BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Little Britain

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:09 / 17.11.05
I have to say I feel very differently about Little Britain than I did (almost) two years ago, and I think a lot of this has to do with how context and reception inevitably shape a show like that. I too saw the bit from the comedy clipshow Deva refers to, in which the remark about suspecting "those people are faking it" or whatever was made, and at the time I dismissed it as just another talking head getting it wrong, but I'm finding it increasingly hard not to see it as actually in tune with the tone of what Walliams & Lucas are doing.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:27 / 17.11.05
Me: There are also characters in Little Britain who are women played by men.

Deva: Which ones are you thinking of?

Marjorie Dawes and her sister, Anne, Two women who don't have names but the joke is the husband of one of them has died and so she keeps wailing every time the other one says something that reminds her of him, the vomiting ladies, Walliams plays an Eleanor Bron type woman who buys clothes that people have died in, Bubbles, Walliams plays a St Johns Ambulance woman who tries to cure everything with mint sweets, Rafe's mum, the 'computer says no' woman from series two... Some are more reasonable than others but I think all these (and more that I'm probably forgetting) are valid if you're going to put Pauline from LoG as the passmark for men in drag.

Where I think you're right is in feeling a certain disdain from L+W for some of their characters, due to having to find things for them to do, Vicky Pollard came from noticing how inarticulate teenagers are but by the end of it all she's become a grotesque. But I don't think that works with royal correspondant Peter Andre, the man with very specific requests, Ray McWhirty the scottish hotelier, the PM and Sebastian, Anne again...
 
 
Cat Chant
10:12 / 18.11.05
I'm clearly coming from a position of even more ignorance than I thought, Flowers, and if I ever get the chance to see the first series again I'll have a go at watching it with a slightly more generous heart - I think I came to it quite late, at a point where the contempt had flowered a bit more. I can't help taking Tangent's criticism of Vicky Pollard (even at her best) to heart, though: she's apparently very similar to a character called Kylie Mole who appeared in an Australian sketch show ten years ago and was played by a woman - within that context she becomes quite a literal example of the appropriation of femaleness by male people for comic effect (that's where the distinction lies between 'drag' and 'female characters played by men', I think).

Possibly Petey's point about context and reception is important in a slightly different way, in that I saw one episode of Little Britain on my own and the next few with my sister (who thinks that there is a politically-correct conspiracy to stop scientists doing experiments on black people to find out why they run so fast), so I've never really been part of a like-minded community of Little Britain viewers (hmm - nebulous thoughts about fan communities forming...). That's why I'm interested in the explanations in this thread, of course.

I should probably say that I do love Tom Baker's narration, and I remember being overjoyed by Tony Head as the PM and only mildly irritated by Walliams over-camping the slash. And there are bits of Andy/Lou and Daffyd and Vicky Pollard that I recognize and respond to, but they're increasingly swamped by the blacking-up, bad-drag, contemptuous dimension that comes across to me.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:46 / 18.11.05
Vicky Pollard was always one of the weakest characters, in that her comedy shelf-life didn't last even the first series as far as I was concerned - but the way she has become one of the show's most famous characters, arguably the most famous, makes me very queasy indeed when you consider how easily it all dovetails with the rising tide of open class hate in the UK, the word "chav" used more and more with no qualification...
 
 
Sniv
12:46 / 18.11.05
You know a comedy show is passe when Richard and Judy quote it, and guess what? They've been quoting Andy and Lou for about a year now.

I for one am very over this show, and not really because of the racist/sexist ideas that have been bandied about upthread. Simply put, it just ain't that funny any more. The main characters have been quoted and copied and become too much part of the zeitgeist for it to be edgy or even surprising any more. Speaking of past-it presenters quoting comedy, did anyone catch Andrew Neil last night doing a "Do I look bothered?" bit last night on This Week? Now that is flogging a dead horse.

Back to new LB, new character Ting Tong Wallawallabingbong (or sommat) didn't give even the cheapest of laughs, and just came off as very dated humour, Daffyd is too formulaic to even be gigglesome any more. The only thing I thought was funny last night was the MP who "fell into" a "young rastafarian". I thought that was great, especially the wife's face when he kissed her. Very cool. Otherwise, not so good. Maybe the move to BBC one has softened too many edges?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:15 / 18.11.05
the way she has become one of the show's most famous characters, arguably the most famous, makes me very queasy indeed when you consider how easily it all dovetails with the rising tide of open class hate in the UK, the word "chav" used more and more with no qualification...

That's kind of my feeling... and what's largely put me off watching. I loved the R4 series (largely for Tom Baker's narration) and was quite amused by some of the first series, but I really can't be arsed anymore.
And is is just me, or do I get the impression from reading the reviews that they've now resorted to comedy foreign accents and blacking up for humorous effect? Bearing in mind I've not seen the new stuff, and could be hopelessly wrong, is there any way in which this could be considered a good thing?
 
 
Mike Modular
13:22 / 18.11.05
So, new series: Yeah, um, well... it was pretty rubbish, wasn't it? Even in series 1 the characters were one-joke-wonders which very soon got boring. I caught an episode from the 2nd series the other week and did find myself laughing quite a bit, so I was prepared to give them another chance, but... There's absolutely nothing new (or funny) to be done with any of the old characters and the new ones are pretty dire. Look! an old lady who pisses herself! A Thai bride and an obvious and lame blowjob gag! A fat black woman! etc etc. Apart from Lucas' performances (whatever you think of the material, I think he's still very watchable) the only genuinely funny and clever bits are definitely the Tom Baker voiceovers. I mean, there are, like, jokes in there. So I may well still watch it just for that. Otherwise, it's a ropey collection of catchphrases and piss-poor (excuse the pun) scatological and sexual jokes that are hardly very shocking, original, progressive or funny in the least. So there.
 
 
Loomis
13:43 / 18.11.05
Another in agreement here. Besides the fact that it is so tediously repetitive, I think this show very quickly used up the small portion of benefit of the doubt that we gave it at the beginning with regard to sexism, racism, classism, etc. Vicky Pollard went very quickly from indignant motormouthed teenager to chav scum, Daffyd has long since been an excuse to titter at homophobic remarks, Andy and Lou went from taking the piss out of Lou's (or is it Andy? Can never remember) gullibility to being all about the disability faking. Frankly, if I wrote a show that could lead someone to make that comment ("it expresses those fears we all have, that some of those people are putting it on a bit"), then I'd really want to have another think about it, or perhaps consider cutting my hands off so I couldn't do it again.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:48 / 18.11.05
It's very weird. I watched it and felt a bit quantum in that I could see how everything was both amusing but also offensive at the same time, and I don't mean that it was funny because it was offensive, gah, it's really hard to explain. I totally get what Petey has just said about Vicky (although the sketch last night wasn't about Vicky-as-chav at all, but about girls facing off against one another). I think people can get enjoyment from Vicky Pollard sketches and not think at all 'let us laugh at this common person!' but they could be sitting next to someone who is laughing for exactly that reason.

And while the Bubbles and Desiree thing wasn't quite as bad as I'd been expecting, it doesn't answer the question of why they thought it was necessary for Desiree to be a black woman, and why they thought it would be okay for Walliams to black up for it, post-ironic Minstrelling for the 21st century?

The Thai bride was very week, as though they had thought no-one would notice that people from that part of the world sometimes get their letters mixed up, and yet again playing a joke off of Lucas being fat. How many times has his girth been used as the basis for a joke?

I'd hate Little Britain as much as The Fast Show if it wasn't for the fact that some characters here don't have catchphrases, albeit the same old set-up...
 
 
_Boboss
13:51 / 18.11.05
a-hem, sorry for butting in, but upthread someone takes a brief shot at andrew neil, and i'd like to say: just watch your fucking mouth alright? no-one slags-off this week round here.



bitch.
 
 
■
15:31 / 18.11.05
Yup, pretty bad. I was trying to remember the bits I really liked about the first series, and the only thing that really sprang to mind was "have you got anything a bit less... piratey?" Like other gags that one was hilarious (I was in retail at the time, you do get those customers) first time but got flogged to death over the next two series. It seems to be the stuff that relies less on characters (such as the careless MP) that still works. However, as the success of the show depends on the catchphrases, there are less of these all the time. Don't think I'll bother with it any more.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:39 / 18.11.05
The thing is, I can still watch my s1 DVDs and find Lou and Andy, Vicki Pollard, Marjory Dawes funny, in a way I don't get with subsequent seasons. It's as though repitition of when these things were shiny and new is funnier than new stuff which is repeating the joke.

The Guardian review is funnier: I have high hopes for new characters Dudley and Ting-Tong, if I can get over my hideously old-fashioned anxieties about comedy ethnic accents.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:45 / 23.11.05
Just seen this review from the Independent, and I have to ask: Johann Hari, are you Flyboy, are you Flyboy, are you Flyboy in disguise? It makes some of the points that have come up in the last round of this thread: about class hate (Imagine a comedy where a British Asian wearing a sari, or naming their child Apu or Karim or Gita, was the joke and the punchline. It's (rightly) unthinkable. But abusing the white working class is rewarded with viewing figures topping 10 million);

about the development of the series towards a more contemptuous tone, shaped through its reception (the blame for Little Britain lies out here in Big Britain. When the show first started, it was not the bile-fest it is today. There was a gentler, absurdist edge to the first series, but it soon became clear that the viewers preferred a comedy of jeering and sneering);

and about misogyny (Dozens of sketches hinge upon the ugliness of female flesh, and barely a woman is shown without the actors playing her being padded into monstrous fat-suits).

It also puts its finger on what I don't like about Dafydd - his character is based on one endlessly repeated comic premise: there is no prejudice against gay people in Britain any more, but shrieking gay misery-queens like Daffyd are so obsessed with being victims they obsessively see prejudice where there is none.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:31 / 23.11.05
Hari and I disagree strongly on a few issues (Iraq, and related issues such as the Respect party), but when he's right, he's very right. I'm glad he got the spot-on point in about the gentle absurdism disappearing (whither Tiny Dennis Waterman?), and I'm also glad that the Independent stuck a big headline for that piece on their cover.
 
 
Sniv
12:06 / 23.11.05
Gumbitch - just to let you know, I love Andrew Neil like a scary boss, and This Week is the best reason to be late for work on Fridays, but dude needs to stop with the "I'm bothered"s. He's above all that.
 
 
Sniv
12:31 / 23.11.05
Just read that Hari review, and I think this is a case of mountains out of molehills. I'm not really a fan of the show (as I said upthread), but I get the feeling that Hari is trying almost too hard to be offended by this show. He's got columnistitis.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly with the point about catchphrase comedy being as low as you can go, that hit the nail on the head.

BUT (and I'll use Vicky Pollard here, being the show's most 'popular' character) why am I being made to feel bad for laughing at the things I find funny? When I first saw Vicky Pollard, I did think it was very funny, mainly because it totally nailed a very specific (and where I live, very prominent) stereotype. Admittedly, I dislike most of these people I meet, and found Lucas's portrayal of her quite funny. My point is, just because it's a 'bad' stereotype, doesn't make it any less true or funny (just as if they were to lampoon a comics reading stoner student, I'd probably fit right in there, and it doesn't really offend me, because it's true).

Hari continues: A typical recurring theme on the Little Britain discussion boards is the hilarity of poor people wearing fake designer clothes. Here's a side-splitting thought I'd like to offer: they wear fake designer clothes because they can't afford to nip into House of Fraser to buy the real ones. They're too poor. Oh, my aching sides.


Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, these people should be mocked, and have been for longer than LB has been on the airwaves. They're fakers. They don't have to wear fake designer clothes just becasue they're poor. They could (shock!) wear normal, non-designer trousers and shirts and shit. But then again, I think that the real designer fetishists deserve mocking too, for spunking all that money away, but that's me.

I think the main point is, we laugh at the people different from us, it's human nature. Just as us Alternakids got the piss taken by the trendies, we can laugh at them. You laugh at pieces of yourself you recognise in others. You laugh because somebody soiled themselves.

I just think that perhaps Hari is taking comedy a little too seriously. On a side note, anyone else think Hari doesn't like the fat jokes 'cause he's a little portly himself? (and before anyone gets arsey with me for that, I'm a fat fuck too, and am perfectly within my rights as a lardy to say that)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:43 / 23.11.05
So, more evidence that the show goes down very well with unpleasant bigots, then.
 
 
Ganesh
12:48 / 23.11.05
Yeah, is Hari, like, the only columnist in the village, or what?!1!!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:05 / 23.11.05
just as if they were to lampoon a comics reading stoner student, I'd probably fit right in there, and it doesn't really offend me, because it's true,

Except that they haven't.

Supplementarily, part of this is about setting the agenda. Because no such Little Britain lampoon exists, you have set up the things that you feel would be useful sources of comedy, but you don't really find anytihng loathsome or contemptible about them, right? You're not disgusted by your reading of comics or smoking of dope the way you are disgusted by (and lets get this one right out her now, because you know it's coming) chavs, right? So, they'd have to find something else which would tap into similar feelings of revolted superiority in their audience. Possibly if you were naked or incontinent?
 
 
Saveloy
13:30 / 23.11.05
Kaizer John:

"I think the main point is, we laugh at the people different from us, it's human nature."

Are you sure? Do you really laugh at everyone who is different to you, simply because they are different?

Even if it is human nature, that doesn't automatically make it acceptable, or good, does it?

"why am I being made to feel bad for laughing at the things I find funny?"

Because you are displaying contempt for people who are no threat to you and whose greatest crime is to offend your sense of taste and decency. Even if your contempt does not directly affect those people, it demonstrates an eagerness to revel in your own disgust.
 
 
Sniv
14:33 / 23.11.05
Oh come on! Flyboy - I'm not a bigot. That's all I'm saying on that one, we've already been around the block on this one.

Haus - I never said I hated 'chavs' or even used the word (around here they're called Pikeys, which is horrifying because that's also a derogatory term against Travellers, of which I have blood links to). I don't find anything loathesome about my lifestyle, because I live it. However, many a 'chav' has felt the need to tell me how offensive they find me. Some have even felt the need to demonstrate that loathing in the form of violence (which is why I've had my nose broken twice). But that's not really the point is it?

Saveloy - of course I don't laugh at everyone different from me, that would be silly (and take up a lot of my time). Still, I find it's the differences in society that create the most humour.

And finally, I'm displaying contempt? Excuse me? Surely contempt is a mite strong a word for what I feel about this certain societal sub-section? I would say 'wary caution' or 'disinterest' or maybe even, when I'm walking home through my council estate late at night, paranoia. And this, as I say, is on;y because I've had the shit kicked out of me on more than one occaision not 100 meters from my flat.

So hold your fire, will you? Saying I have contempt for 'chavs' is like saying I have contempt for Indian people because I occaisionally laugh at the Kumars (a show nearly entirely made of stereotypes).

Finally, LB is a crappy show, I've said so before. I was just providing a counterbalance for the knee-jerk bullshit Hari was spouting (IMO).
 
 
Aertho
15:07 / 23.11.05
When is it okay to have contempt? And how does contempt differ from prejudice?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:25 / 23.11.05
I think you might want to have a think about the etymology of "chav" as well, KJ. Chavo? I feel there may be a bit of self-hatred going on here...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:33 / 23.11.05
See, this is why I like having people like Kaizer John on the board. After a hard day at work I like nothing better than logging on to Barbelith and watching someone like KJ make a complete arse out of themselves simply by being so moronically stupid as to have an opinion and feel that they are entitled to share it with other people, rather than doing something constructive like smoking and/or drinking to excess and therefore ensuring they do not become a drain on the state in old age.

What??

I think Johann does make some good points in his article, especially about the misogyny and the loss of the surreal aspect of the first series, it has become much of what he criticises it for, but he does lose points for saying Little Britain is bad because the fans are bad. You can't choose your fans and if the Little Britain boards are full of people hating 'the chavs', then that is not really the fault of Little Britain, after all, who liked Wagner?

Also, from the article, what is his problem with Daffyd? I would guess that he's annoyed with the 'screaming queen' aspect of the sketches (it's ironic that since the first series the other gays in the village all around Daffyd are a bit more (with the emphasis sometimes on 'bit) normal than the prancing nancy Shirley Bassey fans we got in series one) but it's less than clear. And is he insisting that Lucas shout "I'm queer and I'm proud!" from the rooftops in order to get a pass to take the mick out of gays?

So Richard Littlejohn refers to Little Britain. Cock-a-doodle-fucking-doo! That repugnant moral slug uses everything he can to slag off the things he hates and on that grounds we might as well stop all TV shows, except that he'd probably use that as an excuse too, the bastard!!1!

Otherwise a good article, I just wish someone was able to challenge Lucas and Walliams on these points, the interviews I've come across always seem to be extremely sycophantic.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
16:44 / 23.11.05
Thank you Saveloy for replying to KJ perfectly.

Kumars (a show nearly entirely made of stereotypes)

A show made by British Asians. Which draws on stereotypes from its creators own cultures to work a comedic conceit as well as twist the mind-numblingly prevalent bland celeb interview format into something else...

Pikeys, which is horrifying because that's also a derogatory term against Travellers, of which I have blood links to

So harmful stereotyping and contempt are (only?) 'horrifying' when they target 'your' people. Interesting
 
 
Sniv
16:51 / 23.11.05
Lady - thanks, it's always nice to cheer somebody up. But isn't being so moronically stupid as to have an opinion and feel that they are entitled to share it with other people a bit cruel, especially as you go and do the same later in your post (give an opinion, that is).

Haus - I think you might want to have a think about the etymology of "chav" as well, KJ. Chavo? I feel there may be a bit of self-hatred going on here...

I understand the word chav just fine, thanks. I was just saying that where I live, which is in a town next to a very large gypsy camp (about a quarter of whom I'm related to, btw), the word chav is relatively new. In fact, in this area, chav used to mean "to steal". Before 'chav' was taken to mean what it means now, they were called pikies. Now they're called chavs. I didn't mean for that to become a big point, I was just referring to it in passing. As for Chavo? I feel there may be a bit of self-hatred going on here..., sorry, but I honestly (no sarcasm or anything) don't follow you. If you mean that I'm some kind of self-loathing (contempuous?) chav, then I'm afraid you're wrong, on both the self-hatred and the chav bit.

Chad - I never said I had contemp. My excuse me? was meant as an "excuse me? How do you know I have contempt for these people?". Contempt is a damn strong word, and implies that I really hate these kinds of people. I never said that. I honestly do take people as I find them. If they're nice to me, I'm nice to them, and the same vice versa. However, living in the poor, working class area that I do, I'm afraid I see more negative stereotypes than anything else in the people that live here. Sure, I know a few people, good people, that self-identify as 'chav', but believe me, I've met lots more absolutely horrible ones. If this makes me a bigot or whatever, then fine, call me that.

Perhaps we should discuss the issues, rather than labelling people we disagree with as bigots, or contempuous, or knee-jerk arse-holes. I just don't think the content of my last posts really warranted some of the words used.
 
 
Sniv
16:56 / 23.11.05
Meme - So harmful stereotyping and contempt are (only?) 'horrifying' when they target 'your' people. Interesting.

No, I find it horrifying that a term a racial abuse is a very common word where I live. I wouldn't necessarily call the travellers 'my people', they're just people. I find pikey just as offensive as negative terms for any ethnic minority.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:29 / 23.11.05
Ahem. Chav - chavo - Romany for "boy". The term chav is most likely pretty much the same as the word pikey - an abusive term describing poor people as being like stereotypical gypsies - badly dressed, felonious, incomprehensible, not like us. The term previously described theft, an act which was also being associated with gypsies. Thus, a joking reference to self-hatred based on your apparent innocence of understanding of the likely racist origins of the terminology. Any clearer now?

GGM has made the point I was going to make about the Kumars. It's a comedy about British Asians written by and starring British Asians. That's a bit different from a sketch about a poor teenaged girl written and performed by two middle-class men. Or would you disagree?

Speaking of teenaged girls, and wrt your broken nose - what interests me here is that I imagine that the people you are claiming the right to mock, and indeed arguing deserve to be mocked as a group because some of them beat you up probably weren't teenaged girls. Is that correct? I'm wondering if there is a point here both on Hari's point about Little Britain targeting the weak, and also wondering if there's a comparison between Vicky Pollard and the young toughs in the first episode of the latest season of Peep Show, who gleefully terrorise and humiliate the bumbling office worker.
 
 
Saveloy
11:26 / 24.11.05
Kaizer John:

"Contempt is a damn strong word, and implies that I really hate these kinds of people."

I didn't mean to imply hatred so much as disdain, or scorn. The
harshest definition of contempt that I could find on the web does mention
hatred but the rest are probably best summed up by this one:

"The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn."

Given that, and given the way Vicky Pollard is played, it doesn't feel too unrealistic to suggest that an opportunity to feel contempt for someone is a major part of the pleasure that people take from the character.
 
 
Sniv
12:14 / 24.11.05
Saveloy - agreed. The only thing I took issue with was that I was accused of having contempt for these people. Now, I'm a pretty relaxed and sensible dude, and hating any group of people is totally pointless and yes, bigotted. That's why I was offended and felt the need to defend myself. Nothing personal at all.

Even "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." is a very condescending and holier-than-thou view to take, and not something that I'd say I have towards that group. Sure, I don't understand them, and wouldn't necessarily want to hang out with them, but I wouldn't label an entire sub-sulture as worthless. As I said, take people on a person-by-person basis. Everybody's different I guess, and it's not really for me or anyone else to judge.

Back on-topic, I always thought the funniest thing about Vicky Pollard was the veryfasttalking with the occaisional obscene phrase (like "butGaryLewisfingeredChantelleinthekiddiespoolbutIdon'tknownuffinboutthatright" or summink) chucked in to make you go "what was that?!". Although Lucas does that a lot less in more recent episodes. Do you reckon he's lost the knack for it? I remember seeing a bloopers show where it took him ages to get it right, but that was one of the earlier episodes.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:32 / 24.11.05
Now, I'm a pretty relaxed and sensible dude, and hating any group of people is totally pointless and yes, bigotted.


***

Even "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." is a very condescending and holier-than-thou view to take, and not something that I'd say I have towards that group.

***

As I said, take people on a person-by-person basis.
***

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, these people should be mocked, and have been for longer than LB has been on the airwaves. They're fakers.

Leaving aside for the moment that you keep mixing up "hate" and "feel contempt for", could I ask when exactly you met all of "these people", in order to take them on a person-by-person basis? I've tried to be nice, KJ, but if you can't keep what you yourself have said straight how are you going to follow what other people are saying?

Speaking of which, GGM pointed up a difference betwen the Kumars at no. 42 and Matt Lucas playing Vicky Pollard above. I'd be interested to know what people think about that distinction.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:28 / 24.11.05
I think I see what you're getting at, but alternatively the Kumars at no. 42 and Matt Lucas playing Daffyd? Or the 'check please!' man, who's nothing to do with being Asian, and say David Walliams as Royal Correspondant Peter Andre?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:46 / 24.11.05
Is the Royal Correspondent still in it?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
15:11 / 24.11.05
Speaking of which, GGM pointed up a difference betwen the Kumars at no. 42 and Matt Lucas playing Vicky Pollard above. I'd be interested to know what people think about that distinction.

Other people have said this before, but to put it simply: they're both jokes based on stereotypes, but there's an element in the Kumars (and Goodness Gracious Me) of removing The Joke- the thing we're supposed to find funny- from The Stereotype itself. So it could be about laughing at the way people are blinded by stereotypes, or laughing at the absurdity of the stereotype itself- the stereotype is in there somewhere but it's not given credibility.

It's about revealing the truth behind the common misconception- or, revealing the stereotype as the false/abberant node in the network.

That's why I feel the Vikki sketches don't work (in technical terms) as well as the Kumars- firstly the joke isn't far enough removed from the stereotype, and secondly there's too much obvious falsehood- Vikki obviously isn't a fourteen year old girl, she's a 30-something male. That falsehood distracts from the central one (the stereotype) which isn't even presented as such.

and also wondering if there's a comparison between Vicky Pollard and the young toughs in the first episode of the latest season of Peep Show, who gleefully terrorise and humiliate the bumbling office worker.

I thought that would have been much stronger if the guys had just been paranoid and needlessly afraid of the teenagers- if that had been the conceit it would have fitted in much better with the grotesque characters the two leads play. Instead, the conceit was that teenagers actually do steal your phone and so it's fine to be paranoid.

One thing I've been thinking about: sometimes you'll challenge someone about using the word chav, and you'll just get a pretty useless "But they're teh stupid" answer. People who answer like that probably need to get with picture pretty fast, but some people back up their piss-taking by saying (I'm paraphrasing) that you get gangs of young working class guys on the streets who shout out at gays, non-whites etc, and if those guys are going to be homophobic and racist then people should laugh at them back.

What astounds me, judging the guys as a group not withstanding, is that your anti-chav types never seem to pick up on this when they're doing their rants. No-one takes the piss out of the young white racist football fan for being racist, for example, they always preffer to take the piss out of his clothes, accent, wealth.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
01:00 / 25.11.05
I thought that would have been much stronger if the guys had just been paranoid and needlessly afraid of the teenagers- if that had been the conceit it would have fitted in much better with the grotesque characters the two leads play. Instead, the conceit was that teenagers actually do steal your phone and so it's fine to be paranoid.

I think you've misread it, although it was sending out a bit of a mixed signal. If it was doing a Daily Mail on us, it would have had the kids threatening Mark. But they didn't - they didn't even demand his phone, they just asked if they could borrow it. The joke wasn't about how walking through an underpass will result in your being robbed by teh yoof, it was about how that paranoia is totally out of step with the reality of most situations. That was reinforced at the end, where Mark twats the one around the back of the head and *doesn't* get set upon for it.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply