Ship of Fools: No fun please we're British

Thread: No fun please we're British Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028801

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

People have sometimes said to me "You don't know how to enjoy yourself". Something I don't take as an insult because there's probably some truth in it.

However I awoke this morning with the wider feeling that maybe it's a cultural thing, British to be more precise. It was triggered by a news item about the unexpected success of ceramic poppies at the Tower of London. I weighed this against the flop of the Millenium Dome and thought to myself -- is there something going on here?

The same thought occurs to me some mornings when putting our new radio on. For some reason it automatically tunes in to an Asian channel first, so I soon change it to Radio 2. There also I briefly find a comparison between something essentially lively as opposed to something slightly dour.

Then there's Britain and it's rather more reserved approach to charismatic worship than, say the US.
In fact there's quite a lot of evidence to support the British problem with 'letting go', although I'm sure there's also plenty to the contrary.

Coming back to WW1, and going a bit Black Adder, even the Germans were the first to initiate fraternization on the Western Front.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Benny Hill

Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on :

You never met my mother, then. [Disappointed]

I suspect it might be that the middle classes trying to be more like the upper classes and their famed "keep a stiff upper lip" and be an example to the servants.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's rather the case that Britishness (but not so much the multicultural variety) seems to require copious amounts of alcohol for true enjoyment to be achieved.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It was triggered by a news item about the unexpected success of ceramic poppies at the Tower of London. I weighed this against the flop of the Millenium Dome

In that case it's the difference between an individual creative idea, tapping into and drawing out a collective response to a profound tragedy - and a vacuous puffball of a project designed (doubtless by committee) to try and project an image people knew and felt to unreal. One was art, the other propaganda.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

It may just be a different understanding of 'fun'. The weather has a lot to do with it. I can recall seeing pensioners in the 1960's sitting on deckchairs on Morecambe beach, wrapped up in warm coats and 'pacamacs' with thermos flasks at their side, resolutely enjoying themselves in the bracing air and light drizzle. Now I'm at that age I can understand.

[ 08. November 2014, 12:21: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I reckon the Brits have the best sense of humour. They are quite singular in being able to laugh at themselves quite happily.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think we do know how to have fun, but it might be a different sort of fun to others. The British sense of humour has always been something subtle, understated. This is one reason that British comedy tends not to export very well.

Monty Python is an interesting example. It has exported well, all across the world, but that is a lot of the humour in them that other cultures cannot understand. The fish-slapping sketch, which is funny whatever, but to really appreciate the sketch, you need some cultural background. Without an understanding of things like Morris Dancing, it is merely hitting people with fish.

So I think we do know how to have fun. It just might not look the same as others.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

...Monty Python is an interesting example. It has exported well, all across the world, but that is a lot of the humour in them that other cultures cannot understand. The fish-slapping sketch, which is funny whatever, but to really appreciate the sketch, you need some cultural background. Without an understanding of things like Morris Dancing, it is merely hitting people with fish.....

I like the 'self-defence against fresh fruit' sketch. The concept of defence against an assailant armed with a piece of fruit must be understandable in any culture. Just brilliant!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Stand a Brit next to a German and you'll soon see who has the sense of humour.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think we do know how to have fun, but it might be a different sort of fun to others. The British sense of humour has always been something subtle, understated. This is one reason that British comedy tends not to export very well.

I think it exports very well. I sometimes think I was English in a previous life*, partly because I find English television, movies, books, etc., much funnier than anything in the U.S. Many of my friends also prefer English comedy.

(*I don't really believe in reincarnation, but if I did...)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I reckon the Brits have the best sense of humour. They are quite singular in being able to laugh at themselves quite happily.

I think that is absolutely true. We can laugh at ourselves like nobody.

There again, look at our political leaders, and we need to.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I love the British sense of humour which is so clever. I loathe the custard pie throwing type of humour and don't find it remotely funny.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I love the British sense of humour which is so clever. I loathe the custard pie throwing type of humour and don't find it remotely funny.

Yeah, well, I'll take The Three Stooges over "I **** your granddaughter" any day of the week.

[ 08. November 2014, 16:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yeah, well, I'll take The Three Stooges over "I **** your granddaughter" any day of the week.

Dinna cash yersel Stetson. A lot of us don't think Russell Brand is very funny either. He gives the impression that he thinks being rude, facile and uncouth somehow gets you by so that people won't notice you've actually had a sense of humour bypass.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
He gives the impression that he thinks being rude, facile and uncouth somehow gets you by so that people won't notice you've actually had a sense of humour bypass.

Yeah, something I'be noticed about a lot of that real-life shock humour, is that it doesn't really live up to its own billing, ie. the targets don't even seem shocked.

Like, this prank by the Canadian comic Tom Green. There's nothing particularly funny about his parents' reaction to the pornography on their car, they're about as annoyed as you would expect them to be.

And I think it was Christopher Hitchens who pointed out that the most notable thing about the Borat movie was how polite some of his targets were. Like, the scene where he goes into the Confederate memorabilia shop, starts smashing up the merchandise, and the owner just stands there watching, and then says "Well, I guess I'll have to charge you for that."

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious

Well, except that in the case of Fawlty and(pretty much extrapolating from Archie Bunker here) Garnett, the intention was for the audience to laugh AT the characters.

Chaplin's Little Tramp would be an example of an underdog character you're supposed to root for, and laugh with. Again, extrapolating from Sanford And Son, I'd say that's probably true about Steptoe as well.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.

These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

(This is a follow-up to my own previous post)

Also...

quote:
Basil Fawlty

I'm not sure I would call Basil an underdog. In terms of social status, he's a relatively priviliged individual, and in fact tries to identify himself with the most "respectable" idea of Englishness, as witnessed, for example, by his dislike of foreigners and the working class.

The humour is not that he's an underdog in the way that Chaplin or Steptoe were, just that he's a major screw-up at everything he does.

[ 08. November 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.
These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?

Well, for more up,to date stuff, I could list most of the Little Britain characters. Then there's Rev who, although not a loser as such, is funny because he's always being dumped on.

[ 08. November 2014, 19:38: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.
These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?

Lee in Not Going Out, most of the cast of The IT Crowd, Mr. Khan in Citizen Khan.....
I would not put Alf Garnett or Archie Bunker in quite the same category as the others.

Stetson, Basil is a "loser" in that nothing he does goes quite right.
ISTM, self-depreciation is a bit more pronounced in British humour, but is well present in American humour as well.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Bib, much slapstick is extremely sophisticated. See Paul Merton's documentaries on silent comedies.

Enoch and Stetson - you may not find him funny, but Brand is extremely intelligent, has survived and conquered severe heroin addiction, and is a very good writer. Comedy is personal taste, but there's no need to be rude about an individual is there? You've not lived in his shoes.

As it happens, I was listening to the Andrew Sachs incident live as I was a fan of Brand's Radio 2 show, and it was much funnier IRL. On the night it actually only got 2 or 3 complaints by the way - the furore only started when the Daily Heil got hold of it. So clearly those who actually listened to it did not find it too offensive.

[ 08. November 2014, 20:05: Message edited by: Pomona ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Spike

Some people have complained about the fairly privileged cast of 'Little Britain' making fun of the working classes. That doesn't appear to have been an issue with the earlier sitcoms.

I suppose I remain to be convinced that modern Britain is sufficiently at ease with itself to spend too much time laughing at or with losers....

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I love the British sense of humour which is so clever. I loathe the custard pie throwing type of humour and don't find it remotely funny.

Custard pie throwing is also part of the British sense of humour. But not angrily - as in the people who make political points form it. It is about challenging pomposity in a character whom we are not expected to like.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

As it happens, I was listening to the Andrew Sachs incident live as I was a fan of Brand's Radio 2 show, and it was much funnier IRL. On the night it actually only got 2 or 3 complaints by the way - the furore only started when the Daily Heil got hold of it. So clearly those who actually listened to it did not find it too offensive.

Well, what do you know. People who like Russell Brand listen to his program and those same people aren't especially disposed to complain about him.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
... Enoch and Stetson - you may not find him funny, but Brand is extremely intelligent, has survived and conquered severe heroin addiction, and is a very good writer. Comedy is personal taste, but there's no need to be rude about an individual is there? You've not lived in his shoes. ...

Pomona, I recognise that Russell Brand has personal issues of his own to contend with. I said on the 'Russell Brand: Mayor of London' thread,

quote:
Sad though this man's childhood was, and one can feel sympathetic and all that, as an adult, he shows no signs of having developed any worthwhile qualities or even any aspiration to do so. Even as a comedian, he doesn't manage to be funny.

I don't follow the man, but as it happens, since the Mayor issue arose, I did happen to hear him as one of the talking heads wheeled out on an R4 programme. Having commented on him, I thought I'd better listen. Yes, when it comes to comedy, personal taste has a bearing on whether we find someone funny, amusing or even interesting. It's also possible that age has a bearing on this. But as far as I'm concerned, I stand by what I said.

As a comedian, he doesn't manage to be funny, and as a political commentator, he's juvenile and facile.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Actually I prefer the other Brand, Jo. (I know there is yet another as well). She is (or rather the characters she plays are) the archetypal losers. Brilliant was Getting On, the NHS-set sitcom in which she was the caring but slobbish and put-upon lowest-grade nurse.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
So clearly those who actually listened to it did not find it too offensive.

Andrew and Melody Sachs quite clearly found it profoundly offensive, which is the point. It's really not relevant whether the people who habitually listen to the radio show in question found it offensive or not - that might be interesting from the point of view of whether offences under the Broadcasting Act were committed and so on, but it's irrelevant to questions about the character of Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Actually I prefer the other Brand, Jo. (I know there is yet another as well). She is (or rather the characters she plays are) the archetypal losers. Brilliant was Getting On, the NHS-set sitcom in which she was the caring but slobbish and put-upon lowest-grade nurse.

She used to be a psychiatric nurse irl.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Actually I prefer the other Brand, Jo. (I know there is yet another as well). She is (or rather the characters she plays are) the archetypal losers. Brilliant was Getting On, the NHS-set sitcom in which she was the caring but slobbish and put-upon lowest-grade nurse.

I agree. I really enjoyed that series. Vicki Pepperdine, and Joanna Scanlan were also very good in it, as they were as their cameo double act in Rev.

Incidentally both those series demonstrate the best sort of sit-com in that it is the situation itself and the way it is handled that is the comedy.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Getting On was superb, and, as has been said, epitomised something of British humour. They were seeing the situations and finding the humour in the situation, rather than, as some comedy does, making the situations deliberately exceptional and comic. I do think M.A.S.H. did manage something similar - the humour was found in the situations, not introduced.

I think we do find the absurd in situations. We find the absurd in our own situations. We have fun in our own way, sitting on freezing beaches, or ridiculing ourselves. Such a lot of comedy and fun actually involves ridiculing others.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I think we do find the absurd in situations. We find the absurd in our own situations. We have fun in our own way, sitting on freezing beaches, or ridiculing ourselves. Such a lot of comedy and fun actually involves ridiculing others.

It's true the British humour involves a certain level of gentle piss-taking. Remember when David Bliane suspended himself in a box with no food for a month? He memory that has always stuck with me was the person who used a remote control helicopter to dangle a cheeseburger in fron of him. I remember thinking at the time "only in Britain..."

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.
These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?

Alan Partridge is still going strong.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Mr Partridge is an idiot, but is he a loser?

These things are all relative, I suppose. It depends on who's looking, and how successful their life is!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.
These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?
Alan Partridge is still going strong.

Count Arthur Strong is a five-star, fur-lined, ocean-going loser. He's on BBC 2 now but started on Radio 4, also home to Ed Reardon (fictional writer) and Dave Podmore (fictional cricketer) both all-time losers. Half the principal characters of Cabin Pressure, which could never have been done anywhere else on earth, are losers.

The breed is alive and well, if not so common on TV. Not in sit-coms anyway.

[ 09. November 2014, 13:45: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Schroedinger's Cat wrote:

quote:
Custard pie throwing is also part of the British sense of humour. But not angrily - as in the people who make political points form it.

One of these days, a political pie-tosser is gonna hit someone with an allergy or a weak heart, and find out just how useless the "C'mon man, lighten up!" defense is in a manslaughter case.

[ 09. November 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mr Partridge is an idiot, but is he a loser?

These things are all relative, I suppose. It depends on who's looking, and how successful their life is!

His chat show gets cancelled, his marriage breaks up, his book gets pulped. Any success he has is usually short-lived (mainly because he is an idiot). So very much in the vein of Basil Fawlty and others like him. Another more obvious example of a contemporary loser/idiot protagonist would be The Office's David Brent.

Yeah, it's not quite the same as the loser/hero. For more contemporary examples of that, I submit Spaced, where the protagonists are a wannabe (unsuccessful) writer and a comic-book geek who's just been dumped by his girlfriend, and the IT crowd - oh, and the Inbetweeners too. Geek-loser-hero has been a very successful narrative in the UK and in the US over the last decade. And what about Skins and Misfits, for chav/loser/hero comedy?

I'd say the genre's going pretty strong.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

(And The League of Gentlemen had a large number of loser characters in their repertoire too)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm not a big follower of the modern ones, I have to admit. But many of them seem rather middle class to me, although there are exceptions. Very male too. And men dressing up as women is somehow more amusing than women dressing up as men.

Maybe I'm just the wrong demographic! With the older ones you could watch them and laugh with your family, but the newer ones seem to have more of a niche appeal.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Sioni Said ( [Smile]

)

quote:
Count Arthur Strong is a five-star, fur-lined, ocean-going loser. He's on BBC 2 now but started on Radio 4, also home to Ed Reardon (fictional writer) and Dave Podmore (fictional cricketer) both all-time losers. Half the principal characters of Cabin Pressure, which could never have been done anywhere else on earth, are losers.

I found Arthur Strong a bit hard to listen to, but Cabin Pressure is good and Ed Reardon is brilliant. Reminds me - I must ask for whatever has taken the place of box sets of tapes, of Ed Reardon's Week, for Christmas.

Before we get too self-congratulatory, I find some US humour outdoes us in what we might otherwise be tempted to group as some kind of dry, 'British' style - The Onion being my favourite example.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Oh - and to add - talking of classic British comedy losers, there was a very funny drama about Willy Rushton collecting Hancock's ashes from Austalia where he died, on R4 last weekend. Well worth a listen if you can find it online.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not a big follower of the modern ones, I have to admit. But many of them seem rather middle class to me, although there are exceptions. Very male too. And men dressing up as women is somehow more amusing than women dressing up as men.

Maybe I'm just the wrong demographic! With the older ones you could watch them and laugh with your family, but the newer ones seem to have more of a niche appeal.

I think there's some truth to that. When you and I were kids there was just children's BBC / ITV. So the appeal of a lot of TV was family-oriented programming, rather than narrowing down to specific demographics. So comedy-wise it'd be universal viewing. Nowadays there are a lot more channels (inculding children's channels), and most programming targets specific demographics. Which means a lot of comedy is 15+ rating.

I think the gender thing is a bigger deal than the class thing (see Misfits and Skins above). It seems a lot harder for women to succeed in comedy than men. I find that frustrating, and tire of the panel show format where you have five men trying to out-vulgar each other, with one token woman who's usually just there as some eye-candy to laugh at the 'funny' men. But then, I prefer crafted comedy to spontaneous wit (unless it's Paul Merton).

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
We certainly have a very self deprecating humour and favour the underdog. Look at some of the most successful and funniest British comedy characters - Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Steptoe & Son and others - they're all losers yet we love them and they are hilarious.
These are all TV characters from a different era, though. Do you think there would be much humorous potential in losers like these on today's TV?
Alan Partridge is still going strong.

I blame Tony Hancock.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think the gender thing is a bigger deal than the class thing (see Misfits and Skins above). It seems a lot harder for women to succeed in comedy than men. I find that frustrating, and tire of the panel show format where you have five men trying to out-vulgar each other, with one token woman who's usually just there as some eye-candy to laugh at the 'funny' men.

The best QI episodes usually are because of the contributions of Jo Brand Victoria Corren Mitchell or Sandi Toksvig (I know the last one is not British). The problem is fewer female commedians. The misogeny of comedy clubs could be the problem, preventing more women from breaking through.

Mel and Sue presenting Bake Off don't skimp on innuendo, vulgarity is not necessarily a male trait.

[code]

[ 09. November 2014, 18:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not a big follower of the modern ones, I have to admit. But many of them seem rather middle class to me, although there are exceptions. Very male too. And men dressing up as women is somehow more amusing than women dressing up as men.

Maybe I'm just the wrong demographic! With the older ones you could watch them and laugh with your family, but the newer ones seem to have more of a niche appeal.

That's because being female is transgressive and femininity is seen as shameful. I mean, do you never wonder why 'male' clothing is frequently made part of womenswear but not vice versa? And why dressing a boy in pink is usually a bigger deal than dressing a girl in blue? Feminised men are a bigger taboo, which gets translated as being funnier. It's why Viola crossdressing in Twelfth Night was funnier to Shakespeare's audiences - actors playing women was normal for all-male companies, but a woman dressed as a man was much more taboo.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Thinking about my favourite comedies/comedians (Russell Brand is not a favourite as such but I do like him), many seem to have Graham Linehan/Richard Ayoade/Noel Fielding involved - Father Ted, Black Books, The IT Crowd, Nathan Barley, The Mighty Boosh. I love Ross Noble and Bill Bailey for standup - especially Bill Bailey with his use of comedy music. Also, I love Miranda.

I agree that much comedy is very middle-class, although if it can laugh at itself for that then it comes across much better - I think Jack Whitehall is generally very good at poking fun at his poshness.

I generally prefer sitcoms to panel shows but I like Jon Richardson, David Mitchell, Lee Mack (much better on panel shows IMO) and Paul Merton. Merton did some excellent documentaries on silent comedy for BBC4 some years ago.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re dangers of pie throwing:

Yes, could definitely lead to a death. Throwers don't necessarily take the possibility of unknown health problems into account.

Years ago, a group of pie-throwing activists called the "Biotic Baking Brigade" decided to take on Willie Brown, San Francisco mayor, at an event.

Trouble was, they didn't know that the mayor had impaired vision in one eye--and they snuck up on him from that side. He was startled, and defended himself. Things escalated. I know they were arrested, but I don't remember how it turned out.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
... I find English television, movies, books, etc., much funnier than anything in the U.S. ...

That's because it Just Is. [Devil]

Seriously though, D. and I were watching a 20-year-old episode of As Time Goes By last night, laughing our heads off, and he said, "why can't the Americans make anything as funny as that?"

I agree with Evensong that we're good at laughing at ourselves (and our politicians and leaders), and with Schroedinger's Cat that there's a subtlety to British humour that doesn't always export well.

ISTM that the reason Benny Hill and Norman Wisdom (and later, Mr. Bean) were such a success abroad is that there's no presumed previous knowledge, no in-jokes and for the most part little script, so there's no linguistic barrier: the comedy is purely visual.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

As Time Goes By is considered quite weak by most fellow UK folks I know; I can think of US comedies that are funnier - Big Bang Theory springs to mind.

Mr Bean is more appreciated abroad than at home, I think; Rowan Atkinson was far stronger in Black Adder IMV.

But then I may have a strange sense of humour [Biased]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As Time Goes By is considered quite weak by most fellow UK folks I know; I can think of US comedies that are funnier - Big Bang Theory springs to mind.

Mr Bean is more appreciated abroad than at home, I think; Rowan Atkinson was far stronger in Black Adder IMV.

But then I may have a strange sense of humour

As Tme Goes By is beautifully acted but stuck in that awful 1980's school of 'gentle comedy'.

Karl, if your SOH is strange, mine must be too, and I'm as English as James May.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

Seriously though, D. and I were watching a 20-year-old episode of As Time Goes By last night, laughing our heads off, and he said, "why can't the Americans make anything as funny as that?"

Big Bang Theory, I Love Lucy, etc. they can and do.

quote:

I agree with Evensong that we're good at laughing at ourselves (and our politicians and leaders), and with Schroedinger's Cat that there's a subtlety to British humour that doesn't always export well.

Subtlety is a bit thinner on the ground in American comedy, overall. IMO. I think part of the issue might be expense. An American programme typically costs more, in both production and salary. More is at stake so fewer risks are taken. And whilst the UK is no more homogeneous than the U.S., there is more familiarity to the differences. The American approach is to paint broadly for fear the details will be unrecognised. And the British approach generally expects more understanding across sub-culture.
Not that either of these is entirely accurate.
ISRM, anyway.

[ 10. November 2014, 15:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think the Mr Bean phenomenon is part of our humour - we can produce material that exports well, but that is not our best. It is definitively British, but not the best of ours.

Getting On, as mentioned above, only really works if you know the NHS, know how hard working most of the staff are, how cash-strapped it is, and how some of the consultants actually treat people. It is funny because it is true and recognisable.

Mr Bean, as a whole, is less recognisable. Nobody knows anyone like him. We know people with some of his traits, and that is where the humour comes - that part is international.

Blackadder worked best against an understanding of our history and how close to the truth the basic setting probably was. The insanity and incompetence of some of our past royalty is accurate. The unscupulousness of some of the staff is also, undoubtedly, accurate. It could have happened - not in detail, but in essence. In these, we are laughing at ourselves, because these are our ancestors.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I sometimes think I was English in a previous life*, partly because I find English television, movies, books, etc., much funnier than anything in the U.S. Many of my friends also prefer English comedy.

I used to think the same, until I moved here. There is a lot of crap television, movies, etc. that doesn't get exported. The good stuff goes abroad and therefore skews the ratio.

I do think the British do comedy well in a global sense - no question about that - but there's lots of terrible stuff too. "Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps," "Mrs Brown's Boys," "Miranda" (just to name a few recent ones) are NOT FUNNY.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, they are to me and the missus.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

I think 'Miranda' is funny. [Big Grin]

Yes, it's obvious, cheesy humour, but there's nowt wrong with that once in a while [Biased]

and I do like the way Hart sends up her own persona. [Smile]

And it's often very funny: the episode where Miranda and her mum visit a psychiatrist was hilarious.

Funniest British comedy of all time: has to be 'Fawlty Towers'. A masterpiece.

Best of the classic old-time humour: Morecambe & Wise, hands down.

I used to turn my nose up at 'Keeping Up Appearances' but I have revised my opinion. Hyacinth Bucket is a comic work of genius: she's benignly monstrous. And I adore Patricia Routledge.

Who used to appear a lot on the Victoria Wood show. Victoria Wood is incredibly clever and very funny.

'Getting On' - savagely funny, so horribly funny and close to the truth it burned.

Anyone remember 'Nighty Night', with the brilliant Julia Davis? Man, that was dark, but brilliant.

I hated 'Little Britain'. Not funny. Meh.

Catherine Tate, OTOH, is freakin' hilarious.

My favourite US comedy, bar none, is the incomparable 'Frasier'. [Overused]

A fabulous mixture of farce and ... well, complete and utter fabulousness. And I love the characters so much.

I have to confess that 'Friends' would make me laugh a lot, despite most of the characters being pretty annoying. [Biased]

Chandler and Joey were the best, and Rachel could be very funny too.

I chuckle a lot at 'The Big Bang Theory', but most of all Sheldon. And Penny is great as the 'straight' one to everybody else's stupidity. [Razz]

'The Simpsons' - makes me laugh every time.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

American writer Bill Bryson, in his very funny book about Britain - 'Notes from a Small Island', so funny it makes me cry laughing, and it's ALL TRUE! - says that the British are the happiest race on earth.

No, nobody believed him either. [Big Grin]

So he says: observe two Brits who are strangers who meet on a train, or at a bus-stop. Within a minute they will be smiling and laughing with each other. [Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I sometimes think people from elsewhere going on about our sense of humour is a bit like this ghastly little number from 1965. It's rather similar to the way my generation thought that if we smoked Gitanes and played François Hardy records, we'd be cool - and might pull more successfully.

Having got that off my chest, I feel there's a lot to be said for a bit of reserve. It must be better than this horror which has visited the Ship before. Particularly bizarre is the way it starts off with a spiel about 'honouring the Lord'.

Unfortunately, one of the things we suffer over here, is that being reserved, the wrong sort of preachers tell us that our inhibitions are a sin and that it's particularly good and honouring to God that we should do something silly, particularly if it will embarrass us and those round about us.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Did anyone following this thread ever see a series broadcast about 10 years ago called The Book Group? It was about a young American woman who comes to live in Glasgow. It was written by a woman who had done something similar. Although some of the plot-lines were a bit bizarre, I thought it was excellent.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I think that today the Americans are much better at sit-coms than us British. The Big Bang Theory is the best of them and I live it.

We seem to be better - again only my opinion - at the seemingly unscripted, edgier comedy of stand up, sketch or panel shows.

I wonder if it's because the US writers have to aim for a broader target audience that is not that tolerant of nastiness or "naughtiness", whereas in Britain we do tolerate those things, and even demand them.

Not that there is anything wrong with either approach. The only mortal sin in comedy is to not be funny.

I like both styles, but the last British sitcom that made me laugh was Benidorm, and even that should have finished after two or three series as it got very samey after then.

It didn't used to be that way of course and Britain's sitcoms used to be brilliant but that was in a golden age from the seventies to the nineties. Since then they have lost the plot, at least to me.

But that's okay as we have 8 out of 10 cats, Mock the Week etc, and stand up shows such as Live at the Apollo to take their place.

I'm not sure comedy, or what makes people laugh, is so easy to analyse. The pitch-black humour of a British soldier telling dits, or Frankie Boyle when he was on Mock the Week is light years away from The Big Bang Theory but both manage to make me laugh, whereas Mr Bean makes me want to carve interesting patterns into my genitalia with a blunt Swiss Army Knife, just to avoid watching him.

Other people will vary of course, and prefer physical, slapstick comedy. I detest it unless done very well, such as The Plank.

But in response to the OP, we British do "do" humour, and we do it very well. In fact Rolyn, the next time someone tells you that you don't know how to enjoy yourself, tell them you would laugh like a drain if they fell into a big pile of cow-shit!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
seemingly unscripted

Yeah, right they're not.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

Not sure I buy in to the idea that there are national senses of humour. There are trends I suppose. But when I hear people lump Benny Hill together with Monty Python I can't help thinking that there's something more going on - a liking of accents? a mild exoticism of the very slightly foreign? Because any common thread those two have must be shared by a fair proportion of non-British humour too.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
seemingly unscripted

Yeah, right they're not.

Not too sure what your point is. Stand up and panel shows are quite tightly scripted, but the best ones hide the fact very well, thus making them appear unscripted.

Hence "seemingly" unscripted.

Can you expand on what you thought I was saying?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I awoke this morning all ready for spontaneous fun (notwithstanding being kept awake by a thunderstorm for 4 hours) - until I looked out of the window.

Spontaneous fun can be quite hard to achieve/ get when you need to plan on the weather changing from bright, warm sunshine to freezing downpour in the space of 10 minutes.

Its not that we Brits don't want fun, just that we have to be prepared for whatever the sky hurls at us...

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Most of the panel games I've seen recorded are very loosely scripted, if at all. And that includes Mock the Week, HIGNFY and Never Mind the Buzzcocks on TV, none of which had scripts on show, but could have been using the autocue, but I doubt it - the sheer horror on the competitor's face as they panic without an answer is usually edited out, as is quite a bit of the extra stuff being flannelled as answers are sought, and the uneven answering patterns of the panellists are edited into something that looks more evenly balanced.

The similar, and often original, radio panel games have no script other than for the panel chair, and no autocue either. (Dilemma, News Quiz, Quote Unquote, The Museum of Curiosity, The Write Stuff, the Manuscript). The one that is almost certainly heavily scripted is ISIHAC, but I've never seen that one recorded.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Paul wrote:

quote:
But when I hear people lump Benny Hill together with Monty Python I can't help thinking that there's something more going on - a liking of accents? a mild exoticism of the very slightly foreign? Because any common thread those two have must be shared by a fair proportion of non-British humour too.

Yes, I've long been suspicious of people who go on about how much they love British comedy, and then talk about vatious shows as if they were interchangable.

Benny Hill(funny as it is) was basically just vaudevillian slapstick, with a bit of postcard TNA thrown in for the dirty old men. It's very "World War II Generation", imho, and would have gone down well with people who liked The Dean Martin Comedy Hour in the early 70s.

Python was clearly aimed at a boomer(or whatever you call them in the UK) audience, more openly anti-establishment and iconoclastic. And even then, it couldn't escape the tendency of youth-culture products to devolve into tacky pandering to shock-driven vulgarity.

I've mentioned this before, but Meaning Of Life was some pretty blatant pandering to the North American "Animal House" demographic. Even the purported social satire was mostly just flogging a few dead horses. Mad Magazine(very "World War II" in its general outlook) had been doing "Those Catholics have a lot of kids" jokes years before Python exhumed the theme.

[ 10. November 2014, 22:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Panel shows are definitely loosely scripted - if you go to a recording (tickets for HIGNFY are free by the way, but they understandably sell out quickly!) you'll see that the actual show goes on for much longer and is quite heavily edited down for TV, just due to all the tangents the panel go down. Seeing it live is really interesting btw, I would highly recommend it. When I went, when the host was filming the idents for BBC1 etc Paul Merton was telling knock-knock jokes [Big Grin]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
My favourite US comedy, bar none, is the incomparable 'Frasier'. A fabulous mixture of farce and ... well, complete and utter fabulousness. And I love the characters so much.

I have to confess that 'Friends' would make me laugh a lot, despite most of the characters being pretty annoying. Chandler and Joey were the best, and Rachel could be very funny too.

EM's first law of comedy: the more characters wave their arms and/or look sideways for laughs, the less funny it is. Sadly for me (EM), Frasier and Friends come into that definition - as does almost 100% of American produced comedy. Blurghhhh.

Blackadder on the other hand (not the first series) and Father Ted - that's another matter entirely. Father Jack is my role model and I love my breeze block (an original thinker me).

I should mention that I hated Rev - for me it reinforced all the stereotypical outsiders views of the church. (Perhaps that's how it is and I should get out more). It did nothing for me other than make me mad apart from Olivia Coleman as "Vivian" in the grocery shop - that's disturbing in other ways!

[ 11. November 2014, 06:08: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
The one that is almost certainly heavily scripted is ISIHAC, but I've never seen that one recorded.

Interestingly, I have seen it recorded, and it isn't really. However, that is almost certainly because virtually everyone on it has been going for so long that they're pulling out of the back of their mind flights of fancy that they *did* script in 1957.... So,yes, it is scripted, but they don't have scripts. Barry Cryer et al can do it in their sleep.

I would urge anyone with even a passing interest in ISIHAC to go and see it while they're still alive. It was an absolute riot. They started at 1900 and were still going near midnight, but with no retakes, do it agains or anything. They just had a go at pretty well every round you ever hear on the radio, then chose the best bits for broadcast - so you get what you'd never get together in any one episode, eg Swanny Kazoo *and* One song to the tune of another.

The evening ended with Barry Cryer conducting the audience (we were all given a kazoo on the way in) in a rousing chorus of We'll Meet Again....

Now *that's* British humour.

What was more surprising was that, in my early thirties, I was about the average age of the very full theatre - I had been a bit worried I'd be the youngest by a margin...

[code]

[ 11. November 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

What about Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister - the 'Winner' as Loser?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Paul wrote:

quote:
But when I hear people lump Benny Hill together with Monty Python I can't help thinking that there's something more going on - a liking of accents? a mild exoticism of the very slightly foreign? Because any common thread those two have must be shared by a fair proportion of non-British humour too.

Yes, I've long been suspicious of people who go on about how much they love British comedy, and then talk about vatious shows as if they were interchangable.

Benny Hill(funny as it is) was basically just vaudevillian slapstick, with a bit of postcard TNA thrown in for the dirty old men. It's very "World War II Generation", imho, and would have gone down well with people who liked The Dean Martin Comedy Hour in the early 70s.

Python was clearly aimed at a boomer(or whatever you call them in the UK) audience, more openly anti-establishment and iconoclastic. And even then, it couldn't escape the tendency of youth-culture products to devolve into tacky pandering to shock-driven vulgarity.

I've mentioned this before, but Meaning Of Life was some pretty blatant pandering to the North American "Animal House" demographic. Even the purported social satire was mostly just flogging a few dead horses. Mad Magazine(very "World War II" in its general outlook) had been doing "Those Catholics have a lot of kids" jokes years before Python exhumed the theme.

I don't think that was quite the joke. I think the joke was the brilliant song: "There are Jews in the world; there are Buddhists..." and the wonderful superior commentary by the Protestant eating his breakfast.

"In fact, today I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant!"

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
EM's first law of comedy: the more characters wave their arms and/or look sideways for laughs, the less funny it is. Sadly for me (EM), Frasier and Friends come into that definition - as does almost 100% of American produced comedy. Blurghhhh.

'Frasier' was much better than 'Friends'. [Smile]

Very clever, very witty, great characters, and HILARIOUS.

I also really like Blackadder and Father Ted.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Friends was meant to be a comedy? Well roger me with a prize winning marrow! I was never sure what it was meant to be, but seeing as it was about as funny as a particularly poor episode of Terry and June after a pre-frontal lobotomy, I assumed it couldn't be intended to be a comedy.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Karl wrote:

quote:
I don't think that was quite the joke. I think the joke was the brilliant song: "There are Jews in the world; there are Buddhists..." and the wonderful superior commentary by the Protestant eating his breakfast.

"In fact, today I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant!"

Do you mean the song Every Sperm Is Sacred? Because that song IS about Catholics having a lot of kids. Though I suppose they weren't so much portraying Catholics in general, as Catholics at that particular time and place(Yorkshire, late Victorian era, I think).

And I do agree that the send-up of the proudly pro-contraception but otherwise sexually repressed protestant was pretty good. Though very few people seem to recall that scene, probably because overly fecund Catholics are the more recognizable comic trope.

[ 11. November 2014, 13:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
The one that is almost certainly heavily scripted is ISIHAC, but I've never seen that one recorded.
Interestingly, I have seen it recorded, and it isn't really. However, that is almost certainly because virtually everyone on it has been going for so long that they're pulling out of the back of their mind flights of fancy that they *did* script in 1957.... So,yes, it is scripted, but they don't have scripts. Barry Cryer et al can do it in their sleep.

So have I though about 15 years ago.

I'm sure it's [mostly] not scripted. I heard a recent-ish programme about the show and I believe it was created to be cheap by avoiding having to pay writers. They thought that picking people who are quick-thinking and naturally funny and "give them silly things to do" something good will result. It certainly worked!

The chairman's words and intro are of course written in advance and I'm sure the team get advance notice of the rounds so they can jot down some ideas but they certainly don't need a writing team.

[ 11. November 2014, 13:18: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
What about Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister - the 'Winner' as Loser?

Oh no. Awful - smug, self satisfied, poncy.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

... co-written by Peter Jay so what do you expect?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
When you and I were kids there was just children's BBC / ITV. So the appeal of a lot of TV was family-oriented programming, rather than narrowing down to specific demographics. So comedy-wise it'd be universal viewing. Nowadays there are a lot more channels (inculding children's channels), and most programming targets specific demographics. Which means a lot of comedy is 15+ rating.

I think the gender thing is a bigger deal than the class thing (see Misfits and Skins above). It seems a lot harder for women to succeed in comedy than men. I find that frustrating, and tire of the panel show format where you have five men trying to out-vulgar each other, with one token woman who's usually just there as some eye-candy to laugh at the 'funny' men.

The other underrepresented element is race. Despite the huge growth in immigration over the past couple of decades, this hasn't really been reflected in TV entertainment shows. I was pleased when Citizen Kahn came on a while back (despite its faults) because there's certainly less racial and cultural diversity in comedy than when I was younger.

In general, it seems harder and harder now to talk about British humour as a unified thing when there are so many niches.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In general, it seems harder and harder now to talk about British humour as a unified thing when there are so many niches.

Actually, I totally disagree with this. I think there is a style of humour that is identifiable as "British". What is impressive is that shows like Goodness Gracious Me can take British humour, add a cultural aspect that reflects the more diverse population that we have, but retain the essential humour.

I do think one aspect of British humour is a question of racial tolerance/intolerance. From Monty Python (on Watch this last week) "Did you see them who moved in next door? Black as the ace of spades. There goes the neighbourhood" - which would be completely unacceptable today, but was actually taking the mickey out of this. To auf wiedersehen pet, which would make UKIP fume, I am sure (going over there, taking those poor Germans jobs).

You also see this on some of the panel shows. When they have a comic from the US, very often they are completely out of their depth, having no idea what is going on. This is semi-deliberate - not racist as such, but marking "insiders" as those who know what is going on, and the tropes that are being referred to. This can cover anyone residing in the UK - skin colour and race is not relevant. It is funny, because you can see the "outsider" trying hard to understand something that they have no hope of doing ("So your big news story is a video of a man chasing his dog? Why?").

So I think British humour has retained its distinctiveness, while embracing the huge diversity of our country today - and that is a great thing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ah, well I see 'Goodness Gracious Me', Monty Python and 'Blackadder' as old shows, rather than as representatives of British humour as it is today.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... co-written by Peter Jay so what do you expect?

I also thought this, but it's actually co-written by Antony Jay.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Stand a Brit next to a German and you'll soon see who has the sense of humour.

Rather, you'll see who has the better sense of queuing. [Razz]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Do you mean the song Every Sperm Is Sacred? Because that song IS about Catholics having a lot of kids. Though I suppose they weren't so much portraying Catholics in general, as Catholics at that particular time and place(Yorkshire, late Victorian era, I think).

Yorkshire isn't particularly Catholic though - much less than Lancashire, and especially Liverpool.

I think part of the absurdist humour of the Pythons was their ability to splice together parodies of totally unrelated situations. In this case, fecund Catholics are combined with gritty 'grim oop north' dramas.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Yorkshire isn't particularly Catholic though - much less than Lancashire, and especially Liverpool.

I think part of the absurdist humour of the Pythons was their ability to splice together parodies of totally unrelated situations. In this case, fecund Catholics are combined with gritty 'grim oop north' dramas.

Hmm. You may be right, but from the perspective of someone who doesn't know much about English religious geography, that didn't really come off as an obvious pythonesque incongruity. In contrast, to say, the Gumbys performing Chekhov.

I think most people who don't know much about Yorkshire would just assume that it was chosen because it's known as a place with a lot of Catholics.

As I recall, the opening credits of that scene announced that it was taking place in "The Third World", followed by the subheading "Yorkshire", so I guess Yorkshire might have been chosen as a place known to have lots of poor people.

Incidentally, refering disdainfully to a First World place as being Third World is another example of the trite and ham-fisted humour that blights much of that particular film. They really were going for the low-hanging fruit in that one.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Incidentally, refering disdainfully to a First World place as being Third World is another example of the trite and ham-fisted humour that blights much of that particular film. They really were going for the low-hanging fruit in that one.

While I had assumed that was as much making fun of the habit of calling anything "third world."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It was, I think, pointing at attitudes towards the North held by some Southerners, especially those who appear to be unaware of civilisation outside the M25.. It's a little, as far as I can gather, like the way in which some folk from Northern states of the US might regard some of the more - rustic - areas of the Deep South. Well, a bit. More black pudding and less fried chicken, obviously.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm afraid Karl is right on this and both Stetson and Gwai have in different ways, missed the point, which is a demonstration of how, like wine, comedy doesn't always travel. I sometimes wonder whether there is likewise American comedy that I don't get, or if I do laugh, I'm doing so for the wrong reason. What might just appear a bit laboured, is actually satirising something I can't see.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I must have spoken badly then because I was in no way disagreeing with Karl later said. It is obviously true. Indeed I may overestimate Python, but rather I was hoping there was another subtler layer of humor also.

[ 12. November 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I must have spoken badly then because I was in no way disagreeing with Karl later said. It is obviously true. Indeed I may overestimate Python, but rather I was hoping there was another subtler layer of humor also.

Many overestimate Python because while a lot of it was funny and some utterly brilliant, about a quarter of the scenes, especially in the earlier series, went nowhere.

As for modern British humour it's still there. On TV recently Outnumbered has only ended because the children have grown up and that's going to be remembered as an all-time classic, Gavin & Stacey has some wonderful characters and dialogue and The Thick of It isn't bad either. There's more on radio, the One True Home of British wit and Humour.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I'm afraid Karl is right on this and both Stetson and Gwai have in different ways, missed the point, which is a demonstration of how, like wine, comedy doesn't always travel. I sometimes wonder whether there is likewise American comedy that I don't get, or if I do laugh, I'm doing so for the wrong reason. What might just appear a bit laboured, is actually satirising something I can't see.

Interesting comparison with the US south. I guess I sort of took the Yorkshire reference to be the equivalent of someone yelling "Squeal like a pig!" and mimicing dueling banjoes when someone else mentions a southern state. The understood butt of the joke would normally be southerners, not people who have misperceptions of southerners.

But FWIW, I didn't think that the Pythons were really ridiculing notherners(the way Deliverance jokes ridicule southerners), just sorta having a go at its supposedly economic and technolgical lag, at least in the times portrayed. I'm not ENTIRELY buying the idea that the point was "Isn't the rest of Britian silly for thinking that the north is so different?"

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

For clarity, my sentence in the second paragraph should have been written as...

quote:
But FWIW, I didn't think that the Pythons were really ridiculing notherners(the way Deliverance jokes ridicule US southerners)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

To compare the US comedic attitude directed towards the South, I think you'd need to combine the North and Wales.
But even then, ISTM, there is more awareness of regional differences.
In the US, the humour seems to, broadly, be divided thusly: the Midwest, the South, California and New York City. ETA: and Florida as a combination New York retirement home and Cuban refugee centre.
The average American, and American comedian, seem to be less aware of the difference between a Texan and a Georgian than the average Brit that between a Brummie and a Geordie.
This is IME and not a statement of "better and worse".

[ 12. November 2014, 20:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

To give you an idea of the joke about the North then you could do worse than listen to Uncle Mort's North Country. It also stereotypes the fun-in-adversity attitude that I think is behind some of this thread.

Jengie

[ 12. November 2014, 20:32: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To compare the US comedic attitude directed towards the South, I think you'd need to combine the North and Wales.
But even then, ISTM, there is more awareness of regional differences.
In the US, the humour seems to, broadly, be divided thusly: the Midwest, the South, California and New York City. ETA: and Florida as a combination New York retirement home and Cuban refugee centre.
The average American, and American comedian, seem to be less aware of the difference between a Texan and a Georgian than the average Brit that between a Brummie and a Geordie.
This is IME and not a statement of "better and worse".

That's a good observation, though I think my comparison would still stand, but I might have to fine-tune it to calling the Python target in MOL "Yorkshire", in comparison to "the south" in Deliverance-style jokes.

But I'll also fine-tune your American comedic taxonomy a little...

quote:
The average American, and American comedian, seem to be less aware of the difference between a Texan and a Georgian than the average Brit that between a Brummie and a Geordie.

I think Texas does have its own niche, separate from the rest of the south, in the US comedic imagination. If you flipped on a show and saw a cigar-chomping guy in a ten-gallon hat drawling on about how big his car is and how big his house is and how big everything down here is, and you tried to guess his purported region, you would not assume Georgia.

For California...

I think LA(as a theme, not a setting) is basically ignored, at least in movie comedy, with the exception of ostentatiously self-mocking portrayals of fast-talking Hollywood types("Call me!!), and maybe the airheaded, sexy beach scene(eg. Three's Company). Cheech and Chong did LA skid-row material for a bit, but that wasn't widely copied as a trope.

Other than that, I think California is mostly identified with flaky hippies(vaguely left-wing) and New Age people, such portrayals focused largely on San Francisco and its surrounding areas. I suppose a bit of that drifts into portrayals of the Hollywood life as well.

Posted by GordonThePenguin (# 2106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Stand a Brit next to a German and you'll soon see who has the sense of humour.

So have you tried that, or is it just a stereotype?

In my experience, North Germans (especially from Hamburg) have a dry/dark humour that many would say is very British.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Yes Minister - 'smug, self-satisfied, poncy': yes, but I thought that was what we were expected to laugh at.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Yes Minister - 'smug, self-satisfied, poncy': yes, but I thought that was what we were expected to laugh at.

Precisely. I think the current government have heard that Thatcher enjoyed it and assumed that it was a documentary of perfect government.

The whole point of it was that these people made claims of "Moral stances" and "making a difference", whereas they were actually doing what they were told was the most politically expedient course. We laughed AT them, in a very cruel and judgmental way. Then we elected them.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Stetson, as has been said though, they're not satirising Yorkshire *at all.* They *are* satirising the southern view of Yorkshire/the North. The Yorkshiremen sketch from the series - *that* satirises Yorkshiremen's apparent need to advertise their masculinity and humble origins,* the one in the Meaning of Life, not so much

Quite apart from anything else, both Eric Idle and Michael Palin are northerners - Palin hailing from, er, Yorkshire.

Perhaps you have to live here to appreciate that, for many people, the world ends north of the Severn/Trent line.

*"Yorkshire born, and Yorkshire bred - thick in the arm and thick in the head"

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Oh, so it's North vs South satire you want, eh?

*ponces off to Barnsley*

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:

Perhaps you have to live here to appreciate that, for many people, the world ends north of the Severn/Trent line.

North of the M25 for many.

[code]

[ 14. November 2014, 11:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

Perhaps you have to live here to appreciate that, for many people, the world ends north of the Severn/Trent line.
North of the M25 for many.

[code]

M25? River Thames more like!

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

Perhaps you have to live here to appreciate that, for many people, the world ends north of the Severn/Trent line.
North of the M25 for many.

[code]
M25? River Thames more like!

We lived on Thorney Island for a couple of years in the 1960's (it's a peninsular in Chichester Harbour, a few miles east of Portsmouth). The local saying was that "They're all savages north of the A27", which as the A27 runs from Southampton to Brighton doesn't leave much.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Do you mean the song Every Sperm Is Sacred? Because that song IS about Catholics having a lot of kids. Though I suppose they weren't so much portraying Catholics in general, as Catholics at that particular time and place(Yorkshire, late Victorian era, I think).

Yorkshire isn't particularly Catholic though - much less than Lancashire, and especially Liverpool.

I think part of the absurdist humour of the Pythons was their ability to splice together parodies of totally unrelated situations. In this case, fecund Catholics are combined with gritty 'grim oop north' dramas.

I've always found the funniest aspect of Every Sperm is Sacred to be the parodying of a big cinematic musical number (cf Mary Poppins, Oliver!) where everybody suddenly starts joining in and singing and dancing, even the corpse.

Posted by Urfshyne (# 17834) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: "Stand a Brit next to a German and you'll soon see who has the sense of humour."

It must be the German - after all, she married me!

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...

Monty Python is an interesting example. It has exported well, all across the world, but that is a lot of the humour in them that other cultures cannot understand. ...

Monty Python has done well here, although the humor at times may be considered too vulgar for Southern tastes. My children are huge fans, and quote favorite lines (with accent) when a situation brings it to recall.

I visited Moreton-in-Marsh a couple of years ago and delighted to find a cheese shop. Had to have a look. I told the shop keeper I noticed that her cheese shop was not "uncontaminated by cheese." She rolled her eyes.

The ringtone I set for my district superintendent is the unforgettable line from Michael Palin, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ..." For a while my text tone was the sound of the arrow flying in and John Cleese saying, "Message for you, sir."

My family are drawn to British culture and if we could we would jump the pond and not look back.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
M25? River Thames more like!

In one village in markland, not far removed from creamtealand - you're an outside if you live in the other half of the village across the churchyard. Each half has its own pubs, local words and never "marries" across.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Do you mean the song Every Sperm Is Sacred? Because that song IS about Catholics having a lot of kids. Though I suppose they weren't so much portraying Catholics in general, as Catholics at that particular time and place(Yorkshire, late Victorian era, I think).

Yorkshire isn't particularly Catholic though - much less than Lancashire, and especially Liverpool.

I think part of the absurdist humour of the Pythons was their ability to splice together parodies of totally unrelated situations. In this case, fecund Catholics are combined with gritty 'grim oop north' dramas.
I've always found the funniest aspect of Every Sperm is Sacred to be the parodying of a big cinematic musical number (cf Mary Poppins, Oliver!) where everybody suddenly starts joining in and singing and dancing, even the corpse.

Yes. It's the completely inappropriate subject matter for a big musical number that makes it funny. It's straight out of the Mary Poppins/Oliver schoolbook, as you say.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
M25? River Thames more like!
In one village in markland, not far removed from creamtealand - you're an outside if you live in the other half of the village across the churchyard. Each half has its own pubs, local words and never "marries" across.

What's the odds that the number of toes divided by the number of chins in the village is significantly more than the normal c.10?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: What's the odds that the number of toes divided by the number of chins in the village is significantly more than the normal c.10?

I wouldn't take a bet on it -- the answer, of course, is well in excess of 10. I couldn't believe how seriously they take it .... but I know personally of one family shunned by said village where he wasn't to blame at all. He had to move and 20 years later it's still talked about as if it were his fault.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

It depends on the number of double chins.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
It depends on the number of double chins.

Elsewhere the number of "chinless wonders" may have a effect.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

My father was rector of two villages in Suffolk within a couple of miles of each other. He had to have separate Christmas Parties, separate everything as they would never ever do anything together. One village was royalist during the Civil War and the other for the Commonwealth.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
My father was rector of two villages in Suffolk within a couple of miles of each other. He had to have separate Christmas Parties, separate everything as they would never ever do anything together. One village was royalist during the Civil War and the other for the Commonwealth.

Not that far from here, there are two villages a mile, if that, apart where the same sort of thing happens. One of the allegations locally though is that to make it worse, they can't remember which one was on which side. They just know they were on opposite sides.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0