I really enjoyed both the episode of Hancock and the episode of Porridge. They were both funny and really interesting. I liked how some of the bits in each were similar to other comedy shows that were influenced by these originals. I was reminded a lot of Michael Scott and The Office‘s episode about a blood drive while watching Hancock and a bit where Michael wants cookies and to learn the name of the girl who was giving blood at the same time he was. Both were more concerned with their own needs and wants than the actual people who needed the blood they were donating.
The one show I really didn’t care for was Fawlty Towers. I was very exasperated by it because it was very repetitive and kind of silly. Maybe it just doesn’t fit my sense of humor, but I feel that Fawlty Towers would not be a show I could watch more than once or twice. Basil was all over the place and based on the episode we saw, not eager to change his ways or ideas of behavior or class. If he stopped trying so hard to do what he thought would be right and was more fair to all of his customers, he would have been a better businessman and rewarded for being so. I feel like Hancock and the characters of Porridge are much more well-rounded than Basil, much more dynamic. Basil and the others all have flaws- crimial activity, manipulating and lying in Porridge; inability to pick up social cues in Hancock; and a desperation to move to a higher class in Fawlty Towers. However, the characters in Fawlty Towers didn’t evoke as much sympathy from me or any willingness to laugh at the joke. In my opinion, there was nothing redeeming about Basil in that episode that made me like him as a character and thus able to laugh at his jokes and predicament. But maybe I’m being to harsh with him… I’m not sure.
