Chris Morris and the 'New Right'

[mayer]

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?)

Indeed it does.

The same way "spaz" or "scopie" is just a word :-)

Except that would work for "Yid" or "Kike". To make the analogy fair and complete you'd have to assume that "disabled person" could be used as a valid insult, which it rarely is.

[Jemble Fred]

To be honest, quite often I prefer my comedy to be as sick as is humanly possible. I'm afraid I have few morals myself when it comes to humour. But when it's acceptable, when it's the norm, just after the watershed on a mainstream channel... where's the fun? Would graffiti artists be as enthused by their art if it became the norm to paint slogans on canvases and display them proudly in galleries?

[TJ]

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.

No I didn't. You deliberately misinterpreted and simplified that point (which was part of a wider argument about a different subject altogether) to enable a quick swipe when I made it in the past, and you're doing it again now. You're just trolling, frankly, so I can't be bothered replying to the rest of your post. Apart from this bit.

Your position in this case is similar.

No it isn't.


EDIT: And anyway, as I said above, it wasn't kids but students. Y'know, fully-grown adults of supposedly superior intellect whose public image suggests loony left-leaning 'PC brigade' types.

[TJ]

To switch to another point - one problem is that 'irony' is too convenient and easy a defence these days, and gets used as a sort of reason-free buffer against criticism. For example, if someone who rejected the idea that "Rising Damp" was racist were to be challenged about their standpoint, they might well say something like "well, Rigsby's suspicion and wariness of Phillip was based on nothing more than genuine ignorance about foreign cultures, often leading to him coming a comic cropper as a result of his gullibility, and whenever Phillip comes up against real serious racial prejudice Rigsby is very quick to defend him, and anyway, by the last series they're close friends". Whereas someone who said that, say, Vic and Bob's comedy blacking-up and cod-Jamaican accents in those "Shooting Stars" shorts wasn't morally dubious but 'obviously ironic', if challenged might well just say "well... I mean, come on! It's ironic!".

NB this is based on a real conversation.

[mayer]

But in the classic-hated-comedies, those of Gervais, there's plenty of that, but in the flagship (and the only good Gervais program I've seen), The Office, there isn't any of that sort of "ironic" racism as far as I can recall (it's been a while since I watched the thing).

You've got genuine situations where Brent's racism/inability to understand or deal with the physically hadicapped is exposed for the small-minded patheticness that it is.

The famous "black man's cock" routine, his later dressing down by the boss and his attempts to justify what is tasteless and racist humour by saying "EVEN a single black man wasn't offended, so how can you be", a rationalization given by many people in his situation is highlighted to be a nonsense.

The "morality" doesn't seem too disimilar to Rising Damp for me.

Now... Curry and Chips....

[Slackboy]

TJ: Someone is going to have to define troll for me, since that isn't what I'm doing here and it just looks like you're using that term as a get-out clause so that you don't have to consider what I'm saying. I never "deliberately misinterpret" anything since why would I do that? To win an argument? To pointlessly piss you off? Give me a bit more credit please TJ.

I'm pretty certain that The Beatles example is exactly what you did, if it isn't then I apologise. As for the students example that doesn't really change much except to make them much more stupid as they are more responsible for their own actions than children are.

[Johnny Yesno]

You've got genuine situations where Brent's racism/inability to understand or deal with the physically hadicapped is exposed for the small-minded patheticness that it is.

The famous "black man's cock" routine, his later dressing down by the boss and his attempts to justify what is tasteless and racist humour by saying "EVEN a single black man wasn't offended, so how can you be", a rationalization given by many people in his situation is highlighted to be a nonsense.

Absolutely. That's how I understood Brent. I thought his character was a pop at people like the bank woman Trotsky Assortment was on about. No irony, just observation. It pains me to think that this "point" has been completely lost and the whole thing has become "point and laugh" as TA's experiences suggest. I guess it happened with Alf Garnett so why not with Brent?

The Office: An American Workplace had the Brent character assuming that one of his black staff would be good at basketball. He thought he was "bigging him up" when really he was just stereotyping him. This surely is the point we're at nowadays. It's rare for people to talk about "yer coons" yet they'll happily swallow Queer Eye for the Straight Guy because they know a man's sartorial choices are governed by where he puts his cock.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

To be honest, quite often I prefer my comedy to be as sick as is humanly possible. I'm afraid I have few morals myself when it comes to humour. But when it's acceptable, when it's the norm, just after the watershed on a mainstream channel... where's the fun? Would graffiti artists be as enthused by their art if it became the norm to paint slogans on canvases and display them proudly in galleries?

What about when you're in front of an audience who share your love of 'sick' humour - do you carry on at the same level, or do you try and shock the audience by taking it up one notch?

I don't mean you personally, Jem - I mean 'What makes a comedian exciting in that situation?'

[slim]

I think South Park dipped in form and relied too much on the base humour TJ describes around the Timmay appeared, but it's right back on track now for me. I could be wrong, but it feels to me like there's been far more politics in the last two seasons than previously.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I haven't seen South Park for years (Series 1 left me cold so I never really bothered beyond that really), but I've heard it's become angry and fanatstic in recent years - is that true? I really should watch some newer ones.

Their contribution is the funniest bit in The Aristocrats, anyway.

[Slackboy]

Their contribution is the funniest bit in The Aristocrats, anyway.

Do you mean the clip that's been knocking around the web for a bit or have they done something new?

[Jemble Fred]

What about when you're in front of an audience who share your love of 'sick' humour - do you carry on at the same level, or do you try and shock the audience by taking it up one notch?

Well the only way you'd know for a fact whether an audience wanted that was if it was a show specifically designed to be as offensive as possible, and advertised as such. There used to be a gig somewhereabouts called 'Walkout', which was precisely that (Wrote a few sketches specifically for that, but never sent them in – I wouldn't use them for anything else though). And in that case, yes, you'd be working within different parameters, and would adjust your sickness to suit. But such sickness for sickness' sake should be a rare offering, in my opinion. Even Derek & Clive would have been wearing if it had become a much-hyped long-running series, rather than a few brief moments in comedy history.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The "morality" doesn't seem too disimilar to Rising Damp for me.

I don't doubt the satirical/character-based intent when taboos are dealt with in The Office - it just always seems so heavy-handed, that's all. I mean, the Young Ones racist policeman scene was unsubtle as fuck, but at least it was deliberately so - it assumed that the point being made was so obvious to the viewers that they might as well be as visceral as possible in the execution. I don't like the way The Office is sold as a subtle, complex show - I don't think it's interesting enough for that. There's simply not enough going on.

Rising Damp is more interesting, because Rigsby's racism/homophobia is almost on autopilot - it's quit difficult to work out what he really thinks. I want to watch another episode to find out a little bit more.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Well the only way you'd know for a fact whether an audience wanted that was if it was a show specifically designed to be as offensive as possible, and advertised as such. There used to be a gig somewhereabouts called 'Walkout', which was precisely that (Wrote a few sketches specifically for that, but never sent them in – I wouldn't use them for anything else though). And in that case, yes, you'd be working within different parameters, and would adjust your sickness to suit.

But do you think comedians should give an audience what they want, though? Shouldn't they give them something they're totally not expecting?

It reminds me of Rik Mayall's obsession with 'excitement', which to me seems all about doing the opposite of what the audience want/expect.

I mean, 'offensive' comedy is pretty naff when all it does is provoke a cosy 'Ha ha, that's sick, but I agree with the point being made' reaction. Shouldn't it also trouble the audience and make them uneasy about whether they should laugh? Isn't that in itself an exciting thing?

It comes back to Sadowitz again. He does lots of stuff the audience agree with and happily enjoy, and then throws in something totally unpleasant and off the scale and effectively challenges them to keep laughing.

[Jemble Fred]

I always know what I want when I put a Derek & Clive CD on, and I always get it. In fact, to get closer to your meaning (because of course you know what you'll get from something you've heard before – bad example, sorry), I knew what I'd be getting even before I heard it, in the case of D&C (Live), which I didn't hear until I was about 22.

But then as you know, as far as I'm concerned a comedian's only job is to generate laughter, via their own material – and in that case, obviously they should give the audience what they want. Laughs. I wouldn't expect any more than that, though even that one requirement often seems optional these days (fogey-ish but heartfelt).

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I always know what I want when I put a Derek & Clive CD on, and I always get it. In fact, to get closer to your meaning, I knew what I'd be getting even before I heard it, in the case of D&C (Live), which I didn't hear until I was about 22.

Case in point, though - I'm happily listening to D&C and enjoying the disgustingness, and then they say 'coon' or start talking about 'cunt-kicking' and suddenly I'm a bit troubled. Am I a hypocrite to object and insist on a line being drawn? Does that defeat the point of the project? Do I still find it funny? Did they deliberately include those bits to provoke this reaction? Is the joke on me? All those thoughts swimming around my head. Which, ironically, give me a greater pleasure than the 'normal' offensiveness I'd been enjoying at the start.

The question is, where do you go from there? Once you know an act is going to talk about coons and cunt-kicking, what's left? There's no going back, after all.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

But then as you know, as far as I'm concerned a comedian's only job is to generate laughter, via their own material – and in that case, obviously they should give the audience what they want. Laughs.

But what if by worrying/'upsetting' an audience you eventually get bigger laughs?

[TJ]

[another additional point, sorry...]

It's also true that comics and their fans are seemingly no longer prepared to attack real 'villains' (Bush and Blair don't count as they're obvious if worthwhile targets), preferring to reserve all of their bile and hatred for the done-nothing-particularly-wrong likes of Natasha Kaplinsky and Jamies Cullum and Oliver rather than risk taking a potshot at, say, someone like Peter Bazalgette, who in better times would have been recieved as a dodgy Rupert Murdoch or even David Sullivan figure rather than just ignored and allowed to get on with his poisoning of the media.

[mayer]

Is that about comics though? Unlike Murdoch or Tony Blair, Bazalgette just doesn't have any profile amongst the public at large at all. Jokes about him (personally), wouldn't translate well at all, would they?

It'd be like jokes about the men at the FA instead of Sven, people would be confused, not because they don't believe the targets to be worthy, but because they dunno who they are.

[Cheeky Monkey]

Bashing South Park for not being as good as it used to be completely baffles me - while the earlier seasons relied on 'Spirit of Christmas' vulgarity in later seasons it evolved into something entirely different and infinitely funnier. I would say it was shortly after the arrival of Timmy that it became a really great show - consistently well-written plots and characters wrapped around far angrier messages than those earlier episodes. Compare the character assassination of Paris Hilton and Russell Crowe in the more recent series to 'Mecha-Streisand'. The Terri Schiavo episode is another that would have been inconceivable in the early days. Series 6 onwards are brilliant, Lalla - definitely worth sparing time for. There are episodes that are so good they seem to be working on a totally different level to everyone else in comedy.

I can see your point regarding Timmy TJ but I've never found him particularly offensive - his disability is so cartoonish and over-the-top that it kind of cancels out any objections you may have. The satirical point of TImmy is that he embodies sufferers of a number of disabilities - Tourettes, cerebral palsy etc. By bunching a load of illnesses together and making sure his condtion is not identifiable Timmy becomes a kind of symbol for ignorance of the disabled among able-bodied people. Singling out a single illness would have made it mean-spirited and less funny. As for yobs shouting 'Timmay' at disabled people, it just shows you can never account for idiots misinterpreting things. This goes all the way back to the BNP adopting Til Death Do Us Part as it's own and it'll continue to happen - doesn't mean anyone with a modicum of intelligence can't enjoy good comedy for what it is.

EDIT: Conversation's moved on I see.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I had an idea for a Dead Ringers sketch the other day (no, wait), based on the idea that Gordon Ramsay is really crap at insults. 'Grate a parsnip like that again, mate, and the only parsnip you'll be seeing will be the ones up your arse! Because I've put up them - ie the parsnips - up there!'

But then I thought, 'Dead Ringers wouldn't use that'. Why? Partly because it's rubbish, even for them, but also because it rests on the idea of taking something a celebrity is famous for and pointing out that it's not true. And in the Dead Ringers world, this isn't what they want. They'd want a sketch where Ramsay swore even more than he does in real life.

And I wondered, is that a nugget of what's wrong with a lot of comedy? That it seems to be about playing along with a celeb's image rather than ripping it up and saying 'fuck off'? I mean, I know Dead Ringers is a shit show anyway, but don't lots of allegedly 'good' comedians do the same thing?

I once pondered on how a new series of Spitting Image could do David Beckham jokes - the only way it could work would be for Beckham to be portrayed as an incredibly bright bloke who manipulated his image in order to appear endearingly stupid. Because that makes the target of the skit more ambiguous doesn't it? But most comedy shows wouldn't be interested in that - they'd want bog-standard 'Beckham = stupid' gags.

Claiming this is 'right-wing' might stretch the definition a bit, but I reckon it's part of the same attitude - playing along with the media rather than attacking it. Calling Anne Robinson 'evil' etc.

[TJ]

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.

This is absolutely true - maybe some would argue that the 'rush' that people get from seeing how extreme the likes of "Jackass" can get is essentially the same as the excitement of, say, staying up to watch "The Strike", but the fact of the matter is that the latter and its ilk had an ideology of sorts behind them - detectable even in something as lightweight as "Girls On Top" - and the former and its ilk do not.

There was also the sheer range of standpoints and subject matter, diverse not only in ideological obsession but also in intensity, with something like "Happy Families" (no definable 'message', but plenty of digs at religion, celebrity etc) at one end of the scale and that ranty thing Keith Allen did as a nightwatchman on Channel 4 ('Vote Labour' writ large) at the other. You could even argue that there was some form of rudimentary 'debate' on various subjects within comedy; Alexei Sayle pouring scorn on the lunatic fringe of his political sympathisers ("Jobs Not Bombs", people who point when they talk etc), Lee and Herring (albeit belatedly) getting upset by Andy De La Tour's Airey Neave routine, and even something like the same standup show containing both Mark Thomas raging against ignorance about and prejudice against Islam, and Stephen Fry raging against lending sympathy to a culture that turned a blind eye to religious bigotry and subjugated women. That really did happen by the way, and I've never been able to remember what in, more's the pity.

Lee and Herring are a good example, by the way, as they epitomise what the logical 'next step' of alternative comedy should have been and indeed appeared to be with the arrival of Morris, Iannucci etc - forward-thinking rational types who broadly sympathised with their comic forebears but had grown suspicious of the party line they had drifted into, and were only too happy to question it while adapting comedy for a changing media environment.

Fast-forward a couple of years, and you get "The 11 O'Clock Show". What went wrong?

[TJ]

Is that about comics though? Unlike Murdoch or Tony Blair, Bazalgette just doesn't have any profile amongst the public at large at all. Jokes about him (personally), wouldn't translate well at all, would they?

It'd be like jokes about the men at the FA instead of Sven, people would be confused, not because they don't believe the targets to be worthy, but because they dunno who they are.

It was also the case about David Sullivan back in the eighties, though - he was a little-known porn baron without much of a public profile, but one who had dangerous ambitions towards mainstream 'acceptance' for his wares. I'm sure many people didn't know who he was before Viz, Victor Lewis-Smith etc started having a go, but I'm equally sure that the archetype was immediately recognisable and everything would have clicked into place straight away.

Plus all they would really need to say is "Peter Bazalgette, the producer of Big Brother...", and instantly most of the audience would have a fair idea of who and what they were talking about.

[Neil]

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.

That is interesting, it's made me realise that I cut South Park much more slack than I do for a lot of other comedians.  Why though?  In the early days it was very very funny, and very shocking.  A mate of mine watched it on my recommendation and thought it was excellent...right up until the episode with the conjoined foetus, which him and his wife got very upset about because of a miscarriage they had been through in the past.  I think in the last couple of years Stone and Parker have got bored of simply flexing their offensiveness muscles and see how easy it can be...the last few seasons have in fact been deeply moralistic.

Each week they pick a different target to attack, and it's clear how frustrated and angry they get about them.  The two examples that spring to mind are the Paris Hilton and OJ episodes,  the latter of which really did shock me.  Not through usage of offensive material (which they still tend to wheel out) but because I couldn't believe they were getting away with the things they were doing.  They were blatantly and angrily screaming 'we all know you did it, you murdering fuckers' at the likes of OJ and the Ramseys.  From what I recall of the Paris Hilton episode, it revolved around their disgust at Hilton being seen as a role model by kids, who were dressing up like vacuous little sluts to be just like her.  I mean, these days they seem to get extremely angry at things and then use the show to get across their frustration.  That's what's at the heart of South Park now for me, I think it's come an awful long way.

With regards Timmy...I dunno, the impression I get is that they wanted to have a disabled character who was actually really popular.  I don't think his disability is really the joke, in the same way that Token Black's black skin isn't the joke...his name is, and it makes an excellent point.  When people shout Timmy I think it's more about how much they enjoy that particular character.  It's extremely unfortunate and nasty if dickheads are shouting it at real disabled people, but I tend to feel that the whole thing was conceived for good reasons rather than bad ones.  I think they probably see it as a victory to have people immitating a disabled character.  There's a world of difference between shouting Timmay and making Joey Deacon noises.

[Mediocre Rich]

I honestly don't believe Stone and Parker are trying to get across any type of 'message' or point with the Timmay charachter at all.  They just aren't that subtle.  They think it's funny, and I'm sure they quite happily crack gags with each other about spastics and giggle all the time.  They certainly come across as the types to do this in interviews.

The OJ and Paris messages aren't exactly subtly woven into the text are they? They're stamped all over it.  The Goobacks episode was a good example of having a 'right on' message stamped all over it whilst still being disgustingly hilarious.  What satire is there in a mound of rutting men really?

Don't get me wrong I love it to bits, but I also accept that it mostly appeals to the childish side of my nature that laughs at farts and thinks swearings great.

[slim]

Ah, I was going to offer a couple of examples for you, Lalla, to convince you to pick up South Park and have another go, but I see Neil's done a good job of it up there.

It really has picked up again of late. Biting satire, worthy parodies, without equal at times, and a good gag rate.

They undoubtedly do offer simple, unjustifiable attacks on minorities at times (usually in an episode without any real point, I would suggest), but it's interspersed with some great, seething, on-the-money attacks. There are few other writers around today who can dissect an issue, expose the heart of it and mock it so effectively.

I also think Timmay is more than just a point and laugh joke. The joke seems to work on two levels as far as I can tell - the immediate joke that all he can say is his name... it's not that funny, really. Although, hearing him articulate complex sentences purely through his name is a treat and says something to me about the difficulties faced by people with communication problems. You know, the difference between what they can get out to the world and what is going on inside.

Maybe it wasn't intended to convey that to me, but it does. We've had discussions on here before about intent and the delivery of the joke. It's my opinion that this kind of material can be very effective if delivered with panache and intelligence. I think Matt and Trey usually manage it. Not always, and sometimes I just find myself disgusted with the laziness in their writing, but there's enough good stuff in there to keep me going back.

Then, on the other level, I have the feeling that most of what they're trying to say with Timmay is that he's just another kid at school. They've certainly made that point through the mouths of the other characters on more than one occasion.

The OJ and Paris messages aren't exactly subtly woven into the text are they?

But comedy doesn't have to be subtle to work. I appreciate intelligent writing but sometimes the sledgehammer approach is entirely appropriate. In the case of the OJ gags, it just wouldn't work if delivered in a subtle, insinuating way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the brazen method was a form of defence as attack intended to bolster their case should they ever appear in court about it.

[Hoogstraten'sSmilingUlcer]

ELW 10 wrote:

And I wondered, is that a nugget of what's wrong with a lot of comedy? That it seems to be about playing along with a celeb's image rather than ripping it up and saying 'fuck off'? I mean, I know Dead Ringers is a shit show anyway, but don't lots of allegedly 'good' comedians do the same thing?

That's a good point (and an excellent thread to everyone, by the way). I was thinking about Morris' comment that satire is a conservative art form.

Satire is essentially a conservative form. As soon as you stand up in front of an audience, you're immediately relying on the consent of more than half the audience which neuters the whole exercise. If you look at Private Eye, which is the most prominent satirical organ in this country, it's little more than a more intelligent and witty version of saying 'whatever next ...'."

It's strange, but I could never quite see his point there up until a few days ago. It seemed silly to say that satire is conservative (as in, you need the audience's consent, and therefore, you're not really challenging ideas as regurgitating the audience's pub-born opinions). Satire, or at least modern satire (though today's satire is just topical humour; Nev Fountain should ask for a dictionary this Christmas and a copy of A Modest Proposal), merely relies on crudely exaggerating celebrities' traits, things we already know and, possibly, laugh at. It doesn't so much expose and laugh at the follies and vices of celebrities, as create a gentle, hardly opinionated caricature. Dead Ringers especially, but also The Now Show and HIGNFY, rather smugly take the views of any vaguely sceptical viewer, make one of the 'Alright-Celebrities' (one who makes the satire, and thus cannot be touched by anyone) express them in a humourous context, and suddenly it becomes satire. It's been said many times before, but modern satire is just political comment, but so wishy-washy, fence-sitting and unpointed, that it's lost all bite it might have had. Truly ripping the piss out of celebs (and I'm not sure when you know you're truly doing it, presumably when they burst into tears at the mention of your name) isn't really what the majority of BBC viewers want - they actually admire and emulate celebrities, and wouldn't want to see them ground into the earth by satire's boot. I'm generalising massively, but I dont' think many audiences really want satire, they just want whimsical caricatures, silly voices and repetitive jokes - how long can Jon Culshaw drag out his Blair/Bush impressions? Well, as long as viewers prefer that to something closer to the truth. Dead Ringers is more right-wing than left (despite it's award-winning fence-sitting), because it encourages daft old caricatures of politicians and celebs, verging on the self-deprecative and nearly as smug as HIGNFY's nudge-nudge-port-and-Groucho 'political humour.' It doesn't challenge anything, but reinforces a general, accepted view of politicians - Blair is the stuttering lapdog to Bush; Bush is the stupid one; Rumsfeld the evil one who looks like Death; Gorden Brown is Scottish and dour...etc. It's so conservative because it never challenges their policies at any level that might be called satirical; it doesn't have to be constructive satire, far from it, but it has to engage at an intelligent level. Satire is now the lapdog of celebrities, because whereas in the past where satirists stuck the knife in and didn't give a fuck, now they put their career and reputation before them before making jokes it's like their egotism is their own personal lawyer, stopping them from saying anything risky, provocative or funny. They won't risk anything, and for that, they're fucking useless.

To get back on topic, Morris is 'right-wing' in the Private Eye, Auberon Waugh sense. Anti-government; anti-institution; anti-rules; anti-general consensus. I don't know what his politics are (does he vote Lib Dem?), but I'd hazard a guess at him being vaguely Libertarian, and Libertarianism is often seen as being very right-wing, even though it's anti-facist. I can't see too many jokes about poofs in his work; stuff like 'Gay News' etc. is said in the context, of a faux news room, and the media was once, and still is perhaps, extremely homophobic. But you can argue 'is it serious or not?' all day - I'd go for it being part of the joke. Morris may think nothing is off limits, but he still follows a fairly moral route. It's tricky with Blue Jam which isn't taking the piss out of one specific thing. All his shows don't really betray his politics though; at most, you could extract that he's vehemently anti-establishment etc., but you couldn't say, 'Ah, he's a Tory.' He's been careful in that he's never divulged his politics in interviews, barely commented on politics in fact. The 'New Right' has merely intellectualised the racist, xenophohic, homophobic comedy of the past; Jimmy Carr is Roy Chubby Brown with a Cambridge degree. They're making supposedly daring jokes, but they're doing it in the most conservative way possible, performing in front of an audience of adoring fans - cracking a paedo joke to 20,000 people who you know will lap it up and applaud wildly is the most conservative, smug, cynical, opportunistic and vacuous exercise in comedy. Morris does it - or rather, did it - in the most anarchic way he could, fucking with the medium. But under the fancy packaging, there lies great writing, great jokes, good performances, but also a terrific fuck you attitude. Up to Nathan Barley, Morris didn't seem to give a hoot about his career (in a 'who's going to employ me next?' way; and indeed, the slightly strange stories of him cutting his wages in half) and what people thought of him - that's partially what made him interesting. He didn't collect a fast buck from HIGNFY, didn't fuck about whoring himself, but just got on with what he wanted to do. A comedian or writer shouldn't let his audience shape his act or material, because it will inevitably lose it's bite to predictability and popular consensus. In those terms, Morris is right-wing, because he doesn't (seem to) care about anything except the work. That opinion has been slightly modified since NB.

[Muggins]

I reckon either South Park is either very silly with a serious message at it's heart or very serious with a very silly heart.

Now I've got my slightly cryptic off-topic observation off my chest I would like to point out that I'd love to get involved in this discussion, but I've only got 3 posts to my name and I'm rubbish at forming concise, coherent arguments.

To summarise my attempt though:

I was going to start with a damning and succinct look at controversy in the media and comedy (with an eloborate critique of Jerry Springer the Opera and why it's the worst thing to happen to all non-christians in recent years.  Then if I was feeling boisterous and I felt I had the crowd with me I'd try and tie this in with why I think Stewart Lee's latest show is slightly tedious, perhaps finishing with a reference to the Aristocrats).

Then I was going to ride a tangent and declare hype to be the problem with comedy.  And overexposure and derivative programming leading to people hating the original show, even though it was enjoyable when it was small.

Then I probably was going to write a bit about bad taste jokes against poor, black, disabled etc. and say that if they're done in character or as a stage persona then they are funny.  More importantly, if it's seriously offensive then people shouldn't laugh at them- I always think the popularity of comedians and tv programs is a good litmus test for finding out social views on issues.

Fuck.  I'm really waffling now.  I am out of my depth and barely holding on to the reigns of my brain as it races down yet another irrelevant back alley of thought.

Oh.  And I've managed to post in a way that looks really smug.  Meh!

[mayer]

To get back on topic, Morris is 'right-wing' in the Private Eye, Auberon Waugh sense. Anti-government; anti-institution; anti-rules; anti-general consensus.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, and I think that MattnTrey, much as they loudly try to avoid being labled, are the same. The thing is, "is to be 'right-wing' in this sense a Bad Thing". I would say, no, not necesarrily at all. But there seems to be a stigma amonst those who believe themselves to be intellectual damning these views out of dogma, without explaining why, where "right-wing" itself can be used as an insult without any further elaboration.

[strangeloop]

I'd hazard a guess at him being vaguely Libertarian, and Libertarianism is often seen as being very right-wing, even though it's anti-facist.

Not sure I agree with that, being a bit of a libertarian and a bit of a leftie

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ makes some interesting points about this, not sure how relevant that is to this discussion though.