Not anyone at the NME though - we'd prefer someone who can string a sentence together

Hmph.

Myself and Velvet should get hold of an original copy, so will let you know if/when we do.

I thought you weren't supposed to mention it, Joe. I mean, just imagine who might look in this forum. Just imagine.

What, like Victor Lewis-Smith?

>If anybody has a copy, can they do an editspotting job on the differences between it and the transmitted version - either here on the forum, or at the SOTCAA address?
>
There's a definite 'editspotting' moment during the scene with Pegg in the stocks. Morris is arguing that he effectively said that he wanted to have sex with his son ("You did". "I didn't" etc.) The camera cuts to "Swanchita" who mutters something about it being "so.....". When Morris reappears, his voice says "He did", but he mouths something competely different.
Are there any professional lip-readers/deaf people who can confirm this?

it's definitely there, but as far as i can see he just says 'yes' rather than 'he did' which seems a pointless overdub.

It's been mooted elsewhere that the scene was overdubbed to protect the child actor from the material. I'm inclined to believe this. They could've done a better job of it though. Unless they wanted it to be obvious, to deter "corruption" accusations?

We don't know how much was cut out, though. I think it was a fairly large amount, probably said by Pegg. And I think it was taken out for apparently justifying in some way the act of the paedophile.

A huge guess, admittedly. Although it might just have given the programme a little more focus.

Yes, that scene, as it stands, seems totally unnecessary. It's not particularly funny and it makes almost no point.

I don't know if everyone else plays second guessing games with comedy, trying to pre-empt in your mind where you think a sketch is going, but to me it looked as if we were being set up for Morris to get angry that Pegg didn't want to screw his son.

"Why don't you fancy him? He's beautiful! How dare you insult my son?" thus exposing the hypocrisy inherent in parents thinking their child is beautiful, whilst considering a paedophile who felt the same way as "sick".

It's telling that this scene is the one that keeps getting referred to in tabloid outrage pieces, since it is the weakest, most indefensible bit of the programme. With all the edits it's just there to shock and has little comedy or satirical value.

> to me it looked as if we were being set up for Morris to get angry that Pegg didn't want to screw his son.

Bang on. It felt that way, and I was sincerely hoping that's where it would go. But it didn't.

And as for the child actor being "exposed", there's a shot containing the child where Chris says "you want to have sex with my son" without actually indicating the kid, but all the rest of the time when Chris is apparently pointing at him and urging the paedophile to say he finds him attractive, the kid is out of shot and therefore, I suggest, wasn't actually there when those bits were shot.

That weird edit at the end of the sketch is all over the place, though - it looks for all the world like Doon's character actually finished her sentence, but they've cut in Chris's voice early to interrupt her. And I can't make out what he's saying underneath the shoddily dubbed "You did".

This could have been the pivotal bit of the show, but clearly they bottled it. However if they cut material out for fear that it would offend, as opposed to time reasons, then in the light of the subsequent outroar they might as well have gone for broke and left it in.

I've only just had a chance to see it (making me as well informed as most of the people who want to go to the South of France and burn CM in a giant wicker phallus). I laughed loads. Almost as much as at the Spinal Tap DVD, which I saw on Saturday. But then Spinal Tap is a lot longer.

The intention of this bit was obvious to me until I read this thread - there are two sets of expectations, Morris's assumption that Pegg is going to say "Yes", so that he can triumphantly be pointed at and vilified. Our expectation when he says no that Morris is going to go into a strop about the obvious beauty of his son. This is further confounded, because he realises that that isn't an allowable tack. So he calls on his co-presenters to support his contention that Pegg had "in effect" admitted it. It doesn't look to me as though it's been botched or bottled at all.

Certainly a bit of a curate's egg, though.

>> to me it looked as if we were being set up for Morris to get angry that Pegg didn't want to screw his son.
>
>Bang on. It felt that way, and I was sincerely hoping that's where it would go.

I thought that was going to happen, but I distinctly remember being in a hypercritical mood and thinking "Oh bloody hell, this is just like something out of Blue Jam. He's going to say, why don't you fancy him? What's wrong with his arse? etc."

There's a story about the Pythons on tour where they all had bedroom company for the night apart from Graham Chapman. Terry Jones joked that he'd sleep with Chapman as a favour. Chapman replied 'Well, don't take this the wrong way...but you're not my type'. 'Why NOT?, squealed Jones, indignantly.

It's such a traditional joke.

Yeah, but that's why it would have made such a brilliant point about the hypocrisy of parental ideas of child beauty. You'd have completely accepted the logical pattern of the joke, due to its overfamiliarity and naturalness, then suddenly baulked at its implication.

I'd really have liked that.

They should have let me write the special. I'd have been great at it. They let everyone else...

Hey! Let's do the show right here!

(dresses up as paedophile.)

Perhaps Charlie Brooker should release a book caled "How to work with Morris", a bit like that book The KLF did about No. 1's. He could talkd you through the idiots guide that cannot fail to get you some kind of credit own the show, just by ripping off the amn himself, but using something new (i.e. maybe a mobile phone?)

>Hey! Let's do the show right here!
>
>(dresses up as paedophile.)

You know, that kind of suits you.

>>Hey! Let's do the show right here!
>>
>>(dresses up as paedophile.)
>
>You know, that kind of suits you.

Oh *really*! How old are you?



No, really, how old are you?

>I've only just had a chance to see it (making me as well informed as most of the people who want to go to the South of France and burn CM in a giant wicker phallus). I laughed loads. Almost as much as at the Spinal Tap DVD, which I saw on Saturday. But then Spinal Tap is a lot longer.
>
>The intention of this bit was obvious to me until I read this thread - there are two sets of expectations, Morris's assumption that Pegg is going to say "Yes", so that he can triumphantly be pointed at and vilified. Our expectation when he says no that Morris is going to go into a strop about the obvious beauty of his son. This is further confounded, because he realises that that isn't an allowable tack. So he calls on his co-presenters to support his contention that Pegg had "in effect" admitted it. It doesn't look to me as though it's been botched or bottled at all.
>
>
Morris's reactions during the whole Pegg thing were way too Alan Partridge: 'Good! Er...actually!'

Those looking for the BES bootleg tape could do worse than check into any of Her Majesty's Prisons around the country where, according to reports in The Mail, they're flying from convict to convict.

> Morris's reactions during the whole Pegg thing were way too Alan Partridge: 'Good! Er...actually!

Morris invented Partridge, the edgy interviewer, so he has every right to use Partridge devices. Especially since they are Morris devices that have been stolen.

>> Morris's reactions during the whole Pegg thing were way too Alan Partridge: 'Good! Er...actually!
>
> Morris invented Partridge, the edgy interviewer, so he has every right to use Partridge devices. Especially since they are Morris devices that have been stolen.

1) No, Lee & Herring "invented" Partridge (or at least wrote the early Partridge sketches for OTH), with some apparent input from Armando Iannucci and, presumably, Coogan himself.

2) Even if he had devised the Partridge idiom, Morris delivered the imitations on the BES as contemptuous, lazy, ally-pleasing tics. Stealing your own material? Fucking it up, more like.
>

>
>>2) Even if he had devised the Partridge idiom, Morris delivered the imitations on the BES as contemptuous, lazy, ally-pleasing tics. Stealing your own material? Fucking it up, more like.
>>
Exactly.If the Wright Brothers built a plane that crashed and killed everyone on board, you wouldn't say 'Yes, but they invented planes, they've every right to make bad ones' would you?

And if anyone thinks BES is different to that example because it doesn't affect anyone, just take a look at this forum.

Morris and Patridge are similar because they came from the same background of comedy. The same can be said of The Goodies and The Pythons. Same background, similar humour. They did similar jokes, they used similar language.

(If you want to continue this analogy you can claim that one has an almost mainstream following and is widely loved by the media and the other has a cult following and is generally hated by the media. No prizes for guess which is which.)

I think your analogy is the wrong way round, though. The Goodies were much more popular than Monty Python at the time, though. It's the fact that Python is seen as more ground-breaking that has given it its classic status.

I suspect in years to come that Partidge, while popular now, may be conciled to the Do You Remember? file, while Morris will be hailed as a ground-breaking genius and will get all the repeats.

Do I win a prize?

This wasn't my main point, but...

>I think your analogy is the wrong way round, though. The Goodies were much more popular than Monty Python at the time, though. It's the fact that Python is seen as more ground-breaking that has given it its classic status.

Very true. Though it's a great shame people don't get to see The Goodies these days.

>I suspect in years to come that Partidge, while popular now, may be conciled to the Do You Remember? file, while Morris will be hailed as a ground-breaking genius and will get all the repeats.

I wonder what the reaction to the BES will be in 20 years time. Hopefully people will realise that it was a topic perfect for satire, but that the satire was done very badly.

>Do I win a prize?

Yes, you win a boxset of Goodies videos and Jane Root's head on a stick. Plus JLB8's new album. On cassette.

Sorry, I did agree with your main point. I always sound very cynical on this forum, I don't know why. I'm not like this in real life :-)

>Yes, you win a boxset of Goodies videos and Jane Root's head on a stick. Plus JLB8's new album. On cassette.

But I wanted the moon on a stick! I suppose Jane Root will have to do.

>Sorry, I did agree with your main point. I always sound very cynical on this forum, I don't know why. I'm not like this in real life :-)

Don't worry. I was being a bit sarcy myself. Not that I've ever done that in real life... <CLEARS THROAT>

>>Yes, you win a boxset of Goodies videos and Jane Root's head on a stick. Plus JLB8's new album. On cassette.
>
>But I wanted the moon on a stick! I suppose Jane Root will have to do.

She's got lovely hair for you to platt.

Dunno which thread to mention this in. May as well put it here, since I can also add that for my money Morris's hurt that his son wasn't "good enough", was all there, done with the face and the pauses rather than dialogue-which-makes-the-point, and was all the better for it. If you will.

Anyway, the thing I wanted to bring up was the repeat of NEVER MIND THE BUZZCOCKS during the firstish week of the hunt for Sara(h?) Payne's body -- Lamarr introduced a clip of the St. Winnefred's School Choir by saying "and for those of you who don't remember, here's a little snatch". Does anyone know if BBC2/TalkBack/Lamarr got done for this?

UB, on the Pegg-in-stocks scene:

>With all the edits it's just there to shock and has little comedy or satirical value.

Don't agree, but it's a reasonable point. However, since it's played and timed the same way as the "twelve/twirly" scene was in 'Sex', is that equally lacking in comedy or (or???) satirical value?

>Don't agree, but it's a reasonable point. However, since it's played and timed the same way as the "twelve/twirly" scene was in 'Sex', is that equally lacking in comedy or (or???) satirical value?

Do you laugh at it?

>
>Anyway, the thing I wanted to bring up was the repeat of NEVER MIND THE BUZZCOCKS during the firstish week of the hunt for Sara(h?) Payne's body -- Lamarr introduced a clip of the St. Winnefred's School Choir by saying "and for those of you who don't remember, here's a little snatch". Does anyone know if BBC2/TalkBack/Lamarr got done for this?

at the recording of Buzzcocks in February this year, Lamarr, in the pre-filming warm up bit, said he would like to take Charlotte church's "arse cherry".

anyone else have any stories of Lamarr's humourous take on child sex?

Isn't Lamarr reputed to have made some backstage highly off-colour gag about Billie Piper when she was on the show about three years ago? Which was overheard by her mum who was standing mere feet away.

>>Don't agree, but it's a reasonable point. However, since it's played and timed the
>>same way as the "twelve/twirly" scene was in 'Sex', is that equally lacking in comedy
>>or (or???) satirical value?
>
>Do you laugh at it?

Yes.

>>>Don't agree, but it's a reasonable point. However, since it's played and timed the
>>>same way as the "twelve/twirly" scene was in 'Sex', is that equally lacking in comedy
>>>or (or???) satirical value?
>>
>>Do you laugh at it?
>
>Yes.

Really?

(Christ this conversation is slow.)

>>>>Don't agree, but it's a reasonable point. However, since it's played and timed the
>>>>same way as the "twelve/twirly" scene was in 'Sex', is that equally lacking in comedy
>>>>or (or???) satirical value?
>>>
>>>Do you laugh at it?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>Really?

Yes.

>(Christ this conversation is slow.)

Yes. (I could liven it up by posting my detailed thesis on why the Special, far being "funny, but not as good as the originals", pissed all over the repeats from a very, very great height.)

>Yes. (I could liven it up by posting my detailed thesis on why the Special, far being "funny, but not as good as the originals", pissed all over the repeats from a very, very great height.)

rather than a detailed thesis, how about a short essay?

Without wanting to start up yet another damn BES thread, I thought this would be the best place to post my query about the 'self confessed paedophile' interviewed during the programme. On another forum, I've heard at least two people say that it was in fact Patrick Marber dressed up as a 'slot badger'. I found this v.hard to believe, as
(a) Patrick Marber played no part (as far as I know) in any of the other Brass Eyes.
(b) Patrick Marber isn't THAT good an actor.
(c) The joke only really works if the person is/was a paedophile.
(d)Um..that's it.

>(c) The joke only really works if the person is/was a paedophile.

the fact that we don't know for certain spoils the scene a bit but what could they do.

>Without wanting to start up yet another damn BES thread, I thought this would be the
>best place to post my query about the 'self confessed paedophile' interviewed during the
>programme. On another forum, I've heard at least two people say that it was in fact
>Patrick Marber dressed up as a 'slot badger'. I found this v.hard to believe,
>as

Me too. I'd rather assumed it was like the street dealers in 'Drugs' - almost certainly the real thing, but you could hardly interview them in the studio, give their names, etc.

Does NAMBLA have a British equivalent?

> anyone else have any
> stories of Lamarr's
> humourous take on
> child sex?

Or *any* non-satiricismal references to fucking kids which have been regarded as a good laff? (My intention wasn't to create a Bad Lamarr thread mutation.)

Plus where did the interview take place?

It looked like either an asylum/hospital or Kew Gardens.

I think 'Peter' has been interviewed on C4 before - on the documentary 'The Devil Among Us', where he wasn't filmed in shades *or* long shot. He lives in a mansion or something.

When I mentioned a bootleg tape, I actually meant an unauthorised version of the programme as finally broadcast. Not sure about any earlier versions.

>Plus where did the interview take place?
>
>It looked like either an asylum/hospital or Kew Gardens.

The bit with the robotic paedo looked like Highbury Fields.