The show is hit or miss but there is this one episode called 'The 12 days of Christine'which stands above all. Its almost perfect but I can understand why others will be offended or put off by one particular character in the episode since they stereotype a girl's race (well kind of). I wasn't personally offended or saw it as racist, I just thought the character didn't add anything valuable to the plot, she was just a gimmick. In spite of this minor issue, the episode is a masterpiece and is a must watch.
Sad to see that you thought this episode was quite weak, as I enjoyed this episode quite a bit. But luckily for you, the next episode, Tom and Gerri is a fan favourite of the entire series. Hope you enjoy!
Thats a shame, because imo It the kinda series that gets better as the seasons go on. How about watching it by yourself and just reviewing the episodes that you think bares covering? Maybe in one large 'lump'? I hope you won't write this series off completely on the back of one poor episode.
When this episode was broadcast I found it refreshing, because there hadn't been much British comedy that was back to basics and not trying to be too clever and stuff. I thoroughly enjoyed the episode mainly because of the fact that it was a breath of fresh air. It harks back to the classic comedies of back in the day
I totally understand the 'juvenile' feeling of this episode's writing. There is a lot of slapstick and a lot of situations that aren't very logical or reasonable within the world it the episode is set. I think this episode and some others have been written to pay homage to certain people/styles/genres, and bring them to a modern stage. This was their homage to classic slapstick comics such as Chaplain, and Laurel and Hardy. I do agree, though, that in places it could have been handled slightly better (the dog part, parts where characters are oblivious to things, things that should have been making sound). There are other episodes that take a certain style or genre and use it as the framing for the episode (Zanzibar (S4) immediately springs to mind), but since this is the second episode of the first series, it is totally understandable to be unsure of what this show is trying to do. For me there was a similiar feeling after watching the first couple of episodes of Black Mirror; The National Anthem and Fifteen Million Merits are worlds apart in terms of style, genre and so on that it's hard to see why they are part of the same show.
I kind of liked this episode, it was a very basic slapstick episode but it wasn't too immature. The fact that they managed so many jokes with no dialogue is pretty fun.
Finally someone agrees with me on this episode! It was very well received by the fanbase and I've always found it to be one of the weaker episodes - more a matter of taste than of objective quality, I guess.
Yeah I can understand that it's a classic because of the comedy elements but it's just not my favorite. The 'trans' joke was very offputting and I just didn't work for me. Also the story just wasn't that interesting. The structure and execution of the episode are stellar but I just wish it had better content.
This is probably the weakest episode (that I can remember), it's certainly the one I enjoyed the least. But there are much better ones, stick with it. Maybe give Pyschoville a go, not necessarily another video review, even privately. I'd certainly recommend it.
coming from your review of the harrowing and i’m sooo curious to see why you dislike this episode 😂😂 i loved it! oh shit i made this comment with completely forgetting about THAT moment 🤦🏽♀️ yeahh that scene left a bad taste in my mouth and was horrible representation of trans women. i liked the rest of the episode but i definitely understand and agree with the points you made
If you have problems with this, you're gonna hate The League of Gentlemen... Personally, I don't subscripe to the notion that certain subjects should be given a free pass when it comes to comedy. Yes, some jokes can be uncomfortable, but that's the nature of dark humour: one man's meat is another man's poison, and all that.
Seriously, it would offend your sensibilites, particularly Barbara, sole owner and driver of Bab's Cabs. She's a grotesque caricature of a transitioning woman, but she's so patently absurd that most viewers understand the joke. Saying that, when show returned briefly last year, there were complaints about her inclusion, in these more enlightened times.
The League of Gentleman Revival is sooooooo much worse than the original series, I could barely make two episodes. They doubled the fuck down on the transphobia.
Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed the 3 episode revival. In fact, I was delighted that they hadn't toned down the humour. While it was certainly darker in places, I don't feel they doubled down on characterisation at all. When you think of Hilary Briss's "special stuff", or even Papa Lazarou, the 2017 run felt fairly in keeping, to me at least.
Generally speaking the trouble with character based comedy is its only funny if you don’t overly identify with the character/s. The trouble with avoiding these types of jokes for fear of causing offence to those who might is it cuts out huge swathes of humour that help everyone laugh at the human condition and make light of our many differences. I‘d say it’s ok as long as there’s balance elsewhere, ie. not everyone on TV who is LGBT is portrayed as weird and kinky anymore than all LGBT are portrayed as perfect and beyond criticism, which would be equally unrealistic. As I know this particular episode my take on it was it was done to make a joke on the possible hidden excesses of the overtly respectable rich, but also highlight the fact that burglars aren’t just intruding on people’s private space but also their private lives, and no matter how well researched you may think you are you cannot know what others keep secret, so the humour was in this slow escalation of ‘OMG nothing is what we thought it was at all!’ as each obstacle they met also came with another unexpected and shocking reveal of this man’s private life, plus of course the art of silent narrative is fun to watch as by necessity it must be exaggerated. I didn’t personally feel the LGBT character was the joke, it was more the burglars’ surprise and revelation at the reveal of it, and then came the kink aspect as an escalation, and it was more the burglars that we were laughing at as they tried not to lose their cool at each reveal, but the next big reveal could equally have been them discovering a room full of nazi memorabilia or whatever, it just needed to be something private and not too obvious or easily guessed at. The difficulty of course is it has to be something, and whatever it is somebody isn’t going to find that particular thing funny because it means something to them, so it’s always tricky.
Part of my offense is also on the creative end. After the reveal of the wig (which I did genuinely laugh at) that entire angle went for the lowest hanging fruit available. I'd honestly have been much more on board for a more extreme or absurdist escalation of things found. A wig that matches the hair of the older man, the Nazi memorabilia you mentioned, a live tiger caged in a walk in closet. If the joke is meant to be "the weird things in this guy's life" then they didn't go far enough with it. It pretty much starts and ends with "dating a transvestite, a little kinky." That's just lazy if nothing else.
Council of Geeks - Hi there cheers for the reply. Yes, I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, it could have gone more absurd for laughs, certainly, but to take their side for the sakes of discussion, too absurd and you risk making the residents the figures of fun to be laughed at, the humour here is meant to come from the burglars reaction so that they’re the butt of the joke. If the further escalation was too big a revelation, so shocking that even the majority audience was taken aback by it, then the focus would shift from laughing at the burglars to judging the burgled, which again isn’t what you’d want. So it needs to be a surprise, but nothing too extreme or shocking, and it kinda needs to be something you could imagine happening so as the residents are the straight guys to the comedy of the bungling burglars shock, or the whole thing risks getting too farcical (even tho it is clearly farce), I can see that kind of discussion may have happened behind the scenes. Maybe something just really odd like a roomful of adult sized dolls (not sexy ones) sitting about a dinner table might have done it better than the blow up kind, but would that be funny? If I’m honest I can’t think of anything that seems quite right. It is tricky!
@@CouncilofGeeks to be honest I liked the fact that it wasn't the trans woman (or transvestite as you say, it's not made clear) that was the butt of the joke. It wasn't like 'lol a trans woman' it was more the burglar's reaction to it.
Awesome analysis, thank you. I love Inside No. 9, but I often find that the episodes other people love, I'm lukewarm on, and vice versa. Your point about something being done well even if it's not that great in itself, though, is a good one, and often applies, I feel, which is probably why I still like it a lot overall, despite it having a few "misses".
This is actually a very popular episode and considered a fan favourite, however it's never been one of my favourites. The next episode on the other hand is fantastic imo.
Another series by these writers which i believe to be severely underrated is Psychoville. Its a very strange and twisted comedy. There are similar issues here and there that you've pointed out in this review however i can assure you its a masterpiece.
I can understand why you have a dislike for this episode in particular but please stick with the series and by extension reviewing it, rather than writing it off because although it has a slow start the show in general has some brilliant hits that more than outweigh the misses!
My problem wasn't the fact that they killed the dog, considering they're willing to rob an old man of a prized procession and later knock him out/kill him with a heavy suitcase it's not especially out of character, but it's that it was played for laughs that really irritated me.
Episode 2 of season 2 is imo the best episode of the series so I hope to get your thoughts on that one at some point. It's an absolute masterpiece. it's called the 12 days of Christine. Trust me, it's great.
I didn't take this episode very seriously. Not having dialogue added something special to it that made me really concentrate on watching instead of doing something else at the same time. I also liked the fact that that Oona Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin's granddaughter, was part of an episode like this.
I thought the joke was directed at the burglar, especially as the body type between the actor and actress was completely different. I don't think it has anything to do with representation or that it was anything deeper than what it was.
If this episode hasn’t won you over, then stop. This is easily the best episode of the first series and very clearly if you don’t like the humour or the way the show is structured then it’s not going to win you over with the rest
I think that you are taking this program completely the wrong way. It should be watched as show in which you can relish the twists and storytelling and not focus on it as much as you appear to be as well the political focus you are taking. Inside No9 is definitely the show to keep you on your toes in terms on the twists and I do hope you will continue to watch/review. The show does get better progressively and I do agree with someone below you mentioned "The Twelve Days of Christine", which is truly the most wonderful thing to come out of British Television (i dunno about American). If you do watch anymore inside number nine, I believe that to take it too seriously is purely wrong. If you watch it, watch it with expectations on the story and twists. There are plenty of other fantastic episodes, such as "Cold Comfort" (told through CCTV), "Once Removed" (told backwards), "Zanzibar" (told in iambic pentameter), "The Devil of Christmas" (told through genuine 70's cameras) and Bernie Clifton's Dressing Room which almost made me cry. Give the show a chance, because it really is fantastic. Btw, is it me or is it that wherever I go, Inside Number Nine fans are literally always recommending it to other people.
It was my favourite movie. And as a person who doesn't really discriminate against any gender, I didn't see it as a transgender woman. I saw the scene as a gold-digger man, dressed as a woman because the rich man liked it that way.. this made it even funnier when the blow up doll was revealed. It shows that the man is indeed gay, but he's not completely satisfied with the old man. The peeing standing up was a bit funny because no man I know does it that way. So it clicked well as an exaggeration. The best part was imagining what the thief was thinking the whole time. He just wanted a painting. But, I have no right to critique your criticism because I haven't had the same experiences as you. its just that I found this review very biased because of that one scene. You did glance over these subtle messages. Art doesn't make sense. (You did this. I started typing this before you reached the end. But I'm going to keep it here because it deserves more than 40 seconds) The argument on TV and in real life The gold digger gets emotional because they really do care The suitcase being lifted out of view even though they didn't know when (parodying older silent movies) The twist that people trusted the deaf and dumb employee (even the audience), his genuine Shock when he sees the bullet hole and the suitcase, providing him with a timely distraction. I was just about to subscribe after watching your review on the harrowing, but then I came across this video and it out me off. I'm sorry. Still, all the power to you.. Ps: casting really required time and money that this show didn't have a lot of. But casting a woman doesn't really matter because most people won't know. She just played the role very well. (Not many openly transgender actors out there, and straight men would parody it even more because we're dumb) Take care
I'm glad you made this, I felt very much the same about it. I've watched most of the episodes several times but not this one. I really hated how showing the sex doll right after you found out she's trans (or whatever), it implies that she is like a sex doll and is disposable. I really hated how she died too, I know pretty much everyone got killed but with everyone else it was because of the burglary but she was killed by her partner instead. Considering how much violence trans people experience at the hands of partners it just seemed in incredibly bad taste and really upset me
You keep describing it as a story with a gimmick slapped on which is just deeply misunderstanding what happened and probably not really paying attention And... There IS a bunch of escalation near the end. The pacing absolutely changes multiple times. I'm trans femme and I don't sit down when I'm alone in my home. The whole bit about "it's a fundamental part to hate your penis" is pretty truscummy
For me, when it was revealed that he was a she, it was not funny at all, it added a lot of drama, made their relationship more intimate, dramatic and secret.
I'm a nonbinary person who is close enough to a trans woman (I just have commitment issues with the label and the pronouns lol) I usually go standing purely for the practical consideration that if I go sitting down my dick touches the rim of the bowl due to the way it hangs. Different strokes for different anatomies, I guess.
You think it is 'standard' but that is not bad at all. Mr. Bean is very 'standard' in comparison to how you look at this episode. Look how great Mr. Bean turned out...
There was no joke in revealing the gender of the "female." I didn't see anything remotely funny about it, so she could not have been the object of the joke...at least, not until the inflatable is revealed, and then the inflatable is really the joke.
I liked the reveal and waited for it to be a bigger part of the story, but when I realised that was it, joke for jokes sake, it definitely fell flat. I was waiting for another reveal that the guy knew all along or something, I half expected him to pull out a dildo or something at the end (instead it was a gun). So I definitely agree that putting that part of the story in was just for laughs and its sad that only 4 years ago that was still a thing. It was pointless because it just didn't go anywhere. Other than that, I probably in the minority liked the episode. I loved the gimic, its something British do very well. I was shocked by the ending, though the very last part with the cleaning guy was stupid. if he was stealing the painting, he would know what it looked like and wouldn't have been fooled. So for artists out there, that one is a bit of a slap in the face "all art looks the same". I liked it because it was fun, it had shocks, that to me weren't obvious (though I guess they should have been)
Nathaniel, I have opinions about that scene too, but let me first say, I've seen the first 2 series of this show. Can't see past that since I don't have a Britbox? subscription. Anywho, try to hold on. There is an occasional flop but yeah, Tom and Gerri, 12 days of Christie are absolutely gorgeous. I recognized Oona Chaplin right away (also toast chick in Black Mirror's White Christmas). I could immediately tell she was playing a caricature of a woman. It bothered me but was willing to see where it was going. When the wig came off, I knew it was a man. Admittedly I giggled at him peeing just because I love a man who can wear a thong. 😊 Now, add in the sex doll under the bed, I didn't get transgendered or transvestite inappropriate representation. I got off centered BDSM role-playing. I know plenty who don't use what's seen as typical kink attire. House wife is a cis man, most likely straight, and this is his moment to breathe while playing the game/role. There's obviously some financial benefit to him doing this so he doesn't have to be a genuine submissive either. The 'husband' may be gay but unable to make peace with it, hence having a 'man with boobs', even with his blow up doll. Whatever his interests may be, he isn't getting his needs met from the 'house wife'. Could be why the 'house wife' resisted making out with him so much. It wasn't in contract. Then out of frustration for not being able to buy affection, when he could buy everything else, he kills the 'house wife'. I know that's a lot, but you know I over think things...lol. I also think perspective leads to interpretation. I didn't see this episode as bumbling burglars with their story as a bad subplot. I saw it as the story of 'husband' and 'house wife' from perspective of the burglars. Still not a great episode, but a lot less bad.
Interesting perspective, and while I don't know much about BDSM community, I know a little from my mum who is in the community. I think the joke would have worked better if they revealed that the 'husband' knew about it. because the way they play it its almost a secret and you don't know if he knows or not. The fact they clearly have separate rooms muddles the confusion there. What are your thoughts on that?
From what I've learned of British culture (not necessarily fact) people of money usually have separate rooms so one doesn't interrupt the other's sleep. Ie: The Queen has a separate room from Prince Phillip. With the money this guy seems to have, that's where my brain went. So even on the most vanilla terms, having seperate rooms wouldn't mean he didn't know about House Wife's anatomy.
Human MetaCrisis interesting perspective. I'm from NZ, and lived in the UK and found the seperate bedroom weird but then I'm not from money so it didn't come across as normal to me.
Trust me, I'm not from money either. Lol. And I'm from NYC so American. I have severe anxiety issues, and do have panic attacks every so often from PTSD. If/when I cohabitate, the idea of having my own room has been in my head as long as I can remember. If I end up married, yes, I'd prefer to sleep with my person, but I know I'd need my room for those nights I need to be alone. I also don't want him on the couch because it wouldn't be fare to inconvenience him because of my damage.
Why do you need to define a character by genitals? I don't remember a silent episode stating the character's sex at birth, or place in the spectrum of gender. Was this explicitly depicting an expected stereotype? If a kinky gay couple, play dress up... Why does one of them need to be dysphoric? As the episode is silent and a short window on life, I really felt the subtext is of your own creation. I can't talk for anyone but myself, but sitting on the toilet... The water still passes through the same canal, it doesn't negate any appendage. Many people don't allow their body to define their inner truth. "I know me, this body is merely a vehicle". A friend of mine, had disphoria regarding the testicles, but would have been happy to keep her penis. & Oona Chaplin wears wigs in everything, so the reveal was even more unpredictable. You may not know this, but she is the Granddaughter of Charlie Chaplin, so it was a very clever casting, given her family link to silent cinema and slapstick.
Hello Nathaniel and the geeks. I think you have misunderstood a joke which has hurt your opinion of the episode, maybe the series as a whole. I'm a long time viewer and first time commenter and looks like the first Brit to post on this one. One of your main issues with this episode was the doll under the bed, equating deviancy with gender non-conformity. I don't believe that was the case or the intent of this joke. It is a long standing joke and stereotype in the UK that upper class people, the excessively wealthy, often high price art collectors are always kinky. That we would all be kinky if we could afford it. The joke being that its all true, the upper class wealthy art collector in this episode is indeed kinky as expected. It is a British upper class joke, not a gender non-conformity joke. Anyway, i hope this helps your opinion of the show. Keep up the good work and high quality content.
It doesn't really impact my opinion, because intended or not the episode does link the two together by doing the cross dressing and sex doll reveals pretty much back to back. So while they may not have meant to link the two, they did due to the proximity of the reveals. If they'd been in the reverse order with more space between them (or honestly not do the cross dressing reveal at all,) that might have worked better for me.
True true. The spacing/order could have been better. Although both reveals logically fit better in the bedroom and it was already a stretch needing one scene in the bedroom never mind a second. Ok agreed, lets drop the cross dressing scene and maybe move the doll to a kitchen cupboard so it can fall out onto the burglar, thus increasing the slapstick and the kink level while leaving out the awkward cross dressing angle.
