Professor David Peimer
Satire and Subversion, Part 2: Make em Laugh
Professor David Peimer - Satire and Subversion, Part 2: Make Em Laugh
- Okay, so Lauren, thanks again for all your help, as always, with everything, not just the PowerPoint. So, hi everybody and hope everybody’s well in freezing cold winter, wherever you are. Or in summer, if you’re in South Africa or Australia, wherever. Hope everyone’s well and obviously, staying safe. So, going to focus today on part two of satire and look at some other examples of satire and subversion. Very different kinds of performance from the Marx Brothers to the Monty Python, to Tom Lehrer, a bit of Kubrick, a bit of Lenny Bruce, Yes Minister, and Rowan Atkinson. Anyway, quite a few of our sort of global names who, I think, not only from the past and the present, but mainly for me, who I feel anyway speak to me, today in the 21st century. How they speak and why they still connect and resonate so powerfully as satire, not not only comedy, but as satire and subversion today. Last week, if you remember, I spoke quite a bit about the idea of subversion and the history of satire, going back to the Ancient Greeks and linking it to some of the contemporary times. I’m not going to repeat obviously about Aristophanes and many of the others. And I suppose the big idea overall for me is 75 years after the Second World War, and the values that war was fought and died for.
Together with all the other absolute horrors that we know only too well. Those values, what of them still remain? What of them have changed? What of them are still evidenced and believed in by majorities in the Western democracies? And what have been turned into, let’s say, values of far less significance or importance or have become more dictated by, whether it’s transactional or whether it’s lack of integrity or, you know, what are the actual values still today? And it’s the satirists who will deal with it. It’s the writers for me and the artists who have an instinct and imaginative connection and try to feel something that is going on in the culture. And, you know, that the satirist, of course the ancient aim going all the way back to Aristophanes was to ridicule power. Or to point out, with comedy, human foibles and human folly. Always to bring a person down a peg, or two or three. No matter whether they were political, military, economic, literary. Whatever kind of leader or status position they would have in society, pull them down a couple of pegs. And so much comedy and satire came out of that. Through the Greeks, the Romans, all the way through to our times. I mentioned last week the absolute importance of context. ‘Cause I really believe that’s so crucial when something is seen in the context of satire or comedy, whether of a political nature or cultural nature, or not.
And when one accepts that context, it’s an entirely different response to what we can call appropriate or inappropriate today. I don’t want to get into wokeism or anti-wokeism, you know, from from the left and from the right, the constant attacks going on, obviously in our times. That’s for a fantastic, future debate, I think. An essential one, I think. Because satire is going to touch on it always. You know, John Cleese and Rowan Atkinson and many others have often said in the last five, six years: comedy and satire require some offence, some insult, somewhere. But it’s in the context, again, of being satirical and comic that we have to understand it and that we have to try and appreciate it. Of course then it becomes, you know, to ban or not to ban. How far does free speech go? How far doesn’t it go? Dennis and I have given, you know, some talks on that before, together. And who has the right to ban? Who has the right to limit free speech? Who has the right to stop the satirist, and so on. I’m going to look at quite a few of these others today, and not really look, today at cartoons because I think social media and cartoons and animation is a whole, amazing rich treasure of satire, you know, from the Simpsons, South Park.
So many, so many, including cartoons in newspapers and digitally. But I think that’s another whole possible lecture, another whole world to take on. And fascinating and contemporary. Today, I thought, given the Omicron and given what we’ve all been through for coming up to nearly two years, it’s coming up towards the end of the year, I thought to be a little bit lighter at the request of Wendy and Trudy and my other wonderful colleagues. Just to show and have a bit of fun together with some of the lighter stuff that we love so much and cherish. And look also at why. So, to start with, for me, I think probably one of my favourite filmmakers of all time, the person I regard as, I think, the most incredible filmmaker, Mr. Stanley Kubrick. Who, as we all know, is Jewish. And the one scene right at the end of Dr. Strangelove, we all know the story, I’m sure. And at the end you have the cowboy pilot who jumps on the atom bomb and, you know, rides the atom bomb to the ultimate destruction with the music. So, we’re going to start with Kubrick, with satire on the bomb and global annihilation, but done in the most charming, witty and terrifying way.
CLIP BEGINS
[Pilot] Target distance six miles.
[Pilot 2] Roger, six miles.
[Pilot] Pulse ident transponder active.
[Pilot 2] Pulse ident transponder active.
[Pilot] Target distance, five miles.
[Pilot 2] Five miles.
[Pilot] Zero mode.
[Pilot 2] Back to zero mode.
[Pilot] Target distance, four miles.
[Pilot 2] Roger, four miles.
[Pilot] Auto CDC into manual Teleflex link.
[Pilot 2] Auto CDC into manual Teleflex link.
[Pilot] Target distance, three miles.
[Pilot 2] Roger, three miles.
[Pilot] Target in sight. Where in hell is Major Kong?
[Major Kong] Woo-hoo!
[Pilot] Hey, what about Major Kong?
CLIP ENDS
- Okay, I wanted to show that just as a start because it’s such a moment of satire. First of all, the military music as the airplane’s going, the very mechanistic, almost functional way the Air Force crew are talking, you know, the language, getting ready to basically send the bomb to start the Third World War. And we know it’ll happen as a result. And how his complete cowboy image, the myth of the freedom, you know, the accent of the character, the cowboy hat, the “wee-haw”, you know, it’s almost like, you know, riding off into the west, or into the sunset to take on, you know, in an old Hollywood Red Indian movie or something. Just playing with all the mythology of the West, playing with the mythology of the cowboy image and in a fun very lighthearted, happy way. And the music constantly driving us forward with that military reference. And, it’s not a belly-laugh satire. It’s a bit terrifying, even after all these decades since Kubrick made it. For me, it’s still terrifying, but it’s still funny. It’s unbelievably unforgettable, because it’s the cowboy on top of the bomb. And “wee-haw”, and it’s almost like, “gee-haw”, and it’s seen in their context. So, putting the two together in a surreal way.
Surrealism: put together two unexpected ideas, or non-logical ideas, and you have the surreal image, the surreal moment. It’s the cowboy image. Riding the bomb to global annihilation. But the cowboy image done in such a stereotyped, exaggerated way. Which I think Kubrick just touches on. I don’t think it’s only a comment about American culture or the myth of the cowboy. I think it’s more than that. There’s something of the glee of mass annihilation, you know, the attraction and the repulsion of being able to create such destruction, that kubrick’s trying to allude to. Okay, the next piece that I want to do is from one of my all-time favourites. This is from Tom Lehrer and he’s singing here. This is put together by Daniel Radcliffe. And I’m sure everybody knows, Daniel Radcliffe is the Jewish, British actor who was the original Harry Potter, in all the Harry Potter films. Here, of course, he’s much older, he has grown up and he’s singing one of the classic Tom Lehrer songs, The Elements.
- Give a big shout if you know who Tom Lehrer is, like Tom Lehrer, in my opinion, is the cleverest and funniest man of the 20th century. And I just, he’s kind of my hero. And he wrote a song called The Elements, 'cause he was a scientist. And it’s basically, it’s the name of every element in the periodic table. And that’s, that’s my party piece. It’s quite long, so do stop me if you just get bored.
SONG BEGINS
♪ There antimony, arsenic, aluminium, selenium ♪ ♪ And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium ♪ ♪ And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium ♪ ♪ And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium ♪ ♪ Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium ♪ ♪ And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium ♪ ♪ And gold, protactinium and indium and gallium ♪ ♪ And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium ♪ ♪ There’s yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium ♪ ♪ And boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium ♪ ♪ And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium ♪ ♪ And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium ♪ ♪ There’s holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium ♪ ♪ And phosphorus and francium and fluorine and terbium ♪ ♪ And manganese and mercury, molybdenum, magnesium ♪ ♪ Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium ♪ ♪ And lead, praseodymium and platinum, plutonium ♪ ♪ Palladium, promethium, potassium, polonium ♪ ♪ And tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium ♪ ♪ And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium ♪ ♪ There’s gold and californium and fermium, berkelium ♪ ♪ And also mendelevium, einsteinium, nobellium ♪ ♪ And argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodium ♪ ♪ And chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper, ♪ ♪ Tungsten, tin and sodium ♪ ♪ These are the only ones ♪ ♪ Of which the news has come to Harvard ♪ ♪ And there may be many others ♪ ♪ But they haven’t been discovered ♪
SONG ENDS
I love it. Obviously, you all know Tom Lehrer. Mathematically brilliant, and just his playing of the music. The simple but such catchy tunes, just the the simple joy and intelligence in his face as he sings them. And, you know, whoever would’ve thought, you could create such comedy out of the periodic table, and, you know, the elements. It’s not only that he knows all the words, it’s almost impossible to learn, but can do it in a light, joyful, playful way. It’s a gentle poking at our reverence, obviously, for science, but gentle and in a loving, cherished way. Okay, I want to do another Tom Lehrer, and this is Vatican Rag. And, and you’ll hear the riff of jazz.
Well it seems we have time for one more, and this is one I always like to close with. Recently, there has been a great deal of ferment in the Roman Catholic church, involving more liberal changes. In particular, they have permitted the use of vernacular language instead of Latin in portions of the mass. They have made optional the eating of meat on Friday. This pleased me very much because I’ve always felt there was a basic inconsistency in the church dogma there. You see, it was all right for a soldier to kill a man on Friday, but it was a sin to eat him. Also, they have permitted the use of some secular music in portions of the liturgy. And I think that last was a particularly good idea and inspired me with the thought that if they really want to sell what they have to sell, what they should do is redo some of the liturgical music in real popular song forms. So I tried one with the ragtime form and it is called The Vatican Rag.
SONG BEGINS
♪ First you get down on your knees ♪ ♪ Fiddle with your rosaries ♪ ♪ And bow your head with great respect ♪ ♪ And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect ♪ ♪ Do whatever steps you want if ♪ ♪ You have cleared them with the pontiff ♪ ♪ Everybody say his own kyrie eleison ♪ ♪ Doin’ the Vatican Rag ♪ ♪ Get in line in that processional ♪ ♪ Step into that small confessional ♪ ♪ There, the guy who’s got religion’ll ♪ ♪ Tell you, if your sin’s original ♪ ♪ If it is, try playing it safer ♪ ♪ Drink the wine and chew the wafer ♪ ♪ 2, 4, 6, 8 ♪ ♪ Time to transubstantiate ♪ ♪ Get down upon your knees ♪ ♪ Fiddle with your rosaries ♪ ♪ Bow your head with great respect ♪ ♪ And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect ♪ ♪ Make a cross on your abdomen ♪ ♪ When in Rome, do like a Roman ♪ ♪ Ave Maria ♪ ♪ Gee, it’s good to see ya’ ♪ ♪ Getting ecstatic and sort of dramatic ♪ ♪ And doin’ the Vatican Rag ♪
SONG ENDS
- I just love how he can go into ragtime music. So many different forms that he can play. And he’s constantly, I mean he often would talk about trying to find the rhyming word. but I mean underneath it, it’s a satire on the Vatican. Not quite so easy and quite so simple, often. We all know the story of The Life of Brian. And how, four days before they were about to shoot The Life of Brian and the BBC, which was going to fund it. They decided they got scared. Obviously the religious content of The Life of Brian and Christianity, et cetera, and Judaism. And the BBC pulled the money, but thousands of people already in Tunisia, where it was shot and filmed, and the sets were built, the extras, the actors, yeah, everything, et cetera. Contracts, money, seriously. And the BBC pulls the money four days before the shooting starts. And Monty Python, one or two of them are friendly with George Harrison.
And at the last second they phoned George Harrison and he said, “Fine”, he gave them all the money, offered to mortgage his house and gave them the money with two days to go. And that’s literally how The Life of Brian got made. So I would never underestimate taking on religious topics, as we all know, only too well. And he’s doing it, putting ragtime with the Vatican. The last one to have fun with Tom Lehrer is one of the all-time great classics, which I swore wasn’t going to show because we all know it so well, I’m sure. But, it’s coming up with the end of the year and we’ve had enough tourists this year and last year. Let’s enjoy one of the great Tom Lehrer pieces.
SONG BEGINS
♪ Spring is here, Spring is here ♪ ♪ Life is Skittles and life is beer. ♪ ♪ I think the loveliest time of the year ♪ ♪ Is the spring ♪ ♪ I do, don’t you, of course you do ♪ ♪ But there’s one thing ♪ ♪ That makes spring complete for me ♪ ♪ And makes every Sunday a treat for me ♪ ♪ All the world seems in tune ♪ ♪ On a spring afternoon ♪ ♪ When we are poisoning pigeons in the park ♪ ♪ Every Sunday you’ll see ♪ ♪ My sweetheart and me ♪ ♪ As we poison the pigeons in the park ♪ ♪ when they see us coming ♪ ♪ The birdies all try and hide ♪ ♪ But they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide ♪ ♪ The sun’s shining bright ♪ ♪ Everything seems all right ♪ ♪ When we are poisoning pigeons in the park ♪ ♪ We’ve gained notoriety and caused much anxiety ♪ ♪ In the Audubon society with our games ♪ ♪ They call it impiety ♪ ♪ And lack of propriety ♪ ♪ And quite a variety of unpleasant names ♪ ♪ But it’s not against any religion ♪ ♪ To want to dispose of a pigeon ♪ ♪ So, if Sunday you’re free ♪ ♪ Why don’t you come with me ♪ ♪ And we’ll poison the pigeons in the park ♪ ♪ And maybe we’ll do in a squirrel or two ♪ ♪ While we’re poisoning pigeons in the park ♪ ♪ We’ll murder them all ♪ ♪ Amid laughter and merriment ♪ ♪ Except for the few we take home to experiment ♪ ♪ My pulse will be quickening ♪ ♪ With each drop of strychnine ♪ ♪ We feed to a pigeon. ♪ ♪ It just takes a smidgen ♪ ♪ To poison a pigeon in the park ♪
SONG ENDS
- One of his all-time great classics, which we know. A little bit of religion underneath, which he doesn’t hesitate. He’s always playing that edge of religion and other qualities, and always this light, very cheerful attitude with this kind of semi dark content, if you like. Which makes it so much extra witty than trying to be heavy all the time. Secondly, you know, he is not scared to bring intellectualism and intelligence with the rhymes, with the words, with the phrases. He’s not hesitant, he’s just going to let it out naturally. Not try and tailor it to dumb it down or whatever. And of course, you know, the fabulous way of playing the piano, that’s what it is. It’s his personality, his words, his singing, and the persona playing the piano. So simple. And yet, all these years later, I find it anyway still riveting. Okay, to go onto something extremely different. This is the classic scene and the satire is obvious. The literati and the so-called, you know, the literary experts and university and the critics and all of that whole world, in the one brilliant, remaining, and I think eternally elucidating and brilliant scene from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall.
CLIP BEGINS
We saw the Fellini film last Tuesday. It is not one of his best, it lacks a cohesive structure. You know, you get the feeling that he’s not absolutely sure what it is he wants to say. ‘Cause I’ve always felt he was essentially a technical filmmaker. Granted, La Strada was a great film. Great in its use of negative imagery, more than anything else. But that central, cohesive, core.
I’m going to have a stroke.
Stop listening to him.
It must bleed through artist’s work, leading from one to the other.
He’s screaming his opinions in my ear.
Do you understand what I’m talking about? Like all our Juliet of the Spirits, or Satyricon, I found it incredibly indulgent, you know? He really is, he’s one of the most indulgent filmmakers. He really is.
Keyword here is “indulgent”. What are you depressed about?
About sublimating the technique to expression.
I missed my therapy, I overslept.
How can you possibly oversleep?
The alarm clock.
Do you know what a hostile gesture that is?
I know, because of our sexual problem, right?
Everybody online at the New Yorker has to know our rate of intercourse.
It’s like Samuel Beckett, you know. I admire the technique, but it doesn’t hit me on a gut level.
I’d like to hit this guy on a gut level.
Stop it, Ally.
He’s spitting on my neck, you know, he spits on my neck when he talks.
And you know, something else, you know, you’re so ego-centric that if I miss my therapy, you can only think of it in terms of how it affects you.
It’s Cal gun-shy, is what it is.
Probably on their first date
It’s a world view,
probably met by answering an ad in the New York review of books. 30-ish academic wishes to meet woman who’s interested in Mozart, James Joyce and sodomy. What do you mean our sexual problem? I mean, I’m comparatively normal for a guy raised in Brooklyn.
Okay. I’m very sorry. My sexual problem, okay, my sexual problem, huh?
I never read that, that was Henry James, right, a novel? The sequel to Turn of the Screw?
You know, it’s the influence of television. Now, Marshall McLuhan deals with it in terms of it being a high intensity, you understand? A hot medium as opposed to a..
What I wouldn’t give large sock of horse manure. What do you do when you get stuck on a movie line with a guy like this behind you?
Wait a minute, why can’t I give my opinion? It’s a free country.
Do you have to give it so loud? I mean, aren’t you ashamed to pontificate like that? And the funny part of it is Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan’s work.
Oh really, really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called TV, Media, and Culture. So I think that my insight into Mr. McLuhan will have a great deal of validity.
Oh, do you?
Yeah.
Well that’s funny because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so yeah, just let me. Come over here second. Tell him.
I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong? How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
Boy, if life were only like this.
CLIP ENDS
- Okay, I defy anybody to not really be reminded of when we first all saw Annie Hall, and of this particular scene, anybody university, anybody obviously, you know, waiting in a movie queue, hearing this endless garbage and verbiage from a so-called expert on literary criticism. And, you know, from Fellini, talking about McLuhan, to Samuel Beckett. And then stepping out directly into the camera. Classic, what’s become pretty classic, you know? But Woody Allen took it a whole, huge number of steps forward, not only in this movie, but in others, direct to the camera. So, stepping out of the action, talking to us, the audience, immediately. And then of course, “if only life was like this.” And it flips the whole thing of, you know, how often we say this play was like life or, that life was like such a movie, or, this experience was like theatre, drama. Flip it the other way around, if only life really was. So Woody Allen obviously satirising the world we know only too well. With all university and all the modules, how the course is set up and how it’s run today. And what actually comes out, in all the words and the excessive of language as opposed to just the moment of what it’s really trying to do.
Okay, I’m going to go on from Woody Allen. As I said, I’m going to show quite a few today, 'cause the aim today isn’t to go into too much depth on satire. And this is here from Yes Minister, and it’s one of their great classic scenes. I think these are remarkable writers for Yes Minister. Interestingly, one of the writers was always Conservative party and the other writer, Labour. But they were such good friends, worked together for over 40 years. Writing together brilliantly, because of course, in the end it was the writing, the story that mattered. And capturing the civil service and the power of bureaucracy and the utter absurdity and ridiculousness. And yet the real power of the civil service in England, who really runs it, and who really has the power. And, of course, at the moment it’s all very in the news with all the stuff that’s been going on in Number 10.
CLIP BEGINS
I must say that it seems right and proper to me that men and women be treated fairly and equally. And I think I speak for all of us when I say that we all feel that, in principle, there should be such targets set and goals achieved.
Well, Minister, I’m fully in favour of this idea. We must have some positive discrimination in favour of women. Of course, it wouldn’t work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office, for obvious reasons. I mean, we couldn’t post women ambassadors to Iran or any of the Muslim nations, for instance. Most of the third world are not so advanced as we are in connection with women’s rights. And as we have to send diplomats to new postings every three years, this idea is obviously not for us. But I do applaud the principle.
Yes, me too, I’m all in favour of it. I think we need the feminine touch. Women are better at handling some problems than men. No, no doubt about it. Of course, we would have to make an exception. As far as the Home Office is concerned, women are not the right people to run prisons or the police. And quite probably, they wouldn’t want to do it anyway.
But you do agree with the principle?
Oh yes, without question.
Peter.
Well, yes, the same applies to defence, alas. All those admirals and generals. And it wouldn’t be possible, of course, to appoint a woman as head of security, for instance.
M would have to become F.
Yes, defence is clearly a man’s world, like industry and employment. All those trade union leaders. But, what about the DHSS, John?
Well, I’m happy to say that women are well represented near the top of the DHSS. After all, we have two of the four deputy secretaries currently in Whitehall. Not eligible for permanent secretary of course, because they’re deputy chief medical officers. And I’m not sure they’re really suitable for, erm.. No, no that’s unfair. Of course, women are 80% of our clerical staff, and 99% of the typing grade. So we’re not doing too badly by them, are we? And, in principle, I’m in favour of them going to the very top.
Good, good. Well, I think the feeling of the meeting is, in principle, that we’re all thoroughly in favour of equal rights for the ladies. It’s just that there are certain special problems in individual departments.
Now what about this question of the quota? Frankly, I must tell you that I am against it.
Oh yes, spot-on!
We must, in my view, always have the right to promote the best man for the job, regardless of sex. And, speaking as an ardent feminist myself, I think that the problem lies in recruiting the right sort of women. Married women with families tend to drop out, because, in all honesty, they cannot give their work their full, single-minded attention.
And unmarried women with no children are not fully-rounded people with a thorough understanding of life.
So in practise, it’s rarely possible to find a fully-rounded, married woman with a happy home and three children who’s prepared to devote her whole life, or virtually her whole life, to a department. It’s a Catch-22, really. Well Catch-22, subparagraph A.
Yes, I think we must ensure that our respective ministers oppose this quota idea in cabinet by drawing our own minister’s attention to each department’s own special problems. But, we will of course, recommend the principle of equal opportunities at every level.
The principle, yes.
May I ask just one more thing? Through the chair, I’d like to add that my minister also sees the promotion of women as a means of creating greater diversity at the top of the service. I think we should stress when briefing our ministers, that quite frankly, you couldn’t find a more diverse lot than us.
Absolutely.
A real cross-section of the nation.
CLIP ENDS
- I love that last part of it, “a real cross-section of the nation”, and all the current debates, obviously, about diversity that are going on, which we all know only too well. But here, what they’re really satirising, I think, is not only the male and female issue, but much more, the idea of quotas and on merit. But even deeper, you know, all part of the club, all part of the entitled little club and who really runs what. Who really has access to power, going up the snakes and ladders of power and the civil service, which is being so debated in England at the moment, but the role of the civil service in relation to the judiciary, the executive, the parliament, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And the press and all the functions of the different ones. And I think these writers get it so brilliantly every time. On exactly their targets of satire, of power in democracies. Okay, the next one is a short clip from Yes Minister on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
CLIP BEGINS
So, what was the other one?
Yes, well, the Arabs have put down a motion at the United Nations condemning Israel. Naturally, we’ll be voting on the Arabs side.
Oh, naturally, yes.
But I gather that the PM wants us to abstain.
Oh surely not.
Why?
At this time fault’s on both sides. The usual sentimental nonsense. Sucking up to the Americans, as always.
Yes, of course, if that’s what you want. But don’t forget, once you start interfering in the internal squabbles of another country, you are on a very slippery slope. Anything else?
Yes, I gather we’re proposing to vote against Israel in the UN tonight.
Of course.
Why?
They bombed the PLO.
The PLO bombed Israel.
Yes, but the Israelis dropped more bombs than the PLO.
The PLOS started it!
No they didn’t.
Well anyways, seems to me the fault’s on both sides.
Well, not according to my advice.
Well, the Americans are worried about it. They want us to abstain tonight.
Oh, I don’t think we could do that.
Why not?
Well, the Foreign Office wouldn’t wear it. Are they here to follow our instructions, or are we here to follow theirs?
Now don’t be silly.
And then this business of the UN vote on Israel tonight. The Americans want us to abstain.
Well, that’s a question of our maintaining our relationship with the Arabs, the power of Islam. Oil supplies.
Humphrey, I’m talking about what’s right and wrong.
Well, don’t let the Foreign Office hear you.
Well, if you insist on an even-handed approach, the Foreign Office might agree to your abstaining on the matter of Israel. So as long as you authorise our man there to make a powerful speech attacking Zionism.
Surely we should use the debate to promote peace, harmony, goodwill.
Well, it would be most unusual, the UN is the accepted forum for the expression of international hatred.
What about defending democracy on Saint George’s Island?
Well, not if it harms British interests by upsetting those whom we wish to keep his friends.
Humphrey, are you saying that Britain should not support law and justice?
No, of course we should, Prime Minister. We just shouldn’t let it affect our foreign policy, eh? We should always fight for the weak against the strong.
Well then, why don’t we send troops to Afghanistan to fight the Russians?
The Russians are too strong.
CLIP ENDS
- For me, it’s fantastic. A bit of satire, and it’s actually pretty complex inside. Arabs, Israelis, Zionism, anti-oil, democracy, human rights, all the debates which we all know only so well and only too well. It’s incredible that this was written so long ago and yet, has such a resonance today for everybody. But the satire again on how political decisions are really made. What interests really serve the decision. And, of course, in the spirit of satire to ridicule power. Ridicule power, point out the absurdity, and the contradictions. Not only the human foibles. And show that all the shenanigans and the contradictions, you know, and the final decisions, perhaps not on a whim, but you know, certain self-interest, whether it’s oil or something else. Okay, I want to show one of the great classic scenes that we can have fun with from The Life of Brian. Which, to me, is one of the all-time greats of real satirical and comic scenes and writing.
CLIP BEGINS
They bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had. And not just from us, but from our fathers. And from our fathers’ fathers.
And from our fathers’ fathers’ fathers.
Yeah.
And from our fathers’, fathers’, fathers’ fathers.
Yeah, all right, Stan, don’t labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
The aqueduct?
What?
The aqueduct.
Oh yeah, yeah. They did give us that, that’s true, yeah.
And the sanitation.
Oh yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.
Yeah all right, I’ll grant you, the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things the Romans have done.
And the roads.
Oh yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct and the roads,
Irrigation?
Medicine?
Education.
Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough.
And the wine.
Yeah.
Yeah, that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left.
Public baths.
And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could in a place like this.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Brought peace?
Oh, peace, shut up.
CLI ENDS
- So for me, one of the, the all-time great scenes, again, it’s not a belly-laugh, it’s a satire on all liberation movements, political freedom, movements in history, and all through time. Obviously, the colonising power and the colonised, all the ruling power and the oppressed of any nation. But the ability to take it on and in such a deceptively simple way. I mean, it’s really hitting hard. It’s about religion and it’s about the power of one country over the other. So if we go back to when it was made, and imagine what happened and why the BBC pulled it, the money from it at the last minute, you know, these guys are really at the edge and really trying to push something here and not scared. And if we imagine the times it was made, with all the PLO groups and the various factions, et cetera, and Israel. You know, they’re really heated debates, which are as heated now. But at the time, again, the context of the time it’s made is what I think gives it that extra edge of political satire, or at least cultural satire together with religion. Okay, and then one of my favourite contemporaries, Rowan Atkinson. And here he interviews Elton John. Who everybody knows and playing with Elton John. But what’s fantastic for me is how Rowan Atkinson. He just finds every moment to act something for comedy, for comic purposes in how to ridicule and satirise a massive global iconic musical legend and musical superstar.
CLIP BEGINS
Good evening and welcome to the National Theatre for this, the third in our series of informal conversations with major performers. It has been a very exciting season so far, which has encompassed such performing giants as Sir Ian McKellen, Dame Judi Dench, and of course Christopher Biggins. But tonight we are to welcome a man who, although no giant, has nevertheless made a huge impression in his chosen field. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Elton John. Elton, do you mind if I call you Elton?
No, no.
Well, Elton, I’m sure the first question that everybody would like to ask you is this: funny name, Elton. How did you come by it?
Well, I used to be in a band and I wanted to become a singer in my own right. And I wanted to choose a name and the saxophone player in the band was called Elton. So I chose that name.
Did you ever consider John Elton?
No.
You didn’t? Okay, well, let’s start with those early albums then. One of which I believe was called simply: Elton John.
Yes, that’s correct.
And you didn’t feel awkward with the name at all?
No.
You didn’t feel the people might say, “Wait a minute, they mean John Elton, "they’ve cocked-up the record sleeve "and printed the bloody name the wrong way around”?
No, I thought it sounded great and you know, I thought people would be more interested in the music rather than the name.
Hmm.
Now, to the songs themselves, many of the lyrics were of course written by Bernie Taupin.
Yes, that’s right.
But I’d like to talk about Bernie for a while, since obviously he’s been an enormous influence on your career.
Yes, he has, yes.
Tell me, did you ever discuss changing his name?
Because, presumably Taupin Bernie would’ve been more consistent with your Elton John.
Look, do you want to talk about the old songs or not?
All right, all right, the songs. And the old songs, Your Song is a classic, isn’t it?
Yes. It’s quite popular, yes.
Well, there is a verse in that song in which talking about the eyes of the person that the song is about, you sing, “excuse me for asking these things I do, "you see, I’ve forgotten if they’re green or they’re blue.”
Yes.
What I’d like to know is this, is it this sort of chronic forgetfulness that led you to forget that Elton is not in fact a Christian name at all? It is a surname. And not a very attractive one at that.
Let’s talk about something else, shall we? Forget the name.
All right, Mr. John. Let’s talk about being a stage performer, should we? Tell me, do you ever watch other performers and get jealous?
I’m not sure I follow you there. I mean, jealous of what?
Well, for instance, Ben Elton.
I don’t have to do this, you know.
All right, all right, look, I’m sorry. Look, I’m sorry. Alright, fair enough, moving on, then. Many consider your masterpiece, of course, to be the album Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. And there is one song that people are particularly moved by called Candle in the Wind.
Yes, a lot of people seem to like that song. Now this song is in fact dedicated to Norma Jean Baker, who of course changed her name to Monroe Marilyn.
Marilyn Monroe.
My point exactly! Marilyn is a Christian name, so it comes first. Can’t you see that you word-blind or something? I mean it’s..
I’ve had enough of this, sorry.
All right, no, no, no, wait please, I’m sorry. I’m sorry, it was my mistake. I’m sorry, there’s only one more question to go. It won’t take long, really. It won’t take a moment. Please, sit down. One final question. You’ve obviously achieved enormous success over the years, but in fact, you didn’t have a solo British number one until this year with a song called Sacrifice. Now, my big question is this. Surely, you wouldn’t have had to wait so long for a number one, if it hadn’t been for your stupid, pointless, bloody name.
Bang! What a head dick.
CLIP ENDS
- I mean, it’s not only the ability of Elton John to play along and acting pretty well to stop himself from laughing. But, you know, just the idea of celebrities and how we make them so iconic and we pull them up, put them up on such a high thing, So high in the popular global imagination. But the ability in a very short sketch, this is classic, going back to the origins of satire. Of Aristophanes and the ancient Greeks two and a half thousand years ago. It just pulled them right down to the ordinary human folly level. The level of human beings, human foible, no matter how great they are, and how much at the top of the tree of the field and what they might have achieved. You know, in Bob Dylan’s immortal line, “even the president of the United States "must have to sometimes stand naked.” So no matter what level we may put them up. And we all do it, not only with celebrities, but many others, and propel them in our own imagination, right to the top. In a short little couple of minute sketch, able to pull it right down. Classic comedy with satire. The bigger picture of what it’s satirising is obvious, you know, the insatiable need of the media and humans to romanticise and idealise, you know, these legends, whether they’re musicians or whoever, put them right up there. But they need to always pull down, pull down, and show the ordinary humanity inside.
And it’s such a simple little scene, in which you look at it, the acting, I don’t want to go into the detail, but it is so brilliant and the timing. And when Rowan Atkinson loses his temper, and when he doesn’t, when he raises his voice, he glances and not. Another camera is so worked and choreographed, to pick up his face, his body, and Elton John’s. It’s an extraordinary artistic event for me of directorial choreography with the camera, with their bodies, with their faces. And the two of them have obviously rehearsed this a hell of a lot, and deceptively so, to make it appear so simple. Okay, then I want to show, obviously one of the all-time greats for me, and a very different kind of comedian and satirist, one of the all-time absolute greats, Mr. Groucho. And obviously this piece, which I’m sure many of you know, from Duck Soup. Physical comedy at its best. What I absolutely love about it is the intent. With such deceptively simple physical comedy and the courage to have no music, no sound, and for Groucho, no clever, witty quips at all. The courage to hold back on all of, the stuff we really know that is so great about Groucho and just trust that he’s going to invent. And, of course, it’s totally worked and choreographed and rehearsed. But every moment is so physically enchanting and different and there’s constant slight variations on everything. And we all have that actual experience looking in the mirror every morning, every evening, which you don’t even think twice about.
And he takes such an ordinary, banal, mundane daily experience and flips it into a moment, for me, of extraordinary comedy and extraordinary humour of self-reflection, looking at each other, pumping ourselves up to look more proud, to look more anxious, to look more strong. And yet the the image is speaking back. And what happens when the image speaks back, Woody Allen picks it up for me in the Annie Hall scene, where the image doesn’t speak back, but he comes to speak to the camera and the camera almost, who is us, almost speaks back to Woody Allen. But, in the mirror image, it’s speaking to ourselves. And we’ve all done that reminder of the great scene in Pulp Fiction when the Travolta character goes to the toilet, pumps himself up, so he can go down and charm the female character. You know, here are so many scenes in films later, which took up on this. Of how do you make a person standing in front of a mirror not boring in a movie? How do you make it exciting, or fun, or interesting or scary, or whatever. But you know, it’s such a banal thing to do. But the ability of Groucho and the Marx Brothers to turn such banality into extraordinary humour and wit. And then, the last piece I wanted to show, and of course there’s physical comedy in the great tradition of musical, Vaudeville, many others, and also going way back, Moliere and the Ancient Greeks, et cetera, very much physical. It would be another whole series of talks on physical comedy.
And, you don’t rely on the words in the dialogue, of course. And the last one, for me, pulls it all together. And it’s an amazing piece with Mel Brooks, of a home movie discovered. And we’ll see what he does with it. But it’s physical, it’s verbal, and it’s satire. And it’s right on the margin and the edge of subversion and satire for me. And the fact that he’s Jewish, Mel Brooks, as we all know, taking on such a contentious topic, if you like, but in such a remarkably satirically brilliant way. And I hope it pulls together a lot of ideas we spoke about last week about subversion and satire, about context and risk, about ridicule, and puts the absurdity of power and human foibles all together, Which I think Mel Brooks, for me, as much of a genius as all the others, captures.
CLIP BEGINS
We’ve come to a section of our programme that we call rare film footage, where we show you film clips never seen before.
This is Bernard Mantey, our rare film footage collector. What have you got first today, Bernard?
Well, I’ve acquired some home movies that I think will astound you and your audience. This film was shot in the mid 1930s and now of course, Miles, the quality leaves something to be desired as it was shot over 40 years ago.
What’s the subject matter, Bernard?
Let’s take a look at it and you can see for yourself.
All right, wait a second while it gets up to speed. Okay, rolling.
[Miles] Is that who I think it is?
[Bernard] Yes, Adolf Hitler in a home movie.
[Miles] It’s a little like Mel Brooks. Who’s taking the picture?
[Bernard] Oh, Eva, Eva Braun. And not too many people know it, he was a secret admirer of Charlie Chaplin. Now this is extremely rare footage. It is with sound.
[Miles] Well, I see Eva there. Who’s running the camera this time?
Apple sauce.
Apple sauce. Danke. There’s something in here.
Nothing!
Well, there’s a spice in here. Don’t tell me nothing, there’s something in here. Oregano?
It’s not oregano.
Parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme?
Just a little cinnamon.
Cimmanin, that’s what it is, cimmanin. You tried to get cimmanin past my schmecker?
Never, never. What did you do?
It was a bug. A bug. You killed a bug? A bug, a living being. You take its life away? It was here for some reason, you don’t just kill things. What’s the matter with you?
Forget about the bug, Addie, why don’t you have some mashed potatoes?
Why don’t you ask the bug’s family to forget about it?
You have some mashed potatoes, you know, it always makes you feel better.
I don’t want mashed potatoes.
You always love your mashed potatoes, come on Addie.
No, no!
Open, open for Evie.
What the heck is that? What the heck is that? Someone is taking pictures? Why is there pictures here? I told you when we were eating, we’re eating. Save the film for the gags. Later, we’re having fun with Marty Borman in the cellar, film that, not when we’re eating! Disgusting. Rudy, Rudy, you only have half of me. I can see in the glasses, you only have half of me. Look, I’m going to do my famous heil, and you’re not going to, you’re not going to get my arm in. Heil me, heil me, heil me, heil me, the arm’s not in. Just this part. Look, I got to get myself a closeup, since they’re taking pictures. I should get something cuter there. Now, we are going to go for a big fade right into my moustache. Just the way they were do in a real motion picture. Here comes a moustache, here is the fade, slow fade. Slow fade.
CLIP ENDS
I think it’s extraordinary. The physical comedy, the verbal, the improvisation, the ability to take on this kind of figure, by Jewish Mel Brooks. And he never misses a moment whether, his cam put up, and right at the end, it becomes grotesquely terrifying. As he comes closer and closer to the camera. I think an extraordinary moment of satire of the version satire, to talk about this topic. And yet it’s a whole movie which he made so long ago. But shows not only his genius, but it shows the brilliance of when you put together all these elements of satire and comedy, you can then create extraordinary pieces, which are not belly-laugh, but we smile with recognition. But it’s disturbing underneath. It’s comedy with subversion, it’s satire. And the day that we lose the ability to satirise, I think, will be a very, very sad day. Obviously for the human race or any society. And I think we really have to protect, and I would fight for it, to protect the satirists, to protect the comics of our times and of any time. Because, as I said last week, they’re always the first, in literature, in film and theatre, they’re always the first to be attacked. So thank you very much, everybody. I wanted to show more clips today, in the spirit of having a bit more fun and less talking, but more enjoying some of the great comics of the last of the last century into ours now.
[Wendy] Thanks David.
[Lynn] David, do you have time for a couple questions?
Sure. Thanks so much, okay.
[Wendy] David, I was just jumping in, before you answer the questions, just to say thank you very, very much. That was wonderful.
Thank you so much Wendy. And how are you, okay?
Very good, thank you.
And, are your parents better? Are they okay, Wendy?
[Wendy] Yes, yes. Everybody thank goodness is very well, thank you.
Okay, great, all the best to them, eh?
[Wendy] Thank you.
Thank you, all right.
Q&A and Comments:
Q: From Lynn, have I visited the Cartoon Museum in London?
A: I haven’t yet, no. And the cartoons would be another whole wonderful world to take on and look at.
Q: Where does satire end and racism begin?
A: Monty, brilliant question. I need a whole long session to talk about that. But I think again, it’s got to do with the context of the risk that we take. I come back to it again and again, it’s all about the context of the joke, or the context of the humour, the times, knowing who the person is, the era it’s made in, the audience, and so on.
Barbara, charming, witty and terrifying in the same sentence. Well, I think that’s what satire does, Barbara. It is charming and witty and terrifying. You create that and you have riveting theatre.
Great point. Yolandi, okay, Lauren and Judy. Absolute angels, thank you.
Mickey, after all these years, we know what he was singing. Yep.
Judy, military song at the start was Johnny Come Marching Home Again. That’s it. Thanks, Judy. Fitting harbinger of the reckless cowboy politics, yep. And we’re not so far from it in our times.
Betty, did I say Daniel Radcliffe is Jewish? Yes, as far as I know, he’s definitely Jewish, Daniel Radcliffe, who obviously played Harry Potter. Mitzi, National Brotherhood week, we could cover so much just in satire and comedy. Yeah, it’s Sandy, Tom Lehrer did a concert in Denmark in English, they loved it. On PBS. I know I’ve got the concert he did in Denmark, it’s a brilliant concert of Tom Lehrer’s, it’s fantastic. All the great classics that he wrote are in that the concert in Copenhagen.
Q: Does anybody know why he quit doing his wonderful satire?
A: There are lots of different stories that I’ve read of why Tom Lehrer stopped. And you know, I don’t know the truth. There’s a lot of conflicting stories and it’s quite hard to find the one absolute reason. You know, I think he got a bit despondent about satire of his times. You’ve got to remember, again, the context of his times that he was doing a lot of it, what was going on in the States and elsewhere.
Q: Is Tom Lehrer alive?
A: Arian, yes. I think he’s in his early nineties. 91, 92 as far as I know. Clive, sorry, it was not the BBC who withdrew the money, but EMI films. Clive, thank you. But as far as I know, it was the BBC and not EMI, but Clive, let’s both check it and let’s both get back together again to find out.
Gail, how are you? In Jo'Burg, hope that you’re okay there. Groucho in one of the Marx’ brothers early movies also steps out and speaks to the camera. Yep, in the early days of being so experimental and innovative with the camera, they obviously were playing so much with it. They were really playing and being innovative with this whole new medium, you know, the camera and having a lot of fun. Tom Clive, Tom Lehrer is 93, great thanks. Last performed in London in 1998, Clive, he also said at the time of George W. Bush that real life was too real to satirise. Yep.
That was one of the phrases, Clive, as you’re saying that, that Tom Lehrer you know, that the real life was, was almost more ridiculous than satire could be.
Monique, thank you for that. Mitzi, you left off the scene in The Life of Brian where he is crucified. Always look at the bright side of life. That is such a classic scene, Mitzi. And I thought, let’s look at a few others, which perhaps are not quite as well known as the final scene at the end of the crucifixion. And always look on the bright side of life, completely uplifting at the moment of crucifixion. Brilliant satire lifts us with joy, pulls us down with, with with the reality of crucifixion. Always playing with both. I think it was Freud at the beginning of Jokes in the Unconscious, he tells a joke right at the first paragraph. If I’m right, Freud, you know, the guy’s being taken out of prison and it’s a lovely Monday morning, blue sky, sunshine. And he is being taken to be hung. And he looks up and he says to his jailers who are, you know, he’s going to be hung in a couple of minutes. And he looks up at and he looks at them and he says, “Huh, nice day for a hanging,” And if I remember right, it’s opening paragraph of Freud’s Joke in the Unconscious. Again, it’s playing with the opposite of what we expect. The ironic in the comedy. Riva, thank you for your comment.
Q: Mickey, who is the man in the mirror clip?
A: In the mirror, Groucho. The great Groucho in Duck Soup.
Q: Jonna and Alfred, If you can’t laugh at yourself, do you have a valid basis for making fun of someone else?
A: That’s a great question. That could go into a play, Alfred. Great line. If you can’t laugh it yourself, I don’t think you have a valid basis for being on the planet, to be honest from my point of view.
Barbara, thanks. Yep, this was to give an antidote for an hour, to enjoy some lighthearted fun. With Covid, with what’s going on at the moment with a new variant and what we’re all going through at the end of the year and so on. It was in the spur of the moment.
Dennis. No time for Beyond the Fringe. I know, Flanders and I know there’s so many others.
Mitzi, nothing beat Charlie Chaplin doing Hitler. Yep. I’ve done Charlie Chaplin before. We have presented just on Charlie Chaplin and some of his great comic moments with the with the globe as a ball, as a big beach ball and so many of the others. And for, for Mel Brooks, unbeatable. Karen, thank you Sanders. Mel Brooks is not enjoying ageing. No, I know, I’ve seen some interviews with him recently and, the energy and the passion this guy has, and the wit is just so deep in the guy, it’s fantastic. Judith, thank you. Cheryl, thanks.
Q: Miriam, Kubrick, yeah. I’d love to do a whole series just on Kubrick’s films. Extraordinary. Can you comment on his use of music?
A: Beethoven’s seventh in A Clockwork Orange. I think he chooses every moment from the visual, to the camera, to the actors, to the music. I think all of it, for me, every Kubrick a moment, every film is an artistic event. It’s not just a brilliant filmmaker, Maron, I’ve never found Springtime for Hitler funny. Help me to understand it.
Maron, that’s another whole session I think. Well I think it really is brilliantly funny, and in the spirit of subversive of satire. Which it really is. And it’s really walking the razor’s edge of satire, comedy and offensive. Ara, thank you. I was going to show some Lenny Bruce today you’re asking, and I got an interesting piece from Lenny Bruce called All Alone. Which is very different from the traditional Lenny Bruce that one knows, or how he evolved later in his life for his comedy. And it’s a fascinating piece from very early on in Lenny Bruce’s life. But unfortunately there isn’t time to show everything.
Riva, great satire during apartheid. We’d love you to do a session on that. Actually, that’s a great idea. I mean the great plays, the anti-apartheid plays, were satires.
Q: I mean, Woza Albert, what would happen if one day Jesus Christ came to apartheid South Africa?
A: Would he be classified as black, white, Indian, you know, in South African phrase, coloured or mixed race? Would he be able to ride a bus, would he not? Would he either, et cetera. The great anti-apartheid play, Woza Albert, done in such a light, powerful, comic spirit. But the content is the horror of apartheid and extreme racism. And asking the simple question: What would happen if Christ came to apartheid South Africa? And yet so many brilliantly satirical comic scenes. Yeah, and the satire during apartheid was the most powerful anti-apartheid theatre. And it was the theatre that the apartheid rule tried to stop before the so-called serious theatre. They allowed a lot of them all so-called serious theatre. But the satire was much harder to get performed. You know, the rigmarole to go through to get it performed, and then in front of tiny audiences. If you remember the market theatre. It was tiny, 36, 38 people. They allowed Woza Albert to be performed.
Marilyn, just what you needed. No, Tony Hancock. Tony Hancock. I know Miriam, there’s so many, I’d love to. Jackie Mason, of course, always. Thank you Leslie. Thank you Barbara. Okay, Carol, thanks. Nostalgic, yeah. Mickey, yeah, absolutely. Clive, you’ve checked again, it wasn’t the BBC. We’re going to have this debate. I’m going to check it again Clive. And I’d love to debate with you on it and if I’m wrong, I fully put my hand up and laugh at myself.
Q: Riva, what satire will come up with this pandemic era?
A: Now that’s a fascinating question, which I thought a lot about. How do you satire in the era of Covid? And I know lots of writers all over who are grappling with this exact question. And it’s essential because we will write satire whether a little bit later, maybe, perhaps not right now, but in a moment there will become satire on it. You know, there’s certainly satire on the Black Death, and many others, you know. On the Spanish Flu and others. It’s perhaps a little bit too close right now, but it will come.
Clive, Peter Dokays, fantastic, great guy as well. Linda, Robert Kirby, south African satirist, absolutely. Ron, physical comedy, a fun session. Yeah, I’d love to. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton at all times. Laurel and Hardy and so many other, the greats of the past. And how they’ve influenced today, of the physical comedy and physical comedies are so powerful. Obviously, it doesn’t rely on language and therefore it’s open to such a global audience, especially with the internet and can reach so many more people. One of the reasons why Rowan Atkinson, they chose for Mr. Bean to keep it silent, silent physical comedy. It opens it up for such a huge audience and it’s a limitation with a lot of other comedies written, which rely on language. On the other hand, that’s part of the charm of the intellectually or the language-based comedy as well. You know, because it, it’s with the wit.
Okay, Randy Rainbow during the Trump years, including Covid. Absolutely. Okay, I think that’s all the questions for now. So, thank you so much, Lauren and to Wendy and everybody else. The French movie from Ira. Tall blond, The Tall Blonde Man with One Black Shoe, a silent movie, yep. The moment we do without comedy and satire, I think is a disaster. Okay, so that’s it. We’ve had a bit of light Friday today, which was the aim. And as we go towards the end of the year, and winter and what’s coming, we need to be reminded. We’ve got to smile at a few things. Okay, so thank you very much everybody, and Lauren and Wendy.
[Wendy] Thank you, David, thanks to you.
Okay, take care. Stay safe.
[Wendy] Thank you, Lauren. Bye-Bye.