Well-observed comments, Mrs or Miss Jones. (What did I say?).
“Yet we still had a sense of old fashioned values and etiquettes, manners, loved our nation and didn’t try to rewrite history.”
Folk still watched in the 1990s a big screen, in each other’s company, so both the very young and ancient were well aware of the daring exploits in all manner of etiquettes and social observations by one Hyacinth Bucket in Keeping Up Appearances. But just by mere watching and mentioning such a well-written light comedy in a brisk conversation with a neighbour or friend the next day (Your “Did see see last night …? Wasn’t it a gas?”) is telling in and of itself of having “a sense of” the shared values of a nation. Today, cosying up in each other’s company to watch a light comedy (that also had its touch of the more daring sides of the British character) is seen as old-fashioned and anti-modernist. Light comedy is seen as twee (not that ‘twee’ is a trendy word).
But I have to say that it’s in pushing the boundaries of light comedy that seems to be of the type that pushes boundaries today. Take your ayatollah sort, that you refer to later down in another well-observed event at the dawn of the 90s. It might be too much of a quirky dream for Keeping Up Appearances to be broadcast (with subtitles or dubbing) on Afghan or Iranian or Saudi TV or Pakistani TV. But is it possible that Keeping Up Appearances has been shown on Indian TV? Unvarnished? Where a huge continent-sized nation has to have some sort of assimilation between so many different outlooks and religious tastes? Where English is widely spoken? Where Bollywood is to the fore? And would the one or two imports of a British comedy such as KUAs, had the extremist sort stumbled upon it when flicking through the channels, have, or at least among some of the people in with him, have induced such a type or types to hover a few moments over this light comedy and glean some sense of the value of Britons acting to mere make life a little cheerful?
That unlikely scenario of delighting a hard man with light comedy may have been possible in the 3-TV channel Britain of the 70s and early 1980s. Indeed, fleeing Iranian refugees in 1981 may have got solace out of watching The Muppet Show on TV back then. It seems a trite observation, but what could have been more symbolic of freedom than turning on the television in your dank British bedsit and watching the theme tune to The Muppet Show blast into view? In the Silent era, for example, it was nearly all comedy — and traditional, very conservative immigrants’ children, among them many Jewish, observed it all, in the USA, and they and their parents all assimilated into the American dream. Was that comedy of Chaplin and Keaton so outrageous that it offended people? It was radical, transformative rather, but always the fun was too much for the offence-takers, if there had been any, to gain any currency.
I don’t know how much offending the sensibilities it would be were the antics of Chaplin, Keaton and Laurel and Hardy shown today on a screen in a hospital clinic’s or airport lounge’s waiting room. But everybody now has his or her head buried in a tiny screen. But at least cheer up the kids patiently waiting. The children of many and different cultures!
Oh how the West has shot itself in the foot! Like one of those Keystone cops.
Do you recall the controversy about The Life Of Brian? In 1979? Probably you heard about it. Comedy had reached its zenith of outrage alright. And then ten years later, as you later noted, the ayatollahs of this world reached their zenith of outrage over a mere novel. (That too I knew then was going to evolve into much bigger nastier stuff).
Many of the folks at home whose values you may not have shared, even if you acknowledge that you SENSE them, were offended by that Monty Python crudity on the times of Jesus. No, they did not have to watch it, that’s correct. But in recognising our shared values and inheritance (a Judeo-Christian civilisation, ultimately), they, the offended, could glean the terrifying future for Britain. People, in 1979, who were old enough to have personal memories of the Edwardian era, who were even born when Queen Victoria was still on the throne, and who sent their children to Sunday School, must have worried about the direction of British society, and the future of their children’s children, when they read about a comedy like The Life Of Brian. They had every right to … say something. Today, such criticism against the zeitgeist would be shouted down. Too backward! Too old-fashioned! Too empire-ish! Shouted down to enable an untrammelled match into a wonderfully outrageous future.
But the more we do that, the more we lose sight of the mere task of giving cheer unto the world.
All the technology of today, so little cheer.
At the same time as The Life Of Brian, there was another movie made, in fact in 1977, about Jesus himself: Jesus Of Nazareth. Franco Zeffirelli directed. Robert Powell starred in the main role. He had also directed the excellent Romeo And Juliet in 1969.
But talk about chalk and cheese in terms of the difference in values! Was the farcical comedy of Life of Brian, in the light of the transgression, or outrage, worth the hurt feelings and anxiety induced?
Was not Jesus Of Nazareth necessary? Did that movie reflect the values of Britain? Of the British? A Christian nation?
With The Life Of Brian, the goodwill of the British people was exploited in the name of outrageous, immature comedy. I’m happy to say that. I’m even happier to discuss it. But I would not be happy to be told that my views are offensive to the many who see “old-fashioned values” as hate or offensive to them. To date, no Life Of Brian 2 has been made. They can make it if they want to.
The aim in life should be to make all people laugh heartedly. It should not be about pushing boundaries. The freedom of speech then looks after itself. As a result of that, boundaries may be explored, but not pushed against. Achieve that and then we’ll be happy in that society and its values. After all, what happens when boundaries are broken? Hell may well break loose.
