After educating the nation with Cunk on Britain, Philomena Cunk has broadened her horizons. Now, the presenter offers a six-part documentary on the big picture. Forget the history of these beautiful islands: here she is with Cunk on Earth. The eager-to-learn host, played by a surprisingly serious Diane Morgan, has set her sights on the entirety of human civilization, from prehistoric times to the present day. As always, she scoffs at documents, she talks to leading academics and wanders around looking at things, which may or may not be the things she's talking about.
In the first episode, Cunk addresses the origins and early history of man, or "human man" as she puts it. This is perfect because she gives him an excuse to talk to leading classicists and scholars, who mostly reveal themselves to be an admirable game and excellent value for money. She starts with rock art and quickly progresses through agriculture, math, writing, pyramids, ancient Greece, philosophy, China, and the Roman empire. I'm not sure what this says about the gaps in my historical knowledge, but aside from giggling, I also learn a few things. Did everyone know that the Great Wall of China cannot be seen from space? They did it? Oh, how were you?
Stars: Diane Morgan, Jim Al-Khalili, Shirley J. Thompson
Cunk's character was forged in Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe/Newswipe, where she appeared in short skits as some sort of jerk interviewer. There would always be questions as to whether she would work to give him a half hour episode or even an entire series. Would the joke be funny enough to support that? Cunk on Britain proves that she was, but Cunk on Earth has to prove that she can run and run.
Of course she does. Everything is very well tuned at this stage. There are plenty of experts online to answer her spectacular questions, which keeps the movement going. It doesn't stay on anyone for long, and the academics are all characters that every interview feels fresh. I am especially fond of Dr. Lyndsay Coo, who speaks of ancient tragedies with the passion that can only come from a lifetime dedicated to such a specific niche. There's something noble about standing up to Cunk's inquisition, particularly when she asks questions like, “It was so long ago. Why should I care?"
She could spend a lot of time wondering if the interviewees are in on the joke or not; if they're fully in it, it ruins the gag, which surely works better if they think Cunk is dead serious. The same is true for viewers, in a way. If you look closely enough, you can see that there is a formula: compare the old with the new, ask an anachronistic question, expect a baffled answer. In both cases, however, I don't think it matters. None of the academics seem to think they are being made fun of, nor are they trying to be funny; Likewise, it's so funny and well written that if you can occasionally see the bare bones peeking out, it's not much of a problem.
While it's about Morgan's performance, it's also about the quality of the writing. Brooker and his writing team do the trick of false naivety brilliantly. They do highbrow and lowbrow indiscriminately. You might laugh at the jokes about the writing found on ancient Mesopotamian clay tablets; maybe—and I'm not saying this is me, but I'm not saying this is me—you'll laugh out loud when talk of the Olympics turns to speculation about whether they could meet "in each other's anus."
Comments
Post a Comment