Perhaps it would be more pertinent to discuss the issues that the show raises, rather than whether or not it succeeds in being funny/entertaining?
I think we're all agreed that the idea behind the show is 'a good thing'. I'd argue that the question of whether it is funny/entertaining is quite important, as that's what he sets out to do - that's the measure of his success in this case. If he wanted to do just investigative journalism, then he could, and present it in the traditional panorama style. But there's something different taking place here, an attempt to make points in a manner that will 'get over' to your non-panorama audience.
I've seen any number of plays, films etc that had serious issues raised, in a serious manner, but were total crap.
With MT, we're seeing something different - it's watchable, amusing and, yes, he strikes me as a bit smug and occasionally his approach makes me want to turn over. It's been a long time since something funny was seen as dangerous and I think in this case, the success of the medium is just as important as the message. |
