Paid Members BomberPat Posted February 10, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2023 Cleese is sheltered enough that he can make political pronouncements without them ever really impacting on him personally - like saying that he appreciated UKIP because they'd "shake things up", and that London "isn't really English any more", or supporting Brexit from his villa in the Caribbean. The bigger issue is why we'd listen to an 80-something year old actor for political insight in the first place, but the main thing that people see as aligning him more with the right (because his general politics seem to be fairly centrist), is the extent to which he's prepared to make a racket about "cancel culture" and "free speech" - and "free speech" for someone in Cleese's position effectively means, "I want to be able to continue saying what I've always said, without cause for self-reflection". Freedom of speech is a perfectly fine, and sometimes noble, thing to be invested in, but I've personally seen the very easy pipeline through which comedians go from getting their feelings hurt at being told a joke of theirs was offensive, or even the suggestion that something they said might not be above-board, to sharing platforms with people that, when they started off down that path, they'd have been appalled at being associated with. That's pretty much always an inevitability if you allow your politics to be consumed by one single issue, though. I'm rambling, but at the end of the day, John Cleese has always been a famously cantankerous, stubborn and egotistical old sod. It's not surprising that he's turned into a typical "kids today" old man, only he does it with the kind of misguided confidence of someone who was once seen as forward-thinking and revolutionary, when there was never really any evidence that he ever was. The idea of the Pythons as political iconoclasts or tastemakers was always a bit nonsensical, and for Cleese more than the rest - he was a middle-class Cambridge graduate who had been acting and writing for TV for several years before Monty Python was ever a thing. There are interesting conversations to be had around tackling the issues of acceptability and freedom of speech, and involving someone who has already been through a lot of these conversations from a different angle with The Life of Brian, but they're not the conversations that John Cleese seems prepared to have. Still, got to pay your alimony somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 All good points. I think most commenting on here are right when they touch on that there is a sensible discussion around this but it never really happens as everything gets blown up into extremes and binary thinking...which is shit...which I suppose fits into this topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 10, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2023 The other thing is how dismissive he is of the other side, which is why it's an issue. He's an intelligent man, so it becomes very difficult to draw any other conclusion than that he's being intellectually dishonest. He (like Stephen Fry) try to make out that it's a bunch of people getting their knickers in a twist about speech in isolation, when he knows perfectly well that the reason why people react to problematic speech is because they know it's not just words - anyone with any understanding of history knows how propaganda works, how narrative works, how language has been used to enable action against people by demonising/dehumanising/Othering them. It's never in isolation, and people who try to make out that "it's just speech - so what if you're offended?" are either ignorant or dishonest, as far as I'm concerned. As BomberPat says, quite why we're giving any credence or weight to the views of a man who is a walking bag of privilege, who most likely has never experienced one bit of adversity on the basis of who he is - a white, middle-class, rich, educated, cis, hetero male - should be the question we ask ourselves, but I'd say it's also the question we should be asking of those who continue to give him the platform to spout the bollocks he does. To him and people like him, an offensive joke is just an offensive joke. To people who have historically faced some form of oppression or another, it's part of a million little precursors, "thin ends of wedges", to being marginalised, deprived, silenced, harassed, and/or suffering physical aggression at the extreme end. None of this is theoretical; it's all happened before, and women, people from ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and numerous others who have had to go through life with their head on a swivel to look out for where the next attack comes from, are way more aware of this because of their experiences than he is. That's why I give short shrift to people who rant about identity politics - they should spend more time thinking about the people who caused the problems that identity politcs emerged in response to, rather than seeing it as the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted February 10, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) Part of the problem is that the likes of Cleese think they made their name on "saying the unsayable", because Python was a bit naughty and edgy, and now they don't understand why they can't say it any more. But the difference is that the nature of what's unsayable now is very different to what was unsayable then, as you'd expect. There's racist and sexist jokes in Python - and far worse in other comedy of the time, and more recently - that you'd never get away with telling now, that wouldn't have troubled the censors at all, but they'd never have got away with saying the word "cunt" on Flying Circus. There's all these old comedians trading on being transgressive 30-50 years ago, without realising that the game has changed. It's the whole "you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today" argument, basically - no, you couldn't, because the film's entire frame of reference wouldn't make sense any more, it's parodying a genre that doesn't meaningfully exist any more, and a kind of Hollywood and broader American mythmaking that's largely a thing of the past. But if you think that what makes Blazing Saddles funny is that it gives you carte blanche to laugh at racial slurs then, yeah, you probably couldn't make that movie any more. There was an argument years ago - Python again - that "you couldn't make a Muslim Life of Brian". No, someone like Monty Python probably couldn't. But a group of writers whose lives were as steeped in the Muslim tradition as the Pythons' were in Christianity probably could. But God forbid we consider context or intent here. The BBC "censoring" the Major's racism in Fawlty Towers seems to be what kick-started a lot of Cleese's most recent obsession with "woke", and I have to admit that I find that joke quite funny - the Major is obviously the butt of the joke, you're supposed to find his racism and nitpicking absurd. But that joke probably doesn't really work any more, because characters like the Major don't really exist any more, or at least they're nothing like as commonplace as they were when it was written. Racism doesn't really look like that any more, all blustering and colonial, and it's not so easy to represent it as the preserve of a dying old guard. Again, somebody probably could write a scene like that today. But that somebody isn't an 83 year old John Cleese. Edited February 10, 2023 by BomberPat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 12 minutes ago, BomberPat said: There was an argument years ago - Python again - that "you couldn't make a Muslim Life of Brian". No, someone like Monty Python probably couldn't. But a group of writers whose lives were as steeped in the Muslim tradition as the Pythons' were in Christianity probably could. But God forbid we consider context or intent here. It’s a case of audience’s understanding references isn’t it. I’d say the overwhelming amount of people in this country would understand enough about Christianity to understand the reference and in turn, the joke. I was once in a conversation where someone trotted out the “You wouldn’t tell a Muslim joke in case it offends them like everything does” line, so very crudely I replied with something along the lines of “A woman returned home and said to her husband, ‘What is that stray feline doing on one of the five pillars and why are you feeding it and giving it money”. “Oh” he replied ‘That’s zakat’” (It doesn’t quite work but with a bit of tweaking it would) It was met with silence and puzzled looks, I said “You see, you don’t get the references but that would bring the house down in Bradford” and they laughed racially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Factotum Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 1 hour ago, BomberPat said: There was an argument years ago - Python again - that "you couldn't make a Muslim Life of Brian". No, someone like Monty Python probably couldn't. But a group of writers whose lives were as steeped in the Muslim tradition as the Pythons' were in Christianity probably could. But God forbid we consider context or intent here. Four Lions was a skewing of muslim extremism and that was done predominantly by white blokes. I think it just has to be good and where it's coming from. Good and clever stuff is good and clever stuff no matter what. 1 hour ago, BomberPat said: But that joke probably doesn't really work any more, because characters like the Major don't really exist any more, or at least they're nothing like as commonplace as they were when it was written. Racism doesn't really look like that any more, all blustering and colonial, and it's not so easy to represent it as the preserve of a dying old guard. This is a very good observation and deserves more of a thinking from myself, but I think editing things out from any piece of art that the creators haven't agreed to is incorrect. Most audiences are clever enough to know what the major is saying is ignorant and ridiculous (Basil knows it even back then) It may be out of date but if you're agreeing with that that character is saying you're a racist anyway. I think it is a treating of audiences as dumb that sort of gets my goat a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 “Proper” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted February 12, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted February 12, 2023 8 minutes ago, WyattSheepMask said: “Proper” I honestly thought Gary Bushell was dead. Can we chip in to pay for @Astro Hollywood to go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westlondonmist Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 I've heard of Davidson, Davro and Bushel but have no clue who the rest of them are. The sad thing is there will plenty who will love this and will laugh at this because they think it's punching down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 I thought they were proudly improper? Make up your minds, fellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) Imagine how difficult it would be going on towards the end of that bill. Every act before you consisted solely of material about pronouns and snowflakes and your act is all about pronouns and snowflakes. Do you think it’ll be like a wrestling show backstage with the booker going over the running order? “Alright lads, Jim’s finisher is I identify as an attack helicopter so don’t be using that as a transition move into my pronouns are send/they them/back as it will detract from its impact” Edited February 12, 2023 by Keith Houchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted February 12, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted February 12, 2023 10 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Imagine how difficult it would be going on towards the end of that bill. Every act before you consisted solely of material about pronouns and snowflakes and your act is all about pronouns and snowflakes. Do you think it’ll be like a wrestling show backstage with the booker going over the running order? “Alright lads, Jim’s finisher is I identify as an attack helicopter so don’t be using that as a transition move into my pronouns are send/they them/back as it will detract from its impact” If it’s like the backstage at a wrestling show they will all argue about using the same non binary joke, decide on just one of them using it and then each end up doing it in their set anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 9 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said: If it’s like the backstage at a wrestling show they will all argue about using the same non binary joke, decide on just one of them using it and then each end up doing it in their set anyway. Davidson will shit in their Help For Heroes tote bag if they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westlondonmist Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) Imagine paying sixty quid to watch a shit Jacko tribute act. Edited February 12, 2023 by westlondonmist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wordsfromlee Posted February 12, 2023 Share Posted February 12, 2023 9 minutes ago, westlondonmist said: Imagine paying sixty quid to watch a shit Jacko tribute act. I'd much prefer to spend £60 to watch a shit Michael Jackson tribute act than pay any money to watch Peter Andre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.