Hancock’s Porridge

I enjoyed all three of the pieces we saw in class. Each one was unique in its references to classes and the attitudes society has towards them. In ‘Hancock’, most of the sentiments were expressed through monologue and also through Hancock’s low opinion of essentially everyone around him. I could certainly see similarities between Hancock and Fletcher from ‘Porridge’. However, before we can can draw lines between these two characters, we need to establish that class is addressed in a completely different way in ‘Porridge’ than it is in Hancock.

In ‘Porridge’, the characters are stereotypical, in some cases extremely stereotypical, depictions of the types of people they represent. A good example would be how the governor was completely engaged in matters of his fish and even sent for the medical officer while completely disregarding situations like one of the inmates eating light bulbs. This is obviously exaggerated but is meant to act as satirical commentary on how people in certain positions of society tend to act. This is how the rest of the characters are portrayed in the show (like the very unintelligent Heslop). In ‘Hancock’ on the other hand, we mostly get a one sided account of what it means to belong, not necessarily to the upper class (Hancock is clearly lower middle class at best), but rather a seemingly conceited group of people. In the lengthy rants Hancock would go on, we start to pick up on these attitudes such as the pride he takes in his blood being fully English and “undiluted for twelve generations”.

I feel that both Fletcher and Hancock try to appear better and smarter than they really are or how they are perceived to be. Fletcher has served time and knows the ins and outs of  prison, and is generally a crafty man. However, it wasn’t a very smart move to blurt out all his knowledge on loopholes and glitches he knows of in the system. He did so because he wanted to appear wiser and smarter than, Godber for instance, thought him to be. Hancock is more aggressive in trying to elevate his social standing.  A good example was when he narrated his list of charitable deeds, then proceed to ask an upper class gentleman sitting next to him, with an implied condescending tone, if he donates blood often. After learning how the gentleman had been there 12 times, Hancock immediately assumes a defensive stance and accuses him of showing off, or being a “big head”. The point I’m getting at here is that both of these men, Hancock and Fletcher, are desperately trying to pull themselves up and above the class, or any collective social entity, that is considered better than them. Fletcher was trying to appear smarter than Godber, who is the ‘educated’ one and is expected to be smart, and Hancock (in our particular example) was trying to appear more charitable than the wealthy upper class man, who is expected to be charitable.

Faults with Fawlty Towers

I really enjoyed both the episode of Hancock and the episode of Porridge. They were both funny and really interesting. I liked how some of the bits in each were similar to other comedy shows that were influenced by these originals. I was reminded a lot of Michael Scott and The Office‘s episode about a blood drive while watching Hancock and a bit where Michael wants cookies and to learn the name of the girl who was giving blood at the same time he was. Both were more concerned with their own needs and wants than the actual people who needed the blood they were donating.

The one show I really didn’t care for was Fawlty Towers. I was very exasperated by it because it was very repetitive and kind of silly. Maybe it just doesn’t fit my sense of humor, but I feel that Fawlty Towers would not be a show I could watch more than once or twice. Basil was all over the place and based on the episode we saw, not eager to change his ways or ideas of behavior or class. If he stopped trying so hard to do what he thought would be right and was more fair to all of his customers, he would have been a better businessman and rewarded for being so. I feel like Hancock and the characters of Porridge are much more well-rounded than Basil, much more dynamic. Basil and the others all have flaws- crimial activity, manipulating and lying in Porridge; inability to pick up social cues in Hancock; and a desperation to move to a higher class in Fawlty Towers. However, the characters in Fawlty Towers didn’t evoke as much sympathy from me or any willingness to laugh at the joke. In my opinion, there was nothing redeeming about Basil in that episode that made me like him as a character and thus able to laugh at his jokes and predicament. But maybe I’m being to harsh with him… I’m not sure.

Hancock: Blood Donor

I think that Hancock was my favorite of the shows that we watched, He was very upfront about his humor and he may at some points been obnoxious about the things he said, you clearly knew what he was getting at. Since we are not from Britainyears in the past, sometimes it is difficult for me to understand where their jokes are coming from because I don’t know anything about the current events of that period. I liked that Hancock was simply humorous and to the point.

Hey guys, it’s Jillian here! As per the request of Jeremy, I wanted to give my two cents on the three shows we watched last class. As I remember, Hancock was pretty funny, albeit slightly obnoxious because of his continual commentary. However, this seems a break from past satire, where the commentary was much more subtle. Maybe this was the whole purpose of Hancock, to be obviously satirical to get to a point? Porridge and Fawlty Towers were both more subtle, which is why I think I liked them better! In all three, the topic of class and the importance of social status was a major facet of the commentary, which is really interesting because it seemed much more of a bigger deal to the British than Americans. Even though we obviously also distinguish class and the importance of status in the US, I found it particularly interesting that even the specific accents were so important to British status.

Eddie Izzard

For the final paper, I will be researching Eddie Izzard. Well known British comedian Eddie Izzard created a unique persona for himself, always dressing up as a woman for his shows. He first gained fame after attending University of Sheffield and performing small skits which achieved notoriety in England. Izzard then proceeded to befriend Robin Williams while acting a part in the film The Secret Agent in 1996. He then went on to produce many stand up DVDs and acted in various television shows, theatrical performances and movies. Izzard is heavily influenced by Monty Python and John Cleese even referred to him as “the lose python” once. Izzard has always been one of my favorite comedians and I am looking forward to analyzing his form of comedy.

 

 

Hugh Laurie

I will be researching Hugh Laurie for my final paper. Though his recent fame can be credited to his role as Dr. Gregory House on the hit American television series House, his fame dates back much further. Gaining his roots with Cambridge University’s comedy troop Footlights, who has produced comedy superstars such as Peter Cook, John Cleese, and Stephen Fry, he went on to star as The Prince Regent on the British television series Black Adder, to showcase his talents with Stephen Fry in A Bit of Fry and Laurie, and Jeeves and Wooster. Laurie is widely known both in England and across the pond to a wide span of generations, which is why I have chosen him. His talent is undeniable in House, but there is so much more talent to be enjoyed beforehand! The picture attached to this post, I find, is all the explanation I need to research this phenomenal actor.