Defendants: Producers Andrew Eaton and Melissa Parmenter
Case for the defence: Comedians and impressionists Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon star as semi-fictionalised versions of themselves in a six-restaurant, Michelin-starred tour of the north of England. Although based on their real live personas, this is presented as a standard comedy format and not as a documentary, once popular in the early 21st-century.
Coogan is supposed to have accepted an Observer commission to review restaurants in a bid to impress his American girlfriend Misha, but when she pulls out he takes Rob instead. Along the way they bicker, usually in-character as a celebrity, do drugs, cheat on partners and try and get one up on the other. They also eat some exceedingly good food.
Witness statements:
"Underneath it all, though, runs the question of what it is the Coogan character thinks he’s looking for in life. Largely improvised, the programme blooms to become a very touching exploration of friendship and ageing.
"Nothing happens. Everything is happening." - Damien Love, The Herald
"It’s determinedly uneventful, hardly penetrative in terms of character and not especially funny. But what in other hands would be maddening, or soporific ends up being strangely beguiling – an exercise in trying to hold an audience with the tiniest of titbits. Coogan and Brydon give the viewer so little that after a while you start filling in the gaps yourself. Ultimately, of course, it’s all down to the relationship, and here the implication is plain – the two of them belong together." – John Preston, the Daily Telegraph
Findings:
By rights I ought to commit summary justice – two comedians playing exaggerated versions of themselves, swearing to never return to British TV, this has "meta" written all over it, and for the public good that's an automatic execution. However, they just get away with it – just – as they don't draw obvious attention to it. Even Brydon calling "you're stuck in a metaphor" to Coogan as he falls off stepping stones comes across as genuine rather than contrived.
The problem is the storyline. It doesn't completely lack one, with Coogan's attempts to work out where his live should go and what family means, but it doesn't go deep. The pilot, with the tension between Brydon and Coogan, both slightly envious of the other, and Coogan and his ex, led to laughs amongst our test group. However, it never goes further and like Brydon's constant use of impressions, it gets grating.
At the Justice Department we know to spot tell-tale sings in perps if they are behaving in a pretentious manner in public (sentencing guideline: five to 50 years stretch in the cube). Philosophy, particularly foreign philosophy, poetry. The pair are in the Lake District, so poetry is the charge. But beyond Brydon memorising a poem, he goes no further, learns nothing, does nothing. Brydon is Coogan's catalyst but not much more. Instead of creating depth, they flesh out or bring in some minor characters. It's no substitute.
Citizens looking for more will be, perhaps like the comedy pair spoiled on Michelin-starred food, be looking for more.
Verdict & sentence:
Occasionally, a judge has to use discretion and balance mitigating factors against the crime. Reluctantly, I am going to admit mitigating evidence here and restrained from the summary execution. However, let us not forget that a crime has taken place.
The producers and Steve Coogan, I sentence you to re-education classes. Rob Brydon, you never did much, you are free to go – once the Justice Department surgeons remove your vocal chords.
