Showing posts with label audio oddities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label audio oddities. Show all posts

Sunday, 31 May 2026

The World's Most Horrifying Advertising Animals #55: Bosch Roadkill (Say No To Squirrelicide)

 2015's "Stop The Roadkill" short feels like an odd mishmash of concepts. What starts out as a self-confessed PSA about the millions of critters killed on America's roads by the week culminates in a marketing pitch for Bosch's "on fleek" brand of windscreen wipers. The presence of the Humane Society logo at the end assures us that this passionate plea on behalf of imperilled wildlife was utterly sincere; even so, having it all boil down to an endorsement for wipers causes it to play somewhat like the protracted set-up to a gag. An elaborate display followed by a quick punchline, posing a simple solution to a problem that we suspect is quite a bit more complicated. The impact of roads on wildlife populations is nothing to be sneezed at (remember how much it kept coming up as a losing scenario when we looked at the Survival books three years ago?), and I'm sure there are a whole number of factors to be taken into consideration in the battle to reduce it (speed, constructing roads in ways that avoid breaking up habitats in the first place, etc). But as a starting point, fair enough - in order to prevent collisions (with wildlife, other motorists or anything else) you do need to be able to clearly see what's in front of you. A car with insufficient components won't be doing any favours to anyone. And as the ad's hook makes clear, a driver is only as benevolent and as worthy as the vehicle they hop around in. The scrawny cast don't care to distinguish, repeatedly warning the viewer against being a killer car, as opposed to simply steering one.

There's a likeable novelty to the production. The smashed and rotting corpses of five different animals, representative of those millions who wind up as roadkill every week, are reanimated under the light of the full moon. Having failed to make it safely to the other side, they find themselves stranded in an undead limbo, bound to the asphalt and cursed to bemoan their miserable fates to a retro dance track that is vaguely reminiscent of Michael Jackson's "Thriller", although not a full-on pastiche (Vincent Price-esque narration sequence notwithstanding). A promotional blurb included on the Andrew Barrett Creative website informs us that the tune in question is 100% original (and also composed by "a famous musical producer" who goes identified), although for me it still has a curious, even comforting air of backward familiarity - it's the kind of song I can hear and swear I've already heard sampled in multiple vaporwave tracks, without quite recalling the specifics. 

The biggest thrill of the video is in the puppetry and the character designs, and in the various smaller touches that give each of the zombie critters their own distinct flavours as they twist their pulverised, disintegrating hides to the cautionary beat. Their grotesqueness is counterbalanced by a warmth and personality that keeps the tone intrinsically fun, even as a flattened squirrel with unearthly glowing eyes is spewing the stomach-churning details about the damage dealt to his internal organs when he found himself caught beneath the wheels of a truck. His being a squirrel means we get an inevitable "nuts" innuendo - almost as inevitable as the rapping skunk who gives a demonstration of his anal artillery by discharging a cloud of noxious greenish gas (reinforcing the misconception that skunks are effectively passing gas in defence, as opposed to repelling their predators with foul-smelling liquid, but I suppose the biology might vary with an undead skunk, or "dead mother trucker", in the words of his leporine back-up). But even the most predictable elements are delivered with a stark brutality that fits the ad's playfully warped vibe. There's also a sly parody of PSA sloganeering, with the squirrel chanting "Just Say No to squirrelicide!" Enhancing the flavour considerably are the unique injuries that point to each creature's individual tale of woe. The deer has bagged a couple of souvenirs from the car that hammered him, in the form of the tree-shaped air freshener and rear view mirror dangling from his antlers (making me wonder if the driver fared any better in the collision, since he'd presumably had to have gone through the windshield in order to get them), and uses a Deer X-ing sign as a painfully ironic crutch. The skunk has skid marks running in a perfectly vertical line down his back, and sports a licence plate on his front as bling. One of the rabbit's ears looks to be hanging by a thread, while his leg detaches and does its own independent jig. The fox has a flashing headlight embedded in her chest, bone protruding from her tail, and can rotate her broken neck 360 degrees a la Regan from The Exorcist (she also detaches it in a later scene). For zombies, they seem like a mostly benign bunch, in generally wanting little more than for motorists to be conscious of their plight. The skunk is alone in expressing any vindictive intent, in awaiting the opportunity to get back at the SUV-driving, carpooling soccer mom responsible for his unwanted second stripe by directing the full fury of his unhallowed anal glands her way.

The ad climaxes with a car appearing on the road, but stopping well short of the undead menagerie. The unseen driver uses Bosch brand wipers and thus has zero trouble in seeing them ahead...although with that in mind I'm surprised that they aren't freaked out by the sight of these uncanny critters jiving in plain sight and don't immediately make a u-turn back to civilisation. But perhaps that too is a testament to how in control they feel as a result of having those wipers installed. Having made their point, most of the animals slink back into the roadside shrubbery, but the squirrel persists in dragging the moment out past its natural conclusion, leaping up onto the hood of the car and getting ejected by the wipers. They are thus depicted as invaluable tools in helping commuters to navigate the unexpected, including pesky zombie sciurines with chips on their shoulders (and within their nuts). We close with the tagline "Invented for life", which in this context has a crafty double meaning. 

The legacy of the short is somewhat of a phantom one, at least from my own late-to-the-party perspective. At the time it became "an internet sensation and Bosch's most effective online film ever" (according to A Barrett) it must have passed me by, meaning that I didn't attempt to access its official website, which reportedly had biographies for each of the battered quintet, until it had slipped away to Defunctville. I'm not having much luck in pulling up this information when I try whacking it into the Wayback Machine either, so if the characters had names I guess they'll have to remain a mystery to me, along with any details to their backstories that are finer than what the ad itself makes evident (the fox and rabbit, for example, don't get to tell their stories in the lyrics, so it might have been interesting to learn how they came a cropper).  More curious still are the gallery of GIFs and production images on the A Barrett page, which, in addition to showcasing some neat concept art, indicate that the ad even had its own miniature line of tie-in merchandising. There are tantalising photos depicting a keychain of the deer and a vinyl pressing of the song - although I'm not 100% convinced that the latter ever existed and wasn't just a mock-up created as a tongue-in-cheek promotional image (for one, I can't seem to locate a Discogs entry for the item; if it was real, then I'd hazard a guess that it was only available in a strictly limited capacity, as a promo item given out to press or to crew members, or something along those lines). Perhaps it's only appropriate that these decomposing creatures should linger on in a fragmentary form, no longer the full picture of what they once were, destined to haunt my unsatiated curiosity for evermore with their incompleteness. But so long as the ad itself is able to keep on circulating, the spirit of this demented nocturnal rave can keep rising up, furthering its huggably nightmarish cycle for innumerable full moons to come.

Wednesday, 13 May 2026

How Deep Is Your Love: Take That's Bizarre Farewell Video

The announcement on 13th February 1996 that UK pop act Take That were no more was one of those moments that defined the passing of childhood for many an 80s baby. 

The news itself did not come as much of a shock, for the pieces were already beginning to crumble. Once a perfectly-assembled quintet, they'd been a man down since the previous summer, when band black sheep Robbie Williams had departed with immense acrimony, and under much tabloid scrutiny. Frontman Gary Barlow, the songwriting talent behind the group, sensed that the time was right for him to cut his remaining bandmates loose and make a bid for his own solo career. Famously, the Samaritans set up special hotlines to counsel distraught fans, and I saw the news reports of teenage girls sobbing and begging their idols not to desert them - although the only anecdote I personally have to share involved a girl at my local youth club who reacted to the breakup by gleefully snapping a Take That pencil into four separate pieces. I'm guessing she was an East 17 diehard.

Still, even if you didn't share in the fans' howling attachment (as I certainly couldn't), it was hard not to feel disconcerted at the announcement, particularly if, like me, you were a kid, and Take That had been around and dominated the charts for such a significant portion of your lifetime that a world without them seemed a little more depleted. I couldn't help but partake in that melancholic sense that things were changing, even as I hid behind a wall of schadenfreude (just not to the same flamboyant degree as my pencil-snapping acquaintance). I was old enough to know that music acts came and went (when was the last time anyone in the UK had given thought to New Kids on The Block, the boy band from across the pond whose success had paved the way for the likes of Take That?), but Take That were one of the biggies, and it was the first time that I had borne witness to a band giving a press conference to say, "That's it, we're done." This wasn't one of those soft-pedalled breakups where decisions to part ways are tempered with insistences that it's just a hiatus to pursue other things, with the door always open for further collaborations. They were very clear that this was where the Take That train would terminate. They had one last bit of unfinished business in the form of their upcoming Greatest Hits release, and its promo single, a cover of the 1977 Bee Gees hit "How Deep Is Your Love", but it would be their absolute last as a unit. Said Barlow: "Unfortunately, the rumors are true. "How Deep Is Your Love" is going to be our last single together, and the Greatest Hits is going to be our last album. And from today, is no more." We were assured that the end of Take That didn't mean the end of the group's stories as individuals, with Barlow being particularly ambitious about jumping into his solo career straight off the bat. Nobody could have been prepared for what was coming right around the corner - that in the twist of separation, it'd be Williams who'd excel at being free - or indeed ten years down the line. Right now it was February 1996 and as we understood it, things were never going to be the same again.

"How Deep Is Your Love" was released on 26th February and, with listeners eager to savour that final flurry of Take That momentum, occupied the top spot of the UK charts for three weeks. Even so, it felt like a curiously modest offering for such a momentous occasion. The band's treatment of the Gibbs' disco-era classic is perfectly nice. As a record there's not a good deal wrong with it, unless you're one of those purists who turns your nose up at covers on principle. But I doubt that many fans are going to rank it among their strongest output, and as the swan song to a glittering career it had the whiff of an anti-climax. Some questioned why they'd chosen to bow out with something as perfunctory as a cover, particularly when their previous single "Never Forget", with its extravagant meditations on the mutually transient nature of youth and celebrity, had felt like it was practically destined to be their grand finale. "How Deep Is Your Love" became the would-be palate cleanser that gave off its own bemusing aftertaste, as sure a sign as any of the band's waned morale post-Williams. But the video was a different story. The video was where all the farewell energy had gone, and it was...a choice, to say the least.

I say "energy", but I'm not sure if that's really an apt word for a video where the band spend the duration in a sedentary position, tied to chairs while a crazed abductor subjects them to various tortures. But it gives the single a sense of finality that the song alone couldn't convey - and that too is quite the choice. On the cheekiest of levels, it saw them coming full circle. Take That had started their career with the BDSM-friendly "Do What U Like", so maybe they'd seen something poetic in the idea of ending with a video themed around bondage. There's none of that joyous jelly-smearing going on here, mind, with "How Deep Is Your Love" being intent on combining two differing, even opposing moods. Director Nick Drandt gives the video a dark and gloomy look that captures the overhanging solemnity of the matter, with the knowledge that we were at the end of an era. But it's also a knowingly silly piece (if in a much moodier, more restrained manner than "Do What U Like") as if the band were aware that they shouldn't take themselves so seriously and that the best thing they could do, under the circumstances, would be to go out with a dash of humour. The abductor, played by model Paula Hamilton, is genuinely creepy, but in the campest of ways. You can tell she's crazy because of the weird panda eyes she's acquired through her excessive use of eyeshadow. And also because she dresses like Cruella de Vil in the latter half of the video, when, not content simply to jab Barlow in the throat with a fork, she takes all four of them out on a road trip and positions them atop a steep slope overlooking a reservoir in Middlesex. She seemingly does an eeny meeny miny moe to select at random which one she's going to torture next, but it's of no surprise when she singles out Barlow yet again. He was the undisputed star of the final curtain, nabbing the lead vocals and leaving Howard Donald, Jason Orange and Mark Owen with little to do on "How Deep Is Your Love" outside of harmonising and looking on in horror. 

What's interesting about the video (aside from how it ends) is its casting of the obsessive fan as the villain, particularly in light of the distress exhibited by the real-world fans at the prospect of having to bid their beloved popsters farewell, at least in their current form. Here, the band are literally held captive and constrained by a fan who would seemingly rather destroy them than let them be free. Obviously, it's an ironic take on the depths of devotion; we have a fan whose passion for Take That is so uncontainable that she needs to keep them roped and duct taped in her basement and make them her personal playthings. But the context of the video also makes the choice of song a lot less arbitrary as a finale. It wasn't just a pretty tune they could cover convincingly, and old enough that their teenaged fanbase wouldn't necessarily be comparing it to the Bee Gees original (unless their mothers had introduced them to Saturday Night Fever). It was a plea to the fans, asking them if they loved them enough that they'd be willing to let them go, let them grow and let them blossom into something else. To bear with them, as they had asked the anonymous 14-year-old who had called into her local media outlet in tears during that fateful press conference, and to embrace change and all the possibilities it might bring. The alternative, the video proposed, would be analogous to keeping the band stagnant and confined, each bound to their assigned positions as part of Take That, for no other purpose other than to suit the fans' needs for comfort and diversion. 

This depiction of Hamilton as a twisted representation of the band's fanbase was not, I believe, intended with any malice. There was a winking wryness to the affair, as is particularly evident in the video's resolution. "How Deep Is Your Love" does not have a bittersweetly triumphant ending, where Hamilton realises the error of her ways and the band goes gracefully into the sunset, promising to make the most of whatever lies ahead on their diverging paths. No, it fades out in the most spectacularly morbid fashion, with Hamilton grabbing Barlow and dangling him over the drop; as he continues to challenge her over the extent of her devotion, we focus on that telltale smudge trailing from one of her panda eyes, a sign of her inner turmoil, until finally she lets him go. As in, she lets him fall from her grasp, and he's apparently about to find out how deep is that reservoir. Donald, Orange and Owen look on in horror, as they've been doing this entire time, while Hamilton stands aghast, struggling to process what she's done, until she takes note of the other band members sitting there, and that sociopathic smile returns as she heads in their direction. You get the impression that she's not one to break up a collection. So that's it. The end. Take That are all dead. Williams might think he's off the hook, but what are the odds that Hamilton will be hunting him down in the aftermath and bringing him to the same location?

A final video in which the group's disbandment was signified through their fictitious murders was certainly a novel means of attempting to tie a bow on the Take That story. You could argue that it was even a misjudged one - I'm not sure how receptive those distraught fans would have been to the implicit humour, or if watching the band's implied demises would have brought them any lick of solace in this darkest of hours. Maybe they'd have preferred something a little more wholesome and reassuring. But for all its macabre quirkiness, there's an emotional honesty about the video that I find intriguing, and admirable. If "Never Forget" was the band's proclamation, loud and victorious, about the exhilaration and precariousness that came with having reached the top of the world, looking down and seeing how far you'd come but also how far you potentially had to fall, "How Deep Is Your Love" was their quieter acknowledgement that the moment had simply passed and there was no going back. It wasn't the mighty bang of a finish that "Never Forget" would have been, but so what? Sometimes a resigned whimper can be as resounding, especially when it's so gloriously weird a whimper as this.

Williams echoed the sentiment (albeit more bitterly) in his 1998 single "No Regrets". By this point he was feeling confident enough as a solo artist to be taking potshots at his former bandmates - while "No Regrets" sounds on the surface like it's detailing the conflicting emotions arising from the breakdown of a more conventional romantic pairing, the lyrics "You're far too short to carry weight" (performed as backing vocals by Neil Tennant of Pet Shop Boys) are often cited as the giveaway that he was airing his dirty laundry with Barlow. And the music video ended with his own implied demise - or at least, that was always my impression at the time. We watch as he abandons a glitzy stage performance and goes on a little meander with a leaking jerry can in hand, leaving a trail of highly flammable liquid behind him; inevitably, it catches fire, and the flames come rushing in his direction as he delivers the dramatic punchline: "I guess the love we once had is officially...DEAD!" Sure, there's an obvious metaphor to be had in there about burned bridges, but it was also my presumption that he was about to be engulfed by an inferno of his own making - the imagery is a little more abstract compared to Barlow's demise in "How Deep Is Your Love", but the detonating of that final whammy right as the flames are at his heels has us exiting on a note of hair-raising dread. For although Williams crowed about being a survivor ("Suppose it's just a point of view, but they tell me I'm doing fine"), the song made plain that he actually harboured a myriad of regrets about the situation ("If I could just stop hating you, I'd feel sorry for us instead"). He'd like the Take That moment to have resolved differently, but he concurred that it was over and there was no going back. 

The funny thing is, of course, that the sentiment would prove incorrect on both sides of the equation. Sometimes a moment that seems permanently faded does come back around, if not necessarily in any great hurry. The years that followed Take That's split would be punishing for Barlow. He didn't really go plummeting into a watery grave, but he was forced to retreat into the wilderness when his solo career didn't take off the way he'd hoped, despite an auspicious start, and could only watch as Williams ascended to a level of mega stardom that most musicians only dream of. By the end of 1996 the vacant spot Take That had left as the faces of British pop had been claimed by the Spice Girls, with the success of "Wannabe" indicating that listeners had an appetite for something with a little more brashness; it took Williams a few goes to get it right, but the public responded to the cheeky personality he brought to his output, all while Barlow struggled to stay afloat. The black sheep had had his revenge and then some, and for a time it looked as though the rest of Take That were destined to become mere footnotes in Williams' saga, the world seemingly happy to leave them dumped and decomposing at the bottom of that lonely reservoir in Middlesex. Then in late 2006, more than a decade after the split and "How Deep Is Your Love", Barlow, Donald, Orange and Owen were able to crawl back out of their metaphorical quarry and pull off one of the most impressive comebacks in pop history. Their new single, "Patience", was a major hit, topping the UK charts for four weeks and picking up the prize for Best British Single at the 2007 Brit Awards. In the end those assurances to the tearful 14-year-old who'd been asked to bear with them were no bluff, even if the journey had been a far twistier one than either the band or the fans could have anticipated. And although Williams initially declined to be part of the reunion, even he was won over by the goodwill it engendered, reconciling with his bandmates and updating the final punchline of "No Regrets" to "ALIVE!"

All of which retroactively changes the meaning of the "How Deep Is Your Love" video. It ceases to be an allegory for the band's demise, but rather their temporary casting into irrelevance, as well as a haunting peek into an alternate timeline where this might indeed have been our perturbing adieu. But it certainly does capture the rockiness of its moment.

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

Logo Case Study: Pixar's Luxo Lamp

2026 marks the fortieth anniversary of Pixar's founding (when the Graphics Group, a special effects team that made up part of Lucasfilm's Computer Division, was acquired by Steve Jobs and established as an independent company), so what better time to pay tribute to the plucky little desk lamp who's been attached to their output for as long as they've been making feature films?

I can remember a time when the existence of Luxo Jr. was a secret, an intriguing little Easter egg you'd be rewarded with should you make it all the way through the closing credits on the VHS release of Toy Story. Nowadays, we're fully accustomed to the lamp popping in at the start of each Pixar release as well as after, but that wasn't the case with their premier feature. Although Toy Story was heavily touted in its marketing as the first completely computer-animated feature film, Pixar themselves had essentially no brand recognition among the general public in the mid-1990s, and there does seem to have been a mindset that it should be packaged foremost as a Disney film - as something bold, new and exciting, but under the warmth and familiarity of the Disney banner. On the original print of Toy Story, the Disney logo had the opening all to itself, while the Pixar logo was tucked away discreetly at the tail-end of the picture. And quite frankly, that's where little Luxo thrived. For me, the hopping lamp was poetic, a perfectly quirky manifestation of the fact that we were venturing a little far beyond our comfort zone and were getting dangerously close to the spooky oblivion that awaited at the end of every VHS tape. He came bounding into view, eager to play with the I in the text that spelled out the company's name, only for these larks to be cut short by the I's inability to withstand his rambunctious thumping atop it, before some unseen power turned the lights out on him. Luxo Jr., now substituting for the ravaged I, would direct his bulb toward the camera (his eye, for all intents and purposes, so a possible visual pun), emitting a final warm glow into the abyss, before that too was extinguished with a genial click. At the time, Disney were in the business of inserting extra previews at the end of their tapes, so we still had a couple of items to get through before we would also be plunged into total blackness (in this case, a promo for the few blessed Disney releases that got to live permanently outside of the vault, and an ad for an interactive Toy Story CD Rom that supposed that Woody and Buzz might emerge from your PC screen as soon as you left the room), but the refuge and excitement of the main feature was now behind us. I can think of few closing logos that quite so slickly captured that feeling of "Show's over, eject" as the frisky desk lamp that saw out Toy Story.

Of course, as Pixar's stature in the entertainment industry grew there was no reason to keep Luxo confined to the pictures' sign-offs, and he became a familiar, reassuring sight in their introductions as well (including updated prints of the first Toy Story). For the most part, the sequence works as aptly as an opener, with the enthusiasm the lamp exhibits at the prospect of getting to tamper with the Pixar lettering mirroring the audience's anticipation for whatever experience the studio is about to serve up next. All the same, an important distinction was maintained between the opening and closing versions of the logo, indicating that the powers that be were entirely aware of the special power the lamp's antics had exuded at the end of their original feature. In the standard opening version of the logo, the sequence simply fades to black as Luxo's gaze turns directly toward the cinema. The intense glow in the darkness and the concluding click happen only in the end version, preserving their association with that sense of finality. I will admit to being a total purist when it comes to the latter version of the logo, meaning that I strongly disapprove of any variant in which music from the end-credits continues to play as little Luxo makes his entrance. I don't mind one iota when the reverse occurs, and the opening version of the logo is overlaid with the score from the film's beginnings, but as I see it, the sound design is too quintessential a part of the closing experience to jettison. It wasn't just the click and the total immersion in darkness that signalled that we'd reached the end of this particular journey. Every last thud and squishing sound that accompanied Luxo's movements, in addition to making the logo feel all the more alive, also emphasised the vast emptiness of the space around him, like he was hopping around a deserted venue after everyone else at Pixar had packed up and gone home for the night. The narrative I always projected onto the sequence was that Luxo was looking to eke a scrap of added enjoyment from the experience, not wanting the thrill of the feature we'd just watched be over, but his efforts were brought to an abrupt halt once he'd obliterated the I, at which point he was left shut inside the Pixar studio as the last of the employees switched off the lights. Which perhaps sounds a little bleak, but I was fairly confident that the last click was voluntary, and that Luxo was embracing in the darkness, signifying the completion of this particular Pixar project, and the promise of the next one to come. The lamp wasn't deserted, merely dormant.

I know that there are a number of folks out there who report finding Luxo Jr. unnerving in their school-aged years, on account of that fourth wall-breaking moment where he surveys you with his glowing, inhuman "eye", but in the main I think his impact on viewers was overwhelmingly disarming. I was utterly fascinated by the character - never mind toys, there was something innately beautiful in the suggestion that desk lamps could be brought to life and exhibit playful personalities. It all made sense, for you could look at a desk lamp and pick out the outline of a creature, with a head, elongated neck and foot, and Pixar were really able to make the most of that, imbuing their subject with a convincing heart and motion without the need to implement additional anthropomorphic features. It's all in the movements and the gestures - the eager spontaneity as he races into the picture and the lettering appears to catch his attention, the frantic confusion as he attempts to pinpoint the flattened I, and the stunned abashment with which his displacement of the unfortunate letter sinks in. Meanwhile, the various little creaks and clangs emitted by Luxo's metallic form are assertions of his fundamental otherness; in working within the limitations of something as inanimate and inhuman as a lamp, Pixar managed to give him a vitality and expressiveness that is uniquely his own. The patch of light that accompanies Luxo and is carefully matched to his every movement (a demonstration of Pixar's capacity to have light and shadow interact with their computer-generated landscapes) is another invaluable touch. 

At the time, I was vaguely aware that the character had originated from a short film, Luxo Jr. (John Lassester, 1986), thanks to a documentary I'd seen close to the UK release of Toy Story in the spring of 1996. I'm pretty sure Luxo Jr. came up somewhere in that, although my main interest in said documentary had been in getting glimpses of the upcoming feature and a lot of the background information went over my head (still, I've distinct memories of gasping when they played the test footage Lasseter had prepared for a proposed adaptation of Where The Wild Things Are, and being properly gutted when they subsequently indicated that the project had been canned). Like many people, I didn't see the short in its entirety until it did the theatrical rounds, attached to Pixar's 1999 release Toy Story 2 (though it had previously been available on the 1996 VHS release Tiny Toy Stories), with added text explaining that "This is why we have a hopping lamp in our logo", as if it had been a matter of serious confusion beforehand. Originally created as a technical demonstration of what the Pixar Image Computer could do, it creates an irresistible narrative, cramming a lot into its efficient two minute running time - the bond between Luxo Jr. and his "parent" lamp Luxo Sr., Luxo Jr.'s education on death, or at least consequence (thankfully, the ball he flattens doesn't actually appear to be alive), and the endearing visual punchline where Jr. rebounds from his setback and with the renewed confidence to take on an even bigger escapade in the form of that beach ball. Some of the narrative detail from the short was transplanted directly into the logo - notably Junior flattening the I in the same manner in which he does the smaller ball, although in the original short it was Luxo Sr. who made the fourth wall-breaking gesture of looking directly to the camera. The electrical cord that trailed Luxo Jr. in the original short (another crucial feature in establishing the characters' "lampness") was not incorporated into the logo, presumably in the interests of greater fluidity.

The logo worked its magic, implanting the Pixar brand name firmly inside my skull and getting me genuinely excited for what might be next on the studio's horizon. It offered such an intriguing contrast to Disney's logo - one was elegant and grandiose, while the other was quirky and ultra-modern - making it clear early on that Pixar's output was going to have a touch and character quite distinct from that of the Mouse. It was likewise a much busier logo than the grey shape that had accompanied Pixar's preceding projects, boldly announcing that a new dynamic era had begun. Mind you, the Beveled Square with a Dent still has its charm. It seems like such a primitive piece of computer animation now, but once upon a time it was the future.

Friday, 16 January 2026

The Otto Show (aka That's One Palindrome You Won't Be Hearing For A While)

I like to begin each year by devising a rough plan of the Simpsons episodes I intend to cover each month. Even if I don't stick to it all the way, I find it helpful to have some idea of what I'm working toward, and of which episodes might go well with certain points in the year. It's a list that I'm constantly rethinking and revising, and there will inevitably episodes I've had it in mind to review that end up being passed over. "The Otto Show" (8F21) was one that I had strongly considered cramming in near the end of 2025, to give it proximity to the new Spinal Tap movie, and it very nearly took the spot of "The Homer They Fall" - in the end, though, it just worked out better for me to have covered that episode right before I did "When Flanders Failed" (what with that whole discussion about the sincerity of their respective endings). I figured that "The Otto Show" could wait until January - with the result that there's now a huge air of melancholy hanging over this episode that there wouldn't have been back in November. That is of course down to the tragic death of Spinal Tap director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner on December 14th. When I went to see Spinal Tap II: The End Continues in October, I wasn't preparing myself for the possibility that this would be Reiner's last film, and certainly not under such terrible circumstances. Given that This Is Spinal Tap (1984) was the first feature that Reiner helmed, there is something hauntingly poetic in the fact that his directorial career was bookended by Spinal Tap projects. The lads in Spinal Tap might be among the most enduring comic creations in cinema history, but for the foreseeable future revisiting them is going to come with this inherent sadness, because inevitably you'll be thinking about Reiner. It's a lot like how it's been watching scenes with Lionel Hutz and Troy McClure in the years after Phil Hartman's death - those performances still feel every bit as fresh and impeccable as they did back in the day, but they are also harrowing reminders of what was lost, and in the most horrific possible way. Reiner had no direct involvement in "The Otto Show", but the episode is nevertheless an extension of his legacy, the coming together of The Simpsons and Spinal Tap being one of those marvellous pop culture intersections that speaks to the richness of both worlds. It opens with England's so-called loudest band stopping by to perform a concert in Springfield, and while it does eventually spill over into a more generic tale about Otto the bus driver losing his job and having to move in with the Simpsons, it's the Spinal Tap reunion that makes the strongest impression.

Debuting on April 23rd 1992, "The Otto Show" was part of a spate of third season episodes centring on the private lives of the show's peripheral characters, following on from the likes of "Like Father, Like Clown", "Flaming Moe's" and "Bart The Lover". To that end, it is easily the least successful of the four, in that it doesn't convince us that Otto has much of a private life worth writing about. He definitely works better as a tertiary character, getting the odd moment here and there but generally taking a backseat to the narrative action. This is something that the production crew are entirely upfront about on the DVD commentary, acknowledging that they never attempted a second Otto show and pointing out how revealing it is that you barely see him for the first half of a story billed as being all about him. They joke about "The Otto Show" being an episode built upon shaky decisions, which they attribute to it being written so late in the season when everyone was running out of fucks given. Truth be told, I appreciate the experimentation. When you're working with a world as vibrant and alive with possibilities as Springfield, misfires such as this are are a necessary part of figuring out where your limitations lie. Besides, it's not always obvious from the outset which characters are going to thrive or shrivel in the spotlight. Common sense ought to have dictated that the aforementioned Troy McClure was a one-trick pony who couldn't possibly have supported his own story, and yet he ended up with one of the most fleshed-out and affecting of all the series' character studies. Otto's just never takes flight; the development of him losing his job and winding up homeless happens too far along in the episode for anything substantial to come of it and runs out of steam almost instantly, once we get into the rather pedestrian plot point about him living with the Simpsons. From there, the episode feels like it's going through the motions, with Otto making a nuisance of himself in the most predictable of ways, before we've accumulated enough time for our inevitable status quo reset. The result is an entirely watchable though largely disposable slice of Simpsons life, in which we don't learn a lot about Otto beyond what was already self-explanatory.

Otto's name might be in the title, but the Taps are unquestionably the headline act - in fact, you get the impression that the writers might have come up with the idea for the Spinal Tap gig first and that everything that followed was always an afterthought. This technically wasn't the first instance of a pre-existing fictional character being incorporated into the Simpsons' reality - Gulliver Dark, the lounge singer voiced by Sam McMurray in "Homer's Night Out", was a fellow alum from The Tracey Ullman Show (where McMurray portrayed him in live action skits), but whereas Dark's appearance had the feel of a fun little Easter egg, Spinal Tap's appearance definitely had an eye toward garnering hype. What has it seeming like a totally logical merging of worlds, rather than a hollow gimmick, is of course the Harry Shearer connection - it was a fitting opportunity for the series regular to reprise his role as bassist Derek Smalls, and to be joined by guest stars Christopher Guest and Michael McKean as his bandmates Nigel Tufnel and David St. Hubbins. As crossovers go, it certainly feels a lot less forced than the ones the series would later attempt with The Critic and The X-Files, in part because The Simpsons and Spinal Tap's respective humor styles are already on such a close wavelength, but also because it doesn't overplay its hand by having the band hang out with the family or anything - Tufnel, St. Hubbins and Smalls are incorporated in a way that feels like a plausible part of the show's broader world-building, rather than one in which the Simpsons themselves are automatically at the centre. None of which precludes the reality of there being a transparent ulterior motive in the form of cross promotion. Spinal Tap had released a new album, Break Like The Wind, only a month prior, and it's no coincidence that the song performed at the truncated Springfield concert is that album's title track, rather than one of the hits from their 1984 film. The Simpsons was, nonetheless, required to pay a hefty sum for the privileging of promoting "Break Like The Wind", with Fox complaining that for that cost they might as well have brought in a real band, so I don't doubt that this was something the series staff were really eager to see happen. You could make the argument (as Nathan Rabin does in his review on The AV Club) that there is something slightly suspect about having Bart be so enthused about the prospect of attending a Spinal Tap gig - after all, one of the major plot points of This Is Spinal Tap was the band's declining relevance in the contemporary music scene, with people widely regarding them as yesterday's news. But then I suppose that their performing in a burg as crummy as Springfield speaks volumes as to how far they've fallen in the world. Supplying promos for idiotic shock jocks Bill and Marty is somewhat of a degrading business, even if you are choosy about the material you'll recite.

The first act, when Spinal Tap are in town, is a lot of fun. Writer Jeff Martin has a really good handle on the little details that made This Is Spinal Tap so delightful. The concert is plagued by an assortment of technical snafus that are enjoyably reminiscent of the things that would go wrong for the band throughout their mockumentary. The lighting is off and misses Smalls as he makes his grand entrance, forcing him to discreetly readjust his position. A giant inflatable devil that reportedly looked very impressive when it hadn't expelled half of its air is lowered onto stage, something the band handles with more aplomb than the comparable fiasco with the Stonehenge prop in the movie proper. It ends in a way that feels more befitting of the culture in Springfield, with a full-scale riot, prompting Kent Brockman to weigh in with perhaps his wittiest editorial: "Of course, it would be wrong to suggest that this sort of mayhem began with rock and roll. After all, there were riots at the premiere of Mozart's The Magic Flute. So what's the answer? Ban all music? In this reporter's opinion the answer sadly is yes." (Is that actually true about The Magic Flute? Historically, classical music audiences haven't been the best-behaved bunch - there were riots at the premiere of Igor Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring - so Brockman's basic point stands, but I can't find any reference to The Magic Flute specifically.) Ultimately the chaos of Springfield puts the band themselves in the shade. The movie's most morbid joke - the running gag about the long line of ill-fated drummers that have worked with Spinal Tap - is not evoked, but the episode turns out to have far more cut-throat aspirations in mind. In an epilogue to the disastrous concert it's implied that the entire band might have been killed, when Otto runs their tour bus off the road, causing it to crash and burst into flames - although I note that Skinner does later say, "It's a miracle no one was hurt", so maybe they all survived unscathed, the drummer included. I mean, being driven off the road by a speeding school bus almost sounds too mundane a way for a Spinal Tap drummer to go (a bus driven by a dog, maybe).

The most fabulous moment in the concert's downfall is of course when Homer is waiting for Bart outside the stadium while singing along to "Spanish Flea" on his car radio, so engrossed in his private karaoke session that he doesn't even notice the bloodshed unfolding behind him. It's a sequence that treads such a fine line between Homer's innocence and his negligence. Acquiring the rights to use "Spanish Flea" was even more of an uphill battle than getting "Break Like The Wind", so much so that the sequence was very nearly jettisoned, but prevailed in the end thanks to a) Dan Castellaneta's exquisite performance, which charmed everyone at the table read and b) Jay Kogan having a personal connection that enabled him to pull strings with somebody involved with Herb Alpert and The Tijuana Brass.

Otto is glimpsed early on, in attendance at the Spinal Tap concert alongside Snake (Snake having been introduced as a friend of Otto's in "The War of The Simpsons", although that connection was basically dropped from here on in). In fact, he and Snake are the characters who incite the riot, but we do have to get through a whole other plot development before we eventually circle back to our nominal star. The ever-impressionable Bart, unfazed by his brush with the uglier side of rock and roll, gets it into his head that he too could be a heavy metal musician. At this point the episode looks as if it might be going a similar route to "Bart The Daredevil", the key difference being that Marge and Homer are only too happy to nurture this particular aspiration by investing in a guitar. Bart discovers that, compared to leaping over vehicles on his skateboard, strumming does not come quite so easily to him and is quickly discouraged. This eventually leads to him showing the guitar to Otto, insisting that it's broken, and Otto dazzling his young passengers by playing it like a boss. Otto gets so carried away with his performance that he loses track of the time, causing him to make a dash for the school at breakneck speed, driving Spinal Tap off the road, disrupting the annual police picnic and finally crashing the bus. Skinner uncovers the scandalous truth, that Otto has no driving license, and suspends him without pay, reasoning that since he drove an all-terrain vehicle in Vietnam, he can shoulder the bus driving duties in his absence. Shorn of his status and source of income, Otto rapidly hits rock bottom, failing to pass a driving test and facing eviction from his apartment, until Bart finds him sheltering in a dumpster and invites him to bed down in his family's garage. In the meantime, the entire narrative thread about Bart wanting to become a rock musician is simply left to fizzle. I will give the episode this - it at least fizzles out in a way that feels realistic in terms of a child's expectations, with Bart admitting to Homer that he gave up the guitar because he wasn't good at it right away. Obviously, playing the guitar isn't the kind of thing that you should expect to be good at right away, but when you're a kid you often don't have the patience to see these things in the longer term, and not getting that instant gratification can be enough to severely dampen your interest. We immediately trade in realism for a window into Homer's well-intentioned but totally warped parenting, when in lieu of impressing the responsible teaching about the value of hard graft and perseverance, he praises Bart for having reached one of life's great epiphanies, namely that if something is hard to do, it's not worth doing. Why waste time with demanding interests like guitars, karate lessons (nice nod to the subplot of "When Flanders Failed" there) and unicycles when you can partake in the totally passive alternative of reclining in front of the chattering cyclops, irrespective of what's on? What's on was never the point.

Fair play to Martin's script for tying such an upfront bow on its own listlessness, although I suspect that a narrative where Bart got to do something with his guitar-playing aspirations before inevitably packing it in would have been a notch more interesting than the one we get with Otto. Having him move in with the Simpsons feels, as I say, like somewhat of a stock development, one we'd be seeing a lot more of throughout the course of the series, where stories about down and out characters seeking refuge under the Simpsons' roof have happened with more frequency than you might first think - heck, this wasn't even the only example from the back-end of Season 3, with Herb Powell showing up on the family's doorstep just two episodes along in "Brother, Can You Spare Two Dimes?". Elsewhere, we had Krusty move in during the events of "Krusty Gets Kancelled", Apu in "Homer and Apu", Lampwick in "The Day The Violence Died", Cooder and Spud in "Bart Carny", and I think that Artie Ziff might even have lived with them at one point. Some of these scenarios have the ring of plausibility more than others. I certainly find the prospect of the Simpsons accommodating Herb a lot more believable than I do Otto - Herb's family, and he had a grievance the Simpsons were anxious to atone for, whereas Otto isn't even someone they know particularly well outside of his profession as a school bus driver. Wanting to help him is one thing, but I'm not sure that I buy Homer and Marge allowing him to stay with them indefinitely, even with Marge justifying it as an act of Christian charity (Marge: "Doesn't the Bible say, whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me?" Homer: "Yeah, but doesn't the Bible also say thou shalt not take...moochers into thy...hut?"). Arguably, it's an example of a problem that episodes looking to focus on the supporting characters tend to run into, in that their hands are often tied by the obligation to keep the Simpsons at the centre of events, even in situations that shouldn't be logically their business. One of the reasons why the Troy McClure episode worked as well as it did is because it didn't try to shoehorn the Simpsons in any more than was necessary (being a Selma-centric installment, it perhaps wasn't perceived as so disconnected from the main family). But then it's not as though there were a wealth of possibilities for where Otto's arc might otherwise have gone; the staff are clear in the commentary that they didn't have the same passion for crafting an episode around him as they did one involving Spinal Tap and Homer's rendition of "Spanish Flea". What else could Otto have done if he didn't have the Simpsons to turn to? Move in with Snake? 

Otto is in some ways comparable to Moe, in that both are bereft of basic dignity and nearing the bottommost rungs of Springfield's social ladder - Otto, though, doesn't share Moe's bitter misanthropy or his desperation for acceptance, being so laid-back and oblivious that his lowliness barely registers. He has the air of a perpetual teenager in the body of a grown man, with little impetus for joining the adult world. I'd say he was a take on the Gen-X slacker archetype that was being sent up a lot at the time, except that Otto's year of birth is given in this episode as 1963, so he is technically a Boomer (albeit almost as young as a Boomer can possibly be). For the most part, Otto even seems happy with his lot in life, so he doesn't invite quite the same opportunities for pathos as Moe. "The Otto Show" only allows him to reveal one hidden depth and, unfortunately, it's a variation on the one Krusty just did - his father, a naval commander, disapproved of the lifestyle he chose and now wants nothing to do with him. This is brought up at two separate intervals to give context for Otto's predicament, but isn't developed in any way as a plot point (presumably because it would be too reminiscent of "Like Father, Like Clown"). At most, when Otto takes a disliking to Homer during the episode's climax, it's possible to project a subtext about Otto using his friction with the Simpson patriarch to gain catharsis for his own daddy issues, but this isn't explicitly stated. Another possible avenue might have been to have centred on Bart's relationship with Otto, something that was explored more insightfully in their brief interaction in "Bart Gets an F", when Bart confides in Otto his fear about the possibility of being held back a grade. Bart finds it easier to relate to Otto than to most adults because he behaves less like an authority figure and more like an overgrown school kid, but given his blank-eyed reaction to Otto's response - that being held back isn't a big deal, because it happened to him twice, and now he drives the school bus - it seems that Bart has, in that moment, seen through him. There is a clear discrepancy between the message Otto thinks he's conveying and the one Bart is receiving; Otto sees himself as someone who mastered his situation and ascended to the top of the elementary school ladder, whereas Bart sees him as someone who never transcended the cycle and is now permanently stuck in the mentality of a fourth-grader. Bart respects Otto for the subversive mayhem he brings to the otherwise monotonous school routine, but deep down inside recognises that he isn't looking to emulate him; even at this point in life, he senses that he has greater ambition than Otto. Here, Bart gives Otto encouragement by assuring him he's the coolest adult he knows, with no such complexity.

Otto's cohabiting with the Simpsons, however questionable, doesn't come without its share of laughs. I like the scene where he terrifies Lisa with his overly intense retelling of the urban legend about the killer in the backseat, and his request for reading material "from the vampire's point of view" (er, you mean like Anne Rice?). The most interesting thing to arise is Homer insisting that, "This is not Happy Days, and [Otto] is not the Fonz", only for Otto to walk in and casually address him as "Mr S". I'm not massively well-versed in Happy Days lore, but as I understand it that's a reference to Fonzie's practice of addressing his host Howard Cunningham as "Mr C". What's curious about this moment, with hindsight, is how it foreshadows the appearance of Roy, the radical young man who was inexplicably living with the Simpsons in the Season 8 episode "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show", and who also referred to Homer as "Mr S". We sense, fleetingly, that there is some intention to playfully mock the sitcom tendency toward contrived co-living situations in which contrasting characters get on one another's nerves, with Otto's addition suggesting a certain hackneying of dynamics in the Simpsons household. Overall, though, "The Otto Show" ends up not quite being the sum of its parts. Perhaps befitting for a program about Otto, it feels hampered by a fundamental lack of ambition. There is a clear enough narrative vision in the sense that everything flows fluidly from one point to the next, but it is largely a matter of "this happened...and then this happened...soon followed by this". What it doesn't do is to stop to unpick a great many of the possible characterisations lurking beneath each of these story decisions, to the extent that the episode never quite settles on what it's even about until literally the closing few seconds. It isn't about Bart's fleeting ambition to become a rock star, or his relationship with Otto. It isn't about Otto's relationship with his estranged father, his conflict with Homer or even his desire to salvage his barely existent self-esteem. What it is about, in the end, is Skinner's perception of Otto. Skinner has only a minor role in "The Otto Show", but he is very much where the heart of the story lies. It's thanks to Skinner that everything does eventually come together in the end.

In many ways Skinner can be seen as the antithesis of Otto. If Otto is an unusually cool adult, then Skinner is the absolute epitome of how Bart perceives the adult world, being an uptight, no-nonsense stickler for model behaviour, overly occupied with tedious duties and with little room for fun in his life (ironically, Skinner is even more of an overgrown schoolboy than Otto). It's no surprise that he would feel disdain for Otto, a grown man so disorganised and devoid of pride that he can't even show up to work wearing his own underwear. After suspending Otto, Skinner initially seems to vibe well with his stopgap transportation responsibilities, as the children welcome him with a collective rendition of "Hail To The Bus Driver", a spirited song sung to the tune of "O du lieber Augustin". Skinner, though, has a harder time navigating the route than Otto, not being assertive enough with his fellow motorist and becoming frustrated with the lack of consideration he receives in return. He struggles to make a turning because nobody will let him in and ends up a complete nervous wreck. By the end of the episode, when Otto has been restored to his position and the children are celebrating his return with a reprise of "Hail To The Bus Driver", it's Skinner who gets in the final word, watching from his office as Otto drives off into the distance, and reciting the lyrics of the song with a thoroughgoing reverence. Having had a first-hand taste of how difficult Otto's job is, he's come to see the value in what Otto does and is thankful to have him. That's why I consider Skinner to be the heart of this episode - he's the only character who undergoes any real growth as a result of his experiences in "The Otto Show". Bart misses the opportunity to develop a new skill and is potentially set back further by Homer's false pearl of wisdom. We're given no indication that Homer's opinion on Otto ever softens. As for Otto, while he eventually summons the resolve to retake his driving test and regains his job, he doesn't do so because he made any improvements as a bus driver, but because of who had chosen to like him on a given day. Although Patty was thoroughly unimpressed by Otto on his initial visit to the DMV, on his second visit he and Patty build a rapport over their shared dislike of Homer, and she's willing to overlook his many failings. (Incidentally, I don't know how people feel nowadays about that part where he offends Patty straight out the gate by asking if she's a transwoman - it's hard to dispute that a joke is being made about Patty's perceived lack of feminity, but there's an extent to which it feels also partly at Otto's expense for his presumptions of good allyship: "You can tell me, I'm open-minded".)

What makes Skinner's final expression of admiration for Otto particularly resonant is that he, perhaps more so than Homer, serves as a proxy for Otto's unseen father - he's also from a military background, and he's the one who banishes Otto in disgrace from familiar turf. It means that he is, at least on a subliminal level, able to bring some resolution to this otherwise untouched on narrative detail. Unlike Krusty, Otto doesn't go into depth about his father, so we don't learn the full story of what caused their relationship breakdown, but we're left to presume that it was likely influenced by their differences in values. There is a telling moment where Otto, boasting to the busload of kids about how playing the guitar was all he did back in high school, lets it slip that his father told him he was wasting his time and would never amount to anything, followed by a pause and a dissatisfied murmur. Otto has, for a second, inadvertently cut through his own obliviousness and is left contemplating if maybe his old man was onto something after all. Unlike Bart, he had the dedication to master the guitar, but otherwise lacked the gumption or discipline to make anything of himself, at least according to his father's standards, and deep down Otto is perhaps no more immune to life's disappointments than anybody else. It's no surprise that he'd want to savour the opportunity to show off his guitar skills before the kids on board the bus, and to soak up that meagre drop of personal glory. But really, in spite of Otto's momentary insecurities, there is intrinsic worth in what he does, which is to be a dependable source of conviviality for the community's children whilst taking them to and from their education. And Skinner, in lieu of Otto's father, is able to extend him the respect that he's due, now that he understands that it's not a role that just anyone can fulfil. There might not be a ton of prestige attached, but he's clearly appreciated by the people for whom it matters the most. Maybe there's not such a massive gulf between the stadium's applause for Spinal Tap and the enthusiastic response Otto receives when he returns to his young charges at the end. 

There's not much left to say, other than to dedicate this review to the memory of Rob and Michele Reiner. As much as I love Spinal Tap, my favourite Reiner film is actually When Harry Met Sally. Word has it that we got the version we did because Rob and Michele happened to fall in love during its production. What a beautiful legacy for them both.

Monday, 22 December 2025

The Man Who Blew Away (One Foot In The Grave)

 Content warning: Suicide

The Christmas of 1994 was a Christmas quite unlike any other, all on account of what was happening at Victor Meldrew's house that year. 

One Foot In The Grave was then riding high among the cream of the contemporary Britcom crop. The previous year's special, "One Foot In The Algarve", had been a major ratings success, and you can bet that the BBC were eager to maintain that momentum with another festive special in 1994. Series creator and writer David Renwick didn't have time to devise a stand-alone special from scratch, but suggested that one of the scripts he'd been working on for the upcoming Series 5 could potentially be expanded to 40 minutes. The episode in question was "The Man Who Blew Away". Legions of Meldrew devotees tuned in to BBC One at 21:00 on 25th December, eager for another extended round of wacky hilarity with the irascible sixtysomething, and by 21:40 were sitting there in stunned silence, struggling to wrap their heads around what they had seen and keep a day's worth of Yuletide dining down. The episode garnered immediate notoriety, guaranteed to come up in conversations to the tune of "Can you believe THAT went out on Christmas Day?" for years to come.

If you are unfamiliar with this episode, then I fear that the content warning at the top of this page might have given the game away. The plot involves Victor and Margaret accommodating a house guest with suicidal tendencies, and having to talk him out of his latest attempt, which involves him climbing around naked upon their roof. Then in the epilogue they receive news that he made a subsequent attempt soon after leaving their company and on this occasion he succeeded. The episode promptly ends. Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas!

In fairness, One Foot In The Grave had dabbled in some gloomy subjects in previous Christmas specials. "Who's Listening?" from 1990 contained a subplot dealing with the Yuletide struggles of a bereaved young family (albeit one that ended happily, by way of a deus ex machina). Pippa's pregnancy arc in "The Man in The Long Black Coat" from 1991 ended on a note of immense pathos, with her being injured in a bus crash and suffering a miscarriage. The thing is, neither of those specials had aired on Christmas Day itself. There was traditionally a safe enough buffer between the peak of the festive celebrations and Renwick's morbid indulgences. Even the ambitious, feature-length (and relatively breezy) "Algarve" had to make do with a Boxing Day slot. "The Man Who Blew Away" was the first One Foot In The Grave special to have the honor of going out on 25th December, and it yielded what has to be one of the show's most unapologetically downbeat endings ever (bested only by the final episode, "Things Aren't Simple Any More", which at least had mercy enough to sign off to the triumphant sounds of The Travelling Wilburys). It all makes a little more sense when you consider that it wasn't originally written to be a Christmas installment, but at the same time, there was something incredibly on brand about the series using that prime Yuletide slot to leave the nation not merely depressed, but seriously perturbed into the bargain. The ending to "The Man Who Blew Away" isn't only tragic, it's also deeply unsettling. A large part of that has to do with the song that accompanies the closing credits, "The Laughing Policeman" by Charles Penrose, a classic music hall song from 1922 (itself an adaptation of "The Laughing Song", recorded by African American singer George W. Johnson in 1890). The song had shown up at an earlier junction in the story, where it was nothing more than an insomnia-inflicting irritation to Victor and Margaret, but it acquires much darker overtones when it's repeated in the outro. Renwick remarks on the DVD commentary that he's always thought there to be something terribly "macabre" about the song - not because of the hysterical, borderline-crazed laughter that makes up the chorus, but because of the clicking noises going on in the background, which he reckons are evocative of something you'd find in the horror comedy series The League of Gentlemen. 

The irony is that I vividly remember watching the episode's festive premiere as a child and not finding the experience anywhere near as dark or disturbing as I should have done, on account of "The Laughing Policeman". I should explain that my school's Christmas show for that year had been themed around music hall, and "The Laughing Policeman" was one of the songs we'd performed. A really fun song to perform it was too. So when it cropped up in this episode, I was positively buzzing. It was something that I knew, and the excitement of that performance was still very fresh on my mind, so naturally I gravitated straight to it. When we heard the news at the end that Victor and Margaret's friend had died, I did think it was a weirdly sad way to cap off the episode. But then "The Laughing Policeman" started up again in the credits and it cheered me right up. It was only when I revisited the episode in the early 00s that it hit me what the real intention had been. You weren't supposed to laugh at the Laughing Policeman. The Laughing Policeman laughs at you. "The Man Who Blew Away" feels, more savagely than any other edition of One Foot In The Grave, like a story where the last laugh is squarely on the viewer. Which makes it all the more ballsy that it went out on Christmas Day. 

The circumstances of the episode's airing is a detail that will forever colour it, giving it a greater infamy than it would have acquired had it aired according to Renwick's original plans. But looking at "The Man Who Blew Away" thirty-one years after the fact, it holds up as more than just a twisted joke that rattled some 15 million people on the Christmas of 1994. The thing that always made it worthy of that coveted Xmas slot is that it stands out as one of the very strongest installments of One Foot In The Grave. A lot of that is down to the doomed character, Mr Foskett, and how wonderfully portrayed he is by Brian Murphy. He is one of the most hauntingly complicated figures ever to grace the series, at once ridiculous and tragic. Creating a character who is both soul-crushingly tedious and uproariously hilarious can be a challenge enough in itself, but Murphy pulls it off effortlessly, all while imbuing Foskett with a multi-layered pathos that has us running the whole gamut of emotions. On the one hand, we empathise fully with the Meldrews in finding the man unbearable and in wanting to give him as wide a berth as possible. On the surface his behaviour is beyond infuriating. He shows up on their doorstep and expects to be immediately accommodated, then talks at mind-numbing length about every nondescript detail in his own life, never letting anybody else get a word in edgeways. At the same time, we become increasingly aware that Foskett's rabid neediness stems from forlorn desperation; that this is a deeply damaged man teetering on the edge, and his various imposing tendencies amount to cries for help that the Meldrews are ill-equipped to provide. We become uneasy about where this story might be headed, and rightly so. We're still able to get in plenty of laughs at Foskett's expense, but this is all turned back on us in the final scene, when we are implicated, along with the Meldrews, as part of the wider unsympathetic milieu that consigned this poor fellow to oblivion. 

Mr Foskett is the narrative centrepiece of "The Man Who Blew Away", but the funny thing is that he doesn't appear until 22 minutes in. That's over midway through the episode. What's more, his arrival comes completely out of the blue, making it every bit as jarring for the viewer as for the Meldrews. There hadn't been so much as a throwaway mention of the character in any of the preceding scenes, so when Victor receives a telephone call and hears Foskett on the other end, we have no context for who he even is, other than that the mere sound of his voice is enough to make Victor jolt upwards in terror. His being there represents an intrusion from a terrible chapter in the Meldrews' past they had considered long buried; it's revealed to be such an absurdly minor chapter at that, but one that's left deep psychological scars on them both. Foskett was a fellow guest at a boarding house the Meldrews had stayed at during a trip to Weston-super-Mare seventeen years ago, and the bulk of their interactions came from him having to walk through their bedroom every night to access the bathroom. Obviously he talked their ears off then, and demanded their contact details so that they could keep in touch when their holidays were over. The Meldrews gave him a false address and hoped that would be the end of it. Foskett has tracked them down anyway. He might not manage this until the latter end of the story, but what's clever about that first half is that you can look back and identity how it's been building toward his appearance through its artful use of foreshadowing. The opening sequence has Margaret returning home to find that Victor has neglected to bring in the washing, and their clothes have blown all over the snow-covered garden. Among them are a pair of socks frozen into the shape of a boomerang. "I'd throw these socks away," Margaret grumbles, "Except they'd probably keep coming back."

On the commentary, Renwick states that one of the modifications made to his original script was the inclusion of snow in the outdoor scenes, to give the impression of a festive setting. Even so, "The Man Who Blew Away" does not actually appear to take place at Christmastime (which was not at all unfitting, since "Who's Listening?" was the only OFITG Christmas special that did - the specials were more an opportunity to tell stories on a grander scale than your regular episode). The only direct artifacts of the festive season are the box of Christmas crackers and reels of wrapping paper that feature in an early sequence, recent purchases from the Happy Shopper (a defunct convenience store brand that has since been supplanted by Premier), suggesting that the events of the special fall somewhere close to Christmas, although there is ambiguity regarding the precise proximity. Does it take place in the early winter, before the decorations have gone up, or in the aftermath, with Margaret having purchased marked-down crackers and paper in the January sales, so as to have cheap supplies ready for the following Christmas? I lean toward the latter, largely on account of the box of Milk Tray chocolates Victor is seen working through at the start (and in such a classy fashion, by skewering them with cocktail stick and dunking them in his tea), as it seems like the kind of seasonal gift that you might still have left over in the early days of January. Such details feel like arbitrary concessions thrown in to make an otherwise disconnected story a little more superficially Christmassy, although a great gag is mined from the presence of the crackers, when Victor opens one to find that someone has slipped an insulting joke inside - "What's the difference between Victor Meldrew and a chef who keeps dropping his pancakes? Answer: They're both useless tossers!" (Adding insult to injury is that the pranksters have failed to construct the joke correctly; as Victor points out, it should be "Why is Victor Meldrew like a chef who keeps dropping his pancakes?").

Renwick's other major modification was to pad out the initial sequence in the Meldrews' living room, and if "The Man Who Blew Away" has any real shortcoming, it's that the story takes a long time to get going. Even so, the protracted opening doesn't feel like time wasted, with the slowburn enabling the more outlandish material to land with greater impact - notably, when Victor casually approaches a drawer and pulls out an arm, a weird and macabre gag that falls within a sequence of lower-key moments and is not immediately explained. As it turns out, Victor has lately been the target of a string of bizarre pranks, with false limbs being left around his bin and garage to give the appearance of bodies stuffed within. Not only does the resolution of this narrative strand dovetail with Foskett's arrival, the repeated emphasis on disconnected body parts neatly foreshadows the grotesque visual on which the episode will end.

In spite of the misadventures with the clothes, the limbs and the crackers, the Meldrews are in an overall buoyant mood, because their car has been stolen. This is a very good thing, because if you watched "The Beast In The Cage", you might recall how much Victor struggled with their dsyfunctional Honda. As we join the Meldrews, the car has been gone for three months and they are planning which new vehicle to buy with the anticipated insurance settlement. That is, until their good cheer is interrupted by a telephone call, bringing the bad news that their Honda has been found, in one piece...and in Finland. This prompts a truly uproarious reaction from Victor: "FINLAND??? That car couldn't get to FINCHLEY!!!" The events of the Honda narrative, which occupies the first half of the episode, have no direction connection to anything that later goes on with Foskett, but we can see how the seeds are being sown for his eventual appearance. Coupled with Margaret's observation about the frozen socks, a running theme is being established regarding unrelenting nuisances finding their way back to Meldrews as they think they are rid of them. Meanwhile, there is a subplot unfolding next door with Patrick and Pippa, as the former prepares for an engagement with a couple of prospective business contractors. It's a relatively small part of the story, but it climaxes with the episode's most hysterical visual gag, which occurs once Foskett has made it out onto the Meldrews' roof, and which I wouldn't dare spoil here.

Between the unwelcome intrusions of the Honda and Foskett, there is a further bugbear to contend with in the form of Mr and Mrs Aylesbury, an unseen couple who live across the street from the Meldrews, and who apparently have a penchant for throwing raucous parties into the early hours. It's here that "The Laughing Policeman" first comes into play - right after a deceptive silence in which the Meldrews think the party has died down and the ordeal is finally over. The really nerve-grinding part is during the chorus, when the party guests all join in with the deranged laughing (before, as per Victor's account, spilling out onto the front lawn to do Chuck Berry duck walks). For as hilarious as this entire sequence is, I will say that it is the part of the episode that requires the greatest suspension of disbelief (yes, even more so than the stolen Honda showing up in Finland), on account of Victor's observation about no one else on the street is remotely bothered besides themselves. That much is a bit hard to swallow. I could see the Swaineys maybe shrugging this off, but there's no way that Patrick and Pippa wouldn't be just as wound up and inconvenienced as Victor and Margaret, particularly with it coinciding with Patrick's important business preparation. You just to have buy into the premise that this is another instance of universe conspiring purely to make life harder for Victor (and by extension Margaret), and that the Trenches are somehow impervious (since they are typically only affected wherever it will make Victor look worse). In this case, the universe's malice manifests as delirious laughter, permeating the Meldrews' walls and mocking their futility in the face of such unabating chaos. The one consolation for their sleepless night is that it's followed by Sunday morning, and under normal circumstances they would have no obligation to get up early. Under normal circumstances. This is of course where Mr Foskett chooses to rear his head, the seismic disaster in relation to which all other grievances - the inescapable Honda, The Laughing Policeman - have been mere rumblings on the horizon. This is also where the episode really shifts into full gear, with every last moment hitting with utter precision. Time could so easily have diluted the impact of that one joke where Foskett is revealed to be calling on a mobile from outside the Meldrews' front door, coming as it did from an age where mobiles were less prolific and this would have been more unexpected, and yet the timing and the delivery are so perfect that it still feels every bit as fresh as it did back then.

Foskett claims that he'd happened to be in the area visiting his sister-in-law and, having looked up the Meldrews' real address in a telephone book, had decided to call in on them. During the extended, one-sided game of catch-up he has them play, he reveals that his first marriage broke down soon after that holiday in Weston-super-Mare, resulting in the loss of his job and in thirteen separate suicide attempts, but that he's since picked his life up, remarried and has two wonderful sons. Foskett's gushing about his newfound familial bliss brings its own extraneous misfortune for Victor and Margaret. When Victor opens the door, he finds Foskett accompanied by two pre-teen boys and, assuming them to be the sons in question, the Meldrews let them in and offer them breakfast, only for them to take advantage of their hospitality and eat well beyond their fill of jam tarts and roast potatoes. And then it turns out that they aren't even Foskett's sons, but local children who were responsible for the pranks with the fake limbs (and also the Christmas cracker) and were sent by their father to apologise. As the dust settles from that misunderstanding, Victor finds Foskett in the hallway, looking very pale and shaken. He'd gone to make a telephone call to his wife Loretta, who'd declined to come to the Meldrews' on account of having a migraine, only to discover that she and the boys have taken the opportunity to make a bolt for it and abandon him for good. All of his talk about having found happiness with a new family was a sham; they couldn't stand him any more than anyone else he ever encountered.

Following a further mishap, where Foskett retreats to the kitchen for a class of water but ends up collapsing onto a pile of scattered rubbish, the Meldrews allow him to clean up with a bath, but are all the while thinking of how to awkwardly get rid of him, with Margaret suggesting they ring for a taxi. It dawns on her that it maybe wasn't a good idea to let Foskett lock himself inside the bathroom and out of their sight, given his extensive history of suicidal behaviour. Victor thinks she's overreacting, until he goes outside and sees Foskett out on the roof wearing only a towel, threatening to throw himself off. He ultimately has second thoughts, but not without slipping, losing the towel and having to dangle naked from the roof gutter. This is the narrative's major set-piece, with the tension and comic absurdity exquisitely nailed by Susan Belbin's direction, so that even the admittedly rather naff-looking night sky effects don't take us out of the moment. 

In the epilogue, set a short while after the ordeal, we learn that Victor and Margaret are making a habit of leaving their Honda unsecured, in the hopes of it being stolen again, although Victor is questioning the purpose, noting that any keys left in the ignition have been invariably returned by would-be Good Samaritans. Foskett, on the other hand, will not be back, at least not in the flesh; the Meldrews receive a package containing an update on their old friend, and it's revealed that he made his fifteenth and final suicide attempt after leaving with the police and sadly succumbed to his injuries in hospital. Before his death, Foskett shared that there was one thing that brought him comfort in his darkest hour - his friendship with the Meldrews, the kindness they had shown him on that day, and how pleased they had evidently been to see him after all these years.

Foskett remains something of a puzzle, and we are left wondering if he was perhaps considerably less oblivious than he let on. He comes off as a man in deep denial, commenting on how strange it was that the address the Meldrews had given him turned out to be bogus but convincing himself that he'd written it down wrong. This raises the question as to what really precipitated his arrival at their door - did his family's total abandonment of him come as such a surprise to him, or was it the result of a much more prolonged marital breakdown? It dawns on us that Foskett might have deliberately sought out the Meldrews because he knew that something like this would be coming and felt the need to be with friends when the dreaded news broke. The knowledge that his first marriage had ended soon after the holiday in Weston-super-Mare underscores the likelihood that he was having marital problems back then too, and that his interactions with the Meldrews had amounted to much the same thing. On both occasions, he'd been reaching out to Victor and Margaret, and while they'd sat and endured his company through gritted teeth, all they'd privately desired was to have him out of their lives. That a couple he'd known for a brief spell seventeen years ago should be the only people he could think to turn to tells its own desolate story. The most haunting thing about Foskett? We never even learn his full name. He talks at great length about his vast collection of antique dentures and his allergy to sticky tape, yet that one all-important detail never slips through. The Meldrews were all he had left in the end, and they weren't even on first name terms with the man. He is of course the figure alluded to in the episode title - the opening sequence, in which the onscreen title was juxtaposed with a discarded newspaper page with coverage of local weddings, had foreshadowed Foskett's marital woes as the factor that would drive him over the edge, while also subtly implanting the image of him as a soul drifting feebly upon the breeze, briefly fluttering into people's lives only to be swept out again into the ether. He is a man with a knack for alienating every single person he comes into contact with, with no lasting ties or connections to keep him grounded in any particular social setting. Much like that stray newspaper page, he is discarded rubbish, professing to carry joyous news but totally unwanted and destined to shortly become nothing. It is a haunting allusion, calling to mind how little the Meldrews, or indeed we the audience really knew him, in spite of the tremendous deal he had to say about himself. To The Meldrews, he was an annoyance that came into their lives for a day, while to us he was a momentary diversion to be laughed at, but the gravitas of Margaret's final reading impresses the sobering notion that this was a life, now lost because nobody cared enough to hold onto it. He can also be likened to the scattered washing found by Margaret in the beginning, with the lack of eyes upon him (both literal and metaphorical) leading to his terminal ruin. 

Foskett's belief that he'd found camaraderie with Victor and Margaret is by far the episode's cruellest irony, but of course Renwick isn't going to bow out without inflicting one further instance of cosmic misfortune upon the Meldrews. They open up the package to find that, as Foskett's last remaining allies, he has entrusted them with his legacy in the form of his collection of antique dentures, in which Victor had politely feigned interest in an earlier scene. The final visual of those assorted cabinets of lovingly displayed pearlies creates an uneasy connection between smiling and death, for these are not merely the worldly remains of Foskett himself, but the synthetic snickers of countless owners long departed, all grinning mindlessly from beyond the grave. An underlying theme of "The Man Who Blew Away" is the idea of laughter as a reflexive coping mechanism geared toward masking grim realities and staving off the omnipresent darkness of life. The knowledge that we're all going to die and the likelihood that life is absurd are as inescapable as the Meldrews' Honda; we have to find a way of keeping the pain at bay somehow. The episode ends with Victor expressing newfound sympathy for Mr and Mrs Aylesbury, for he now understands their need to stay up laughing with Charles Penrose into the early hours, and suggests that if he and Margaret cannot follow their example, they too risk sinking into suicidal despair. The final moments, naturally, produce no laughter from either party, only an awkward silence followed by a characteristically morbid punchline, in which Victor asks Margaret where she's keeping the sleeping pills. We linger on one last shot of Foskett's collection before dissolving into the closing credits, where the familiar tortoise footage is accompanied by a reprise of "The Laughing Policeman" in lieu of the usual Eric Idle-sung theme song. Previously a manifestation of the universe's mockery of Victor and Margaret, it now becomes something altogether more sinister - our own laughter and craving for escapism has been implicated in this process of addled diversion, making these hysterical wails of irrepressible anguish an eerie caricture of our own damnation. The presence of those tortoises only adds to the final uncanniness; their significance was explained by Renwick on the commentary for "The Beast In The Cage", where he notes that they are specifically giant tortoises, which are one of the most long-lived of animal species and thus symbols of longevity. Juxtaposed with Penrose's howls, they suggest suffering of a particularly interminable variety, of having lived so long and seen so much lunacy.

Which was certainly an uncomfortable point at which to leave us in the late hours of Christmas, although it should be noted that it did little to sour the public's appetite for further seasonal installments with Victor and Margaret. A festive edition of One Foot In The Grave Christmas would remain an annual event for the duration of the mid-90s, with three further specials, "The Wisdom of The Witch", "Starbound" and "Endgame" airing in the succeeding years (of which only "Starbound" missed out on a Christmas Day slot). Renwick would never again attempt anything with quite the same bitterly downbeat flavour as "The Man Who Blew Away", however, at least not within the festive specials. The upsets of Series 6 were still to come (including an echoing of the themes of "The Man Who Blew Away" in the episode "Tales of Terror"), but those were a good few years away yet.

Finally, since I'm such a VHS nerd, I've spent an unhealthy amount of time scrutinising the Meldrews' living room cabinet to see if I can identify which tapes they have in their collection. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's The Addams Family there on the bottom right. Neat, the Meldrews have good taste then.