Chris Morris and the 'New Right'

[TJ]

While going through some old threads, I found this absolutely belting post by Alan Strang in the middle of the "Nathan Barley" furore, and thought it was deserving of a thread of its own:

JMo wrote:
Nathan Barley is not an irrelevant or dated show, it's directed right at these dopes who cloak their inane prejudices and pathetic attempts at "anti-PC" humour in the guise of satire (but satire of what?).

Oh dear...

Yes, it's certainly true that there is an unpleasant new generation of young right-wingers emerging into society and the media. And it's inevitable that, in the absence of the gift of basic common sense such tossers would turn to rubbish like the magazine mentioned above to provide a nice mirror for their lack of intelligence or prejudices.

Unfortunately, if you really think Chris Morris is ever going to tackle such people head-on then you're fooling yourself. Because, let's face it, Chris is their patron saint. He is their guru, their mentor. Insofar as such people are willing to allow themselves to be concerned at all, old 'take it to the edge'-features is one of them.

They want dodgy jokes about rape? Hey - 'Blue Jam' provides! They want iffy-sounding gags about racial minorities? Whoo - 'Brass Eye's got it all. They want amusement about mongy cripples? Well, both shows have ample amounts. Plenty of anti-poof stuff too if you look for it. That's the great thing about yer Morris. He just don't give a fuck! He can crack funnies about blacks, crips, homos and 9/11 at the drop of a hat. He says the unsayable! And all power to his elbows! The last thing we need is all this 'political correctness' Yeah!

What do you mean 'bollocks!'? You mean to say that it was all intended as a satire? But... but... what about all the shows that followed in his wake? All those 11 O'Clock Show people? All those Ricky Gervaises and Iain Lees and Marc Wootons and Andrew Newmans and Zeppetrons who went on to peddle the above skewed vision of Brass Eye and Blue Jam as somehow reflective of what Chris Morris pioneered? You mean to say that they might just have gotten it completely wrong because they're a bunch of lazy reactionary morons? Coo - you may just have a point there, actually.

Some of us have noticed that the right-wing malaise which that article earlier described has been brewing for a good long while. And the aftermath of Chris Morris' 90s contribution to the media has been sneakily brewing alongside it. Never has there been a more vehemently sly, self-centered, obnoxious, hate-fuelled, bullying mentality amongst a new generation of industry practitioners - and this mentality seems very keen to use a flagrant misinterpretation of Morris' earlier work to justify themselves. We don't have 'Vice Magazine' (and to be completely fair it probably doesn't have anything like the impact on social culture as the article suggests - probably no more so than the Sunday Sport does in this country, and who really gives a toss about that these days?) but we do have an increasingly right-wing mindset at Channel 4, which seems hell-bent on providing a similar mirror for morons by commissioning ever more reactionary programming to entertain them.

And Chris Morris - either through being too out-of-touch, sealed-off from reality or otherwise off his chops on happy-pills(tm) - seems so oblivious to his actual role in it that, instead of fighting against that malaise, he actively helps it along by producing a show which is full of lame attempts at reheating the same 'phew - controversial stuff, eh readers' scenarios which have lingered like a bad smell since Blue Jam. You want 'edgy' jokes about rape? You got it. You want 9/11 gags? There they are. You want poof jokes? Check. You want bum rape donkey spunk christ trousers piss? In droves, mate. What do you mean 'bollocks!'? You mean to say it was all intended as a satire? Etc...

I'm afraid that, far from being any kind of worthwhile commentary on the new lazy right-wing, Nathan Barley was in fact made by "these dopes who cloak their inane prejudices and pathetic attempts at "anti-PC" humour in the guise of satire." It was very much part of the malaise.

It's a shame 'Dan' didn't react a bit sooner.

Speaking as someone who idolised the 'alternative' comedians and will even still speak up for Keith Allen on a good day, it really eats me up inside to see this happening and so few people apparently caring.

[butnut]

On a similar point, I've just been looking through the article database, trying to find one about how right wing Morris could be. I have a feeling it came out at about the time of Jam or the BES. If someone can point me towards which one that is, I'd be grateful.

[Neil]

I was thinking about this kind of thing again just the other night.  I watched a bit of the Jack Dee show with Lee Mack on it and was quite surprised by some of the material, especially as it was on BBC1.  One of the routines revolved round him doing an impression of a stereotypical asian...I was quite shocked.  There were one or two other dodgy moments which I can't recall, but the impression I got was that some comedians don't even care about dressing it up as "satire" now.  And it's big comedy shows using this device too, e.g. Little Britain and Extras.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

'You weren't supposed to shoot people with those guns. They're for sporting use'

'Well, they look like the type of guns made to shoot people with...'

[Johnny Yesno]

Jimmy Carr made a joke about smelly Gypsies on 8 Out of 10 Cats which rather took me aback. He "covered" it by saying "I'm supposed to add that they smell of patchouli, apparently". I'll be honest with you and say that I thought Carr was okay until that point.

[trotsky assortment]

And it's big comedy shows using this device too, e.g. Little Britain and Extras.

I enjoyed the first TV series of 'LB', for all of it's silliness.  After two or three episodes of the second series, I found the fact they'd obviously turned up the un-PC/racist elements of the show in order to get cheap 'laughs' very off-putting.  I won't be tuning in for the third series.

[Morgan]

What a fantastic point, and exceedingly well made at that.  There is of course a really awkward by-product to this 'New Right' too.  If you happen to express the opinion that you find Morris' recent output less than inspiring - or that you didn't like Monkey Dust or Nighty Night for that matter - it's instantly presumed that you're a lilly-livered square.  When I meet new people I always try to steer the conversation to comedy at some point, but when Morris is brought up almost invariably I'll be told that 'I LOVED that paedophile thing he did a few years ago' - at which point if I disagree then you're considered a 'Daily Mail reader'.  It's such a dilemma - do you just say 'yeah, it was great satire' and shrug it off, or try and make a conversation out of it - 'well, I used to be a really big Chris Morris fan,and still hold on hope that he's got a few great shows left in him, but the Brasseye special especially was just a bit of a non-starter wasn't it - it was quite right that somebody should make an issue of tabloid sensationalism surrounding children and so forth but basically the BES almost completely failed to do this because it was caught up with just making fun of the language of media, something he'd been doing since about 1990, as opposed to making a serious attempt at getting to the core of the issue - of course at the same time the comedy seriously suffered too, so it was just useless both as a comment on the media and as a straightforward programme'.

At which point will come the reply 'Yeah... I guess... do you like Little Britain?' beause of course most people haven't the slightest desire to discuss comedy in any depth.

[Bert Thung]

You know when people say The South really won the American Civil War, it just took 200 years. Isn't that true of seventies club comics vs alternative comedy? Except this time it's just waiting 30 years for the p**i joke being king again.

[Melth]

--

[Beagle 2]

It seems as well that this is the right era for offensive material of this nature to slip under the radar. Pretty much anything is OK for transmission on a comedy show going out at it's usual post-watershed slot these days. Therefore material that writers know may be dodgy or shocking no longer has to be morally or artistically justified, they don't think "No damn you we MUST have a pop at the gays here, we're trying to be vital!". So everything gets lumped in together, and when you know nobody will bat an eyelid at the content, then where there's no genuine funny material to fill the space it's easy to play to the crowd and stick in a poofs gag, in the way that slapstick would be used thirty years ago.

I'm saying this from a perhaps naive standpoint that a lot of the artists these criticisms can be aimed at wouldn't consider themselves actually right-wing, but that this kind of vile crap is due to them being reckless and lazy and knowing nobody will complain.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

It seems faux-reactionariness is quite fashionable in journalism too - lots of columnists taking a right-wing stance because it's (a) more original, and (b) the 'realistic' option. Or because it makes them look tough or something.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

So everything gets lumped in together

I think that's it - there's very rarely any real point being made.

Does anyone know what the target of 'The Only Gay In The Village' is? Is it attacking gay people for having a victim mentality? Is it just an inversion sketch, attacking homophobia itself? Or is it an excuse just to do lots of old-school gags in postmodern, post-homophobia trousers? I get the idea that Lucas and Walliams themselves probably aren't sure, which is why I always find those sketches unsatisfying. As a one-off, it's a funny idea, but doing it every week suggests it's supposed to be satire in some way. But about what?

[Darrell]

Daffyd is based on people who define themselves by their sexuality in an overbearing, mentioning-it-every-five-minutes, in-place-of-any-actual-personality way and is based on an old friend of L&W who would mention his bisexuality in the first minute of introducing himself to anyone.

[Morgan]

It seems faux-reactionariness is quite fashionable in journalism too - lots of columnists taking a right-wing stance because it's (a) more original, and (b) the 'realistic' option. Or because it makes them look tough or something.

Hmm, not quite sure if this is the point; in fact I think that the term 'New Right' is kinda misleading.  There have always been 'hard-hitting' journalists who 'tell it like it is' - isn't this more about the nouvelle-vague of Channel 4 presenters who feel they can - nay, should - make jokes about the most taboo subjects as soon as the clock hits 9pm, because otherwise they'll be considered tame?  Isn't faux-reactionariness in the press a completely different kettle of fish?

[Neil]

Daffyd is based on people who define themselves by their sexuality in an overbearing, mentioning-it-every-five-minutes, in-place-of-any-actual-personality way and is based on an old friend of L&W who would mention his bisexuality in the first minute of introducing himself to anyone.

I thought it was based on Brian Dowling from Big Brother 2.  He got preternaturally pissed off when they brought another gay bloke in halfway through the run.  I'm sure Lucas and Walliams have acknowledged this as the source, although it could well be based on a number of people.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Maybe it boils down to individualization, another twisted legacy from Thatcher and Reagan. Now there is no politics, there are certainly no political alternatives to vacuous bluely/red -  TINA manifest twenty years later.

This absence of ideology beyond 'everyone for themselves' has destroyed any progressive frameworks within which to forward equality. As a result we devoid of guidence fullstop and grab at glossy straws that pass by.

So entrenched is the notion of self determination, the illusion of personal choice, that people believe it's their god given right to be a cunt, and if it's suggested they question whether their attitudes are benefical to anyone they say 'so what' or 'Gervais says it, who are you to question him. He's a household name, you can't tell me he's not saying what everyone thnks ' (or even worse embellishing that with '...that's why he's funny'.)

In a political void we cannot attack politcs, no one identifies with political parties any longer. So, the only option is the personal. Instead of satirzing a grand schemata, so called comedians turn to the trivial, because everyone's trivial nowdays, right? We love trivia. 100 Top Trivial Things We LIke Don't We, is due on Channel 4 this Xmas.

Under the guise of self examination, the performers legitimate people's prejudices at the basest level. Oh, it's bit naughty, how titilating - 'still got them pics of yer missus on yer phone?' Performers, faced with with spoon fed consumers inevitably take what they perceive to be the easiest path to
mass appeal. And an audience unused to being challenged in anyway gain something from the experince, even it's only to made to feel uneasy, which may result in them questioning themselves in 'Hmmmm, maybe I am prude if I don't like the pissing dwarve besiality movie? Yeah, it must be me the others seem glued to it'.
In this fashion the centre ground is eroded and the comfort zone is removed from that of our own reality to that of the perceived reality of the mass. A false consensus emerges so conculsively that we're left wondering whether our former beliefs we mere fashion.
In my opinion that's why these cunts are so dangerous.

[mayer]

Hmm, not quite sure if this is the point; in fact I think that the term 'New Right' is kinda misleading.  There have always been 'hard-hitting' journalists who 'tell it like it is' - isn't this more about the nouvelle-vague of Channel 4 presenters who feel they can - nay, should - make jokes about the most taboo subjects as soon as the clock hits 9pm, because otherwise they'll be considered tame?  Isn't faux-reactionariness in the press a completely different kettle of fish?

I second that. Gary Bushell has been writing columns for years and years and years. In fact, the exposure, respect and readership of "left wing" writers is what has increased in recent years. Klein, Monbiot, Oz, Chomsky, Moore have been increasing their output in the mainstream media and also their readership massively in the last decade, and especially since the World Trade Centre attacks, the second Intifada and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.


I do think there's a... it's 2005! We can say "fucked the baby in the cunt" on television now! So why not eh! attitude, which is awful, but as "New-Rightism" I think it's been misdiagnosed here.

[Musicoutoftrousers]

Very good post there by strang originally - hit a good few nails on the head.

In a society in  which the establishment is (largely) tolerant, conservatism is the newest form of subversion. My A-level politics group has convinced me about that as much as the current content of most popular comedy.

Something someone I know said during a discussion about Guantanamo Bay summed this sentiment up for me - "don't you think human rights have gone too far?" My own generation (of course, both Morris and Gervais are a good deal older than me, but they each have a huge fanbase with people of my age) seems to be taking Generation X's passive rebellion one stage further - towards desiring for a less tolerant establishment.

As for why this is, I don't really know. It could be simply a case of 'action/reaction' - society tells us (often clumsily) that racism, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled etc are wrong, and so there are those who unthinkingly react against it, wishing to subvert at any costs. This also gives rise to the large amounts of supposedly 'ironical' humour on the subject of race, disability, gender etc - humour from people who are probably not in any way fascistic (and either see themselves as or are relatively liberal) which apparently is intended to mock the right-wing humour which sounds the same to an untrained ear. But for many people who claim their humour is 'ironic', the laughs come for the same reason as that of those Mail-reading bastards - something 'shocking' (or 'non-PC') has been said. I'm talking in a general, everyday sense here - 'shit you hear at parties', if you like - but this has manifestations in the comedy industry as well. Gervais. A couple of years ago (aged about fourteen / fifteen) me and my friends thought nothing was funnier than David Brent mouthing off about 'spastics'. I laughed, presumably, because PC (Politically Correct, not Police Constable) Tony Blair would have a fit if he caught me! The cosy idiot! But I wouldn't have admitted that then - no, it was all done in the spirit of satire, I was laughing at people like that and not at what they were saying etc etc etc. Now, I would like nothing more than to travel back in time and slap Younger Me around the face for being a twat. Some people don't grow up or choose not to.

Another theory I heard recently was that figures such as Thatcher and Reagan told their people that 'there's no such thing as society' so often that they began to believe it. These people have now (or are now) having children, and drumming these values into them either explicitly or by osmosis. Add to this the general self-sufficiency most people enjoy, and it's possible that this reduces the amount to which people feel genuine compassion (deep compassion that is, not just blubbing during Children in Need) and humanism. Therefore we have a more socially right-wing populace than we had before Reaganomics.

And this goes hand in hand (and also breeds) a more right-wing media. My parents get 'the Mirror'. The Mirror was anti-war. It never gets tired of anti-Bush jokes. And yet almost every day it's outraged about chavs, yobbos, asylum seekers and young mothers as well as our lily livered government that stops us from airing 'our' 'true' 'opinions' on such issues. So the message is that it's okay to direct compassion towards people if we don't know them and will never come into contact with them (displaced Iraqis) but not when we see that they're uncultured, ugly, benefit-theiving bastards.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Hmm, not quite sure if this is the point; in fact I think that the term 'New Right' is kinda misleading.  There have always been 'hard-hitting' journalists who 'tell it like it is' - isn't this more about the nouvelle-vague of Channel 4 presenters who feel they can - nay, should - make jokes about the most taboo subjects as soon as the clock hits 9pm, because otherwise they'll be considered tame?  Isn't faux-reactionariness in the press a completely different kettle of fish?

That's true, but I reckon it's all part of the same attitude - posturing without having any real points to make.

Then you've got the opposite problem - people who make a point of being apolitical in their comedy, by which they mean 'We don't mention cancer and dead babies'...which, in turn, just means 'We do silly stuff about dancing giraffes'. So you have this rubbish, artificial stand-off between the dead baby lot and the dancing giraffes lot, both of which have more in common than anyone dares admit, while Proper Comedy (ie, comedy which fuses the two and does lots of other stuff as well) just doesn't exist.

Alexei Sayle's Stuff wouldn't get made now. Was it full of silly whimsy? Yes. Was it full of political comment? Yes. Did it deal in shock subjects sometimes? Yes. Was it old-school? Yes. Was it new-school? Yes. In 2005, they just wouldn't know where to pigeon-hole it - they'd want them to focus on one aspect alone and not deviate.

This is a point I keep coming back to - in the past, taboo humour was a natural ingredient in all good comedy, and it was second nature to explore it. Nowadays, it's a career choice you make - 'Right, I'm going to market myself as a shocking comedian.' / 'OK, well I'll just do surreal whimsy then...'

[Almost Yearly]

< reads belting post >


Good thinking, Batman.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Gary Bushell has been writing columns for years and years and years. In fact, the exposure, respect and readership of "left wing" writers is what has increased in recent years. Klein, Monbiot, Oz, Chomsky, Moore have been increasing their output in the mainstream media.

Oh, I wasn't talking about tabloid rottweillers - I meant people who are obviously quite lefty deep down but feel they have to be a bit reactionary in order to be 'realistic'. Christopher Hitchens attacking Michael Moore, for example. Or any column by Michael Bywater or Tim Lott in otherwise left-leaning papers. 'Why I eat at McDonald's and I'm proud of it' by David Aaronovich - that sort of stuff. I don't know why these people exist - are they troubled by political passion so make a career out of saying little more than 'But it's not as simple as that'?

[Mr. Analytical]

It's about distribution of power.  In the old days you didn't do sick humour or political stuff so obviously a whole generation did nothing but that.  What we're seeing is the tail end of the reaction to the "no politics no sick jokes" sentiment of the 70's.

White is the new black and all that.

[TJ]

Gary Bushell has been writing columns for years and years and years. In fact, the exposure, respect and readership of "left wing" writers is what has increased in recent years. Klein, Monbiot, Oz, Chomsky, Moore have been increasing their output in the mainstream media.

Oh, I wasn't talking about tabloid rottweillers - I meant people who are obviously quite lefty deep down but feel they have to be a bit reactionary in order to be 'realistic'. Christopher Hitchens attacking Michael Moore, for example. Or any column by Michael Bywater or Tim Lott in otherwise left-leaning papers. 'Why I eat at McDonald's and I'm proud of it' by David Aaronovich - that sort of stuff. I don't know why these people exist - are they troubled by political passion so make a career out of saying little more than 'But it's not as simple as that'?

To be fair, Moore sets himself up for criticism with his 'liberal' interpretation of the truth and petulant childish attitude even to fair-minded and sympathetic questioning of his work. Not that that changes what you were saying though.

[mayer]

Hmmm, I always thought that Hitchens (C), just had a change of heart politically after the World Trade Centre malarky, and an intelligent man (which he is) like him has every right to attack an idiot like Moore who courts controversy as much for its own sake and his own public profile as he does for any cause.

Likewise I don't doubt Aaronovich's motives in the slightest, and have always found his columns to be genuine and honest.

are they troubled by political passion so make a career out of saying little more than 'But it's not as simple as that'?

Perhaps they realise in the way that Moore and Klein don't, that actually, it isn't as simple as that, and part of being an honest genuine journalist is speaking your mind and exploring these complexities, instead of making your columns a political weapon with all the subtlety and class of a Steve Bell cartoon?


Why should Hitchens say "Bush is a Nazi war criminal and had no right to bomb Iraq" because you get off on reading passionate polemic, when i) he doesn't believe that, and ii) he's smart enough, and a good enough writer, to try and deconstruct, understand, and properly evaulate the actual issues at hand?

[Morgan]

It's about distribution of power.  In the old days you didn't do sick humour or political stuff so obviously a whole generation did nothing but that.  What we're seeing is the tail end of the reaction to the "no politics no sick jokes" sentiment of the 70's.

White is the new black and all that.

Now, this is actually quite worrying.  If the above is all true - which it is - then where does this actually leave comedy?  I'd hazard a guess that the TJs and Emerencies among us became so passionate about comedy because they were so enthused - in particular - with the wave of alternative comedy in the 70s/80s which arguably culminated with Morris.  There's no going back to a world before dead baby jokes now is there, and as ELW10 points out, the opposite, the Dancing Giraffe gang, are equally going to appear unavoidably self-conscious.  It's hard too to see where the voice of dissent is going to come from - the standard of comedy dissection we have here in CC is born out of the fact that in the past there was so much to be excited about in comedy (which I, like many others, have only really caught the tailend of).  Who's going to be alan strang in twenty years's time, when presumably it will still be the norm to make dead baby jokes, as no-one will have known any different?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I just don't get the impression that Hitchens and co are really bothered the issues at hand, that's all. What evidence do I have for this? About as much as the people who claim Moore is motivated by vanity (ie, not much, it's just a hunch).

[Loukides]

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=6

[mayer]

I just don't get the impression that Hitchens and co are really bothered the issues at hand, that's all. What evidence do I have for this? About as much as the people who claim Moore is motivated by vanity (ie, not much, it's just a hunch).

You "just feel it"? Not much scope for debate there Lalla. Next you'll be telling me that it just "makes you laugh".

I think Moore is motivated by vanity because of the manner inwhich "Bowling For Columbine" was shot and presented, the lingering camerawork and presentation of Himself as star and saviour. The shots back to Moore nodding which serve no purpose, the lingering holding of hands, the lot. The fact that the cover of all his books which are supposed to present political arguments have a big picture of Michael Moore on the front of them, which Chomsky and Klein never have.

The self-congrulatory tone that all of his "messages" strike on his own website.

Examples? Why not look at the most recent message from yesterday.

Friends,

Last week I closed my New York production office and sent my staff down to New Orleans to set up our own relief effort. I asked all of you to help me by sending food, materials and cash to the emergency relief center we helped set up on the shores of Lake Pontchartrain with the Veterans for Peace. We did this when the government was doing nothing and the Red Cross was still trying to get it together. Every day, every minute was critical. People were dying, poor people, black people, left like so much trash in the street. I wanted to find a way to get aid in there immediately.

I have good news and horrible news to report. First, your response to my appeal letter was overwhelming. Within a few days, a half-million dollars was sent in through my website to fund our relief effort.

Your response to my appeal has been nothing short of miraculous. And it has saved many, many lives.

Whereas Hitchens continous writing on political causes when they were much less en vouge then they are today lead me to believe that he is "bothered" by the issues at hand.

It's possible to be bothered by issues, and to also write consumately and sensibly. Caring does not equal shooting one's mouth off the loudests and most crassly.

[slim]

you know nobody will bat an eyelid at the content

Yes. Usually because nobody's watching.

[Mr. Analytical]

[It's hard too to see where the voice of dissent is going to come from - the standard of comedy dissection we have here in CC is born out of the fact that in the past there was so much to be excited about in comedy (which I, like many others, have only really caught the tailend of).  Who's going to be alan strang in twenty years's time, when presumably it will still be the norm to make dead baby jokes, as no-one will have known any different?

 New stuff is bound to come out sooner of later.  We're talentless hacks and pseudo-intellectual elitists so obviously WE can't see it but the next intriguing and under-appreciated counter-cultural form of comedy is out there somewhere.  Maybe being performed in some shitty pub in Whales.  Maybe it exists only in the witty put downs of a group of friends.  Maybe it will stem from more lofty writers descending to do comedy.

 I don't know what it'll be and I don't know where it's going to come from but I do know that it will come.  Why would culture suddenly stop?