“Please Judy, no more lesbian jam, I can’t keep it down”. How does ‘Little Britain’ provide humour using stereotypes and why in this way? Does it Offend?
Little Britain' is a British based comedy sketch show, concentrating on the people of Britain through very diverse characters. Following the conventional structures of comedy sketch shows before them, for example 'The Two Ronnies' (1971) 'Little Britain' aims to "show the people of Britain". Many of the characters created by the show are firmilar and well known stereotypes about certain people and groups in Britain. However, to an extent could some of these characters create a fair and true representation of those being targeted or does the show manage to offend people on every level possible? From the show's current success, could it be that society has accepted these representations because it's a comedy and meant to create humour or is the humour taken into consideration when such ideologies are so obvious and 'in your face'?
The distributers behind the sketch show is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). The show moving from BBC3, a channel designed to entertain younger audiences, to BBC1 means it has risen in its success, going from a more niche audience on BBC3 to a more mainstream, terrestrial channel representing the show’s popularity. However, with the programme’s intent to create humour through stereotypical representations of people show the BBC have drawn away from their conventional appeals to inform and educate and now more with the intent to entertain. Such changes could reflect society’s views on how people see the BBC not as a reliable, responsible institute, but one that has created new representations for itself to appeal to the younger audiences as well as their current audiences.
‘Little Britain’ being broadcast by the BBC attracts many different audiences because the channel shows very different programmes, but also the diversity in the show’s many characters may also attract people who will find a character they like and can identify with. Daffyd “the only gay in the village” is one of the many well-known characters and is based on stereotypical views on homosexuals in Britain. With his platinum blonde hair, tight leather clothing and camp characteristics are what makes him the perfect stereotype. However, the question remains whether those being represented would be offended by such a character. Matt Lucas, one of the creators of the show and the person who plays this particular character is in reality a homosexual, so it could be argued that he’s making fun of himself and people like him to prove a point that they are as homosexuals no different then anyone else. The character in the text is actually quite ignorant of the people around him who tend to support him in his beliefs, though he’s too defensive to notice. Beliefs about being gay and proud to show it illustrate a satirical homophobic point of view to which seems ridiculous after watching the programme, audiences may find their own ideologies on the subject enlightened with a wider knowledge. Although, not all characters represented are related to the people who play them. The Vicky Pollard character is a reflection on the ‘chav’ life of young, white teenage girls in Britain. Shown as quite troublesome, uneducated and sexually active is a vague discription of this group of people, but a stereotype which many wouldn’t disagree with when considering social status even if it is a misrepresentation. People more than often will agree with issues if it doesn’t really concern them, promoting a very selfish, spineless society that we live in.
Through the very diverse characters, the show provides audiences with a selection to identify with. However, audiences watching tend to see through the negative representations of these characters to enjoy themselves when viewing because the show isn’t designed to cause political debates, but provide a sense of escapism for audiences to just ‘turn-off’ and be entertained. The producers can reinforce stereotypes used in the show as they do, although the context of the text being a comedy indirectly tells audiences that it’s meant to be humourous and not offensive. This is due to the way the characters are seen and exaggerated in their stereotypes. Audiences may feel that because the exaggerated characters are so unbelievable it’s not reflected on their particular group. Whether it be homosexuals, the obese or transvestites the show’s success comes from those who don’t take it personally.
However, when considering character representations back to society, the show is shown to only do sketches on minority groups in Britain; working class, homosexuals, the disabled, the obese, Asians and most of all women. By targeting the weaker groups gives the show the advantage to stray away from negative press coverage, mainly run by middle/upper-class, white men such as Rupert Murdoch, the elite group in society. This could be the reason for the show’s success as the people who are potentially reviewing the show aren’t being featured, therefore wouldn’t take anything personal from it or be offended and would laugh at those ‘lower’ than themselves in society. The female groups shown are played by two middle/upper-class, white men in David Walliams and Matt Lucas possibly suggesting a sense of backlash from ‘man’ through quite misogynistic ideologies. Most sketches happen to feature a female character or imitation of females in some sense, for example transvestite Emily Howard (played by David Walliams), exaggerating female stereotypes that make them appear gossipy, bitchy and mainly sexually active connoting perhaps that a woman’s purpose only relates around sexually oriented events and getting a man. Coming from a patriarchal society the show tends to objectify women without actually showing real women, but re-presenting them through male counterparts. These groups could be argued to have been marginalised by the media so it would be acceptable to mock them as the show does and be successful through doing so.
Although, funnily enough the majority audience for the show is those people being represented in the working-class bracket. The popularity of the show wouldn’t be as widespread if only middle-class, white men watched it, so why doesn’t the public take offense? The idea of audience positioning enters where they are positioned to view the programme as the dominant group rather than ‘the others’ providing them with a sense of ambition to actually watch as one of the elite. Audiences are forced to see the programme from the creators David Walliams and Matt Lucas’s point of views and consider the way they think as the dominate group. Providing audiences with beliefs and values that are the general beliefs in British society has passive audiences believe what the creators have to express because they believe the same ideologies. However, some audiences can spot when they’re being made fun of, this is the active audience, but may find it flattering if nothing else to see themselves indirectly on the television creating a narcissistic appeal to audiences as everyone wants to be a celebratiy these days and this is possibly the closest many viewers will get to it through these characters that represent them best.
This popularity that surrounds the different characters in the show suggests the level that its reached in television through memorable catch phrases and characteristics “yeah but no but”, “I am a lady” and “yeah I know” can be heard and automatically related to ‘Little Britain’. However, these ever lasting and continously over-used phrases could potentially offend audiences intelligence as it brings connotations of television today becoming ‘dumbed down’ for audiences who aren’t suggestively smart enough to take in any other information than repeated, little phrases. “We can all use the off button if there is something on television we find offensive. But shouldn’t we be doing more to uphold morals through TV? Or is everything by and large, ok.” A point that suggests that audiences must be active if they choose to object to the show’s content and messages.
The sketch comedy genre is one that ranges back to the 1970s with shows such as ‘The Two Ronnies’ (1971). “The Ronnies performed as comedy character actors, slipping into a huge variety of different guises and personalities to execute their humour.” With many similar features ‘Little Britain’ uses similar approaches. However, the level of humour has varied to what it is and what it was as television has changed what is acceptable now that wasn’t then such as the representations of people that then would’ve probably been censored because of how society would take to it. Now it seems nothing shocks anybody as we seem live in a society adapted to decensortised images and stories the media has to offer.
The genre has developed over time and ‘Little Britain’ itself is shown to have influences from other genres in comedy that use similar conventions such as black comedy. Making fun and laughing about real life events and experiences is what black comedy is. Even though it’s offensive that is what the genre is all about, speaking about real life. “I kid the homosexual a lot because they’re homosexual” speaks for itself in making fun of people because of who they are and what they represent. ‘Little Britain’ adopts this approach to illustrate humour people can relate to on a personal level because it’s funnier. The whole point of comedy is to make audiences laugh, “the success of comedy for me is when you recognise people you know in the characters on screen. Politically correct comedy really doesn’t work as, by its very nature, there will be always be one group who will be offended”.
Women, one of the most represented groups in the show are shown in a variety of ways through the range of characters. This aids the appeal for audiences to relate to the characters to not just generalise the group to one representation. However, the show’s attitudes towards them depicts the era of the new ‘lads mags’ in ‘Zoo’ and ‘Nuts’ to have women generally regarded in this way. “Little Britain’s obsessions with the extreme taboos of physicality: facial hair, urine, fat, breast milk, faeces, penetration, the anus, decrepitude, arousal, ejaculation, vomit.” All reinforcing those ideologies that these magazines hold to make women appear as second class citizens and no more than objects of a sexual desire and the ‘male gaze’. Some have the fear that programmes such as ‘Little Britain’ will manipulate those passive audiences of mainly young people to grow up thinking these messages are true because the television is their best friend and the perhaps the most influential thing in their lives. “I feel drearied by the idea of a future generation of comedians whose formative influences will be a combination of misogyny, viciousness and overcooked surreality.”
In creating a show like ‘Little Britain’, Matt Lucas and David Walliams have encouraged issues and debates to take place in society wondering whether the represented stereotypes on their programme are what people really think of one another in Britain. Producing a show of such content that verbally abuses ‘fat’ people for being ‘fat’, homosexuals for their sexual preferences and gullible people who look after the handicapped was always bound to cause controversy. Nevertheless, the writers would have known this and found a way to go around it by not just targeting one minority group but almost everyone in Britain so it couldn’t be argued that some groups were being victimised. Although, “They now seem to rely solely on scatological humour (sex/toilet jokes)” that aren’t really taken too seriously because it isn’t suppose to be serious. Matt Lucas states, “some I guess are based on facets of ourselves. Some are just complete inventions” so in a sense he’s saying they’re not really based on real people, however some are based on people that they know personally. This could be a loophole that prevents any potential negative reviews because they claim the characters are not based generally on the British public so they shouldn’t take offence but embrace the characters as unique inventions of television comedy.
Many critics agree that the show has been a success regardless of any underlying misrepresentation connotations that the show may possibly have. After the third series, ‘Little Britain’ creators have rached in over “22 million pounds”. Going from strength to strength and the help of moving channels to increase audiences have done the show justice. Although when considering society’s take towards the show, is it such a good thing that people enjoy a programme that potentially ridicules others whether it intends to do so or not. As stated earlier, the black comedy generic conventions are implicated in the show and tell it as it is, this could demonstrate society’s change in opinions to allow more things to happen and allow for more manipulation of ideas in the way people think and feel about each other.
When considering media manipulation, the majority of ‘Little Britain’s’ influence on the public could come from its distributers. The BBC, with its eclectic appeal to target many niche audiences with varied programming can have passive audiences being injected with ideas before the show even begins. The way the BBC shedules its programmes around certain times is delibarate because they are attempting to attract particular audiences. If the news comes before ‘Little Britain’ or just after it, the channel maybe drawing in more responsible, educated viewers who will stay tuned in and continue to watch other programmes. The idea that the instituation could be indirectly injecting its audiences with the sense the show is intellectual and worth watching is very possible. Analying the name, if viewers didn’t know what the show was about they may assume it’s a political programme on British issues and debates. Anything seems likely when it’s looked at from different view points, so the ideologies of the show can be looked at differently too from different people, considering different messages the show is emulating.
“‘Eastenders’ comes on at 7:30pm” on a Thursday and then “‘Little Britain’ at 09:00pm”, the shedule of the two are quite close together and the channel illustrates the time of the next few programmes once one is finished. By doing this alerts Eastender’s viewers, prodominantly a younger audience, to when the show starts. This is important for the BBC to do as ‘Little Britain’ targets a similar audience to ‘Eastenders’ so it gives an indication of when that particular audience may be tuning in again in order to know when to set certain values and representations in their shows for possible media manipulation for the naïve youth who watch it. “The concept of representation embodies the theme that the media construct meanings about the world- they represent it, and in doing so, help audiences to make sense of it in particular ways”. Those particular ways could be a disadvantage for many people and groups such as ethnic minorities, homosexuals and other under represented groups, which has caused conflict over the years and an enormous part of why there is so much conflict in the world today. ‘Little Britain’ could be argued to encourage such events to occur, but it takes two to make something happen, the other is the audience who will act on what they see refering to cultivation theory and desensitisation and that could lead to trouble.
Additionally, the content of this text has notably not been censored for its audiences. “Censorship: the practice, exercised by elite groups in authority, of monitoring and controlling media content” is shown as part of the hegemony maintained by the dominate elite. In viewing the show; swaring, nudity, and references to sex are all included, however with the show coming on after the watershed protects it from any complaints that may come its way. Though the point being that as possibly offensive as it seems, the raw content of the show is still viewable with its endless stereotyping of marginalised groups when it seems clear that those in charge of censoring it are not being represented as they are the elite. Although, with society so exposed to violence on telvision, sexual references throughout the media and verbal abuse in live football games for example this text doesn’t shock audiences as it may have done 30 years ago. As our society changes to be prepared for anything ‘Little Britain’ is ‘loose change’ amongst other things. Censorship seems to be more and more oblivious in television because everything that could be seem has been seen, giving certain texts authority to experiment and put out material that could potentially cause conflict.
Overall the characters in ‘Little Britain’ and the show itself present something different to different people. More recently the development of the sketch show genre has exceeded expectations and beliefs since the days of ‘The Two Ronnies’ to create a mixture of comic styles from black comedy to scatological humour. Considering the characters as representatives of the people of Britain it’s yet to be deemed anything other than a comedy show. Opinions of the public will always be different, someone will always be offended by the show and someone else will always find it quite funny and not take situations too seriously. The question remains whether ‘Little Britain’ can be considered offensive to the point of completely unacceptable or a masterpiece of television that will be remembered throughout the ages. When arguments are put aside it comes down to individuals who will agree to disagree.
word count 2,887
