| |
|
I think that if satire isn't funny it is bad satire, as a fair chunk of the stuff in that section was. Although the Gilbert and George commemoribiliart was quality.
As to the rest - I'm reminded of Peter Cook's comment on the opening of the establishment, which was very roughly:
"We see satire as primarily a tool for change. That's why we've modelled the Establishment on the political cabaret of Weimar Berlin, which did so much to prevent the rise of Adolf Hitler".
Which is one thing that annoys me about this piece - that the middle classes can get a warm fuzzy about being able to look at it with ironic detachment, but it doesn't really make any effort to proselytise. In fact, with its knowing absurdity, self-consciously complex language structures and position nestled safely in the review section of the Observer, it's saying "You already knwo that Bush is a fool and that the so-called war on terrorism is badly-thought out, destructive and pointless. So do we. You're just like us. Doesn't that make you clever?"
Second, it's sufficiently patchy as to suggest that Ianucci and Morris neither submitted themselves to outside editing nor applied themselves with any rigour to self-editing. Which suggests that they are hitting or have hit the fanboy event horizon. It's very dangerous when people realiset hat they can produce any old cock and as long as it largely resembles their earlier stuff a legion of low-slung denims with internal fatbeard modelling will lap it up, protesting that Morris/Hicks/Pratchett/Gene Simmons is mighty all the while. |
|
|
