I used to love Channel 4.
When I was a teenager in the nineties, Friday nights in particular were filled with great show after great show.
Father Ted, Frasier, Kids in the Hall, Beavis and Butthead. It was the home of some really original comedy and was always very forward thinking.
What the hell happened?
I suppose things went downhill somewhere around the time they started giving over most of the summer schedule to Big Brother, a show with a huge nasty streak, which required minimal creative effort. They became lazy, and they ended up in the gutter.
Which explains why nowadays they dedicate most of their time to mocking the disabled.
You may recall a while back that Channel 4 refused to acknowledge the offensive nature of the word 'retard' when it was used in a very dodgy context by the equally dodgy Vinne Jones: http://christinalouisemartin.blogspot.com/2010/05/ofcom-in-common-sense-shocker.html
It took a lot of complaints, and pressure from a national disability charity, to get a begrudging 'sorry'. A 'sorry' which meant absolutely nothing when you consider that at the time, they were developing a show with the working title 'Deal With it Retards'.
This show incidentally went on to become 'Tramadol Nights' starring, another lover of the disabled, Frankie 'isn't Downs Syndrome funny' Boyle.
I didn't watch 'Tramadol Nights' when it broadcast last week, but I did catch the programme after it, 'The Morgana Show'. And what do you know, the disabled were the butt of a (pointless) joke again.
Well actually not so much a 'joke', calling it a 'joke' gives it too much credit, as there was nothing to it apart from, 'look, this character is slow, ha ha ha'. Morgana needs to take a lesson from South Park. Disability can be tackled in comedy, but it requires wit.
Anyway, the character in question was called Gilbert:
And he popped up throughout the show, constantly failing to do things because he's slow.
The kicker this time, is that Channel 4 in addition to mocking the disabled, don't even have the guts to admit they're doing it. Bullies and cowards, wonderful.
My friend, Nicola Clark (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/28/disability-c4-ofcom-complaint) wrote to them to complain and got this response:
Thank you for your email.
Yes, I am aware that there has been a reaction on twitter to the character. We have also had positive reaction to the show in general and the
character specifically. In fact, Gilbert is one of the show's most popular characters. At the recordings for the show, the audience reacted with
great warmth to the character and there were absolutely no complaints at all.
I think it is important to point out that the way you describe Gilbert - a young man with learning disabilities - is not the way the comedian
describes - or Channel 4 sees - the character.
Gilbert is one of Morgana's longest serving characters, she has performed him for many years. In a recent interview with the Radio Times she
explains a bit more about how she came up with the idea for the character, the affection she feels for him and the way she, as the creator of the
character, sees him.
That is not as a character with learning disabilities but as a well meaning and loveable little oddball who gets annoyed when he gets things
wrong.
Gilbert is an affectionately drawn original character, not a mockery of someone with learning difficulties. The comedy comes from the character's
childlike desire to get everything just right, and always falling short. It is neither Morgana's, nor Channel 4's intention to mock those with
learning disabilities.
Pardon my French but - bullshit.
Gilbert started life on the TNT Show, in Gilbert's Special Report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_FVAzkycw
The 'special' in Special Report was an allusion to special needs, and Gilbert's fellow reporters both had disabilities. It was obvious!
Oh and just to eliminate any remaining doubts, the description of Gilbert's Special Report here: http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/tnt_show/ says definitively: Gilbert and his crew (actors in real life) all have disabilities, but that doesn't stop them interviewing celebrities
I'm not sure what disabled people have done to piss Channel 4 off so much. Probably nothing, they're clearly just an easy target.
All of this begs the question; if Channel 4 hold the disabled in such contempt, why are they broadcasting the Special Olympics?
I can only think that they have mistakenly bought the rights thinking it's a comedy show. I wouldn't be surprised if they change the title from 'Special Olympics 2012' to 'Look at the Spastics Trying to Run'.
Channel 4, sort it out. Comedy should kick up, not down.
A recent study showed just how socially excluded disabled people are - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11139534 - they do not need the likes of Channel 4, Frankie Boyle and Morgana Robinsion adding to the ignorance and bullying they already face.
16 comments:
Fantastically well put blog. I LOVED
"A recent study showed just how socially excluded disabled people are...they do not need the likes of Channel 4, Frankie Boyle and Morgana Robinsion adding to the ignorance and bullying they already face."
Thanks matey :)
Comment is Free want a piece on this from me and Nicky by Monday.
We're going to get such a kicking in the comments section!
x
"Comedy should kick up, not down."
Yes. This.
Good luck with the Guardian article. Maybe you should wear an it'spoliticalcorrectnessgonemaaaaaad-proof vest.
Indeed!
Last time I dared question people mocking the disabled on CiF I was called both a Nazi and a leftie. Not sure how I could be both. Hitler, the College Years?
x
"Gilbert is an affectionately drawn original character, not a mockery of someone with learning difficulties. The comedy comes from the character's childlike desire to get everything just right, and always falling short. It is neither Morgana's, nor Channel 4's intention to mock those with learning disabilities."
How the hell do they think they're going to get away with lying this blatantly?
My mistake, they already have.
They obviously have nothing but contempt for, well, everyone! Their viewers, the disabled, anyone with a complaint...
Such arrogance.
Hi Christina, it's your cousin Hannah here, found your blog by searching for your standup after seeing you on TV! I agree completely with you about Channel 4/ Frankie Boyle I'm sickened by them. I'm now a Lecturer/ researcher in Disability studies and supporter of disability rights and advocacy myself so this issue is close to my heart too. Hope you, Nick and the rest of the family are doing well, I'm getting married next year! lots of love Hannah x
HANNAH!!! Hello :)
So pleaed to hear about your work. That is terrific.
And congrats on your engagement.
I'm on Twitter. If you're on there too, direct message me your email address and we'll catch up.
xxx
There's something depressing about watching a grown man making fun of "mongols". According to Channel 4, Frankie Boyle is "challenging": I might be wrong, but I think he's a cynical opportunist who knows better than to stray beyond the boundaries of the niche he's created for himself. All this disingenuous rubbish about "saying the unsayable" seems about as much of a recommendation as "he stands in front of people and eats his own vomit." (Or, in this case, makes someone else eat his vomit before leaving him to await the arrival of a Young Team who'll demonstrate THEIR edgy and irrepressible humour by playfully kicking him in the head. When you start dehumanising people there's a logical progression in a direction that no-one with the vaguest grasp of 20th century history would want to follow.)
Hamilton. Thanks for your thoughts. You are quite right.
It's tiresome when people like Frankie Boyle - who set out to be mindlessly offensive for its own sake - defend their pointless actions by accusing people who are offended of not 'understanding what they are trying to do'
They make it our problem. Patronise us about how we don't 'get' how edgy they are. Sometimes even tell us not to watch.
But not watching is not an option. It doesn't make it less wrong if I don't see it.
The truth is we totally 'get' it. That's why we hate it.
You may have seen that Channel 4 repeated Boyle's Harvey Price joke this week and refused to apologise to Katie Price.
They are smug, thoughtless and misled.
I only hope they take their heads out of their backsides some time soon.
Sorry but this is just oversensitivity. If the programme is mocking the disabled, then it's also mocking fundamentalist Christians from the American deep south, Boris Johnson, Dannii Minogue, Cheryl Cole, and stupid rich white men in the form of the male character who gets hit in every episode.
Anonymous (if that's even your real name!)
Over sensitive, moi? I don't think so.
I was on the comedy circuit for over 5 years and saw more comedy than you have had hot dinners. I've seen it all.
I also wrote for the last bastion of bad taste, Viz Comic, and was responsible for stand-up and written material that was deemed 'offensive', so I know plenty about walking the fine line between offensive comedy and just plain offensive.
Sending something up - celebrities for example - is one thing. Cruel and pointless mockery of a vulnerable group is quite another.
As for your other examples; Fundamentalist Christians, being a vocal group in society who sometimes impact negatively on others (gay rights, abortion, stem cell research), are ripe for satire and can defend themselves aginst jibes. As can 'stupid rich white men'.
Context is always king obviously. See the South Park 'Special Olympics' episode for a good example of comedy tackling disability.
I would also advise you to seek out the work of Stewart Lee, Doug Stanhope, Richard Herring - all of these people push the envelope extremely hard - harder and better than fake shock jocks like Frankie Boyle. And they can do so because there is a point to their jokes.
Ironically if Boyle and Morgana had more substance to their work they could go even further.
Morgana reminds me of the playground bullies who used to make 'spaz' noises at me because my brother was born brain damaged.
I think my experience both in comedy and in life means I can recognise the difference.
Celebrities and rich white men can defend themselves against jibes, yes, but so can the disabled, either individually or through groups. If the target of Morgana's comedy was a disabled celeb, would that celeb suddenly be unable to defend him or herself? Every week she plays the "I'm so annoying" Fearne Cotton who tries to kill herself in a death challenge. I assume you don't have a problem with that. Would you have a problem if she was playing the "I'm so annoying" Tanni Grey Thompson who tries to kill herself in a death challenge? Can you even imagine the outrage over such a sketch? But hey it's ok because it's Fearne Cotton and we all agree she's annoying! Either you treat people equally or you don't. You can't draw boundaries of who you can make jokes about and who you can't. There will always be people who will find certain forms of humour offensive, but does that mean comedians should shape their material accordingly? Let's not have jokes about suicide bombers because it might offend muslims, let's not mock the royals as it might offend monarchists, let's not make jokes about sex as it might offend sexually repressed religious nuts. Self-censorship would be creative death and set a dangerous precedent. Morgana's show also features a lonely spinster of the "crazy cat woman" variety, an eccentric old woman who thinks her radio is talking to her, and an alcoholic Hollywood actress. Right there three different groups - spinsters, elderly dementia sufferers, and alcoholics - could theoretically be offended. Where do you draw the line?
I don't agree that the Gilbert character is cruel towards the disabled, any more than the Ralph Wiggum character in The Simpsons who's clearly of the same ilk.
Simon.
No, the *learning disabled* cannot always defend themselves.
I don't know if you have any experience of learning disability. Doubtful. Your example of Dame Tanni - a physically disabled individual - makes me think that you regard all disability as the same.
My learning disabled brother for example, has the mental age of a 4 year old - how is he supposed to articulate himself in defence?
But we are now totally off the point because I was only talking about learning difficulty being tackled apallingly *in this instance*. I am not advocating that it be off limits as a topic.
You conveniently ignore that fact, and the fact that I have already pointed out a good example of it being dealt with in South Park.
If there is context and a point, you can go as far as you want in comedy.
I could understand your ire if I was calling for a blanket ban on the entire subject regardless of context, but I am not.
In answer to your question, I dont draw any lines. Comedy is limitless in its scope.
I only ever question pointless, mean minded comedy. And if we didn't question things, how would we evolve ideas?
If nobody had ever questioned the racist comedy of the 70s we'd still have Jim Davidson on prime time.
I accept that I don't have the personal experience of knowing someone who has a learning disability and that you are coming at this from a perspective I don't have, and if I misunderstood your views with regards to the scope of subjects for comedy, I apologise. I maintain that I don't view Gilbert as a cruel character, as he is, in effect, no different to Ralph on The Simpsons who's clearly a character with learning disabilities. I was actually surprised when I read a comment on a Youtube video of Gilbert dancing that said some people have taken offence at the character as I had never thought of it as nasty or mocking. It was that which led me to do a google search on it and brought me to your blog.
Simon
It's interesting to hear your take.
That some people did not regard Gilbert as an overt stereotype of the learning disabled is something I was not aware of.
I can recognise it for what it is because of my background and because I first saw Gilbert on the TNT Show where he was billed as a 'Special Needs' reporter who always arsed things up on account of the fact that he was disabled. Not nice. Not correct. Not necessary.
Taken out of this definite context maybe it is not so clear.
I still find it objectionable but that's just me, and as I say, I am not advocating limits in comedy, just questioing certain examples of what I take to be problematic comedy.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment