Chris Morris vs Peter Cook

[The Prof]

This clip, based on the Jeremy Thorpe trial, was allegedly written minutes before this performance

Unrelated but I'd assumed Thorpe had died years ago.

[Nikki Gradual]

I pondered this for a long time last night, composed a reply with lots of clips, posted, and then it crashed.
Bugger.

So, what I will say is that I can see where you are coming from Toby: Morris is the closest thing to a natural successor that Cook has. Both are the most subversive and caustic humourists of their respective generations, both are the boundary pushers. Both sometimes completely "miss" which makes you realise how good they are when they "hit".
However, Morris pushes boundaries more in terms of method and style while Cook did so more in content. Sure he took absurdist humour to a new level, but in some ways I think he has more in common with Frankie Boyle or Ali G.
Cook also had the ability to switch off, which I don't think Morris has.
The major difference though is I can YouTube any number of Cook interviews, sketches and shows and watch his brain in action, the remarkable way in which it adapts and pushes and works. It is almost tangible.
With Morris, everything is scripted, his processes hidden and discrete (and in this case that is the right spelling) and his persona much more private.
I think each would pick the other as their idol and their successor respectively, but the fact is that, for genius, Cook shits all over Morris through a funnel.

[Sneelock]

I'm not familiar enough with Chris Morris to vote. I'd like to say a word about Cook.
I was born in '58 so I enjoyed much of "The Beatles Era". What I'd like to say about Cook is that he, whether he would have liked this or not, is much cherished by many people who lived through that era.

Python enjoyed a similar devotion later. Pete and Dud were "the Beatles of comedy" for a time. for a brief and wonderful time. love ain't rational. the fact that he retained more than a spark of genius was bolstered by the considerable good will I had stored up for him.

one of the greats. he was touched. there was something more than a little mad about him. you could see it in his eyes. I saw "Bedazzled" as a child and was a cause of concern for caring more about Mr. Spigott afterwards than I cared about Mr. Moon. He was special.

[The Write Profile]

I pondered this for a long time last night, composed a reply with lots of clips, posted, and then it crashed.
Bugger.

So, what I will say is that I can see where you are coming from Toby: Morris is the closest thing to a natural successor that Cook has. Both are the most subversive and caustic humourists of their respective generations, both are the boundary pushers. Both sometimes completely "miss" which makes you realise how good they are when they "hit".
However, Morris pushes boundaries more in terms of method and style while Cook did so more in content. Sure he took absurdist humour to a new level, but in some ways I think he has more in common with Frankie Boyle or Ali G.
Cook also had the ability to switch off, which I don't think Morris has.
The major difference though is I can YouTube any number of Cook interviews, sketches and shows and watch his brain in action, the remarkable way in which it adapts and pushes and works. It is almost tangible.
With Morris, everything is scripted, his processes hidden and discrete (and in this case that is the right spelling) and his persona much more private.
I think each would pick the other as their idol and their successor respectively, but the fact is that, for genius, Cook shits all over Morris through a funnel.

That's a good summary. In a way, I think Chris Morris's MO is both larger and smaller than Peter Cook's. It's larger, in the sense that his work, ultimately, is about the huge waves of gibberish we accept as a matter of daily record in news reports, government workings, popular culture and generally in life. But it's also smaller insofar as he's focused almost entirely from a media centric view. Everything in Morris land is refracted through the media, and this extends to his debut film, Four Lions, where the joke is not so much that the terrorists are stupid but the fact that they define themselves as terrorists from the very popular culture and media they're supposed to be railing against. It is also, of course, about stupid things like whether the Honey Monster counts as a bear and how awesome it is to explode a sheep. I mean, let's be honest, for all that Morris works things out to the nth degree, the best bits are often his most puerile.


I do think Morris needed Ianucci a lot for his early work- much in the same way that Cook needed Moore. Ianucci might've been more "conventional", but he had made sure all the pieces were in place, and he was mostly working on the same wavelength. Something like this sketch shows why Ianucci's directorial skills are necessary- the cutting throughout is razor-sharp.



Brass Eye might have hit more targets, had more to say, and had a greater ferocity, but it was also sloppier in its execution.

In contrast, nearly all of Peter Cook's characters were somewhat removed from any set time as such, but as a result, they're far more universal- but certainly, his approach meant he needed someone to either work on his level, feed the punchlines or bring him back to earth- which is why Moore's everyman sweetness was such a perfect fit. But his biography suggested he needed to prepare more than he realised- I mean, there's a reason why the first Derek & Clive record is the best, most of the routines were either wok-overs of previous sketches or ones that the pair had been trialing in private for years. The later two records are largely drunken misanthropy between two former partners who can barely stand to be in the same room, there's no real sense of freedom or fun. When I read Peter Cook's best scripts or see him clips of him perform his best roles, there's a sense he can bend the situation to his will. He really was one of a kind.

[Deebank]

I think Cook is like a talented amateur while Morris is a professional.

Everything Morris does is considered, pored over and polished, whereas Cook could be pretty hit and miss - but like a true genius he could deliver when he wasn't even really trying (like those Radio London phone-ins where he pretends to be a Swedish fisherman - although I confess I was irked because many of the fish he reels off to comedic affect are fresh water and of no interest to a trawlerman, but I digress...)

And be honest Derek & Clive would be remembered as the worst kind of crap if it was anyone else involved wouldn't it?

[The Modernist]

I think Cook is like a talented amateur while Morris is a professional.

Everything Morris does is considered, pored over and polished, whereas Cook could be pretty hit and miss - but like a true genius he could deliver when he wasn't even really trying (like those Radio London phone-ins where he pretends to be a Swedish fisherman - although I confess I was irked because many of the fish he reels off to comedic affect are fresh water and of no interest to a trawlerman, but I digress...)

And be honest Derek & Clive would be remembered as the worst kind of crap if it was anyone else involved wouldn't it?

I understand where the idea of Cook as just this gifted amateur comes from. It's very much formed by the louche way Cook would present himself and the rather haphazard turns his later career took. I guess it's natural we think of him in this way because that was the Cook we grew up with -a slightly pissed ranconteur on chat shows.
However in the sixties he was a hugely ambitious comedian. He was the driving force behind Beyond The Fringe which got not only huge British success, but was very successful on Broadway too. He also launched Private Eye and founded London's first major comedy club The Establishment. This, plus of course his success with Moore, suggests a far more driven and professional character than your post suggests. Cook was a complex character in that sense.

[Show Biz Kids]

I'm going to pick Chris Morris because although I love and admire the genius of Peter Cook, for me it's a generational thing. As far as developing a taste for comedy goes, it was a formative experience having the privilege of watching both The Day Today and Brass Eye during my teenage years. The use of language, the ridiculous names, the celebrity setups, the vox pops, the at times childish pranks - all of it tickled my funny bone in a way that no other TV comedy has since, with perhaps the exception of Victor Lewis Smith and Vic and Bob.

I'm not sure if it was Morris or Armando Iannucci who kind of summed up both The Day Today and Brass Eye by describing the approach to both of them as, and I'm paraphrasing, "saying the utterly absurd in a serious voice".

Regardless of whether Morris has ever, or will ever top those two aforementioned comedies, they had a profound effect on me, and I still love to go back and visit them from time to time, along with Morris's radio material and Jam etc.