Chris Morris and the 'New Right'

[Johnny Yesno]

To be fair to the likes of Gervais I feel that some of that comedy is directed at the how we fail to properly tackle prejudice. I hate the term PC being used as a criticism as I feel treating other people respectfully is the essence of PC. Madonna's "You PC motherfuckers!" outburst at the Turner Prize presentation a couple of years ago was just nonsense. What on earth has not liking shit art got to do with PC and why did she think swearing was un-PC? Stupid cunt.

On the other hand merely setting up race awareness training in the workplace is not enough to tackle racism. People can learn the jargon but still be racist at heart. I felt David Brent was one of these characters - desperate to be liked but prejudiced to the core. I thought his treatment of the disabled was the kind of patronising nonsense disabled people experience for real when all they want is to be treated, as far as is practically possible, just like anyone else.

That's not to say I haven't noticed a creeping rightwing agenda in comedy on the back of what I'd consider to be well-meaning comedy.

[Darrell]

the next intriguing and under-appreciated counter-cultural form of comedy is out there somewhere.  Maybe being performed in some shitty pub in Whales.

I've heard Jonah is a very good standup.

[Neil]

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.

Well that's a bit bloody elitist, we're not all Jonah.

EDIT:  Bums, fair play Darrell.

[Melth]

I hate the term PC being used as a criticism as I feel treating other people respectfully is the essence of PC.

I agree entirely. The idea of decency is pretty basic and political correctness has nothing to do with it. The whole idea is the product of thick rightwingers as a convenient way to shout down any argument they don't want to understand.

[Peking O]

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.

A slight derail I know, but what an odd idea. In what way are his staff qualified to deal with such a situation? If I worked for him and was asked to do that I'd be fairly pissed off - not because I don't want to help, but mainly because I wouldn't have the first idea how to go about it. Perhaps rescuing sunken cities is a part of the job description at Moore towers.

[chimpoo]

I hate the term PC being used as a criticism as I feel treating other people respectfully is the essence of PC.

I agree entirely. The idea of decency is pretty basic and political correctness has nothing to do with it. The whole idea is the product of thick rightwingers as a convenient way to shout down any argument they don't want to understand.

Its just the semantics.  Anyone with a brain wouldn't treat the criticism 'Too PC'  without a gallon of salt.  Oh, and the term is used just as much by the left as the right.

To me, treating people with decency means treating them as you'd treat your best friends.  That's jokes and all.  Sometimes jokes are silly, crass, and stem from inner prejudices.  In fact, most humour comes from insecurity.  

Not that I'm defending shit like Gervais et al.

[king_tubby]

I saw Sadowitz last Friday night. His material made the that by the likes of Gervais look like Mark Thomas reading the Society section of the Guardian.

I'm not sure what my point is, am I offended more by Gervais because I don't find his material funny? I was shocked by Sadowitz, but not offended, and laughed, uncomfortably, at a lot of things I'd object to from a co-worker, bloke in pub etc.

[The Mumbler]

I think the reason why that sort of material works in Sadowitz's act is that he's defiantly unheroic.  A misfit.  And that's what comedy should be - people who don't quite fit in.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

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.

Yeah, I agree with all that - I cringed at Fahrenheit 9/11 as much as anyone did. The bottom line, though, is that I don't doubt his sincerity - I don't think his apoplexy is actually phoney.  

Did you see Hitchens arguing with George Galloway earlier? It's too easy to see Galloway as the egotistical prick and Hitchens as the voice of reason - to my eyes, Hitchens is equally pantomimetic, it's just that his "character" (which he plays up to) is a world-weary one. Hasn't he just carved out a niche like Galloway has?

[mayer]

Did you see Hitchens arguing with George Galloway earlier? It's too easy to see Galloway as the egotistical prick and Hitchens as the voice of reason - to my eyes, Hitchens is equally pantomimetic, it's just that his "character" (which he plays up to) is a world-weary one. Hasn't he just carved out a niche like Galloway has?

Not yet, but I think it's up for download on HItchens's site, so I may have a gander later. I don't think you're wrong about that at all, but that's like saying that Luke Haines and Eminem have all carved out their own niche in a similar manner so I should treat them equally. I like Haines's niche, but I think that Eminem's is rubbish. Likewise I think that Galloway has cornered the vile wanker market, so if Hitchens is "playing" the world-weary ex-lefty, I'd much prefer that.

[trotsky assortment]

I thought his treatment of the disabled was the kind of patronising nonsense disabled people experience for real when all they want is to be treated, as far as is practically possible, just like anyone else.

As much as I don't want to be seen as the person who pulls a response out of the bag for this one every time, it affects me directly.  Yes, Mr Yesno - you're right.  Throughout the 90s, I was treated like everyone else, but [as previously mentioned in either the 'Offensiveness', 'Extras' or 'SmugTwatGervais' threads] I've noticed a recent turn of the tide.  

I'd like to think that regarding their portayals and treatment of disabled characters Gervais, Lucas and Walliams were being ironic, or whatever.  Over this past year, I've decided it's all very much handled in a 'point and laugh' fashion.  Where I used to be able to happily go about my business and just be another guy in the street, I'm now aware of people mumbling and commenting.  There seem to be so many people out there with the attitude that if that's 'award winning comedy', then it's fair game.

Even the other day at the bank, I became aware of the fact that the bank clerk started talking to the prson I was with rather than me.  Now, that's not happened to me for well over a decade...why again now?  Sure, she was a dull bint with a Julia-Davis-in-Nighty-Night 'sing-song' voice, but did she really think had she spoken to me directly my response would have been 'Yeah, I know' or 'I want that one'?  For fuck's sake.  The current attitudes in comedy have so much to answer for.

Sorry - when I started typing, I thought I had a better, more relevant and direct point to make.  I realise now I've finished, this would have been just as at home in the GD 'Things That Fuck You Off' thread.

[Basil Fawlty] Get on with your meals! [/Basil Fawlty]

EDIT:  Gah!  Just to make this look more obvious, it's started a new page.

[Slackboy]

Even the other day at the bank, I became aware of the fact that the bank clerk started talking to the prson I was with rather than me.  Now, that's not happened to me for well over a decade...why again now?  Sure, she was a dull bint with a Julia-Davis-in-Nighty-Night 'sing-song' voice, but did she really think had she spoken to me directly my response would have been 'Yeah, I know' or 'I want that one'?  For fuck's sake.  The current attitudes in comedy have so much to answer for.

What's that got to do with comedy? She was an idiot and she acted like one so why is that Lucas and Walliams's fault? Did you have a go at her for it, and if so did she blame her shoddy manners on watching too much modern comedy or what?

[slim]

I think it's fair to say that popular comedy can act as a guide of acceptability for the public. It's probably also fair to say that, with viewing figures lower now than previously, it's impact is lessened.

Do you not think society, in terms of prejudice and targets, reflects what is evident in comedy, and vice versa?

I suppose there's no way of proving it empirically so this is another argument based on belief that could go on and on, but I do believe mainstream comedy has an influence on what people feel it is acceptable to mock.

[TJ]

What's that got to do with comedy? She was an idiot and she acted like one so why is that Lucas and Walliams's fault? Did you have a go at her for it, and if so did she blame her shoddy manners on watching too much modern comedy or what?

Here's a tricky one then... a couple of years back, I saw a group of students shouting "Timmay!"* when a man in a motorised wheelchair went past on the other side of the street. I can't really explain it, but it was suddenly like a switch had been flipped in my head and I could never really look at "South Park" in the same light again. Suddenly it was abundantly clear that no matter how much people may claim to the contrary, there *is* no satire in that particular 'joke', and it really is just getting cheap laughs out of disability. It's not even like they were misinterpreting it - the whole thing is a simple call-and-response catchphrase with no 'point' behind it.


*Of course, they could have been shouting a greeting to longtime Verbwhores poster Timmay, but I couldn't see him around anywhere.

[trotsky assortment]

What's that got to do with comedy? She was an idiot and she acted like one so why is that Lucas and Walliams's fault? Did you have a go at her for it, and if so did she blame her shoddy manners on watching too much modern comedy or what?

Yes, she was an idiot, but I was relating it to the point mr slim makes here:

I think it's fair to say that popular comedy can act as a guide of acceptability for the public.
Do you not think society, in terms of prejudice and targets, reflects what is evident in comedy, and vice versa?

Although, as slim says, there's no concrete proof, to me, it feels like the current attitudes in comedy have led to a step back in some people's understanding of disability.  

Thanks, slim.  I'll go away again now.  ;o)

[Mediocre Rich]

Here's a tricky one then... a couple of years back, I saw a group of students shouting "Timmay!"* when a man in a motorised wheelchair went past on the other side of the street. I can't really explain it, but it was suddenly like a switch had been flipped in my head and I could never really look at "South Park" in the same light again. Suddenly it was abundantly clear that no matter how much people may claim to the contrary, there *is* no satire in that particular 'joke', and it really is just getting cheap laughs out of disability. It's not even like they were misinterpreting it - the whole thing is a simple call-and-response catchphrase with no 'point' behind it.

What did you think South Park was before the incident?  Surely it's just childish base humour.  If you found it amusing before what has changed?  What did you think it was before?

[Mediocre Rich]

If you want affirmation of peoples attitudes to shock comedy check out the Aristocrats thread. "We want more 9/11, disabled, racist jokes!" Even from a Guardian review.

[trotsky assortment]

I find that cause for concern and find myself wondering how long it will be before comedy is reduced to a bunch of sneering racist 'gags'...

[TJ]

What did you think South Park was before the incident?  Surely it's just childish base humour.  If you found it amusing before what has changed?  What did you think it was before?

It often has a decent 'point' hidden somewhere underneath it all, though. Or at least it did in the early days.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

If you want affirmation of peoples attitudes to shock comedy check out the Aristocrats thread. "We want more 9/11, disabled, racist jokes!" Even from a Guardian review.

But then The Aristocrats is a special case, since it's effectively an amnesty for material you couldn't do anywhere else - Peter Bradshaw's point was that sex references aren't shocking any more, but material concerning race, religion, disability and recent tragedies arguably still are.

[mayer]

What about the treatment of Kyle Brovlofski and the resurgence of "Jew" as a playground insult? Is that any better/worse than the yells of  "Timmay"?

I don't have a problem with it, even though I do think that it's had an effect on people, young and old alike, using the word "Jew" as a childish slur or for base humour. I'm much more uptight about the sort of media which encourages phsysical attacks on people and desecrating synagogues and the like.

WORD 2000 1998
Cunt 1 1
Motherfucker* 2 2
Fuck 3 3
Wanker* 4 4
n**ger* 5 11
Bastard 6 5
Prick 7 7
Bollocks* 8 6
Arsehole 9 9
p**i* 10 17
Shag 11 8
Whore 12 13
Twat 13 10
Piss off 14 12
s*****c 15 14
Slag 16 18
Shit 17 15
Dickhead* 18 19
Pissed off 19 16
Arse 20 20
Bugger 21 21
Balls 22 22
Jew 23 24
Sodding* 24 23
Jesus Christ 25 26
Crap 26 25
Bloody 27 27
God 28 28

Broadcasting Standards Commission  list of offensive words that, It's been up here before, but yes, Sodding has slipped below Jew in the list of the most "offensive" words.

[Mediocre Rich]

It won't be 'reduced' to anything.  People will soon get sick of hearing the same thing and there will be a back lash against it.  There always is.  What is it with everyone believing that this is the end of culture as we know it?  They said that about alternative comedy.  They said it about Elvis.  Surely you realise that nothing stays the same for long. That's the thing about time, it changes.

[trotsky assortment]

What did you think South Park was before the incident?  Surely it's just childish base humour.  If you found it amusing before what has changed?  What did you think it was before?

It often has a decent 'point' hidden somewhere underneath it all, though. Or at least it did in the early days.

Yeah...in the early days, its heart seemed to be in the right place.  I gave it up as a bad lot, though, round about the time of the Hallowe'en/Korn episode, where it became obvios that Trey and Matt were becoming increasingly reliant on vulgarity to get cheap laughs.  By that point, too, I was becoming increasingly fed up with them behaving like twats in 'interviews'.

[Mediocre Rich]

What did you think South Park was before the incident?  Surely it's just childish base humour.  If you found it amusing before what has changed?  What did you think it was before?

It often has a decent 'point' hidden somewhere underneath it all, though. Or at least it did in the early days.

It still has and it isn't usually hidden.  The point is that it has always been pretty base. Swearing screaming kids, shit on a stick.  Racism.  What has really changed.  Isn't it just that you've realised it is pointlessly offensive and your moral values are overiding your laughter reflex?

Still South Park eh, not as good as it used to be <winky etc>

[TJ]

What about the treatment of Kyle Brovlofski and the resurgence of "Jew" as a playground insult? Is that any better/worse than the yells of  "Timmay"?

In a sense, in that Kyle is often painted as sort of the moral victor of the group, the one that sees through all the madness and mayhem and gets the last word (and indeed, where relevant, the satirical 'point'), so there's a sense of depth that counterpoints the insults flung by Cartman (who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever), whereas Timmay is just a shouting comedy invalid.



EDIT: I can't believe I just wrote something so profound about "South Park"!

[TJ]

It still has and it isn't usually hidden.  The point is that it has always been pretty base. Swearing screaming kids, shit on a stick.  Racism.  What has really changed.  Isn't it just that you've realised it is pointlessly offensive and your moral values are overiding your laughter reflex?

Nope, not at all. I don't think it always *was* pointlessly offensive. What Trotsky Assortment said above, basically.

And, erm, even aside from that it just hasn't been as funny since the early days anyway.

[Mediocre Rich]

If you want affirmation of peoples attitudes to shock comedy check out the Aristocrats thread. "We want more 9/11, disabled, racist jokes!" Even from a Guardian review.

But then The Aristocrats is a special case, since it's effectively an amnesty for material you couldn't do anywhere else.

So It's OK to be racist, and tell s*****c gags because this is a documentary and we are all adults and know that really these things are bad, whereas those proles laughing at Little Britain and the Office are just vile right wing scum.

Peter Bradshaw's point was that sex references aren't shocking any more, but material concerning race, religion, disability and recent tragedies arguably still are.

The film is front-loaded in the same way. Long, long, largely tiring gross-out stuff building up to a final minute or so in which the naughty funsters concede that what really shocks people nowadays is not baroque porn fantasies but jokes about race, disability and the war on terror. Duh. And there's no time left, and no appetite, for attempting anything of the sort.

Sounds to me more like he thinks it would have been better with less baroque porn and more cripples.

[Blumf]

What about the treatment of Kyle Brovlofski and the resurgence of "Jew" as a playground insult? Is that any better/worse than the yells of  "Timmay"?

Sadly 'jew' as an insult was in use in my school before SP came about (late 80s/early 90s). However, I don't think the kids tied it to the bigger picture of anti-Semitism, it was just a word. (That last sentence opens up a can of worms doesn't it?)

[mayer]

I gave it up as a bad lot, though, round about the time of the Hallowe'en/Korn episode, where it became obvios that Trey and Matt were becoming increasingly reliant on vulgarity to get cheap laughs.

See, for me, South Park didn't even get partway decent till Season Five, when they stopped relying purely on vulgarity which they'd done since Episode One.

[Slackboy]

Do you not think society, in terms of prejudice and targets, reflects what is evident in comedy, and vice versa?

Yes, but I think that it is mainly comedy that reflects society; there are more people that don't watch comedy than do, so it can't have that much of an effect to change it. For example, even after TDT and BE the news hasn't changed that much (at all? Got worse?) to take into account the criticisms that those programmes were making. It should have been changed but the sad truth is that most people just aren't bright enough to see what those programmes were trying to say, but that's where most of modern (maybe all) comedy comes from. Bright people write comedy about stupid people because it's a kind of therapy for them (the bright people I mean) and it might in some cases become an effective way to communicate something but that is rarely the case.

TJ: In South Park a lot of the early jokes (mainly the ones with Pip but now more the ones from Cartman to Kyle) were about how cruel kids are, and how they can say the most appalling things. It reflects the fact that those kids you described will do things like that but it has never encouraged them to do so. The thing is that in the past you have made the argument that the Beatles were to blame for all crappy Beatle-esque music that came after them, which is just such a patently absurd thing to say that it isn't even worth getting into an argument about it. Your position in this case is similar. South Park has always put Timmy in a good light and those kids were idiotically missing the point that the programme has made in the past about kids and the disabled. Or they were being post-modernly ironic about the situation and were exercising the few freedoms of speech that they have, but either way SP isn't to blame for their actions, they are. In fact that's another example of an issue that SP has covered, the way that kids use the media to excuse their actions and you're helping them to do that.

In a similar way trotsky is excusing that woman's actions by blaming comedy instead of her. It makes much more sense to have a go at her and to try to change her attitude directly (and if that doesn't work then ask to see her manager so that she gets retrained or sacked), than to go on a forum later and futilely try to change attitudes in comedy, which only communicates to a small subset of society anyway.

Timmay is just a shouting comedy invalid.

No he isn't, he's had plenty of stories that have shown a lot of the character that he has, and that he has just as many faults as the rest of us. SP is still a very moral programme and always has been. The one about time-travelling immigrants is a good example of this.