Meeja Hoors
Friday, November 24, 2006
The ghost of Alf Garnett
this is a reply from two Cull readers to an article orginally flagged up in Political Peccadillo, but we've now moved it to this section, while belatedly digesting the news about the racist act from the ex-Kramer man...
Wrong-com is an interesting article, if a little po-faced. But then that’s half the problem, isn’t it? Taking things ‘too seriously’? hmm? It’s only comedy after all. Just a laugh that has no other import at all, whatsoever. So leave the analysis there, please. Stop making people think about why they’re laughing and polluting their pure [sic] reactions with politically correct rubbish. And stop muscling in on our right to have giggle at a different gravy, which is what The Sun (might) Says
We can have stunningly accurate and effective comedy about micro political processes in central government (The Thick of It) and the darker side of human emotion (Jam – need more now!!!) at the same time as observing that Two Pints of Wanker and a Packet of Shit is STILL on the BBC EVERY NIGHT and that Ricky Gervais, Peter Kay and Sacha Boeing Carrot are lauded as living gods. The former are honest about context and intent but there is no doubt that the latter exercise a wider public influence.
Sacha Bourgeois Cohen acknowledges that he’s dealing with some of the most serious contemporary and recurrent themes and targets of prejudice, yet his popularity is based on the derision of serious political analysis, even if some of Borat and Ali G’s targets were legitimate. Are his characters a suitable replacement for career politicians? Probably not but he is using comedy to dictate a very confused and confusing message to a very confused public and will certainly not lead to most people to self-analyse. Indeed, why should they when it’s all a joke? People are well familiar with what’s required of them in their all-consuming leisure time. Jam proves that comedy can lead to helpful self analyses; Borat proves that popular comedy increasingly thrives on exploitation of subject and audience for personal gain/indulgence.
So it’s all about who the joke/message is on with Gervais and Baron-Cohen the lines can be blurred. Intentionally so as to obviate genuine criticism like this. If you go back 30-25 years ago, Alf Garnett’s creator wrote his character to poke fun at the ignorance and racism within society when the nature of being British was changing, some of the chief themes being a realisation of no longer being a great power hangover after the second war and Suez and the reaction of some to immigration from the former ‘colonies’.
Speight’s creation of Alf Garnett was an important point in the evolution of an artform and an effective way of explicitly communicating messages (in this case, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-fascist) that the contemporary media is, on the whole, unwilling to recognise or agree on the need for. Speight held up a mirror up to the world around him but I don’t think SBC does that with Borat or Ali G. His characters are more subjective in design and intention.
With Garnett the joke was him, few who held his views misunderstood this or did not realise that he was the vehicle for making a point. It’s clearly not reality. A different method has been employed by Sacha Baron-Cohen with the idea of a ‘set up’ of certain people whether it be Politicians, fraternity idiots or high-society southerners. He likes to play with reality as he has been through the docu/mocumentary culture. He is out there speaking to Johnny Public but, and here’s where further lines are blurred, with a Dick Emery approach – ridiculous catchphrases, unsubtle characters and, in the case of Borat, a Central Asian stereotype that hasn’t yet been invented in the Western public consciousness!
Gervais and co. take a massive amount of inspiration from Larry David, but David is much cleverer than Gervais and always turns the table in terms of his comedy of prejudices on to himself, making him the fall guy. Gervais is trying to be like Larry David but will never get even close. Curb Your Enthusiasm craps all over the indulgent and slightly creepy Extrarse.
For confirmingtons on the essentially cuntheaded nature of Pricky Gervais: check the hilarious reply to the question about the German Office – the very straitjacket of conformity.
Derris and Clem Sprout
Approbation Solutions
Yazley Park
Furnishire
this is a reply from two Cull readers to an article orginally flagged up in Political Peccadillo, but we've now moved it to this section, while belatedly digesting the news about the racist act from the ex-Kramer man...
Wrong-com is an interesting article, if a little po-faced. But then that’s half the problem, isn’t it? Taking things ‘too seriously’? hmm? It’s only comedy after all. Just a laugh that has no other import at all, whatsoever. So leave the analysis there, please. Stop making people think about why they’re laughing and polluting their pure [sic] reactions with politically correct rubbish. And stop muscling in on our right to have giggle at a different gravy, which is what The Sun (might) Says
We can have stunningly accurate and effective comedy about micro political processes in central government (The Thick of It) and the darker side of human emotion (Jam – need more now!!!) at the same time as observing that Two Pints of Wanker and a Packet of Shit is STILL on the BBC EVERY NIGHT and that Ricky Gervais, Peter Kay and Sacha Boeing Carrot are lauded as living gods. The former are honest about context and intent but there is no doubt that the latter exercise a wider public influence.
Sacha Bourgeois Cohen acknowledges that he’s dealing with some of the most serious contemporary and recurrent themes and targets of prejudice, yet his popularity is based on the derision of serious political analysis, even if some of Borat and Ali G’s targets were legitimate. Are his characters a suitable replacement for career politicians? Probably not but he is using comedy to dictate a very confused and confusing message to a very confused public and will certainly not lead to most people to self-analyse. Indeed, why should they when it’s all a joke? People are well familiar with what’s required of them in their all-consuming leisure time. Jam proves that comedy can lead to helpful self analyses; Borat proves that popular comedy increasingly thrives on exploitation of subject and audience for personal gain/indulgence.
So it’s all about who the joke/message is on with Gervais and Baron-Cohen the lines can be blurred. Intentionally so as to obviate genuine criticism like this. If you go back 30-25 years ago, Alf Garnett’s creator wrote his character to poke fun at the ignorance and racism within society when the nature of being British was changing, some of the chief themes being a realisation of no longer being a great power hangover after the second war and Suez and the reaction of some to immigration from the former ‘colonies’.
Speight’s creation of Alf Garnett was an important point in the evolution of an artform and an effective way of explicitly communicating messages (in this case, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-fascist) that the contemporary media is, on the whole, unwilling to recognise or agree on the need for. Speight held up a mirror up to the world around him but I don’t think SBC does that with Borat or Ali G. His characters are more subjective in design and intention.
With Garnett the joke was him, few who held his views misunderstood this or did not realise that he was the vehicle for making a point. It’s clearly not reality. A different method has been employed by Sacha Baron-Cohen with the idea of a ‘set up’ of certain people whether it be Politicians, fraternity idiots or high-society southerners. He likes to play with reality as he has been through the docu/mocumentary culture. He is out there speaking to Johnny Public but, and here’s where further lines are blurred, with a Dick Emery approach – ridiculous catchphrases, unsubtle characters and, in the case of Borat, a Central Asian stereotype that hasn’t yet been invented in the Western public consciousness!
Gervais and co. take a massive amount of inspiration from Larry David, but David is much cleverer than Gervais and always turns the table in terms of his comedy of prejudices on to himself, making him the fall guy. Gervais is trying to be like Larry David but will never get even close. Curb Your Enthusiasm craps all over the indulgent and slightly creepy Extrarse.
For confirmingtons on the essentially cuntheaded nature of Pricky Gervais: check the hilarious reply to the question about the German Office – the very straitjacket of conformity.
Derris and Clem Sprout
Approbation Solutions
Yazley Park
Furnishire
Monday, November 13, 2006
Childs in time
slight return…
Mark Foley was a republication representative from Florida that knew a thing or two about coveting minors. And this link shows while protectors of his ilk should not protest that they are gay or straight – his “immature sexuality” makes him a paedophile plain and simple.
Quite amusing reactions to the article, particularly the stuff about “30 per cent of males get aroused when shown pictures of pre-pubescent girls in alluring positions”. A stupid stat that nevertheless serves to illustrate the ‘grey areas’ that the psychologist in the article referred to, and also partly explains lower age of consent in countries like Holland (12). We’ve all got bodies and they’re all different, so it follows that different things will get the parts engorged for different people – the same but different. Mr Dallyard is now off for some Opal Fruits.
Being dads now, Cullers are exposed to and appalled by the pervasive parental padrenoia: "The Madonna childcatcher episode emphasized the hysterical attitudes towards the chil-d-ren exhibited by their owner-stakeholders and their representatives in politics and the media, most of whom also have righteousness on their side because they lease kids too. The views range from preserve-them-in-aspic protectionism directed towards the 0-10 range, through to wildly inconsistent initiatives to alienate the kidults from the world we uphold in order to stop them becoming evil". Click for more on the petit’s objetification.
Mark Foley was a republication representative from Florida that knew a thing or two about coveting minors. And this link shows while protectors of his ilk should not protest that they are gay or straight – his “immature sexuality” makes him a paedophile plain and simple.
Quite amusing reactions to the article, particularly the stuff about “30 per cent of males get aroused when shown pictures of pre-pubescent girls in alluring positions”. A stupid stat that nevertheless serves to illustrate the ‘grey areas’ that the psychologist in the article referred to, and also partly explains lower age of consent in countries like Holland (12). We’ve all got bodies and they’re all different, so it follows that different things will get the parts engorged for different people – the same but different. Mr Dallyard is now off for some Opal Fruits.
Being dads now, Cullers are exposed to and appalled by the pervasive parental padrenoia: "The Madonna childcatcher episode emphasized the hysterical attitudes towards the chil-d-ren exhibited by their owner-stakeholders and their representatives in politics and the media, most of whom also have righteousness on their side because they lease kids too. The views range from preserve-them-in-aspic protectionism directed towards the 0-10 range, through to wildly inconsistent initiatives to alienate the kidults from the world we uphold in order to stop them becoming evil". Click for more on the petit’s objetification.
Friday, November 10, 2006
England capital’s captain – a racist?
After the dismissal of stiff-upper-chest-and-bent-face England captain JT, the message boards have been replete with manna from rumour mill heaven. It is alleged that Jaytee told Ledley King to 'shut up you lippy black monkey’ before getting sent off against the Spurz. This would explain why King went mad in an otherwise harmless-appearing incident; why Chimbonda went berserk and had to be restrained; why Zakora went mad also; why Drogba, who was there and often gets involved, did nothing; and why Terry’s All Gold calmly walked away expecting to be sent off.
A Spurs player raked the weekend muck, but Chelsea are working overtime to keep it quiet. Ashley Cole has said that Poll told him the lack of discipline by Chelsea was out of order so Chelsea are trying to discredit Poll, but Poll, ever the obsequious one, cannot possibly come out and say what Terry did as he is the England kaptain, preferring to say he was sent off for 'ungentlemanly conduct’. Finally, Relio Ferdinand said in his book that a current England player was a known racist. Wonder who he meant? More form? Terry was accused by Eto of making racist comments in the Barcelona game last year.
We have relayed this in the spirit of free horizontal information (is there such a spirit) and like Poll or Sun subscribers, could never countenance (mainly because of the inextricable racist stew around them) such discrimination by a leader like Terry. We prefer a more mystical brand of Johnterryism, so please returnez au droit with these aged but worthy hypertexts.
Sod that, the slack-jawed racyst should be exposed but will the papers denounce somebody who they love, because of the obvious bigotry that simmers beneath his fetid brow? I somehow doubt it.
Also a last word on Teddy Sheringham (check second link again): never trust a 40-year-old who still has baby's hair. Cull doesn’t want him to be a luxury scrote who can't open his eyes, but he is!
After the dismissal of stiff-upper-chest-and-bent-face England captain JT, the message boards have been replete with manna from rumour mill heaven. It is alleged that Jaytee told Ledley King to 'shut up you lippy black monkey’ before getting sent off against the Spurz. This would explain why King went mad in an otherwise harmless-appearing incident; why Chimbonda went berserk and had to be restrained; why Zakora went mad also; why Drogba, who was there and often gets involved, did nothing; and why Terry’s All Gold calmly walked away expecting to be sent off.
A Spurs player raked the weekend muck, but Chelsea are working overtime to keep it quiet. Ashley Cole has said that Poll told him the lack of discipline by Chelsea was out of order so Chelsea are trying to discredit Poll, but Poll, ever the obsequious one, cannot possibly come out and say what Terry did as he is the England kaptain, preferring to say he was sent off for 'ungentlemanly conduct’. Finally, Relio Ferdinand said in his book that a current England player was a known racist. Wonder who he meant? More form? Terry was accused by Eto of making racist comments in the Barcelona game last year.
We have relayed this in the spirit of free horizontal information (is there such a spirit) and like Poll or Sun subscribers, could never countenance (mainly because of the inextricable racist stew around them) such discrimination by a leader like Terry. We prefer a more mystical brand of Johnterryism, so please returnez au droit with these aged but worthy hypertexts.
Sod that, the slack-jawed racyst should be exposed but will the papers denounce somebody who they love, because of the obvious bigotry that simmers beneath his fetid brow? I somehow doubt it.
Also a last word on Teddy Sheringham (check second link again): never trust a 40-year-old who still has baby's hair. Cull doesn’t want him to be a luxury scrote who can't open his eyes, but he is!
