least funny python to make shit documentary not worth watching

[gilbertharding]

This is not the interview I agreed to. I wanted an argument, and all I got was this series of questions.

Fuck off mate.

[Autopsy Turvey]

I don't think he minds engaging with articulate and cogent pushback, but he can't do much with this woolly thinking and accusatory tone.

[Ferris]

ok pal

[somersetchris]

I don't think he minds engaging with articulate and cogent pushback, but he can't do much with this woolly thinking and accusatory tone.

Well is it woolly or is it accusatory? They don't seem to be the same thing. What he wants is for people to agree with him that cancel culture has gone to far and gets irate when people don't, and you know this. He lacks the self awareness to realise he is exactly the kind of out of touch establishment figure he used to mock. As for Terry Gilliam, I still like 12 Monkeys but he can go to hell.

You know what, I think I'm going to try this 'block AT' thing as well, see how it goes. Will save me an awful lot of scrolling through interminable posts.

[Spiny Norman]

Did he say it's a new phenomenon? Doesn't he remember mary whitehouse? Surely, that was the same overprotective spirit, just with different targets?

Although the interview is a bit weird almost from the start from both sides. But then just when it was getting a bit better, he leaves when they're almost about to discuss an actual example.

I guess he forgot to go to the toilet before they started.

[Kankurette]

Nice goalpost moving.

[Autopsy Turvey]

Well is it woolly or is it accusatory? They don't seem to be the same thing.

They're not the same thing, they are two different things in combination, sorry if it's confusing. Her thinking is woolly and her tone is accusatory, it's the worst of both worlds, like a 'how not to conduct an interview' sketch for Video Arts.

What he wants is for people to agree with him that cancel culture has gone to far and gets irate when people don't, and you know this.

He gets irate when people ask questions as ineptly as this interviewer, I know this, yes. I've seen him engage happily with intelligent and focused questions, there were none here.

He lacks the self awareness to realise he is exactly the kind of out of touch establishment figure he used to mock.

This is a popular cliché in this thread, but the BBC interviewer is the out of touch establishment figure here, lazily rambling out badly conceived questions, failing to understand the answers, trotting out the BBC party line while pursuing combative disapproval at the expense of insightful conversation.

As for Terry Gilliam, I still like 12 Monkeys but he can go to hell.

You've reached the same point as the religious bigots of the late 1970s. When it was their dogmatic zealotry being lampooned you found it funny, now it's yours he can burn in Satan's flames.

You know what, I think I'm going to try this 'block AT' thing as well, see how it goes. Will save me an awful lot of scrolling through interminable posts.

Please do, I can't bare the thought of grown adults having to wade through my two posts a week, seeing their consensus challenged when John Cleese and Terry Gilliam are clearly just Nasty Out Of Touch Fat Old Evil White Cunts who should die and then be tortured by demons for eternity.

[Weeping Prophet]

https://twitter.com/JeremiahContent/status/1460264687132725250

[evilcommiedictator]

Certainly, and deep down I think y'all know that to pretend that's what has happened here is a disingenuous stretch.

But what about the interview though, I paid good money for an argument, but this is abuse!

[Ignatius_S]

Did he say it's a new phenomenon? Doesn't he remember mary whitehouse? Surely, that was the same overprotective spirit, just with different targets?

The short answer to your last question is no.

Although there is value considering Whitehouse, that type of comparison is overly reductive to be of any real use and my own view is that it's misleading.

When Whitehouse began campaigning, she was a very experienced teacher and had good awareness of the impact television can have on children. That knowledge and awareness is something that was/is overlooked or glossed over by her critics.

The first time she contacted the BBC over content was because several of Whitehouse's pupils had spoken to her about a (pre-watershed) of the film, A Kind of Loving; one of who was very distressed by it. Whitehouse is often characterised as being outraged on behalf of others, but it was that reaction of others that caused that concerns.

Also, Whitehouse was very articulate. Although I don't believe in (a lot of) what she said, feel that she was good at explaining why something was wrong, rather than in talking in vague generalities. In a lot of instances, it was very evident that she was familiar with the content in question and was speaking from an informed position.

I don't feel that it's accurate to suggest Whitehouse was primarily being driven through overprotectiveness - it was the direction of travel in the country that concerned her. Again and again she drew attention to how religion, patriotism and the monarchy - all things that made Britain great, according to her - were being mocked and no longer respected.

[ProvanFan]

He expected a nice, pleasant chat, not the Spanish Inquisition.

[PammySpacek]

...

[tribalfusion]

Cleese continues to debase himself but let's be honest, his corporate training videos were an unambiguous indication for decades of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are.

[Ignatius_S]

Cleese continues to debase himself but let's be honest, his corporate training videos were an unambiguous indication for decades of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are.

Sorry, could you expand on that?

[tribalfusion]

Sorry, could you expand on that?

Cleese founded a management training company called Video Arts in 1972 and sold it for 25 million pounds in 1996. At the time of sale, it was reported in the Independent that "Mr Cleese no longer owns a stake in the company but has a two-year contract to produce training videos..."

As for Cleese's worldview more generally, see the Daily Telegraph 2011 article "David Cameron impresses John Cleese with his good manners" where Cleese said about the government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats: "I think what's happening at the moment is rather interesting. The Coalition has made everything a little more courteous and a little more flexible..."

3 years later, Cleese was interviewed by the Telegraph and expanded on his political views:

Would he consider voting Ukip? "I don't think so, but I will look very carefully." Where does he stand on immigration..."when people come here who really don't like our culture, that worries me because I think, 'Well why are they here if they don't like us?'"

He also declared that London in 2019 was no longer an English city. This from the man making his home on an island in the Caribbean.

[ProvanFan]

What sort of 'research' would have helped him here, except a study into how shit BBC interviewers are these days? He was quite happy to answer her question about "why does cancel culture interest you", explaining that young people shouldn't seek to be be overprotected against hearing words and ideas that they don't like, because when they grow up they might find that having their hysterical over-sensitivities pandered to by academia has resulted in them becoming insufferably entitled, maladjusted depressive narcissists who can't hack the real world. He put it more diplomatically and tactfully than that, but it's a valid response, and doesn't suggest that he's only there to plug his tour and be fawned over.

This journalist's follow-up question, ignoring everything he just said and going straight to the hornet's nest with a shitty stick: "There are people out there who having heard your views would consider them to be old-fashioned and not taking into consideration the feelings of people who have been hurt by some of these comments. I want to give you the example for instance in Britain where racist behaviour for instance was couched as a bit of banter. Is that acceptable in your view as a joke?" Feeble, vague, patronising, sanctimonious, scattergun BBC culture war posturing, a moronically phrased question (what sort of 'example' is that?) suggesting an inability to see this issue in a rational way. Good on him for calling it out and cutting it short.

John Cleese is your mum and he SHAT IT

[Tony Yeboah]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59703257

Lipman talks absolute bollocks. Kane hides in plain sight.

[Autopsy Turvey]

Cleese founded a management training company called Video Arts in 1972 and sold it for 25 million pounds in 1996. At the time of sale, it was reported in the Independent that "Mr Cleese no longer owns a stake in the company but has a two-year contract to produce training videos..."

Founding a company and guiding it to success, what a vicious heartless bastard, right kids?

As for Cleese's worldview more generally,

It is perfectly reasonable milquetoast centrism, but irrelevant as you were asked to expand on specifically why Cleese owning a company that makes training films for light industry is an "unambiguous indication... of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are". Because at the moment it appears to mean 'fuck him for not being a Communist'.

3 years later, Cleese was interviewed by the Telegraph and expanded on his political views:
Would he consider voting Ukip? "I don't think so, but I will look very carefully." Where does he stand on immigration..."when people come here who really don't like our culture, that worries me because I think, 'Well why are they here if they don't like us?'"

Faintly sinister to doctor these quotes to specifically remove the mollifying progressive sentiments in your rush to paint John Cleese as Benito Mussolini: "I'm all for immigration because this has always been a country of immigrants... If people come here they're most welcome".

He also declared that London in 2019 was no longer an English city. This from the man making his home on an island in the Caribbean.

Presumably he would be equally miffed if Charlestown ceased to look like a Nevisian city. As he describes it, there's "excellent race relations, a very well educated population, no sign of political correctness," so presumably he likes and respects the country and its people and is grateful and proud to be able to live there.

Surprising that so many pretended to be offended by his 'no longer an English city' statement of the bleeding obvious, as metropolitan lefties know this full well, that's why they love it so much. It's a cosmopolitan global hub where - circa 2011 - 37% of inhabitants were born abroad and fewer than 45% were white British. So, there's far fewer of the Bisto-swilling gammon cunts that you get clogging up most English cities, but fuck him for saying it out loud.

[Kankurette]

The idea that young people never have to encounter any difficult topics in university is laughable. Medical students have to deal with medical ethics questions. Law students have to deal with difficult topics in law and some very grim case studies. I did German and Spanish and my courses included stuff like the Holocaust, the repression of dissenting beliefs in the GDR and Nazi Germany, and the horrors of colonialism in South America. If you do any kind of humanities subject, you are very likely going to deal with upsetting material an the fact people like Cleese don't realise that shows how out of touch they are.

[Ignatius_S]

Cleese founded a management training company called Video Arts in 1972 and sold it for 25 million pounds in 1996. At the time of sale, it was reported in the Independent that "Mr Cleese no longer owns a stake in the company but has a two-year contract to produce training videos..."

I know about the history of Video Arts but wasn't sure what you meant about 'his corporate training videos were an unambiguous indication for decades of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are.'

I'm not sure what indication can seen from setting up that company is in itself

Anthony Jay was also a co-founder, so presumably the same conclusion would drawn about him as well?

[tribalfusion]

I know about the history of Video Arts but wasn't sure what you meant about 'his corporate training videos were an unambiguous indication for decades of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are.'

I'm not sure what indication can seen from setting up that company is in itself

Anthony Jay was also a co-founder, so presumably the same conclusion would drawn about him as well?

I can't tell if you're joking.

A comedian in his prime setting up a company to make videos for management is most definitely a strong signal indicating where his conservative priorities are. As for Anthony Jay, of course he was also quite conservative more generally. He famously wrote speeches for Tory gasbag Geoffrey Howe.

Jay also criticized the BBC from a right-wing perspective on many occasions and wanted to defund it. He also alleged the BBC was unpatriotic as well as against capitalism and anything that made the world a safer place as he put it. From his obituary in the Independent:

"Jay wrote How to Save the BBC, a pamphlet for right-wing think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies advocating the abolition of the licence fee and the television service being reduced to one channel.

A year earlier, he had written a CPS pamphlet titled Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer alleging anti-Establishment bias within the Corporation. "We were not just anti-Macmillan," he wrote of his experience. "We were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it."

[Kankurette]

Lol at the Empire, profit, capitalism, nuclear weapons and the industry making the world freer or safer.

[tribalfusion]

Founding a company and guiding it to success, what a vicious heartless bastard, right kids?

It is perfectly reasonable milquetoast centrism, but irrelevant as you were asked to expand on specifically why Cleese owning a company that makes training films for light industry is an "unambiguous indication... of what sort of fellow he really is and where his priorities and sympathies are". Because at the moment it appears to mean 'fuck him for not being a Communist'.

Faintly sinister to doctor these quotes to specifically remove the mollifying progressive sentiments in your rush to paint John Cleese as Benito Mussolini: "I'm all for immigration because this has always been a country of immigrants... If people come here they're most welcome".

Presumably he would be equally miffed if Charlestown ceased to look like a Nevisian city. As he describes it, there's "excellent race relations, a very well educated population, no sign of political correctness," so presumably he likes and respects the country and its people and is grateful and proud to be able to live there.

Surprising that so many pretended to be offended by his 'no longer an English city' statement of the bleeding obvious, as metropolitan lefties know this full well, that's why they love it so much. It's a cosmopolitan global hub where - circa 2011 - 37% of inhabitants were born abroad and fewer than 45% were white British. So, there's far fewer of the Bisto-swilling gammon cunts that you get clogging up most English cities, but fuck him for saying it out loud.

Cleese, in the prime of his youth, founded a company with another conservative with the express intent of making videos for management. Hardly a progressive project though of course no one called him Mussolini for that.  I do confess that I guffawed at your willful misreading accompanied by breathless accusations of 'doctored quotes' in your rank apologist claptrap. 

The fact that Cleese confessed he would have to consider voting for Ukip very carefully and expounded on London having ceased to be an English city also speaks volumes as does his comment about people who "come here who really don't like our culture, that worries me because I think, 'Well why are they here if they don't like us?'" 

[Cold Meat Platter]

I remember he campaigned for the SDP in the 80s. He's just a silly old cunt.

[Pavlov`s Dog`s Dad`s Dead]

Presumably he would be equally miffed if Charlestown ceased to look like a Nevisian city. As he describes it, there's "excellent race relations, a very well educated population, no sign of political correctness," so presumably he likes and respects the country and its people and is grateful and proud to be able to live there.

I'm going out on a limb, I know, but I'm going to hazard the opinion that a straight white male, especially a wealthy one, is not best placed to tease out the nuances of racial dynamics in a multi-ethnic post-colonial society.

Unlike Cleese, I'm not wealthy, although I share the other characteristics I mentioned with him. I lived in Kuala Lumpur for a while, and absolutely loved it. I was made to feel very welcome. My other half has SE Asian heritage, and felt accepted in Malaysia in a way that she never has in the UK or her native country. So, multi-racial paradise, right? Not if a Tamil friend¹ of mine is to be believed...

¹ That's right, some of my best friends etc. etc.

[Autopsy Turvey]

A year earlier, he had written a CPS pamphlet titled Confessions of a Reformed BBC Producer alleging anti-Establishment bias within the Corporation. "We were not just anti-Macmillan," he wrote of his experience. "We were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it."

Is your contention that the BBC was/is not these things, or just that being these things is great so boo sucks to Antony Jay for complaining about progress?

Cleese, in the prime of his youth, founded a company with another conservative with the express intent of making videos for management. Hardly a progressive project though of course no one called him Mussolini for that.

The Mussolini reference wasn't about him founding a successful company, just your attempt to pretend that he thinks immigration is bad by removing the bits where he says "I think immigration is good".

I do confess that I guffawed at your willful misreading

If he declared himself a Communist you'd like him more though.

accompanied by breathless accusations of 'doctored quotes' in your rank apologist claptrap.

My breathing remained calm, but I thought we'd established in the David Baddiel thread that removing a contextualising line from a quotation counts as 'doctoring', although that might just be when David Baddiel does it (even though it turned out he didn't).

The fact that Cleese confessed he would have to consider voting for Ukip very carefully

It speaks volumes that he would consider any political issue very carefully, instead of jerking to an instant emotional reaction or reciting ideological chapter and verse.

and expounded on London having ceased to be an English city

Already rebutted this. The left know this to be a truthful observation, which is why they love London so much.

I'm going out on a limb, I know, but I'm going to hazard the opinion that a straight white male, especially a wealthy one, is not best placed to tease out the nuances of racial dynamics in a multi-ethnic post-colonial society.

Do you know of any assessments of racial dynamics on Nevis by non-straight non-white non-males that can give us a more accurate and nuanced overview to counterbalance Cleese's positivity?

I lived in Kuala Lumpur for a while, and absolutely loved it. I was made to feel very welcome. My other half has SE Asian heritage, and felt accepted in Malaysia in a way that she never has in the UK or her native country. So, multi-racial paradise, right?

Malaysia is a proudly massively systemically racist country!

[Spiny Norman]

The short answer to your last question is no.

Although there is value considering Whitehouse, that type of comparison is overly reductive to be of any real use and my own view is that it's misleading.

When Whitehouse began campaigning, she was a very experienced teacher and had good awareness of the impact television can have on children. That knowledge and awareness is something that was/is overlooked or glossed over by her critics.

The first time she contacted the BBC over content was because several of Whitehouse's pupils had spoken to her about a (pre-watershed) of the film, A Kind of Loving; one of who was very distressed by it. Whitehouse is often characterised as being outraged on behalf of others, but it was that reaction of others that caused that concerns.

Also, Whitehouse was very articulate. Although I don't believe in (a lot of) what she said, feel that she was good at explaining why something was wrong, rather than in talking in vague generalities. In a lot of instances, it was very evident that she was familiar with the content in question and was speaking from an informed position.

I don't feel that it's accurate to suggest Whitehouse was primarily being driven through overprotectiveness - it was the direction of travel in the country that concerned her. Again and again she drew attention to how religion, patriotism and the monarchy - all things that made Britain great, according to her - were being mocked and no longer respected.

Hmm. While there are differences, I do get the feeling that people try to appoint themselves spokesperson for the majority, even if they are sincere. By chance I came across this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIiepKGNMWw

That doesn't really show her very favourably. It's about some Potter play on television, I believe, that was so vile that we don't even remember it.

No matter what her background was, wasn't she at the wrong end of the stick here?

[jenna appleseed]

The first time she contacted the BBC over content was because several of Whitehouse's pupils had spoken to her about a (pre-watershed) of the film, A Kind of Loving; one of who was very distressed by it. Whitehouse is often characterised as being outraged on behalf of others, but it was that reaction of others that caused that concerns.

Funny, according to BBC genome "A Kind Of Loving" wasn't shown on the BBC until 1979 (post watershed) , clips were shown on Wednesday Magazine pre-watershed & Picture Parade (post watershed) in '62 though)

There was a radio version on the Home Service in '64.

According to wikipedia (yeah, I know) Mary Whitehouse had already published an anti homosexuality article (later pamphlet) for The Sunday Times in the '50s. 

Again according to wiki: "She taught art and was senior mistress at Madeley Modern School in Madeley, Shropshire from 1960, taking responsibility for sex education. Shocked at the moral beliefs of her pupils, she became concerned about what she and many others perceived as declining moral standards in the British media, especially in the BBC."

eta: and The Guardian claims "It was in 1963 that Mrs Whitehouse, then a senior mistress teaching art and giving sex education lessons at Madeley school, Shropshire, found some of her pupils mimicking sexual intercourse. They told her they were imitating Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davis, who they had seen on television."

yeah, right, her pupils totally saw Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davis shagging on telly in 1963.

[jenna appleseed]

Hmm. While there are differences, I do get the feeling that people try to appoint themselves spokesperson for the majority, even if they are sincere. By chance I came across this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIiepKGNMWw

That doesn't really show her very favourably. It's about some Potter play on television, I believe, that was so vile that we don't even remember it.

No matter what her background was, wasn't she at the wrong end of the stick here?

Tried finding out what Dennis Potter play it was seeing Mary doesn't seem to know and doesn't even sound like she actually watched it.

Oh yeah, just discovered got successfully sued for libel by Dennis Potter's mum & also from wiki, mass campaigned to get songs banned from TOTPs but later thought Jimmy Saville was totally wholesome for kids.

"Chuck Berry's novelty song "My Ding-a-Ling" was one of several pop songs to receive Whitehouse's disapproval in this period. She was unsuccessful in trying to persuade the BBC to ban it,  but her campaign to stop Alice Cooper's "School's Out" being featured on Top of the Pops was successful.  Cooper sent her a bunch of flowers, since he believed the publicity helped the song to reach number one. In 1977, one of the regular presenters of Top of the Pops in this era, Jimmy Savile, won an award from NVALA for his "wholesome family entertainment" on Jim'll Fix It. After his death, a police investigation revealed Savile had molested multiple children during the making of the show."

Then's there's the whole anti-gay Festival Of Light event that Graham Chapman sabotaged with help of some white mice...

[Peter St. John]

Tried finding out what Dennis Potter play it was seeing Mary doesn't seem to know and doesn't even sound like she actually watched it.

Likely Only Make Believe, given the talk about "dictating to his secretary".