The worst part of Monty Python was the TV series. Their best work was elsewhere on films and their brilliant albums.

ps/ The Holy Grail is much funnier than Life of Brian.

I don't agree with that, the series were all great, the first one is a bit sterile, but amazingly subtle and clever. They often went out on a limb on it as well, I still think it is probably the best comedy series ever, definitely in the top 5 anyway.

>I don't agree with that, the series were all great, the first one is a bit sterile, but amazingly subtle and clever. They often went out on a limb on it as well, I still think it is probably the best comedy series ever, definitely in the top 5 anyway.

I think the series is great too. But the stuff they did outside it is miles better. They don't have as many dull patches or references to Reginald Maudling that nobody understands anymore

Bad analogy on the way, here. Mind your heads...

Python Films = Beatles
Python TV Series = Velvet Underground

More groundbreaking, but a little rough round the edges and so not as widely liked.

That is a pretty bad analogy, but I agree it was a little rough, but only in the production aspect, the writing was incredibly strong. And on the whole, there was hardly any topical references at all in the entire 4 series, compare that with almost any other comedy series and you will see how it compares. And I don't think they were really writing for people to like the show 30 years after it had been broadcast. But look how well it's turned out.

And on the whole, the series was a lot more important, they only made 3-4 films and a few albums. It was the series that really made the impact. They haven't even repeated the 4th series since transmission, the bastards, yet they fawn over Python as the flagship BBC comedy program, even though it's 30 years old, they're that desperate to prove their worth.

The TV series started out a bit empty, I think, but midway through it really picked up speed and by the end of series 2 there was no stopping it. All comedy is a period piece in some way. The fact that there has been so much since has dulled the impact that it would have had on someone had they been alive in 1970 rather than today. I found it to be one of the best things I'd ever seen when I first saw in around '88.

I'm not really so hot on the films myself but I'm not a filmy person, Python or not. I get much more out of LPs like Matching Tie and Hankerchief...

I can't put my finger on why I like the tv shows so much. But who can?




Well, that was a load of old bollards, wasn't it?

Anything with musical mice is genius. So I liked the series, though it had quite a few jokes that, to my mind, missed the mark.
And I love Holy Grail in a very unnatural way. Though Life of Brian is great too.
Mmmm.

This is a truly sad analogy, and I'm prepared to admit I first thought of it when hungry and hungover once, but - to me, there's a weird parallel between the Python films, and those of wholesome family entertainer, and presumably not a fan of Life of Brian, Sir Cliff Richard.

Expresso Bongo, like And Now For Something Completely different, is good as far as it goes, but all too obviously adapted from another source (EB was originally a stage musical).

The Young Ones, like the Holy Grail, is the best, but isn't the one everyone's heard of.

Summer Holiday, like Life of Brian, is the one everyone's heard of, but isn't the best.

Wonderful Life, like The Meaning of Life, is the biggest, most expensive and also overlong and disappointing. And with the word Life in the title.

God knows what that terrible one about the Brumburger equals to - the reunion specials aimed at American fools presumably.

And the ITV documentary, "The Cliff Richard Story" is probably "Fierce Creatures."

The Millennium Concert = Live At The Hollywood Bowl

Neil Innes = Hank Marvin

>That is a pretty bad analogy, but I agree it was a little rough, but only in the production aspect, the writing was incredibly strong.

No argument there. But the films are more polished and therefore more widely liked. I stand by that assertion. Polished doesn't necessarily mean better.

> And on the whole, there was hardly any topical references at all in the entire 4 series, compare that with almost any other comedy series and you will see how it compares. And I don't think they were really writing for people to like the show 30 years after it had been broadcast. But look how well it's turned out.

Actually they were writing for "posterity" (albeit short term). The Pythons had all worked on topical material before (Frost etc) and were fed up that they never got repeat fees, a situation that didn't arise with the non-topical work they had done. It was a conscious decision on their part to do surreal / silly material precisely because it wouldn't date and thus be unrepeatable. Out of financial concerns is "genius" born...


>And on the whole, the series was a lot more important, they only made 3-4 films and a few albums. It was the series that really made the impact.

Not to Americans, though, who have, like it or not (Oh God, Yoakum), been responsible for keeping the international flame of Python worship alive. The films were what sold the Pythons internationally.

>They haven't even repeated the 4th series since transmission, the bastards, yet they fawn over Python as the flagship BBC comedy program, even though it's 30 years old, they're that desperate to prove their worth.

And here is the irony. The Brits were the ones who really liked / appreciated the TV shows rather than the films, yet we're not allowed to see them... while the yanks get them piped out constantly these days.

WHEN IS DVD? WHEN IT COME? WHEN SEE HEAP MUCH PYTHON IN DIGITAL FORMAT?

bastards

Patchy as the telly series was, you have to hand it to any show where they wrote 13 shows a year and had only 90 minutes to record all the studio stuff for each episode. I would say the TV series is about two-thirds great - even then you can't compare those with films where the content and style were painstakingly crafted.

Because Python is now presented as shorthand for geeky bloke humour by lazy commentators, and certain sketches are now over-familiar, I would argue elements of MP (certainly the TV series) are actually *under*rated. Bits of it are dull, but Cleese is way too harsh about how it's all aged.

I agree that it's underrated. Bill Oddie once said that while Python TV was wildly variable, the highs were higher than anyone else's, and I believe that's true. Nowhere else in their career did they come up with anything as brilliant as the Raymond Luxury-Yacht interview, which still reduces me to helpless laughter whenever I watch it.

I too love the TV series, although I'm not sure why, but I'm sure that without the albums and the films they wouldn't have become such huge stars as they are today. How many people have watched more than a couple of episodes of Python since its first broadcast, compared to the number who have seen Brian over and over again?

The albums were important too, especially as there were no videos in the early 70s. My dad was stunned a while back when I pointed out that the Bruces' Philosophers Song wasn't in the TV show. The reason was he'd heard the albums so often, but hardly ever seen the TV shows repeated.....

>They don't references to Reginald Maudling that nobody understands anymore

This is precisely what made it great. Educate yourself.

How can "Monty Python" have been a breath of fresh after "Terry and June" when the former predates the latter?

>WHEN IS DVD? WHEN IT COME? WHEN SEE HEAP MUCH PYTHON IN DIGITAL FORMAT?
>
As I mentioned on a different thread in the past, Those pesky yankies have the good fortune to be able to buy a nice boxset of the teevee series, with extra bits.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004ZEU5/o/qid=973701567/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_d_1_1/104-5824341-9723908


I'm sure theres some reason why "A & E Entertainment" can release the thing in The US, while the BBC are more interested in pumping out Royle Family and Only Fools and Horses DVD's over here.


>bastards
>
I could'nt agree more.



On a simular note, anyone like to explain how come the Legauge of Gentlemen DVD has been on sale in the US for almost 2 months now, and has yet to be releases in England?

>And no one must mention the Spanish Inquisition OR hedgehogs
>

The Spanish Inquisition and hedgehogs.

References to Maudling are easily interpreted. Just use your handy 'brain' device to try and realise who he must be. It took me about five millionths of a second to do so when I first saw Python, and I was about eleven at the time.

MWLL- I don't know, ask my parents

>How can "Monty Python" have been a breath of fresh after "Terry and June" when the former predates the latter?

Well, okay then, "Terry and June" was a breath of stale vomit steam after "Monty Python".

>>They don't references to Reginald Maudling that nobody understands anymore

>This is precisely what made it great. Educate yourself

When they were making And Now For Something Completely Different John Cleese suggested changing the phrase 'Tinned Peach' to 'Canned Peach' for the American audiences, to which Terry Gilliam was violently against, his view being basically 'Fuck the uneducated bastards, let them learn a new phrase (about British packaged fruit)'. I think the line remained unchanged.

>>>They don't references to Reginald Maudling that nobody understands anymore
>
>>This is precisely what made it great. Educate yourself
>
>When they were making And Now For Something Completely Different John Cleese suggested changing the phrase 'Tinned Peach' to 'Canned Peach' for the American audiences, to which Terry Gilliam was violently against, his view being basically 'Fuck the uneducated bastards, let them learn a new phrase (about British packaged fruit)'. I think the line remained unchanged.

God that's so bloody typical of John Cleese. Obsessed with "logic" and structure, totally unaware of how language works or even why the Parrot Sketch was funny. He would probably explain it by saying "See, his parrot is dead! And the man, he says it's not dead! Do you see? A hilarious conflict! The two viewpoints are thrown together, and so forth. Brilliant."

I feel as if I drifted off the subject a bit there. What I mean is that the details are important and you can't just replace tinned with canned just because it is supposedly the same meaning at a primary school picture book level. It isn't the same meaning at all.

Yeah. That's one of the real plusses of Python - it educates you not to be afraid of unfamiliar words / concepts / characters / historical figures.

Alain de Botton, in his book on Proust, makes quite a big deal of the "Summarise Proust Competition" sketch. I think he likes the way the sketch demystifies a "sacred cow" and makes Proust approachable, slightly silly, no longer a cultural totem belonging to the intelligensia. You giggle at the sketch, then next time some intellectual snob tries to frighten you by referring to Proust, you think "Aha - he wrote long books - I know something about him..."

What a difference from the current insistence that you never alienate your target market in television by talking about anything they might not already have heard of...

There was an old interview in which one of them said that for years they'd been frustrated by TV people saying things like "Oh, they won't understand that in Bradford", and that a lot of the fun was just using any old reference without worrying about anything except whether the idea worked.

>Yeah. That's one of the real plusses of Python - it educates you not to be afraid of unfamiliar words / concepts / characters / historical figures.
>
>Alain de Botton, in his book on Proust, makes quite a big deal of the "Summarise Proust Competition" sketch. I think he likes the way the sketch demystifies a "sacred cow" and makes Proust approachable, slightly silly, no longer a cultural totem belonging to the intelligensia. You giggle at the sketch, then next time some intellectual snob tries to frighten you by referring to Proust, you think "Aha - he wrote long books - I know something about him..."
>
>What a difference from the current insistence that you never alienate your target market in television by talking about anything they might not already have heard of...

Proust has more in common with the plebby couch potato than the intellectual snobs, as he spent years sitting on his arse in a room without going out.

Yeah, but he was writing a 13-volume novel. You don't see the Royles doing that. So, not so much in common after all.

Never made his own tea, though did he?

See title of this thread

No. Don't regret starting this thread! You have a point.
The sacred status of the Python shows needs to be questioned. It's just that a lot of people (me included) feel that the telly stuff can stand up to that questioning.
Comedy fans (please prove this to be true, people) are more prepared to talk about the mechanics / failures / successes / rationales behind their beloved shows than, say, Sci Fi fans, who are always going on about tedious plot inconsistencies...

Let's chat...

< one of those tedious extra postings in which a contributor with five pints of Stella sloshing round their stomach explains why they mistyped their last posting>

Carry on.

I found very little of Monty Python very funny (midly amusing covers it) but at least it won't age so quickly like GGM and TGP (and they will)

I think Python is the zenith of all comedy, and I think GGM and TGP are awful, haven't liked a single episode of either of those shows. I think you need to watch Python more closely, I'd only seen a couple of vids of compilations when I was about 6-7 and hadn't even known there was more than one series, I've recently seen nearly all the episodes thanks to late night UK Gold, and I think it's fantastic, but does experiment a bit too much in some bits and ends up being not very funny.

aha, have not actually seen TGP, but know it relies heavily on The Pub Landlord, who will I'm afraid become redundant as a familiar character in todays society...I think.
GGM was very funny is first series and decreasingly so in subsequent series, but it did heavily rely on the fact people tuned in to hear catchphrases and race related jokes. This is probably why it dated itself so fast, as different cliches become funny to an increasingly impatient viewing generation, wanting fast and very funny events and lines every 2 minutes.
Perhaps the only way for comedy to survive is to keep it relaxed and gentle (Black Books) rather than manic (Fast Show) and this is why the surrealer of shows (Monty Python) tend to live on in the memory.
I also think that was bloody exhausting.

I don't know, but Goodness Gracious Me just seemed to me like a load of plebby crap, and it was full of racism, but granted most of it was directed to Asians, but there was a lot of indirect stuff about Caucasions. Which I suppose is better than all those awful early 90's black comedy shows that always had Felix Dexter in that were full ot the brim of anti-white racism of the highest hypocritical order. I'd like to see a totally white show ripping the piss put of blacks and see how far that gets on the drawing board, hypocritical arses.

Did we establish how old Steven is, or whether he's just an infinite number of monkeys, tapping away at a keyboard?

what is this "spot the HHGTTG references"?
The racism you mention Steven I always found acceptable because the it was aimed at the people who were watching it. This is why I accpet (But don't like) Harry Enfield's Kevin The Teenager, but don't tolerate his making fun of Germans/French etc.
Do you see?

The "infinite number of monkeys" theory far predates Hitch-Hiker's, although I don't know who actually coined it. Anyone?

Like everything else it was first coined by an infinite number of monkeys.

Although, initially, on only one typewriter.

Distressingly, halfway through the 1972 sleaze classic Deep Throat, in the middle of an intense collage of frantic sexual images, the library music Python used for their "Silly Noises" competition inexplicably fades in, and plays for about a minute. Both the film and the Previous Record were made in 1972, and it's feasibly pure coincidence that they both used this music for such wildly different ends. But the net effect is that it produces some very odd associations. ("Hallo and welcome to 'Silly Noises'." *Slurp*)

Can understand why last posting is anonymous.

Goolie District Catholic Beaver Wideners Club.

Actually, "Goolie" really belongs in that "outdated swearing" thread. But there aren't any other rude words that sound sufficiently like "Goole"... are there?

Goolie District Catholic Beaver Wideners Club?

Actually, "Goolie" really belongs in that "outdated swearing" thread. But there aren't any other rude words that sound sufficiently like "Goole"... are there?

Anyone want to see that posting again?

no!

4 million people? Wow, what a crowd! Anyone here want to tell a joke? You won't get an audience like this again.

What do you get if you cross a comedian with a crowd this size?

>Comedy fans (please prove this to be true, people) are more prepared to talk about the mechanics / failures / successes / rationales behind their beloved shows than, say, Sci Fi fans, who are always going on about tedious plot inconsistencies...

That's because practically all science-fiction uses plot, and a lot of comedy, e.g. sketch comedy is a string of ideas, and so the only thing to discuss is
mechanics/rationale/etc...

not much of a punchline, but it'll do

>I don't know, but Goodness Gracious Me just seemed to me like a load of plebby crap, and it was full of racism, but granted most of it was directed to Asians, but there was a lot of indirect stuff about Caucasions. Which I suppose is better than all those awful early 90's black comedy shows that always had Felix Dexter in that were full ot the brim of anti-white racism of the highest hypocritical order. I'd like to see a totally white show ripping the piss put of blacks and see how far that gets on the drawing board, hypocritical arses.

To defend Steven here (not a familiar stance for me, but I do like to do six impossible things before breakfast) . GGM WAS a show that was never keen to identify itself as an 'anti-racist' comedy show, it observed many different cultures and took the mickey out of it.

Problem was, much of it's comedy was derived from a particular style of sketch - role reversal - people 'going for an english', which limited its shelf-life.

Once that was exhausted, it did started fall into the predictable race-baiting stuff that other, lesser 'ethnic' comedy shows do. It picked its targets in a lazy way, the 'Man in Black' song having a go at Al Jolson particularly annoyed me.

Al Jolson=racist. Very lazy.

Mr Jolson was a man of his time, performing forty years before american blacks were even given the same rights as whites; even though his act is clearly offensive today, he was clearly anti-slavery, and often showed the black underdog getting the better of his white master.

But all that doesn't matter when zeeb in a writer's meeting suddenly pipes up 'Men in Black! We can do a piss-take song about Al, Jolson, can't we?'

>What do you get if you cross a comedian with a crowd this size?
>

"Newman And Baddiel Live And In Pieces"

Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear the punchline over the noise of all these crazed screaming girls.

>To defend Steven here (not a familiar stance for me, but I do like to do six impossible things before breakfast) . GGM WAS a show that was never keen to identify itself as an 'anti-racist' comedy show, it observed many different cultures and took the mickey out of it.
>
>Problem was, much of it's comedy was derived from a particular style of sketch - role reversal - people 'going for an english', which limited its shelf-life.
>
>Once that was exhausted, it did started fall into the predictable race-baiting stuff that other, lesser 'ethnic' comedy shows do. It picked its targets in a lazy way, the 'Man in Black' song having a go at Al Jolson particularly annoyed me.
>
>Al Jolson=racist. Very lazy.
>
>Mr Jolson was a man of his time, performing forty years before american blacks were even given the same rights as whites; even though his act is clearly offensive today, he was clearly anti-slavery, and often showed the black underdog getting the better of his white master.
>
>But all that doesn't matter when zeeb in a writer's meeting suddenly pipes up 'Men in Black! We can do a piss-take song about Al, Jolson, can't we?'

I agree - I also thought that sketch was weak. But it wasn't racist. GGM was *never* racist. Nor was the Real McCoy (unless you're Nigerian). Why shouldn't black or asian comics poke fun at the way they are perceived by the white majority? I have never seen any racism perpetrated by black or asian people in these programmes - I mean let's face it Felix Dexter is hardly Louis Farrakhan is he?

That's not true, I've seen plenty of racism in those programs, I remember one sketch in one of those Felix Dexter shows having a black man in a suit with briefcase try check into a hotel and the white hotel clerk point him to the toilets to clean then, because he assumes him to be the toilet cleaner and not a customer because of his colour, the rest of the sketch carried on this way with the black person going over that he is a customer and the smarmy clerk brushing him off as lower class riff raff because of his colour. This is perfectly acceptable to the BBC but stuff like the policeman wearing shades and calling a white bloke a 'darkie' gets cut because it is deemed racist by the BBC. GGM was also full of racism, but most of it was directed to the actual race of the comedians themselves, but I doubt all Indians watching the show would be pleased at such behaviour and wouldn't all think that the writers should be allowed to be the arbiters of taste in this respect. But my personal opinion was that GGM was extremely cheap and tacky, the only people I knew who loved it were incredibly shallow and pathetic idiots who had IQ's lower than their shoe size and liked to walk around quoting lines from the show and laughing in that annoying manner that is similar to a pneumatic drill, but that's just my personal experience.

But that's not racist! It's a sketch *about* racism - about the attitudes many, many black people endure in elitist, white-dominated environments. It certainly doesn't sound very funny, and does sound very ham-fisted, but it's not racist.

And I don't understand your point about GGM being racist because Asian comedians mocked their own culture. does this mean Python were racist for lampooning the British class system? Or Jackie Mason is racist for making jokes about Jews?

This is the dictionary definition of racism:
1) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others.
2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

GGM and The Real McCoy clearly do not fit this definition. Ergo they are not racist. They may not have always, or even often, been funny (though I thought the first series of GGM was). But they are not racist.

>Sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear the punchline over the noise of all these crazed screaming girls.

sorry, I'll be quiet now.

>But that's not racist! It's a sketch *about* racism - about the attitudes many, many black people endure in elitist, white-dominated environments. It certainly doesn't sound very funny, and does sound very ham-fisted, but it's not racist.

Well, that's just how it seemed to me, it had and air of smugness surrounding it. A lot of the sketches seemed to involve a token white guy being really racist to them and them all being innocent and showing him up for the biggot he is. But isn't this completely racist in itself? That all the white people in the show should be racist and assume black people to be toilet cleaners and not customers like anybody else. I don't know but I just got the feeling that they were being incredibly hypocritical, they were categorising all whites as racist towards black people, which is just as bad as black people all assuming whites are racist, which IS racist!

And racism aside I just thought Goodness Gracious Me was crap, it was even more plebby than the Fast Show, which was ok but was basically the same jokes every week for 3 series.

>A lot of the sketches seemed to involve a token white guy being really racist to them and them all being innocent and showing him up for the biggot he is. But isn't this completely racist in itself? That all the white people in the show should be racist and assume black people to be toilet cleaners and not customers like anybody else.

Not having been black or Asian, you're unlikely to have encountered this kind of attitude from white people. Anyone who happens to have been black or Asian over the past forty years, however, has had to endure more than their fair share of it, and frankly it's only fair that now they get to make jokes about it. It's only twenty odd years ago that "The Comedians" was deemed perfectly acceptable on terrestrial TV, and that was more racist than GGM has ever been. (Though I am concerned about the lazy way they use "Punjabi" for an easy laugh, like the Manning crowd used to use "Irish" or "Paki"...)

"This is perfectly acceptable to the BBC but stuff like the policeman wearing shades and calling a white bloke a 'darkie' gets cut because it is deemed racist by the BBC."

You mean that scene in The Young Ones? It was cut by Paul Jackson (the original producer) from the repeats because he had some complaints that, contrary to intentions, some white kids mimicked the language of it... SOTCAA had an article about this, we really need it at a time like this.

The full-length version is still available, anyway. Isn't it?

The 1st series of "The Grimleys" had a bit where the Brian Conley character met a black character and assumed he was a bin-man. I suppose you'll say that's racist.

Virtually the scene thing happens in the only clip I've ever seen of "Love Thy Neighbour", from the 1st episode, when the black family are moving in. So for the sake of consistency you should say the same thing about that. Which is quite an original view of LTN.

"I suppose you'll say that's racist."

I mean: following your earlier point, you'll say it's racist against white people.

I've given up trying to follow anybody's point on this thread. Can't we just go back to talking about Monty Python?

Steven, for future reference it's 'bigot', not 'biggot'.

And now for something completely different...
stuff about Monty Python.

Hmm yeah, there should be a lot of more talk about Python on this board in general. But anyway, I am very against racism and it just annoyed me to see after all the years minorities such as blacks and asians have endured, and they finally get their own all black or all asian comedy show, and they use it to be racist towards whites, this is incredibly hypocritical they are just doing exactly what they are condeming. I mean as I said aside from the racism front I thought GGM was crap anyway, but a lot of it seemed to be about taking the piss out of Indians and/or whites, they usually avoided it face on by just doing role reversal, having the asians pretend to be white instead of actually having token white actors to look stupid for them, or having a group of Indians go to the 'English' for an English meal and then take the piss out of all the food names. I mean I don't think this is clever in any way, it is just racist on a very petty level and not very entertaining in my view.

I just thought GGM was funny, though I only saw the 1st series. Real McCoy had good bits, though I don't remember it too well. I remember Meera Syal being good in it, and Felix Dexter.

I thought a lot of GGM was very funny, mainly because.....(drum roll) they wrote good jokes and funny characters.

If you want to look at the English Restaurant sketch, then there is an element of inverse racism there, but I don't find it offensive because a) they're taking the piss out of themselves at the same time b) we were racist first anyway and c) its well written and funny. At the end of the day, its the jokes that matter, not the racism or otherwise. Some of Bernard Manning's racist material is funny, when he can be bothered to think of original jokes.

I know it's a Python thread - and I'd like to let it go but I really can't.

I don't know how often I have to repeat this.

THERE IS *NO* RACISM IN GGM, OR THE REAL MCCOY.

Making jokes, sketches about the way your culture is treated by another dominant culture, or defining and parodying your own cultural identity is not racism. I'm sorry, Steven, but you're wrong. The 'going for an English' sketch is not racist - it is simply an inversion of the 'pissed Brits in a curryhouse' situation - the inversion generating humour. GGM also lampoons the superiority of some Asians in its 'Mr India' sketches ('Shakespeare - Indian.')

GGM and Real McCoy may not be funny but they are unequivocally not racist. If they are racist then so is Monty Python, (which regularly has sketches that spoof cultural/racial stereotypes). But they aren't, so it isn't.

Hear, hear, Al!

>THERE IS *NO* RACISM IN GGM, OR THE REAL MCCOY.

Well that for a start is definitely not true, Real McCoy definitely had racism in it, I remember many sketches that always had a token white guy who was always racist towards the blacks in the show. GGM is definitely not as bad, but I still think it does have racist qualities, and underneath that is a bit crap anyway, definitely not as bad as most stuff you get now, but I could never rate it as a classic in any way.

From above:

>1) the belief that.........intrinsic superiority over others.

All right, if this is the dictionary definition, then I take your point that the sketches are *about* racism rather than themselves racist.

I can't decide if I'm arguing with myself now. I give up.

The Eugene Terrablanche Comedy Half Hour, on the other hand, was.

Racist, that is.

God, this backlash thinking is predictable.
Every time any oppressed group makes some progress in redressing the unfairness of the status quo, the opposite group (who stand to lose ground) starts throwing accusations back at them. For instance, "Loaded" Lad Culture claiming that women had all the power now and it was time men were proud to be men... or Steven earlier on claiming that black and Asian comedy was just "racist to whites".
Calm down. Until you actually get beaten up in Police custody by Felix Dexter and Nina Wadia, you have nothing to fear, Steven.

>God, this backlash thinking is predictable.
>Every time any oppressed group makes some progress in redressing the unfairness of the status quo, the opposite group (who stand to lose ground) starts throwing accusations back at them. For instance, "Loaded" Lad Culture claiming that women had all the power now and it was time men were proud to be men... or Steven earlier on claiming that black and Asian comedy was just "racist to whites".
>Calm down. Until you actually get beaten up in Police custody by Felix Dexter and Nina Wadia, you have nothing to fear, Steven.

Indeed.

And my point is that these shows are not racist. They may not be that funny, but they are not racist. Writing a sketch spoofing white racism is not racist. Simple as that.

Unruly Butter that is bullshit, I never said Asian and Black comedy was racist. I said GGM and Real McCoy were racist, I think you find generalising such issues is exactly how racism comes about. I'm sure if you actually watched some Real McCoy you could see obvious racism, I would say that having one token white on lots of sketches and always have him as a racist is just being a limp racist comment, what if a white comedy show was on with a token black in every sketch who had a bone through his nose with an afro and a spear and was called Uncle Tom, I doubt that would be seen as spoofing racism by some people.

Steven, let it go.

>Unruly Butter that is bullshit, I never said Asian and Black comedy was racist. I said GGM and Real McCoy were racist, I think you find generalising such issues is exactly how racism comes about. I'm sure if you actually watched some Real McCoy you could see obvious racism, I would say that having one token white on lots of sketches and always have him as a racist is just being a limp racist comment, what if a white comedy show was on with a token black in every sketch who had a bone through his nose with an afro and a spear and was called Uncle Tom, I doubt that would be seen as spoofing racism by some people.

It wouldn't be because it wouldn't be. Portraying black people as savages or idiots for the sake of it is racist. Writing and presenting sketches that try to address the bigoted views of (SOME) whites is not racist, it is presenting a sketch dealing with racism. And it would be impossible to do without a white actor playing the racist. Unless the black actors whited up.

I think the problem here is that you are saying that any sketch with a white racist in it is implying all whites are racist. Clearly, in the UK, all racists (or most) are white, but it does not follow that all whites are racists. And I'm sure the writers of GGM and TRM would agree. Whereas your example of the black guy with a bone in his nose simply isn't the same. Traditionally, such representations were ciphers for *all* black people. The racists in TRM are not. And I have watched it by the way, on several occasions.

There is no racism in The Real McCoy or GGM.
Unless you think that black and asian comics dare not criticise white racism, or parody the inconsistencies of their own culture.

No, he'll have to get the last word in.

Prove me wrong...

>No, he'll have to get the last word in.
>
>Prove me wrong...

What and Al doesn't? I think you'll find that's how arguments work, each party puts forward their points and you construct your argument around those points.

Back to what Al said, I do agree with most of what he says, but TRM seemed to have many sketches of this style, it was simply not a one off statement about racism. They were generalising, the sketch concerning the Hotel manager was just petty, it had a very 'clever clever' flavour to it, I could imagine Felix Dexter saying "Ah do you see what I'm doing here, the Hotel Manager actually thinks the black man is a toilet cleaner even though he is quite obviously a successful businessman in suit and tie, but because he's black the guy thinks he MUST be some sort of tramp ho ho ho!". The sketch was obviously full of bullshit, I doubt he was trying to say oh look we are showing an example of white racism, rather he was saying oh look at white people and their merciless racism against anybody no matter what profession or creed they lead.

And saying I have to get the last word in is stupid, I enjoy Al putting his points forward, and I agree with some, but not all, and simply put forward my impression, I doubt there's much harm in that.

In the cause of peace, I will have last word.

>In the cause of peace, I will have last word.

Right! You - 'Jon'. Outside! Now!

OK. While we're out, why doesn't someone start a discussion about Monty Python in this thread?

Sorry, Jon, I feel myself getting drawn back into the argument....

Steven, I think you're really reading far too much into these TRM sketches. From what I remember, the gist of the show was more or less what you described: sketches poking fun at racist attitudes. The "ho ho ho, the black guy is a businessman, but the white guy thinks he must be here to fix the drains" was a common thread (although it was far from being the only type of sketch they did).

Was this lazy? Yeah, maybe. Depends on whether you laughed or not, I suppose. I did.

Was this racist? No, it wasn't. TRM wasn't saying black people are superior to white people, and they weren't saying all white people are racist, just as TGP isn't saying that all Australian barmaids are sex-obsessed. It's a character, a stereotype - something on which almost all comedy is based. Stereotyping isn't racism unless you start actually believing in the stereotypes. Writing a comedy sketch does not imply you think the stereotypes exist in the real world.

Yeah Stuart, I agree with you, but I don't know, to me those TRM sketches didn't seem like they were poking fun at racism itself, but just at whites being racist, and I didn't think it came across as the blacks being superior, rather that they were just being hypocritical, loathing and battling against racism then doing it themselves.

Let me throw this in the pot. In one GGM sketch the Coopers, an Asian couple, are shown being racially prejudiced against a black man. Is this racist against Asians?

That was addressed to Steven

see title of thread (again)

>Yeah Stuart, I agree with you, but I don't know, to me those TRM sketches didn't seem like they were poking fun at racism itself, but just at whites being racist, and I didn't think it came across as the blacks being superior, rather that they were just being hypocritical, loathing and battling against racism then doing it themselves.

Steven - read back what you've written. How is poking fun at whites being racist not poking fun at racism? More to the point, how could a black comedy sketch show write a sketch about racism without depicting it in its most common form - i.e. white people being racist towards blacks? Secondly, if the black comedians are not positing themselves as racially superior then they're not being racist. QED.

Al, I didn't mean racist in a physical way, I don't know just that the sketchs came across as very smug at least to my mind. And appeared to me to be more about whites being incredibly arrogant and blacks being nice and civil, which is what it came across like in the sketch. I saw these sketches when I was like 11 or 12 and these are just the impressions I got from them, wether they were the true meanings the writers had for them I don't know, but I just got a very bad impression from them. Anyway let's talk more about Monty Python here, or in another thread, the Real McCoy is hardly worth all this discussion.

You're right Steven, at least half right. None of this is worth discussion.

Incidentally, how old are you, Steven? Between 16 and 18? Just curious, and NOT being ageist. Or racist.

Right, let's talk about Monty Python.

What about Terry Gilliam, in 1983, dressed as an African native, unzipping his black skinned costume and emerging dressed as a white waiter, then delivering his line in a 1920s Mushmouf Uncle Tom voice?

Is that racist?

>You're right Steven, at least half right. None of this is worth discussion.
>

None of this is worth discussion? I can't agree with that. The same points are being repeated now, but they were interesting reading the first time round.

>Right, let's talk about Monty Python.
>
>What about Terry Gilliam, in 1983, dressed as an African native, unzipping his black skinned costume and emerging dressed as a white waiter, then delivering his line in a 1920s Mushmouf Uncle Tom voice?
>
>Is that racist?

<Adopts Cooganesque voice>

<shows clip of The Goodies>
Is that racist?
<clip of Ali G>
Is this racist?
<clip of NTNOCN 'Constable Savage' sketch>
Is this racist?
<clip of policeman on The Young Ones>
Is this racist?

Am I being racist now? Well am I? Am I really racist? Do I look racist? Do I really look racist?

<Chris Morris voice>
Yes or no? You decide...

"I didn't mean racist in a physical way"

Now what does that mean?

Steven, consider this: if some Jewish comedians did a sketch poking fun at the attitudes of an anti-semite, would you say that was racist for implying that all gentiles are anti-semitic? I wouldn't.

If TRM/GGM ONLY ever portrayed whites as racist, you could say there was a racist agenda at work... but they didn't, I know because I saw it with my own eyes.

>Right, let's talk about Monty Python.
>
>What about Terry Gilliam, in 1983, dressed as an African native, unzipping his black skinned costume and emerging dressed as a white waiter, then delivering his line in a 1920s Mushmouf Uncle Tom voice?
>
>Is that racist?


If anything Python is far more consistently guilty of being homophobic than racist.

>>Right, let's talk about Monty Python.
>>
>>What about Terry Gilliam, in 1983, dressed as an African native, unzipping his black skinned costume and emerging dressed as a white waiter, then delivering his line in a 1920s Mushmouf Uncle Tom voice?
>>
>>Is that racist?
>
>If anything Python is far more consistently guilty of being homophobic than racist.

But was this just Graham Chapman making tounge-in-cheek jokes about how gay people are treated, that few people at the time took as tounge-in-cheek as most people were still homophobic back then?

Hmm. I take that point, but I also think the original shows are just homophobic- numerous limp-wristed stereotype 'pooves', and I think Terry Jones may have aluded to the collective Python guilt over this in one of the many retrospective documentaries.

>I'm sure theres some reason why "A & E Entertainment" can release the thing in The US, while the BBC are more interested in pumping out Royle Family and Only Fools and Horses DVD's over here.


A&E Entertainmenmt are bastards, and the majority of diehard MP fans in the USA that know what's going on aren't buying from them.

A&E showed Monty Python on Wednesday and sunday nights, at about 10, interspersed with advertisments for the DVD. Episodes were chopped about, manhandled and generally prison-raped. Then A&E changed the timeslot of the showing - a different time every week, then totally dropped it, without explanation.

Inter-company memo and rumor mill reveals that they stopped showing when enough people had bought the DVD / interest in the DVD was piqued enough for them to make a profit.

Bastards, eh?

>Hmm. I take that point, but I also think the original shows are just homophobic- numerous limp-wristed stereotype 'pooves', and I think Terry Jones may have aluded to the collective Python guilt over this in one of the many retrospective documentaries.

There was that sort of thing in The Goodies too. I wish I could think of an example, but I imagine that other comedies of that time would have been a lot nastier towards gays though. At least The Pythons and The Goodies knew, liked and had worked with Graham Chapman. Because of this their treatment of gays is not really that nasty, it was just stereotyped.

That's my take on the gay/black thing with Python too. (And why I brought up Gilliam's African Native in the furst place).

I think there's a subtle difference between INCLUDING a stereotype in a joke, and using a stereotype as the ENTIRE set-up, development and punchline of a joke.

Python's pooves / natives etc are used in the same way they use firemen and doctors - stock figures from a then-current set of cultural archetypes. Very very rarely is there any implication of superiority / inferiority, which would be required if the routines were to be truly racist or homophobic.

Good article with Scott Capurro in the Graun today, about a lot of this stuff:

http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4095071,00.html