Met Warren Mitchell once. Couldn’t imagine anyone less like Alf Garnett. Studied at Oxford and RADA. Proper lefty.
Was backstage at The Criterion theatre back in the late seventies as the fireman that theatres used to have to employ for each performance. Duty to drop the fire curtain at the interval etc. Watched Warren Mitchell perform his “Thoughts of Chairman Alf” one man show from the side of the stage. Part of his act was to swig from a half bottle of Teachers whisky which I presumed to be apple juice or cold tea. He finished a half bottle first act and opened a new half bottle for the second half performance. Found out when the performance had finished that both were actually bottles of whisky. He didn’t seem the slightest bit pissed and as stated above was charming and quite posh to chat to. Charming man.
This forum does seem to have a very high propensity of extreme left wing snowflakes, who's views are 100% correct, and enlighting for us older members, who by being born in the fifties and sixties are deemed racist bigoted, right wing, Thatcher loving Nazi scum.
On behalf of my parents I apologise to you all for being born 30 years to early and missing out on the utopian world that you all dwell in.
And by not supporting your views, does not mean I support the opposite, it just means . I am from an age, where I believe a variety of elements can make up a world. An not that I personally am the only one who is 100% right.
I'm an extreme left wing snowflake who was born in the 60s.
I think the terminology you use here indicates the extent of your broadmindedness.
As as we are going on about unfunny comedians what about jo brand? Slagging off food banks or joking about throwing battery acid Over people?
Double standards as per across the board
i saw jim at the orchard the other week was a sell out so still pretty popular he slagged off Crystal Palace and made lots of Charlton references.
people are getting pissed because he made a comment about Sadiq khan who I do not think is very good at his job, this isn’t because he’s labour or Asian, I am aware that that is the only reason not to like him.
The modern day people are offended by everything just the way of modern life.
As as we are going on about unfunny comedians what about jo brand? Slagging off food banks or joking about throwing battery acid Over people?
Double standards as per across the board
i saw jim at the orchard the other week was a sell out so still pretty popular he slagged off Crystal Palace and made lots of Charlton references.
people are getting pissed because he made a comment about Sadiq khan who I do not think is very good at his job, this isn’t because he’s labour or Asian, I am aware that that is the only reason not to like him.
The modern day people are offended by everything just the way of modern life.
You're correct, cant believe people have not detected other comedians more on a thread about JD
Of course many if not most comedians will say it isn't their job to maintain standards, just be funny. Challenging humour can be thought provoking and healthy. I would imagine that is Jim's position, as it is also Rcky Gervais'. Then it is surely up to individuals to find them funny or not find them funny. There isn't a leftie conspiracy here - we will all have reasons why we like one type of humour and not another. In fact by suggesting there is one, isn't it the righties being the snowflakes?
Comedy is very interesting as it is so complicated. I recall a story Frank Skinner told that I thought was funny. It was about when he was a kid going to the dentist and having to be put under. Then afterwards his underpants were on back to front and he didn't know whether that was his mistake or...... When you think about that, it can't possibly be funny - it is a story about potential child abuse.
But the way Skinner told it it was. Had somebody else told it saying how it has ruined their life it wouldn't be remotely funny. Maybe if it was reported in the papers, Frank Skinner thinks child abuse is funny, we would not think much of him. I suppose the story worked, because the teller was the victim and was clearly not damaged by it and thought it funny themselves, but it does highlight that comedy doesn't really have set rules.
This "oh so you're offended about them being offended" logic that keeps cropping up makes absolutely no sense whatsoever imo. People make a point of declaring something / someone offensive (in this case JD's material and Tweets) and a debate ensues. To then start saying the above, even when said "tongue in cheek", is not correct and not even the slightest bit funny imo
I think this is a Straw Man argument? Could be wrong though.....
Some people are offended by Jim and some people are offended by Ricky Gervais it is part and parcel of being a comedian. You can't generalise people. There are loose rules, and they are confusing but punching down (as a poster described it on here) doesn't always work well if people perceive they may be actually your views. Now I don't think Jim is against food banks and he is making a joke, but if Ricky Gervais made the same joke, he would not be criticised as much for it because people think the butt of the joke is meant to be himself. I think Jim's comment was meant in the same way but he hasn't set the boundaries so clearly.
Anyway, nobody has suggested he should not be allowed to have an act, and that people shouldn't be allowed to watch him or find him funny. So there is nothing to be defensive about and it has generated an interesting conversation IMO.
In the 2010's, Ricky Gervais gets a laugh out of kids with terminal cancer, and if you don't find the joke funny, or you find if offensive, you're stupid. What JD done 30 odd years back, still offends.
I personally don't find either that funny, but also think it's difficult to have one without the other
Some people are offended by Jim and some people are offended by Ricky Gervais it is part and parcel of being a comedian. You can't generalise people. There are loose rules, and they are confusing but punching down (as a poster described it on here) doesn't always work well if people perceive they may be actually your views. Now I don't think Jim is against food banks and he is making a joke, but if Ricky Gervais made the same joke, he would not be criticised as much for it because people think the butt of the joke is meant to be himself. I think Jim's comment was meant in the same way but he hasn't set the boundaries so clearly.
Anyway, nobody has suggested he should not be allowed to have an act, and that people shouldn't be allowed to watch him or find him funny. So there is nothing to be defensive about and it has generated an interesting conversation IMO.
I think the difference is Davidson is a tory and right wing comedian so maybe he struggles to separate what he believes and what he says for comedic effect. Gervais says offensive jokes as part of his comedy act, outside of that he is generally likable person
As someone who has worked, shopped, socialised in Central London for 26 years, lived in and had my whole family based in inner London and its suburbs all my life, i personally don't really see any noticeable change in London under the Mayorship of Khan from Johnson from Livingston. They have very little impact.
There's a whole heap of society issues that have impacted upon society changes (take for example the hot topic of increase in knife crime) but i don't see any real difference in direction and governship under any different mayor. So for that reason i think people that blame Johnson for ruining their city or Khan for ruining their city are just looking for an excuse to wage their political spite.
Probabably one for the House of Commoners group rather than the main board
You wouldn’t be saying this if you had to drive a cab for a living. So your saying you haven’t seen any changes in London under the 3 mayors. Your either blind or they are not doing the job they were elected to do. The latest disaster ‘ Mayor Khant’ and I have spelt that right is to flood London with an extra 80,000 private hire vehicles and at the same time make the roads smaller by installing cycle lanes then implement the ULEZ zone. I haven’t even began to scratch the surface.
So being Mayor is all about looking after black cab drivers is it?
What is it your not getting. The original poster said he hadn’t seen any changes in London in the last 30 years. I’m not banging on about the cab trade as we’re just a cog in an engine. By cutting down on road size and implementing ULEZ and flooding London with thousands of extra cars is having a detrimental effect on bus journeys, van deliveries and everybody else who use the roads for work and air pollution. I hope you can now understand what I’m saying as I would be saying it even if I was one of the above. Happy Father’s Day.
TBF ricky Gervais is about as funny as finding blood on the toilet roll
Totally agree, although I find it difficult to laugh at anything these days tbh, but the point still stands that people seemingly find one distasteful and not the other. I think people should be able to turn anything into comedy, if delivered in the correct way and in front of the right audience.
I listened to Jimmy Carr's desert island discs interview on podcast the other week and he was asked if there's a subject he just wouldn't touch, his answer? Hillsborough
I have never felt comfortable around jokes about the disabled, I just don’t laugh at them......that’s all.
Me neither, but there's plenty that do. I prefer situation comedy that I can relate to, like Lee Mack, Peter Kay (although he gets a bit much) and Rob Beckett, and I also like quick witted one liners like Mack and Stu Frances. Henning Wehn also cracks me up
I love Henning Wehn on Would I lie to you. Would love to see him live. I have seen 'Would I lie to you' live three times and Mack is very sharp in terms of his spontaneity, almost to the point of genius. BTW, the recordings of that show are 2 hours, sometimes 2.5 hours of sheer hilarity. So much funny stuff can't be used on the TV but that doesn't stop them doing it!
ACAB, how is ULEZ flooding the capital with more cars and vans? It is designed to penalise the most polluting vehicles, and this must reduce the number of such vehicles in central London.
I have never felt comfortable around jokes about the disabled, I just don’t laugh at them......that’s all.
Depends who makes the joke and how well observed it is - I've seen a number of disabled comedians who make jokes about disability. Some comedy is just plain offensive because it's cruel and badly observed.
I have never felt comfortable around jokes about the disabled, I just don’t laugh at them......that’s all.
Depends who makes the joke and how well observed it is - I've seen a number of disabled comedians who make jokes about disability. Some comedy is just plain offensive because it's cruel and badly observed.
Comments
I think the terminology you use here indicates the extent of your broadmindedness.
I'm a Nazi obvs.
Double standards as per across the board
i saw jim at the orchard the other week was a sell out so still pretty popular he slagged off Crystal Palace and made lots of Charlton references.
people are getting pissed because he made a comment about Sadiq khan who I do not think is very good at his job, this isn’t because he’s labour or Asian, I am aware that that is the only reason not to like him.
The modern day people are offended by everything just the way of modern life.
Comedy is very interesting as it is so complicated. I recall a story Frank Skinner told that I thought was funny. It was about when he was a kid going to the dentist and having to be put under. Then afterwards his underpants were on back to front and he didn't know whether that was his mistake or...... When you think about that, it can't possibly be funny - it is a story about potential child abuse.
But the way Skinner told it it was. Had somebody else told it saying how it has ruined their life it wouldn't be remotely funny. Maybe if it was reported in the papers, Frank Skinner thinks child abuse is funny, we would not think much of him. I suppose the story worked, because the teller was the victim and was clearly not damaged by it and thought it funny themselves, but it does highlight that comedy doesn't really have set rules.
I think this is a Straw Man argument? Could be wrong though.....
Anyway, nobody has suggested he should not be allowed to have an act, and that people shouldn't be allowed to watch him or find him funny. So there is nothing to be defensive about and it has generated an interesting conversation IMO.
I personally don't find either that funny, but also think it's difficult to have one without the other
Happy Father’s Day.
I listened to Jimmy Carr's desert island discs interview on podcast the other week and he was asked if there's a subject he just wouldn't touch, his answer? Hillsborough