Is Derek and Clive indefensible?

[grassbath]

Now, like the rest of you cunts prob'ly, I love Derek and Clive and think it's funny as fuck.

I recently watched 'Derek and Clive Get the Horn' (again) with my flatmate, to much hilarity. Our chat afterward came to some interesting conclusions - namely that it might not have aged very well. 'I'd be very careful about presenting this to someone as comedy I enjoy,' he said, and I had to agree. 

Anyone will tell you D&C was shocking in the 1970s, but I'm guessing still fundamentally safe to enjoy. If it was controversial it was because the filth and profanity on display was unprecedented on a comedy album. Nowadays, though, I'd struggle to argue convincingly against a claim that the content is morally dubious. I have mixed feelings about modern 'woke' critique, which has noble intentions but frequently misses the wider point. However even taking those wider points into consideration with Derek and Clive, it's shaky ground. An outsider might see it as a pair of drunken, entitled, leering, sexist 1970s men yukking it up with no small amount of malice, and... well, they're right. That it's two of the most talented comics Britain has ever produced doesn't really excuse it.

The argument that it's just pure 'funny' is also complicated. Why is it funny? My argument would be that everybody thinks the fucked-up stuff Derek and Clive come out with, but nobody actually says it. By inhabiting these very flexible 'blokey' avatars, Cook and Moore open the lid on the sewers of the male psyche (and tap into their own bitterness and prejudices to spice it up). But then, isn't that basically the same model we give Gervais stick for? 'Oh, it's okay when I say it, I'm stripping back the veneer of society with awkwardness and shock value.' Also notable that Gervais is a big D&C fan...

To two blokes in their late twenties sitting up late at night getting pissed, D&C is perfect. Even cringing heavily at the sheer unpleasantness of 'cunt kicker-in,' 'Sir!', the 'fucked a white chick' song, and Cook molesting and battering the blowup doll, neither of us were about to sit there forcing a straight face and rejecting it on moral grounds. But isn't that insular context the problem? Isn't it all a bit lads lads lads, encouraging bad behaviour? Is, say, Gervais 'punching down' in his comedy any less than Cook and Moore?

Some half formed thoughts there that might provoke interesting discussion... general Derek and Clive appreciation also welcomed, get cancelled at your own risk.

[up_the_hampipe]

I'd say a lot of comedy that relies on being as foul and despicable as possible is ultimately indefensible. That's why it's funny.

[Sin Agog]

Some good points.  I tend to excuse almost any controversial comedy that comes from either ostensibly left-wing people, or from those in a really dark place.  In the former case, it really does feel like the comedy is emerging from a parallel world where conventional morality and sensitivity doesn't apply, because they're essentially nice people channeling up dodgy but hilarious topics.  In the case of the latter, morbid, dark and misanthropic humour, if it's not healing, it's at least a sort of by-product of the miserable time they're going through, and there's often something beautiful and human there, even if they're saying the worst things.  Isolating the jokes away from both of those contexts loses what makes them appeal to me.

Dud was arguably the lefty having fun being a bit transgressive, and Cook was the demon-haunted talent making his life just about liveable by showing that he still has the freedom to nimbly tapdance over moral lines.

The only thing I do find a bit disturbing, though still fascinating, in Horn is when Cook drives Dud out of the studio by making cancer jokes about his mum.  Even that can be funny, but in this case it smacked of someone desperately trying to scare one of their few remaining friends away for good.

[chveik]

The only thing I do find a bit disturbing, though still fascinating, in Horn is when Cook drives Dud out of the studio by making cancer jokes about his mum.  Even that can be funny, but in this case it smacked of someone desperately trying to scare one of their few remaining friends away for good.

I think it was his dad, who was dying of cancer at the time (I might be wrong though).

[Sin Agog]

I think it was his dad, who was dying of cancer at the time (I might be wrong though)

Yeah, you're probably right.  I'm long overdue a rewatch.

By the way, someone needs to edit Cook out of a few D&C clips and replace him with Gervais' Derke.  Bet it would somehow end up being infinitely more offensive.

[lankyguy95]

Why is it funny? My argument would be that everybody thinks the fucked-up stuff Derek and Clive come out with, but nobody actually says it. By inhabiting these very flexible 'blokey' avatars, Cook and Moore open the lid on the sewers of the male psyche (and tap into their own bitterness and prejudices to spice it up).

I don't think it's any more than Cook and Moore playing two characters that give them as much liberty to free associate without thought of censoring, and just going with it as far as the filth and funniness takes them. The accusation of self-indulgence is much more accurate. Either way, aggressively singing "HE'S GOT CANCER UP HIS BUMHOLE... HE'S GOT CANCER OF THE KNOB" etc (and finding different ways to rhyme) is so astonishing and so ludicrous, it's funny for the shock value and the sheer level of filth.

Gervais is, in a different way, trying to do whatever he thinks is funny as well, but acts as if he's putting a high degree of thought into it. So he pretends something's funny because it's "ironic" rather than him actually thinking it's just funny. There's a bit in that 'Talking Funny' thing he did with Louis CK, Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock where CK talks about seeing a stand up changing the words to 'Sitting On The Dock Of The Bay' to 'Sitting on a cock cause I'm gay'. The other two laugh because it's funny. Gervais probably does too but then acts like it's funny "ironically" rather than it just being funny. There's not a trace of that on Derek and Clive.

[PlanktonSideburns]

i feel like i like derek and clive for its unapologetic: to me it says, "this is awful, terrible stuff, the end. no moral!"

where as everything gervais does has a more "hmmm makes you think, dosent it?" vibe to it.

i dont know how to morally compare the two, but the first approach for me is more entertaining, as D and C leave me to my own conclusions about the material: they come into my office with a massive turd in a tesco bag, and say, - "im just going to leave this here for you"  and fuck off, never to be seen again, - morally no better than trying to justify it, but more enigmatic, more amusing, more beguiling. i feel like gervais is constantly trying to justify the turd he left in my office, saying i DESERVED the turd in my office, - just own it man, own being a cunt, were all cunts, and the only way to make yourself seem MORE of a cunt is to run away from your own farts with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle

sorry i have a turkey hernia and bailies on the lung, im rambling

[Monsieur Verdoux]

It's a tricky one, but I can offer nothing better than that in my mind Derek and Clive occupies a kind of liminal space where the 'bad taste' is so self-consciously relentless that it is impossible to take any of it even remotely seriously in the context of the real world. They know that it's fucked up to say these things, that's why they're funny.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Overthink it all you like, there's something basically funny in the idea of addressing a letter to 'Cunt, London'.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Also, I don't think it's a defence as such, but the outrageous bits of Derek and Clive are the swearing, whereas the bits you can say are problematic are the homophobia, sexism and racism; which at the time weren't controversial at all. Which kind of turns things over as well I guess. Trying to ban people for being blasphemous for using naughty words when all the properly bigoted shit was still getting broadcast on national television in the same decade as Curry and Chips and Michaeal Parkinson laughing away at Bernard manning opening a story with 'so this coon comes up to me'.

[Twit 2]

It's a tricky one, but I can offer nothing better than that in my mind Derek and Clive occupies a kind of liminal space where the 'bad taste' is so self-consciously relentless that it is impossible to take any of it even remotely seriously in the context of the real world. They know that it's fucked up to say these things, that's why they're funny.

Totally agree with this. It's the idea that the continuum is actually a loop so that things at the far end drop back to the beginning. Lots of stuff I like is apparently inaccessible or extreme but to me that's what makes it so accessible. Eg, some people could watch a Tarkovsky film and say it's slow and nothing's happening, but to me it's totally absorbing and everything's happening. Conversely, I could watch a Michael Bay film and be bored out of my mind. Derek and Clive is so insanely offensive that it's not really offensive at all, whereas some of the most mainstream apparently lighter stuff can actually be far more offensive deep down (eg Derek).

[mojo filters]

I think Derek & Clive needs to be taken in context. Pete and Dud had already established their comedic credentials, and this was a fringe offshoot of their existing body of mainstream work.

It's far too easy to apply contemporary PC standards and thus criticise. They knew they were pushing the envelope, and the cringe factor is part of the comedy. I agree that it's so gratuitously offensive, that kind of minimises any potential for genuine offence.

To be fair, I haven't listened to Derek & Clive for many years. I probably should re-listen before making such pronunciations!

[Brundle-Fly]

I farking luv Derek and Clive. They are ingrained in my youth nasty comedy DNA :_ Spike, Python, Pryor. Vyvyan... Viz!!

....but David Quantick took them to task in the NME 1993.  Hmmm...?

The SOTCAA crew  all cunts out there? Hmm..? took him task too.

http://sotcaa.org/pressarchive/obergrumpyfuhrer.html

[Sebastian Cobb]

If the universe was fair, Peter Cook wouldn't be dead, and we be able to see his elderly reaction to possibly being twitter CANCELLED.

[biggytitbo]

David Quantick is a much bigger cunt than either Derek and Clive though.

[Sebastian Cobb]

David Quantick is a much bigger cunt than either Derek and Clive though.

He really is a bellend.

[the]

ATTITUDES

CAREFUL MATE

ATTITUDES THERE

NO COMEDY JUST ATTITUDES NOW

it might not have aged very well

Oh has it "dated", how fucking incredible

[Pingers]

There are jokes that we can enjoy with certain others that we wouldn't share more generally, but that can be because a wider group might misunderstand our reasons for finding it funny. A good friend told me an Idi Amin joke once that loads of people would find offensive: "Say what you like about Idi Amin, at least he made the Asians run on time!". We both found it funny because it's a good parody of people finding ways to justify dictatorships, and it felt ok to laugh because we know each other really well, well enough to know there is no racism in each other. But a wider audience would understandably not know that.

(By the way, my phone tried to change that to Idi Admin: there's a comedy character to play with)

[Famous Mortimer]

David Quantick is a much bigger cunt than either Derek and Clive though.

It's nice to find something we agree on.

[The Boston Crab]

I think it's even funnier now that both left and right wings are gleefully authoritarian self-righteous moral police.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Quants is a cock though.

[Twed]

When Dudley Moore died did Tesco make an advert about the chickens being sad about it or did I dream it?

[Satchmo Distel]

It would be indefensible as a public stand-up routine but this were recordings to be heard in private and therefore works of art as such. If someone played it for a class of students I'd fire them but that is not its function.

[up_the_hampipe]

Why would it be indefensible as public stand-up as opposed to a recording released to the public?

[a duncandisorderly]

Also, I don't think it's a defence as such, but the outrageous bits of Derek and Clive are the swearing, whereas the bits you can say are problematic are the homophobia, sexism and racism; which at the time weren't controversial at all. Which kind of turns things over as well I guess. Trying to ban people for being blasphemous for using naughty words when all the properly bigoted shit was still getting broadcast on national television in the same decade as Curry and Chips and Michaeal Parkinson laughing away at Bernard manning opening a story with 'so this coon comes up to me'.

this. there has been a reversal. the stuff I remember thinking was 'edgy' or whatever, when I encountered D&C as a youngster, was all the 'cunt cunt cunt' stuff; while the other stuff never struck me as being particularly funny or clever, I don't remember 'having a problem' with any of it. it was just crass. it was just two blokes, both of them capable of far far better comedy, trying to make each other laugh by swearing a lot- mostly- & by coming up with outrageous scenarios. the humour- such as it was- then, was in the language, not what it was saying.

things flipped around at some point, & the use of swearing for humour now seems twee, while some of the content is decidedly iffy & taints the rep of two much-loved comedians.

I've sometimes wondered if there's a tape somewhere of fry & laurie doing a derek & clive by way of contrast to their normal pete & dud knockoff.

[Brundle-Fly]

I remember the sheer unbridled silliness was what drew me in initially as a fourteen year old kid in 1980, rather than the 'shock' factor. Things like Alfie Noakes and Winky Wanky Woo.

[petril]

(By the way, my phone tried to change that to Idi Admin: there's a comedy character to play with)

I used to be on a forum once, an offshoot of a popular computer game forum. the gaffer of said forum changed the generic "Admin" status indicator to that. It was not filmed for ITV, so the consequences were regrettably not hilarious

[Thursday]

Just want to add to the voices saying Quantick is an arsehole.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

(By the way, my phone tried to change that to Idi Admin: there's a comedy character to play with)

[famethrowa]

I remember the sheer unbridled silliness was what drew me in initially as a fourteen year old kid in 1980, rather than the 'shock' factor. Things like Alfie Noakes and Winky Wanky Woo.

I'm with you there. Finishing the Squatter story with a concern that one day he may give fly to the most enormous fart is an unbeatable flight of fancy and silliness that beats all. So too: "So this bloke came up to me"... "NO!!"