By Dan Page.

Back to Life is genius.

The acting, the writing, the cinematography, the up-close and personal sound….everything is simply brilliant.  I am in awe of Daisy Haggard, Laura Solon and the whole cast and crew.

But the thing I like most about Back to Life, and arguably why it works so well, is how it breaks a commonly accepted wisdom around the way main characters tend to act and behave.

You see, Miri Matteson doesn’t make bad decisions.

Most, if not all, sitcom plots revolve around an opportunity arising or a problem occurring (the ‘inciting incident’) which the main character(s) subsequently make a series of questionable (if not downright awful) decisions about in their attempt to gain glory or avoid disaster, along the way reaping the (often negative) consequences of their choices. And it’s usually a bumpy ride, with each character suffering along the way.

Really? Is that true? I’d argue self evidently so.

If in each Only Fools episode Del Boy saw an opportunity to make a quick buck then made a really good decision which resulted in him getting the money, before deciding to put it safely in the bank rather than wasting it on a hare-brained scheme, then by episode 12 he’d be a millionaire and the show would be over.  Equally if any of the characters in Friends stopped telling increasingly bigger lies that spin out of control (arguably the plot of most episodes), then the show wouldn’t have been half as fun.

And these decisions often come about because of the character’s main flaw. The thing that prevents them from ever really reaching their goal. Lister’s laziness means he’ll never become a better person, Fleabag’s selfish anxiety means she’ll always struggle with relationships, and Sheldon’s lack of empathy means he’ll never become as well respected as Einstein.

But in Back to Life, arguably the only bad decision Miri Matteson makes is cutting her fringe badly.  EVERYTHING else she does makes sense in the context of her mission to make sense of her life and the world she finds before her.  Equally Miri doesn’t really have an obvious flaw.  In fact, she’s tremendously likeable, pragmatic and sensible and does a pretty good job of saying and doing sensible things.  

Yet despite all this, Miri Matteson suffers EACH and EVERY episode.  

So why is this? Why does a genuine, well-intentioned, sensible, clear-thinking character suffer? And how do writers Daisy Haggard and Laura Solon pull off this trick?

Four reasons:

1. Every other character (bar one) thinks that Miri is a bad person who does bad things. They’d already made up their mind. So it doesn’t matter what Miri says or does – they simply won’t believe her (even her parents struggle with this).  Which means it doesn’t matter if she is flawed or not – everyone else believes she is.

2. Every other character (bar one), does make bad decisions driven by their flaws.  Her selfish mother can’t stop her affair with Miri’s sex-mad (and now married) ex-boyfriend Dom.  Her obsessive compulsive dad focuses on rituals and rules in order to avoid facing up to reality, naive businessman Nathan can’t even run a fish and chip shop in a seaside town (and hires the most hated woman there to work in it) and best friend Mandy lies to herself and everyone else to deflect from her past.  And the consequences of THEIR actions are affecting everyone else, especially Miri.

3. Within this ‘mad’ world there are two ‘sane’ characters – Miri herself and next door neighbour Billy. By giving us two rational people trying to do sensible things for the right reasons in amongst a town’s worth of flawed fools, the writers generate both difference and heart. The former being the engine room of comedy, the latter of likeability. And both of which combine to give pathos. Crucially though, even though Miri discovers Billy to be an island of solace in a sea of hate, her relationship with him is still complicated and painful.

4. Arguably the biggest reason why Miri suffers every episode is because she did make ONE very bad decision in the past. And it’s the consequences of this decision that constantly (and indeed will forever) spill over into her life. So perhaps Miri is, after all, a classically flawed sitcom character, with all her bad decisions rolled into one.

And yet to argue this last point would, in my opinion, itself be flawed.  

For it’s revealed over time that Miri’s ‘poor’ decision in the past was (spoiler alert) both not of her own making and not in itself a bad decision.  You and I would probably do the same in the situation she faced. To emphasise this, Miri finds herself put under pressure in another situation that results in a similar outcome.  And yet once again, her actions are honest and not ill-willed, but an understandable decision when backed into a corner, as opposed to some inherent flaw-driven reaction that singles her out from anyone else.

So the way I see it, Miri Matteson doesn’t make bad decisions. And in virtually any other sitcom this would be a bad decision. But here it’s…well…genius.

Dan Page is a writer, script-editor and Chief Egg at Why Did The Chicken? where he offers professional script-notes, 1-2-1 mentoring and original, talent led content. Say hello via dan@whydidthechicken.com.

His new show The DesignSpark Podcast explores the comedy past, present and future of some of the hottest topics in tech. Episode 1 launches May 20th on iTunes, Podbean and Spotify.

By Esyllt Sears

She’s fascinated with Greenland. She enjoys teasing animals, banlon, and seeing people running for their lives. She loves throwing garbage out the window, yet she’s extremely dainty.

[Jerry Seinfeld on Elaine, The Pilot, 1993]

Elaine Marie Benes, performed by Julia Louis-Dreyfus has been in my top five comedy characters for the last 21 years but has had the number one spot for the last three. I admire her, I laugh with her and at her, and for a year in my late twenties when I had unjustified confidence, I swear I was her.

I’ve only very recently dipped my toe into comedy writing and performing and I find myself constantly fighting against female stereotypes – mothers, sisters, daughters, tolerators of periods, users of straighteners, lovers of candlelit baths. So, I increasingly look to Julia Louis-Dreyfus and specifically her portrayal of Elaine Benes in Seinfeld to guide me.

As a character, I believe that she paved the way for other great female comedy characters – from the main characters in Sex & the City and Will & Grace to Fleabag in the series of the same name and Sharon in Catastrophe. And I would go as far as to say that apart from Mary Tyler Moore and Lucille Ball, no-one else has done more for women in comedy. But that’s my opinion.

So where do I start? She’s more one of the guys than the guys are. She’s non-maternal – I can recall at least two instances in the series where she recoils at seeing someone else’s baby and when she’s seen socialising with her female friends and they’re talking about children and living out of the city, she seems painfully out of place. She dates someone different in nearly every other episode and is unapologetic about it. One of the most shocking storylines to feature her, a woman, at the time was in The Contest (1992) when, on George being found pleasuring himself by his mother, the three male friends decide to enter a contest to see who can last the longest without doing so, and Elaine joins in. The fact that she’s the second to cave is even more shocking as the men had supposed it would be easier for a woman to abstain.

She is the anti-woman in the face of female stereotypes. So many female characters in comedies up until Seinfeld were of a type – in traditional roles, or as unrealistic caricatures – and a lot of the time, they were merely there as a way of setting up jokes for the men. But Elaine is funny. Funny in her own right.

She’s attractive but not in a glamorous, done-up way. I have several male friends who would do anything just to be in the same building as her. She’s incredibly physical, has shoved most of the male characters in the sitcom at one point or another, her hair is often dishevelled or she’ll walk into a scene picking her teeth and will talk with her mouth full. But she also displays stereotypical female emotions, not least when John F. Kennedy Jnr turns up at her gym. And this only endears you to her more.

Even when the subject of a storyline touches on a female-specific topic, the way Elaine approaches it is so out of line with what would’ve been expected of a woman. In one episode, she says the word “diaphragm” (as in the contraceptive) four times in 40 seconds, in another she admits to faking orgasms. One episode, entitled “The Sponge”, is dedicated entirely to Elaine trying to decide whether a man she’s seeing is sponge worthy.

Out of the four main characters, she seems to be the most career driven. Many of her storylines centre around her work or her ambition to secure a new job or impress her boss at the time. You don’t always necessarily agree with her or like her. She is as complicit in ruining the lives of other people as the men are, she can be selfish and judgemental, but I identify with that as a human being. We all have these traits that others wouldn’t like.

I personally don’t think Julia Louis-Dreyfus set out to be revolutionary, she just enjoys comedy and interpreted this character in the best way possible. It just so happens that she changed the face of comedy, certainly for women, as a result. And I hope one day I get to say thank you to her face to face.

Jerry Seinfeld once said in an interview that Julia (and therefore Elaine) was the key to the success of the show. Elaine wasn’t in the pilot and when she was introduced (following the network’s request for a stronger female presence), the part wasn’t a very big one. In fact, Julia complained that she wasn’t receiving big meaty comedy content and as a result that gradually started to change. The mandate Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David were given was to write her as a guy, but by following that rule, what they did is write a real woman.

If you have yet to discover Elaine and I could recommend just one episode that you must watch, then please go and find The Glasses (1993), today.

Esyllt Sears

@esylltmair

In the first in a series of articles looking at undiscovered or underrated comedy shows and characters, Tom Ratcliffe looks at how ‘Nathan for You’ has elevated the prank show genre beyond its crude beginnings…

When you hear the words comedy prank show you may well, like myself, vomit enthusiastically. This may be due to shuddering memories of shows like Balls of Steel or Trigger Happy TV. Perhaps these words don’t elicit such a strong reaction and you instead fondly remember shows like Da Ali G Show or Almost Royal or Impractical Jokers. Regardless, it seems fair to say that there has never been a definitive, hilarious, truly unique ‘prank’ show that has done for this genre of comedy what Monty Python did for the sketch show or the Office did for the mockumentary.

Nathan for You, as far as I’m concerned, is that show. Since 2013, Canadian comedian Nathan Fielder has fronted the one of a kind American docu-reality comedy television series and despite solid ratings and excellent reviews it’s flown somewhat under the radar, especially this side of the Atlantic. I’ve introduced several friends to it and in terms of description I’ve never got far beyond “you’ll just have to watch it.” Obviously that’s not much use for this post, so I will endeavour to do my best.

The basic premise is that the aforementioned Nathan Fielder uses his business school background to help struggling companies improve sales or brand awareness through alternative marketing strategies and sales methods. For example, the very first episode features Nathan trying to get a frozen yoghurt company noticed by creating a poo-flavoured yoghurt.

That may not sound like a million miles from Balls of Steel, yet the sentiment behind NFY make it so very different. The beauty of the methods they use is that they can only ever work or even exist if the business owners involved are willing to go along with them. It’s never exploitative in the way that public interaction on television often is. There aren’t unsuspecting people being wound up or bullied for a cheap laugh. Those taking part are free at any time to call out the ridiculousness and bring an end to it. Yet, in the case of the poo-flavoured yoghurt, the business owner’s response is initially “are you serious?” shortly followed by (after consumption) “we can give it a shot but it’s not something I would have out here for more than a day.” They settle on a 10-week trial period.

Another differentiator between NFY and your run-of-the-mill public interaction shows is the effort and intricacy behind each and every method. An episode involves a removal company whose owner complains of high staffing costs. Nathan’s original idea is to convince people that moving furniture is a better workout than a gym session, thus ensuring the owner can find staff that are not just free but actually pay him for the privilege of moving houses. That’s a reasonably funny conceit to begin with and, as always, the owner agrees to go along with it. For many shows there wouldn’t be much beyond this reasonably funny conceit. What happens over the next 20 minutes shows why Nathan for You is a million miles away from these other shows; Nathan finds a gym-obsessive to be the poster boy of the workout, has a workout book ghost written (which entered the Amazon best seller list) and convinces news networks across America to feature both book and poster boy on their channels (the poster boy hasn’t read it) before finally arranging a removal workout session with 20 willing participants.

All this madness is devised and hosted by the titular Canadian comedian Nathan Fielder. So little is known about him it’s genuinely refreshing. Throughout countless podcasts, print interviews and chat show appearances he never once drops the awkward, uncomfortable character he plays on the show – to the extent I genuinely don’t know where this character ends and the real Nathan begins. His demeanour is yet another area that pushes NFY away from traditional prank show fodder. Whereas it would be easy to have the joke on the participants (it only ever is when it’s deserved) the punch line is usually on Nathan’s social inadequacies and his uneasy, sometimes tetchy interactions. It’s this combination of bewilderment and pity that causes people to go along with his schemes. Only once in four seasons has he broken character and that was only briefly when a man started (apropos of nothing) to discuss the health benefits of drinking urine. There’s a weird, human touch that runs throughout and it’s an indefinable quality that’s at times much more suited to a light-hearted Louis Theroux documentary than a Comedy Central show.

Occasionally ideas are far too great to be contained in a mere 20-minute episode. The most famous example of this is known as Dumb Starbucks (Google it, you won’t be disappointed); involving an independent coffee shop and ‘parody law’ draws global media attention. A more recent example featured a chat show appearance that aired before the latest season was even on television. Nathan appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live! to promote said series and told an illogical story that involved a fat man’s suit, a wedding, a policeman and a woman’s ashes. Weeks later when episode 4 aired it was revealed that said story had been carefully crafted to be the perfect ‘talk show anecdote’ to help plug the show. Not only that but Nathan had spent $350,000 on plane tickets, cremations and police bribes to make sure his perfect anecdote had actually happened to him (this also warrants a Google).

I waited nearly 18 months for the recent fourth season and it was everything I’d hoped it would be and more. Whilst watching it I realised that beyond the laughs and the insanity, what I love most about Nathan for You is that it’s truly redefined a genre of comedy in a way not seen since The Office. Public interaction shows can no longer get away with just annoying members of the public now that Nathan for You has proved it is possible to make this form of comedy just as creative, hilarious and heart-warming as any other.

Part of this post was originally dedicated to how hard it is to watch Nathan for You in the UK legitimately but since I started writing Comedy Central UK’s Youtube channel have uploaded the first episode and are (I assume) planning on uploading more. Now you have no excuse.

Tom Ratcliffe has a podcast – The Tom and Jack Podcast, and also creates short films and the sketch show – Vloggers.