Gawd - that sitcom was an affront to anyone with an ounce of comedy nous.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] John Cleese Blacklists Himself From Cambridge University Event
- Thread starter Tom Hark Preston Park
- Start date
Gawd - that sitcom was an affront to anyone with an ounce of comedy nous.
The topics changed but people are just like her now in the sense that they are offended by nothing.
Social liberalism back then was done in the school of positive liberty = expanding the realms of what can be said and done.
Social liberalism now, negative liberty = decreasing the realms of what can be said and done.
She and her followers attacked anything they found offensive or morally corrupting.
The so called social liberals of today are doing the exact same thing now. Only topics have changed.
She's jilling in her grave over how society developed.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Merely a recommendation?
BBC News - Cambridge University society bans speaker over Hitler impression
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59214397
Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,351
No probs. If I've accidentally incited one or two to get a bit outraged, my job here is done ............................
Oh gosh, I’m so jolly cross!
I think John Cleese is an increasingly irrelevant self-obsessed twerp who has only made himself look silly.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Having read the full transcript now, whilst The Historian (and part time TV presenter) was trying making a powerful anti-racist point he really didn't need to do it like that.
( He could have made the point in a couple of sentences without an excruciating piece of "performance art" )
There are also some clips knocking around where some people in the audiences are clearly uncomfortable.
For anyone supporting him just sit and think about the context. He's a professional historian (who makes very good TV) and is asked to join a debate about "taste". He makes perfectly valid (and important points), drawing parallels between Hitler's taste in art and his anti-Semitic and racist views.
However, in doing so he decides to read extended passages from Mein Kampf doing an impression of Hitler. I really shouldn't laugh but.....
Obviously well intended, but pure David Brent. I wouldn't invite him back either.
That said, he has subsequently realised his f### up and apologised. That should be the end of it. It will be a footnote on his Wiki page.
The mystery to me is how John Cleese has drawn any parallels with that episode of Fawlty Towers at all.
( He could have made the point in a couple of sentences without an excruciating piece of "performance art" )
There are also some clips knocking around where some people in the audiences are clearly uncomfortable.
For anyone supporting him just sit and think about the context. He's a professional historian (who makes very good TV) and is asked to join a debate about "taste". He makes perfectly valid (and important points), drawing parallels between Hitler's taste in art and his anti-Semitic and racist views.
However, in doing so he decides to read extended passages from Mein Kampf doing an impression of Hitler. I really shouldn't laugh but.....
Obviously well intended, but pure David Brent. I wouldn't invite him back either.
That said, he has subsequently realised his f### up and apologised. That should be the end of it. It will be a footnote on his Wiki page.
The mystery to me is how John Cleese has drawn any parallels with that episode of Fawlty Towers at all.
Last edited:
I’m present,y banned from two broadcasters. They are probably doing the country a service though for helping reduce Dullardness.
cloud
Well-known member
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Just to be clear, Fawlty Towers has never been banned (*) and the historians speech wasn't a comedy sketch, although it could well become one.
(*) Dave "reviewed" it a few years ago in the face of a number of programmes being reviewed due to external events, but it was available soon after.
There was a BBC cock up much earlier that nothing to do with censorship. They decided to play Fawlty Towers in the daytime (for some reason), I seem to recall on BBC2.
However, the language on that episode fell foul of pre-watershed guidance bearing in mind the programme was never designed to go out in the afternoon. Retrospectively it looks a really odd thing to do.
They had no option to edit it, but because of the "importance" of the series they got permission from John Cleese to do so.
Later on when the series was repeated at it's natural time, they accidently played out the edited version.
From memory that's where the modern debate about that episode started.
There is a random website dedicated to such edits on a variety of programmes on the internet somewhere. Where edits have been made for good reason, but ended up on DVD versions (for instance) by "accident".
(*) Dave "reviewed" it a few years ago in the face of a number of programmes being reviewed due to external events, but it was available soon after.
There was a BBC cock up much earlier that nothing to do with censorship. They decided to play Fawlty Towers in the daytime (for some reason), I seem to recall on BBC2.
However, the language on that episode fell foul of pre-watershed guidance bearing in mind the programme was never designed to go out in the afternoon. Retrospectively it looks a really odd thing to do.
They had no option to edit it, but because of the "importance" of the series they got permission from John Cleese to do so.
Later on when the series was repeated at it's natural time, they accidently played out the edited version.
From memory that's where the modern debate about that episode started.
There is a random website dedicated to such edits on a variety of programmes on the internet somewhere. Where edits have been made for good reason, but ended up on DVD versions (for instance) by "accident".
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,196
I stand corrected, certainly more information in the article you have posted there.
More information about what was actually said too.
So he wasn''t black listed for doing an impression of Hitler, he was black listed for paraphrasing his deplorable words about Jewish and black people.
I wonder if John Cleese has also done this?
Was the impression and paraphrasing necessary I wonder?
Boroseagull
Well-known member
Asking a genuine question here about Fawlty Towers and hoping the great and good of NSC can answer. I have never watched the broadcast reruns of Fawlty Towers purely as I have the DVD set. What interests me is whether the BBC, or whatever channel shows them, leave in the Major's (Ballard Berkeley) explanation of the difference between West Indian and Indian cricketers. Surely that was far more controversial then and now rather than 'the Germans'.
bluenitsuj
Listen to me!!!
Good for him. Cambridge and Oxford Unis have turned into woke snowflake establishments full of entitled knobs.
Robinjakarta
Well-known member
I don't recall either as being controversial at the time.
Nixonator
Well-known member
We'd live in a shitty, inane world if nobody could ever improv when having discourse, and instead calculate the exact words to be said so carefully that the sum is already worked out as to not offend the largest group of people possible.
Hang on .. we're pretty much there already with modern politics.
There's an interesting twitter feed: https://twitter.com/ClassicShowbiz it posts pictures from the past regarding tv controversies, feedback etc. there are so many posts about comedy.
These first two seem highly relevant:
[tweet]1457052952141570053[/tweet]
[tweet]1456889997148057600[/tweet]
But then there's also these, full of quite familiar arguments
[tweet]1452062382847500291[/tweet]
[tweet]1449807205134262273[/tweet]
[tweet]1458217628535648259[/tweet]
[tweet]1458205446246846465[/tweet]
[tweet]1453803526270771202[/tweet]
[tweet]1452296577150750732[/tweet]
[tweet]1451357311293820935[/tweet]
[tweet]1453753434830737408[/tweet]
[tweet]1453710924666191893[/tweet]
Plus ça change...
These first two seem highly relevant:
[tweet]1457052952141570053[/tweet]
[tweet]1456889997148057600[/tweet]
But then there's also these, full of quite familiar arguments
[tweet]1452062382847500291[/tweet]
[tweet]1449807205134262273[/tweet]
[tweet]1458217628535648259[/tweet]
[tweet]1458205446246846465[/tweet]
[tweet]1453803526270771202[/tweet]
[tweet]1452296577150750732[/tweet]
[tweet]1451357311293820935[/tweet]
[tweet]1453753434830737408[/tweet]
[tweet]1453710924666191893[/tweet]
Plus ça change...
Having read this story, I cannot help but think it is Cleese being the 'snowflake'.
He was invited to the Oxford Union, they know his backstory. Everybody know's Cleese's backstory.
The other speaker was banned for doing an impression at the Union that made members uncomfortable and was by all accounts not really needed. If I was invited to somebody's house and made my host feel uncomfortable, I would expect not to be invited back. If I was invited to speak at a members' only event and did/said something that was not within the tone of the event, I would not expect to be invited back.
Yes, there was an apology, and I think that deserves credit. Also, I think 'blacklisting' is very old-fashioned - you don't need a formal list to know that you probably won't book somebody again.
Aside from those above caveats, this seems to be much ado about nothing... unless I have missed something.
He was invited to the Oxford Union, they know his backstory. Everybody know's Cleese's backstory.
The other speaker was banned for doing an impression at the Union that made members uncomfortable and was by all accounts not really needed. If I was invited to somebody's house and made my host feel uncomfortable, I would expect not to be invited back. If I was invited to speak at a members' only event and did/said something that was not within the tone of the event, I would not expect to be invited back.
Yes, there was an apology, and I think that deserves credit. Also, I think 'blacklisting' is very old-fashioned - you don't need a formal list to know that you probably won't book somebody again.
Aside from those above caveats, this seems to be much ado about nothing... unless I have missed something.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
Left in unless shown daytime, explanation above.
Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
I'm outraged that the brilliant Mel Brooks never got a mention in a thread about Hitler impersonations.
Really? Are you an alumnus*? I have had pofessional congress with both for decades and consider them perfectly acceptable
*Or are you just making it up as you go along?
(Edited to be less rude - apologies)
Last edited: