While this new ABC comedy based on the life of Prime Minister Julia Gillard is superbly acted, it isn't as funny as you would hope it to be.
So, no one knew quite what to expect coming in to this show, but the big questions were; "Is it necessary?" and "Is it a unique, comedic look at our flagging leader?"
Well, let's start with the positives:
The show looks great; from the actors, who not only look the part, but are mostly note-perfect in their portrayals. But unfortunately the portrayals were the best part of the show, along with the general feel of the show. It feels warm and inviting, and is nicely filmed and directed. And while its direction isn't quite "mockumentary" in style but it borrows heavily from that now well-worn format.
However, it is symbolic of the show's lack of confidence in its own style- it isn't a biting satire, but it isn't a sketch comedy either.
So, the "satire" aspect; it was clear from the outset that this wasn't going to be an out-and-out satire. It was as much a relationship drama as anything else (the first segment of the show revolved around the scheduling of Tim and Julia's "date night", and the not-so-hilarious emasculation of Tim).
But at the end of the day, it was sold as a comedy, and did it hit the mark? Well, no. Don't let the classy ABC production values fool you, this is not another "subtle" comedy- there are just not that many jokes.
And when there are jokes, they come off as weak efforts, with the writers not wanting to lambast anyone.
Take the moment when Julia is sipping out of a mug with "KEVIN 07" on it. She takes a sip and screws up her face. She then says "Bitter". This not only treated viewers like idiots who can neither see, nor interpret a visual joke, but it also showed the level the series is aiming at; if she had not said "Bitter", it would have meant that Rudd's knifing and legacy had left an indelible, irreparable taint on the current government; but the fact she said "Bitter" simply meant to get across the point MY TEA IS "BITTER" BECAUSE KEVIN RUDD IS "BITTER".
There was also a small plot to be discerned in the episode, with there being something about cooking dinner for the three independents which involved non-Australian beef and non-Australian beer. But this bit seemed more slapstick than anything else (there was bleach put in a blender with beef).
There were also fairly bizarre side-plots with security guards (who FALL ASLEEP with a GUN in their car) and some rascal kids who tease Tim (about being a HAIRDRESSER) which were neither relevant nor funny.
But to be fair, there was a cleaner called "Jesus", which I generously assumed to be some sort of nod towards her atheism- if only I could understand the metaphor... And there's a dog called "Bill Shorten", which I thought was quite well done, but crossed the believability line too much to be hilarious.
But, I kept asking myself, what was the point of making this series? It isn't exactly to bag out Julia Gillard (though she isn't exactly a strong, assertive character for someone who is meant to be PM; she calls Tim cutesy pet-names, for one, and also ogles a topless male gardner- score one for female empowerment) and it isn't to have great belly laughs at a couple in a domestic setting- with one of them happening to be the most powerful person in the country... And coming in to this show, I was sure I'd heard all the Gillard jokes and innuendo by now- this show didn't prove me wrong.
In fact, the word that came to mind a lot is "gentle" (which isn't necessarily a bad thing); No one in the world is going to be offended by this series (also not necessarily a bad thing)... And after all, the writers at least seem to be having a go- there were enough good moments to make me watch next week...
But surely we can expect something a bit more given the fact that it's one of our only "sitcoms", and one of our only political satires- surely we can raise the bar higher? If only the comedy had a bit of spark from somewhere, as in its current form, this comedy won't have anyone splitting their sides.
So, no one knew quite what to expect coming in to this show, but the big questions were; "Is it necessary?" and "Is it a unique, comedic look at our flagging leader?"
Well, let's start with the positives:
The show looks great; from the actors, who not only look the part, but are mostly note-perfect in their portrayals. But unfortunately the portrayals were the best part of the show, along with the general feel of the show. It feels warm and inviting, and is nicely filmed and directed. And while its direction isn't quite "mockumentary" in style but it borrows heavily from that now well-worn format.
However, it is symbolic of the show's lack of confidence in its own style- it isn't a biting satire, but it isn't a sketch comedy either.
So, the "satire" aspect; it was clear from the outset that this wasn't going to be an out-and-out satire. It was as much a relationship drama as anything else (the first segment of the show revolved around the scheduling of Tim and Julia's "date night", and the not-so-hilarious emasculation of Tim).
But at the end of the day, it was sold as a comedy, and did it hit the mark? Well, no. Don't let the classy ABC production values fool you, this is not another "subtle" comedy- there are just not that many jokes.
And when there are jokes, they come off as weak efforts, with the writers not wanting to lambast anyone.
Take the moment when Julia is sipping out of a mug with "KEVIN 07" on it. She takes a sip and screws up her face. She then says "Bitter". This not only treated viewers like idiots who can neither see, nor interpret a visual joke, but it also showed the level the series is aiming at; if she had not said "Bitter", it would have meant that Rudd's knifing and legacy had left an indelible, irreparable taint on the current government; but the fact she said "Bitter" simply meant to get across the point MY TEA IS "BITTER" BECAUSE KEVIN RUDD IS "BITTER".
There was also a small plot to be discerned in the episode, with there being something about cooking dinner for the three independents which involved non-Australian beef and non-Australian beer. But this bit seemed more slapstick than anything else (there was bleach put in a blender with beef).
There were also fairly bizarre side-plots with security guards (who FALL ASLEEP with a GUN in their car) and some rascal kids who tease Tim (about being a HAIRDRESSER) which were neither relevant nor funny.
But to be fair, there was a cleaner called "Jesus", which I generously assumed to be some sort of nod towards her atheism- if only I could understand the metaphor... And there's a dog called "Bill Shorten", which I thought was quite well done, but crossed the believability line too much to be hilarious.
But, I kept asking myself, what was the point of making this series? It isn't exactly to bag out Julia Gillard (though she isn't exactly a strong, assertive character for someone who is meant to be PM; she calls Tim cutesy pet-names, for one, and also ogles a topless male gardner- score one for female empowerment) and it isn't to have great belly laughs at a couple in a domestic setting- with one of them happening to be the most powerful person in the country... And coming in to this show, I was sure I'd heard all the Gillard jokes and innuendo by now- this show didn't prove me wrong.
In fact, the word that came to mind a lot is "gentle" (which isn't necessarily a bad thing); No one in the world is going to be offended by this series (also not necessarily a bad thing)... And after all, the writers at least seem to be having a go- there were enough good moments to make me watch next week...
But surely we can expect something a bit more given the fact that it's one of our only "sitcoms", and one of our only political satires- surely we can raise the bar higher? If only the comedy had a bit of spark from somewhere, as in its current form, this comedy won't have anyone splitting their sides.