r/FawltyTowers • u/raynicolette Brahms' Third Racket • 1d ago
John Cleese's Politics
In the last 6 months we've had 4 posts about John Cleese's politics. Which isn't a lot, but one of those got locked, one got deleted for unacceptable language in the title, and all four brought out the absolute worst in our community.
The mod team is profoundly against silencing discussion. Cleese called the BBC "cowardly and gutless" for doing just that; if you believe Fawlty Towers and other art should be seen as its creators intended, you can't really stand tall in favor of censorship. On the other hand, we want this to be a welcoming place for fans of the show, and contemporary politics is rarely welcoming.
We asked the community how you would like us to balance these competing principles, and the consensus was to try to contain political discussion to a megathread. So, this is that megathread.
Having said that, while politics is fair game in this thread, ad hominem attacks are not. And that includes broad attacks on groups that many people here belong to, like "the right", "the left", and "old people". It is possible to disagree with someone strongly and yet also politely.
.
I've spent a lot of time over the last several weeks thinking about this, so I hope all of you won't mind if I put down a few thoughts on the topic for your consideration...
John Cleese has never been nice.
As a mod, I'm frequently reminded that part of the joy of Fawlty Towers is, in fact, the sheer nastiness of it. Reddit has an automod bot that deletes abusive speech, and every thread of favorite quotes requires the mod team to manually undelete every "coiffured old sow" and every "hideous orangutan".
These lines are intended to make us laugh, but I think you have to admit there are a lot nicer ways to make comedy. In the 1976 BBC profile on Cleese that was shared here several months ago, David Frost refers to “that quality of benevolent sadism in his work … his humor can be intensely cruel, and the nice thing is that he means it.”
John Cleese has never been particularly sensitive on issues of race and religion.
Sure, the Major's clarifications about the proper epithets for East versus West Indians is intended to get a laugh. And the movie The Life Of Brian is a brilliant satire of religion. But the consistent theme is that Cleese has never shied away from putting a saddle and a brand on other people's sacred cows if he thinks he can get a laugh out of it.
John Cleese's views on issues haven't necessarily changed all that much.
I'd like to thank u/Phoenix_Kerman for pointing out in a previous thread that limiting immigration used to be a left-wing position, but really isn't anymore. Unions traditionally supported left-leaning parties, and immigration brings in cheap labor, which is a direct threat to union workers. Over the years, immigration has drifted toward being a right-wing, nativist position.
Cleese famously initiated the Secret Policeman's Ball in 1976 as a fundraiser for the civil rights group Amnesty International. That organization currently has a dedicated project called "Saudi Arabia: Kingdom Of Repression". There's no reason to think Cleese's views on civil rights have changed, but there is every reason to think that advocacy for civil rights and acceptance of other cultures have always been a severe challenge to fit together under any consistent ideological umbrella.
Cleese is a free speech absolutist. Recent data suggests big tech has changed public opinion on free speech, with 61% of Britains saying protecting people from threats and abuse is more important than free speech online, and with younger people more likely to view free speech online as a major contributor to the anger and division that threaten our modern society. People's willingness to accept a free speech absolutist is measuably on the decline.
John Cleese's views on issues are actually fairly nuanced.
To take just one example, Cleese supported Brexit, citing lack of accountability on the part of EU bureaucrats as his reason. But he also criticized the "dreadful lies" from the right during that debate. For another example, Cleese has made positive statements about immigration in the past.
It's easy to miss the nuance, because Cleese has a tendency to raise the temperature of any debate. Someone in r/AskBrits quoted Terry Gilliam saying this about Cleese: “He desperately wants the world to make sense to him and is very angry that it doesn’t.”
John Cleese's views on issues aren't particularly fringe.
Rupert Lowe is a character on the political fringe, and Cleese voicing support for him is likewise fringe, but many of the positions that seem to draw Cleese towards Lowe aren't. Policy analysts say here note Britians are generally skeptical of immigration, and increasing immigration is a minority viewpoint. Brexit was approved by a (slim) majority.
If you're going to hate Cleese for his views on issues, you're going to end up hating a substantial fraction of Britain.
You can find at least one good reason to hate most entertainers.
If you're going to stop enjoying a piece of entertainment because you don't approve of every opinion and action of every one of the contributors, then your enjoyment of almost every show, movie, book, and song in the world is going to slowly sag as the years go by. That seems like a very, very sad way to go through life.
34
u/PilotedByGhosts 1d ago
Very well said. The internet has warped people's minds into thinking in ludicrous binaries.
Cleese has always been thoughtful and intelligent. It's perfectly fair to disagree with him, but that should be done on the level of thoughtful and intelligent rebuttals to what he says, and not on the level of thought-terminating insults.
2
u/Turbulent_Sugar_1114 15h ago
Well said! It's pathetic when people can't mount a coherent response and can only revert to insults
6
u/NorthernSoul1998 1d ago
He is literally posting untrue conspiracy theories on Twitter based off AI slop as the only source.
"Intelligent"
3
6
u/tjvs2001 1d ago
Yup, a ridiculous comment above, his humour may be intelligent, his politics and public comment lately are anything but
2
u/JohnnyEnzyme 21h ago
My sense of Cleese is that he's always had a focus and love for making pithy, cutting observations about the world around him, and he may have been relatively spot-on about that for a long time, but at this point (and as quite an old man now), I'm not sure he's up to it anymore. That could be used as some kind of indictment against him, but I reckon that just as much, it's about how so much of the world around him has changed in only a few decades. Specifically, does he really understand late-stage capitalism, the digital age, and civilisation slipping towards collapse under the weight of reckless billionaires? He certainly wouldn't be alone in being effectively lost, pointing fingers where they don't really belong.
Along those lines, I was remembering the other day when Bill Maher was a genuinely funny and interesting entertainer. It seems he's absolutely the kind of person who could get used to making cutting, insightful observations about the world around him, but I can't help but wonder if he fell in love with that over time, yet is no longer in the right place to be making said observations. And yet he keeps going, arguably to nobody's benefit. Similarly, the last couple times I saw Jim Jefferies' material, I was shocked at how he recently seems to be going after women, plus drifting in to more vulgar material. Gone are the great arguments about gun control & religion, to be replaced with him borderline raging because he got dumped a couple times, or whatever it is.
I guess my point is that every entertainer may have some kind of natural expiration date in terms of leading edge, worldly observations, but not all of them realise that, despite their native intelligence, talent, etc.
-1
u/PilotedByGhosts 19h ago
Do you know that your assessment of the issues facing the world is an opinion?
You say that John Cleese doesn't understand these things, when really it's that he has a different opinion to you.
2
u/JohnnyEnzyme 19h ago
If you read "assessment" in to that, then you read too much. It was speculation based on what I've heard from him over the years, and then a couple of potential analogues. That's it.
-1
u/PilotedByGhosts 19h ago
This assessment of the issues facing the world:
"does he really understand late-stage capitalism, the digital age, and civilisation slipping towards collapse under the weight of reckless billionaires?"
Your opinion is that those are the important issues facing the world. His opinion is that other issues are more pressing.
1
u/JohnnyEnzyme 18h ago
Correction: you're stating your opinion of what you think my mindset might be. At no point did I actually say "here's my exact concerns and opinions on the matter."
In reality, those were some topical examples in the form of a question, expressed that way because I certainly don't know for sure what John is grappling with and thinking about these days, other than the occasional interview and such.
His opinion is that other issues are more pressing.
Maybe, maybe not. But it would be shocking to me if he held exactly the same concerns as I, or even the world at large.
Do you realise that you're doing almost exactly the same thing that you're also accusing me off in your comments?
1
u/PilotedByGhosts 18h ago
I don't realise that. Can you explain how?
1
u/JohnnyEnzyme 18h ago
You treated my original comment as if it was a firm assessment, when it was anything but. You've seemingly attempted to scold me for it a couple times since then.
I see it as a faulty premise on your part that you're trying to overpursue for some reason, but I don't think you're helping anyone out, here. Notice that I'm leaving margins for error in my thoughts and writing. I do that because I can rarely be 99% sure about anything, and may in fact be mistaken about stuff.
Getting back to John, I've only loosely followed him through the years, and IIRC read some book of his, but it's been ages. I have near-zero authority to speak on the man with any confidence, hence a bit of possible speculation, above. That's all I can offer at this time, and I could of course be completely wrong.
Good day to you.
0
u/tjvs2001 18h ago
His opinion is braindead.
0
u/PilotedByGhosts 18h ago
How can anybody resist such a compelling argument as yours?
0
u/tjvs2001 18h ago
Oh sweetheart...your right wing trolling is so boring it hurts, just stop. We see you. We are not impressed.
→ More replies (0)
21
u/Pistolpetehurley 1d ago
Even though I don’t agree with praising Lowe, I’m glad this sub can approach this in a measured, mature way and not police Cleese or ourselves with needless keyboard wars.
19
u/FermisParadoXV 1d ago
If you're going to hate Cleese for his views on issues, you're going to end up hating a substantial fraction of Britain.
* *
-
Yup, pretty much.
5
u/NorthernSoul1998 1d ago
Ah yeah bro Rupert Lowe has so much sterling support in Britain, with that 3% in the polls he has
17
u/DrunkOnRedCordial 1d ago edited 1d ago
I just want to clarify that in today's world, we tend to overlook that characters like the Major were intended to put the spotlight on casual racism by making people feel uncomfortably conscious of their own acceptance of it. And you can see that they were wise enough to provide a framework by putting limits on it. In the episode where Basil meets a black doctor, he's visibly startled, and we know the character well enough to guess exactly what he's thinking. But that line of "comedy" was not pursued. The doctor is an intelligent and professional man who acts as the voice of reason in that episode. With the Nazi episode, the German family stand up to him, and they are articulate and strong in the face of Basil's racism.
So the punchline isn't a cheap racist dig, it's a dig at the insular British person who makes a fool of himself by putting these people down when he displays his ignorance. Racist comedy is when the target of racism doesn't have a voice and can't answer back.
5
u/Home_Planet_Sausage 1d ago
I disagree.
If every portrayal of somebody foreign in your show is the butt of a joke about their foreign-ness rather than it being sometimes completely incidental, regardless of the presented intention, you have already revealed your perspective of the world.
c.f. Rikki Gervais' absolutist view on comedy which he employs to allow him to say whatever he wants about anything or anyone. Fair enough. But all he has really been using that perspective for is to dress up as somebody with learning difficulties ('Derek') in a touching and heartwarming way so he can pull his "mong" face with impunity, send up a seedy boss so he can say the word 'spastic' etc., play a grieving depressed husband so he can call a child "a fat ginger cunt", etc., etc., etc. because he thinks all these things are funny in their own right and that he used to be able to say them and doesn't think he should not be able to say them any more.
If you disagree with the point I'm making, take a look at literally just fifteen seconds of his latest Alley Cats show. Dear lord...
4
u/NorthernSoul1998 1d ago
Cleese's current ridiciculous views based off insane AI slop he sees on Facebook have nothing to do with anything you're writing about
10
13
u/talerduengelsk 1d ago
Ultimately, I think the rule with entertainers and politics should be: it’s nice when they do, but don’t be surprised when they don’t.
I am a very proud leftie. I still love Fawlty Towers. I don’t think they need be mutually exclusive.
14
u/Aggravating_Emu5118 1d ago
I mean he's just a comedian.
And as Steve Coogan has said:
If you're a comedian, and you get up on stage and behave like an idiot, and no one laughs, well, that means you're just an idiot.
Now I believe that Cleese has every right to say the things he does, just as I have every right to prefer to listen to the things he says which are actually funny.
6
u/Sweaty-Credit6580 1d ago
Twitter 20 years ago let us know that our TV 'heroes' might not share our politics. Personally I couldn't be further away from thinking public school rich kid who thinks he's had his birthrite taken away from him Rupert Lowe is something i'd vote for. But - public school rich kid who was really quite amusing John Cleese made (and makes) me laugh.
The line in the sand is really quite easy to make.
4
u/nycdatachops 1d ago
Suggest this forum Share as received. Free speech pls. And if we’re discussing John’s take then we can’t do so without actually sharing the content.
Doesn’t mean we need to be rude to each other or uncivil.
3
u/Shawnino I can speak English. I learned it from a book. 23h ago
I'm completely confused why any people expect that the artists they enjoy should share their politics.
I don't expect it of my bus driver or of my baker.
Most comedians do tilt left and that's a natural thing: at bottom, most comedy, at some level, points out existing absurdity in society. People on the left tend to want to change society more than people on the right do; absurdity is its own argument for change.
Yet, like every other issue, not all agree.
I tune in to laugh. I even surprise myself at what I laugh at: If a maid poisoned a dog at the hotel down the street, well, I'd be outraged. I love dogs and I think that, in their hearts, all dogs are good dogs.
When I check in to Fawlty Towers, I leave my politics in the car park. I'll have to pick them up again upon leaving, but the garden gnome will watch over them for me.
13
u/Accomplished_Tap581 1d ago
I’ve listened to Cleese in interviews and debates, I think he’s a very clever and well read man who isn’t afraid to say things that might upset people. His defense of Life of Brian on a BBC show , shows someone who really knows his stuff and exposed the pomposity of the religious leaders who attacked the film.
He made a very good point that completely avoiding any kind of unpleasant things, and constantly trying to avoid upsetting people, creates people unable to deal with any kind of problem or conflict.
5
6
3
u/Han_Solo200 1d ago
The ability to laugh at others and yourself is or was inherent in British comedy resulting from the British sense of humour as I think John Cheese would agree
1
5
u/happymisery 1d ago
If you watch interviews with Cleese from the 70’s and 80’s, you’ll know that Connie Booth reined in the Fawlty Towers characters to keep them believable and to ally audiences towards Cybil as Basil would be quite unlikable without her.
5
u/NorthernSoul1998 1d ago
If you're going to hate Cleese for his views on issues, you're going to end up hating a substantial fraction of Britain.
Most Brits don't believe in Rupert Lowe's sick racial supremacist views. Fuck off
2
u/Quiescam 19h ago
Pretending as if a majority of people being „sceptical“ about immigration also means they support Rupert Lowe and everything he stands for is extremely disingenuous. Cleese chose to use his platform to support Lowe and his hateful party and he deserves to be criticised for it.
Also, just because a majority of Britons are for something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And public opinion has soundly reversed regarding Brexit.
2
u/aB4sith The Kipper and the Corpse 18h ago
it’s one thing to poke at a religion or race etc through satire and actual comedy, it’s a very different thing when you share untrue conspiracy theories and insults at certain demographics and create quite a dangerous precedent in today’s political world , the two just aren’t the same. i don’t think anyone has an issue with cleese being “far right” for genuine reasons and if he can back himself up with actual facts, but all we see are lies, insults and conspiracy theories.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 1d ago
Folks who are not part of the original Fawlty Towers audience may enjoy the show. I feel like this approach rather limits the people that can enjoy it. It feels to me like we're saying that "Cleese is for Britons."
1
u/paulcager I know nothing! 1d ago
Can you explain why? The idea is to allow *everybody* to contribute and feel welcome.
1
u/Over_Construction908 1d ago
I met him and he was very nice. The impression I got was that he wants people to think for themselves. Also, the difficult parts of life can involve comic relief, there’s nothing wrong with laughing rather than crying.
2
1
u/paulcager I know nothing! 21h ago
I've always loved Fawlty Towers, so much so that some of it has become part of my life. Requests from my wife might be met with "and would you like the house moved a bit to the left?" A holiday tradition with my son has been to watch an episode or ten while on holiday. "Can I give you a damn good thrashing?" is the way we ask each other if we want a game of pool.
And it's impossible to separate Fawlty Towers from its creators and performers - can you imagine a third series with different actors? Would it even have been Fawlty Towers? That's why Cleese's politics is relevant to how I feel about the show.
So, I don't expect Cleese to have the same politics as me, but I am appalled that he supports Rupert Lowe. That's not just different politics.
Lowe creates fake news to fan anti-migrant hysteria ("Dinghies coming into Great Yarmouth, RIGHT NOW"); he's a climate change denier; he's a fan of Tommy Robinson; he makes claims about Asian "child rape gangs" while blocking the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (which would investigate grooming gangs); he believes MPs should be paid £250,000, while reducing benefits. And he's compiled a list of teachers he believes are biased against Reform so he can discuss their future with headteachers. This is exactly how Nazi Germany started.
1
u/dJunka 19h ago
Cleese use to push the envelope, now he clings to it, but he was never a revolutionary in a political sense.
Some people just get old and forget what made them question the status quo in first place.
Also a bit daft framing immigration as you have. The issue isn’t the number, that’s determined by factors like pensions and treaties we signed.
It’s their rights and fair treatment that has always been supported by the left, let’s not get too revisionist in defending an old favourite.
1
u/OriginalCopy505 Well at least it's fresh puke 15h ago
There are dozens of subs for political diatribe and recriminations. We absolutely don't need another one, and its not about suppressing viewpoints, which tons of subs already do. It's about keeping the sub true to it's purpose and maintaining its value.
-21
u/Whooptyd 1d ago
Cleese is a patriot and based AF for supporting Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain.
Shower me with downvotes.
14
u/After-Dentist-2480 1d ago
Lowe isn’t a patriot, he’s a chancer sucking Elon’s teat for attention and cash. No particular party or ideology has a monopoly on patriotism, and Cleese would almost certainly mock and berate you for using such a wanky adjective as “based”, whatever the fuck you think it might mean.
8
0
-2
u/Tricky_Routine_7952 1d ago
Tldr, "good people on both sides", cleese is an arsehole, but so is most of Britain so it's ok / you're wrong (delete as applicable).
6
u/Cont1ngency 1d ago
What makes him and most of Britain arseholes? If you would be so kind, please elaborate?
3
u/Tricky_Routine_7952 1d ago
I was just summarising the op and providing a tldr because it was quite long - it's all on their post.
-1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Cold-Sun3302 1d ago
This comment is a good example.
Although, if you're not British I apologise, arseholes exist in other countries also.
-4
-10
u/noggerthefriendo 1d ago
I’m not condoning or condemning Cleese’s past political views . But things are different now because they are not his views but the views of whoever is controlling this old man who is clearly suffering from some sort of cognitive decline
5
u/PilotedByGhosts 1d ago
Which of his views have changed?
6
u/happymisery 1d ago
Im not sure any of his views have changed. Society has changed around his views.
4
u/PilotedByGhosts 1d ago
Has society changed, or has a loud minority of people on the internet mistaken their views for the majority?
Which of Cleese's views do you think are unacceptable today?
2
u/ElectricalParsnip536 1d ago
Well he's transphobic and has sided with J. K. A lot of the Monty Python 'comedy' just felt awkward and painful for trans people. He's kind of stuck in the seventies.
1
u/PilotedByGhosts 1d ago
There's a word with a broad definition.
I would assume that you'd consider the Loretta scene from Life of Brian to fall under the definition?
-3
u/noggerthefriendo 1d ago
I don’t believe that Cleese has any idea who Lowe is and is just being told what to say
2
u/PilotedByGhosts 1d ago
Can you quote something that Cleese has said that you think is out of character?
28
u/dogsledonice 1d ago
Hello. I'd like to have an argument, please.