Morning:
8°c
I BLAME the credit crunch. Only terminal weariness with hearing about our ever-worse economic prospects can explain why Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross dominated the news all week.
All their crimes amounted to was a pair of dirty little boys ringing some old-timer's front door bell, shouting "Poo! Belly! Bum!" and then trying to run off before they got slapped.
Brand and Ross nearly made it, too. After the programme was originally broadcast on Radio 2, only two listeners complained to the BBC, one of whom was the victim, Andrew Sachs. Who can the other possibly have been? Mary Whitehouse is dead. But after a week of furious coverage, thousands have now registered their indignation, or as it might be, inflamed priggishness.
Yet Jonathan Ross has often made me laugh. For let's admit it: he's really good at what he does.
A couple of years ago, I was surprised to find that a Radio Times poll of people working in radio, asking them to name their favourite and most influential broadcaster, had put Ross first, ahead of the likes of Humphrys and Wogan. So I started listening to his Saturday morning show and soon realised why.
He's peculiarly engaging as a broadcaster because you know that, whenever he sets off on a subject, he is winging it, more or less unprepared. But what he comes up with is then always surprisingly resourceful and inventive, going a little bit further than you could have anticipated, both verbally and in bad taste.
It works equally well whether he's doing it on air or with a guest and a live audience on television. Every time, it's a real performance, with all the excitement of watching any act that constantly risks failure, like walking a tightrope or singing an aria.
The drama doesn't work quite so well when solidified into print. His new book Why Do I Say These Things? isn't really written at all, just ramblings on tape that have been put on paper. Not much of a book, maybe. But you can still hear his voice lifting off the page - and many of these riffs, on such deplorable subjects as genital warts and castrating his dog, have made me laugh out loud, quite against my will, of course. And we warm to people who make us laugh.
Ross does get paid a lot, £6 million a year, but I don't mind that. I'm always heartened that somebody can garner such loot for mere verbal adroitness, rather than plundering Russia's natural resources, being born the Duke of Westminster, or destroying our savings. Maybe it's too much but then he has talent unlike the executives who have now suspended him for 12 weeks.
McEwan parodies himself
IAN McEwan says he always felt there was a mismatch in opera between the sublime music and the absurd plots. So when he came to write a libretto for Michael Berkeley's For You, about a libidinous composer, premiered this week, he aimed at a new “fictional realism”. Perhaps For You works well enough on stage. However, it has also been published as a paperback and though I very much admire McEwan's fiction, For You reads like nothing so much as a brisk and efficient parody of one of his own novels — openly telling you all the time what everybody's thinking and feeling, over-schematised, over-tidy and over-explicit. I don't think that can have been quite the effect intended.
Our new temple of delight
YESTERDAY, the first shoppers into the new Westfield centre didn't just look curious or acquisitive. A lot of them looked positively enraptured, as if they'd seen their God.
It is an enormous and impressive place, expensively finished, glamorously lit from above, boasting a startling array of shops and restaurants. But it's about much more than just buying and selling. Westfield is, in its own way, a devotional edifice, a temple to consumerism. Just as the cathedrals were the highest expression of their times, and the great stations the triumph of the railway age, so such a lavish mall sums up our current idea of glory. It is shopping purified, shopping removed from all that is not shopping, shopping presented as the great end of life.
For many of those excitedly discovering it yesterday, it seemed to be paradise. It reminded me of George A Romero's great film Dawn of the Dead in which zombies congregate in a mall, swaying gently to the Muzak, because it is the place they remember best.
A tip for Halloween, if you've never seen it.
Reader views (22)
Mr Ross has no natural flair for comedy at all. He's like the irritating, attention-seeking kid in the playground who just won't go away. Amando Innucci is funny, Steve Coogan is funny, Chris Morris is funny, Chris Langham is funny. Jonathan Ross is not funny. All Ross has is misplaced confidence and a huge ego. Get rid. Anyone who finds him funny must have a wire missing in the circuit of the brain which controls sense of humour.
- James, Brighton, 21/11/2008 12:14
Report abuse
I must be missing something, i consider my self to have a good sense of humour, but ROSS, no way i this person funny, can some one explain how such this moron gets £6 million we are the fools
- John Rooney, lincoln england, 03/11/2008 19:14
Report abuse
jonathan ross is NOT funny at all.Go away Jonathan.
- Bunnikins, devon, uk, 03/11/2008 17:59
Report abuse
Thank you David Sexton I agree with everything you said about Jonathan Ross. I don't care what he earns he's worth evey penny. Friday night's will never be the same and who will present Film 2008? I do hope Jonathan comes back in January he's been a constant delight for over 20 years and I miss him.
- Theresa, London, 03/11/2008 16:50
Report abuse
This is really a case of people in the same business sticking for each other. Commendable, certainly more so than not supporting each other but for those of us who can say what we think: J Ross is a waste of space. End of story. His 15 mns are over. He has enough money to retire to Surrey etc..
- Sam, london, 03/11/2008 14:16
Report abuse
I find it sad that so-called comedians have to use Middle English words associated with physiology and reproduction plus shock to get laughs. My suspicions that only a few find this sort of schoolby 'wit' to be funny were confirmed by a recent poll.
I was taught that wit was the ability to use metaphor and that theatre audiences frequently laugh to cover a shocked reaction. I suspect Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand posess limited intellectual ability and thought that by pushing past the boundaries of acceptable taste they were being 'cutting edge' comedians, when they were only being self-indulgent and thoughtless larrikins; their larrikinism inevitably descended into small-minded bullying of the worst kind.
It's also very sad that the BBC has lost touch with financial realities and handed Ross such a huge portion of the licence fees that so many viewers struggle to pay.
I believe his contrition to be utterly false, otherwise he would have cancelled his huge Halloween bash.
Brand, at least, had suficient sense of personal shame to resign; I see no similar action on Ross's part, but I suspect he will eventually be 'persauded' to resign by BBC management trying to get back on to the front foot.
- Kiwi Expat, London, UK, 03/11/2008 13:28
Report abuse
If Jonathan Ross really was such a great entertainer could somebody please tell me why the ratings for his Friday night show had been falling and were lower than programmes such as Watchdog?
- George Henstock, London, 03/11/2008 10:23
Report abuse
Jonathan Ross is not funny, is idiotic, rude and juvenile.
"Maybe it's too much but then he has talent unlike the executives who have now suspended him for 12 weeks" - what a load of tosh. If he was so talented he'd have quit, like Brand had the guts to do, and then would have been sure of walking into another job to earn more. Surprise surprise he didn't quit because he knows he's not worth what he's paid now and he'll not earn any more anywhere else. 12 weeks without him on tele will hopefully make the bosses at the BBC realise that they're better off without him. Then he can sink into TV obscurity, and hopefully disappear into the jungle on "I'm a celebrity..."
- John Moriarty, Putney, London, 02/11/2008 21:10
Report abuse
Agree with Paul in Maidenhead. Ross may be amusing (though I don't think so) but he's not worth £18million of OUR money. Extracted from us under threat of imprisionment.
I own a TV but very rarely watch the Beeb but still have to pay for it and Ross' wedge. Thats the bit I object to. I have to subsidise unfunny crass untinking morons like Brand and Ross. If they are such a superb resource and national treasures (as their ilk hereon claim) then bring on the pay-per-view and we'll see just how fabulous they are. I suspect they'd be out of a job in a week.
So fire him and bring on cheaper more talented people.
- Rusty Shackleford, UK, 31/10/2008 15:40
Report abuse
Unfunny AND overpaid. His salary is an insult to license fee payers and it is time the BBC realised its days as a government funded honeypot are over.
- Helene Davidson, London, 31/10/2008 15:36
Report abuse
I am a South African living in the UK and I have been struck by the humour that is pervasive in the UK. The likes of Ross and Brand are on the vanguard of this cutting-edge specialism that is unique to Britain. There are many others in tow. They deserve to earn the money because of the joy they give us. Ross is special and immense. Britain must protect this uniqueness with everything in its power.
- Lemi, bury, 31/10/2008 14:05
Report abuse
you don't get it mate. I'm funny but I don't get paid £18million. I don't want to help pay the salary of a guy who could make disgusting comments about my grandkids or nephews/nieces. He's not funny either
- Paul, Maidenhead UK, 31/10/2008 13:32
Report abuse
I must agree entirely with David Sexton's article on Jonathanm Ross. He sums up the whole episode incredibly well.
The only television I actually watch is Jonathan's show. Everything else is simply too boring or limp.
I am a great fan of British humour and although I agree totally that this was poor taste, I can't help but feel that the whole episode tonight, if it had been shown, could have seen him at his best. Grovelling an apology but getting through it with sublime chauvinism and talent.
What will happen to the Poor Poofs...are they also out of a job?
- Jayne Van Der Vorm, Weybridge, Surrey, 31/10/2008 13:31
Report abuse
Well David Sexton, you have completely missed the point. The majority of people have not heard the remarks of Ross and Brand at first hand. So right, 30,000+ have jumped on the bandwagon to complain. This is because there views on the "pushing the envelope brigade" would normally be dismissed with contempt.
Perhaps in the homes of these over paid stars and the managers of TV and radio, there is a culture of foul language, deviant behaviour, lack of respect, and contempt for those who pay their wages.
Here in the peasant outback of the North different rules apply. I personally witnessed someone who was sacked on the spot for doing something far less serious than Ross and Brand. There again his offence was devoid of vanity and ego, he was not tied into a multi million contract and he had no support from an ammoral incrowd.
You of course trot out the usual reference to Mary Whitehouse. Yes she was a teacher who observed the effects of the worst aspects of TV on her pupils. You may be of the opinion that TV and radio should reflect society. Which cames first, the chicken or the egg.
Personally, I feel sorry for those in the BBC who produce some of the best programmes on TV and radio. They are now being tarred with the same brush as their foul mouthed grossly overpaid colleagues. I would suggest that they would be better off if certain sections of light entertainment were moved to pay channels. The licence fee might be secured by this means.
- John Morrison, Warrington, Cheshire, 31/10/2008 13:04
Report abuse
This has been coming for a while for JR. It's not just his salary though that did stoke up the media (and in a downturn looks obscene from the public purse).
Because he is successful he has gradually been going further with risque comments in his various shows and was bound to go too far. The BBC was complicit in letting him but the comments were not just a big offensive on Brand's show but actually insensitive and nasty. He told the girl's grandad after all not only what they did but how, how shameful is that? It could have been cut in post-production but wasn't. It's indicative that the BBC is increasingly out of touch with public sentiment. It cannot afford to offend the public as if they turn against the licence fee their future will be profoundly different. The BBC is generally marvellous but is increasingly looking out of control and lacking a public focus. I'm as worried about celeb shows, high cash prizes and increasing cynicism on the network but the Brand/Ross fiasco seems to have open the floodgates to give wider voice to less defined feelings that are emerging more generally about the BBC.
I'm not some moral majority type but as a father to young girls himself, Ross should be ashamed. He's tarnished goods now, his cheeky innocence is forever lost. He should resign and start again, make a clean slate as he did when he first went to the BBC. More than anything he's just become far too over-used and I for one would welcome a rest from him for a bit
- Mark Coyle, Nottingham, UK, 31/10/2008 12:59
Report abuse
Cearly David Sexton what you find funny is only what shocks --- very boring.
- Jennifer, London, 31/10/2008 12:57
Report abuse
Clearly Steve Parker is up to the job of matching Ross' wit, get him a contract forthwith, and if I don't find him funny, we'll sack him, screw the millions that might
- Rob, Peterborough, 31/10/2008 12:54
Report abuse
The saying, 'One man's meat is another man's poison' applies to comedy. In this context I am not a fan of Jonathon Ross or for that matter Russell Grant, in general I find their humour banal and often filthy. Notwithstanding this, they obviously have a big following or they wouldn’t be where they are. For me, however, this does not give them the right to use foul language or harangue other people. I’m not a prude, I enjoy a good joke (as anyone who knows me will confirm) but, I don’t see the need or excuse for using foul language, the ends can be achieved equally well by alternative means.
- Mike, Aalborg, Denmark, 31/10/2008 12:51
Report abuse
Is that what you think the Ross contraversy is about - that Ross is at least funny? So he is. He enjoys both native intelligence and a sharp wit, and has the articulasy with which to amuse us: a cockney down-to-earth motor-mouth. Which makes it even worse: Ross knew what he was doing (the mildly amusing idiot performing beside him can be excused for being a clown who, to exist, must seek fame in any way he can. The best and easiest way: the outrage of the non-cool). The BBC has long been beyond control. It is too big. Has too loud a voice and doesn't even bother to hide its left-wing liberal bias. It fact it blithely admits it, even in print. It should be broken up and sold.
- Mike Fox, United Kingdom, 31/10/2008 12:50
Report abuse
I agree, this whole thing has been blown out of all proportion. I think Ross & Brand are both hilarious - the Andrew Sachs thing was perhaps in bad taste but it's hardly worth all this media coverage. Let's face it, nobody died!
- Faye Stockwell, Barnstaple, Devon, 31/10/2008 12:37
Report abuse
I find both "comedians" obnoxious. I used to like A Question Of Sport on TV, but when I saw that Jonathan Ross was so awful, I never watched it again. It seems that I am not the only one to have this opinion of these so-called funny men. The BBC is going down the drain, they never used to allow the filthy language that some people find so funny. If this bastion of broadcasting is like this no wonder that the country is not what it was.
- Polly, UK, 31/10/2008 12:20
Report abuse
I have never found Ross to be particularly funny - he raises the occasional chuckle but no belly laughs. His interview technique is awful - he tells the guest everything about themselves and then they have nothing left to add - so they say little and he does all the talking.
I think it is time he was relegated to a low profile show and sent for re-training.
- Steve Parker, Leeds, England, 31/10/2008 12:13
Report abuse
