A short break

Sorry folks, I haven’t been here for a while. We’re trying to finish the renovation, amid work and hen’s and buck’s weekends and out-of-town weddings.

I’ll be back next week. If you see something you want me to rant about, just post the link below.


24 responses to “A short break

  1. I confess I didn’t watch the entire show (made me cringe too often), but I did have a quick look at the new “At home with Julia” show .. and it makes me wonder if it would ever have been created it the PM was male. Am I alone?

    • Kim and I talked about that last night. I don’t think it would have, but we figured that one about Kevin Rudd or John Howard would have been boring as bat shit. From my limited knowedge of Australian PMs, the only one I think would be mildly interesting would be Bob Hawke.

      • I don’t like Gillard at all. However this is a new level of piss taking for a PM and getting close to being too much. So too is the new Good News World which seems to only be able to make jokes about Tony Abbott. They may end up like Will Anderson after Howard went…completely devoid of material.

  2. I don’t know… maybe not about a ‘sitting’ PM but I loved the musical ‘Keating’ (especially the ‘Mate’ Ship song) and I remember ‘Spitting Image’ from the late 80s… From what I saw of the Julia show – it wasn’t terribly insulting: there’s been far worse stuff on pollies in sketch shows on every channel before this one. I think they just happened to find an actress that does Gillard’s voice better than most.

    I guess my only concern is that it will be a running gag of her making ‘T’ puns on Tim’s name and the other gag of squeezing as much as you can out of the fact that no one really knows Tim. Didn’t have me rolling in the islesor have me outraged either but perhaps I’m missing something from the femenist perspective? I just didn’t think that her being a woman meant that this was particularly cutting-edge comedy or that they could only produce it because she was a woman… Looked like pretty standard ‘make fun of pollies’ to me.

  3. I went to see “Keating the Musical” and whilst it was funny in parts it played out as more of a homage to his political career, not a piss-take as such. I agree that a similar show based on Rudd or even Howard would have been unwatchably boring, but then why is mocking Gillard’s speech and relationship considered so funny or entertaining that they’ve made an entire series out of it? It puzzles me.

  4. Hi Melski. I was actually thinking of their protrayal of John Howard in the Keating musical – which I gotta say was very funny! As for the whole series… well I’m in now way defending their reasoning for a whole series, but I guess when it comes to Australian TV there’s no accounting for taste. But I think it’s important to make a distinction between different people’s opinion of ‘funny’ and something that is offensive to women.

    My two cents… :oP

  5. Umm, there used to do a thing about Rudd on Rove LIve back in the day? They used to take the piss out of Swanny as well. Granted it was about 1 minute once a week, but their were a lot of those.

    • Jason, all prominent politicians are used as fodder for parodic sketches and other political satire, it comes with the territory. The point here is the qualitatively different nature of the satire: a full, half-hour sitcom based on the Prime Minister’s personal/home life, with the jokes largely resting on the assumption that a man being the less important figure in a heterosexual partnership is inherently absurd.

      • Fair enough, but maybe we’re looking into it too much. I mean I was listening to an interview with the chick who plays Julia and she actually has a respect for Julia as a politician and it is her who does a lot of the writing for the show. It’s not like it was made by a bunch of sexist guys.

        • You don’t have to have a penis to be a cock though 😉
          And the actress having respect for Gillard doesn’t mean that her portrayal of her, or the show as a whole, isn’t disrespectful to both the person and the position of Prime Minister itself.
          It is very much like saying, “I’m not racist, I have black friends”.

          This show doesn’t bug me because it is about a woman, it bugs me because it is shit and entirely inappropriate. I think stupid people will look at it and confuse satire with reality and as a result lose respect for the PM (both as a person as well as the position).
          I see Julie Bishop pulled the, “If people don’t like it, they can change the channel” line.
          Fuck that annoys me. “Don’t like people trafficking? Just put yor hands over your eyes and say la la la, very loudly”*.

          *Yes, I know they are not the same thing.

          • Don’t come with this one though. Every time Gillard cops criticism we have to endure pap about respecting the office of PM. We never heard it when Howard or Keating were in the top job.

            • Because in their day, the office of PM was respected. Now we’re got a tv show – which, for the record, I haven’t watched because it looks shit – that mocks her personal life. Personal lives of public figures who do not trade on their personal lives should be off limits. After all, they are with male politicians.

              I saw something in the SMH this morning that Abbott said Gillard was being hysterical. I don’t know whether he used that word or the journo did, but it’s a gendered insult. No male PM would be called hysterical.

  6. TOO LONG!

  7. There was a v cheap shot on the Julia sitcom based on her being fat/ having a fat arse. Unnecessary.

  8. Seems the show has gone a little too far for some of the coalition already..

    Surely the ratings couldn’t have dropped that low so fast?

  9. A column in Mother Jones about US Republicans, but which is directly transferrable to what we’re dealing with over here with Abbott and the shock jocks (which, now I look at it, sounds like a really scary band):

    Also, NWN, could you drop us a wee line just so we know you haven’t retired to a convent or been sold to the gypsies?

  10. Not sure where to put this – but would love to hear your take on this article
    There are so many things wrong with the article that it is just astounding that it is on The Conversation.

    • Wow, Sinclair Davidson has completely missed the point about the Bolt case. He also invokes Bradshaw’s law – although in this case, Ali G – using a fictional character to illustrate his point.

      He says “let the markets deal with racial discrimination”, but he gives no workable examples of how this would actually work. He writes:

      Those people who have a “taste for discrimination” would manifest their preferences by, say, not employing those they don’t like, or not buying from those they don’t like, and so on.

      That means they would restrict the number of trading partners they interact with and so incur higher prices. In short, in a competitive market, racists pay – non-racists don’t.

      But how would you know that a company making dried pasta only employs white people? Or that a clothing store with outlets across the country has a company policy of only hiring white people? His argument is stupid.

      If an op-ed writer annoys you, send a letter to the editor; tell the whole world how wrong the columnist is.

      The problem is not that Bolt wrote something that annoyed people. He wrote something that attacked a group of people, named them, included photos, and what he wrote was wrong. It “contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language” (from Justice Bromberg’s judgement). It’s got fuck all to do with just being annoyed.

  11. awesome as usual. I must say the ‘market will fix it’ bs trotted forward by Davidson was so historically insolent that I almost spat out my coffee. Did the market correct the fact that Aboriginal Australians were discriminated against in the past? (Or any other minority in other countries, for that matter) Or did it require social movements and changes in legislation….

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s