Entertainment For Lively Minds
Absolutely. Jaw-droppingly. Awful.
Posted by Paolo Meccano on 1 July 2009 - 11:53am.
I saw this on BBC Four last night (and so did the uploader by the looks of things). Surely even Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning would've balked at this?
- More from Paolo Meccano.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Absolutely....
....but please bear in mind that each generation of TV producers puts together retrospective programmes like these, the premise being "what WERE we thinking of?"
Unless we have recently reached some state of intellectual and moral perfection, that means that some of the programmes being broadcast today will be held up to similar ridicule in years to come.
The question is - which ones?
THAT is an issue
that I quite often think about. My guess for one suggestion is something I have mentioned before on this site. At present, any soap opera or thriller that aims to be dark and edgy loves to entertain us with child abuse. The horrible secret of the serial killer/depressive house wife/the strange unworldly (but cute) kid is a default reveal of childhood sexual abuse, quite often in slo mo. Pedophilia is not my idea of light entertainment. It all feeds into this weird phenomenon of cotton wooled kids who can't go outside and play in case Something Horrible Happens. Mind you give them five years and then they can be another media cliche: The Feral Kid. Quite a few films/progs based on that premise recently.
Hopefully in years to come people will look on these programmes and think; "what a crude and nasty society"
The future for the present
There will be a backlash towards gratuitous swearing on TV. I can see it happening already, Alan Sugar didn't cuss like he did in earlier series of The Apprentice, Gordon Ramsey and Jonathan Ross falling out of favour and making the F word ordinary.
I also suspect this decade will be the last of the big TV spenders and we will have a few 'they were paid HOW MUCH?' moments.
Everything Simon Cowell is involved with...
...probably.
Oh, and Big Brother.
I think a lot of the noughties vogue
for have-your-cake-and-eat-it 'ironic' gags about homosexuality in the stand up of Gervais, Carr et al and tv comedies, chat shows etc will look as dodgy as Mind Your Language in about 2020. I hope so anyway. Invariably when people are taken to task over it you'll hear 'No the joke is about *our attitude* to homosexuality not homosexuality itself...' or some such blether.
I don't buy it.
So true
Ricky Gervais is of course currently ingratiating himself in a quite unattractive manner to his new best mates like Larry David. Can't help feeling that Curb Your Enthusiasm is a much more mature attempt to address thorny 'culturally sensitive' issues than our Ricky has managed though. That said, The Office remains a TV landmark - just more for the acting and shooting style than the 'edgy' content, in my opinion.
What he said
All the Gervais stuff and dark comedy.
There's nothing wrong
with being racy.
if you listen to their
records, I think you'll find there is.
new
That Fast Show sketch about the old man who goes out to paint in the countryside and has some sort of nervous breakdown while his wife looks on aghast. This is probably one of the most upsetting things I have seen on TV as it the behaviour of an old man with Alzhiemers which has personally affected my family
Is it?
I always took it to be someone who was depressed. Hence the 'Black, Black' line which always appeared.
I agree with you
I do think it's one of those areas where it's OK to joke because you're depicting the world of old people, which is as distant from the world of most comedy writers as the world of Afro-Caribbean people was for the people who wrote the Rusty Lee sketch.
Is that not the nature of the beast?
What makes something funny is often something which is alien to you. Most comedy is about identifying a difference and pointing it out in an amusing way. Some of the best comedies have been the most ruthless - 'Seinfeld' and 'Curb ..' spring to mind.
Verily I say unto you...
...it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for Andrew Neil.”
Clearer, therefore worse, version here: http://tinyurl.com/l8ah3j
The nation's mouthpiece, working with the nation's elected representatives (and Al Murray), to engage us in democracy.
Mind you, that Faith Brown/Rusty Lee thing gave me nightmares.
The most heart-breaking
aspect of the clip above is that Rusty Lee feels she has to show what a good sport she is by joining in with the hilarity. As any minority did - and still does.
However, I don't think humour is any more cruel now in general than it was in the past. It is almost the essence of comedy to set up an inferior/superior proposition
The targets change but not the cruelty
The suggestion being...
...that Rusty Lee was putting on her laughter? I do not agree, I saw that (last night) as being her aghast but genuinely highly amused by it. It was unfunny in a Guardian-way, but it was just an impersonation after all, nothing offensive about what she was doing or saying. She had to use the stocking - the B&W Minstral bit - as it was to take Rusty by surprise.
"Ere, mate not
giving me *black* Looks are ya - eh?" HaHAAha
"Oi mate - *Pak* it in - will ya - get it?" HAHAHAAAaaaa
"*Browned* off eh" HHAAAAahhaaahhaaa
You're right - some of that lot are real good sports
Sorry, no offence, I take your point
I must say I didn't listen to the dialogue closely and yes it was crap and old fashioned and would be offensive - the point of the programme after all - it was just that I didn't think Rusty Lee was putting it on or just going with it reluctantly. I don't want to dig myself a hole here, I just saw her laughter as genuine. No way of either of us knowing whether it was or not I suspect.
Sorry if I touched a nerve, didn't mean to.
I agree with kb [mostly]
and would ask why is it offensive? Don't agree that she had to use the stocking, but is that worse than using any other part of a person's appearance to mimic them? I see an impersonation of Rusty Lee, nothing hateful, just not funny.
To Sheev I would ask what your comments in reply to kb have to do with this clip?
I have absolutely no problem
being called a Jock, can someone explain where I went wrong (meringue) please?
I would have
thought that the relevance of my comments were palpably obvious and relate to my earlier point about individuals in minority groups having to be complicit in humour that is directly aimed at them to show that they don't "have a chip on their shoulder" or they "can take a joke".
I suspect that behind the laughter - Rusty Lee is dying inside
It's all about context
but there is a world of difference between Jock and Nigger
Hear hear
Hear hear Sheev - well said.
A couple of years ago
I was watching one of those "talking heads" programmes (50 funniest/greatest.... ever) and there was an asian guy (might have been a R1 dj) commenting on some old tv sketch where "whitey" was affecting the "goodness gracious me" (his words) accent. Later in the same programme he was commenting on another item, referring to some scottish actor/comedian/whatever, and he launched into the old "och aye, the noo. see you jimmy" scottish accent routine. Oh how I laughed.
@ master sheev
does that mean calling a band "Landfill Indie" is an hideous term?
we like labels, handle it Dude, reasonable people don't give it a second thought IMO
yours
a lard ass Jock
It's all about context
but there's a world of difference between Landfill Indie and Nigger
A couple of years ago
I was watching one of those "talking heads" programmes (50 funniest/greatest.... ever) and there was an asian guy (might have been a R1 dj) commenting on some old tv sketch where "whitey" was affecting the "goodness gracious me" (his words) accent. Later in the same programme he was commenting on another item, referring to some scottish actor/comedian/whatever, and he launched into the old "och aye, the noo. see you jimmy" scottish accent routine. Oh how I laughed.
It's all about context...
... oh look - let me explain
It does get difficult and the lines are blurry
But - whilst it is ok for NWA or 50 Cent to say nigger - it is not for Rush Limbaugh - or any any other non Black other than in the context of reportage or drama.
What's ok for Chris Rock is not for Andrew "Dice Man" Clay
It is ok for "Goodness Gracious Me" to do a spoof about going for Indian - but it is not ok for Bernard Manning to say "there were this Paki..."
It does get difficult - and the lines are blurry.
I am not familiar with your example but it is acceptable for a "Radio 1 DJ of 'Asian' origin" to hold up for ridicule comedy of a previous era which mocked 'Asian' accents and then afffect a Scottish accent to make some other point - because (a)he is British and (b) because he is doing it without malice - presumably.
As you say - you have no problem with being called a Jock. So what's the problem?
It does get difficult and the lines are blurry
Oh, I do love
to be addressed in a patronising manner...
As far as the asian guy mimicking a scottish accent is concerned, you are wrong.
The fact that the comedy was from another era is irrelevant. In the space of a few seconds (I'm assuming his comments are done in one take and then edited) he is pointing out whitey affecting an asian accent, and then adopting the "och aye the noo" accent to portray the scottish bloke he was talking about. NO difference.
Presumably? Yeh, ok
are you sure it just wasn't
that he was radio one dj?
Chris
I'm not sure what his job was/is. I just smiled at the irony (there's that word again) of his remarks, about which (as I actually saw the programme) I feel able to make informed comment.
Sheev is right about one thing: it's about context.
While I would have NO problem with any of my many english friends calling me jock, I feel I reserve the right to administer a perfunctory smack in the teeth to any stranger, impertinent enough to call me by that name.
This actually reminds me of the scene from White Hunter Black Heart (underrated in my estimation)
Character A: You're welcome to come along
with us if you'd like, Ralph.
B: No Hollywood safaris for me.
A: That word has crept
into the conversation. . .
. . .quite a few times, hasn't it?
-Which word is that, sir?
-Hollywood.
I realize it's the name of a place, but the
way you say it has an added meaning.
Like an insult.
-Well, l didn't mean it like that.
-Don't contradict me, Ralph.
I've heard it all before.
Ok, Rant over!
yes
there is a difference
but since I have patronised you enough - I shall repair to the West Wing where my half Scottish, half- Indian butler McSingh will be bring me a Japanese lager whilst I listen to a female Sri Lankan Hip-Hop Artiste
Toodle-pip, Salaam and Hoots Mon
Is it because I is...
In general I have to say I think political correctness has been a good thing. I do feel, though, that one of its side effects has been that because of the elephant in the room of not upsetting Muslims, for example, other cultures / minorities have been fair game. If you read the comments of someone like AA Gill (a fully paid up member of the 'liberal metropolitan elite' with regard to anti-black or gay prejudice) on the Welsh, they are absolutely dripping with vitriol. Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Merseysiders, Israelis (perhaps with the get-out description of 'Zionists'), people with red hair - all fair game for a right kicking it would appear. It's almost as if a fixed amount of bitterness and prejudice exists - it's just directed at 'safer' targets.
I now find the term Jock
incredibly insulting, well done master
We're all Jock Tamson's bairns...
.
Jings
Crivvens and help ma boab!
it also has to be funny
which often the likes of AA Gill aren't.
I harbour
no little ambivalence about 'political correctness'. While I recognise that some historic elements of the language were less than acceptable I find that some manipulation of the way we speak and are encouraged to think.
Orwell talked about this at length but the idea is nicely wrapped up in Whorf's Hypothesis, which proposes that language shapes the way you perceive and navigate the world around you.
What has come to be called the PC movement is the Whorf Hypothesis writ large: using language to manipulate thought. Some of this is no doubt good, especially if it makes us aware of the potentially insidious and less pleasant aspects of the things we say. Other elements are less good, leading to our language becoming riddled with euphemism that prevents us from expressing ourselves and communicating accurately and honestly. Hence my ambivalence.
PC not all bad
The Whorf Hypothesis works both ways - if the standard in the 70s was to use racially dismissive epithets that would be unfairly diminishing those being called the names.
Part of Political Correctness is ensuring that people are not called offensive names, or names that they do not want to be called.
I had to explain this to a colleague who was carelessly/ lazily/ offensively (pick as many as you like) refusing to learn how to pronounce the names of his colleagues of Polish and Sri Lankan extraction - names of only four syllables, no harder to say or remember than many British names. Once he had done them the courtesy of learning to pronounce their names properly, and was no longer making a running joke of their "otherness", he worked better with them.
Can I ask which specific elements of Political Correctness trouble you ? I'm curious.
Marjorie Dawes
"Say again?
Say again?
Say again?
...something about curry...
Taken Out Of Context
a lot of things can be made to seem worse than they really are. The whole point of that sketch was to show the character for the mess of a human being that she was.
She also made fun of fat people.
I think it's
the element of control being imposed on the way people think. Perhaps it makes me uncomfortable because I'm something of a libertarian (and a leftie, which sit uncomfortably at times). I'm not comfortable with the element of velied and implicit coercion.
Perhaps I am also something of an optimist who chooses to think the best of people. In the case you mention above, I'd make the effort to get some one's name right, simply because it's just polite. I'd hate it if someone continually got my name wrong, whether deliberately or otherwise. So why should I do it to anyone else?
The obvious thing in the end is that people are just people...(no, I'm not going to wander off into a recital of Ebony and Ivory). Everyone one deserves to be treated with some dignity, whether not being called unpleasant names or having your thought processes coerced by someone who thinks they know better than you how you should think.
strange post
*you* can call yourself that if you wish, James. If a complete stranger called you that name though they would be being impolite, offensive, racist - regardless of whether you are obese and from Scotland or not.
As for landfill indie - I think you're just taking the piss.
You suspect
but don't know. She MAY have been genuinely amused, but we'd have to ask her to find out.
Personally, I don't find the clip offensive at all. The intention is clearly not to insult or humiliate her. It just looks like a practical joke played on someone at work by the mates you work with, in the same way you might use anyone's most obvious physica; eatures a a gag. And yes, some of it is, to our 'civilised' ears, a touch off-colour but we are in grave danger of doing what others have already metioned: using our current attitudes to judge something that was clearly of its time.
By coincidence I read this this afternoon
"Humour can, however, also be used as an anaesthetic to avoid confronting painful truths as in
Peter Nichols’ play "A day in the death of Joe Egg", where the father of a mentally handicapped child pinpoints the limitation of the sick joke: ‘It kills the pain but leaves the situation just as it was’ (Nichols 1967: 23)"
"I'm mad for it, I'm mad for it"
Tomorrow's ridicule
I'd say that the comedy/culture from the present time that will be ridiculed by the next generation may be the following:
The new light entertainment elite (Alan Carr, Russell Brand, Jimmy Carr) and their chat shows, BBC radio slots, and panel games.
Jokes about 'gingers'. Seems to be a generic replacement for the odious racism of previous generations.
Mental health jokes (like the Fast Show example above). Mental health is something that is less of a taboo that it was, leading to a better understanding of many conditions amongst the general public. It surely will not be seen as acceptable to make jokes in this area in ten years' time.
Any form of tokenism.
The mirror has been raised already
70's comedy
Were there any 70's sitcoms produced by ITV which weren't either sexist, racist or homophobic? If my memory serves me, there was On The Buses, Mind Your Language, Bless This House , Don't Drink The Water, Love Thy Neighbour and probably a few others, almost all of which would appall today and should have done then.
Get Some In. Starring a very young Robert Lindsay. That was OK. I think.
'Are You Being Served'
yes, I know that was on the Beeb. Maybe that's why it's ok?
Mind Your Language
was indeed excrement and responsible for some awful lazy stereotypes. I think, possibly rather contentiously, that Love Thy Neighbour has been rather unfairly maligned.
Why? Well, I remember seeing it as a child and thinking several things:
The wives got on fine and both thought their husbands were being a bit silly as a rule.
Rudolph Walker's character was COOL.
Jack Smethurst's character wasn't
Anytime Smethurst's character tried to make Walker's look stupid or inferior, it always (without fail) make Smethurst's look like a total cock. And Walker's character generally was a much smarter and more sympathetic one. Sometimes, more realistically, Walker's character could also be an arse, but mostly not.
Some of my early memories of black people were coloured (ho ho, in a Tarbuck style) by this show. It didn't make me dislike them or fear them, it just made me think the likes of Smethurst's character were arses. Job done I think.
Love Thy Neighbour
I've also always thought that about Love Thy Neighbour. But I think that it was the general racial language employed by the Smethurst character (can't remember if he actually used the word nigger but I'm sure phrases like sambo and golly were prevalent) that makes it "beyond the pale" (pun intended) today
I think his favourite was
nig-nog.
The problem
was that people tended to laugh along with - rather than at - Jack Smethurst and Alf Garnett
And as 8 year olds are not big on self-reflection or irony - the playgrounds of yesteryear used to ring to darkie and coon and sambo and chocolate drop.
As did workplaces come to that
As an 8 year old
in a 60s east-end of Glasgow school it was not an issue; we had never seen a black face. We were also too busy with "kafflik" or "proddy" bashing to give it much thought. Ahhh, the good old days.....
Hmm
I was only 6 or 7 and I got the point.
Maybe I'm just strange.
And I did, even then, find some of the extremes of Smethurst's language uncomfortable. Which meant it was nice when he got shown up.
Love Thy Neighbour
sorry double post - not sure if I can delete it so have edited instead
Coloured
Obviously as a sophisticated, Word-reading, wishy-washy liberal type I'm completely au fait (see how I used that instead of 'familiar'?) with correct terminology in regard to race. It therefore stands out like a sore thumb when I hear less metropolitan types use the word 'coloured' rather than 'black'. I had a debate with a work colleague about this issue recently. She felt that saying 'black' was derogatory, whereas 'coloured' sounded nicer. Whereas I just knew (through prolonged exposure to publications such as this) that 'black' was the 'correct' term, to her it was not at all obvious, and actually when you think about it, it's hard to explain why 'black' is seen as more acceptable.
It reminds me of a college friend who came from a more deeply provincial Scottish town than me (well, I lived closer to Glasgow!) who innocently used the phrase 'you black bastard' in response to something unpleasant or unhygienic one of us had done. To her, 'black' was nothing whatsoever to do with race but synonymous with dirt. In that context, it's easy to see how misguided but essentially well-meaning people might find the word 'coloured' to be preferable.
Freud theorized that jokes
Freud theorized that jokes serve two basic purposes: to expedite the expression of 1. aggression, or 2. unconsciously held, often taboo, beliefs.
The first purpose (which includes satire and defense) is fulfilled through the hostile joke, and the second through the dirty joke. To present these threatening or prejudicial tropes as comic helps to disempower them - and diminishes the id and elevates the superego or summat.
Anyway, the point I'm attempting to make is jokes help us to interrogate our seamier, abject side and therefore no idea - racism, alzheimers, gingers, arse sex or whatever -is off limits.
The current advertising campaign for Tango
"Too much Tango makes your guffs smell of orange. I've just done one."
That's got the adolescent hubris of the britpop era, and already seems hopelessly out of date.
Edit: there's one in this series that makes a Ginger joke. QED.
Then there are the posters.
Oh, how they must have laughed in the ad agency when they came up with this little gem:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2659747&l=d2a89c4ecc&id=520577273
I'm waiting for the Magnolia and Clean lines backlash..
.
Sean Lock's sneering
Sean Lock's sneering commentary throughout TV's Believe It Or Not on BBC 4. It didn't make the programme any funnier, just provided further proof of what a tosser he is.
All too easy
to make light of the big issue of race if you are never going to leave these shores and you belong to a majority grouping. It does not make you right though. Travel does indeed broaden the mind and occasionally places you in the role of minority race and shows you what prejudice and bigotry can be like when the tables are turned.
It's quite a culture shock to have locals refusing to travel in a lift with you because of YOUR race (Hong Kong) but truly wonderful when locals go out of their way to talk to you because you are English (Japan). Perhaps we should include foreign travel on the school curriculum.