New Chris Morris Series! But What Will It Be...?

[Felatio Imperative]

Have you actually listened to a word anyone's said about the problem with Morris' direction? We don't want him to go against the grain of comedy - that just leads to Jaaaaaaaaaaam and My Wrongs and Nathan Barley and him trying to be all fucking clever and forgetting to be funny at any point.
Y'see, while you might think comedy is left-wing (which is bullshit - Little Britain anyone?), society in general has actually got worse. Even more people spout reactionary rubbish about forners comin' over 'ere (except they've been rebranded "asylum seekers") and even more people seem to think it's acceptable to brand Europe, the bogeyman of Political Correctness and ultimately The Left for everything that's wrong with the world.
(It's even more amusing that The Left gets blamed for everything, given that the current Government is quite distinctly not left wing in it's beliefs. But that's a different thread.)
Personally, I think a Morris project ripping the piss out of news reports saying that ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! and ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE EATING EVERYTHING! and ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE RAPISTS! and so on would be fantastic. No-one else has had the balls to do it, godliek geenyus or not.

Actually, while he's at it, could someone get him to do some sketches where takes the piss out of people who believe that everything in the world happens because of Political Correctness Gone Mad, please? Ta.

First of all, I wasn't suggesting he go against the grain of 'comedy', but to take a new outlook and dare to veer away from all the anti-racist, anti-tory, anti-anyone who doesn't demand that criminals be sent to Alton Towers every second Wednesday of the month dogma we get constantly on the BBC and channel 4.
So Little Britain is right wing is it? Taking the piss out of Tory women and the WI, portraying old people as incontinent, that's right wing is it? I must read the Daily Mail more often.
Maybe people are reacting against asylum seekers because this demented government has overseen a complete breakdown of immigration controls, and labelled anyone who dares to speak against the situation, or display the slightest patriotic sentiment, as a goose-stepping nazi. People are beginning not to care about the old 'racist' tag, its impact is diminishing, so utterly misused has it been by the right-on sections of society.
So you could (and I just did) argue that the breakdown in race relations in this country is precisely the fault of do gooder left wingers abusing their position and the countries trust.
Political correctness is the 'bogeyman' purely because it renders honest debate redundant, and is an all encompassing, unchallengable dogma cast down upon us, forcing people to find extremist outlets for their complaints (Barking and Dagenham). This isn't tabloid scare-mongery. Surely as a liberal (an assumption), you favour free speech?
As for the government not being left wing, as you say that is a different thread, and I'd be happy to argue the point elsewhere. What is certain, in my mind at least, is that they are a bunch of spiv human rights lawyers, cashing in on their unworkable, crippling policies, at the expense of the law abiding and hard working. All the nicey principles and class warfare crap goes the way of the Prescott at the end of the day.
Now THAT is something I'd like to see Morris depict.

[Felatio Imperative]

With Balls of Steel and its ilk scraping the bottom of the barrel repeatedly, isn't there an argument to be made that comedy is actually more right-wing these days?

TJ started a very interesting thread on the notion once.

You can't just label everything you don't find funny as right wing.
Well, you can, but you wouldn't be entirely accurate.

[alan strang]

You can't just label everything you don't find funny as right wing.
Well, you can, but you wouldn't be entirely accurate.

Phew - good job no-one's actually doing that, eh readers?

[Felatio Imperative]

Well if no-ones doing that then what has balls of steel, and 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' got to do with a percieved right wing slant, if not to suggest that anything scraping the bottom of the barrel is right wing?

[Felatio Imperative]

A lot of you seem only to want to push the boundaries when compatible with your pre-conceived notions of what is acceptable. So you're more than happy for shows like South Park or Wonder Showzen to portray God committing suicide or rolling in faeces or whatever, but anything 'minority' related is instantly beyond the pale.
Selective boundary pushing of this nature is equally discriminatory to anything Manning or Davidson come up with.

[alan strang]

Well if no-ones doing that then what has balls of steel, and 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' got to do with a percieved right wing slant, if not to suggest that anything scraping the bottom of the barrel is right wing?

What a weird thing to say. It's not like people didn't give actual reasons on that thread.

I'll reiterate: no-one is labelling anything they don't find funny 'right-wing'.

[Felatio Imperative]

Well if no-ones doing that then what has balls of steel, and 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' got to do with a percieved right wing slant, if not to suggest that anything scraping the bottom of the barrel is right wing?

What a weird thing to say. It's not like people didn't give actual reasons on that thread.

I'll reiterate: no-one is labelling anything they don't find funny 'right-wing'.

So, the statement:
"With Balls of Steel and its ilk scraping the bottom of the barrel repeatedly, isn't there an argument to be made that comedy is actually more right-wing these days?"
doesn't in any way connect right wing with scraping the bottom of the barrel, even though they are in the same short sentence and are in fact directly connected by the author.
I shall reiterate:
You can't just label everything you don't find funny as right wing.
Well, you can, but you wouldn't be entirely accurate.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Personally, I think a Morris project ripping the piss out of news reports saying that ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! and ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE EATING EVERYTHING! and ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE RAPISTS! and so on would be fantastic. No-one else has had the balls to do it, godliek geenyus or not.

Actually, while he's at it, could someone get him to do some sketches where takes the piss out of people who believe that everything in the world happens because of Political Correctness Gone Mad, please? Ta.

Trouble is, that sort of stuff is ten-a-penny in comedy these days. Switch on BBC4 and you'll see Marcus Brigstocke doing Jon Stewart-lite "satire" about scaremongering in the press. I don't believe for a second that Brigstocke gives a shit, but the material's there. The audience nod and titter into their falafals, then Brigstocke says 'mong' or 'chav' to show he's not too right-on and the same audience nod and titter again.

So I don't know what Morris could bring to the party. Does he genuinely care? In Nathan Barley, he seemed to think that the most risible, mock-worthy person in the whole world was Dave Stewart.

[4 arses]

I think it would be interesting to attempt a new series of TDT/BE in a comedy and media climate so heavily influenced by both series, the only way to really approach it with the same effect it had back in it's day would be to escalate the parody past the point that the actual news programs have got to, at which point you lose the subtle/absurd dynamic.

Personally I like the side of Morris that seemed to revel in biting the hand that feeds him (I'm an Alex Chilton fan too, must be some deep psychological thing), the Michael Grade thing, the queen's speech on the radio show. At this point in his career he seems to be at a point where he's so respected that even the spectacular failiure to attract viewers with Nathan Barley seemed to be greeted by Channel 4 with a "never mind, you can try again with the next season".

Maybe with all this credibility he should return to biting the hand, have a show where you get a few of the choice vapid "stars" youth television has been producing and grooming in the last couple of years who think they get what Morris is about. Give them what appears to a meaty role in a Chris Morris show (good exposure, appealing to their target demographics), and over the course of 6 weeks of television, they're gradually made to look like the cunts they are.

I don't know what format that would take, that's why I'm not Chris Morris, but it could be a lot more successful at showing "the Idiots" (god how I now hate that phrase) than Nathan Barley. I guess I just want something on television to kick against the status quo again, and Morris adopting a scorched earth approach to television that would make him unbroadcastable for a couple of years could be spectacular, although probably impossible.

[alan strang]

So, the statement:
"With Balls of Steel and its ilk scraping the bottom of the barrel repeatedly, isn't there an argument to be made that comedy is actually more right-wing these days?"
doesn't in any way connect right wing with scraping the bottom of the barrel, even though they are in the same short sentence and are in fact directly connected by the author.

I shall reiterate: It's not like people didn't give actual reasons on that thread. You know, the one that Beloved Aunt linked to in the same short sentence.

[Felatio Imperative]

All I can see in that thread is a load of "Chris Morris is Thatchers baby" crap simply because he doesn't stand up and cry "burn the witch" at anyone making a non-pc joke. He is supposed to react against the 'reactionaries' apparently.

[Felatio Imperative]

I guess I just want something on television to kick against the status quo again, and Morris adopting a scorched earth approach to television that would make him unbroadcastable for a couple of years could be spectacular, although probably impossible.

And the only way to do that would be to go right. The status quo at present is excrutiatingly liberal. He could fellate Bin Laden on live TV and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the echelons of the BBC. But make a joke about 'gypos' and just watch the fallout.

[Darrell]

All I can see in that thread is a load of "Chris Morris is Thatchers baby" crap simply because he doesn't stand up and cry "burn the witch" at anyone making a non-pc joke. He is supposed to react against the 'reactionaries' apparently.

*vomits*

[Mr Merlin]

So Little Britain is right wing is it? Taking the piss out of Tory women and the WI, portraying old people as incontinent, that's right wing is it? I must read the Daily Mail more often.

I wouldn't say it's right wing exactly but I've sometimes felt there is an odd sort of Sun newspaper vibe to it.

The best way I can describe it is to say that on the -admittedly rare- occasions that I read The Sun it carries this underlying message that there are "normal" things, things that any right-thinking Sun reader would do, support England, look at the tits on page 3 and say "corr", watch the soaps, buy a house and then there is the "weird" stuff, being gay,  being different, just being not normal.

I found that some of the sketches in Little Britain gave me the same sort of vibe.  Being a transvestite (that's not right), having a male order bride (what's wrong can't get a girlfriend), being old (they're all mad or incontinent), being gay (yes, I know that Matt Lucas is gay). It's almost certainly just something that I'm reading into the programme myself. I wouldn't begin to suggest that Matt Lucas or David Walliams are doing it deliberately but I do get this odd,"look at that person, they're not like us" feeling when I watch a lot of the sketches on the show and so I can understand how someone else could feel it's right-wing.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Political correctness is the 'bogeyman' purely because it renders honest debate redundant, and is an all encompassing, unchallengable dogma cast down upon us.

In my experience, it's the rightwingers who try to stifle debate - dismissing any leftwing views as dated and naive.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

But make a joke about 'gypos' and just watch the fallout.

Cunts like Marcus Brigstocke do that all the time. Eyelids remain unbatted.

The only way to be radical is to give a shit. Genuinely.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

And the only way to do that would be to go right. The status quo at present is excrutiatingly liberal. He could fellate Bin Laden on live TV and it wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the echelons of the BBC. But make a joke about 'gypos' and just watch the fallout.

Why do you think that 'going right' would make for exciting/challenging comedy? You'd just pander to a different type of status quo. UKIP and the BNP come out with genuine rightwing views and they're not viewed as radicals.

You'd just end up with something like the 'Thatcher debate' in Heresy - liberals getting a kick out of being a Tory for the day. It would be hideous.

In what sense is the status quo 'excruciatingly liberal'?

[Tom Tortoise]

The only way to be radical is to give a shit. Genuinely.

Yep. Which is why Morris would really have to want to do another BES about terrorists and the like for it to be worthwhile. Does he give a shit?

A late night, weekday, 'Chris Morris Show' on Radio 2 would be brilliant.

[Mr. Analytical]

People are beginning not to care about the old 'racist' tag, its impact is diminishing, so utterly misused has it been by the right-on sections of society.

 I think that this is actually the most salient point to have emerged so far.

 What is the PC movement if not an attempt to create a new set of social taboos regarding the use of racist language and symbolism?

 So in the 1960's you had a society that was governed by a set of moral codes that had been in place since the Victorian era.  They decide to start mocking and deconstructing these long-standing rules and taboos.  Given that these taboos were largely defined by the traditional nationalistic right, comedy takes a turn to the left and starts to pick up steam that only really dies out in the late 1990's when programmes such as Brass Eye discovered that there was nothing left to mock and the old rules and taboos had all been broken.

 Now running parallel to some of this you have the PC movement, which exists to set up a new set of taboos and principles to govern society.

 The problem is that comedians born after the 1960's slide immediately into the inertia of the alternative comedy movement and start looking around for taboos to break and rules to break (because that's what "alternative"comedians do).  The problem is that the only things that look like rules or taboos are those created by the intellectual movement that spawned alternative comedy, so you get loads of comedians popping up and seeming quite reactionary.  In truth they largely don't believe in breaking down the walls of PC-dom, but they do it anyway.

 To ask why there isn't an alternative comedy movement anymore is asking the same question as why there are no large-scale political movements in the West anymore.

 So instead you get the people who attack whatever taboos are in place, regardless of how deserving those taboos are of attack, the people who de-politicise their work entirely and actively try and attack the taboos of comedy itself or you have the likes of Rob Newman and Mark Thomas who drone on and on and on about Chomsky to an audience that is already won over to the comedian's point of view before they bought the ticket.

[4 arses]

But make a joke about 'gypos' and just watch the fallout.

I assume this is regarding the Jimmy Carr thing from some royal variety show or something similar. There was very little fallout in fact, it was no more than an excuse to fill a few Jeremy Vine/Matthew Wright phone in shows. Meanwhile Jimmy Carr continued to appear on every TV show and sell out his shows without any of the picketing the Jerry Springer opera suffered (if anything then politically to the left)

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Morris sort of nailed his political colours to the mast in the opening minutes of his R1 show, when he talked about busting the BBC picketline in order to 'make a load of private calls...didn't do any work, heh'. In other words, he was on the side of the strikers, but had a more original way of pissing off the BBC.

Ditto the 'hhhhhhhhomeless' thing with the students. He mocks the students' wet-eared liberalism, but doesn't for a moment suggest that it's wrong in itself to give a fuck about the homeless. If Marcus Brigstocke had done the same thing, he would have made an oh-so-daring-oh-so-ironic comment about them being 'scum' or something, dismissing the idea of caring about issues outright.

Jimmy Carr. He's another one who does 'gypo' jokes. He's not refreshingly unpc - he's awful.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

So instead you get the people who attack whatever taboos are in place, regardless of how deserving those taboos are of attack, the people who de-politicise their work entirely and actively try and attack the taboos of comedy itself or you have the likes of Rob Newman and Mark Thomas who drone on and on and on about Chomsky to an audience that is already won over to the comedian's point of view before they bought the ticket.

Are you saying that comedy (or at least challenging, politically-minded comedy, whatever you want to call it) is fucked? That it's got nowhere left to go? That it no longer has any meaning? Because I sometimes wonder that myself. It explains the 'Fuck politics, I just want a laugh' attitude that exists to justify shedloads of monkey whimsy.

Thing is though, I don't think I'll ever give up hope that comedy can be exciting again. I just wonder if the real villians therese days are nebulous attitudes, ather than pantomimetic Thatcher/Reagan hate figures, and it'll take exceptionally gifted comedians to make comedy that pillories those attitudes interestingly.

[4 arses]

Thing is though, I don't think I'll ever give up hope that comedy can be exciting again. I just wonder if the real villians therese days are nebulous attitudes, ather than pantomimetic Thatcher/Reagan hate figures, and it'll take exceptionally gifted comedians to make comedy that pillories those attitudes interestingly.

Are people like Tony Blair and George Bush that far from pantomimetic figures though? Why did Bill Hicks escape the preaching to the converted tag? It may have been levied at him but it didn't hang on him in the same way that Newman or Thomas seem to have it hung on them. Perhaps it's about accessibility, Newman and Thomas' work seems to suffer by having longish passages of near lecture like speeches. While someone like Hicks could impart all you needed to know about what he was talking about while still telling a joke. It's a double edged thing though, genuine modern political issues are very complex to the point where almost no one will know the ins and outs without having it explained to them, only you lose a large amount of your potential audience. Or you can simplify it and leave people politically charged and angry with little idea what they're angry with apart from "society" and "the man". Maybe a quarter of those people might look further into it by reading around the subject, although that's probably an overly ambitious estimate.

Also you're right, it takes a rare talent to make issue based comedy  accessible to any sort of audience, a Hicks, a Pryor, a Bruce, it's a bit of a cliche, but that's because it seems to be true.

[alan strang]

Why did Bill Hicks escape the preaching to the converted tag? It may have been levied at him but it didn't hang on him in the same way that Newman or Thomas seem to have it hung on them.

The world of comedy media was arguably a little more left-leaning back when Bill Hicks was strutting the boards though. Having ideals which 'went against the grain' wasn't seen as blowing some kind of reactionary grade curve.

Just imagine if Hicks had emerged as a stand-up more recently - with the same kind of ideals and targets. He'd be denounced as some kind of Michael Moore figure - with all the panicky little right-wingers running around spitting "He doesn't really think those things! It's all ego and posturing!"

As it is, given that Hicks' 'guvnor' status in the comedy world was formed in the 90s (and then magnified to 'untouchable' status after his death) all the panicky little right-wing mindset can really do is look back on his work and bleat "Well, it wasn't the political stuff that was the overall selling point anyway, actually..."

[4 arses]

Just imagine if Hicks had emerged as a stand-up more recently - with the same kind of ideals and targets. He'd be denounced as some kind of Michael Moore figure - with all the panicky little right-wingers running around spitting "He doesn't really think those things! It's all ego and posturing!"

The two separate mediums make it kind of an awkward comparison, Hicks' career choices make it a lot harder to look at it as "all ego and posturing". Whereas Moore's self promotion makes him a much easier target in that his critics only have to hit a target that has a basis of truth and they can twist it into making it appear like Moore's whole argument is flawed. Also Moore likes to make himself out as the everyman, while Hicks' whole thing was everyone should be like this, but they're not because most people are idiots. That's why Moore shut up during Bush's second term, while that would only make a character like Hicks rail harder. Of course this is all hypothetical

As it is, given that Hicks' 'guvnor' status in the comedy world was formed in the 90s (and then magnified to 'untouchable' status after his death) all the panicky little right-wing mindset can really do is look back on his work and bleat "Well, it wasn't the political stuff that was the overall selling point anyway, actually..."

In a way they're right though, it's the blend that made him so potent as a political comic. The way he can deconstruct media, politics, and society and if he feels he's losing the audience can pull them back at any time with one of his purple veined dick jokes. Like Pryor you don't have to know what he's talking about inside out because he's a great communicator verbally and physically and to bring it back to Newman and Thomas it's what they both lack. They're very good comics but to carry off what they do and to make it appeal to more than a niche group you have to be able to simplify without dumbing down, and they don't do that. Don't get me wrong I've enjoyed both their shows in the last 2 years but I'm willing to put the effort in. It's the difference between two people interested in the history of Christianity, one reads some dry but informative academic books while the other reads the De Vinci Code, they're both interested in the same subject but only one of those options would appeal to a lot of people. (By the way I realise how clunky and flawed in logic that analogy is, but please don't linger on it by stretching it to it's furthest logical conclusion)

[Marv Orange]

Well to a certain extent hicks was playing a character while on stage, whereas people like Stewart Lee and mark thomas aren't.  I doubt hicks ever had a 15 girlfriend like he says in one of his acts (correct me if i'm wrong).

It been a while since I listen to hicks, but Hicks had the benifet of doing actual gags. A talent Mark Thomas has seem to have lost, and newman has to shoe horn gags in like the gay tennis seen in that oil prog (on a sidenote last time i saw newman live he basically ripped off Bill hikcs just a ride stuff).

Also hicks covered other areas with his material, it wasn't all policatal, policitcal.

(this is probably all bollocks but i've typed it now and can't be arsed to add to it, sorry for the spelling.)


And unlike Mike Moore I doubt Hicks ever had a butler.

[humanleech]

Thing is though, I don't think I'll ever give up hope that comedy can be exciting again. I just wonder if the real villians therese days are nebulous attitudes, ather than pantomimetic Thatcher/Reagan hate figures, and it'll take exceptionally gifted comedians to make comedy that pillories those attitudes interestingly.

That's true, and/but I have to repeat what I always say, that the main target of Morris' comedy was the audience and the things it takes for granted. Every spoof on a celebrity was also a spoof on viewers who listen more when a celebrity speaks.
I really don't know how he could do that now, even if he had the will to do it.

[Still Not George]

And unlike Mike Moore I doubt Hicks ever had a butler.

Reference please.

[Marv Orange]

And unlike Mike Moore I doubt Hicks ever had a butler.

Reference please.

I tried but cannot find it. I may have heard it on the daily show but that doesn't ring quite true in my bonce.

I did however find a news story that says he owns Halliburton stock, or was that Haribo.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47662

http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20040528.asp

Basically he is a hypocryte. Anti gun law but has armed bodyguards. Owns 3 miles of land in an area when the US movers and shakers live etc.

type 'michael moore' lies into google loads of stuff.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Given that these taboos were largely defined by the traditional nationalistic right, comedy takes a turn to the left and starts to pick up steam that only really dies out in the late 1990's when programmes such as Brass Eye discovered that there was nothing left to mock and the old rules and taboos had all been broken.

The problem is that comedians born after the 1960's slide immediately into the inertia of the alternative comedy movement and start looking around for taboos to break and rules to break (because that's what "alternative"comedians do).  

The problem is that the only things that look like rules or taboos are those created by the intellectual movement that spawned alternative comedy, so you get loads of comedians popping up and seeming quite reactionary.  In truth they largely don't believe in breaking down the walls of PC-dom, but they do it anyway.

What concerns me about that summary is that you don't accept that any of those generations genuinely meant it - it was all about thoughtlessly reacting to taboos/the status quo and not much more. An analysis which makes life easier for careerist 00s comedians, who can point out that 80s alternative comics 'didn't really care about issues, it was just posturing'. They can say how great Alexei Sayle was, but only in terms of his surreal animal whimsy, brushing aside the political undercoat which gave his comedy its character.

I often think that a lot of 00s comedians are intimidated by the weight of the alternative boom, but also know full-well that - unlike early 90s comdians - they have nothing of equivalent worth to replace it with. So they dismiss both as 'not as good as everyone says' (or damn them with faint praise) in the hope that they won't be compared unfavourably with genuinely brilliant people. Case in point, Oliver/Ayoade/Holness in the Footlights doc - 'When you look through the archives, a lot of it's rubbish...'