Monty Python comedy has long been awarded classic status, but whether or not it really stands the test of time as laugh-out-loud entertainment is a moot point. The canon has some remarkable sketches and catchphrases, but you have to dig your way through some terrible dross to get to the gems. In that regard and at the risk of incurring the wrath of die-hard fans, it compares with Benny Hill, Dick Emery and many other patchwork shows.
The thing that distinguished Python was its collective writing and performing team, all jolly good, intelligent chaps in their own right, doing silly things rather than embarking on proper professional careers. They broke the mould that had shaped cosy situation comedies and created something different that struck a chord with the mildly anarchic side of the British psyche. In short, they were very naughty boys acting the fool on straight-laced television.
In Pythonesque by Roy Smiles, we were treated to a history of Monty Python and particularly the life and times of Graham Chapman, renowned as brilliant and kind, but also a sadly troubled soul. Ultimately, he was a victim of cancer, dying before he had reached 50. The play chronicled Chapman’s collaborations with John Cleese and the supportiveness of the other Python members when his life became a struggle.
Legend confirms that as a formidable comedy team they produced hit television shows and several successful films, always blending conventional slapstick and vaudeville with controversial overtones. Pythonesque contained performances by a terrific ensemble cast that nailed credible imitations of Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Cleese and Chapman. It was an affectionate tribute to off-the-wall comedy, but more importantly a reminder of Chapman’s story, the oft-forgotten man in the phenomenon that was and continues to be Monty Python.
And now for something completely different, as we turn to another kind of flying circus that continues to polarise opinion. These days, the BBC is as much a news topic as it is a news broadcasting organization. In this era of austerity, it is not exempt from the attention of the political enforcers and axe-men.
It seems that all governments have a desire to mould the BBC’s current affairs output to suit the agenda of the day, so that we hear what they want us to hear. Independent thought, speech and action is very irritating to governments and opposition parties alike. It is inevitable that someone, somewhere on the airwaves will say or do something that will outrage someone else in the corridors of power.
Total independence is a pipedream. However, surely getting close to it most of the time is not a bad effort? Sometimes, the BBC crosses the line into controversy and sometimes it drifts too far into political correctness. This is a debate that will rumble on, at least until the day the corporation is destroyed once and for all.
But we should not forget, in our national selfishness, that the BBC World Service is still a powerful global communications brand, relied on and trusted by many people far beyond our shores. In a recent discussion, William Hague gave a degree of support to the World Service, expressing in particular his concern that inevitable budget cuts might affect broadcasts to countries such as Burma.
The Foreign Office gives an annual direct grant of £272 million to help fund global broadcasting, but undoubtedly a hefty chunk of that amount will soon disappear. Everyone has a stance on cuts and investments, but it seems obvious in troubled times that drastically chopping back World Service broadcasting would significantly diminish Britain’s ability to influence global opinion in a positive fashion.
