Cunk on Shakespeare

Taking a side track from the most recent Cunk documentary, I found this on You Tube. Like so much of the Cunk stuff, we start off with an utterly bored narrator who can't imagine people of another era acting as they did. She goes though several Shakespeare genres and tell bits and pieces about the films, mispronouncing words and not accurately representing the plots. As is her usual method, she brings in experts and quizzes them with the most absurd questions. Like what would happen to the appreciation of Shakespeare if all the words were removed? She also compares Shakespeare's tragedies to a Liam Neeson thriller. And finally, says that Game of Thrones is Shakespeare's greatest play. It is hit and miss, but mostly hilarious.

Potentially CUNK ON Shakespeare could have plowed a rich satirical seam by making fun of the prevailing reverence for Shakespeare as a cultural icon, as well as parodying some of the more earnest presenters seen on BBC documentaries, such as Professors Brian Cox and Amanda Vickery.

What a shame, then, that the end result turned out to be so limp. Director Lorry Powles sends his eponymous presenter Philomena Cunk (Diane Morgan) out on a series of location shoots to understand why Shakespeare has been lionized in British cultures both during and after his death. She visits several locations, including the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and Anne Hathaway's Cottage in Stratford, and the Globe Theatre in London; and talks to a variety of luminaries and academics including Simon Russell Beale and theater director Matthew Burton.

Her ignorance of history and literature is breathtaking, rendering the interviewees quite literally speechless. Clearly the intention was to make fun of the so-called "experts" that dominate the screen, and their perceived knowledge of their subjects (much of which is extraneous anyway).

PHILOMENA CUNK continues a tradition of mockumentaries that encompasses THE OFFICE as well as the KEVIN TURVEY cycle of programs created by Rik Mayall in the Eighties. The only problem is that despite the script being penned by three authors, including Charlie Brooker, it is simply not funny. Having Philomena making toilet jokes or uttering four-letter words in response to her interviewees' statements makes her (and the writers, by implication) seem boorish rather than entertaining.

In the end we feel sorry for the interviewees who have given up their time to participate in this farrago of nonsense.

Philomena Cunk takes a look at Shakespeare, exploring why his writing is so popular to this day, and looks at the variety of his work.

A wonderful combination, the writing skills of Charlie Brooker, the talent of Diane Morgan, and the iconic figure of William Shakespeare.

It's the originality that I enjoy so much, I can't think of any other character who's quite like Philomena, Morgan is so good, so natural, so very funny. It's the absurdity that's so good.

Some wonderfully funny moments throughout, I really did enjoy that, I'm a huge fan of The Bard, and I'm the first to accept that his work isn't perhaps for everyone, sometimes documentaries and explorations of his work can be a little dry, a little stale. This is a light hearted look, but all it made me want to do was dig out the old Shakespeare's productions.

Marvellous, 8/10.

I caught up with this older outing for Philomena Cunk thanks to seeing her Christmas special this year. The most obvious thing about this episode is how good writers Charlie Brooker, Jason Hazeley, and Joel Morris really are; although of course the variety of Brooker's current output will get him the headlines. Cunk on Shakespeare is filled with great phrasing and nonsense sentences which are as funny as they are pleasing. Through these Cunk is a wonderfully real person, in her sweetly innocent ignorance.

Morgan's performance makes it come alive; she is fantastically empty in what she does, and is convincing in her wide-eyed delivery. That said, I thought the sections where she took the lead were a little weaker than the scripted material. This stood out more than normal because a large chunk of the episode was interviews. So while the 'what words did he make up' section was hilarious, the bits about needing glasses at the theatre, or about him inventing video games, fall quite flat. This is probably because in these sections it is obvious she is pushing the ignorance to get a rise from the expert, whereas the best moments are much sharper and smarter than that.

A few missteps here, but otherwise very funny thanks to the writing, and the delivery from Morgan.