Quote: Oldrocker @ December 10 2010, 1:24 AM GMTDunno. Dunno what he's talking about.
Yes, well a lot of things have happened since 1971, Oldrocker, this was just a joke about one such thing. Don't worry about it. 
Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights Page 10
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 10 2010, 1:27 AM GMTYes, well a lot of things have happened since 1971, Oldrocker, this was just a joke about one such thing. Don't worry about it.
And exactly how am I supposed to sleep now with this hanging over me?
What one such thing?
1971? I was 25 and madly gay (watch it!) . . moving on to my second marriage.
It's ok, I've Googled it.
And it's not funny, not in any PC sense, it's just, not funny.
From Channel 4's press release defending the Harvey jokes...
'The joke itself has been performed by Frankie as part of his stage show and, as with much of his material, is an absurdist and satirical comment on high profile individuals whose lives have been played out in the media.'
Questions:
1) What relevance does the fact that the joke had been used in Boyle's stage show have to C4 deciding to broadcast it? Are they simply saying that because people had seen this gag before it somehow legitimises showing it on their network? If someone secured a paying audience by standing on stage and felating a succession of farmyard animals would C4 consider that the act had artistic merit and it was therefore broadcastable?
2) In what way is the rape gag "absurdist" and "satirical"? C4 might want to go away and study the meanings of those two words...
3) Why does the suggestion that Katie Price's son is a high profile individual whose life has been played out in the media legitimise the jokes? The late Baby P(eter Connelly) would presumably also technically fit into this category? C4 seem to be suggesting that because Harvey is the offspring of publicity-hungry 'Jordan' that somehow makes him (and by implication his medical conditions) less deserving of protection from jokes at his expense.
I've (mostly) always applauded C4 for getting it right when it comes to what they're prepared to broadcast in terms of comedy. But this is no Brass Eye Special they're defending here and it looks somewhat pathetic to try and justify the broadcast of these jokes along similar lines.
In the 21st Century, there have been three jokes that, for me, tower above all others in terms of all-round comedic quality.
In no particular order, they are Frankie's "Harvey's custody" joke, Frankie's "Jordan married a cage fighter cos she needs someone strong enough to stop Harvey f**king her" joke, and Joan Rivers' "Some of those 911 widows must be jumping for joy" compensation joke.
All three of them are colossally offensive to many people but all three of them are, to me, even more colossally funny - mainly because they force us to confront truths we'd rather not think about.
I don't by any means dismiss the views of Token and Tim. There is much in what each of them says. I do, however, believe that on balance the jokes are good rather than bad and, because they're all very very very bad, that makes them spectacularly good.
Frankie Boyle perfectly reflects the age we live in: mean-spirited and nasty, with individuals displaying no sense of personal responsibility. And Tim's right to lambast Channel 4's feeble defence of him.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 10 2010, 12:08 AM GMTshock-puppet
Oh I like that a lot. Do you make that up? Can I steal it for something?
What ever you choose to bring to the press's attention they will use.
Live by the sword.
Die by the sword.
Jordan should have been a better mum and kept her little Christmas pud out of the press.
In days gone by people like her had their noses cut off and were then burnt at the stake.
Quote: chipolata @ December 10 2010, 8:51 AM GMTFrankie Boyle perfectly reflects the age we live in: mean-spirited and nasty, with individuals displaying no sense of personal responsibility. And Tim's right to lambast Channel 4's feeble defence of him.
Bang on the money chip.
I think the trailer for Tramadol really amps up the "woohoo look how offensive we are."
I mean picking on Harvey and Jordan, talk about going after 2 easy and yet dated targets.
She's been keeping himout of the press of late (maybe he died and she had him stuffed).
Offensive humour, that's sharp funny and on the button ace. But this is blatant poo, bum, willy, farts Law of the Playground tosh of the highest order.
There's a real contempt in poorly edited and produced sketches. Being used as filler for by the numbers offensive standup.
The really irritating thing is Boyle is hugely talented. So why is he producing this hackneyed rubbish?
P.S. I am aware this makes me a complete hypocrite
When you get extreme comedy - (and TN is pretty extreme, I'm a bit puzzled at the comments about the show not being shocking at all) it's always going to divide opinion.
Personally I think the show is hysterically funny in parts, but it does cross the line. Now where the viewer draws that line is perfectly up to them. The line for me is taking the piss out of disabled kids. It just makes me wince because it's a target that can't possibly defend itself. But that's just my personal opinion and others will find it hilarious.
What I will say though is there's a lot of bollocks talked about freedom in comedy - usually the old chestnut being trotted out "There should be no taboos in comedy". That's crap. Of course there are taboos in comedy. If there weren't, it'd be cool to watch Chubby Brown and Jim Davidson. We'd all be lauding Bernard Manning as a brave and master gagsmith. But as supposedly "enlightened" fans of comedy we don't, because what those types of comedians have to say just doesn't sit right with most of us in this age. So yes, there are taboos and always will be. It's just that those taboo fashions change. 30 years ago you could go on telly and tell a paki joke. Now you can't. But you can go on telly and shout c**t and do jokes about disabled kids and killing kids and f**king kids. In another 30 years maybe that'll all be passé, and Frankie will be sat in a home for retired comics, shouting "Father-F**ker" at the care assistants in a vain attempt to shock them. Who knows?
For now though, even though Tramadol Nights does overstep the mark for me occasionally, I'm glad it's here to dirty up our TV screens after the relative sanitization of recent BBC comedy.
Quote: Lee Henman @ December 10 2010, 12:09 PM GMT- (and TN is pretty extreme, I'm a bit puzzled at the comments about the show not being shocking at all)
Well, it deals in dark subjects, but I haven't so far been actually shocked, because it's doing exactly what I expect. That's only me personally, I'm sure there are people who will have been shocked or offended.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 10 2010, 12:11 PM GMTWell, it deals in dark subjects, but I haven't so far been actually shocked, because it's doing exactly what I expect.
Isn't that a bit like saying you don't get scared on rollercoasters because you know what to expect?
Quote: Lee Henman @ December 10 2010, 12:09 PM GMT"There should be no taboos in comedy". That's crap. Of course there are taboos in comedy.
To state that something exists doesn't in any way counter the proposition that it shouldn't.
P.S. I quite like Jim Davidson. I'm not familiar enough with the others to form an opinion either way.
Quote: Lee Henman @ December 10 2010, 12:09 PM GMTWe'd all be lauding Bernard Manning as a brave and master gagsmith. But as supposedly "enlightened" fans of comedy we don't
Stephen Fry is an enlightened fan of comedy, isn't he?
And he CERTAINLY lauds Bernard Manning as a brave and master gagsmith.
Social historian A.J.P. Taylor, a fan of comedy and surely one the most enlightened thinkers of the 20th Century, was also a huge fan of Bernard Manning.