Independent Study- The Final
“The concept of representation embodies the theme that the media construct meanings about the world - they re-present it”1a. How does ‘Little Britain’ provide humour using stereotypes and why in this way? Does it offend?
‘Little Britain’1 is a UK comedy sketch show, representing us through very diverse comic characters. Following the conventional structures of comedy sketch shows before them, for example 'The Two Ronnies' (1971)2, 'Little Britain' aims to "show the people of Britain"3. Many of the characters created by the programme are familiar and well-known stereotypes about familiar and recognisable people and groups in Britain. However, could any of these characters be considered a fair representation of those being targeted or does the show manage to misrepresent and offend on every level possible? From the show's current success, could it be that society has accepted these representations in this context because it is just a comedy or could it be that the prevailing dominant ideologies have manipulated the audience into believing them as truthful and ‘common sense’?
The distributor behind the sketch show is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), “the principal public service broadcasting organisation in the UK”4. In moving from BBC3, a channel designed to entertain younger audiences, to BBC1 has meant it has a wider audience, going from a more niche market on digital TV to a much more mainstream, terrestrial channel and thus demonstrating the show’s growing popularity. However, with the programme’s intension to create humour through crudely stereotypical representations of people has the BBC drawn away from their conventional remit to “inform and educate and entertain”. There is a much greater emphasis to entertain nowadays because of the threat from multi-channel TV and this is shown in programmes such as ‘Eastenders’5 and ‘Strictly Come Dancing’6dominating the schedules. Such changes could also reflect society’s views on how people no longer see the BBC as a reliable, responsible institution, especially after the ‘Hutton Inquiry’. And, in addition, it needs to appeal to younger audiences as well as their current older audiences as it stands in competition with other terrestrial channels such as Channel 4 whose main audiences are those of the younger generation with programmes such as ‘Big Brother’7 and ‘Lost’8.
So ‘Little Britain’ in being broadcast by the BBC on its premier channel attracts many different audiences. Also, the diversity in the show’s many characters may also attract people who will find one they like and can identify with on some level and this links the audience with the uses and gratifications theory. Daffyd “the only gay in the village”8b is one of the many well-known characters and is based on stereotypical views of homosexuals in Britain. With his platinum blonde hair, tight leather clothing and exaggerated camp characteristics he is the perfect stereotype. However deliberately exaggerated though, the question remains whether such a character would offend those being represented. Matt Lucas, one of the creators of the show and the person who plays this particular character, is in reality gay, so it could be argued that he is making fun of himself and people like him to prove a point that they are, as gay people no different to anyone else and need no special treatment. The character in the text is however ignorant of the people around him, even though he is too defensive to notice. This links to a drastic change in society’s views over time as maybe a generation ago an outwardly gay character would not have even been given airtime on a mainstream channel at primetime. But the strident beliefs about being gay and proud voiced by Daffyd illustrate the acceptance of homosexuals nowadays. So, in this case, particularly as it is a case of gay self-representation, it is perhaps not homophobic. However, not all characters represented are related to the people who play them.
For instance, the Vicky Pollard character is supposedly a reflection on the ‘chav’ life of young, white teenage girls in Britain. Shown as troublesome, uneducated and sexually active she is a fairly new but well- known stereotype. In Britain, ‘chavs’ are seen as the lowest form of working classes and are continuously bereted in the tabloid press, so to misrepresent them probably has not caused any kind of backlash because they do not have the power to be heard. And other people often do not question issues or representations if they do not concern them. This demonstrates the selfish, individualistic society that we live in.
Through the diverse characters represented, the show provides audiences with a selection with whom to identify. Audiences watching seem to tend to see past the negative representations of these characters and enjoy themselves when viewing ‘Little Britain’ because the show is not designed to generate political debates, but to provide simple humour. Audiences are left just to ‘switch-off’ and be entertained on a Friday night, linking to the idea of escapism: “the desire to retreat into imaginative entertainment rather than deal with the stress, tedium, and daily problems of the mundane world”9. The producers can reinforce politically incorrect stereotypes used in the show as they do, although the context is important. As it is a comedy audiences know that it is meant to be viewed as humorous and not as offensive. This is due to the way the characters are grossly exaggerated in their stereotypes. Audiences may feel that because these extreme caricatures are so unrealistic they do not reflect a particular group with any seriousness. Whether it is homosexuals, the obese or transvestites the show’s success in part comes because of those who do not take it personally.
Yet it is still a concern that the programme mostly does sketches on minority groups in Britain: the working class, homosexuals, the disabled, the obese, Asians and, most of all, women. By targeting weaker groups the show has the advantage in being able to avoid negative press, mainly run by upper/middle 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 reviewing the show are not themselves being ridiculed, therefore they would not take anything personally or be offended but would perhaps laugh at those ‘lower’ than themselves in society; “race is important because it codifies power”9b. The females depicted are played by two middle class, white men in David Walliams and Matt Lucas, possibly suggesting a male backlash against the march of feminism through their quite misogynistic representations. Many sketches feature a ridiculed female character, for example the transvestite Emily Howard (played by David Walliams), exaggerating female stereotypes that make them appear gossipy, bitchy and often sexually obsessed suggesting that perhaps 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”10 without actually showing real women, but re-presenting them through male counterparts. The media then further marginalizes these minority groups and it is deemed acceptable to mock them harshly.
Although, funnily enough, the majority audience for the show is those very people being represented and ridiculed. So why does the public not take offence? The idea of audience positioning arises here where they are positioned to view the programme as the dominant group rather than as ‘the others’, undergoing cross-gender, cross-social, cross-ethnic identification. Audiences are forced to see the programme from the creators David Walliams and Matt Lucas’s hegemonic points of view. The audience is manipulated, receiving ‘drip drip’ and conceding for a hegemonic reading of the text and strengthening what the elite would have us believe to be “common sense”. However, some audiences can spot and resist when they are being mocked: this is the active audience, but they may find it flattering, if nothing else, to see themselves indirectly reflected back on television, providing a narcissistic appeal. Everyone wants to be a celebrity these days and to have their “fifteen minutes of fame”11 because it is possibly the closest many viewers will get to achieving this and these characters at least represent them, even though they are crudely over- exaggerated.
A great deal of popularity surrounds the different characters in the show and this is apparent through the many memorable catchphrases that have become common place in playgrounds and offices: “yeah but no but”12, “I am a lady”13 and “yeah I know”14 amongst many others. However, these over-used phrases are perhaps evidence of television today becoming ‘dumbed down’ with audiences who are not smart enough to do anymore than parrot repeated, meaningless 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.”15 This suggests that audiences must be active if they choose to object to the show’s content and messages, but instead they seem to embrace its values, demonstrating their “false consciousness”16. However, the genre of the sketch show was not always this patronising to audience’s intelligence.
The comedy sketch show genre is one that ranges back at least to the 1970s with shows such as ‘The Two Ronnies’. “The Ronnies performed as comedy character actors, slipping into a huge variety of different guises and personalities to execute their humour.”17 With many equivalent features ‘Little Britain’ uses a similar approach. However, the type of humour has varied as television has changed as to what is acceptable now and what was then. Today’s representations would have been self-censored because of how the viewing public would take it. Now it seems that nothing shocks anybody, as we live in a society adapted and desensitised to the more explicit images and stories that the media has to offer.
So the genre has developed over time and ‘Little Britain’ itself is shown to have influences from other comedy sub genres in comedy that use similar conventions such as black comedy. Making fun of and laughing about real life events and experiences is what black comedy is all about. Even though it may be offensive it is justified by its supporters because they argue that it is that is speaking about real life. “I kid the homosexuals a lot because they’re homosexual”18 A line like this speaks for itself in making fun of people because of who they are and what they represent showing no remorse for people’s sensitivity in the subject but reflecting widespread attitudes. ‘Little Britain’ adopts this approach to generate humour that people can relate to on a personal level because it seems that it is 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”19. Comedy programme makers know that to get the ratings they have to bend the rules sometimes and rebel, but they know that they are doing it at the same time. During the 1980s, political correctness became an issue “and people who transgressed would be punished”.18 But comedy has broken free from those boundaries and shows ‘Little Britain’ how far the genre has come. But we must keep questioning if they are going too far in breaking certain rules in pursuit of humour. Their representations of women are some of the most worrying in this regard.
As already mentioned, women are one of the most represented groups in the show and appear in a variety of ways through a range of characters. However, the show’s overall attitudes towards them seems to be in accordance with the era of the new ‘lads mags’ such as ‘Zoo’20 and ‘Nuts’21 where women are generally denigrated, with attention only given to their bodies, in recognisable bimbo-ish characters such as Bubbles and Desiree. “Little Britain’s obsessions with the extreme taboos of physicality: facial hair, urine, fat, breast milk, faeces, penetration, the anus, decrepitude, arousal, ejaculation, vomit”22 are the main themes of the show and they normally circulate around women. This therefore reinforces the patriarchal ideologies that these magazines uphold that make women appear as second-class citizens and who are often no more than objects of male sexual desire and the ‘male gaze’23. Some fear that programmes such as ‘Little Britain’ will manipulate those passive audiences of mainly young impressionable people to think that these messages are true: “I feel drearier by the idea of a future generation of comedians whose formative influences will be a combination of misogyny, viciousness and overcooked surreality.”24 This quote chimes with the hypodermic model and the way the media is seen to inject ideas and values into the audience. Many media theorists might argue that these negative effects will result in damage in a way similar to how the Nazi party in Germany compiled people with propaganda before World War Two and also how ‘Child’s Play’ (1988)25 has seen to be a factor in the Jamie Bulger case.
In creating a show like ‘Little Britain’, Matt Lucas and David Walliams have perhaps unwittingly encouraged issues and debates to take place in society that question whether the stereotypes represented on their programme are what people really think of one another in Britain. Producing a show of such content that visually and 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 perhaps found a way of making it acceptable by not just targeting one minority group but almost everyone in Britain so it could not be argued that some groups were being unfairly victimised. Matt Lucas: “Some, I guess are based on facets of ourselves. Some are just complete inventions”.26 This suggests he is saying they are not really based on real people, but this could be a loophole that prevents any potential criticism. The British public should not take offence but embrace the characters as unique inventions of television comedy he seems to be saying.
Most critics agree that the show has been a resounding success regardless of any negative comments outlined here. After the third series, ‘Little Britain’ creators have racked in over “22 million pounds”.27 But still the question remains: is it such a good thing that people enjoy a programme that ridicules others whether it intends to do so or not? Does this demonstrate society’s change to allow more cruel things to happen? Has there been a change in the way people think and feel about each other? Or are just being manipulated by the media?
When considering media manipulation, the majority of ‘Little Britain’s’ influence upon the public could come from its producers and distributors. The BBC, with its capacity to target mass audiences with varied programming can ensure passive audiences are injected with ideas before the show even begins. The way the BBC schedules its programmes around certain times is deliberate because they are attempting to attract particular audiences. If the news comes before ‘Little Britain’ or just after it, which it has done, the channel may be drawing in more responsible, educated viewers who will stay tuned and continue to watch other programmes. The idea that the institution could be indirectly injecting its audiences with the sense the show is intellectually worthy; ‘water cooler TV’ for the middle classes is very possible. Anything seems likely when it is 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.
“The concept of representation embodies the theme that the media constructs meanings about the world - they represent it, and in doing so, help audiences to make sense of it in particular ways”.28 Those particular ways could be a disadvantage for many people such as ethnic minorities, homosexuals and other under-represented groups, and this has caused conflict over the years. It could be argued that ‘Little Britain’ encourages such events to occur, such as racist violence or ‘queer-bashing’. The audience will act on what they see (so states cultivation theory) and “the more TV the audience watches, the more likely it is that they will develop certain kinds of views about the world”.29
The content of this text has not been officially censored. “Censorship: the practice, exercised by elite groups in authority, of monitoring and controlling media content”30 is a way of maintaining hegemony by the dominate elite. Swearing, nudity, and references to sex are all included, but with the show being broadcast after the watershed it is protected from any complaints that may come from the ‘moral majority’. Offensive as it seems, the raw content of the show is still viewable by the mainstream millions despite its endless stereotyping of marginalized groups. And it seems clear that those in charge of censoring it (officially or otherwise) are not being represented on screen here, as they are the elite. With society exposed to so much more violence on television and sexual references throughout the media this text does not shock audiences as it may have done in the past. We have become more open to new ideas thanks to the introduction of the Internet, for example, and we are worldlier. ‘Little Britain’ is ‘loose change’ in the grand scheme of things, amongst other things.
Overall, the characters in ‘Little Britain’ present something different to various people. More recently the reinvigorating sketch show genre has exceeded expectations and become popular in a way not seen since the days of ‘The Two Ronnies’ through a mixture of comic styles from black comedy to scatological humour. But are the characters true representatives of the people of Britain or is this just another comedy show? Public opinion will always differ: someone will be offended and someone else will find it humorous such is the way in a pluralistic society. The question remains whether ‘Little Britain’ can be considered offensive to the point of being unacceptable or a masterpiece of resurgent television that will be remembered throughout the ages winning accolades such as the ‘Royal Television Society Awards’31 for best entertainment show and best comedy. When all arguments are put aside it comes down to individuals who will agree to disagree.
Word count:3,045
1a Representations and Realism-Studying the Media (1994)
1 ‘Little Britain’ (2003) Created by Mat Lucas and David Walliams
2 ‘The Two Ronnies’ (1971)
3 ‘Little Britain’ Episode 2, Series 1 (2003)
4 Essential Word Dictionary AS/A-level Media Studies (p.21)
5 Created by Julia Smith and Tony Holland
6 Created by Jon Conway
7 Created by John de Mol- Owned by Endemol
8 Created by Jeffery Lieber, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof
8b Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Daffyd (2003)
9 Web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_E.html
9b Coloured Pictures: Race and Visual Representation
10 ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Laura Mulvey (1975)
11 Expression is a paraphrase of Andy Warhol (1968)
12 Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Vicky Pollard (2003)
13 David Walliams-Little Britain’s Emily Howard (2003)
14 Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Andy (2003)
15 Television and Censorship in the Media-Judith Spelman (1996)
16 The Marxist System: Economic, Political, and Social Perspectives.
17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/t/tworonniesthe_7776575.shtml
18 Eddie Murphy- ‘Delirious’ (1983)
19 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1876331,00.html Carol Tyrrell (17/11/05)
20 Owned by Emap
21 Owned by Emap
22 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1875033,00.html
23 ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Laura Mulvey (1975)
24 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1875033,00.html
25 Directed by Tom Holland
26 Matt Lucas- ‘Meet Matt Lucas’ (interview, 2004)
27 Daily Mirror, Thursday 27th October 2005, article: ‘22m Little British Empire’
28 ‘Representations and Realism- Studying the Media’ (1994)
29 Cultivation theory- ‘Theories of Audience’- A Comparative Summary (p.94)
30 Essential Word Dictionary-As/A-level Media Studies (2005)
31 http://www.rts.org.uk/
‘Little Britain’1 is a UK comedy sketch show, representing us through very diverse comic characters. Following the conventional structures of comedy sketch shows before them, for example 'The Two Ronnies' (1971)2, 'Little Britain' aims to "show the people of Britain"3. Many of the characters created by the programme are familiar and well-known stereotypes about familiar and recognisable people and groups in Britain. However, could any of these characters be considered a fair representation of those being targeted or does the show manage to misrepresent and offend on every level possible? From the show's current success, could it be that society has accepted these representations in this context because it is just a comedy or could it be that the prevailing dominant ideologies have manipulated the audience into believing them as truthful and ‘common sense’?
The distributor behind the sketch show is the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), “the principal public service broadcasting organisation in the UK”4. In moving from BBC3, a channel designed to entertain younger audiences, to BBC1 has meant it has a wider audience, going from a more niche market on digital TV to a much more mainstream, terrestrial channel and thus demonstrating the show’s growing popularity. However, with the programme’s intension to create humour through crudely stereotypical representations of people has the BBC drawn away from their conventional remit to “inform and educate and entertain”. There is a much greater emphasis to entertain nowadays because of the threat from multi-channel TV and this is shown in programmes such as ‘Eastenders’5 and ‘Strictly Come Dancing’6dominating the schedules. Such changes could also reflect society’s views on how people no longer see the BBC as a reliable, responsible institution, especially after the ‘Hutton Inquiry’. And, in addition, it needs to appeal to younger audiences as well as their current older audiences as it stands in competition with other terrestrial channels such as Channel 4 whose main audiences are those of the younger generation with programmes such as ‘Big Brother’7 and ‘Lost’8.
So ‘Little Britain’ in being broadcast by the BBC on its premier channel attracts many different audiences. Also, the diversity in the show’s many characters may also attract people who will find one they like and can identify with on some level and this links the audience with the uses and gratifications theory. Daffyd “the only gay in the village”8b is one of the many well-known characters and is based on stereotypical views of homosexuals in Britain. With his platinum blonde hair, tight leather clothing and exaggerated camp characteristics he is the perfect stereotype. However deliberately exaggerated though, the question remains whether such a character would offend those being represented. Matt Lucas, one of the creators of the show and the person who plays this particular character, is in reality gay, so it could be argued that he is making fun of himself and people like him to prove a point that they are, as gay people no different to anyone else and need no special treatment. The character in the text is however ignorant of the people around him, even though he is too defensive to notice. This links to a drastic change in society’s views over time as maybe a generation ago an outwardly gay character would not have even been given airtime on a mainstream channel at primetime. But the strident beliefs about being gay and proud voiced by Daffyd illustrate the acceptance of homosexuals nowadays. So, in this case, particularly as it is a case of gay self-representation, it is perhaps not homophobic. However, not all characters represented are related to the people who play them.
For instance, the Vicky Pollard character is supposedly a reflection on the ‘chav’ life of young, white teenage girls in Britain. Shown as troublesome, uneducated and sexually active she is a fairly new but well- known stereotype. In Britain, ‘chavs’ are seen as the lowest form of working classes and are continuously bereted in the tabloid press, so to misrepresent them probably has not caused any kind of backlash because they do not have the power to be heard. And other people often do not question issues or representations if they do not concern them. This demonstrates the selfish, individualistic society that we live in.
Through the diverse characters represented, the show provides audiences with a selection with whom to identify. Audiences watching seem to tend to see past the negative representations of these characters and enjoy themselves when viewing ‘Little Britain’ because the show is not designed to generate political debates, but to provide simple humour. Audiences are left just to ‘switch-off’ and be entertained on a Friday night, linking to the idea of escapism: “the desire to retreat into imaginative entertainment rather than deal with the stress, tedium, and daily problems of the mundane world”9. The producers can reinforce politically incorrect stereotypes used in the show as they do, although the context is important. As it is a comedy audiences know that it is meant to be viewed as humorous and not as offensive. This is due to the way the characters are grossly exaggerated in their stereotypes. Audiences may feel that because these extreme caricatures are so unrealistic they do not reflect a particular group with any seriousness. Whether it is homosexuals, the obese or transvestites the show’s success in part comes because of those who do not take it personally.
Yet it is still a concern that the programme mostly does sketches on minority groups in Britain: the working class, homosexuals, the disabled, the obese, Asians and, most of all, women. By targeting weaker groups the show has the advantage in being able to avoid negative press, mainly run by upper/middle 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 reviewing the show are not themselves being ridiculed, therefore they would not take anything personally or be offended but would perhaps laugh at those ‘lower’ than themselves in society; “race is important because it codifies power”9b. The females depicted are played by two middle class, white men in David Walliams and Matt Lucas, possibly suggesting a male backlash against the march of feminism through their quite misogynistic representations. Many sketches feature a ridiculed female character, for example the transvestite Emily Howard (played by David Walliams), exaggerating female stereotypes that make them appear gossipy, bitchy and often sexually obsessed suggesting that perhaps 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”10 without actually showing real women, but re-presenting them through male counterparts. The media then further marginalizes these minority groups and it is deemed acceptable to mock them harshly.
Although, funnily enough, the majority audience for the show is those very people being represented and ridiculed. So why does the public not take offence? The idea of audience positioning arises here where they are positioned to view the programme as the dominant group rather than as ‘the others’, undergoing cross-gender, cross-social, cross-ethnic identification. Audiences are forced to see the programme from the creators David Walliams and Matt Lucas’s hegemonic points of view. The audience is manipulated, receiving ‘drip drip’ and conceding for a hegemonic reading of the text and strengthening what the elite would have us believe to be “common sense”. However, some audiences can spot and resist when they are being mocked: this is the active audience, but they may find it flattering, if nothing else, to see themselves indirectly reflected back on television, providing a narcissistic appeal. Everyone wants to be a celebrity these days and to have their “fifteen minutes of fame”11 because it is possibly the closest many viewers will get to achieving this and these characters at least represent them, even though they are crudely over- exaggerated.
A great deal of popularity surrounds the different characters in the show and this is apparent through the many memorable catchphrases that have become common place in playgrounds and offices: “yeah but no but”12, “I am a lady”13 and “yeah I know”14 amongst many others. However, these over-used phrases are perhaps evidence of television today becoming ‘dumbed down’ with audiences who are not smart enough to do anymore than parrot repeated, meaningless 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.”15 This suggests that audiences must be active if they choose to object to the show’s content and messages, but instead they seem to embrace its values, demonstrating their “false consciousness”16. However, the genre of the sketch show was not always this patronising to audience’s intelligence.
The comedy sketch show genre is one that ranges back at least to the 1970s with shows such as ‘The Two Ronnies’. “The Ronnies performed as comedy character actors, slipping into a huge variety of different guises and personalities to execute their humour.”17 With many equivalent features ‘Little Britain’ uses a similar approach. However, the type of humour has varied as television has changed as to what is acceptable now and what was then. Today’s representations would have been self-censored because of how the viewing public would take it. Now it seems that nothing shocks anybody, as we live in a society adapted and desensitised to the more explicit images and stories that the media has to offer.
So the genre has developed over time and ‘Little Britain’ itself is shown to have influences from other comedy sub genres in comedy that use similar conventions such as black comedy. Making fun of and laughing about real life events and experiences is what black comedy is all about. Even though it may be offensive it is justified by its supporters because they argue that it is that is speaking about real life. “I kid the homosexuals a lot because they’re homosexual”18 A line like this speaks for itself in making fun of people because of who they are and what they represent showing no remorse for people’s sensitivity in the subject but reflecting widespread attitudes. ‘Little Britain’ adopts this approach to generate humour that people can relate to on a personal level because it seems that it is 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”19. Comedy programme makers know that to get the ratings they have to bend the rules sometimes and rebel, but they know that they are doing it at the same time. During the 1980s, political correctness became an issue “and people who transgressed would be punished”.18 But comedy has broken free from those boundaries and shows ‘Little Britain’ how far the genre has come. But we must keep questioning if they are going too far in breaking certain rules in pursuit of humour. Their representations of women are some of the most worrying in this regard.
As already mentioned, women are one of the most represented groups in the show and appear in a variety of ways through a range of characters. However, the show’s overall attitudes towards them seems to be in accordance with the era of the new ‘lads mags’ such as ‘Zoo’20 and ‘Nuts’21 where women are generally denigrated, with attention only given to their bodies, in recognisable bimbo-ish characters such as Bubbles and Desiree. “Little Britain’s obsessions with the extreme taboos of physicality: facial hair, urine, fat, breast milk, faeces, penetration, the anus, decrepitude, arousal, ejaculation, vomit”22 are the main themes of the show and they normally circulate around women. This therefore reinforces the patriarchal ideologies that these magazines uphold that make women appear as second-class citizens and who are often no more than objects of male sexual desire and the ‘male gaze’23. Some fear that programmes such as ‘Little Britain’ will manipulate those passive audiences of mainly young impressionable people to think that these messages are true: “I feel drearier by the idea of a future generation of comedians whose formative influences will be a combination of misogyny, viciousness and overcooked surreality.”24 This quote chimes with the hypodermic model and the way the media is seen to inject ideas and values into the audience. Many media theorists might argue that these negative effects will result in damage in a way similar to how the Nazi party in Germany compiled people with propaganda before World War Two and also how ‘Child’s Play’ (1988)25 has seen to be a factor in the Jamie Bulger case.
In creating a show like ‘Little Britain’, Matt Lucas and David Walliams have perhaps unwittingly encouraged issues and debates to take place in society that question whether the stereotypes represented on their programme are what people really think of one another in Britain. Producing a show of such content that visually and 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 perhaps found a way of making it acceptable by not just targeting one minority group but almost everyone in Britain so it could not be argued that some groups were being unfairly victimised. Matt Lucas: “Some, I guess are based on facets of ourselves. Some are just complete inventions”.26 This suggests he is saying they are not really based on real people, but this could be a loophole that prevents any potential criticism. The British public should not take offence but embrace the characters as unique inventions of television comedy he seems to be saying.
Most critics agree that the show has been a resounding success regardless of any negative comments outlined here. After the third series, ‘Little Britain’ creators have racked in over “22 million pounds”.27 But still the question remains: is it such a good thing that people enjoy a programme that ridicules others whether it intends to do so or not? Does this demonstrate society’s change to allow more cruel things to happen? Has there been a change in the way people think and feel about each other? Or are just being manipulated by the media?
When considering media manipulation, the majority of ‘Little Britain’s’ influence upon the public could come from its producers and distributors. The BBC, with its capacity to target mass audiences with varied programming can ensure passive audiences are injected with ideas before the show even begins. The way the BBC schedules its programmes around certain times is deliberate because they are attempting to attract particular audiences. If the news comes before ‘Little Britain’ or just after it, which it has done, the channel may be drawing in more responsible, educated viewers who will stay tuned and continue to watch other programmes. The idea that the institution could be indirectly injecting its audiences with the sense the show is intellectually worthy; ‘water cooler TV’ for the middle classes is very possible. Anything seems likely when it is 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.
“The concept of representation embodies the theme that the media constructs meanings about the world - they represent it, and in doing so, help audiences to make sense of it in particular ways”.28 Those particular ways could be a disadvantage for many people such as ethnic minorities, homosexuals and other under-represented groups, and this has caused conflict over the years. It could be argued that ‘Little Britain’ encourages such events to occur, such as racist violence or ‘queer-bashing’. The audience will act on what they see (so states cultivation theory) and “the more TV the audience watches, the more likely it is that they will develop certain kinds of views about the world”.29
The content of this text has not been officially censored. “Censorship: the practice, exercised by elite groups in authority, of monitoring and controlling media content”30 is a way of maintaining hegemony by the dominate elite. Swearing, nudity, and references to sex are all included, but with the show being broadcast after the watershed it is protected from any complaints that may come from the ‘moral majority’. Offensive as it seems, the raw content of the show is still viewable by the mainstream millions despite its endless stereotyping of marginalized groups. And it seems clear that those in charge of censoring it (officially or otherwise) are not being represented on screen here, as they are the elite. With society exposed to so much more violence on television and sexual references throughout the media this text does not shock audiences as it may have done in the past. We have become more open to new ideas thanks to the introduction of the Internet, for example, and we are worldlier. ‘Little Britain’ is ‘loose change’ in the grand scheme of things, amongst other things.
Overall, the characters in ‘Little Britain’ present something different to various people. More recently the reinvigorating sketch show genre has exceeded expectations and become popular in a way not seen since the days of ‘The Two Ronnies’ through a mixture of comic styles from black comedy to scatological humour. But are the characters true representatives of the people of Britain or is this just another comedy show? Public opinion will always differ: someone will be offended and someone else will find it humorous such is the way in a pluralistic society. The question remains whether ‘Little Britain’ can be considered offensive to the point of being unacceptable or a masterpiece of resurgent television that will be remembered throughout the ages winning accolades such as the ‘Royal Television Society Awards’31 for best entertainment show and best comedy. When all arguments are put aside it comes down to individuals who will agree to disagree.
Word count:3,045
1a Representations and Realism-Studying the Media (1994)
1 ‘Little Britain’ (2003) Created by Mat Lucas and David Walliams
2 ‘The Two Ronnies’ (1971)
3 ‘Little Britain’ Episode 2, Series 1 (2003)
4 Essential Word Dictionary AS/A-level Media Studies (p.21)
5 Created by Julia Smith and Tony Holland
6 Created by Jon Conway
7 Created by John de Mol- Owned by Endemol
8 Created by Jeffery Lieber, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof
8b Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Daffyd (2003)
9 Web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_E.html
9b Coloured Pictures: Race and Visual Representation
10 ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Laura Mulvey (1975)
11 Expression is a paraphrase of Andy Warhol (1968)
12 Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Vicky Pollard (2003)
13 David Walliams-Little Britain’s Emily Howard (2003)
14 Matt Lucas-Little Britain’s Andy (2003)
15 Television and Censorship in the Media-Judith Spelman (1996)
16 The Marxist System: Economic, Political, and Social Perspectives.
17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/t/tworonniesthe_7776575.shtml
18 Eddie Murphy- ‘Delirious’ (1983)
19 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1876331,00.html Carol Tyrrell (17/11/05)
20 Owned by Emap
21 Owned by Emap
22 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1875033,00.html
23 ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Laura Mulvey (1975)
24 www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1875033,00.html
25 Directed by Tom Holland
26 Matt Lucas- ‘Meet Matt Lucas’ (interview, 2004)
27 Daily Mirror, Thursday 27th October 2005, article: ‘22m Little British Empire’
28 ‘Representations and Realism- Studying the Media’ (1994)
29 Cultivation theory- ‘Theories of Audience’- A Comparative Summary (p.94)
30 Essential Word Dictionary-As/A-level Media Studies (2005)
31 http://www.rts.org.uk/
I got an 'A'!!! 52/60
posted by dp866GHS at 11:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home