Review of A Cock and Bull Story (2005) by Tom D — 24 Aug 2007

It's a really bad stab at postmodernity.

The widely accepted unfilmable postmodern (or perhaps pre-modern) book 'Tristram Shandy' is presented in the form of a film within a film. It is more the story of the making of the film (To clarify from this point I'll refer to it as two films 'Tristram Shandy' and 'Cock and Bull'). The idea behind it is an excellent one - film an unfilmable book by pretending to film the unsuccessful attempt to film it. It's an opportunity to give the text an extra layer of postmodernity and produce some good tongue in cheek comedy by filming actors pretending to be themselves, an opportunity entirely passed up. Instead, it seems that they try and bring the humour from the fact that the film they're making of Tristram Shandy is bad and then echoing those bad choices in Cock and Bull, thus forcing me to sit through the same piece of awful film-making twice. Namely the use of an outside narrator in both films. 'Ah, but that's all part of the postmodernity' well that's all well and good but it makes for very annoying viewing. Perhaps if they'd used a less clunky device or used it in a less clunky way it would have worked. But they didn't, and it didn't.

The most disappointing and, to be frank, bizarre thing about the film is that it has a cast of some of the best British comic talent, yet manages to be almost completely unfunny all the way through. It takes some real skill to make such naturally funny people so characterless. Nothing is made out of the appearances of Dylan Moran or Stephen Fry. They are all sidelined in favour of Coogan's character. Again the excuse behind this is very obviously that it is meant to reflect both 'Tistram Shandy' and 'Cock and Bull', its an extra layer of postmodernity, but it makes for a really unfulfilling and infuriating film.

The film gives the impression that it thinks it's hilarious (or at least extremely clever) but it never is. Scenes paralleling Steve Coogan's life in the real world, addressing his turbulent appearances in the tabloids, are dealt with with too soft a touch rendering them ungratifying, unfunny and, ultimately, pointless. None of the characters were even remotely engaging.

The film was excellent in one respect only: the partnership of Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. The chemistry and the hate and the petty comments create the sort of horrible tension between them that can only exist between two best friends. Rob Brydon does a fantastic impression of Steve Coogan too.

There is also a great piece of slapstick where Coogan has to pretend to have a hot chestnut in his trousers and, after deciding it's not convincing enough, puts an actual hot chestnut in his trousers. It is genuinely funny but it doesn't say much for the film that that's probably the best part.

And it simply isn't enough to make the film worth watching. There is too much knowing in the film, too many devices too poorly used. There are some interesting ideas but they are so very badly executed that it makes parts of the film almost unwatchable. Then, as if to rub salt into the wound, there is a scene at the end of them just having watched 'Cock and Bull' with all the actors complaining that they weren't in it enough or that it wasn't particularly funny.

Knowing and showing on screen what a bad film you have made does not excuse you from having made a bad film.

In theory it might be interesting to watch as an example of how hard it is to successfully work postmodernity into a film, but in actuality it's probably not worth the time or effort.