Random TV Show Thoughts

[Totenkindly]

Geez.

John Cleese Responds To Eric Idle Slam: “We Always Loathed And Despised Each Other”

John Cleese is making it clear that he – and a few other Pythons – are in complete disagreement with long-ago co-star Eric Idle, who last weekend slammed manager (and daughter of Python co-founder Terry Gilliam) Holly Gilliam for what Idle suggested were the troupe’s dwindling finances. “We own...

www.yahoo.com

 

[The Cat]

Geez.

John Cleese Responds To Eric Idle Slam: “We Always Loathed And Despised Each Other”

John Cleese is making it clear that he – and a few other Pythons – are in complete disagreement with long-ago co-star Eric Idle, who last weekend slammed manager (and daughter of Python co-founder Terry Gilliam) Holly Gilliam for what Idle suggested were the troupe’s dwindling finances. “We own...

www.yahoo.com

You get a sense of this in Monty Python Speaks. Cleese and Chapman and Palin and Jones were the ones who often worked together, Gilliam and Idle mostly worked on their own. Idle was there because he had the musical and writing talent and Palin said Idle is the only one who could convincingly pull off the Man who only speaks in annagrams, and Jones thought Idle played the best woman. But if you look at most of what Cleese and Idle did together it was always very antagonistic. But it sucks they dont like each other. Idle and Cleese were my favorite. Though Idle has definitely ridden the tales of Python the most, and has seemingly always been the one more cynical of it as a money making oprtunity. Iirc he touches on this a bit in one of his books. But he's been the most involved with keeping as a thing if memory serves. Cleese, Palin, Jones, and Gilliam all moved fairly quickly and solidly into other things. But Cleese got pretty turned off to it after Chapman died(i think thats when it stopped being fun for him.)

 

[Totenkindly]

You get a sense of this in Monty Python Speaks. Cleese and Chapman and Palin and Jones were the ones who often worked together, Gilliam and Idle mostly worked on their own. Idle was there because he had the musical and writing talent and Palin said Idle is the only one who could convincingly pull off the Man who only speaks in annagrams, and Jones thought Idle played the best woman.

Yeah, I agree on that. Esp with Idle being the best femme, lol. The others really milked those dress-up gags for kicks. And Idle's musical talent was the strongest in the group.

Idle is the only one I met (briefly), in passing, when I did an interview down at 7th Level in the mid-90's when they were making the Monty Python games. Didn't really get to talk to him. I get the feeling both he and Cleese are very strong-willed and have their own ideas about how things should be done (even before all this blowout mess).

But i also felt like Cleese collaborates better; and Palin and Jones seem to collaborate the best? Not sure about Chapman since he died so long ago, and Gilliam is just a crazy man lol. I think he just has a wild vision (plus, he's used to exercising his vision as a director) and likes to be set loose to play off what others are doing in a group, but otherwise might veer between highly sociable and incredibly cantankerous.

But if you look at most of what Cleese and Idle did together it was always very antagonistic. But it sucks they dont like each other. Idle and Cleese were my favorite. Though Idle has definitely ridden the tales of Python the most, and has seemingly always been the one more cynical of it as a money making oprtunity. Iirc he touches on this a bit in one of his books. But he's been the most involved with keeping as a thing if memory serves.

it might be, because I didn't feel like Idle did as much as the others did in separate projects after Python mostly ended. They've all otherwise managed to do a lot of projects with other people or their own independent gigs. (Palin had his exploration show or tour guide show or something too?)

Cleese, Palin, Jones, and Gilliam all moved fairly quickly and solidly into other things. But Cleese got pretty turned off to it after Chapman died(i think thats when it stopped being fun for him.)

Chapman was apparently more intuitive in terms of humor and could just contribute something to shake things up, rather than planning out a lot of gags. He was kind of a catalyst and gave him the leads in their early films because they thought he could act, the others were more silly in their approach. (I think Cleese actually did a wonderful job straight acting in A Fish Called Wanda.) But he definitely seemed very close to Chapman.

I mean, if I was gonna pick one to stir up antagonism, it would have probably been Idle. He seems kind of opinionated and also not afraid to just blurt things out. I think Terry Jones (now gone) and Michael Palin come across as the least combative.

Cleese might be the strongest writer in the bunch, longer form scripting at least. (He actually got a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nom for AFCW.) Jones of course had his wonderful fairy stories and books.

EDIT: Of course then there is this inanity, which has irked me about Cleese who otherwise I have enjoyed.

... Cleese has long stoked the flames of culture war by rejecting so-called cancel culture, supporting Brexit, and standing up for oppressed, millionaire transphobes at the expense of his reputation. Idle, conversely, uses the site to call John Cleese an “entitled git” and tweet things like “fuck Netflix and fuck documentaries.” But he also has a much more level-headed view of the victimization funhouse that Mr. Cleese lives inside, where white guys are supposedly struggling to espouse their hatred publicly in a way that the broader culture accepts.

 

[The Cat]

Yeah, I agree on that. Esp with Idle being the best femme, lol. The others really milked those dress-up gags for kicks. And Idle's musical talent was the strongest in the group.

Idle is the only one I met (briefly), in passing, when I did an interview down at 7th Level in the mid-90's when they were making the Monty Python games. Didn't really get to talk to him. I get the feeling both he and Cleese are very strong-willed and have their own ideas about how things should be done (even before all this blowout mess).

But i also felt like Cleese collaborates better; and Palin and Jones seem to collaborate the best? Not sure about Chapman since he died so long ago, and Gilliam is just a crazy man lol. I think he just has a wild vision (plus, he's used to exercising his vision as a director) and likes to be set loose to play off what others are doing in a group, but otherwise might veer between highly sociable and incredibly cantankerous.


it might be, because I didn't feel like Idle did as much as the others did in separate projects after Python mostly ended. They've all otherwise managed to do a lot of projects with other people or their own independent gigs. (Palin had his exploration show or tour guide show or something too?)


Chapman was apparently more intuitive in terms of humor and could just contribute something to shake things up, rather than planning out a lot of gags. He was kind of a catalyst and gave him the leads in their early films because they thought he could act, the others were more silly in their approach. (I think Cleese actually did a wonderful job straight acting in A Fish Called Wanda.) But he definitely seemed very close to Chapman.

I mean, if I was gonna pick one to stir up antagonism, it would have probably been Idle. He seems kind of opinionated and also not afraid to just blurt things out. I think Terry Jones (now gone) and Michael Palin come across as the least combative.

Cleese might be the strongest writer in the bunch, longer form scripting at least. (He actually got a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nom for AFCW.) Jones of course had his wonderful fairy stories and books.

For Sure Idle had a reputation of whenever the group started arguing or disagreeing he would in his own words: "Fuck off."

Cleese and Chapman were VERY close as guys could be and not be romantically a thing. They were like best friends. TBH I get the sense that his marriage to Connie Booth fell apart in part to Chapman's death; he allegedly had a way of getting more enjoyment out of Cleese who was and is dispite being very funny, very serious, which I suppose is why so many people can find him seriously funny, I cant quite picture anyone else being able to do Mr PRailine or be as convincingly exasperated. Plus he did write How to irritate people so you know he's aggravating to have as a friend. So to lose someone who he could work so well with, you just know, you can see he's never been the same. He was kind of the glue. Cleese is definitely one of the stronger writers. The jokes are very much written in. Jones took everything towards the fantastic, and Gilliam gravitated to more behind the camera things. Cleese and Jones butted heads a lot but that came from irrisistible force making comedy with an immovable object, they both had visions of how to make a thing the best way; so I think their rivalry was more like Daffy and Buggs, they respect each other as cartoons. They just have different bits. But you cant really compare Idle or Gilliam with the wrest because they did their own things mostly seperate. The Travel agent sketch is one of my favorites. But Johns writing always felt tight and polished.

 

[The Cat]

Also Fawlty Towers is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen. Basil Fawlty is my evil alter ego.

 

[Totenkindly]

Also Fawlty Towers is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen. Basil Fawlty is my evil alter ego.

I tried to watch that 15-20 years ago and just never really got into it for some reason.

But AFCW is one of my favorite comedy films ever. Every time I talk about it, I want to pop it back into the player.

 

[The Cat]

I tried to watch that 15-20 years ago and just never really got into it for some reason.

But AFCW is one of my favorite comedy films ever. Every time I talk about it, I want to pop it back into the player.

The way I grew up I had to learn to find hilarity in frustration, and Basil is a character who cant be honest with himself about who he is, so of course nothing he wants can ever manifest because he doesnt want what he thinks he does. What can I say Im a sucker for a farce. All I need to be happy in life is a stage, a room and three doors with a cast of people with a good sense of comic timing and Im good to go for like seven years as long as you inject me with it once a week.

 

[The Cat]

A Fish Called Wanda is one of the greatest movies ever and if you dont laugh your ass off at the Ca. The Ca. The Caaaa. The Caaaa. Taht scene. you have no sense of humor.

 

[Totenkindly]

A Fish Called Wanda is one of the greatest movies ever and if you dont laugh your ass off at the Ca. The Ca. The Caaaa. The Caaaa. Taht scene. you have no sense of humor.

I don't think I ever stopped laughing. Every joke seems to land.

Even the really dry stuff -- like when Otto makes up a stammering fake name for himself along with an excuse for being in Archie's house (Archie didn't even know he was there and looks entirely bewildered), and Wendy rattles the name back later with the same pauses that Otto had inserted while fishing for a name.

 

[The Cat]

I don't think I ever stopped laughing. Every joke seems to land.

Even the really dry stuff -- like when Otto makes up a stammering fake name for himself along with an excuse for being in Archie's house (Archie didn't even know he was there), and Wendy rattles the name back later with the same pauses that Otto had inserted while fishing for a name.

Otto losing his shit when he's practicing to apologize, getting so pissed he puts a gun in Archies face to apologize. Also Archie and the necklace, john Cleese staging the robbery of his house and eating the necklace priceless.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Not sure if this is the right place, but:

I'm watching Monday's episode of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and I find it refreshing. Perhaps I find the existence of a consistent throughline throughout all the intervening years of BS comforting.

 

[Totenkindly]

Not sure if this is the right place, but:

I'm watching Monday's episode of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and I find it refreshing. Perhaps I find the existence of a consistent throughline throughout all the intervening years of BS comforting.

I'd be curious to see what you think in terms of whether it is dangerously "both sides" ing everything. There's been a lot of noise from further left folks + Mary Trump regarding it and whether that brand of balance is dangerous or out of place now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'd be curious to see what you think in terms of whether it is dangerously "both sides" ing everything. There's been a lot of noise from further left folks + Mary Trump regarding it and whether that brand of balance is dangerous or out of place now.

After thinking about it some more, I don't think it's really fair. The only place where it could be applied to this week's show is the discussion around Biden's age. I'll talk more about that later.

I do think Stewart has been guilty of this at times. The main example of this I remember was the "Rally to Restore Sanity" which was a response to Glenn Beck's stupid "Rally to Restore Honor" ( which I suppose you could view as a precursor to January 6th; it's people complaining that honor has been taken from the White House simply because it's not a Republican sitting in it; for as much as I've criticized the guy, I can't figure out what Obama did that was "dishonorable" in their eyes). The main message of the Rally to Restore sanity was basically that everyone needs to calm down, and that both sides need to stop acting so whacky; it avoided criticizing Beck and his groupies too much.

I also think it's hard for me to fault Stewart for this too much. In general, I think political comedy had a time navigating a post-Bush America. I also think that this was the political zeitgeist of the time on the Democratic side of things; there was a desire to put all of the nastiness behind us and be one country again. (I think that was the wrong time for that, but that's an entirely different discussion).

I'll also say that Glenn Beck was a figure who deserved far more criticism than he ever got when he was on the air. Reddit posts just talked about him like this goofy figure drawing complicated diagrams on whiteboards. As far as I can tell, Glenn Beck mainstreamed the secular convoluted conspiracy theory dog-whistle conservatism that found a candidate in Donald Trump, and is also responsible for such things as vaccine denialism. If you've ever wanted a Republican to stop yammering about George Soros for five minutes, you have Glenn Beck to blame. All of this was an alarming trend, but he was popular at a time when people were willing to let things like this slide for a variety of reasons. I've written too much on this tangent, anyway.

Anyway, let me say a few things about the show:

There are many jokes about Republican voters being unhinged psychopaths; there are none about Democratic voters

The discussion with the woman from the economist at the end discusses Trump and NATO, raising many of the same points made in the Cold War 2.0 thread. Stewart connects Republican support for Putin to belonging to an international anti-woke alliance. It's not that they're being hypocritical on the issue of defense; it's that they've chosen the other side, which is something I don't think enough people understand.

At one point he is quite critical of what Israel has done towards Gaza.

He emphatically implores viewers to not only treat election day as mattering, but before and after election day as well.

This is all I can remember at the moment. I'll discuss the segment on Biden's age in a different post.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So Jon Stewart has a segment on the advanced age of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and this is where the "both sides" criticism must come from, because I don't see anything like it anywhere else. The mental capability of both figures is called into question here.

I confess: I don't have a problem with this segment either. They aren't saying anything that isn't true and if they were to attack Trump for senility but not go after Biden, wouldn't that seem disingenuous? I think the fact that they do so makes them more trustworthy in my eyes. And since both of the candidates have the same problem, does doing this convince anyone to change their vote? Perhaps it might make them feel less motivated in voting for Biden, but it's possible to find reasons to vote for them regardless. Things can be delegated, and it's not like there's a real choice.

When Stewart questioned why we had these two candidates again, and why they were not replaced by anyone younger, the thing that stood out to me was something that has I've noticed many times before. It's the thing conspiracy theorists don't get and are too frightened to contemplate: We don't have the sharpest tacks running things and that explains why we have the outcomes we have. Or perhaps it's more that we did have the sharpest tacks running things once, but now, perhaps, they're a little too old to still be doing it. (Of course, I've felt this way 20 years ago; so maybe the tacks were never that sharp to begin with. Alternatively, it could be a matter of corruption and greed.)

Side note: I find it personally frustrating that at one moment and time you are supposed to cheer with elation at the prospect of not being red America or blue America, but one America, and that this is supposed to be inspiring. Terrible things happened under the Bush administration, but in the name of unity and moving forward, those things were ignored. Flash forward to America in the third century of the third millennium, and it's incumbent on us all to treat red and blue America as totally distinct entities, where we must never imply that they share things in common, even when they do. The idea that we can't discuss shared shortcomings of both candidates (like concerns about advanced age) because it might be construed by some as suggesting "both sides" are bad is ridiculous. Acknowledging that two sides share things in common is not the same as fence-sitting; it does not mean you can't pick a side or that you think both sides are equally bad. It simply means you are being honest. This can be a good thing at times; if you're honest, you can help people to understand a situation better. If they understand a situation better, they might even come up with solutions.

 

[SensEye]

So Jon Stewart has a segment on the advanced age of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and this is where the "both sides" criticism must come from, because I don't see anything like it anywhere else. The mental capability of both figures is called into question here.

I have not seen this, but what is the criticism? Both Trump and Biden are clearly incompetent and unfit for leadership. Assuming Stewart implied as much, how can there be criticism about speaking the truth? Stating both sides are terrible is a simple fact, one should not face criticism for pointing that out.

 

[The Cat]

So The Shadows engineered the plague that wiped out the Markab because their culture remembered the Shadows through their religious texts. The Shadows used the Centauri to wipe out the narn for the same reason. Fascinating.

 

[The Cat]

Boy but Dwight Schultz plays a relatable character.

 

[Totenkindly]

I have not seen this, but what is the criticism? Both Trump and Biden are clearly incompetent and unfit for leadership. Assuming Stewart implied as much, how can there be criticism about speaking the truth? Stating both sides are terrible is a simple fact, one should not face criticism for pointing that out.

It's not hard to understand. Maybe a picture would help.

That being said, and aside from the economic improvements, Dems should have been cultivating younger leaders for the last four years. A few have emerged but none who people see as heir apparent to Biden this year.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I have not seen this, but what is the criticism? Both Trump and Biden are clearly incompetent and unfit for leadership. Assuming Stewart implied as much, how can there be criticism about speaking the truth? Stating both sides are terrible is a simple fact, one should not face criticism for pointing that out.

Well, that's not the same as saying both sides are terrible. I don't think that's true, or at least, I don't think they're equally terrible.

Biden despite his faults is proof that the Democratic party could be maneuvered to be better if the right pressure were applied. Republicans have been very successful with a mirror-universe version of this. The Republican party became what it is today because of the pressure applied to it. (In the 50s and 60s, the Republican party wasn't the same thing it is today. In Chicago, you had progressive aldermen who were Republicans as a way of resisting the Daley machine and were to the left of the Democratic aldermen. The parties back then were not ideologically homogenous; you had progressive and conservative factions within each party.) I'm not talking simply about big business money (which also goes to the Democratic party), but pressure from evangelicals and others.

Note to self:

Find good political history of the 1970s. It gets eclipsed by the 60s and the 80s, but I've long felt this is a much more important decade than people realize.