I have a number of objections to this statement, not least that it implies pound shops only sell low quality products. Any savvy shopper knows this isn’t true: pound shops sell a combination of stuff worth more than a pound and stuff worth less than a pound, often to quite extreme degrees. In my local 99p store, aisle one is ‘gold bullions and semi-detached homes’ and aisle two is ‘grains of rice’ and ‘hugs’. I’d basically be making a profit if the hugs weren’t so damn good.
 |
| My hope is that in taking this image from The Guardian, they'll see this blog and hire me |
But that isn’t my main objection, and this would be a weird and unnecessary article to write if it were. No, I take issue with the kind of criticism O’Neill levies at Mitchell and his comedy. See the following:
“QI, Have I Got News For You, Mock the Week, Just a Minute … On all of them, there he is, stroking BBC TWO viewers’ and Radio 4 listeners’ prejudices, giving them their weekly, soul-sustaining dose of anti-Tory gags, banker-bashing and praise for the BBC…
… UKIP voters, fast-food eaters, etczzz…You want sixth-former-style “Tories are evil” stuff? Mitchell’s yer man…
…How about some Murdochphobia, Rupe being the favoured bête noir of every tabloid-despairing progressive? He’s a “monstrous a–––hole who wants to ruin everything for everyone”, declares Mitchell, daringly.”
Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever been presented with a 3 year old’s drawing of squirrel, but, if you have, you’ll be aware that although disfigured, discoloured, elephant-like and, in places, surreal, it’s possible to work out what it’s meant to be, especially when you’re aware of the technical and intellectual limitations faced by the artist. I feel the same about O’Neill’s attempt at a point here. What he’s trying to say doesn’t make sense to the eye or the mind at first glance, but if you sit and stare for long enough you might be able to work it out. And then tell him he’s a star and deserves extra pudding.
I think basically what he’s implied is that some ‘stuff’ simply isn’t an appropriate topic for someone like Mitchell. And, on this list of unacceptable targets for one of Britain’s leading left wing satirists are: bankers, people on the far right, the right wing media, and the current government. Yeah, classic 2015 Mitchell, laying into ‘the government’! BO-RING. People have been criticising the government basically since the government began - can we please just let those in power get on with it? Urgh.
A stupid point. No denying that. But we may as well explore why O’Neill believes these topics to be out of bounds.
What it appears to come down to is criticising the state or the right wing media simply isn’t ‘daring’ enough for O’Neill. It’s too easy. “Go on! Be more daring! Say you hate immigrants! Or the poor! Then I’ll recognise you as the leading satirist you once were and not some left-wing homogeneous blob!” He cries. (I expect he does cry actually. Loads.) But it’s a worrying state of affairs when something is so obviously flawed or evil that slagging it off becomes cliché, and I don’t think the solution is to stop mocking that something completely. Especially when it’s as powerful as Rupert Murdoch.
No. Even, if some things are so shit that their shitty-ness is universally implied, that doesn’t mean satire should turn elsewhere. All it means is that, for any criticism to be worthwhile, it must carry a degree of wit and intelligence. If my housemate walked into my kitchen and said ‘Murdoch is bad’ three times, before promptly exiting, I wouldn’t find that particularly insightful or funny. Well I would find it funny, but you understand what I’m saying. Criticism is only valuable if it’s done well, and personally I think Mitchell’s columns and quips are easily funny enough to justify their arguably easy targets.
My only worry now is the quality of this article, because my God slagging off The Telegraph is easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment