Maureen Lipman says cancel culture could destroy comedy

[ArabellaScott]

Article on how 'cancel culture' is affecting comedy. Mentions Dave Chapelle, JK Rowling and others. Some pertinent points:

'nearly a third (29%) of people who hold gender critical views said they always or mostly don't say what they really think when they are talking about this controversial topic.'

No shit.

It would have been interesting to see how many people polled hold those views.

I noticed the criticism on Twitter from those who disagreed with what she said tended to consist of insults and attacks on Maureen Lipman herself, rather than her words.

Rather ironic.

The point is, Russ, who gets to decide what is hate speech and what isnt?
Also, what is unacceptable is changing all the time - another comedian (can’t remember who) said along the likes of ‘my career ending joke is out there somewhere, waiting to be unearthed “.

'Kings used to have jesters who won poke fun at them and take the piss.'

I'm by no means a historian. My only knowledge is from TV!

I never got the sense they took the piss out of the king. Or nobles. But that they were laughed AT.

I'll Google as obv TV not exactly accurate with this stuff!

You must know more than general bods like me, there's a lot of us about who would go by TV! Like how women with power- obv example Elizabeth I, over time are presented as increasingly grotesque. (Changed a bit recently as non Beautiful woman lead in mainstream drama? Erm....)

Is it the same sort of thing, given their closeness/ ear of monarch?

Google jester has s lot.

They mention a handful jesters other countries who could get away with joking about political stuff/noble people etc.

UK specifically mention a couple iirc.

Wiki I know also not definitive, can you point me to more info? Cos the general picture painted is more what I thought.
For eg-

'A jester, court jester, or fool'

'This modern term derives from the older form gestour, or jestour, originally from Anglo-Norman (French) meaning storyteller or minstrel. Other earlier terms included fol, disour, buffoon, and bourder.'
(Dunno what all mean but buffoon I get!).

'Jeffrey Hudson had the title of Royal Dwarf because he was short of stature. One of his jests was to be presented hidden in a giant pie from which he would leap out.'

'Scholar David Carlyon has cast doubt on the "daring political jester", calling historical tales "apocryphal", and concluding that "popular culture embraces a sentimental image of the clown; writers reproduce that sentimentality in the jester, and academics in the Trickster", but it "falters as analysis".'

Over the years I have realised that change really has to be societal. When enough of population think no that's not on. Then the entertainment which is wider audience follows.

BUT. There are always plenty in society who think can't say this that any more. Bloody X people means I can't say y any more. What was problem? Everyone happy till angry Z came along and went on about it. Oversensitive, no sense of humour!
Etc etc.

I have encountered this in real life plenty. And it's REALLY dangerous. IMO.

Because for those who don't agree not on. Because thought whatever it was, was funny, no problem. Delivered by their sort of people. Feels like THEY are being accused of something.

Resentment has been growing for years. And it's hidden. Festering away. And IME it's mainly from the group that as a class are the dominant in all sorts of areas. And they feel attacked, undermined, slagged off, being told things they had, often still have. Being seen as awful. Talent in entertainment, work, etc. Being overlooked unfairly because 'diversity'.

It's been building for years and I am worried what happens if (when?) it's tips to enough is enough in a big way...

So where is the line? When everyone has a different one.

Anything goes, free speech etc.

For some things, definitely. Opinions etc are deemed an outrage and bad.

For everything?
In practice. Carte blanche for really awful things.

And if course the things that people find over the line, often it's because of who they are, their own situation.

Which leads us back to group as an entire group, not as subgroups, are least often the target of nasty jokes, generally aren't stereotyped as one whole group. That get much less aggro etc simply because of who they are. As a whole group, all of them. Not subgroups with various stereotypes.

That group IME contains the most people who feel they are being ignored, overlooked, discriminated against, the things they like are being deemed beyond the pale ..

So if anything goes. Which types of people are going to be great! Back how it was when things were good. And which are going to be once again the punchline?

Why do some people point out that not all comedy has to be edgy, as if that means none should be? Yes, some people like quite gentle humour, but that doesn't mean more cutting humour doesn't have a place.

And this "I don't want to hear jokes making fun of whatever type of people". Often that's not what is going on at all. No one thinks it's funny to say "na na, women, they are so womanly" or "na na black men." Comedy, to be funny, has to say something unexpected and also true. Maybe shocking, maybe taboo, maybe just an unusual observation.

That humour that relies on shock alone is low quality. Sometimes it works, something so taboo or unexpected can seem a little funny just because it becomes a bit absurd to say it, but that's a one trick pony. Comedians who rely on it too much usually have a limited career.

Comedy can't survive cancel culture and it is a loss - it's a powerful tool to allow a society to see itself more clearly. We all need to see our own absurdity.

But as well as cancel culture, comedy is being destroyed by the increasing inability of people to see things with multiple meanings or from multiple viewpoints. These are people who see a television show representing a questionable person and imagine it means only to normalize their views or actions. Or who take every statement entirely literally. Comedy can't survive that kind of mental simplicity.

Just read start of your post Santa.

I think maybe you haven't read the article?

Are you reacting to Grim's post yesterday? Not sure.
If so, it contains the quote that she was reacting to.
That quote made me think, I'm going to read article for context.

Essentially, Maureen lipman said it had to, in the article this post is about.

That explains why doesn't have to be 'edgy' is being mentioned on the thread, which I think answers your question.

I don't know what you are talking about cheeze, I am responding to the other posts in the thread about the nature of comedy and cancel culture.

Sorry, I really need to work on clarity!

My post is saying, that the article the post is about, quotes ML -

"Something has to be forbidden to make you laugh, really belly laugh. It's when you shouldn't be laughing," she said. "All the things that have been cancelled out by being correct are, I'm afraid, all the things that make people laugh."

So posts saying not all comedy has to be edgy, are reacting to what ML said. And taken in context with that, then it makes sense for comments to say not all comedy needs to be edgy.

I mean I don't know your thoughts on what ML said.

I don't agree. Plenty of things are funny without being in any way forbidden.

And just realised.

ML BT ad years ago. Generally seen as funny. I suppose there were some stereotypes certainly played on. Not insulting ones though iirc.

Just had a squiz.

She was on cannon and ball show, vicar of Dibley, Victoria wood and... Sleb goggle box!

So much for edgy

Final post before bed...

Examples are good. To have something concrete to discuss rather than general eg edgy will mean different things to different people.

First comes to mind is yep boyle joke-

': ‘I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter - she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her.’'

For me that crosses several lines in a really major way.

I remember threads at the time there were posts saying everyone has a different sense of humour, it's funny because shocking etc.

I also think there's a situation thing.

Mainstream broadcasters giving airtime, paying for, and for BBC it's our money. Those who step over various lines of what's generally ok for majority of population. When person hired has got massive press about it ie everyone knows whatever was said.

That's very different to performers doing their own shows.

And they aren't 'cancelled' they're perfectly popular if audience there.
Eg Jim Davidson really saying what he wants, Roy chubby brown, from my childhood ads for Jethro - slightly naughty!
Etc etc.

They can and do sell out to those who like their style, in own shows/ appearances etc.

So there's a point here about mainstream broadcasting v everywhere.

I think that's an important distinction to bear in mind.

It's covered in The Times today.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dame-maureen-lipman-cancel-culture-will-wipe-out-comedy-qt7c5tjgm?shareToken=9d83cbee15d04843e2a788e34bd7e143

Reading through this quickly, I think it's apparent that there's a significant difference between comedy clubs and larger shows (old vic/Gilliam, pope ted though that's not mentioned) and even more the mainstream broadcasters.

@Triphazards

Boyle is in the unfortunate position of his act being more unfunny than it is offensive.

Little offends me. If you're offensive and funny, I'll probably laugh. However, I won't laugh just because you're offensive: there has to be some wit or humour there.

Boyle could be a good comedian. I've heard good comic timing from him on radio panel shows, where his "routine" is not on show.

I don't think the funniness or the unfunniness is what's key, though.

Too subjective.

@beastlyslumber

Can't remember who said it (probably lots of people) but comedy really is the first line of defence against authoritarianism.

Kings used to have jesters who won poke fun at them and take the piss. They also at times acted as advisors. Only the genuine narcissists would dispense with a jester. Part of their role was to keep you human.

So it's no surprise that it's comedians (and writers and artists) who are being silenced now that we are entering this new age of authoritarianism.

Probably we're always living in a certain amount of tension between freedom and social responsibility. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, etc.

Sometimes a tricky balance to strike between guarding freedom of expression and also protecting people (threats or actual abuse under the guise of 'joking').

Neither extreme is healthy.

I wonder how one measures the degree of censoring/freedom? Is there a metric to use?

Is one of differences that artistes in the past were mostly supportive of each other' whereas now they're among the first to join in the denouncing? I'm not just thinking of comedians.

And sorry if that's been said already - I'd missed a whole page of posts and hadn't noticed.

Now you know how Jim Davidson has been treated. Cancel culture is bowing down to woke, feminism was woke at one point and benefitted from cancelling comedy seem as misogynistic and now there is a different version of woke it isn't quite so happy.

Isn’t Jim Davidson still working? Chubby Brown certainly is. Still packing out regional theatres and I doubt he’s tailored his act much from when dickheads in my 6th form used to put his records on in our shared common room and no one gave a solitary fuck how that made us girls feel.
And I see Benny Hill’s shows are being rerun on TV.
There’s still a market for this shit.

Yeah I remember comedians like Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning getting a lot of challenge and criticism but were their shows ever cancelled?

@Snugglepumpkin well said

Cheesemmm: ": ‘I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter - she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her.’'"

I've known men who would say things like that. To me it's not humour in bad taste. There's no humour there.

I don't think the funniness or the unfunniness is what's key, though.

Too subjective.

Humour is subjective. But so is offence. So you can't judge by that, either.

I find Frankie Boyle unfunny and misogynist. But he has a right to do his comedy however he sees fit. There's no way to censor him that doesn't lead to censoring Glinner or other comedians/artists that I actually like.

I know what you mean about if there's a line between comedy and actual verbal abuse... I agree that is a bit of blurred line. In the example of Boyle making a rape joke/threat to a member of his audience, I honestly don't know the answer. I think it's despicable and exposes him as vile misogynist. I'm not really sure if there's anything to be done about it without opening the door to excessive controls on speech (which as women know all too well by now, will surely be used against us first and hardest.) I mean, that's already happening.

Possibly there could be a way of thinking about if something is targeted at an individual then it isn't covered by free speech? But I suspect that would be really difficult to determine and also open the door to various problems, e.g. could asking questions then be considered hate speech etc?

I think on balance I would rather have my freedom of speech and pay the price of having others who I find hateful also having freedom of speech. If their speech is curtailed, I know mine will be too. At least if I have freedom of speech I can argue against those people and for my own side.

I do lean that way, beastly.

But I suppose in this instance, I'm thinking the issue is a man saying to a woman 'I will abuse you'? That's a threat, surely? It's not about causing offence, but about causing fear and alarm.