Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Is Frankie Boyle the new Bernard Manning?
Is there now a strong case for getting Frankie Boyle off the telly in the same way that broadcasters turned their backs on Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson?
http://www.dailymail....nd-The-Buzzcocks.html
Or does his 'bleeding edge' style of comedy push the boundaries in a way that actually advances comedy?
http://www.dailymail....nd-The-Buzzcocks.html
Or does his 'bleeding edge' style of comedy push the boundaries in a way that actually advances comedy?
Answers
I think ludwig has hit on the main point about Boyle's controversy.
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
10:46 Thu 06th Jan 2011
a lot of the headlines people pick up on and respond to are not factually correct about the comments he makes and can be twisted any way you please. i think he is funny...in this sanitised pc world we live in - he is not afraid to be out there on the edge. as mark rae said...if you don't like him, don't watch him! i assume we are all adult enough to make that decision and switch the tv over - or are we all a bunch of sheep that only follow the herd? there really is no accounting for taste and unless someone is overtly racist, sexist and any other ist you can think of...you have no right to judge what people watch. are the thought police now in control of our society and personal choice/autonomy? now...that's a very scary concept that should provoke more comment than one scottish bloke x
I think ludwig has hit on the main point about Boyle's controversy.
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
Frankly, simply using the 'switch off' argument is dodging the issue because it side-steps what is acceptable, and what is not, in terms of our society.
If someone produced a show where cats were eletrocuted on live television, I would use my 'off' button and not watch it - but does that mean it is acceptable to produce such a show simply because it has an audience? That is the argument apparently being used by Boyle's fans - if you don't like it (with the unspoken implication that you are humourless for not seeing his wit and wosdom) then do something else.
Well no, that simply will not fly as an argument.
As a society, we have to have cultural boundaries and simply advocating the some people find something funny does not of itself excuse the upset and offence caused to ohers. This is the territory into which FB has marched, fully aware of his impact and notoriety.
But such a position has limits - you cannot simply go on and on finding new ways to upset and offend people, which must by definition become more outrageous and extreme as time goes on - just because you can.
I feel that Boyle is using the vehicle of the comedy art-form to subvert and de-sensitise his audiences, and that has to be the very opposite of what commedy is supposed to be about.
I would place Mr Boyle in the same catagory as Chubby Brown - a commedian who attracts massive audiences who pay to enjoy his work, but are not offered it through media which stream into peoples' homes for consumption which must be governed by the individual choosing toi avoid it. All Chubby Brown's posters advertising his appearen
As ludwig says, genuine satire - which is designed to make you think as much as laugh - of the sort produced by Chris Morris - is genuinely pushing the boundaries, rather than Boyle's somewhat smug attempts to upset people.
Frankly, simply using the 'switch off' argument is dodging the issue because it side-steps what is acceptable, and what is not, in terms of our society.
If someone produced a show where cats were eletrocuted on live television, I would use my 'off' button and not watch it - but does that mean it is acceptable to produce such a show simply because it has an audience? That is the argument apparently being used by Boyle's fans - if you don't like it (with the unspoken implication that you are humourless for not seeing his wit and wosdom) then do something else.
Well no, that simply will not fly as an argument.
As a society, we have to have cultural boundaries and simply advocating the some people find something funny does not of itself excuse the upset and offence caused to ohers. This is the territory into which FB has marched, fully aware of his impact and notoriety.
But such a position has limits - you cannot simply go on and on finding new ways to upset and offend people, which must by definition become more outrageous and extreme as time goes on - just because you can.
I feel that Boyle is using the vehicle of the comedy art-form to subvert and de-sensitise his audiences, and that has to be the very opposite of what commedy is supposed to be about.
I would place Mr Boyle in the same catagory as Chubby Brown - a commedian who attracts massive audiences who pay to enjoy his work, but are not offered it through media which stream into peoples' homes for consumption which must be governed by the individual choosing toi avoid it. All Chubby Brown's posters advertising his appearen
Weecalf....I've been to enough comedy shows to disagree with you. A good comedian will have comebacks without a script.
Icg...I very much agree with you. Like the outrage about the supposed Baby P joke. People read it in the papers and got accordingly outraged. I have the DVD here...and it wasn't a joke about Baby P...baby P was mentioned in the build up to another joke.
The Jordan joke...just wasn't funny. The rest of the show...was.
Icg...I very much agree with you. Like the outrage about the supposed Baby P joke. People read it in the papers and got accordingly outraged. I have the DVD here...and it wasn't a joke about Baby P...baby P was mentioned in the build up to another joke.
The Jordan joke...just wasn't funny. The rest of the show...was.
I'm fed up of hearing this 'If you don't like it don't watch it' argument. You could say that about any obnoxious thing..
'Paedophilia - not everyone's cup of tea, but hey if you don't like it - stop whinging about it - no-one's forcing you to watch!'
I don't think he should be on TV telling 'jokes' like the one about Jordan's disabled son. It's not that I just don't want to see it - I don't think he should be allowed on there to do it whether I'm watching another channel or not.
'Paedophilia - not everyone's cup of tea, but hey if you don't like it - stop whinging about it - no-one's forcing you to watch!'
I don't think he should be on TV telling 'jokes' like the one about Jordan's disabled son. It's not that I just don't want to see it - I don't think he should be allowed on there to do it whether I'm watching another channel or not.
Same with Manning - quite rightly NOT given airtime to tell p**ki jokes.
It's no good just saying look if you don't like people being called p**is, n**rs and co***ons just use the off switch.
No - I shouldn't have to use the off switch - it shouldn't be on there in the first place.
Why do people find this such a difficult concept to grasp?
It's no good just saying look if you don't like people being called p**is, n**rs and co***ons just use the off switch.
No - I shouldn't have to use the off switch - it shouldn't be on there in the first place.
Why do people find this such a difficult concept to grasp?
ummm - and that exactly illustrates my point - and that made by ludwig.
Taking something to an extreme simply because you can is not an acceptable way to behave.
Ludwig used paedophillia as an extreme example in order to make his point - and its unsettling, as I am sure he intended it to be.
Just because you can say something that offends and upsets people does not give you automatic rights so to do - it echoes the 'Free speech does not give one the potentil to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre' point about the same situation.
You see, we as adults are enjoying an exchange ov views and opinions on a current topic - but we are still never imune from being offended or upset by something someone says. If you extrapolate that concept, you arrive at a national media outlet causing serious offence, and the apparent accetptance of same with the argument that anyone can avoid it if they wish.
Of course they can - but that doesn't automatically make it acceptable to put it out there.
Taking something to an extreme simply because you can is not an acceptable way to behave.
Ludwig used paedophillia as an extreme example in order to make his point - and its unsettling, as I am sure he intended it to be.
Just because you can say something that offends and upsets people does not give you automatic rights so to do - it echoes the 'Free speech does not give one the potentil to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre' point about the same situation.
You see, we as adults are enjoying an exchange ov views and opinions on a current topic - but we are still never imune from being offended or upset by something someone says. If you extrapolate that concept, you arrive at a national media outlet causing serious offence, and the apparent accetptance of same with the argument that anyone can avoid it if they wish.
Of course they can - but that doesn't automatically make it acceptable to put it out there.
// Ludwig used paedophillia as an extreme example in order to make his point - and its unsettling, as I am sure he intended it to be. //
That's right andy. I'm pushing the envelope of acceptable comments on answerbank - being edgy and controversial - that's my style. If people don't like it they don't have to read my replies - they can go to another thread.
:-) <--- (smug grin to camera)
That's right andy. I'm pushing the envelope of acceptable comments on answerbank - being edgy and controversial - that's my style. If people don't like it they don't have to read my replies - they can go to another thread.
:-) <--- (smug grin to camera)
Would be interesting to find out what Frankies reasons for using the material was .I did not see the shows .Has his opinions been given..If not then ask him and then judge his reasoning .We have our opinions but only Frankie and other comedians who "push the boundries " know for definite why they used the material.
I understand where you're coming from Andy and Ludwig....but I find him really funny. I can't compare him to Manning as I haven't seen him.
Out of his whole show there was only a small percentage of it that I considered 'could' be offensive. I'm not easily offended though.
You have to bare in mind. X amount of people are offended, X amount are not.
Out of his whole show there was only a small percentage of it that I considered 'could' be offensive. I'm not easily offended though.
You have to bare in mind. X amount of people are offended, X amount are not.
I'm not easily offended either - but that is not the point here.
Just because something does not upset me personally does not mean that there is carte blanche for someone to provide it to everyone through a natioanl media outlet.
The point I am making - and I believe I can confidently speak for Ludwig as well here - is that some things are simply not acceptable for mass consumption under the umrella of 'edgy comedy'.
The examples are endless. I have little hair left, and my family, espcially my oldest grandchildren love to tease me about it - with my encouragement, because i am not bothered about it. Does that mean they are free to tease my brother-in-law who is losing his hair, and sensitive about it? No it does not.
I was not offended by Boyle's comments about Jordan and Harvey. As 'comedy' I found them utterly unfunny, but that's my personal taste. Does that mean that Boyle is allowed to use someone's family situation as a butt of his humour, upsetting her in the process? No it does not.
The arguments are the same - only the size of the audience differs.
Just because something does not upset me personally does not mean that there is carte blanche for someone to provide it to everyone through a natioanl media outlet.
The point I am making - and I believe I can confidently speak for Ludwig as well here - is that some things are simply not acceptable for mass consumption under the umrella of 'edgy comedy'.
The examples are endless. I have little hair left, and my family, espcially my oldest grandchildren love to tease me about it - with my encouragement, because i am not bothered about it. Does that mean they are free to tease my brother-in-law who is losing his hair, and sensitive about it? No it does not.
I was not offended by Boyle's comments about Jordan and Harvey. As 'comedy' I found them utterly unfunny, but that's my personal taste. Does that mean that Boyle is allowed to use someone's family situation as a butt of his humour, upsetting her in the process? No it does not.
The arguments are the same - only the size of the audience differs.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.