In defence of Russell Brand
Gentry explores the rather disturbing trend of bloodlust in the media. Here begins our defence of Russell Brand.
Now, we've always been partial to the decadent fancies of Russell Brand, usually happy to see his wasted shell lounging around Shoreditch House after – one can only assume – a sordid night on the town.
Essentially a charming man – and a pioneer of style in both his comedy and attire – in place of anyone else, we'll step up in defence of Russell Brand. And even Jonathan Ross, if need be.
We’re more than a touch baffled by the Beeb’s reaction to the now notorious prank calls from two of Britain’s most diverse and perverse entertainers. It was a joke that the majority of the planet seems unable to accept some people might have found funny. It was offensive, and in poor taste, but not without humour. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross have not done anything to justify such vindictive reactions.They do not deserve the rabid bloodlust.
It was cringingly out of control, and that's why it was amusing. The two men were prectically having a breakdown. The joke was on them , as much as Andrew Sachs. They went way too far, way too early and just kept pushing, unable to stop themselves. It was an absolute shambles. And dare you not to laugh at it.
But until the newspapers and other foaming media-fonts got their mucky hands on this utterly unimportant story, there were roughly 1500 complaints. The tally now stands at a staggering 30,000.
Think about it. That’s 30,000 individuals who have reasoned out that their valuable time on this earth – 3 years of which are spent on the toilet, 8 years watching TV and 25 years sleeping (and god knows how many wanking, farting, eating and vomiting) – is best used to comment on an incident they are not involved in, at least not in any meaningful way.
Beyond trying to understand something I find completely irrational – complaining about something you don’t like (the universe isn’t designed just for you, so don’t be surprised if things happen that don’t make you smile) – I found the whole baited sequence at first amusing, but then rather disconcerting. And it only serves to reinforce the defence of Russell Brand.
I think we should all resent the assumption that this event could cause offence to anyone other than Andrew Sachs. In the world we live in, it shouldn't even register. Are Russell Brand – known for his outrageous rambling – and Jonathan Ross – known for his sex obsessed japes – even acting out of character? So why the grave surprise?
Surely Manuel (Andrew Sachs) understands this is a joke. He reportedly agreed for the material to be used in some manner or other, anyway.The presenters should be reprimanded in some way but the severity of the media and public reaction is completely out of proportion.
The media in this country get bored very quickly. They spin a story out of all proportion, and then instantly demand its conclusion – calling for apologies, public trials and sackings across the board. Who does this serve? What purpose these pointless, dramatic endings to periods of people's lives? It's almost entirely an insane series of events.
Is it heresy to admit, that in the moment, this cruel humour caught me off-guard and made me chuckle? I doubt i'm the only one.
Worst of all, people are taking it seriously. Am I so alienated from normal emotional existence that I simply cannot understand how anyone can relate to any aspect of this story in any real way?
Or is this story intrinsically important in a fundamentally obvious way?
Enlighten me, please!
Anyway, make up your own mind…
No related posts.
I’ve found the media-led fervour quite sickening. Russell has always preached a message of love and revolution and now he’s being made a figure of hate. I thought we booted out all the puritans 400 years ago.
I’m just pissed off that as a TV Licence payer I now no can now no longer listen to his weekly podcasts. Thanks BBC! I bet Mock The Week and HIGNFY will be totally toned down now too.
It’s quite sad to be Britsh at the moment. I wish Russell well in all his other ventures. Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.
Well said, and of course it’s a textbook moral panic. Wikipedia has this to say on the subject;
`Stanley Cohen, author of the seminal Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1973), says moral panic occurs when “[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.”‘
and;
`Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values, are known by researchers as “moral entrepreneurs,” while those targeted are known as a “folk devil.”‘
My own impression of Ross and Brand is that they’re basically decent people who can be very funny. They went a bit OTT on that show and there should probably have been some wise editing before transmission, but that’s too bad. The resulting and ongoing furore is beyond ridiculous though.
Scalps will be claimed and it’ll all blow over until the next one comes along.
I used to really enjoy listening to Russell Brand’s radio podcasts and am quite upset that the tabloid newspapers have incited knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers to rise up on their hind legs and bay at the Beeb like demented hamsters.
Poor Russell.
The UKs loss is the USs gain.
National outrage was sparked by a moment’s idiocy on the part of Jonathan Woss and Wussell Bwand a few weeks ago when the newspapers ran out of stories about Big Brother contestants, skateboarding ducks and what your breasts mean to fill the spaces between pronouncements of economic doom.
The incident occurred when, in a terrible lapse of judgement, a radio producer let Mr Ross and Mr Brand behave on-air in the manner they had been hired to. It is understood that Brand made the slanderous suggestion that he had in fact managed to get it up at least once whilst going out with Georgina Baillie.
“I am mortified,” said Ms Baillie, “at the number of half-page photos of my smile and cleavage in the papers and the many impending offers of work. Just mortified.”
The BBC has suspended the two presenters for embarrassing director general Mark Thompson.
“In these dark, Maddie-free days,” thundered all papers, “this sort of obscenity against a member of the Satanic Sluts cannot be countenanced. Suspension is hardly sufficient. The British sense of justice and fair play will not be satisfied until they are castrated by a baying crowd, pursued through the street on horseback with dogs, hanged by the neck outside White City until dead and their foul corpses left there to fester for at least a month. We pay our licence fees!”
“I denounce these despicable demagogues of dull-wittedness, whoever they are,” thundered Gordon Brown, with a Prime Minister’s sense of what it means when Luscious Lucy, 19, of Sheppey comments on a public issue from her editorial column on page three of The Sun. David Cameron blamed ten years’ financial ineptitude from Labour and vowed that the Tories would be tough on Brand and tough on the causes of Brand.
Chancellor Alistair Darling counseled caution, however, warning that the credit crunch would almost certainly lead to difficulty in securing sufficient teapots for a really good tempest.
My blog rant: http://tinyurl.com/5bl7f2
“I am mortified,
I can’t fucking believe this.
We does the daily mail et al find these cretins to join in their anti-BBC crusade?
I’ll miss Russell (not so much Ross, but it’s my choice not to watch him) – they’re only going for him as he constantly slags off the gutter red-top press anyway.
I might start a campaign to get Songs of Praise off the airways – it sickens me what they get away with on that show
I honestly believe that Jimmy Carr got it EXACTLY right – a lot of fuss over nothing. People need to move on. Its the fault of the Daily Mail. Biggots!!! Stick them in a gas chamber.
have a look at some more on this at the-mantlepeace.blogspot.com
I don’t think we should let the Americans to keep him – we need him back!!
No defence for messrs Brand and Ross. What they did was unacceptable. End of. And it’s laughable to hear people condoning their actions under the auspices of ‘free-speech’ or ‘creative license’ as the very same people would themselves be spitting blood if they were on the receiving end of this ‘comedy’. I know not one person who would find it funny to have lewd comments blasted down the phone onto a voicemail that effectively questioned a female family members dignity (even if she is no angel…) and have that heard by a grandparent etc. And then to have it broadcast on the BBC having specifically asked them NOT to do so!
Anyone would be highly offended by that.
As to the charge of Daily Mail, right-wing ‘knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers’ getting themselves a scalp or two… well that’s preferable to the ‘knuckle-dragging mouth-breather’ hoodie wearing cult of youth allowing the culture of anything-goes, no standards or respect or dignity to become the norm in our already decaying western society.
I speak as 30 something man of the world who is perfectly happy the hearing the F word on the TV and seeing violence and nudity wear appropriate. And as a 30 something I grew up in the era of alternative comedy – Alexi Sayle, Ben Elton et al never held back with ripe language. But there in lies the difference. Their humour was broad based and not crudely attacking one person in a personal way. They had venom, but they had a grace too.
And that is something severely lacking in some of todays comedy. And it’s something messrs Ross (who I like) and Brand (who I detest) need to learn .. and fast.