You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > All Satirical Passion Spent
 
In The New Elites, his study of modern culture, George Walden dissected Oxbridge-educated media grandees who make a career out of assuming the masses are ignorant. The makers of Headcases proved his point. Before the series began, they unblushingly told the Times that they wouldn’t pick on Jack Straw, Ed Balls, David Davis and Vince Cable because they didn’t think the viewers knew who they were. Even if they were right, and I’m not sure they are, Straw is Labour’s most devious survivor, while any decent satirist would have thanked the gods for giving him the bombastic, bullying Balls to play with. If their audience didn’t know who they were, they would make them know by the force of their anger and comic invention.

Not so the writers of Headcases. They presumed that the poor stupid little dears would switch channels if presented with any­thing outside the comfort zone. All the proles wanted to know about was celebrities, so Headcases gave them endless spoofs of Posh and Becks.

The great satirists despised the powerful. Unless the writers of the second series can find an angry intelligence, we will have to conclude that ITV’s satirists despise their audience.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
ADAMS
June 27th, 2008
1:06 AM
A good article, and I love the magazine so far. To bring up Headcases in this important subject is, I think, irrelevant. It's a small, mistaken programme. It's not the 'New Spitting Image' and only said it was to get some publicity. Let's focus on proper satire. Columnists, stand-ups, sketch-writers and cartoonists. And I think they're doing fine. Rory Bremner, Craig Brown, Matthew Parris, Morland, and there are many others. The limits are always going to be the Brass Eye factor (Daily Mail outrage) and the timidity of Editors in general. And part of that is, yes, don't scare the punters. Or confuse them. However, satirists should speak to everyone. Not just the Westminster Village or 'chattering classes', as they sometimes do now. For example, however bad Ed Balls may be, he is not yet on on the nation's conscience. Yes, one could struggle to expose him every day in a cartoon or column, for example, but if he's not well enough known, he's not well enough known. Full stop. You can work your fingers raw drubbing him every day, but only a "public" story (dodgy political 'initiative', scandal, faux pas... ) will bring him fully to the public's sight. Finally, I believe you are being depressive. Quote: "To call satire a conservative art is another way of saying that it is the art of the defeated." You were the one who called satirists conservative. I disagree. Good ones do not harbour "nostalgia and alarm" but look forward to a less imperfect society. Above all, they sniff a fault a mile off, draw attention to it, but, above all, make sure the punter gets their drift!

Peter
June 10th, 2008
3:06 PM
But Blair has gone now, and it turns out he was nowhere near as Right wing as those who mocked him — myself included — imagined. Yes he was. And your journalism stands up well if read today. Don't give up on us. It is unsurprising that Cameron can easily accept a Blairite settlement and even campaign on the basis of outflanking it on the left!

Neil
June 1st, 2008
1:06 PM
Part of it is possibly that since the hounding of the makers of "Brass Eye", probably the last genuinely biting satire to reach TV, by the regulators and reactionary parts of the media, broadcasters are too scared to show anything too hard-hitting, with the obvious knock on effect on writers no?

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.