the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Tag: graham-linehan

33:64 presents “Lech Walesa.”

There are many things to be written about the arrest of Graham Linehan and most of them have already been written by people far more eloquent than me. That being the case though – and not diminishing their strident defence of him one bit – they all do seem to be writing different versions of the same thing. 

A chilling clampdown on free speech, check. A massive misuse of police resources, check. Indicative of how grievance is being weaponised, check. An illustration of how the rights of a minority of a minority are being prioritised above the rights of the majority, check. More proof of the ideological hijacking of our politics, check. Etc, etc.

All of these things are true. They need to be said. But the problem is that partly the people saying them are precisely the people one would expect to say them – J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, Ken Loach and Juliet Stevenson, among others. Another is that various news outlets giving them the space to express these opinion are precisely the ones that one might be expected to.

Only joking. Can you really imagine Ken, Juliet and others who like them are who always demanding that the government do this, but stop doing that or else calling for a boycott of the other, firing off an angry letter to ‘The Guardian’ expressing their solidarity with him? They had no problem doing so earlier this year they did so for trans people. But then I suppose that long gone are the days when the Voltaire principle – “ I may not agree with your point of view, but I defend your right to say it.” – could be deployed, robustly defended as a matter of principle and respected by all.

But my main problem with all the condemnation though is that no-one taking the piss. Everyone is taking it  far more seriously than it deserves. Which is ironic, given as how Linehan wrote “Father Ted” and some of the funniest sitcoms ever on British TV. They say that by exposing something harmful to a bright light, the lighter the light, the more it disinfects. But equally, why not laughter? 

The whole “trans-women are women” nonsense deserves to be ridiculed. It’s so blatantly absurd that it’s difficult not laugh at it and that it’s proponents should be roundly mocked for being the gullible idiots they are. Businesses who loudly proclaim their support for this trumpery moonshine should be engulfed by protests, more reminiscent of student rag weeks or immersive street theatre. The newly elected leader of The Green Party, Mr Booby, could use his hypnotic powers to help trans women to get their breast to grow. Men could march across the UK with them all sporting full beards and with their cocks out whilst chanting “We’re women and demand to be heard/ don’t tell us we’re absurd.” Women could do the same, but instead wear 1970’s style caked on make up whilst brandishing massive dildo’s like spears. Elderly men could join the Girl Guides and elderly women the Cubs.

After all the whole trans thing is taking the piss, why shouldn’t we take the piss out of it? Instead of which, everyone is taking it seriously.  Which of course, they should. But at the same time, they  shouldn’t.

34:63 presents “Graham Linehan”

**********************************************************************

I saw in ‘The Guardian’ the other day that ‘More than 400 actors and film industry professionals have signed an open letter pledging “solidarity” with the trans, non-binary and intersex communities who have been affected by the recent supreme court ruling.’

Of course they did.

Why is it a such a uniquely actorly thing to do, to imagine that just because their success in one field of human endeavour has afforded them some measure of celebrity, it somehow confers upon them some kind of greater a moral authority, one that the rest of us should take heed of?  

The letter is quoted as saying,“We must now urgently work to ensure that our trans, non-binary, and intersex colleagues, collaborators and audiences are protected from discrimination and harassment in all areas of the industry – whether on set, in a production office, or at a cinema.”

A few things immediately spring to mind.

The first is that actors are by quite a wide margin the one group of people I’d expect to show solidarity with trans-women, for the simple reason that their entire working life is essentially pretending to be someone else. So the idea that by simply by saying they’re someone else, they they become that someone else, isn’t that outlandish to them as it might be to a say, a mechanic.

Additionally actors – pronounced as if John Gielgud was hamming up the word for all it was worth – are on a ceaseless quest for validation, and not just from themselves either. Those big awards ceremonies are nothing more than a giant narcissism circus with frocks and because the media fawn all over them – to be granted a red carpet interview or some other content clickbait – it perpetuates their sense of overblown entitlement.

Actors are forever banging on about the research they do before embarking on a role, often living the life of the character they are going to play, sometimes even undergoing bodily modification to better achieve ‘authenticity’. 

Robert de Niro is a good example of this – for his portrayal of Jake la Motta in ‘Raging Bull’, he trained for, and then fought in three professional matches. He then gained over 60 pounds – nearly 9 stones – to play the ageing La Motta. To better play Travis Bickle in ‘Taxi Driver’, he drove a taxi around New York for two weeks. We know this because de Niro himself told everyone. It’s become a benchmark for other actors to emulate.  Thankfully, he has ever played a serial killer.

Actors just love going all ‘method’, often staying in character for the duration of a films shoot, even when the cameras aren’t rolling, because of some ridiculous idea of ‘honesty’, ‘of needing to fully embrace the character’. How is this anything other than a very diluted version of a trans woman and his ‘lived reality’?    

So whilst the letter loftily proclaims ‘We believe the ruling undermines the lived reality and threatens the safety of trans, non-binary, and intersex people living in the UK.’, it ignores the ‘lived reality’ of actual women, their safety, their rights and freedoms. They can just shut up and quit their yapping about single-sex spaces. Female rights are all well and good, it seems, right up until men with delusions are adversely affected by women not wanting to share those rights. Then the rights of the majority of the UK population must be eroded to satisfy the nonsense of a minority of a minority. 

That is the key here. This isn’t some great civil rights movement, similar to the ones fought by African Americas in in 1960’s or by lesbians and gays in Britain in the 1980’s.Those battles were about gaining the rights enjoyed by everyone else, not about taking rights by reducing other peoples. 

But then actors enjoy a privileged position in an increasingly celebrity obsessed world. And just like the trans activists who expect their every whim to be unquestioningly granted, and get more than a bit stroppy when they’re not, so too actors imagine that their concerns should be everyone concerns.

Conversely, actors are only too happy to criticise others  who don’t share their same ‘moral’ worldview, feeling it not only their right but their duty to tell us how they feel and therefore, we should take heed of this and act accordingly. Robert de Niro was one of the many US actors who very vocally gushed glowing tributes to Mr Magoo when he retired from the 2024 presidential campaign and with nary a heartbeat transferred their support to Kabbalah Vibe.

Did her campaign the world of good did that. 

So frequently are actors given to this method of visible virtue are they that one can’t help but wonder if She Who Must Not Be Named has a point when she suggests that it is more to do with career prospects than anything else that motivates them to sign these sort of things.

Because I’ve yet to learn of a newsagent having her marriage collapse on her because of the constant harassment she was getting from other newsagents, the boycott of her shop by customers, refusal of suppliers to sell to her, for crisp, chocolate and sweet makers to publicly denounce her as someone they wanted no associate with, simply for expressing an opinion that others disagreed with.