The Death of British Comedy?

Following on from my blog on British identity last week, I couldn’t help but notice the increasing trend of ‘political correctness gone mad’ not only in general society but recently in comedy as well. Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year or so, it will have been difficult to escape the mass-hysteria surrounding the Brand/Ross prank phone calls to ‘national treasure’ Andrew Sachs about his granddaughter, and more recently the Jimmy Carr backlash following his amputee joke.

Given that we, the British, have always seemed to pride ourselves on our readiness for laughter, it is more than a little concerning that so many seem to have had a sense of humour bypass somewhere along the way to 2010. Aside from electing Boris Johnson as Mayor of London and the continued presence of Jedward in X-Factor, the only intentional humour that seems to be socially acceptable now is the toe-curlingly embarrassing array of catch-phrases peppering Strictly Come Dancing from Bruce Forsyth’s ancient, puckered mouth.

Whilst, then, we drown in crippling mediocrity and resign ourselves to ‘comedy’ that is more Russell Bland than Brand, it is important to consider whether us Brits are really losing our sense of humour or if too many are just jumping onto the apparent socially acceptable bandwagon of complaining. The British excel at complaining about anything and anyone, and social persuasion is rife in our culture.

Looking objectively at the Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand row over the apparent degradation of Georgina Baillie, Andrew Sachs’ granddaughter, it wouldn’t be unfair to deem Brand and Ross’ voicemail discussing the former’s sexual relations with her as inappropriate, especially live on air. 




However, given that this Georgina Baillie is part of a strip group called the Satanic Sluts and further to this she was initially proud of the mention, posting the clip on her MySpace page, their comments were hardly unfair. This is a girl who has made hardcore porn for public viewing and uses her sexuality as a way to pay the bills.

Whilst yes, Brand and Ross were a little out of order and pushed their prank too far, it was their bosses who decided to air it and deemed it socially acceptable with a warning. Comedy always holds the risk of offending people; that is half of its attraction. Risqué one-liners, taboo subjects and controversial topics are what drive humour, and the BBC’s recent decision to take no more creative risks is a saddening one. Given that only 2 people actually complained about the Radio show that it was broadcast on until the good old Daily Mail’s Sunday supplement stirred the shit, I had hoped that the further thousands of complainers were just angry that their tax money is funding these so-called comedians who, it was being reported, were offending the public.

However following the recent media frenzy surrounding THAT Jimmy Carr joke (the suggestion that we will have an amazing Paralympic team for 2012 due to the large number of amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan), I am not so sure. Carr is a comedian whose entire humour is centered around offending just about everything and everyone. Usual topics of jokes include rape, murder, obesity, paedophilia and beastiality to name but a few. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JHnMyiWNk4  for an example of sexism in his humour). One wonders about the moronic nature of people who pay to go and see such a man on tour knowing his sense of humour, then complain when they don’t like a particular joke.

Researching this further unearths a rather irritating statistic, though. Carr is currently in the middle of a 10-month tour. Each date plays to about 9,000 people. Only 2 people complained. Once again with this number that changes it from being a single anomaly to a multiple; enough for the media to pick up on it and create an unnecessary amount of fuss. Perhaps it is due to Poppy week (this also relates to my last blog) that there is so much sensitivity around this particular joke at this particular time. This has led me to once again question this industry that I am trying to break into. The media, and more specifically, Public Relations, seems to have the power to completely manipulate the masses. Society is told who to love and hate; who is good and who is bad. It was Andrew Sachs’ PR agent who was called by the Mail on Sunday and provoked into complaining, despite Sachs’ original permission to broadcast the telephone calls and it was the media who have blown Jimmy Carr’s joke out of proportion (in comparison to many of his other jokes) when so few of the actual public complained.

There’s nothing quite like a little bit of ‘political correctness gone mad’ to bring about a premature death of someone’s career, and it seems like the media are doing all they can to vilify the few genuinely amusing people to grace our screens and stages today. Is it because they are struggling for news? Or is it more of a keep up with the Jones’ in the world of print, where if one paper reports a story which generates some interest, the others scramble for similar readership and, having failed to generate any ‘shock’ stories of their own, are quick for a share in the glory? I find it more than a little worrying that stories such as these beat others such as earthquakes and murders to the headlines, yet these seem to be the stories that are favoured and shifting copies. Will Britain's love for a scandal lead to the eventual death of comedy?

Carnage by Name, Carnage by Nature?

Following the uproar and public outrage surrounding photos of student Philip Laing urinating on a war memorial during student bar crawl Carnage over the past few weeks, I am admittedly quite surprised that this could possibly lead to a jail sentence, as reported by BBC News today. Whilst I don’t deny that this is a despicable act with a complete lack of respect for the millions who died fighting for our country, as well as an act of public indecency, I can’t help but think that Laing is being used to make an example of.

How many people, especially men, can put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they have never urinated in a public place? Desperate times call for desperate measures especially once alcohol, a diuretic, is consumed, and whilst it perhaps is not a pleasant activity, I have seen men leaning against walls or in doorways urinating on almost every night out that I’ve been on. In saying this I am not defending this student’s case. The literal pissing on someone’s grave is disgusting and shows a complete lack of regard for people who were husbands, fathers, brothers and friends of many people who are still alive today. This brings me to another thought though – morbid though it is, graveyards are (for some completely inexplicable reason) often the place to hang out for youths both of today and in days gone by. It’s not unusual to hear of them being used the backdrop to losses of virginity, drugs deals and vodka sharing activities whilst teens go through their rebellious years. This, however, is rarely documented upon and they never get arrested for disrespecting the dead.

Scanning this week’s news across a number of national websites, my eye was caught by a flashing advert for CARNAGE UNCOVERED ; an ‘undercover’ article written by Nick Francis for the ever-classy Sun – ready as always to jump on the bandwagon of any news story with their own less-relevant twist. As bar crawl I enjoyed a number of times over my three year stint at Southampton University and did some promotional work for, Carnage is a termly night of fun which many students look forward to for a chance of thousands of like-minded piers to have a massive night out with large groups of friends.

                                    

Portrayed at a sleazy, irresponsible and grope-tastic money-drainer, the reporter (as ever with The Sun) casts a completely over-dramatic and exaggerated shadow of pervertedness as he presents the event to the readers as something that is, quite frankly, every parents’ nightmare. Given the assumed age and stage of life of Mr Francis, however, it is difficult to see how he might enjoy such an event anyway. Carnage is a student event; a bar crawl enjoyed as a blow-out to relieve mounting assignment and exam pressure and a sure-fire way to bump into the majority of the friends that you have made so far. It is also an opportunity to meet current friends’ house/flat/coursemates and widen your friendship circle. Why on Earth would Nick Francis enjoy a night like this, given that he is not entering the spirit of the event by drinking, does not know anyone else and presumedly isn’t studying for any upcoming exams?

Sure, there are hundreds of people who dress inappropriately. Sure, I’ve been one of them (to a certain degree – nowhere near the extent that is reported), but I regularly see even less clothing being worn on any night out in any town. Women these days have a habit of flashing too much flesh than may be entirely appropriate, which can quite often have the opposite of the desired effect. Regardless of this, the male readers of The Sun very rarely fall into the category of ‘men who value women for their intelligence and would rather more was left to the imagination,’ and by the numerous skimpy photos, it doesn’t look like the reporter was complaining. Given that the ‘uniform’ the partakers willingly pay for (before they sell out like hot-cakes) is a T-shirt, which is more often than not an XL unflattering fit, how it is worn is personal discretion.

Of course there were some women who go over the top and jump at the opportunity to wear little other than some French knickers, a heavily customized top which now bears more resemblance to a bra-strap than its original T-shirt form and a pair of ‘prostitute heels,’ but there will always be women who will make Jodie Marsh look under-stated, whether there is a dresscode involved or not. The number of bars visited is a good way for new students to find their way around their new hometown in the first semester, and the ‘horrifying tasks’ on the back of the shirts are rarely completed. Nick Francis writes in horror of challenges such as "Meet with a bad devil", "Get spanked by a naughty angel" and "Same-sex snog time" as if they are integral to the night out or even that bad, yet most of the T-shirts are so customized that the boxes are rarely visible to even get ticked.

The press have been quick to blame Philip Laing’s misdemeanor on Carnage itself, and even District Judge Andrew Browne stated that "Carnage is the name of the organisation who promote this type of activity and some might say that somebody should be standing alongside you this morning." This comment particularly angered me. Laing claimed to have drunk an entire bottle of whiskey before going out to this event – a feat that would probably have me in hospital having my stomach pumped before I’d got a quarter of the way through. Of course he doesn’t remember the night out – he would have been absolutely annihilated before even attending the event. Whilst Carnage does indeed go round many bars, this doesn’t necessarily promote people getting absolutely inebriated – when I’ve gone, half the time it’s too busy to get a drink in many of the places. There are no pressures to drink certain volumes like there are on crawls such as pub golf, so it makes me irritated that Carnage are being held partially responsible.

In today’s blame culture, very few people are taking responsibility for their own actions. How one dresses, drinks and behaves on Carnage is down to personal choice, just as with any other night out. At this age, we should be old enough to make the right choice and exercise some sort of self-control in terms of our behaviour. At any rate, Carnage employs a large number of stewards to almost police the event, ensure student safety, organize road crossings and be on the look-out for anyone in trouble, and also works in conjunction with the police to ensure extra safety. The same can’t be said for many other nights out at university or in general society. We are old enough to look after ourselves and whilst Philip Laing has made a stupid mistake, very few people are faultless. Part of growing up is experiencing getting too drunk, making mistakes and learning from them. Unfortunately this is a pretty hard and national mistake to learn from, but is it one which truly deserves a prison sentence rather than a fine and some community service?

Is Fashion Fascism?

Fashion: formerly a luxury that only the very wealthy could afford, this high culture indulgence has become accessible to all budgets over the last half a century with the development of low-cost stores such Primark, making it an affordable pastime and way of life for anyone. Evidently there is quite some difference between the Couture gracing last month’s London Fashion Week runway and Asda’s new Autumn/Winter line, however the bridging of the high and low culture gap in society is resulting in ever-growing opportunities for the fashion industry to influence women across the market with dictatorial vigour.

Today’s society is undeniably driven by neoliberal capitalism; we are seduced into buying clothes that we have little or no need for through advertising, countless magazines decreeing this week’s ‘must have items,’ paper features and celebrity endorsements and become a slave to consumerism where, as Tyler Durden from Fight Club claims, ‘the things you own end up owning you.’ Whilst, as previously stated, anyone can follow fashion in today’s consumerist culture, this materialistic society in which we live is dictated by the fashion designers, steered by the wealthy, and emulated by the remaining population.

Fashion can be seen as an aspiration; an escape through which consumers hope to present a grander and more hopeful version of themselves by imitating celebrities and people who have a higher social status and a more desirable life. How you dress and present yourself affects how people to think of you, and is important both in terms of employment and in attracting a future partner. However, this consumerist culture has put such an emphasis upon one’s presentation that dressing well can be considered almost as a career (think Victoria Beckham), and judging fashion has become almost a sport, with best and worst dressed lists gracing the first few pages of most weekly magazines, often with public slating for bad dress sense.

Anyone who remembers Bjork’s public execution for her crimes against fashion when she wore a swan dress to the Oscars a few years back must be able to understand just how fashion is like fascism. Rather than be open minded and perceive her creative and quirky fashion sense as a personal expression, she was ostracized; the media calling the ‘fashion police’ on her from publications aplenty.

While it appears that fashion is predominantly led by and intended for women who stereotypically worship it and follow it religiously, it could be suggested that perhaps fashion is actually our enemy. Indeed, the term ‘fashion victim’ is more correct than we first thought in regards to how influential and powerful it is at brainwashing much of the general public and especially the target demographic. We seem to willingly purchase magazines in which we are mostly greeted with a series of images of stick thin women wearing unaffordable clothes, with recycled yet inviting diets and tips to lose weight in order to replicate these very women.

Stepping back and regarding this objectively, it seems near impossible that the fashion industry are able to manipulate us in such a manner. This main controversy surrounding fashion is, of course, regarding size. With the infamous size zero debate still rife, it has been nice to see the increasing media awareness of their influence over the rise in anorexia in today’s western society. However for every magazine, advert (such as for Dove) and catwalk show that is all for celebrating women’s natural sizes, there are hundreds of media pressures persuading women to starve themselves to fit into an agreed conformity.

But what is the reason for this development in fashion that has only been around for the past few decades? Long gone seem the days when curves were seen as sexy in the industry, and yet ask around any group of males and the general consensus seems to suggest that they still much prefer curves than a woman whose form is pre-pubescent and undernourished. So why is it that the industry seems to be dominated by boy-like figures with no breasts or hips to speak of? The only solution that readily pops into my head is an idea I examined in some detail whilst writing my undergraduate dissertation: that of the importance of androgyny in today’s pop culture.

There are many theories and ideas that serve to pinpoint the factors that differentiate men and women. Some theorists believe it is related to the phallus or lack of, whilst others suggest that gender is actually just a performance. Either way, one wonders whether perhaps designers are forcing women to be androgynous in order to fit into the stereotypical of ‘human;’ the first form we recognize from a young age in this male dominated, patriarchal society. By stripping female models of their sexuality, it presents them as a blank canvas; a sexless object which nevertheless has more male than female characteristics. This allows the art that is fashion to be presented and appreciated purely for its form, with less distraction of sexuality. This blank canvas is ideal for the projecting of fashion propaganda; a new trouser line, a different waist than was in last season or this year’s new skirt length that is enforced by these fascist designers and publicized by the media and PRs.

This brings me to start questioning my future career move. I have read many comparisons between propaganda and public relations – so are we faciliting and further compounding this fascism of forced skinniness and ‘agreed’ conformity? Will my integrity be somewhat tried and tested if future campaigns or jobs could be the promoting of something that is ultimately damaging society and the image of my own sex? Or am I over analyzing an industry that, much though I would like to blame the strangling constraints of aforementioned male-dominated society, is mainly driven by women who dress for other women, as opposed to for men. If this were not the case, then the fewer clothes the better, but we are all aware of how baffled men seem to be by shoulder pads, Ugg boots and wet-look leggings!

Ultimately, designers dictate the uniforms that we adopt, and it is fashion victims who blindly follow in the hope to become more desirable/accepted/higher up in the social hierarchy. It is rare to find someone who possesses true style, be it rebelling from the decreed ‘this season’s look’ or merely just knowing what suits their body shape and sticking to it. Whilst it takes a confident woman to try to pull off the more daring looks of each new season of fashion, it takes a much braver one to defy the often repressive nature of the industry and have to withstand the barrage of attacks from all angles from the formidable and unforgiving media and society – their sheep - of today.