Pedestal to the Metal

Administrative bumph often means that genuine change takes a huge length of time to occur, and so a genuine overhaul is interesting news. One such overhaul occurred recently in Samoa, where they decided to change which side of the road they drive on. This has resulted in significant hilarity because some buses are no longer allowed to run because their doors are now on the wrong side of the bus, meaning that potential passengers would have to walk out into the middle of the road in order to board a bus. I say hilarity.

According the BBC article I’ve got this story from, the reason for this change was to enable Samoans to import cheaper automobiles from anywhere but America, because the left-hand drives they were having to buy beforehand were too expensive. Overlooking the poor arrangement of the previous sentence, I would like to express my interest that the change was made for business reasons. I think I should come clean and admit that I did believe I could make some humorous comment about this story, and have been proven wrong, rather than edit this piece out, however, I think it should be left in, as I am all for honesty and transparency in my blogging endeavour.

Another breaking story today, which I actually have something interesting to say about, was an article about the Beatles, who are a brand new band you probably haven’t heard of. The main thrust of the piece was that, in light of their entire back-catalogue being re-released in glorious mono, the journalist Stephen Robb asks why you aren’t allowed to dislike the Beatles.

“The Beatles seem to occupy a uniquely unassailable position in popular culture - everybody loves them. Don't they?” he asks.

He then discovers that there are indeed some people who hate the Beatles, or at the very least think they are overrated, which is of course such an easy thing to think due to them being so very highly rated. I was not alive when the Beatles ruled the world, nor did I listen to them seriously until fairly recently, and so I am of the opinion that they are ok. There are some songs I do not rate at all, but mostly they are enjoyable.

My interesting (we’ll see) point about the Beatles revolves around the first stand-up set I began performing with my friend (co-hopeful-comedian?) back around February, where a line about Pink not being the ‘rockstar’ she claims she is leads us to question what John Lennon would have made of Pink. Connoisseurs of the double act format will be aware that an extreme contrast between the two parties usually exists, and our act is no exception. Therefore the inquiry about John Lennon leads to my colleague brazenly declaring “John Lennon was an idiot”. Before we embarked on our comedy-attempts we thought there might be controversial lines in our sets, but to this day the only line that has been greeted with a sharp intake of breath and an “ooooh” has been the material on John Lennon. Bearing in mind this is roughly 30 years after he was killed, and the insult was merely “he’s an idiot” (followed by the declaration that “He thought he was a walrus”) is perhaps testimony to the pedestal he is held upon. Whether this is justified, which is the query of the original article, is of no interest to me, as long as I am able to enjoy Norwegian Wood (or not) at my own discretion. The Haruki Murakami novel which takes its name from that song, was the catalyst that made me investigate the Beatles seriously. If you are dying for some Norwegian Wood, I would suggest the novel before the song, unless you are strapped for time. My double act partner has a genuine dislike of the Beatles, the song ‘Octopus’ Garden’ especially, so if Stephen Robb is strapped for Beatles haters to interview, send him my way and I will patch him through.

Rather than disliking the metaphorical John Lennon Hero-Worship Plinth which hangs in the stratosphere in particular, I have a general dislike for putting anyone on a pedestal. When people are elevated to such a position where criticism of them is no longer tolerated, that is where ignorance begins.

I was recently watching clips of Robin Ince on YouTube, where I stumbled upon the commentary from a Ricky Gervais DVD (‘Politics’ I think) that had been uploaded. In the clips, Ricky chats with Robin, in what is either an amazingly fastidious act or evidence of the stunted mental growth somewhere within Ricky Gervais. It is the comment section which interested me most, as with most YouTube videos, as regardless of how good the content of the clip is, it is unavoidable that in the comment section, vacuous idiocy prevails.

I was surprised, then, to discover that actual thought was taking place in the comments below. One poster expressed that Ricky’s constant belittling of Robin was ridiculous, as Robin is a far better comedian. Further posts decried a number of comedians ‘better’ than Ricky Gervais, with particular focus on Stewart Lee. The problem with these arguments is that there are no clearly defined grounds of what a ‘comedian’ is and does, therefore arguing that one comedian is ‘better’ than another is always going to be a completely subjective process, which is why its important to explain what criteria you are judging them on. Of course a YouTube comment section possibly isn’t the place for that, whereas of course, I would argue a blog is (lucky you). An interesting poster simply inquired: “Stewart Lee better than Ricky Gervais, which planet are you on?”

I was intrigued that a comment on the famous video site would take the form of a riddle, thinking that slightly more information would have been welcome before it was necessary for me to answer accurately. With the small amount of knowledge available to me I tentatively answered: Earth.

I received Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle through the post today, which perhaps suggests that my opinion is going to be skewed, though I also own the stand-up DVDs of Ricky Gervais, meaning that I could make an informed decision, should I choose to do so. In terms of my personal preference, I believe that Stewart Lee and Robin Ince are better comedians that Ricky Gervais, regardless of how successful they are in purely monetary terms. I think the works of Stewart Lee and Robin Ince are more crafted and thoughtful than Gervais’, who often has dalliances with ‘dodgy’ topics, the actual aims of which I am uncertain of. When it comes to subjects which are likely to cause offence or leave people feeling awkward, it is important to understand the reason why the jokes are being made, the actual target of the jokes, and the message, and I sometimes feel that Gervais’ point is uncertain. This is of course my own personal reading of them, from one viewing, so it is completely possible that there is a justifiable point to the jokes.

The tone of the commenter, however, suggested that the quality of anything touched by Gervais was not to be questioned, purely on the quality of what has gone before. Which is, of course, rubbish. Each new offering has to be viewed on its own merits, and a mediocre, or rubbish, offering should not receive acclaim because The Office is good. When The Office first came out, I was slightly boggled by it, but I was likely too young to fully understand it, and so I am not really in any position to offer a credible view of it.

While I prefer a vast amount of comedians to Ricky Gervais, I am in no way saying he isn’t funny, and I do enjoy his work. I haven’t seen Extras, or any of the films he has worked on, nor have I heard the podcasts which has him crowned King of Podcasts, and to understand the phenomenon of his being held in such huge esteem, I would have to undertake a comprehensive study of its causes.