John Cleese’s new show is headed to a network that’s been described as a “British Fox News”
GB News, where the Monty Python hero's new series will reportedly launch in 2023, focuses much of it's air time on criticizing woke culture
Aux News John Cleese
Despite the gruesome extent to which John Cleese’s Black Knight is willing to wave away a “flesh wound” in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there’s one thing the actor himself won’t brush off: cancel culture. Cleese, who has become a vocal critic of cancellation and woke culture in his later life, will debut a new series on right-wing leaning U.K. network GB News, which launched in 2021.
Speaking to BBC Today on Monday, Cleese confirmed that he’ll bring a new series to GB in 2023. Cleese says he plans to collaborate with satirist and GB veteran Andrew Doyle to encourage “proper argument.” (Read: this one’s for the devil’s advocates out there.)
Cleese, whose series Fawlty Towers once aired on the network, says he has since been disillusioned by English television and has pretty much “given up on it.” But when representatives from GB approached, Cleese said he was interested in the network’s pitch.
“What they said was, ‘people say it’s a right-wing channel [but] it’s a free speech channel,’” Cleese recalls.
Cleese also took a moment to acknowledge that, although he has not been asked to return to the BBC, if they were to ask he would respond: “Not on your nelly.” His reasoning? “Because I wouldn’t get five minutes into the first show before I’d been cancelled or censored.”
After being an early backer of GB News, Warner Bros Discovery sold its stake in the company in August, citing a string of problems and low ratings, per The Hollywood Reporter. In the sale, the network lost chairman Andrew Neil in a very public fallout. In a September 2021 interview with the BBC (via The Guardian), Neil described his exit, explaining that he no longer wanted to be a “minority of one” at a “British Fox News.”
“More and more differences emerged between myself and the other senior managers and the board,” Neil added.
Any differences Neil may have perceived seem to look more like similarities to Cleese, who tells BBC he got along well with the GB team he met.
“I was approached and I didn’t know who they were,” Cleese recalls. “Then I met one or two of the people concerned and had a dinner with them and I liked them very much.”
156 Comments
It’s weird that “You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain” is from a Batman movie, because it’s a pretty astute take.
It does kind of imply that it’s an inevitable process though, instead of something that only happens when a person’s too lazy to keep up with the modern world.
Cleese’s career has had its ups and downs but neither villain nor hero are an accurate description of it at any point. Either that or your bar for heroes and villains is very low. Like the person who returns a shopping cart to a corral is a hero and those who leave them scattered in the parking lot are villains. That low.
Having worked at a grocery store and had to collect those discarded carts, I take umbrage with this statement.
They’re assholes but probably not bad enough for masked vigilantes to hunt them down. That’s reserved for people who drive slow in the fast lane or get over without looking.
I mean, you’re taking my comment in an extremely literal way for some reason. Like I don’t think Harvey Dent was ACTUALLY talking about John Cleese.
Yes and apparently my attempt at that dry, British humor is a failure. Not surprising for an American. Me, I mean. I have no idea where you’re from.
Not if you’ve worked at the store!
I have worked in a grocery store and people who toss carts into the road are scum of the Earth and I silently wish for extreme retribution be done to them.
I mean if you’re actively supporting the oppression of a marginalized people I’d say that pretty well qualifies you for villain status
I would guess you’re referring to him saying old man stuff on social media, like the old man he is? I’m not aware of him campaigning for any particular parties or politicians. I’m not up on UK politics though. That would be my minimum for “supporting oppression” because I don’t think comments online mean or do anything either way. Opinions vary of course.
Supporting a world famous transphobe who has a gigantic platform to spread harm against trans people absolutely is oppression
Supporting how? Money, appearances? Tweets do very little to sway anyone’s opinion, they just reinforce existing ones. Are you talking about the Harry Potter lady? Do you honestly think anyone listening to either one of those people doesn’t already have their minds made up as to the subject of trans people? I would love for you to show me one example, just one, of either Clarkson or Rowling converting a person to anti-trans beliefs. I guarantee all their replies are from people who love and agree with them or hate and disagree with them. You’re giving them too much credit for influence they don’t have.
Jesus
They turned Jesus anti-trans? That’s a hell of a get for them, that guy loves everyone. Although maybe he’s just getting in line with his followers.
I can’t believe it’s 2022, we lived through an entire Trump presidency and people still want to act like they have no idea how dangerous normalizing bigotry is
We lived, despite all the sticks and stones on social media. Because social media allows people to reveal themselves. It does not make them change. If someone hates people they don’t need permission from someone on the internet to feel or act that way. It’s a good thing when people know who you are and where you stand even if who you are is bad and where you are is wrong. Would you rather they all have the exact same beliefs and you not be aware of it?Bigotry is normal, it appears to be the human baseline. That’s not an argument for it’s continued existence but an observation about human nature. For us to progress we need to fight bigotry not because it’s immoral but because it’s inefficient. The next Einstein could be lost in a ghetto. An equal to Newton could have been thrown to the sharks during the Atlantic Crossing on the slave ships. Moral arguments will not work with everyone because morality is subjective. Thus the argument of collective interest. There’s no need to normalize anything nor does it do anything given time we will sink back to our baseline just by not thinking about it. No one else is needed.
It’s a truly diseased mentality that looks back at the steady drumbeat and rise of fascism over the past several years and shrugs and says “oh well, we survived.” But god forbid you criticize John Cleese! That’s something to really get upset over.
“I would guess you’re referring to him saying old man stuff on social media, like the old man he is?”What if I told you it was still oppressive even if an old man says it? And what if I told you that “comments online” don’t just exist in a vacuum, and that a real person said them, and that a real person lives by the principles espoused in those comments and those opinions translate into day-to-day acts of oppression and that human people actually suffer real harm because of them?
That’s an extremely convoluted chain of logic with a lot of weak links. If you can’t show a direct link between a social media post and actual harm caused to an individual you’re reaching and exaggerating. You’ve stated your premise, that comments on social media can cause harm. Now prove it.
I’m not sure which part makes leaps of logic that you are unable to follow. Is it the part that says that comments are said by real people? Certainly there are bots out there, but in this case we are talking about specific comments said by a specific person, so surely this is a “leap” even you can make. Is it that you don’t believe in real people, or that you don’t believe in the phenomenon of real people saying things?Is it the part that says that the person who made the comments lives by the sentiments espoused in the comments? Surely that isn’t too much of a “leap,” since we can generally believe people when they say things, certainly in a situation like this in which he had no reason to tell a lie that made himself look worse.Is it the part where these thoughts translate into day-to-day acts of oppression? You say you need a “direct link” between a social media post an an act of harm. Well, let’s put aside the fact that that’s a silly standard designed not to be met so that you don’t have to put anymore thought into the wrong-headedness of your post and go ahead and examine it anyway. First of all, my premise wasn’t “that comments on social media can cause harm.” They obviously can, but that’s not what I was arguing in my post. There’s not even a second of all. Go back and read what I said first, and when you’ve wrapped your brain around the (actually pretty simple) claim contained therein, then you can try your hand at developing a relevant response.
That’s a lot of assumptions and no proof whatsoever. Pretty long winded way to say you have no idea if you’re correct or not but would sure like to be. I’m fully capable of understanding your premises I just don’t agree with them. And if you’re telling me they’re self evident, they aren’t.
It’s an assumption that John Cleese is a real person who said this thing? Okay. If that’s your definition of assumption than you and I are too far away from ever being on the same page about what English words mean and there’s no point continuing this conversation. Good day.
People who leave the carts scattered around are villains. They are straight up shitty people. One time I was getting in my car to leave, and this woman put her cart right behind my car and left it. I got out and was like wtf, I can’t get out, and she came over and moved her cart and vaguely gestured to other carts scattered around as if to say “I thought this was the thing to do.” Like, fuck off. The corral was right there. There’s literally no reason not to put your cart away, and you know the people who don’t do it aren’t stopping there with their general shittiness and disregard for others.I’m ranting now.
I am actually surprised that originated with The Dark Knight honestly. It is kinda a variation on Nietzche’s “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process they do not become a monster”, which as a kid, I always thought meant to make sure a Werewolf doesn’t bite you when you fight them
Yeah, every few years I have to check and make sure that it really did come from that film, but as far as I can tell there’s no prior use of it.
Did your parents read you bedtime stories from Beyond Good and Evil?
Didn’t everyone’s parents? In all seriousness I had older siblings and my brother went through a “philosophy” phase in High school
“which as a kid, I always thought meant to make sure a Werewolf doesn’t bite you when you fight them”If Teen Wolf (the TV series) has taught us anything, it’s that this sentiment is true both literally and figuratively.
I like the Dark Knight quote, and here it is paraphrased:“ I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. And it’ll happen to YOU!” – Grandpa SimpsonAnyone who thinks they’ve got justice all sorted out and wrapped up, will be surprised to learn they’re eventually no longer holy. The biggest issue with “woke” culture is there’s no rulebook. That’s why it’s scary to old people, and why it will bite the young too. It’s an age thing. Few old people are inherently racist based on their rules of racism…. and this will apply to everyone. If there’s one sure thing, it’s that social justice concepts change. The consequences of not being socially correct are dire. It reminds me a lot of Catholicism with the priestly class, but in this case there’s no rulebook to fall back on, making it far more dangerous. TLDR: wokeness changes, and the woke will eventually not be woke.
Hi John Cleese!
“TLDR: wokeness changes, and the woke will eventually not be woke.’Nah, since none of that has anything to do with what “woke” actually means, which is why white culture should stop stealing Black slang and then fucking the meaning all up.
“Nah, since none of that has anything to do with what “woke” actually means, which is why white culture should stop stealing Black slang and then fucking the meaning all up.”We do need a word for it, this this is definitely a different movement than anything that came before. The usage of the word is not regulated, there’s no single rulebook. Which kinda proves my point. I’m open to using any single word with any perfect origin, there just isn’t one.
I don’t see why we need a word for it. Just use multiple words. Every concept doesn’t have to have a single word. “What passes for acceptable in society changes from era to era.” That was easy enough. It’s not about using words with perfect origins. It’s about the oppressor not stealing from the oppressed and then using their ill-gotten booty to further their acts of oppression.
“ That was easy enough.”For you, but that’s not how people work. I’m not saying what should be. I’m saying what is. People need rules, definitions. 300 million people can agree on the word “red”. 300 million people can’t agree on “It’s about the oppressor not stealing from the oppressed and then using their ill-gotten booty to further their acts of oppression.”. That’s the kind of notion that has no beginning, no end, can’t be defined, and can’t result in workable legislation. Every generation will have a different interpretation, resulting in your embarrassment at the Thanksgiving table when you’re 65. I’m not saying how aging should work. But this is how it does work.
What in the world? That’s exactly how people work? When they have a concept they want to describe, they use words to describe it. Look at all those words you just used. You didn’t use a single word to say “that’s not how people work,” did you? And you 100% said how it should be. You literally said “We do need a word for it.” Also, 300 million people don’t agree on the word red. There are color blind people who abstain completely, first of all, and second of all we call purple onions red onions. “That’s the kind of notion that has no beginning, no end, can’t be defined, and can’t result in workable legislation.”First of all, of course it can be defined. It means exactly what it says. Second of all, who said it needed to result in workable legislation? What are you honestly talking about? I never said there needed to be “legislation” around the word woke. You’re talking a whole lot of nonsense to avoid acknowledging that white America plunders Black America for vocabulary, fashion, dances, art, and then uses the very things it plunders to further oppress us. And of course things change and maybe you get embarrassed at the dinner table. So what? So you listen when you are corrected and then you change. Again, it’s not hard. And even if it is hard, do it anyway. I’m not trying to hear these excuses about how someone who is 65 (and still holding down a job and still of sound mind) simply can’t do the right thing because they’re soooo old. Fuck that. There are plenty of old people who aren’t saying shit like this. Stop making excuses for the ones who refuse to change. Plus, are you 65? Because you are having a really hard time listening and changing already. All you have to do is stop using the word “woke” in this manner, but you’re refusing because of the word red or some shit. It’s not about age. It’s about refusing to listen to other perspectives that challenge you doing what you want to do. That has no age.
You’re still arguing “should”. This is about the mechanics of the human. This is weather. The properties of a material. And the word “Red” is a placeholder. Let’s use “wood”, or “taillight”, or “paper”. 300 million people can agree on those things. Scale matters, you see. While you and I can discuss things and come to an understanding on the latest social justice thinking, these concepts take time to spread and be adopted. I’m discussing how 300 million people work, not 2 or 100 or even 100,000. You’re making this about me, when I’m only describing the mechanics of shared meaning. You want to prescribe how people react to the changing dynamics of social justice. You’re getting angry at me for saying that one nebulous word can have many meanings depending on who you ask.What did “racism” mean in 1991, and what does it mean now? If “woke” is so easy to nail down, why did “racism” change so much? The rulebook changed, and as long as it’s always changing, the goalposts will always be moving. Because of this, the complex and changing topic of social justice isn’t going to be understood by everyone all the time as they change. Old people are stymied by crypto and Russian disinformation on Facebook, because it’s new and scary and runs counter to everything they’ve known. As an analogy, you’ll still find old people buying aspartame yogurt as a “diet food”. It’s outdated. What do you do about that? You try to educate, but these people aren’t paying attention. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. Do you have kids? Eventually they’ll reject your meanings of words. It’s what they do. It’s hard wired. That’s what I’m talking about.Honestly, you can use this to inform and shape how you deal with old people, or not.
Here’s my only “should”: the social justice movement needs to agree on things otherwise 1) they’ll always feel unfulfilled and 2) people will get sick of moving goalposts and stop caring (this is what old people do).
“This is about the mechanics of the human. This is weather. The properties of a material.”This is nonsense.“Let’s use ‘wood’, or ‘taillight’, or ‘paper’. 300 million people can agree on those things.”Which 300 million people? Because some people call garlic’s outer wrapping “paper” and some don’t. But none of this has anything to do with the usage of “woke.”“I’m discussing how 300 million people work, not 2 or 100 or even 100,000.”But why? Because *you* used the word “woke,” and I was taking issue with *your* usage of “woke.” Let’s talk about you and how you are using it, because that’s the problem in front of me. I didn’t ask you to change how 300 million people use it. I asked you to change you *you* use it. But you’re using those 300 million people to avoid taking responsibility for *your* part in the problem.“What did ‘racism’ mean in 1991, and what does it mean now?”Racism has always meant the same thing.“If ‘woke’ is so easy to nail down, why did ‘racism’ change so much?”It didn’t.“Because of this, the complex and changing topic of social justice isn’t going to be understood by everyone all the time as they change.”I never said it would? “You try to educate, but these people aren’t paying attention.”Right, like how I’m trying to educate you about the problems with cultural theft and you aren’t paying attention.“Do you have kids? Eventually they’ll reject your meanings of words. It’s what they do. It’s hard wired. That’s what I’m talking about.”That’s not what I’m talking about though, so I don’t know why you’re talking about it. This isn’t about kids rejecting things from their parents. At. All. This is about you, yourself, personally misusing a word.“Honestly, you can use this to inform and shape how you deal with old people, or not.”You have no idea how I deal with old people. I haven’t said a single thing about how I deal with old people, so I don’t need lessons on how to deal with old people. Honestly, you can use this to inform and shape how you deal with Black culture and how you use and relate to things that have been appropriated from them that are now being used against them, or not. I can see 100% that you are going to choose “not.” “Here’s my only “should”: the social justice movement needs to agree on things otherwise 1) they’ll always feel unfulfilled and 2) people will get sick of moving goalposts and stop caring (this is what old people do).”Or you could just stop making excuses for people who refuse to educate themselves, but as I can tell from this conversation you have a vested interest in those excuses since you already don’t take listen to and absorb criticism about how your own behavior contributes to the oppression of minoritized groups. *shrug*
“But why? Because *you* used the word “woke,” and I was taking issue with *your* usage of “woke.””No. You never were. Go back and read. Then go to college, and learn how people’s behavior can actually be changed, and get back to me on how wrong I am. Or just keep getting angry at humans, and see how far that gets you. How’s that working out? (no need to reply)
No need. Since I’m the one who wrote the words I know what I said, and since I either miscommunicated or you misunderstood, I’m telling you now that YOU are misusing the word and YOU need to examine that and YOU should stop.“Then go to college, and learn how people’s behavior can actually be changed, and get back to me on how wrong I am.”I’ve already graduated from 3 top 20 universities (the first one with a degree in the social sciences), so no need for that either.“Or just keep getting angry at humans”lol I wasn’t angry. I told you you were misusing a word and engaging in cultural oppression, then you got offended and defensive and deflected rather than engaging the criticism and learning something and being better. I’ll admit that does seem to be working out for you and others like you, including John Cleese. So, congrats there, round of applause indeed.
You completely missed my point, no matter how many times I could type it, because you’re not thinking in an orderly fashion. I’m talking in human generality (n=300M), you’re talking in granules (n=1) . In all your studies, you must never have dealt with actually putting things in practice to change human behavior. Here’s one example:“ You’re talking a whole lot of nonsense to avoid acknowledging that white America plunders Black America for vocabulary, fashion, dances, art, and then uses the very things it plunders to further oppress us.”I never acknowledged it or otherwise. You are hearing things. You are assigning meaning rather than reading things explicitly. I mean only what I type, and nothing else. When you want to change the world, when you are ready… you’ll be reaching into the science of how people change. But you’re definitely not ready. If somebody handed you a grant, you wouldn’t know the first thing to do with it.
“because you’re not thinking in an orderly fashion”Oh this is cute. Now we’re gaslighting. lol No, I didn’t miss your point. I get your point. I just wasn’t arguing your point. I never argued that things didn’t change and that it’s not sometimes hard for people to keep up. I never argued against your point. I’d say you missed my point, while you were talking about the weather and tail lights, but I think you got my point entirely. You’re just ignoring it because my point is uncomfortable for you and because you don’t want to stop using the word “woke” when and how you like. Which you should just admit.“you’re talking in granules (n=1)“That’s right. I’m talking about you, one single person. And you don’t want to talk about you because that’s uncomfortable for you.“I never acknowledged it or otherwise.” Well that’s just a lie. You didn’t acknowledge it and you did do otherwise. The otherwise was to ignore and deflect.“When you want to change the world”I don’t want to change the world. I want to change you. But you are not comfortable talking about your own complicity in oppression, which is unfortunate, but expected.
“But you are not comfortable talking about your own complicity in oppression, which is unfortunate, but expected.”Holy shit dude, my positions are completely immaterial to this whole thing. You don’t know my skin color, my culture, my age, or whether I’ve tasted concrete. I worked on a very important Black campaign in my state. Groundbreaking. I have voted DNC. I donate to Black candidates. I put my money where my mouth is, every damn year. I write my reps. I fund and donate and volunteer for people who are trying to fix things. Forget admission of complicity: this is ACTIVE correction of any complicity. I don’t just spew. I put in the time. You don’t want to change the world? Then everything you are doing is pure masturbation. You’re admitting that there’s nothing of value, nothing anyone can use, in your whole monolgue. IF you want change bad enough to actually do something, maybe you’ll learn how it’s actually done. But you don’t want change bad enough yet. You’re definitely more happy with the status quo; it allows you to feel superior. You don’t want to speak in solutions or progress. You just want to be holy. Like I said long ago, it’s like the Catholics. There’s a holy class, and everyone else.
“I worked on a very important Black campaign in my state.”LOL The old “I have a Black friend” defense. Yes, you couldn’t possibly be engaging in problematic behavior in that case. Thanks for clearing that up!And I’m not a dude. Anyway, if you don’t want to talk about how you personally use the word and how your personal use of the word is problematic I can’t make you.
It wouldn’t matter if I did, are you honestly saying in good faith that there is any positive outcome? You’re just going to yell at me. “The old “I have a Black friend” defense.”I do have a Black friend, and he’s done more to move policy and dialogue forward than you ever will. And I’m proud to know him, and proud for the opportunity to back him. When he moves onto national politics, he’ll probably still listen my ideas on messaging. Because they worked… yelling at people doesn’t.When you are ready to move up to the big leagues, hit up your local changemakers. Until then, you’re preaching in just-got-home-for-Freshman-fall-break mode.
“It wouldn’t matter if I did, are you honestly saying in good faith that there is any positive outcome?”Would it matter if you just admitted that you just don’t want to stop using the word that way? Yes? It’s cute that you’re being all victimy and claiming I’m yelling at you just because I disagree, but if you just admitted that you simply don’t care that your word usage is harmful and don’t want to change at least we’d be being honest with each other, rather than you hurling all these nonsense insults at me as if I’m too stupid to understand what you’re saying.“I do have a Black friend, and he’s done more to move policy and dialogue forward than you ever will. Interesting claim, since you don’t even know my name, but okay. I’m glad your friend cares about Black folks because you sure as hell don’t.“Until then, you’re preaching in just-got-home-for-Freshman-fall-break mode.”lol I’m sticking to the minor leagues for this immediate moment, and they don’t get anymore minor than you. And you have no interest in being less racist in your everyday life, so… *shrug*
Guess what… I’m not white.
Oh here’s the worst projection of your entire day:“You’re just ignoring it because my point is uncomfortable for you and because you don’t want to stop using the word “woke” when and how you like. Which you should just admit.”The only thing I wrote about “woke” coming from me, and nobody else, is this:“The biggest issue with “woke” culture is there’s no rulebook.” —- and apparently this is me being sinful?Go ahead, use CTRL+F and see where else I wrote about the word “woke”.Mine is an opinion, but an academic one, worth exploration. Unless you believe only the priestly class can read the secret books. Good luck getting people to buy into a thing that has a forbidden word.
“Go ahead, use CTRL+F and see where else I wrote about the word ‘woke’.”No need, because if you could read you’d see that my entire problem with you is that you are specifically refusing to talk about how you use the word woke. And I know why. It’s because you can’t tell a white person they are engaging in racially problematic behavior without them pulling this same defensive deflection shit every single time. Every. Single. Time. Oh, but you have a Black friend so it’s okay, and you will continue to use it in this problematic way because even though you worked on an “important Black campaign” that one time, you don’t actually give a shit about how *your* day-to-day behavior affects Black people because, newsflash, you have no interest in changing your day-to-day behavior. You keep talking about how *I* can change the world and how *I* can change people. But *you* can change yourself. I don’t need to be in charge of changing you. But you won’t, which, again, is unfortunate but expected.
I refuse to talk about how I use the word “woke” because it doesn’t matter. My original point was how old people change. Or not. Mine is an academic thread. Your questions have no answers. Your goalposts are on wheels ready to be moved around. You’re not discussing in good faith. You’re not asking clarifying questions. You’re only looking to lay traps. I’m not getting dragged into the mental mire of depression, self-hate, anger, and desperation that you live in. You’re not looking to help people, not even me.. You’re looking to hurt people, and not just me.
“I refuse to talk about how I use the word ‘woke’ because it doesn’t matter.”It matters enough for you to avoid taking responsibility for how you use it. You know that, which is why you refuse to acknowledge it.“Mine is an academic thread.”You keep saying that word. It’s clear it’s just another word you don’t know the meaning of.“Your goalposts are on wheels ready to be moved around.”Haven’t moved the goalpost once.“You’re not looking to help people, not even me.”I’m definitely not looking to help you, a white person who uses the Black people in his life as props to avoid taking responsibility for his own racism.Anyway, I’m logging off for the night, and out of this discussion for good. You can have the last word. I won’t be reading it, but you don’t care about that anyway.
Well, hopefully you get to have the discussion you want with someone else, because I ain’t having it with you.
But, it also does mean that.
That’s adorable! Little kids are so literal.
That’s covered in the “Whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you stranger” line
I wasn’t as into Nietzche as I should have been as a child. Remember Harry Stottlemeier from school? That was more my philosophical jam.
I mean, kid you was onto something as well, in fairness.
This quote should permanently come with JK Rowlings picture attached and not the Joker. I agree it transcends the movie in the same way that quote from Spy Kids about what if God stays in heaven because he’s afraid of what he created transcends that film.
Kind of like how the phrase “I will face God and walk backwards into Hell” originates from a Dril tweet about being banned from the zoo for hollering at the animals.
Christ Spy Kids is such a weird movie.
He is 80 something years old, you expect and old British guy to be like a 2o something year old? Besides didn’t they get shit for the sketches they did back then?
“Get your own arts program, ya fairy!”
Once-talented and respected comedian senses he’s drifting away from the cultural zeitgeist, panics, blames the woke mob/PC police/kids these days for his problems instead of trying to learn something new, becomes tedious, unfunny crank. Tale as old as time.
seriously, someone get Chevy Chase, Bill Maher, and Dennis Miller on the horn stat! These 4 has-beens will churn out some of the stalest and cringiest “hot takes” imaginable while undoubtedly amusing themselves endlessly. I should have guessed this is where Cleese would go, his abuse of the term “woke” was getting really strident and annoying lately. Still weird that he’s the face for the great meme about Fox News (about the paradox between being dumb but also not being quite smart enough to realize you’re dumb).
You can add Russell Brand to that list.
but do we have to?
I’d like to see more jokes about how inconvenient air travel is, and the differences between New York City and Los Angeles, delivered by someone standing up in front of a brick wall.
Or: free speech advocate sees culture slipping into authoritarian left hellhole decides to take action.
Cleese has built a career out of being an angry, contrarian curmudgeon- which he’s really good at- but that pose has made a lot of people who have similar bents go down really dark paths these days.
It’s the same dumb bullshit that Parker and Stone pulled 25 years ago when they decided that the best way to be “punk” in LA was to be Republican.
Contrarianism! Learn to rebel with just one easy step!
To be clear, GB news is “like Fox News” in that it’s reactionary, full of shit and will eventually mount a legal defense that claims nobody in their right mind could take them seriously. GB News is so unpopular that it’s been beaten in the ratings by Welsh dubs of Paw Patrol, and it’s been estimated that there are points that literally nobody is watching the channel. They have a lot of dodgy money propping them up and I can’t imagine it’ll last.
And yet it’s still more popular than Murdoch’s attempt to corner the same sad market.
Welsh dubs of Paw Patrol sound like the PERFECT stoner viewing material.
This is like how the Cartoon Network in the UK used to put on six hours of The Magic Roundabout late night on Friday and Saturday
Where can I stream these Welsh dubs of Paw Patrol? I need my fix in between Welcome to Wrexham Wednesdays.
I assume if you have a VPN and can set it to the UK you’d be able to get them from the BBC iPlayer?
No job too big, no llwnd too gwffll!
I’m glad that Michael Palin was always my favorite Python.
Palin is the best Python
When I was younger it was Cleese. Now its very Palin. I think Idle is fine, don’t recall him casually saying anything awful.
Idle would want paying up front first. Also, while he is quite willing to say something just to be a shit stirring asshole, he says things to primarily be a shit stirring asshole rather than because of some sort of British-middle class personal outrage. Eric Idle is more your sort of playful troll, rather than a mean old crank.
Idle is very, very openly and actively liberal on Twitter.
Shame Neil Innes isn’t around any more, all you would’ve needed to do is ask him about Eric Idle for another childhood hero to be ruined.
Idle made Spam-a-Lot. Which I know many loved but I thought was just terrible. If I’m being fair I didn’t see the original broadway run and cast. I saw the first touring run in Chicago so the cast was all Broadway vets but no “big name” ringers. I might have liked it better with Tim Curry as King Arthur
I kinda like Broadway vets more then ringers. They deserve a shot
I love Graham Chapman. But I can’t help it, Palin has always just been my guy.
And his travel shows were fantastic.
Palin, Jones, Idle in that order.Always loved Cleese, but he’s morphed into Bill Maher.
Are we not counting Chapman? Because I’d put him before Idle for sure. Maybe Jones as well.
Of course Michael Palin is the best, he’s a Sheffield boy.
GB News has been described as a ‘British Fox News’, but only by liars and people who haven’t seen it.GB News, despite its silly, vaguely jingoistic name, is an opinion channel with a somewhat moderate right of centre slant, most of the time. And remember, this is ‘moderate right of centre’ by British standards which basically means most of its presenters would align quite neatly with Joe Biden on most things.Fox is completely deranged. GB News is…a little bit conservative with a small ‘c’. They are not the same, and anyone who says they are is either a moron or thinks that you’re one.
It disappoints me to no end what he’s become. He was always my favorite Python and I do think he was at one time a genuine comedic genius. He’s just fallen down the boomer hole of blaming his modern day irrelevance on the fact that he now gets chastised for saying slurs.
Boy, when they said “and now for something completely different” they weren’t foolin, huh?
Amusingly Cleese pointed out at the same time that Monty Python wouldn’t get commissioned by the BBC today because it was “Six white men, 5 of whom went to Oxbridge”, without thinking about why they did get commissioned in 1969.
Don’t you just love it when they get this close to acknowledging the existence of systemic privilege but then tumble back down into “reverse racism!” muddle-headedness.
He’s also helpfully forgetting that it’s not that long ago that the BBC commissioned a desperately unfunny sitcom, starring a certain John Cleese, called Hold the Sunset. And then gave them a second series despite the wretchedness of the first series.
As if Sacha Baron-Cohen didn’t go to Oxbridge.
A new channel? What is this, 1998?
In the minds of the people at whom this channel is aimed, it’s absolutely 1998.
Maybe 1898
Is that Clifford money running out already?
Old white brits gonna old white brit
“Because I wouldn’t get five minutes into the first show before I’d been cancelled or censored.”
Brave Sir Robin, more like.
focuses much of it’s air time on criticizing woke culture
*its
And now for something completely different…
A couple of years back on the “WTF” podcast, the host interviewed Cleese and Eric Idle, each on a different day. The Idle interview was delightful, and what you’d want from an interview with a Python cast member. The Cleese one, however, just ended up being him complaining and being a miserable old dude. I ended up turning it off about a third of the way through. A shame Cleese turned out to be such a tool in his old age.
So the interview you enjoyed was the one where the interviewee was the thing you wanted them to be. The interview you couldn’t even finish was the one where the interviewee wasn’t the thing you wanted them to be.Got it.
It’s funny, I think Eric Idle was self-described as “The Sixth Nicest Python” and indeed had a rep as being quite unpleasant. Ultimately, though, he’s kept himself more in the loop, appearing in science programmes like The Infinite Monkey Cage, his humanism work etc. and I think his reputation has improved and certainly puts him above Cleese in a lot of respects.
I think the main source of Idle’s reputation is that he’s the one who has been the most obviously venal about exploiting the Python legacy for cash. But he was the one who had the closest thing to a working class background out of all of them, so it’s entirely exusable.
At least there’s one funny conservative.
Yeah, but he’s “funny peculiar” not “funny ha ha”
It’s really not shocking. I mean, if you go back and look at old Python sketches, they use words like “darkies” to an ALARMING degree.
It’s a funny word.
And plenty of yellow-face. Most of it was satirising racism of course but some of it is dodgy as all hell.
Generally coming out of the mouths of their ‘comedy working class’ characters, thus adding another layer of ‘ehhhh…’ to the process.
On the one hand, I get Cleese’s point – the BBC censored him and the other Pythons so heavily in his prime that I’m sure he’d be all for a “free speech” network.At the same time, though, I always thought Cleese was socially humanist, and that goes in direct contrast to anything right wing these days, so… I don’t know what to think.
A lot of these guys miss the fact that their cultural touchpoints haven’t changed in 40+ years and are now irrelevant, and chalk it up to “woke” culture. Like, Jerry Seinfeld had an article where he complained that this joke didn’t land: I do this joke about the way people need to justify their cellphone – I need to have it with me, because people are so important.Well, you don’t seem very important the way you scroll through them like a gay French king.It’s not that political correctness ruined a funny bit, it’s that it wasn’t a great bit in the first place, and “gay French king” just doesn’t remotely land as a cultural touchpoint to anyone under 40 (or maybe 50). There’s no spark of recognition to make the joke work, it’s just, “huh?” Thinking of the French as inherently effeminate was already well past its sell-by date in the 90s. That’s, like, a Catskills vaudeville-era bit. And directly equating effeminate gestures with homosexuality has died out over the past 20+ years since our collective notion of “gayness” has broadened, so there’s no context for the joke to work. It’s like making jokes about bad airline food or the struggles dialing long-distance on a rotary phone. It’s not that it’s offensive or anti-PC, it’s just decades past any sort of relevance.
And also…how is scrolling on a phone an inherently effeminate or self-important gesture? It’s the sort of semi-random assortment of signifiers you throw together into vaguely joke-like form when you’re just shooting the shit with your friends. Sure, you get a laugh, but more because of the context of shooting the shit with your friends than the inherent funniness of the “joke.” Like, I’m almost certain that’s the origin: Jerry pointed at somebody and said “look at that idiot over there, scrolling through his contacts like some gay, French king” and Richard Lewis or whoever kind of snorted in response, and now Jerry’s convinced that if Richard Lewis liked it what the hell is wrong with everyone else?
And he was talking about how it didn’t land with college student in 2019. Scrolling around touch-screen phones was hardly a new or novel thing. Jesus, why don’t you go ahead and make a joke about how rap isn’t really music because all they do is talk really fast? Or about how crazy it is that they made TVs flat!?!
If there’s any meaning at all, it’s the idea that a gay French king would be plowing through a long line of “favorites” that individually had no importance. I sure that in one sentence I’ve completely over-thought it.
“it’s just decades past any sort of relevance”That’s Seinfeld.
I love John Cleese. I wish he’d shut his goddamn mouth so I can continue loving John Cleese. I loved John Cleese. It was a sad day when he died in 2012.
Getting older is scary. You want to control things around you and keep them the same as they were. And it’s nice to have a TV channel that tells you you’re right to feel that way. Even if you’re wrong.
Yeah, but I don’t think Generation X will ever get enough cultural cache again that we could use it to get MTV to play videos.
Like, legit, Generation X might as well not exist. All the tik tok and instagram reels making fun of generations NEVER talk about Gen X. It’s always Boomers, Millenials, and Gen Z. We have been completely forgotten, and frankly I kind of like it that way.
We’re like the Silent Generation, except we got to watch our folks put our grandparents in homes and then get an addition to the house.
Someone needs to show Cleese the clip from the stand up comic doing a set in NJ, who was not only heckled by Trump trash but actually assaulted—they threw a can of beer at her. And she not only handled it beautifully, getting the rest of the audience to laugh at the Trump trash, but she picked up the can and drank what was left, thereby getting the entire audience on her side (except of course for the TT, who ran out of the room but was caught by the manager). THAT is “censorship” and THAT is how you handle “censorship” in the free marketplace of ideas. Not by whining about “cancel culture.”
My mother was a mental health educator who used his psychology videos in her teaching/therapy. Remembering those adds yet another strange wrinkle to his decline.
Pretty sure I ended up watching a couple of his management training videos.
Very genuine question—is “it’s” vs “its” simply becoming a cranky old distinction, like “who” vs “whom?” I notice it here constantly of course, but I see it in the NYT and Guardian occasionally as well.Truth be told, I really hate grammar Nazis—but this is one of those “learned it when I was 12 and it stuck” things. And I guess I’m just… surprised that it didn’t stick better for professional writers 😅
The argument sketch is one of the funniest, most brilliant sketches in the history of comedy, but can it really sustain a full half hour every week?
Getting your aging brain caught in the anti-woke hysteria loop really saps the funny out of you.
Flowery Twats was the peak of Cleese’s post Python work, in no small part due to the genius of Connie Booth. And in the “Best Python post-Python” category are we really not going to mention Terry Gilliam? REALLY?
Oh, Johnny Johnny Johnny. We all know it’s not really to do with free speech when it comes down to it. It’s because you’re a past-the-hill 82 year old who only hasn’t retired because you’ve been utterly taken to the cleaners in your many divorces, and you’ll take money from anyone who’ll throw it at you these days.
I don’t get it…Cleese has gone on record speaking against the American GOP, and now he’s thrown in with right wingers?Of course, Brit Conservatives might actually be Democrats in today’s crazy ‘murrica, but still.
British politics has never mapped well onto US politics, even before the Republicans lurched to the far right I suspect that the Tories were closer to the Democrats than the GOP on a lot of issues.And it works the other way too, look at Tony Blair’s bromance with Bush jr.
I’m so disappointed in him, he really went full nutter. So much for the meaning of life huh.
I mean, I would love it if that channel aired Life of Brian….what’s that? They would never do that? Because the movie makes fun of religion? And they are super religious? Huh, well, that definitely doesn’t sound like it’s a channel for “free speech.”
When Cleese was starting out in the BBC it was still receiving hate mail for having Cy Grant on the small screen and probably half that hate mail referred to Grant as “Ein Mitglied der Royal Air Force von unbestimmbarer Rasse”.Times change Cleese.
Not only did Cy Grant appear on screen (and on stage as Othello), he was also the voice of Lieutenant Green in Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons, which is pretty cool.
I didn’t need a reason to like Captain Scarlet and The Mysterons more than I already do, but now I have one. Thank you!
So just to desensationalize this a bit – I’m sure (now that Andrew Neill is no longer their respectability cover) GB News would like to imagine that it’s a ‘British Fox News’, and everyone can see that this is what it’s trying to be, but it was an absolute joke of a station from its shambolic launch to its current rogues gallery of twitter idiots. Even the people who make a big fuss of watching and liking it don’t actually take it seriously, they just imagine they’re making the liberals in their head angry.
I’m British and I’ve never heard of GB News but if “people say it’s a right-wing channel” I think that defines it as such.
it’s a free speech channelDo any of these morons even think for a second about how all this alleged ‘free speech’ is only ‘free’ if it aligns with a very, very specific right-wing worldview?
This just in: Old British White man is a conservative racist fuckhead.
Comedians who decry cancel culture just don’t get it that the shit they have been regurgitating for the past 50 years just isn’t as funny as it once was. Cleese has made a living playing obnoxious, boorish, condescending and narcissistic characters. In a world with Donald Trump and Boris Johnson his schtick has become obsolete. They just do it better than him.