![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And now this...
Jun. 12th, 2011 11:14 amHere is a post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cherylmmorgan about the response of the BBC, and government regulator Ofcom, to complaints about comedian Russell Howard and a particular item on his show in which trans people were portrayed as ugly and grotesque.
She's absolutely right, of course, but the problem goes much deeper than that. It's not, as Christine Burns claims in the article to which Cheryl links, a case of one man having a flawed personality. Comedy has been going this way for a while now--look at Little Britain. Conservative values have crept back in, while the loud, brash façade created by the "alternative" comedians remains, creating a false impression of continuity. This is "new" comedy, as in "new" Labour.
My personal opinion, of course, is that much comedy has in recent years increasingly failed to be funny, and my theory is that the people who write it have forgotten how.* Another possibility, though, is that there has been, on some level, an epiphany caused by the Alternative comics; some of us have woken up to the fact that some things should not be laughed at, and attempts to make us laugh at them don't work any more.
But imagine, for the moment, a Two Ronnies take on the trans stewardesses. Of course they would do it, because trans people were just as mockable in the seventies as they are now. But. They'd come on impeccably turned out, as they always did. They'd make fun of their own appearance--the shortness, the fatness--because they always did. There would be innuendo, because there always was. But never, at any point, I think, would they appear pathetic or grotesque, the way Walliams and Lucas's trans characters do. Never at any point would they invite contempt or disgust for their characters, the way Howard did. Never, at any point, would they give the slightest suggestion that they thought, either in character or out of it, that what their characters did was in any way wrong.
But those days are gone. Alf Garnett, created as a parody, was seized on as an idol and role model by conservatives all over the country, and now we have Al Murray, doing the same job (but probably with irony, which of course makes all the difference). Comedy, once always funny though sometimes cruel, is now always cruel and seldom funny. And the targets may be the same as they have been since the 1950s, but now the sucker cups are off and the arrows are dipped in vitriol.
And of course Ofcom will say there's no offence in it. They work for a Conservative government. I mean, they would, wouldn't they?
*There is a kind of comedy that has always eluded me, which is the "pin-sharp observation of human frailty" kind that made Eleanor Bron and John Fortune famous, and to be honest this may be a factor in why things like The Office don't appeal to me. Although it may also be that Ricky Gervais is an unpleasant, unfunny person.
cherylmmorgan about the response of the BBC, and government regulator Ofcom, to complaints about comedian Russell Howard and a particular item on his show in which trans people were portrayed as ugly and grotesque.She's absolutely right, of course, but the problem goes much deeper than that. It's not, as Christine Burns claims in the article to which Cheryl links, a case of one man having a flawed personality. Comedy has been going this way for a while now--look at Little Britain. Conservative values have crept back in, while the loud, brash façade created by the "alternative" comedians remains, creating a false impression of continuity. This is "new" comedy, as in "new" Labour.
My personal opinion, of course, is that much comedy has in recent years increasingly failed to be funny, and my theory is that the people who write it have forgotten how.* Another possibility, though, is that there has been, on some level, an epiphany caused by the Alternative comics; some of us have woken up to the fact that some things should not be laughed at, and attempts to make us laugh at them don't work any more.
But imagine, for the moment, a Two Ronnies take on the trans stewardesses. Of course they would do it, because trans people were just as mockable in the seventies as they are now. But. They'd come on impeccably turned out, as they always did. They'd make fun of their own appearance--the shortness, the fatness--because they always did. There would be innuendo, because there always was. But never, at any point, I think, would they appear pathetic or grotesque, the way Walliams and Lucas's trans characters do. Never at any point would they invite contempt or disgust for their characters, the way Howard did. Never, at any point, would they give the slightest suggestion that they thought, either in character or out of it, that what their characters did was in any way wrong.
But those days are gone. Alf Garnett, created as a parody, was seized on as an idol and role model by conservatives all over the country, and now we have Al Murray, doing the same job (but probably with irony, which of course makes all the difference). Comedy, once always funny though sometimes cruel, is now always cruel and seldom funny. And the targets may be the same as they have been since the 1950s, but now the sucker cups are off and the arrows are dipped in vitriol.
And of course Ofcom will say there's no offence in it. They work for a Conservative government. I mean, they would, wouldn't they?
*There is a kind of comedy that has always eluded me, which is the "pin-sharp observation of human frailty" kind that made Eleanor Bron and John Fortune famous, and to be honest this may be a factor in why things like The Office don't appeal to me. Although it may also be that Ricky Gervais is an unpleasant, unfunny person.