Russell Brand on Newsnight (01/10/10)

Yes , the only people who found it offensive are brainless morons still whining on about it 2 years later.

The fact that neither Ofcom nor any authority got as worked up about it as the halfwit complainers shows that it was all a storm in a teacup that did nothing but good for Russell Brand.
So in a way we should be thankful to the mindless proles who spent money on a phonecall to complain about nothing.

I think most of them were too stupid to realise they were pawns of the Daily Mail who are always looking for something connected to the BBC to be outraged about .
If it had not been the Sachs incident it would have been something else.

Ofcom or the BBC should have set up an automated response line asking why the pratts who rang up took 9 days to do it, bearing in mind that at the time virtually none of them had heard the programme and were only going by what the Daily Mail had printed
 
I heard him say nothing more intelligent than any of my mates could say down the pub on a saturday night. Everyone can quote a few famous authors or philosophical ideas if they've had a reasonable education or flicked through a few books, but actually being able to manipulate that information successfully is a different matter. And actually, much of what he said lacked any sort of true intellectual content, other than parroting common sentiments such as 'celebrity is empty' (having spent the entirety of one book telling us how he has chased it since the year dot). There is a vast gulf of difference between being verbose and being articulate, and between being deeply intelligent and being able to quote deeply intelligent people.

I thought he was rambling, grossly hypocritical, evaded or fluffed rather than answered most of the questions, and simply bombarded Paxman with worRAB that meant very little underneath. In fact he came across rather like the lacquered glittery package of celebrity he was trying to divorce himself from, wittering on about beauty. I sometimes feel with Brand, that his final joke is his own perfectly constructed image, and the joke is on us the audience for tolerating any of it. the 'icon' of himself he bemoans is his own creation. Like Diana and many other famous people, they construct their image then whinge endlessly about how it is used, which in itself adRAB to the hyperbole about them. Tedious.

I actually do really like Russell Brand on a good day. he can be amazingly warm and charming on TV, and there's no doubt he's an excellent stand up and presenter (acting-hmm...). However, his rampant egotism is astonishing, and I think that he overreaches himself frequently. I really respect the fact that he is a keen autodidact- it is far better to have someone like that on TV than some empty, glossy, bimbo/himbo in my opinion. I just find his inconsistency and constant self-promotion rather grating.

I think we should all be pleased that Brand is a comedian and not a politician, because I fear that with that ego, ability for rhetoric and determination, we would be knee-deep in Russian Tundra or similar. Gawd bless 'im.
 
But it does mean they know a bit more about his history and background than someone who may well be watching Brand for the first time on this Newsnight programme

There are few other people around who will admit to their mistakes and misbehaviour as openly as Russell Brand.

I wonder how much of his next sell out standup tour will be the story of the airport fracas?
 
He comes across as half clever, half a buffoon. The buffoon element of his personalitty may be the way he has to string out an answer. He tenRAB to waffle on. Brevity - the capacity to say a lot in a concise way - is often seen as benchmark of intelligence. Just rambling on ain't!
 
No, you are completely misinterpreting what he said for some personal point-scoring.

He made a joke about a phone-interview where the person who agreed to be interviewed did not answer his phone. This was done to entertain his listeners which he now regrets, there was no malice in it. The photographer was deliberately (and with forethought) trying to take an obscene photograph. World of difference.
How are they the same act exactly? :confused:
 
Dear Lord, what happened to Paxman in that interview?. He didn't question Brand's responses nearly enough. Not the Paxo I know and love.

I like Russell Brand but he seemed full of excuses in the interview.
 
What was it exactly that he was supposed to have said that was 'philosophical' or 'intelligent'? He's like a teenager who has just discovered political philosophy and writes juvenilia.

As a celebrity layman's philosopher he probably appeals to some people, but this desire to elevate him to some sort of important 'thinker' is misguided.

I expect Brand to either die young and be canonised by youth culture, or to publish a comeback autobiography in ten years time.

Paxman may have been blown away, but the question is: by what? It certainly wasn't Brand's erudition.
 
Back
Top