Russell Brand

On the Observer website, front page, to the left (no pun intended), is David Mitchell’s face, along with a sub heading that says “I’ll tell you what really offends me”. It got my blood boiling, a bit, because I was thinking: pray tell, what is this ironic thing you have decided to be upset* about for entertainment purposes. It’s something about his face. Given I’ve decided to be upset about something for entertainment purposes it may as well be his curmudgeonly** face.

But, as is often the case, he actually said something interesting; not that I’m implying that he doesn’t say interesting things, he does. He’s just got one of those faces. The face of an angry village gardener. He’s one of those people who, when they’ve totally lost their rag, and are angrily berating, could only elicit laughter. Evolution is efficient. There must be a reason for it. Other than everyone being accidental occupants of 1 in 100 billion planets, in an ever expanding universe, we’re all going to die eventually, and there is no god.

He’s annoyed with Hazel Blears. For those of you who aren’t in the UK she’s a kind of news troll, who craves attention in a very sad way, and is pulled out of the sack as often as Polly Toynbee, every time her party, New Labour, fucks up. Her intellectual news repertoire can be defined as such:

• The Tories are worse.
• I agree with the tabloids, but the Tories are worse.
• In my constituency people don’t care.
• We never do anything wrong.
• I’m a common person just like you, I’ll pretend to be as ignorant.
• Tora! Tora! Tora!
• Bloggers are all cynical about politics. (lol)

She’s Polly Toynbee for truly thick people.

Anyway, she had a go at Russell Brand and that knob-end Jonathan Ross, again, by suggesting that they pay a fine the BBC received for that stupid phone call that generated a few headlines. The one with that doddering Manuel bloke (¿¿ qué he hecho yo para merecer esto ??).

Aside from the utter stupidity and bandwagon jumping***, any amount of government expenditure, be it social, or hospitals, or porn, dwarfs in comparison to the government debt generated in the last 9 months. When it comes to this government giving anyone financial advice, or lecturing anyone about waste, or anything of that nature, they are the biggest hypocrites.

I heartily approve of Russell Brand’s Twitter stream, it’s a little bit like his radio show****, without the censorship imposed by a political class that have disappeared up their own arses. It could do with Matt Morgan interjecting occasionally.

And, before I leave you, for some toast, the Tories are a bunch of cocks too. People say that a crippling bad back affects your temperament. They can go fuck themselves.

* Yeah, I know, everything below this point I’m only mildly upset about in real life, and I am actually quite mild and pleasant.
** Thank-you Richard Herring.
*** This blog post could be.  I’m not an impartial judge.
**** If radio wasn’t invented and we had to rely on telegraphs, we’d have something like Twitter.

Recently I had a casual conversation with someone about Simon Amstell’s Never Mind The Buzzcocks, which led to a broader discussion about contemporary comedy. I’m of the opinion that Simon Amstell is very funny, and they were of the opinion that Simon Amstell is nasty and picks on people. It’s indicative of a wide gap between the internet generation (it’s not an age thing – it’s an information thing) and everybody else. I have some opinions on ‘modern’ humour. Just like I possess an anus.

Sex and morality – still a big issue for many, there are a whole generation of people that openly discuss issues that were taboo. In part through things like sex education in schools, in part changing attitudes, and in part because of the internet. There are plenty of subjects that people do not consider shock-worthy. Superficially it seems callous, but in my opinion, honesty does not equal not caring.  Humour based on things that were taboo does not cheapen debate, but signifies willingness to talk openly about issues that were considered in bad taste. It’s the inverse of Victorian double standards. People don’t look the other way. In the previous paragraph I placed modern in quote marks because I believe people like Daniel Defoe, William Hogarth, later Samuel Butler, countless others, did the same thing (some would say they did it better, and the comparison is disproportionate – I agree  – but the point is about precedents). It’s not new.

Take the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross ruckus – moral decline? In some ways I am glad to live in a country that is still shocked by bad behaviour – the exact opposite of moral decline – on the other-hand I think some of the more vitriolic responses to the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross ruckus were driven by people who are unwilling to talk about sex because they think it’s immoral outside of marriage, which is a shame, because it happens. It happened in the past too . When people point to things like teenage pregnancy rates in the UK as a sign of moral decline, it’s worth noting that among the industrialised nations Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and France, have far lower rates of teenage pregnancy, with attitudes towards sex that are far more open than ours. A willingness to talk about sex does not equal immorality, any more than Victorians not talking about sex equalled morality. Nor does it equal ‘the answer’ – I won’t pretend that I think an unwillingness to talk about sex is the reason for the UK and America’s high teenage pregnancy rates. I have no doubt at all that it’s more complicated than that, and requires impartial inquiry, free of the shackles of mere opinion such as this.

If people were campaigning against Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross because they invaded the privacy of Georgina Baillie (whom seems reasonable and intelligent) I think they’ve got a fair point – but they weren’t – they were complaining about it been ‘grossly offensive’. Not a gross invasion of privacy, or good old fashioned bad manners, but an issue of taste, decency, and morality. Combined with a general sense of anger towards the BBC.

I don’t know many people on my side of the debate who thinks what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did was edgy, or anything other than mildly amusing (at best – many people thought it was rubbish – they can both be far funnier), but the reactions to it exposed a divide and a mutual misunderstanding from both sides. As BBC license fee payers those who found the broadcast offensive were absolutely within their rights to complain. But in the rush for judgement many people feel as if their views were ignored because they were not suitably incensed or represented. I felt quite angry about that at the time, and was as rabid, or worse, than the people I criticised. I was wrong and I regret that. Retrospect is a fine thing. Emotions running high do not lead to a quality debate or bode well for free speech.

Honesty being mistaken for nastiness – Simon Amstell’s humour is based on honesty. His stand up and his presenting. When he is picking on some celebrity he doesn’t do so with anything other than the truth. This is no more apparent when a celebrity on Never Mind The Buzzcocks (available on iPlayer here) says something along the lines of ‘yeah – so what’ and the audience applauds. I think this is a natural Twenty First Century reaction to Twentieth Century celebrity. PR, image making, to an extent the machinery of media production, is no longer transparent to the audience, and people like Simon Amstell are a reaction to that. The divide in the opinions of Never Mind The Buzzcocks viewers after the exit of Mark Lamarr exactly mirrors the cultural divide. One could almost get Hegelian about this sort of thing,

Disability and the use of politically incorrect language in satire – there was a bit of a fuss as a result of Simple Jack in the film Tropic Thunder, over the use of the word retarded. Again, I think many people missed the point; in Tropic Thunder Simple Jack was presented as a film that starred Tugg Speedman as a cognitively impaired lad who could talk to animals. It it was presented as a film that bombed (failed miserably at the box-office). The point was that it bombed because Tugg Speedman played ‘the full retard’ – as Kirk Lazarus, method actor extraordinaire, pointed out. People do not want to see people who are greatly cognitively impaired in films, they prefer people like Rain Man or Forest Gump, idealised, sanitised versions of disability. The film was as much a satire of cinema audiences as movies and actors. Everyone picked up on the use of the word retard and a blacked-up Robert Downey Jr (Kirk Lazarus was a satire of stereotypes in method acting), but not what was spelt out by Kirk Lazarus about movie depictions of the cognitively impaired. People were too busy being offended to notice. Tropic Thunder was a great satire. & Tom Cruise was brilliant in it (click here for a tasty morsel, or even better, buy the DVD).

I wasn’t going to comment on the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross/Andrew Sachs thing, lest I add to press sentiment that ‘prank call’ story is newsworthy.  But I’m going to comment.  The whole thing is ridiculous, and has brought all kinds of unpleasant people out of the woodwork.  Essentially it is a fuss about someone making a joke about fucking someone, you know – that thing lots of adults do for fun  –  but has played out as if Jonathan Ross has somehow tarred Manuel’s adult granddaughter by outing the fact that Russell Brand shagged her at one of his hot tub parties. As if sex is somehow dirty and a taboo.  The headline should be “Man shags woman, tells grumpy elderly relative, incensed newspaper readers foam at the mouth”

Listen for yourself on YouTube here.  Be sure to check out all of the comments from the new puritans, rabid anti BBC-types, armchair moralists, old people of questionable intelligence, and general fuckwits.

I heard the radio show a couple of weeks ago, the morning after it aired. It was mildly amusing.  When Jonathan Ross shouted out “he fwucked your gwanddaughter” I thought – “So?  Who gives a shit – big deal”.  It wasn’t the funniest Russell Brand show.  It wasn’t particularly notable. The show is much funnier when Russell Brand has a foil such as Matt Morgan (or Simon Amstell).  It was broadcast at night, after 9pm.  The telephone call was arranged in advance, Manuel didn’t pick up the phone.  The programme apologised a few days later.

Thing is – it’s funny now.  It wasn’t that funny to begin with but the shitstorm of indignation from the illiterate opinionated twats of Great Britain has made it lolworthy.  It’s been getting funnier by the morally outraged minute.

All of those people that are morally outraged have been trolled hard, and can go fuck themselves.  If that’s the type of people Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross have offended – good.

I’d pay double the license fee if they could annoy idiot newspaper readers twice a month.

Well done BBC – but it’s stupid to suspend people for pissing off an elderly guest of the show.

People really want a right not to be offended but don’t realise the consequences. They’re too stupid.

Promise rings are worn as a symbol of commitment to remain chaste until marriage. A pop band wearing them, and therefore promoting them, is no different from a comedian using them as material. Why? Because in both cases they’re examples of people expressing an opinion about sex. My opinion about promise rings is that they’re often worn and promoted by people who disprove of people who do not live as Christians. Given a chance some would enforce their brand of Christianity on others. Preventing teaching of things like evolution, acting against gay rights, and and anything that contradicts scripture. I am not against people making a choice to live as Christians and follow scripture but I’m against anyone dictating what other people can and can’t say. The unfortunate political baggage that comes with promise rings has made such things hot-button topics of the so-called “culture wars”. The culture wars have caused much self-censorship in the US media.

At the 2008 MTV VMAs Russell Brand mocked the Jonas Brothers, and their vow of chastity. In free societies people can choose to wear promise rings, but in a free society people should be able to mock public figures that wear them, in the same way that Jordin Sparks what free to make the telling comment that “It’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not everybody, guy or girl, wants to be a slut.”

Similarly Russell Brand’s political comments were hot-button topics of the culture wars. I think they were funny. Using the word retarded is quite different than making fun of people who are disabled. It walks a fine line because all kinds of words with cultural baggage could be justified along similar lines. Intention is not an excuse in itself. So I’ll elaborate a bit because I think it’s an issue of specificity, context, and current usage. Retardation is one of those horrible medical terms of old that was applied to a whole host of things that would be given clear diagnosis today. It’s not a specific medical condition. The context of joke was about world leaders and potential world leaders – aimed at people in a position of power. The current usage of retarded is not primarily used as a phrase to mock disabled people. That’s a good test of politically incorrect phrases: What’s the specificity? What’s the context? What’s the current usage?

What I find particularly funny is that Russell Brand was trolling – pure and simple. The act ticked every box of the so-called culture wars. People are discussing it days later, the ratings were up in key demographics, all the parties involved get more attention (Jordin Sparks’ media profile has increased significantly, the Jonas Brothers got some headlines, so did Russell Brand), and this is the power of trolling. It’s a demonstration that the self-censorship in the US media of the last 7 years may not sell as well, or give as bigger buzz, as having diverse opinions represented in popular media outlets.  In publicity alone the MTV VMAs 2008 are a win.

The up-in-arms comments against Russell Brand on Internet forums have been retarded: So why pander to these people?  They want to tell you what to do – including what you can and can’t say.

On a lesser note some Twilight fans are completely mental.

On the basis of Dancefloor Chart I sought out his gigs.  By then the rave scene was a bit crap, and boring.  Russell Brand’s show (with, it must be said,  the essential addition of Matt Morgan) was worth watching.  Not for the music, but because it’s funny.  Watch:

Dancefloor Chart.

I can’t work out whether the guy is rushing or having a panic attack at 1m20s.  It’s funny either way. Stimulants. Lol.

Watch: Johnny Vegas interviewing Stuart Lee about Russell Brand.

At first I thought Stuart Lee came across as a bit of a twat.  But the more I think about it, anyone that takes something as gospel truth, with anything produced for entertainment purposes, is very credulous.  There can be such a thing as fact based jokes* but it’d be a dull world if it was all fact based.  I think that Stuart Lee, maybe belatedly, ‘fessed-up during a DVD extra,  letting an audience**  know that comedy isn’t about facts, makes the whole thing OK.  Johnny Vegas looks genuinely aggrieved at misquoting.  Johnny Vegas sold his wedding photos to Viz for £1.

* First heard the phrase spoken by Simon Amstell – a funny clip here.
** Albeit however many watch DVD extras/YouTube.

PS – I’m not sure if the Stuart Lee video is a pisstake.

@ the Roxy.  Not surprised Americans dig it based on taking some colonial chums to his act a couple of years ago.

When you’ve been awake for quite some time, and the world is a bit weird, and your eyes are heavy, and you’re falling asleep, then waking, in quick jerks, like an insomniac baby, the last thing you want to do is blog. Sentences get out of hand. So I’m going to dedicate roughly, by which I mean exactly, one paragraph to blog posts I thought about writing but can’t be arsed. Although (in retrospect it’s easy) 2 is a bit more than one paragraph.

1. I’m prejudiced. Generally, when British talent goes to America, and achieves some kind of success, they become boring. But Russell Brand is an exception. Rather than go down the route of “I’m famous now, so I’ll play it safe”, he’s gone down the route of “I’m famous now, so I can say what I want”. In other words, he’s managed to stay funny in the face of success. Listen here. It’s very funny. Rather than ratcheting down he’s ratcheting up.
2. It annoys me when people knock vegetarians. I’m not a vegetarian. But I can understand it. The idea that there isn’t good vegetarian and vegan food is bullshit (for example see here and a lot of the world’s cuisine). I can buy the arguments about the efficiency of producing meat and its impact on the environment. It’s inefficient. But in terms of environmental impact – it’s not a uniquely meat problem, and it applies as much to produce in general. Moral objection to killing animals is reasonable. The health thing is debateable.
   But there are some smug vegetarians. I met one recently.
   They were also very smug about their bicycle. Their poop smells probably smells worse than mine. I expect they get less constipation because of the high fibre associated with a vegetarian diet. I bet they feel smug about that too. So I hope they inexplicably get hemorrhoids. And the road is really bumpy when they’re out cycling.
   If they’re reading this, they probably realise, deep down, that their smuggery last week didn’t impress me.
3. I’ve got fuck-loads of lithium batteries in my bedroom. BP-511(s) (which all weigh around 80 grammes) , EN-EL3e(s) (inexplicably I didn’t weigh these) and some laptop ones (which I did weigh but I am too tired to remember the weight), If, after a day or two awake, you weigh batteries to make sure they weigh the same, you’ve gone wrong.
4. Minicab offices are fucked up. This would not be a paragraph if it wasn’t for this sentence and the next couple, in which I say why. They’re like doctor’s waiting rooms used to dealing with the best and worst of people, and everything in-between, like doctors, but without the medical training, and a propensity to smoke. There was a slot machine.

I like this sketch by Russell Brand and Matt Morgan. It’s been on YouTube for ages, but I haven’t linked to it because part of it annoys the fuck out of me. I like the randomness of the sketch and the spontaneity of it. Plus Gillian McKeith is seriously into shit. I am going to niggle. Watch it yourself here.

Three bits get on my tits: One – the lady looks in his direction, as he eats the shit, presumably her shit, but doesn’t react. (This is a little out of order given the probable budget) Two – the 29 O’Clock bit at the end. It’s just cheesy. If it was there to make sure people knew it was a joke, rather than a real MTV show, it’s a bit extraneous. Three – the direction was mental and the location sucked. On a bigger budget it would have been better, because the context of the sketch worked heavily against it, the room was out of place with the target of parody. Most life-style programmes have suburban chic. A suburban home setting would have done the trick.

I find Mr Natterjack’s Back much funnier because it’s much tighter (direction, editing), the setting is appropriate, and the sound track works well. It’s shock humour and has the feel of a short-art house film. I also liked the Daniel and Len sketches – they were totally inappropriate and out of context in the programmes they appeared in (which adds to why I find it funny, some of the people who tuned in may of been shocked) – but they were dark, man. They also could have done with been longer so the characters could have been expanded upon.

The best UK (sort-of) sketch show in the last few years is Snuff Box (watch a whole episode here). The locations are perfect, the soundtrack is perfect, and there are no more series. Presumably to make way for Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps. The Snuff Box DVD, soon to be released, will no doubt be worth buying.

Heh. Russell Brand can sing, a bit, contrary to conventional wisdom. Shame about the fan vid. It’s like watching a peacock fidget around shrubbery. Hopefully someone will rip the scene from a pirated DVD screener. See also this Trey Parker/Alfred Packer classic, along similar lines.

Early Sunday morning I was listening to Russell Brand’s radio show and he mentioned one of his and Matt Morgan’s YouTube videos (The Weatherclerks) and how it’d only gotten a thousand hits. That is quite a pathetic amount of hits for a video that had been on YouTube six months. The problem is the way the videos were released. The first set of his unseen old-school (sort of old-school, post drugs) videos were disseminated via ‘Warren Kelp’ (an obvious sockpuppet) with some bullshit about the videos being found in a skip. That was all well and good, but the only people that would come across the videos were people specifically searching for Russell Brand. The largest proportion of his fans are ordinary people and are not going to do that. I saw the videos soon after their internet debut and featured them on this blog, but I, and people that come here (hello!) are elite internet ninjas. Many of whom have seen or heard of Russell Brand prior to the last couple of years (like me; he was funny out of his head on smack, back in the day in dingy Islington pubs, and he’s still funny minus the smack in front of audiences of hundreds. That’s a hell of a transition). Releasing the videos to the baying hordes, even with a celebrity name attached, is no good without doing internet basics like building up an internet audience (which is totally different from a telly/stand-up audience, and will become increasingly important in the next few years).

I think YouTube is proof that people will watch things that aren’t normally featured on television or the screen. Every celebrity should own a basic HD camera, such as the Canon HV30 (see note, it’s important), which produces good quality video without much technical complexity, or cost, or barriers to just switching on and filming. Buying a more expensive camera means more fucking around than is necessary, and nobody busy wants to fuck around. Buy a camera that doesn’t require training to use (the HV30 is excellent and produces excellent video). Film mundane stuff (people are interested in the mundane of any celebrity), stick it up on YouTube, build up some e-fame (which is like real fame, but with significantly less money) and profit. Videos a minute or two long. Below ten minutes of your life a week. Stick to basic editing, using the software that came with the camera, upload it to YouTube. It’s not difficult. Why more celebrities don’t do this is beyond me. Especially if they realise what the Internet is going to do to TV – like Tay Zonday does here. The time and money invested is minimal for hedging your bets on the Internet vs. TV question.

Then, the next time something like The Weatherclerks is released, far more people will watch it.

Note:

Canon: this is technically a plug I will sell my soul for a EOS 1Ds and a few professional lenses. I’ll even take the Nikon D3 off my shopping list for this year. In fact every photo I’ll produce this year with the EOS 1Ds will have “this was not produced by a Nikon D3” as an unobtrusive watermark. If, on the other-hand Nikon are reading this – quick – send me a Nikon D3 with several pro lenses – get there before the competition. It’s the first rule of business. There’s not many things I’d whore myself for, but for either one of those cameras I would cave in, contrary to the advice in this Bobby Conn video.

David Icke appeared on Russell Brand’s radio show on Saturday.  It was a broadly uncritical interview – less critical than his Richard Dawkins interview, somewhat exposing his personal biases.  To be fair, it makes entertaining listening.  Unlike many media outlets Russell’s show does have a wide variety of views represented so Icke is one voice among many.  The interview is very funny.  Particularly the bit where David Icke accuses Father George Bush of being (a presumably reptilian) paedophile.   Pedolizard.  I think Russell Brand, in common with youth today,  is deeply sceptical of the media and political establishment.  Obvious ironies aside.  My father remarked, over Christmas, that things, the cultural mien, remind him of the 1960s.    He thinks there’s a generation gap and that the media and politicians are totally out of touch.  As a result of disillusionment caused by foreign policy, the internet, and stubbornness of the traditional media.

Listen to David Icke and Russell Brand here.

I think one of the great downsides to generation gaps, real or perceived,  is that they can lead to indiscriminate scepticism.  The broad scepticism towards politics and ‘the system’ during the 1960s and 1970s gave rise to many good things. It also gave rise to much irrationalism and muddy thinking.  I believe a similar situation exists today.  There is a generation gap forming under the nose of a political and media establishment that is still firmly rooted in the 20th Century.  Among many young people there is a broad scepticism towards government, politics, and the media.  Much of this is positive.  Many young people seem willing and able to Google and get information from multiple sources.  And savagely mock the absurd.

Scepticism without critical thinking can be dangerous.   Because in those circumstances a rejection of the mainstream can lead to unqualified acceptance of  any ideas regardless of their logical consistency or evidence.  Conspiracy theories – for instance.   People accept them because they do not have critical thinking skills. They don’t have critical thinking skills because our society does not encourage critical thinking outside of fields where it is required.   They’re not stupid people.  There is a paradoxical situation in which people can be deeply sceptical and lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish the things they should be sceptical about.  It’s a real shame.  People that believe in conspiracy theories are seeking answers, which is something that should be applauded, but unfortunately they’re barking up the wrong tree.

An example of this is the rise of David Icke.  He is more popular than ever. I quite like David Icke.  Really.  I don’t think he’s a bad person, but I think his theories are wrong.   Even a cursory examination of what constitutes evidence for many of his theories, parsing his arguments, leads to rejection of them on the grounds of consistency and lack of evidence.  But there exists a situation today whereby those with undeveloped ideas of what constitutes evidence, and lacking critical thinking skills, are led to David Icke and his kind.   Many young people with legitimate scepticism of government post-Iraq/post-Blair/post-Bush  are ambling into the hands of 9/11 conspiracy theories, people like David Icke.  Much in the same way many hippies were led down blind alleys by religion, drug culture, and ill thought out ideologies.

In an ideal world books like Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World and Darrell Huff’s How to Lie With Statistics would be mandatory secondary school reading material.  If I had the free cash I would by a few thousand copies of each and  give them away.   A basic understanding of statistics and basic critical thinking skills are essential for understanding the modern world and essential for positive changes.  Otherwise people act with scant regard to evidence which, as has been proven time and time again, leads to very bad things indeed.  In an ideal world the revolution would be everyone being able to think critically.  Scepticism minus critical thinking equals wasted energy.