News: ABC Announces Comedy series "At Home With Julia"

The ABC has today announced that they will be producing a new "narrative comedy" series entitled "At Home With Julia"... and yes, as the name suggests, it will revolve around our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and her partner Tim Mathieson.

But here's the twist- it's actually a fictional show, and the parts will be played by Amanda Bishop (who is one of a few Gillard impersonators who was seen on Double Take in this high-larious parody) and Phil Lloyd (best known as Myles Barlow).

There will only be 4 episodes of the show, each of them 30 minutes long.

It will be written by Rick Kalowski, Amanda Bishop and Greg Quail and directed by Erin White. Rick Kalowski was one of the writers for Comedy Inc. - The Late Shift, so that will give you some sort of idea what the show will be like.

So, what do you make of this? Obviously this country has been crying out for some decent scripted-comedy for quite some time now, or really, any scripted comedy, but is this really the answer?

I understand, though, that there seems to be quite a lot of jokes to be mined out of Gillard's time in office, as well as her personal life, but do we need to be reminded of it all again?

I worry it will seem like a sketch in Double Take that is dragged out to 30 minutes.

And the fact that it is being filmed now (it will air later in the year) will cause some of the jokes to appear dated, won't it? I mean, that's one of the reasons that a show like this is usually more suited to a weekly sketch show.

But hopefully it will be able to overcome all of this with some sharp writing... and here's a taste of what the comedy will be like (from the ABC press release);

“They’re just like any other busy modern couple,” said executive producer / co-writer Rick
Kalowski (Comedy Inc.-The Late Shift). “Trying to balance their relationship with critical tasks
like introducing taxes no-one voted for.” 

Though the show’s about Julia and Tim’s private life in The Lodge, the team promises they’ve
been respectful. “As writers, we agreed the First Couple’s bedroom was off-limits,” said costar
/ co-writer Amanda Bishop. “That’s why we put all the sex scenes in Julia’s office”.

The show also busts many myths about the real couple. “A lot of people think Tim just hangs
‘round The Lodge all day doing nothing,” said co-star / co-writer Phil Lloyd. “Not true.
Sometimes he pops down the shops or goes for a bit of a drive.”

Most surprising has been Gillard’s support of the project, including use of real locations.
“There’s a Malaysian detention centre she keeps asking us to stay at, which is really nice,”
said director Erin White (Rush, Sundance-screened short Dugong).

ABC Head of Comedy Debbie Lee can’t wait. “We’ve long been concerned about generous
Government funding for the ABC. Hopefully At Home With Julia will put a stop to that.”

The ABC calls it a "Part rom-com, part guaranteed lawsuit" and will begin production this week in Sydney.

The New New Inventors

ABC1 favourite the New Inventors has undergone somewhat of a transformation, to very little fanfare.

But then again, why would it? This season, it has seemingly diminished the role of longtime host James O'Loughlin quite significantly.

In the past he has copped criticism for his overly daggy Dad-jokes during his interplay with the Inventor flaunting their contraption.

He then threw over to three experts at a panel, who commented on the invention and also asked questions.

However, this season, it seems producers have decided to limit his role to merely introducing the experts and the inventors. And of course throwing to the preprepared pieces on inventions past and present.



This also comes with an increased presence and responsibility for the three experts. They now talk to the inventor straight after his or her invention is introduced. They ask him or her to demonstrate the invention.

Basically, they've realised that viewers aren't tuning in for Jimmy's jokes... it ain't a comedy show, after all. And even if O'Loughlin wanted it to be- it didn't cut it as that either.

And I'm all for it; James is a perfectly affable host, but I think that it is a wise, and long overdue move to cut out the fat from a show about "Inventors", after all. I'd rather the actual experts ask all the questions.

But the Inventors has always been a great little show, but now it's even better (!)

Q and A: still with added Twitter

It's hard to imagine anyone who is still a fan of the Twitter feed on the bottom of Q and A's screen.

I have to admit, when it was announced that people would finally have their "thoughts", now known as "tweets" immortalised as your favourite/least favourite commentator commentated on Q and A, I could not have been more excited.

Yes, it sounded good in theory- people at home shown that their opinion is worthwhile too. Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to have a degree in Social Commentary to get a gig on Q and A. But it helps, of course.

It also symbolised ABC moving with the times, recognising that Twitter is now not only an essential part of everyday life, but of any thriving democracy.

However, it soon became apparent that this was an awful idea. Not only because in execution, it failed: repeats on ABCNews24 frequently had tweets obscured by the scrolling news bar (admittedly, I watched the ABC1 broadcast last night so they may have rectified it) and producers tended to put to air inane mumblings about panelists'
appearance, etc. Which not only did a disservice to the myriad tweeters one thousand times more erudite with brilliant insights and remarks, but also Twitter itself. The uninitiated would see those tweets and it would only reinforce the notion of Twitter being a waste of time and space, rather than a
hub of entertaining and educational interplay (most of the time).

Not to deride any tweeter who throws off a casual tweet without a four syllable word with no reference to Bob Hawke and no hashtag-based pun which happens to be screened. God help me, if you need any example of inane, look no further than this
blog. And every tweeter fires off more than a couple of casual tweets. I just believe that producer should choose more substantial tweets, if any, to
make a debate more robust.

In addition, the overuse of various ABC personalities' tweets is not only blatant self-promotion, but unfair on the people who don't have a prime time TV show. Surely it goes
without saying that since average joes can't get on to the panel, they should at least have first dibs on the tweet-space.

However, just say they were to display all the most intelligent and hilarious tweets whizzing around every Monday night- and isn't there a shiteload- would that justify the tweety bar?

Well, probably still no. If one wants to read tweets, they will have their iPhone resting in their lap of a Monday evening. If they don't, they probably don't want the interjections of others being thrust in their face.

And for those in the former group who do follow the #qanda feed on Twitter, if they do not have a problem with the tweets on screen, surely then it has become a competition as to who can jostle their way to the front of the mob. Sure, it could encourage people to think deeper, to come up with wittier lines than the next person- but not while some inane tweets are still screened.

Who knows, if ABC producers showed a bit more discretion in selecting tweets, I may change my mind, yet it still remains a pointless and annoying exercise.

Just a note: This is not a sour grapes piece. I have dabbled in some #qanda tweeting myself and a) Am aware that my tweets are nowhere near as oozing in political knowledge and laced with biting humor as many others so I do not expect to be on screen and b) I do not want to (notice a distinct lack of personal details on this very blog? Oh, you didn't pay much attention? OK).

Also I am aware that 344 other people are currently writing the exact same blog post in the form of a 140 character tweet more expertly - just needed my own personal catharsis.




Image source: ABC