I don't know if The Two Ronnies - a comedy sketch show from years ago - has ever been seen in the US but a compliation of the best bits has recently been showing over here.
It occurred to me watching it last night just how much of it consists of language jokes. Jokes about the use of language that is. Just in last night's episode we had the classic "Mastermind" sketch where the contestant kept answering the question before last and still making perfect sense, the Spoonerism sketch, the misheard names sketch, the misheard remarks sketch and the Morris dancers with the partially repeated chorus to the song. All in one episode.

And I'm betting the hardware store sketch is saved for the last episode.

Yes, during the heyday of the British comedy invasion (after the success of Monty Python's Flying Circus) on our fourth pre-cable explosion network (PBS). I used to watch the two Ronnies. The first time I ever saw Ronnie Corbett, the smaller of the two, was in a bit part in Casino Royale. Along with The Goodies and Not the Nine O'Clock News, and later, The Young Ones and Red Dwarf. But there was also the other, darker, unfunnier side of British TV comedy: The Benny Hill Show, Mister Bean, Keeping Up Appearances, and Are You Being Served?.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

quote:

Originally posted by jheem:
But there was also the other, darker, unfunnier side of British TV comedy: ...Are You Being Served?.

I confidently predict a rapid response from a certain Mr English.

Interestingly, if memory serves, one (no longer very active) contributer to this board was also quite a fan of Keeping Up Appearances.

You will probably never have seen any of the really bad British comedies. Love Thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Terry and June, anything with Derek Nimmo in it.

If none of the above are familiar, count you blessings and pray for continued ignorance.

I confidently predict a rapid response from a certain Mr English.

Well, of course, Mr English's Uncle Arthur was in the show, but that's no reason to like it. Keeping Up Appearances was not as bad as the others, but pretty much a one joke blackout sketch multiplied into a decade long series. I've heard of Mind Your Language, but have never seen it. I've always had a guilty pleasure hankering to see some of the Carry On series of movies, if only for ethnological purposes.

quote:

But there was also the other, darker, unfunnier side of British TV comedy: The Benny Hill Show, Mister Bean, Keeping Up Appearances, and Are You Being Served?.

I had always understood that Benny Hill was popular in the USA.

And as regards the broader question of what is, and what is not, funny, that is probably as personal a question as would be what is, or is not, art.

quote:

The Benny Hill Show, Mister Bean, Keeping Up Appearances, and Are You Being Served?.

I think that Benny Hill and Are You Being Served? were very much comedies of their day and within that context were fine. Rather like the Carry On series you mentioned. I think that Mr Bean was clever because it was brave enough to take comedy back to a silent style. In that respect I think it was well done though I admit that he had exhausted the format after the first couple of episodes. Keeping up Appearances I actually quite enjoyed because it very much played up to British stereotypes and as such I would have expected many Americans to have found it quite funny. Certainly I've come across Americans who have indeed enjoyed it. I will, however, concede that it is not up there with the other examples you cite such as The Goodies or Red Dwarf etc. The Two Ronnies could also be viewed as dated now in some ways but I would agree that if you enjoy comedy that makes clever use of language, there are few better.

I had always understood that Benny Hill was popular in the USA.

Yes, it was, as was Mr Bean, though neither very much with me.

Keeping up Appearances I actually quite enjoyed because it very much played up to British stereotypes and as such I would have expected many Americans to have found it quite funny.

I do like Patricia Routledge, and it was fun seeing her in a comedy. I just thought the situations were too few and far in between. It was fun to see some working class (dole class?) Brits after all those years of Masterpiece Theatre. There's another one that's shown up recently on PBS called As Time Goes By. Not really in the same absurd category as those mentioned above and before. Again, it was interesting to see Judi Dench in a non-dramatic role. Was it popular at all in the UK?

And speaking of funny, the Wallace and Gromit cartoons were fantastic!

As Time Goes By is quite poular with older audiences. Not my cup of tea but inoffensive enough.

As for Wallace and Gromit, quite possibly the best thing since Wenslydale and Crackers.

And of course Mr Bean is enormously popular with Japanese schoolchildren.

At its most shown (popular?) time, I was walking with my brother when we were approached my a woman who just KNEW that he was the Benny Hill guy! This was years ago, and there was a small resemblance!

quote:

As Time Goes By

At the time it was first shown I don't think it was very popular. I certainly didn't bother to watch it. Thankfully it is being repeated on the cable channel UKTV Gold, as is another sadly under-rated show; Waiting for God.

We've nearly worn out our Videos of Wallace and Gromit and are looking to get them on DVD so we can keep them forever! They have long been favorites of ours.

I never understood the fascination with Benny Hill. I've always found the shows rude, obnoxious, sexist . . . the list goes on. I suppose this explains why it appealed to the 12 year old boys who first told me of the show. This probably also explains why, in general, I've never quite liked 12 year old boys.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Caterwauller,

quote:

I've always found the shows rude, obnoxious, sexist . . . the list goes on.

They are all of these things and more besides.

Think of them as the equivalent of a British seaside postcard. And if you don't have these in the USA then check some examples of the work of one of the masters of the genre, Donald McGill, here http://groups.msn.com/EricArthurBlair/donaldmcgill.msnw and here http://www.geocities.com/wilsonbarbers/britcards.html

Benny Hill never pretended to be politically correct; he just tried to be funny. And he made more people laugh than he ever upset, I am sure of that.

Benny Hill never pretended to be politically correct; he just tried to be funny. And he made more people laugh than he ever upset, I am sure of that.

Oh, come on, Richard, just because a lot of folks think that Budweiser is the best beer in the world or that sports are super doesn't necessarily make them right. Just compare how Benny Hill treated women with the way that Monty Python did. Being smarmy and politically incorrect (i.e., sexist) is inherently less humorous because it enforces the stereotypes that many find painful. On the other hand, take Monty Python dressing up like grannies and terrorizing yobs. Going against the norm is funny. Benny Hill's humor (and pretty much that of the postcards you linked to) I just plain find unfunny. Perhaps I am in the minority here, but I find myself there so often that I'm beginning to think it's normal.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jheem,

The ability to laugh at themselves is a common characteristic of the British - and especially the English. I suspect it is less common amongst Americans.

If you can't laugh at yourself then you'll manage to be offended by all sorts of things, not just Benny Hill's innocent pranks.

Oh, I'll admit that there are things I'm too serious about . . . and there are many many more things about myself that I will laugh about heartily.

Perhaps jheem and I are too young to appreciate the brand of humor Mr. Hill, comic genius, engaged in. Some of those postcards are humorous . . . but I'd not want to watch 20 minutes of them.

There's plenty of other wonderful things that I DO find funny - no need to be putting up with inane humor.

The ability to laugh at themselves is a common characteristic of the British - and especially the English. I suspect it is less common amongst Americans.

The purported national characteristic of which you speak does not really relate to humor in and of itself. Though, I infer from your second sentence quoted above that I am kept from enjoying the humor of Benny Hill (and notice that I recognize it as humor), because of a negative national characteristic: the ability to enjoy self-deprecating humor. I suspect that this is, in fact, and example of English humor.

I don't know, perhaps if I were British, and of a certain age and class, I might find Hill funny. I have noticed, during my life-long exposure to humor, that it falls roughly into two categories: language-oriented and physical. I must admit, I have been drawn again and again to humor that is linguistic in nature, but I have also enjoyed pratfalls and slapstick. So, that can't be it. I have also enjoyed non-PC kinds of humor, e.g., the books of Evelyn Waugh and the films of W C Fields, both of whom I would say engaged in self-deprecating humor, and neither of whom could in the wildest flights of imagination could be considered PC or leftish in any sense. So, that can't be it either.

I wouldn't like to say one way or another as I'm not sure I've had enough detailed and prolonged contact with Americans to make a judgement. For the sake of this thread I can say what I've found to be the case thus far.

Richard is right that the English especially have an astonishing habit of making fun of themselves and I admit that we can find humour in very odd situations. This is often difficult for other nationalities to understand but without it you wouldn't have had things like Monty Python, which in my view, could only have ever come from England. We also tend to joke around with each other by being insulting, a habit that I've also noticed can leave other nationalities, certainly Americans, rather confused. I have certainly toned down that side of myself when speaking to Americans because I got fed up of them taking offence where none was intended and I still get it wrong at times.

We also have a healthy contempt for authority alot of the time and this is also manifested in our humour. It has always amazed me how Americans always rally behind their 'leader' once an election is over, whereas in Britain we will ruthlessly mock and deride our leaders even if they won an election by a landslide. All of our political leaders are 'abused' in this way, as are members of the royal family. President Bush is easy of course.

I'm not suggesting that Americans are incapable of understanding this, or that they have no sense of humour. Plainly both arguments would be ridiculous, but I have certainly found American humour to be 'different'. Personally I have grown out of Benny Hill but I certainly don't mind it as his non-PC humour is innocent enough and I don't see that it was ever meant maliciously.

It has always amazed me how Americans always rally behind their 'leader' once an election is over, whereas in Britain we will ruthlessly mock and deride our leaders even if they won an election by a landslide.

Sorry, but I think you're just plain wrong in this case. American humorists are usually quite vicious with the currently installed regime. See The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live (perhaps in its ascendancy, not sure what it's like today), National Lampoon, political cartoonists, standup comedians, etc. The earliest bit of anti-presidential humor I can remember was the play Macbird which tore into Lyndon Johnson. Every president since then has been mercilessly lampooned, ridiculed, and sent up. Kennedy, too, before he was shot and canonized. Eisenhower, I don't personally remember, but from what I've read and seen, all American presidents were the subject of humor, at least after being elected. Bob Dole, a US senator and one-time vice-presidential and presidential candidate, even wrote a book about presidential humor, but that was about the wit and humor of the presidents.

What always astonished me about Britons was their seemingly uncritical view and outright idolatry of their war-time PM Churchill. And, I've heard many tell me that Germans won't acknowledge the years 1933-1945 took place or what went on during them, until I lived in Germany. Then I discovered that there were many who'd looked hard and long at their country's atrocious record during the 20th century.

quote:

Sorry, but I think you're just plain wrong in this case.

Yes, I agree with jheem, here. Oh, and you forgot one of my favorite publications, jheem..."The Onion." I remember some of their really hilarious articles after the election.

Your comments on the Germans are interesting, jheem. I am currently reading Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners," and it has given me a whole new perspective on the holocaust.

"The Onion"

I am also reminded of the self-deprecating, critical view of America available in cartoon form from Mad Magazine to The Simpsons.

I am currently reading Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners," and it has given me a whole new perspective on the holocaust.

Yes, I've been meaning to read that. Thanks for reminding me.

It wouldn't be a very scientific test, but it would be an easy one.

Go to any US website (other than this remarkably well-mannered one) and post some kind of anti-American remark as coming from a foreigner - and Englishman would be fine.

Then duck and hope that the server doesn't crash.

Try the same thing on a UK site and note the difference.

I have long stopped being critical of anything on US sites (apart from this one) since I have long ago learnt of the folly of so doing.

I won't cite the many examples although Kalleh has heard of some of them - including one vitrolic exchange which came about simply because I chose to tell one US site's moderator that he had misspelt "its".

As I say, don't take my word for it; try it for yourself.

You make as many lists as you like of unsuccessful British comedies, but they would all still be far funnier than:
1 Seinfeld
2 Frasier, after the wedding
3 The last Rosanne series
etc

Go to any US website (other than this remarkably well-mannered one) and post some kind of anti-American remark as coming from a foreigner - and Englishman would be fine.

Here's a little lesson in netiquette, Richard. Get to know the board well before you you start posting inflammatory remarks. I must admit, when I first started posting here I had to wonder if you were not a [url=http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/T/troll.html]troll. You always seem to go out of your way to piss people off. And you obviously know what the reaction is going to be. Sort of like gravity. You jump off a building and then complain that you fall downwards.

You make as many lists as you like of unsuccessful British comedies

My list was not of unsuccessful British comedies. I mentioned one or two British comedies I had seen which I did not care for. I did not say they were unfunny, I said I found them unfunny. Note, I was not talking about all the US comedies that I find unfunny, and definitely that list would be much longer.

As for the list of US comedic media that I did provide, that was in rebuttal to Doad's claim that Americans love their president and rally behind him after elected and never mock him. This is so far off the mark that I have to wonder about all the other assertions made in this UK vs US thread.

BTW, nice to see you guys defending the honour of British comedy ...

quote:

Here's a little lesson in netiquette, Richard. Get to know the board well before you you start posting inflammatory remarks.

Actually, my suggestion was for others to experiment by posting inflamatory remarks; I did not mean to suggest that I have ever done it.

The attacks I have received from some US correspondents have been in response to comments that I have always felt to be quite reasonable but which, in all too many cases, have been perceived to be anti-American and have received the kinds of vitriolic responses I speak of. As I said, in one case I was simply drawing a chap's attention to a grammatical error in his sentence, "...Support the USA in it's fight against terrorism..." My criticism was of the incorrect spelling but the site owner inferred that I was criticising the USA's decision to attack Iraq and I received the most vitriolic of replies questioning my parentage, my courage and my knowledge. And suggesting that all "anti-American tree-huggers like you should join the Iraqis to get napalmed".

You say, "...You always seem to go out of your way to piss people off...." and I am sorry if it seems that way to you. I do not intentionally post anything to upset people and I am always sorry when people infer that I have. I confess that I do not shrink from telling the truth if I feel that truth is needed; if this upsets anyone who does not want to learn the truth then so be it. If this is deemed to be "deliberately pissing people off" then I plead guilty to the charged.

But as I said, just try the two experiments and see for yourself. If I am proved wrong then I will be happy to hold up my hand and admit my error.

quote:

Originally posted by jheem:Sorry, but I think you're just plain wrong in this case.

Perhaps what I should have said was that the impression generally given here is that the American people will rally around their leader and I had always assumed that this was directly linked to what I perceived to be an over-inflated sense of patriotism. Clearly, living in the USA may give me a slightly fuller picture but I don't have that opportunity so I can only go on my limited experience of the USA and Americans I've come across. In a country the size of yours it is obviously impossible for that to be fully representative. I wasn't trying to suggest that you aren't uncritical, merely that you don't appear to be critical to the same extent that the British can be.

I think Doad is right about the extent to which the British people criticise the British Government. Go to any pub any night of the week over here and just listen. It's nigh on certain that you will hear no one with a good word to say about the Government of the country and that's regardless of which party happens to be in power.

The depth of our dislike of politicians is shown by the way that almost everyone thinks Teflon Tony is the worst Prime Minister we have ever had but almost no one can think of anybody better to vote for. (I'll probably give the Lib-Dems my vote, I don't like some of their policies but what the hell they couldn't be any worse than the other two circuses.)

It's certainly true that the general British perception of American politics is that the people have rather more respect for their Government, even when they disagree with it, than we have and that Americans respect (revere even) the office even when they dislike (even detest) the incumbent.
We on the other hand seem to loathe man and office almost equally.

Sadly I suspect we will get the current mob re-elected in a couple of weeks.

quote:

I think Doad is right about the extent to which the British people criticise the British Government. Go to any pub any night of the week over here and just listen. It's nigh on certain that you will hear no one with a good word to say about the Government of the country and that's regardless of which party happens to be in power.

Yeah, but what happens if I walk into a pub and start trashing the British Government?

On the other hand, I have to admit to trolling the Brits on this board at least a half-dozen times. Sorry; I was trolling newbies on a.f.u. when Richard was still in short pants.

Yeah, but what happens if I walk into a pub and start trashing the British Government?

Good point, neveu. Then the tribe vs outsider mentality would kick in, I assume. However, if you were in a pub with people of above average intelligence, and you were prepared to listen to reciprocal trashing of the US government, I'd like to think you could have an engaging discussion. Like to think...

I think a lot of it depends on attitude. Much as I abhor our current vile, hypocritical, private-schoolboys-taking-Labour-away-from-its-roots-and-the-working-classes-it-was-set-up-to-represent-bunch-of-w***ers, if a foreign visitor were to walk up to me and immediately start trashing them, while extolling the virtues of their own less-than-perfect rabble in power, it'd put my back up - it seems rude somehow. I'd almost certainly agree with what they were saying in principle, but I'd suggest they also look a little closer to home when venting their criticism.

Lol - I love the way our threads veer off at tangents!

quote:

Perhaps what I should have said was that the impression generally given here is that the American people will rally around their leader and I had always assumed that this was directly linked to what I perceived to be an over-inflated sense of patriotism.

I do think that foreigners' perceptions of those in other countries are very tenuous, at best. There is a whole group of us here who consistently e-mail each other back and forth about the government and its leaders. I doubt there is a difference between the U.S. and U.K. in that. I believe neveu hit the nail on the head when he said, "What happens if I walk into a pub and start trashing the British Government?"

However, if you were in a pub with people of above average intelligence, and you were prepared to listen to reciprocal trashing of the US government, I'd like to think you could have an engaging discussion.

Cat, and I'd like to think that would happen here, too.

You make as many lists as you like of unsuccessful British comedies, but they would all still be far funnier than: 1 Seinfeld 2 Frazier, after the wedding 3 The last Roseanne series etc.

1 - I do watch 'Seinfeld' occasionally, but I tend to agree with you, Graham. 2 - 'Frazier' is a favorite of mine, and I doubt there will be another comedy that good for awhile; yet, after the wedding? I can agree. 3 - All 'Roseannes' stink in my mind. Even my favorite, 'Friends,' was much better in the beginning episodes.

Right now, there aren't many good TV comedies here at all, in my mind.

quote:

Sorry; I was trolling newbies on a.f.u. when Richard was still in short pants.

What's a.f.u.? And was it really in existence back in the 1940s?

So far as "trolling" is concerned (which I understand is the activity of posting maliciously with the intent to create dispute, while hiding one's identity under a pseudonym) I have never done it on this or any other board. My name is my own, my avatar is a picture of me and my profile is 100% accurate and as complete as I can make it. I have nothing to hide and will therefore hide nothing.

That the intenet makes anonymity easy does not mean that it is right always to take advantage of that ease. As I do not post anonymous letters, neither will I make anonymous postings.

What's a.f.u.?
alt.folklore.urban, one of the USENET groups, back when the Internet was ARPAnet and CSnet, and consisted of about 12 university CS departments.

And was it really in existence back in the 1940s?
I exaggerate. It just feels that way.

So far as "trolling" is concerned (which I understand is the activity of posting maliciously with the intent to create dispute, while hiding one's identity under a pseudonym)

That's egregious flamebaiting. Trolling (named after the fishing activity, not the large mythical monster), when properly done, means slipping a provocative and, in the a.f.u. case, incorrect statement into your post, a statement that every regular reader knows is false and, moreover, knows you know is false (hence it's not done under a pseudonym) in a effort to provoke someone into responding in a self-righteously indignant manner. I nominate it for 'most untranslatable word'. Every regular reader of a.f.u was familiar with the growing canon of urban folklore, so a really good troll would also have one or two coded references to well-known urban legends embedded in it, as a signal to regular readers that it was a joke. USENET was a growth industry in those days, and each day probably brought hundreds of new readers into a.f.u., so there were always plenty of marks.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: neveu,

neveu, I have to say that I hadn't known what a troll was until you posted that. How interesting! I had also thought a troll to be as Richard described it. A real troll (you, neveu, are not a troll!), then, seems to be much more subtle, and because of that, much more vicious. At least one would recognize a flamer or flamebaiting, but perhaps not a troll.

Of all the people here on wordcraft, I can safely say that there are no trolls, except for a couple who have appeared from time to time from another word site to cause trouble here. While some of us may, from time to time, make mistakes, become too passionate, reply without taking a deep breath first (my problem sometimes!), everyone here is respectful of each other.

Yes, Kalleh - there is a wonderful group of people here. I thoroughly enjoy you guys!

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
[QUOTE] ... as is another sadly under-rated show; Waiting for God.

I howled with glee as "The Idiot Baines" got his comeuppance on every episode! Have the two lead performers in that show quit waiting by now?

So far as I know they're both still working - although not together and not in that series.

Yes, Graham Crowden and Stephanie Cole both have credits during 2003/4, so they still appear to be waiting.

Good! Arnie, please use your considerable influence to get them to reprise the series! Oh, I note that he played a role in a "Dr Who" episode.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>,