but I have a special place in my heart for audience sitcom. At its best, no other kind of show makes me laugh as long, as hard, or as much. So hooray for the fact that commissioners finally seem to be realising again that they're a viable format beyond a normal domestic setting.
Lab Rats has a lovely premise; set in the the research department at St. Dunstan's University, the laboratory hires itself out to solve other people's problems, for money. Much like Fawlty Towers - although God-knows how much trouble that comparison is going to get me into - this gives the show endless opportunities for guest characters of the week, without struggling to find reasons for them to be there. They can just walk in, give the problem, and BANG - the plot is off and running. One thing I perhaps wonder is whether this first episode sets out the premise clearly enough - it's not quite as obvious as "three priests on an island", and could have perhaps done with a bit more setup within the show.
A word has to be said about the lovely opening titles for the show, created by Triffic - the animation for Dr. Beenyman being especially good, and the character design for Cara being very cute. The only unfortunate aspect is that the caricatures of Minty and the Dean are absolutely rubbish compared to the Lab Rats themselves. Nice end credits too, which remind me of a cartoon's- not coincidentally, I suspect. Sadly, I'm not so positive about the little animated bumpers that act as scene transitions - they're meant to show the passage of time, but they just break up the flow of the programme, take you out of the show, and just aren't needed.
First impressions of the characters are rather good. With five main characters, one minor character, and one major guest star, establishing them all in the first episode is a near-impossible task, and Professor MyCroft, played by the always-excellent Geoffrey McGivern, felt a bit like a lost character this week - the potential is there, but he didn't get an awful lot amusing to do. Brian, played by Dan Tetsell, came off better - his plotline with the Dean about his name was pretty weak, but there was some really nice scenes showing the interplay with between and Alex. Coming off best perhaps are the Dean (Selina Cadell), and Jo Enright as Cara, both of who put in excellent performances - the main scene between the Dean and Alex almost felt like the the heart of the show. Chris Addison as Alex Beenyman at first comes across as slightly too muted for the role, even with the role of the normal person amidst the chaos, but on a rewatch I found myself warming to him more, with his delivery of "a big nancy dentist" being especially amusing.
But there are plenty of lovely moments to be had here. My favourite has to be with our guest character of the week, Dr. Kyrtistyges (an excellent performance from Sevan Stephan), who - after a presentation about his cloning problem involving a lot of exceedingly silly quoting of lots of singers and songs (Cara: "Am I the only one getting this?") - leaves the room... to his own "You have been watching..." credit on his presentation screen. But there are bags of others - the Dean calling her chair an "arsehole", a neat visual gag with the Dean hiding her Toblerone in her desk sign, Cara mutilating Downtown into the Jim'll Fix It theme, and the following lovely exchange:
BRIAN: Alright, what's your big plan?
ALEX: I'm going to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
BRIAN: That's from Doctor Who.
ALEX: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
BRIAN: That's from Star Wars. You're running out of ideas.
ALEX: I'm fine for ideas, thank you. Let's just bang these snails in.
BRIAN: That's from The Passion of the Christ.
But we can't ignore it any more. Let's face it - the show hasn't gone down well. Sure, new sitcoms always get negative reviews, and it's important to note that the show has got some positive coverage, even in the national press - but still, there's been an awful lot of negative reaction to the show. For those that seem to object purely because it's an audience sitcom, there's really not much I can say to help you - even if it's under the excuse that the laugh track is loud or intrusive, when it really isn't. For those who have rather snidely remarked that think the show belongs on CBBC - something I've heard rather more than once - it seems an especially silly criticism. What, so adults can't enjoy large performances? And - far worse - large performances are only "good enough" for children, a particularly odious idea?
For those that have actually thought about their criticisms slightly harder, there are problems with the show. I certainly don't agree that there are no laughs to be had - I had plenty. But maybe there are a few too many weak jokes that should have been edited out at draft stage, and - crucially - there was only a couple of absolutely huge laughs in the show for me - the aforementioned "You have been watching" gag, and the snails/Passion joke. Despite the many other lines that raised a laugh - and a proper laugh, at that - It's not quite enough.
But a bigger problem, perhaps, is that the climax of the show doesn't quite work. And the reason it doesn't work isn't because the individual elements aren't all set up, because they are - the chair, the snail, and the fan are all well-established parts of the plot. (Even the aforementioned weak Brian/Dean material does actually matter, as it ends up causing Brian to be locked in the cupboard.) But unfortunately, the pacing is all off. It aspires to Brittas-level chaos - but the show suddenly changes from the same old pace, to being absolutely crazy. You need to ramp up the chaos over the last five or so minutes of the show - not throw the "let's make everything go mad" switch. As it is, lots of careful setup with the plot feels wasted, as it never has the impact it should do.
Still, despite those problems, there is a hell of a lot to enjoy here. No, it's not the best sitcom in the world - but it's a damn sight better than a lot of recent sitcoms, and it is also an immensely likable show - with some good laughs, and a lovely atmosphere. And unlike many new comedy shows that just manage to bore me within five minutes (Saxondale, anyone?), it kept my interest throughout. I warmed to the show within the first minute, which takes some doing for me these days, because I'm a miserable bastard when it comes to new comedy. Moreover, there's the potential for this show to become very good indeed. The interplay between the characters - the three Dean/Alex, Brian/Alex, and Cara/Alex pairings - are great, although it's notable that the best pairings involve the lead character - completely appropriate for a first episode, but hopefully future episodes will have more varied combinations.
For a first episode, despite the criticisms, it's doing more than enough to keep me interested. I laughed. I had fun. I enjoyed it. And it has massive potential for the future. If the climax had been done correctly, I'd be sorely tempted to give it four stars. As it is, it's a still commendable:
About this entry
- By John Hoare
- Posted on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 5:22 am
- Categorised in TV, Review
- Tagged with comedy, lab rats
- 20 comments
Up. Yours.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
reply / #
I thought you’d pick up on that!
Unfortunately though, it’s true, although perhaps I should have clarified my position a bit more if I was going to bring specific shows into it. I’m not saying Saxondale is a bad show - I’d need to watch more of it to make that judgement. What I’m saying is that it just didn’t grab me in the slightest. Lab Rats - whatever its faults - grabbed me and refused to let go within the first minute.
By John Hoare
July 29, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
reply / #
Yeah, I’m mainly beating you up about it because…I kind of have to. It’s remarkable, though, how different you and I are in that respect. (I haven’t seen Lab Rats, I should probably admit right here, so this is more of a general statement.) The mumbly sort of naturalistic Coogan—combined with (what I felt was) a very real and effective anger management issue roped me in immediately.
Granted, it wasn’t the comedy that did it. Saxondale is loaded with good lines and great moments, but those are more the trimmings, as far as I’m concerned, and, yeah, anyone watching Saxondale because they’d like to laugh their head off is going to be pretty disappointed.
Honestly, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more helpful to take shows like The Office and Saxondale—in which the comedy is playing a secondary role—and things like that and assign a new term to cover them. It’d certainly keep people from looking at more gag-friendly audience sitcoms and dismissing them as old-fashioned if we had somewhere else to stash these obviously very different new ones.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
reply / #
Lab Rats? Never heard of it. Reading your review after spotting that picture up there, I am a bit disappointed that it isn’t a cartoon sitcom. Or is it?
By Marleen
July 29, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
reply / #
> Honestly, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more helpful to take shows like The Office and Saxondale—in which the comedy is playing a secondary role—and things like that and assign a new term to cover them.
They used to be called ‘comedy dramas’, but then some journalists came in their pants over The Office and decided it rewrote the rules for TV comedy for EVAR and EVAR.
By Tanya Jones
July 29, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
reply / #
> in which the comedy is playing a secondary role
I completely disagree with this. And loudly.
The shows may use different techniques, but you can’t tell me that ‘getting laughs’ is a lower priority to Saxondale or The Office than, I dunno, the drama or the satire. Every scene of both shows work forcefully towards getting the comedy up-front and working. That they use a few drama techniques doesn’t change anything - hell, Friends uses the tropes of drama (well, soap) constantly. At least as often as The Office goes for pathos.
By Andrew
July 29, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
reply / #
Can’t speak for Friends—as I hate it—but I’m firmly convinced that “getting laughs” is less important to The Office than it is to, for example, The IT Crowd, at least in terms of the need to get them frequently. The Office—as a whole—does want laughs. The Office broken down minute-by-minute, or even scene-by-scene, does not necessarily want laughs.
There are plenty intentionally laughless scenes in that show. They serve a different purpose, concurrent to, but separate from, the comedy. You can find an exceptional scene or two in other shows (you always can, just as you can find out and out jokey bits in The Office) but I think it’s obvious that the laugh-to-line ratio isn’t nearly as important to some shows as it is to others.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
reply / #
> There are plenty intentionally laughless scenes in that show.
But the more laughless they are the more I laugh. Isn’t that how The Office works? You laugh at the whitespace in between the jokes…?
By Marleen
July 29, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
reply / #
Well, fair enough…I should have been more specific as, with that show, there are different KINDS of laughless scenes. I think you’re referring to the scenes in which mundane interaction or a forced geniality becomes a kind of comic moment. Which is correct.
I’m referring more to, oh, a scene of Brent sitting with his eyes closed at his desk. Or Tim taking off his microphone to speak to Dawn in the conference room. Brent eating alone in a food-court. Things like that.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
reply / #
> Brent eating alone in a food-court.
Sad as it may be… these moments make me laugh. Maybe it’s a silent laugh, but it’s definitely comedy…. tragicomedy.
By Marleen
July 29, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
reply / #
I do find moments like that funny…but I don’t actually laugh. (I don’t think there’s any “correct” response anyway, Marleen, don’t feel bad.) I just get kind of an unsettled feeling inside. It’s a kind of feeling The Office conjured up really well. Saxondale less so, but still very well. And, believe it or not, The Venture Bros. gets it out of me, too, at times.
I kind of prefer that, on the whole. I like laughing and then feeling guilty about it, or not being able to laugh even though I know I should. It’s a more complicated reaction—though, yes, I hasten to add so I don’t get attacked—not necessarily any “better” or “worse” than straight comedy.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
reply / #
> The Office broken down minute-by-minute, or even scene-by-scene, does not necessarily want laughs.
I think this a statement that comes from the very summit of insanity, frankly!
Also: Tim taking off his microphone has absolutely parallels in everything from Friends to Only Fools.
By Andrew
July 29, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
reply / #
Insanity! Slightly harsh, I’d say, considering it’s a disagreement here in which both parties have their reasons for feeling the way they do.
If it’s evidence of anything it’s that you and I can look at the same scene and find two very different reasons to enjoy it. Nothing that really can be argued definitively in either direction, and nothing that renders the opposing viewpoint invalid, either.
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
reply / #
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many minute-long sections in The Office and Saxondale that don’t try for a laugh at some point. But if there is the odd one…that’s still true of ‘regular’ sitcom.
What I mean is - comparing to The IT Crowd is kinda disingenuous when the genre is such a broad church and that show is deliberately playing ‘silly’. The drama in the later Only Fools eps is every bit as significant as that in The Office, for example. There’s a perpetual quest for laughs/amused reactions in the bulk of each show. If that’s not the priority, what is? What is the comedy secondary to? They may contain a bit of social commentary or drama, but the balance is still heavily into creating comic reactions, isn’t it?
By Andrew
July 29, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
reply / #
>the balance is still heavily into creating comic reactions, isn’t it?
Well, as I say, it’s a difference of opinion on the part of the viewer. Not sure why we can’t just agree to disagree on this one…
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
reply / #
> Not sure why we can’t just agree to disagree on this one…
Oh, okay. Sorry. And of course we can.
Was just curious as to what you thought the comedy was coming second TO?
By Andrew
July 29, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
reply / #
Well, to be perfectly honest, I’d say the comedy comes second to developing fully-rounded characters and keeping them consistant. I’d never say that more “traditional” sitcoms don’t do this as well, but it seems—to me, at least—that the balance is swapped. One would rather go for the laugh, one would rather stay grounded in its own reality.
All of which is a very slippery slope (Isn’t Ted true to its own reality? Or even Family Guy?) but I think you at least know what I’m getting at. It’s always down to the viewer, and what the viewer is relating to most strongly. (I watch I’m Alan Partridge and I lap up the tragedy. Other people watch it for the hilarious conversations. Neither side is wrong, but the approach dictates the result for either particular viewer.)
By Phil Reed
July 29, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
reply / #
> One would rather go for the laugh, one would rather stay grounded in its own reality.
Ah, okay, that’s interesting. I get what you’re going for.
By Andrew
July 29, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
reply / #
Rather late with this having been on holiday/family duty in Canada. I thought it was a terrible opening episode, bad enough to put me off watching any more. I, like John, have a fondness for “old-fashioned” audience sitcoms and had high hopes for this but I watched it with a disgust that’s become familiar with watching television - that of watching something which felt half-baked and unfinished.
There was one good, funny moment: the bit with the lightbulb. Other than that it was wasted opportunities and that’s what vexed me most of all. I could *see* the bits that *should* have been good but the performers or the writing managed to scupper them. Doctor Kyrtistyges, for example, that’s a funny joke if left isolated. But they wouldn’t leave it alone, they spooled it out so much it hurt. And there were lots of bits like that; bits that with a few tweakings in the writing and acting might have been so much better. I wanted to like it because it showed promise and I couldn’t and that pissed me off more than a merely bad sitcom would have.
Did anyone else have a similar reaction to the first episode and then enjoy it in later episodes? I really want to be wrong on this.
By Zagrebo
August 09, 2008 @ 12:46 am
reply / #
The lightbulb bit *is* great. Should have mentioned that in the review, really.
I’d definitely persevere with the show - but then, I really liked it from the first episode, despite the flaws. Why don’t you sample Ep 5 on iPlayer - I think it’s the strongest episode so far. (And DON’T read my upcoming review of it before you watch it, or you’ll ruin it. You’ll see why when you see it.)
By John Hoare
August 09, 2008 @ 1:12 am
reply / #