• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Catherine Tate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
A

Ardross

Guest
There appears to be a reaction to her and the critics are now slagging her off.
I have to admit I think she is brilliant -any other views ?
 
And how much do we enjoy the masterworks of critics? How much have they embellished our lives one jot? Not a lot. They're slagging her off, and pretty much everything that's been round for a series or two. 'Showing signs of tiredness', etc. I'm fed up with the self-preening of critics. I haven't watched the Mark Lawson gang for ages since they seemed, especially Ekow Eshun, to be desperate to always disparage whatever they were reviewing rather than appear to simply rubberstamp it. Of course, Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst's shock-schlock work is always 'fresh and original' and Frank Gehry's unliveably grotesque buildings all pass muster as 'fresh and original', while the thing that is not the slightest bit fresh and original is the same old panel of faces.

Oh, ahem, yes, Catherine Tate. I digress. I think she's very, very good. Like all good parody, it's based on observation with a twist of the unexpected, like the gross Nan who lets rip with something appalling after a wheedlingly self-serving, saccharine performance. 'Am I bovvered?' was brilliant. Yes, catchphrases and core characters will get done to death, of course, but the essence of the show has something - er, ahhh - fresh and original about it. :D
 
I watched it for the first time last week and found it offensive and puerile.
 
In what way offensive, or even peurile, Pee? (I'm not setting up for an argy-bargy. I just can't see what's offensive about her parodies and not about other comedians like Harry Enfield (thick yob teenager), Kathy Burke (thick, spotty teenager), and so on.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Nov 2 2006, 08:14 PM
I watched it for the first time last week and found it offensive
Click to expand...
So that`s Tate, Billy Connolly and Borat you find offensive. I bet your ancestors were in charge of burning the witches.
 
Mind you, over on another topic where we debated the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to offend was one area where a number of us agreed, provided it wasn't 'gratuitously offensive'. Now, for that, I'm afraid most of the best of the most offending comedians are brown bread: Bruce, Hicks, Allen, Pryor...

But parody, caricature or satire is not meant to be without offence to someone at some level. That's why it is what it is. If you want inoffensive comedians, you probably need to reincarnate Rod Hull and Emu.
 
Yeah because disagreeing with you is a bad thing, Euronymous...

Jon, I watched the show and the sketch that stuck in my mind most was the one with the woman who thinks she can do everything "translating" into 7 languages, which involved pandering to the lowest possible stereotypes. IIt was lazy and childish humour.

I have no problem with comedians who offend but the modern trend for racism and misogyny I find tiresome.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@Nov 2 2006, 09:09 PM
Yeah because disagreeing with you is a bad thing, Euronymous...
Click to expand...
The translator skit was a bit tired taken on it`s own, but it was one in a series of sketches with the same theme. All taken together it worked for me.

Oh, and you can shitcan the "oh musn`t disagree with Euronymous" vibe. It`s about the fourth time you`ve used it.
 
Can I? Cheers. I must make sure I do that then..... Either that or you could stop with the biblical pronouncements that what you say must be right.

Surely you didn't find the crap efforts at tennis and curling by the same character funny? They were all rubbish.
 
No, her show is hit and miss. As for my pronouncements, i dont claim to always be right, but when it comes to tv, music and films i know my stuff - and i`m very opinionated.
 
Originally posted by Euronymous@Nov 2 2006, 09:56 PM
but when it comes to tv, music and films i know my stuff - and i`m very opinionated.
Click to expand...
You are indeed opinionated and you are entitled to your opinion. As for "knowing your stuff" in the areas you mention, that's just another opinion. Based on a lot of your postings about TV, music and films, I'm glad I don't follow your opinion.
 
Pee - I missed that one. In fact, I've missed quite a lot of them recently, so if they've gone down a bit in quality (or even a lot) I can't argue for or agin them. Was it any worse than Matt Lucas's impersonation of a dreadfully crass diet club person putting down all the fat people in the club? Yaaaars, I know the schtick is that you're supposed to laugh at 'her' awfulness, but someone fat (not me, of course... :huh: ) might find the entire running sketch unkind, stereotypical, blah, blah.
 
This isn`t the sort of forum where people will share my tastes - i tend to stray from the mainstream
Click to expand...

The next time I encounter mainstream on this forum, Euro, I'll bottle it. I agree with Paul - I think it is poor stuff. But I am aware I am becoming crabby with age.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Nov 2 2006, 10:08 PM
Based on a lot of your postings about TV, music and films, I'm glad I don't follow your opinion.
Click to expand...
But does he advocate watching anything as subversive as "Friends"?
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Nov 3 2006, 10:17 PM
But does he advocate watching anything as subversive as "Friends"?
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware you found Friends subversive.

It's not a word I would use to describe it. It can be funny (occasionally) but maybe I'm just over-protective.

I didn't want my young daughter thinking that it's OK to have multiple pre- and/or extra-marital sexual relationships at a time when she was going through a stage in her life when she was most susceptible to influence. Now that's she's older we can sit and watch it together and discuss the issues objectively. Thankfully, she seems to share her parents' opinions. The day will probably come when her views will change but until then I'll feel as though her mother and I have done our job.
 
Using that reasoning, there would be precious little left - either on television, in film or in a book - that was suitable for your daughter to be subjected to, surely? Not to mention that real life is often not pretty either! With respect I can't help but feel that is taking over protection and sheltering to an extreme.

Incidentally, I don't recall any extra-marital sexual relations in Friends either, except the break up of Ross' first marriage, and certainly no condoning of the practice.
 
Maybe I'm watching the wrong Friends? In the one I (occasionally) see, Joey is trying to have sex with every female. One-night stands and sex on the first date are portrayed as entirely normal (which means I don't think they should be normal), etc etc.

Yes much of it is done within a comedy context and I don't have a problem with it being on after the watershed. If I remember correctly, it was originally shown some time later than 5pm. It's only shown at that time now because most people know what it's all about.

People forget that teachers often have to pick up the pieces when kids end up emotionally (and sometimes physically) scarred becaue they've been watching this stuff and go out and copy it. Girls end up pregnant because sex is portrayed as glamourous. Boys think it's OK to try to sh*g every female becaue Joey does.

If that makes me a prude, then I'm happy to be a prude.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Nov 4 2006, 02:25 AM
Girls end up pregnant because sex is portrayed as glamourous.

Boys think it's OK to try to sh*g every female becaue Joey does.

If that makes me a prude, then I'm happy to be a prude.
Click to expand...
Three points that I'd like to address.

Girls end up pregnant because they and their sexual partners fail to (or are not allowed to) take adequate precautions to avoid it. This has been the situation since before television programming even mentioned sex, leading me to the conclusion that tv has little to do with it.

Equally, a large number of boys, for, as far as I am aware, quite some considerable time, have thought that it's OK to shag every female. I would see Joey's role in that as being a reflection of society rather than creating an ill. That said, I'm not certain that I regard it as an ill, even though I've never been getting any of that action.

I'm also not certain that it makes you a prude. It would tend to indicate more simply a flawed line of reasoning to me in that you are blaming something which is not to blame (presuming that you extend this train of thought beyond the bounds of Friends).
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top