I've recently been having a heated debate with someone about what is offensive. Where should writers draw the line if there is a line?
I like comedies which deal with taboo subjects but some seem to simply offend minorities without justification. For example its clear on The Office that Brent is a prejudiced character but it is obvious that Ricky Gervais and Steven Merchant (the writers) aren't. Other popular comedies, which I won't name, seem to have become lazy and reverted to 1970s style offensiveness. What do other people think?

brent is ignorant not prejudice......

It's impossible to judge the 70's by today’s standards. It was a different time and not everything that was funny then is going to be funny today. That's just the way it is and is even truer of some of the offensive crap that's dished up now. The 1970's was not an offensive age of comedy and sometimes I wish people - at least those who weren't even born at the time (this is not a personal dig at you ajp because for all I know you probably were)- would stop banging on about it.

If they want to have a go at something then just give a thought about what the censers are doing to the likes of 'Only Fools' by editing it in case it causes offence. Now THAT'S what I call offensive.

I recently watched some of The Goodies and the notorious Love Thy Neighbour. Is it offensive? Depends on your viewpoint. For instance look at Alf Garnet - ultra right wing, racist, tory working class bloke. Played brilliantly by Warren Mitchell who's jewish and far removed from the politics. It was a satire of an offensive person, you were supposed to be laughing at him for being ridiculous, in much the same way that Eddie in LTN, is NOT a hero, he's an arse and the show shows that. Everyone thinks he's an idiot and the racial banter is two way. Incidentally as a son of immigrant parents, I didn't find a lot to be offended at. The Dolmio pasta thing is about as bad!

That the comedy of the day reflected unpleasant attitudes is beyond doubt. However certain comedies (as Skip points out) were actually laughing at the bigot and not the target. In that respect, shows like LThyN and BlessTH were instrumental in isolating and ridiculing certain attitudes and progressing the cause of equality. LTN contribution introducing the concept that racism was in fact a two way process. Odd that when we look back at them, in retrospect they are remembered as the shows that were particularly offensive and deconstructive in the racial debate of the day.

I watched the first series of Yes Minister and found one or two remarks that may (in these PC days) not escape the scissors. But as Baumski points out, to edit past shows is reprehensible and foolish. It is a case of doctoring our past to suit our present day sensibilities. Censorship excercised decades after is like trying to prevent the horror of slavery by writing it out of the history books.

The best way to deal with the wrongs of past social issues is to confront it honestly, not pretend it never happened. Most people recognise this fact in the notion that denying the Holocaust is a criminal offence and yet we reverse this logic by conducting an ideological battle over comedies that were of another era.

In my humble opinion, as long as the offender is around others who are offended it works.Example Brent in the Office, Little Britain's Marjorie Dawes.
Also if the offender doesnt mean to be offensive. Example, the Extras episode starring Sam L Jackson.

There will always be someone who will tut, ho and Hum. If we start gettiing silly on this then we are all fooked. Sex-ist, weight-ist,racist,age-ist not ablebodied-ist, this-ist that-ist.
Lets just write. Show others cringing at the so called offender and it works.

yep, I agree - there are no taboos, but only as long as the writing is good enough to show where the taboos should have been if the writer had taste and decency

does that make sense?

Personally I'd steer clear of offensive material unless you have a point to make, and the material is very strong. Too often new writers try to be dark and shocking, and it just looks desperate.

ajp29- Garry Shandling wouldn't go along with your assumption that Gervais is "obviously" not prejudiced. While being interviewed by Gervais on BBC2 on Boxing Day, Shandling wondered why Gervais's comedy repeatedly falls back on ironic jokes about minorities and the disabled and suchlike. Shandling then slyly remarks, "I'm sure you're not happy casting any Jews for your shows." Gervais, for once in his life, is left speechless. (The clip is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8olrVQM08G0.)

Plus, didn't Gervais recently "offend" people in Ipswich with his rather rubbish joke about how to get famous? (Ans: Kill a prostitute.) Not that I want to waste time casting aspersions on the character of Gervais, who is obviously a git. (Just read his comments about the British Comedy Awards on the Onion AV Club, (http://www.avclub.com/content/node/57393/2))

Regarding the thread topic, I can't help feeling that people who get offended by anything other than a personal attack are pompous fools. Sorry, but I treat every comedian's work -- be it a sitcom, film, stand-up show, blog post, whatever -- as his home. As such, that comedian has the right to say whatever he wants, and if I don't like it, I can leave.

But if the joke-teller is in someone else's home, or a public space -- a TV interview, an internet forum, the office water cooler -- then they're on their own. Especially if it isn't funny enough to make me laugh (and I'm an easy laugher).

How do other people feel about this theory? Are you easily offended? Would you object to a joke about a dyslexic Santa on the loose in Ipswich who keeps leaving prozzies under the tree? Or am I on my own?

(Oh, and sorry for the post length, but it's my near-first, and possibly near-last...)

FluxCapacitor, I tend to agree with your points, I think its definately how you judge the writer/comedian as a whole including his motives, audience and percieved prejudices. For example I can't stand watching Roy Chubby Brown but love watching Sarah Silverman (American comedian). On the face of it they do the same thing but I know that Sarah playing a role where as I think Roy Chubby Brown is being himself. In other words, you'll probably always offend someone but as long as you can justify it, e.g. highlighting prejudice attitudes in society, then you're ok.

P.S. That Gary Sandling interview was hilarious, for once Gervias was out of his depth and scared.

I think writers should pay more attention to what they're offended by (grist for the old mill), than who they might offend (kills the flow of ideas).
PS. I'm going to check out Silverman's DVD-- you're the latest person I've come across who recommends her. But, aj, I'll be back on here to complain if I'm offended!

I don't think Gervias is racist or prejudice at all but I dont think he is particulary good at writing 'taboo comedy'. Especially in Extras the jokes always seem to be at the expense of minorities and although he claims its 'irony'...you know that some people are just laughing at the racist terms or homophobic comments.

I quite like Sarah Silverman too but again she is playing the character of the 'sweet innocent little rich jewish girl' who happens to have very offensive views, but again with the wrong audience you'll get people just laughing because they think the racist terms etc are funny.

Quote: FluxCapacitor @ January 31, 2007, 2:14 PM

ajp29- Garry Shandling wouldn't go along with your assumption that Gervais is "obviously" not prejudiced. While being interviewed by Gervais on BBC2 on Boxing Day, Shandling wondered why Gervais's comedy repeatedly falls back on ironic jokes about minorities and the disabled and suchlike. Shandling then slyly remarks, "I'm sure you're not happy casting any Jews for your shows." Gervais, for once in his life, is left speechless. (The clip is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8olrVQM08G0.)

View original

I watched that show, and Shandling acted like a complete tosser from the moment he first walked in. There was no provocation from Gervais, Shandling just acted like a twat. Why on earth agree to an interview if your going to behave like that? And it was literally from before the interview even properly started, he walked straight in on the attck, asking if someone had looked at him as he walked past a window?!?! He was just plain rude through out and I thought Gervais did himself credit by not telling him where to get off and leaving.

Or possibly Gervais was way out of his depth.

Quote: Baumski @ January 31, 2007, 7:44 PM

Or possibly Gervais was way out of his depth.

View original

No, if you saw it you would know that Shandling came in acting like a rude idiot from the off. It was all very odd.