General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy love affair with Russell Brand suffers a heavy blow
I confess. Russell's language, the way words tumble in a swift rush out of his mouth or from his keyboard, has often had me swooning, but it's the "I've never voted and never will" thing that leaves me cold- that and the insistence that we need a spiritual revolution before any real change occurs. Not that I too don't hanker for a spiritual revolution, but waiting for that to envelop collective consciousness strikes me as a "Waiting for Godot" exercise in futility.
In any case, Brand guest edited the most recent issue of the New Statesman and yesterday interviewed with Jeremy Paxman Here is a link to his essay in the New Statesman and the interview. The essay is long and says some interesting things, but Russell, my erstwhile love, you are sorely in need of an editor. Still, it's definitely worth the read:
When I was asked to edit an issue of the New Statesman I said yes because it was a beautiful woman asking me. I chose the subject of revolution because the New Statesman is a political magazine and imagining the overthrow of the current political system is the only way I can be enthused about politics.
When people talk about politics within the existing Westminster framework I feel a dull thud in my stomach and my eyes involuntarily glaze. Like when Im conversing and the subject changes from me and moves on to another topic. I try to remain engaged but behind my eyes I am adrift in immediate nostalgia; How happy I was earlier in this chat, I instantly think.
I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites. Billy Connolly said: Dont vote, it encourages them, and, The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.
<snip>
Now, I bow to no one in my appreciation of female beauty and fancy clobber but I could not wrench the phantom of those children from my mind, in this moment I felt the integration; that the price of this decadence was their degradation. That these are not dislocated ideas but the two extremes are absolutely interdependent. The price of privilege is poverty. David Cameron said in his conference speech that profit is not a dirty word. Profit is the most profane word we have. In its pursuit we have forgotten that while individual interests are being met, we as a whole are being annihilated. The reality, when not fragmented through the corrupting lens of elitism, is we are all on one planet.
<snip>
Now there is an opportunity for the left to return to its vital, virile, vigorous origins. A movement for the people, by the people, in the service of the land. Socialisms historical connection with spiritual principles is deep. Sharing is a spiritual principle, respecting our land is a spiritual principle. May the first, May Day, is a pagan holiday where we acknowledge our essential relationship with our land. I bet the Tolpuddle martyrs, who marched for fair pay for agricultural workers, whose legacy is the right for us to have social solidarity, were a right bunch of herberts if you knew them. Thugs, yobs, hooligans, the Daily Mail wouldve called them. Our young people need to know there is a culture, a strong, broad union, that they can belong to, that is potent, virile and alive. At this time when George and Dave pilfer and pillage our land and money for their oligarch mates, at this time when the Tories are taking the EU to court to stop it curtailing their banker pals bonuses, that there is something they can do. Take to the streets, together, with the understanding that the feeling that you arent being heard or seen or represented isnt psychosis; its government policy.
<snip>
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Hm.
I don't mean to be rude...
I have to say I've never found him in the slightest bit convincing. All he really has is an unusally extensive vocabulary, his ideas are very banal. He has mastered the art of making the insubstantial seem subtle (not unlike certain rather grand sounding individuals on this very site, cough cough) via the use of Slightly More and Longer Words than Usual...
I never understood why he was so well received in the States.
cali
(114,904 posts)he's quite a good writer. I find him entertaining and I enjoy how he pokes and prods at tv "news" people.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)and certainly he has no patience with other people's pomposity...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)entirely unknown in the States. Most people here only know him from his films, which have been a very mixed bag. So those who have seen Arthur are often righteously shocked to find that he is clearly literate, meaning he had in fact read the script for Arthur prior to accepting it.
His stage work, and 'Russell Brand's Got Issues' sort of material is unknown here. Americans are shocked to find he has any thought in his head at all, his films do not indicate native wit of any kind.
So Americans who like his word parades for the most part have not had any time to actually consider the content of the word parades. They are simply shocked he is anything more than a vulgar comic from some good films and some really bad films.
He's certainly no Stephen Fry but I enjoy his work by and large. I doubt I'd care much for him as a man, but the verbose ex junkie routine is always a winner!
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I've been subjected to his content-lite meanderings for far too long over here in the cold, damp UK where we resent famous people for being so bloody cheerful...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is films and gossip about relationships. Many are in fact stunned to find he has a thought in his head at all. His image here has been 'content free'. Entirely.
My main complaint with him is that he is drunk in love with celebrity as an end to itself.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Anyway, I like some of his ideas, loving rhetoric is certainly not limited to Russell Brand fans.
I suspect that Russell may have made the grievous error (for some) of criticizing the state of things without taking into account who is currently president or prime minister or whatever.
Who is currently president is immaterial, the banks and corporations are having their way with the world.
SamYeager
(309 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and what a ridiculous statement. As if drug addiction has anything to do with charisma. Not that charisma is what I find compelling about Brand.
SamYeager
(309 posts)There is no such thing as an ex-addict.
He may be a recovering addict, but no addict ever fully recovers.
cali
(114,904 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I'll never forgive him for how he treated Katie Perry.
And he pulled that bullshit after entering recovery.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I don't like to label and judge people because they have had substance abuse issues in the past.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)Glad you've seen the light about Brand. He has an awesome vocabulary and he's very well-read, for sure, and I admire that. But I think he depends a lot on his wit in order to carry on a conversation. There isn't much content in the things he says. Interviewers lap it all up and seem to be spellbound by him. I just don't get it.
cali
(114,904 posts)though I'm with him (as I know you are) on inequality and the repulsive people who shore it up.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)My fav was the episode about beauty 'Is our obsession with beauty making us ugly' or something like that as the theme. It is a crazy show that would probably not make it to US TV under any circumstances. He's a performer, not a professor so he's better with a crowd and some set pieces and a performance. It's way better than Arthur and not as pompous and Brand pontificating in a chair.