We're sorry
In the 36th Collings & Herrin podcast, we are the first to comment on the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross controversy, a subject thus far pretty much ignored by the rest of the media. There's just time for us to talk about the destruction of Brecht's "fourth wall" in relation to the James Bond adverts, the origins of the phrase "brave new world" in Shakespeare's The Tempest and whether rugby player Mike Tindall ever thinks about the fact that his girlfriend came out of a woman who came out of The Queen. We apologise for everything. Look how contrite we are in this picture.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 2:32 PM
17 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
17 Comments:
Which one of you is resigning then - and which one is the new Doctor Who?
Rich doesn't look *that* contrite, I have to say. He does look quite cool though.
AC would make a better Dr Who than RH, but I think RH would be a good 'The Master'.
Brilliant ending Collings.
And Herrin is quite correct to point out that the running zombies are a clever innovation by Brooker, creating all kinds of new zombie terror.
Peter
Brooker didn't create running zombies, he stole that from all those that did it before - 24 days for instance (or whatever it was called).
Is this an appropriate time for Andrew to suggest himself as a stand-in for Jonathan Ross on Film 2008?
Oh lovely. I installed itoons and now I can't download it any more. It just plays. I don't want it THERE.
Grr.
Lesley Douglas has resigned! Wasn't she responsible for George Lamb?
Adam: in the spirit of the times I apologise for my lack of zombie knowledge. However, innovation or theft is not really the issue - the question of "can zombies run?" is not really important - but rather "do the zombies work within the fiction?". I would say that in Dead Set, they do.
"It was all part of the palliative care".
Priceless.
Joyfeed: In the spirit of the times, it doesn't matter that you have apologised for making a mistake. i will not be happy until I have seen you resign from your current position, publicly disgraced and those who you work for taken to task.
I look forward to your downfall with petty-minded jealousy.
Oh and I still won't be happy.
Adam
PS - what did you do again i've forgotten already?
Im also loving dead set. I thought it sounded like a shite idea and what with Charlie Brooker having no real experience, I had pretty low expectations. But this has turned out to be one of the best horror things Ive seen for ages. very well paced and directed (setting aside the annoying five nights thing, though I guess that increases the tension)and good performances all round - particularly from the producer and the scottish actress, great double-act.
It's flawed, but it's alright that Dead Set. I've wasted half my life watching every zombie film I could get my hands on and I reckon brooker's effort is a worthy addition to the scuzzy pantheon.
As for the podcast - I found the first ten minutes of our heroes justifying what they do was interesting, if slightly over-defensive.
But I'll say again, there wasn't any direct comparison made by me - maybe someone else did, but not ol' Swines.
I was talking more about the nature of offensive comedy. And the fact remains that the recipient of that insult has not heard the insult, but theoretically could.
Just because something's said behind someone's back doesn't make it justified and doesn't mean you get away with it.
RH says that the subject of the insult is a character and a construct which is all well and good - it's just that it happens to have the same name / term of reference as an existing person.
I'm not offended by it, I'm sure she wouldn't be offended by it even - I was just trying to say that editing oneself and justifying comedy that is edgy isn't a cut and dried business.
The fact that RH's gag made me laugh a lot more than Brand's is irrelevant also...
Anyhow - nice to have an argument I raised discussed, even if it was from a slightly skewed and defensive angle!
I feel like I'm on Right to Reply.
Being funny is a big part of it.
But Mrs Collings is a very different person to Mrs Collins.
It's not really my defence by the way. I don't think it needs defending. It's clear where the joke lies and no one thinks that I meant it. I think there is a difference in doing jokes about someone if they don't ever hear them. And the fault of causing offence can rest with the person (or newspaper) who passes the news on. I had a friend whose husband died and someone made a joke about him when she wasn't around. The joke wasn't brilliant, but she would never know about it. Then one of the people present went and told her the joke. That was when it became offensive and hurtful. The messenger can sometimes be more to blame than the originator. The guy who told her was an idiot. A lot of these things depend on context. And it's the fact that all this stuff went on an ansaphone that makes it indefensible.
Ok - in practical terms you're clearly right. But ethically, perhaps not.
But ethics are a matter for the individual to decide - and we all crack obscene jokes about people when they're not around, so I'll not drift into hypocrisy here..
Having now caught up, I'd like to out myself as apparently the only person who listens to Collings & Herrin but doesn't listen to Adam & Joe. Probably because I haven't got bored with you yet, whereas I got them out of my system a decade ago...
(And, in passing, I would add that the last couple of weeks podcasts have been very good. Keep up the good work.)
-- David
I'm going to have to stop listening to the podcast at work. I burst out laughing when Richard mentioned the Queen's raggeddy c**t near the end.
Post a Comment
<< Home