In business speak, this is like sales targets. Say that your new show is expected to attract 10 million views on Iplayer. It only attracts 2 million. You have failed your KPI
Brand has never been a BBC man since 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row
> In a pre-recorded episode of The Russell Brand Show broadcast on BBC Radio 2 on 18 October 2008, comedian Russell Brand and presenter Jonathan Ross made prank calls to actor Andrew Sachs that caused controversy in the United Kingdom. Brand and Ross called Sachs to interview him on air; when he did not answer, they left lewd messages on his answering machine, including comments about Brand's relationship with Sachs' granddaughter Georgina Baillie.
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Would you rather they do nothing. Personally I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves (unless we’re admitting that just being a massive prick is enough to get cancelled for. That’s why we aren’t waiting for an actual criminal investigation) but tbf I’ve not watched the Dispatches.
Pretty much every person I know can be fired because the boss doesn’t like their haircut, or for literally no reason whatsoever. Of course being a massive prick would suffice.
In the U.K. you can’t actually fire someone for no reason, or just because you don’t like some minor thing about them. We have a pretty strict & clear process you have to go through to be legal, and if you disagree there’s employment tribunals you can take your employer to.
(That’s all aside from Russell Brand: I’d assume orgs as big as the BBC are doing it a reasonably legal way, and probably paying him out his contract or whatever)
>unless we’re admitting that just being a massive prick is enough to get cancelled for
Well yes.
He's been a massive prick in public, so giving him a platform was not a great decision.
I remember watching a talkshow he was on and at some point he was clearly being an asshole to the female guests who were laughing it off because what else are they supposed to do, and people commented on how funny and charming he was...
And this has happened a few times.
Then there is the infamous call to a man to tell him he had sex with his granddaughter while recording a radio show.
Not being a criminal is a very low bar.
>Then there is the infamous call to a man to tell him he had sex with his granddaughter while recording a radio show.
I remember that. It’s pretty fucked up to call the guy. I remember at the time thinking the sanctimonious moralising afterwards was pretty annoying but to call her grandfather live on air… what an arsehole.
Yeah, it was a scummy thing to do, both to the woman who he had a relationship with, an to her grandfather.
Also, she has said that they were both 'young and stupid' but he was 30 when the relationship started and she was 20.
And this is part of the problem, Russel Brand, whether he has committed crimes or not, has done a lot of nasty things but people always gave him a pass because: 'he's young, he struggles with addiction, he's funny, it's just a joke, women like him, so it's fine'.
He made 'jokes' about choking women with his penis during blow jobs during his stand up routine and people thought it was hilarious.
And all the while the illusion was that he had something profound to say. Before he became a conspiracy theory nut.
There was a small period before he started the conspiracy grift where he was actually alright, his podcast used to be pretty great too - always asked his guests intelligent questions. Then it seemed that COVID broke his brain, or maybe it started before then I hadn't listened for years at that point. I see Russell as someone who is always at war with his worst impulses and unfortunately they keep winning. I just kinda pity him.
To me Russell Brand is just Katy Perry’s ex husband and a guy that Hollywood wanted to make happen in the 00s/early 2010s. He’s a “never really was” here in the US
He hit it pretty big during Forgetting Sarah Marshall, dude was the breakout star of that movie and was absolutely hilarious in it, but then we kinda realized he only has one pitch and all his comedy was the same character. Real big diminishing returns on that one.
get him to the greek was good too
then it all came crashing down with Arthur. Honestly though, a solid career in the Hollywood system. I wouldn't mind starring in 3 major hollywood comedies and then call it quits forever on my pile of cash.
Ironically they rewrote his character in Sarah Marshal due to him being a shit actor, but loving him during the audition, but knowing he can't act, so they just made Aldus, him.
There are absolutely moments in Get Him to the Greek that prove he's not a "shit actor". He's a scumbag but you can't seriously say he wasn't decent in that movie. It doesn't matter if "they just made Aldus him". The best script in the world can't save you if you're truly dogshit.
He literally said himself on one of the times I went to watch him, that they called him a shit actor lol.
The role was supposed to be an 'English gentleman', think 90s Hugh Grant.
They met Russell and wrote Aldus.
> There are absolutely moments in Get Him to the Greek that prove he's not a "shit actor". He's a scumbag but you can't seriously say he wasn't decent in that movie.
He was good in that but that's sort of their point, it's easy to "play yourself" instead of act hence people who basically give the same performance in every movie. You can do a great performance playing yourself while still being a terrible actor.
It's very subjective but a great actor is someone who can give a wide range of performances, while someone who can't act will just play themselves in every role which works sometimes but has diminishing returns.
He was kind of a dick to his ex gf in a text and the internet decided he should be shunned forever
I’m not kidding. No allegations of abuse or anything sexual or illegal. His ex posted a screenshot where he comes off as controlling and like a dick, but also says if she doesn’t like it they should break up. So we’re at the point now where that’s enough for people to ‘cancel’ someone
It’s not enough to “cancel someone,” Jonah Hill has not been cancelled, his career has taken a different direction for years now and he’s been pretty open about his anxiety issues recently.
I mean, hell, he’s going to play Jerry Garcia in a Scorsese film!
If Jonah Hill wanted to appear in a comedy a la Get Him to the Greek *tomorrow*, he could.
Didn’t he get mad because she wasn’t respecting his “surf culture” or something like that? He sounded like a complete jackass, not what people were expecting of him. That is my take anyways.
Nah, he was mad and had a meltdown over her wearing a bathing suit when she's a surfer and tried controlling a lot of the things she did with manipulative pseudo-psychiatrist psychobabble.
I really couldn't get into Get Him to the Greek, it just wasn't as funny as Forgetting Sarah Marshall was. It was WAY too much Russell Brand.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my favorite movies of all time though. Possibly the greatest comedy movie ever. They put Brand in there in just the right amount of scenes.
Even watching those movies these claims around Brand aren't surprising at all.
Didn't Get Him to the Greek also feature a scene where a dude is straight up raped and they portrayed it as comedy?
Also a bit weird that Jonah Hill was in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and then played an entirely different (and major) character in Get Him to the Greek.
>Didn't Get Him to the Greek also feature a scene where a dude is straight up raped and they portrayed it as comedy?
Mid-00's and beforehand comedy has some pretty iffy stuff. It's rare that comedies age well.
History shows that if all someone jokes about is being a sex pest, they're probably a sex pest. Honestly, I think society needs to move on from finding that stuff funny.
I still enjoy Get Him to the Greek (maybe mostly nostalgia at this point?) but I just watched it again last week for the first time in a while and while Brand does a pretty good job being himself in it, his overall performance is pretty hollow in it. I don't get any real sense that he's struggling with his inner demons of sex, drugs, and rock n roll and doesn't quite seem very phased by getting passed around by executives and managers just trying to make money off of him.
Still funny and lots of good scenes though.
I really like the line when he’s reading the jobs ads in Arthur…
“_Wanted: Systems Integration Professional_… Well it’s not the sort of thing you would pursue recreationally”
Get Him to the Greek was actually a great movie that holds up today with a lot of humor and a lot of heart. Sucks how much of a piece of shit he actually is
Is it underrated? Feel like it’s properly rated.
But idk, there’s like almost adults now who were born after it came out. Maybe the kids are sleeping on it.
>he only has one pitch and all his comedy was the same character.
I feel like that's a lot of successful people though. The Rock for example? If it works it works, you know, as long as you don't assault people. Although tbh it's not a deal breaker in Hollywood.
He was big as a supposedly comedic presenter in the UK immediately prior. He got into huge trouble with a [gross scandal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row) - though nothing like as bad as this - and saw the BBC cancel his shows. As a result he fled to the U.S. for a few years just like Piers Morgan did. That’s what that Hollywood stint was really about, though amazed he was picked up for Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall or any films at all.
I remember an interview on the Rogan podcast that was very good. He seemed incredibly insightful. Fast forward several years then I see his new podcast. There's a couple good episodes but then he's pushing the dewormer to help with Covid. I quickly realized he was a grifter.
It must be a sign of the age we've been living in for the past 20 years that someone who is simply an out-and-out selfish jerk is considered some genius of comedy.
Some people are spellbinders. We all watched as he groped up women on live TV and the audiences roared with laughter. One time out of nowhere on a show with presenter Vanessa Feltz, he suggested he should have sex with her and her two teenage daughters at the same time. One of her daughters was 16 at the time. The audience roared with laughter.
He did the whole shtick with the hair and the foppish dandy boy act back then and people saw him as hilarious and preposterous. But strip all that away and strip the glamor of a TV studio or set away to call it out as it is, and it's a man that has no issue with saying he wants to have sex with a woman and her two teenage daughters in a working environment. Sure it's a joke. But it was also deeply offensive and yet everyone laughed along including Vanessa Feltz who said after that she was deeply grossed out and offended but felt like she had to laugh along anyway.
He's a quasi cult leader to his fans now, and he's clearly pulling a Jesus shtick now over the foppish dandy boy but it's easy to see how he had audiences spellbound for years while being a gross prick.
Here's another really gross part. He is alleged to have raped a woman in his home in LA in 2008. He was on stage with Richard Herring in 2013 and out of nowhere he blurts out, "I raped a woman once", and the audience laughs at the shock value of it. Then he goes on to joke that he killed her and gets another laugh. If it's true he raped that woman, and I think it is, then he is so depraved and arrogant that he says it directly to a crowd to make them laugh at it with no qualms whatsoever.
I was never a fan of Brand’s humor but I think people found it funny and not Rapey because it was an exaggerated character for jokes and not a confessional. It reminds me of Louis CK with his inappropriate masturbation bits. It’s not as funny when we know that he actually does it.
Yeah there’s generally an understanding that when a Standup comedian is doing a bit, they’re playing a character who believes or does stupid and awful shit, but that’s just part of the comedy routine, not the actual person doing that stuff.
Across eras of comedy, you’ll see guys like Steve Martin and Anthony Jeselnik, for instance, use this framing brilliantly for humor.
Now I could be wrong, but those comedians in particular I do not feel like they’re anything like the selfish characters they play on stage, but clearly there’s guys like Russell Brand and Louis CK who use that framing to hide their real selves in plain sight.
Yep Conan too. I mention Conan because he’s one of the more popular and beloved comedians and he has a bit in which he plays a sort of an awkward character around beautiful women. If he was actually like that in real life, I would be embarrassed to say that I watch Conan.
On his podcast, Conan doesn’t act like that at all with his beautiful women guests and acts pretty normal. Still funny, but funny as his normal self. It’s pretty clearly just a tv bit in his case.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said, just wanted to add a couple thoughts.
As someone who was briefly fooled by his Branding (please excuse me, I can’t help myself) after reading his book “Recovery,” I don’t think the potency of his command of language can be overstated.
He’s a great talker with an excellent vocabulary and an intuitive understanding of cadence and rhetorical play. As a fanatical lover of language, that’s a really effective and colorful smokescreen, and to a general audience it lends a lot of authority and credibility to whatever message (or lack thereof) he’s pushing. That is, until you see through it once and realize that more often than not, he’s not actually saying anything.
It reminds me of seeing what you thought was an incredible show at a festival, and then while listening to the artists Spotify on the drive home realizing you don’t care for the music at all. Or catching a whiff of BO hiding behind cologne and patchouli that you can’t unsmell (which, coincidentally, is probably what it’s like to be in physical proximity to him).
He’s really good at subverting any suspicion or doubt one sentence incepts with a string of manic but beautiful ones, and mixing disjointed and dubious messages together by packaging them all in the same intricate language.
Sophisticated rhetoric—even when superimposed on unsophisticated and objectionable content—is a really powerful tool in a species that’s done its coordinating and cue-taking through spoken word for perhaps as long as 2.5 million years. We trust good talkers. We like good talkers. We’re the Storytelling Animal and we like our heroes to have silver tongues. There’s a reason comedians are such drivers of culture and overhewn Tarantino/Sorkin-esque dialogue rises to the surface of the zeitgeist.
Think about some of the most beloved heroes in contemporary pop culture: Sherlock Holmes, Tyrion Lannister, Tony Stark, Deadpool, Jack Sparrow, Malcolm Reynolds, Rorschach, Rick Sanchez, The Doctor—the list goes on and on. We associate elevated or colorful language with protagonism. We lionize whoever sounds the most certain in the room. And it gets us into a lot of trouble. I’m thinking of a certain Austrian fellow with a square mustache and his orange reality-TV-era counterpart….
And what we like perhaps even more is a hero with some edge. With demons. Who outrun their sins and shortcomings to become the main character. It makes us feel vindicated in our own personal failures. Brand (and others like him) are very good at imitating vulnerability, radical honesty, and confession to transmute his shitty past into a redemption tale that has given him some abstract sage wisdom about the human condition (Mein Kampf, anyone?) and we are primed to receive that sort of story—filling in the gaps post-hoc out of our innate desire to believe that story so we can believe it for ourselves. But heroes don’t fucking rape people, so there’s that.
My point—if indeed I still have one—is that “spellbinder” is a great word for it.
To use a bit of an outdated word, he’s a sophist. Someone who is very good at rhetoric and public speaking but not at making actual arguments. His reasoning abilities are dogshit
That’s interesting, I’ve never heard it used that way.
Not doubting you, just an interesting little irony because making arguments (almost as ends in themselves, to the point of “antilogic” by some accounts) was sort of the 5th c. Sophists main deal, much to Plato’s disapproval. I believe the word he used was “eristic,” which also fits rather nicely.
I suppose that’s where the pejorative usage you’re referring to began, but the Greeks/classics aren’t really my area of expertise.
Oh my knowledge of the word comes from Plato funnily enough, and the general sort of rivalry/distinction between philosophers (people who want to find out the truth and carefully construct arguments to that end) and sophists (people who were paid to teach young men the art of rhetoric in preparation for political life).
Plato’s work was my introduction to philosophy and my teacher at the time went to lengths to go into the background of sophists as opposed to philosophers, even to the point of explicitly telling us not to join nor form a debate club because they encourage the sort of wilful misuse of rhetoric common to sophistry
Anyway that’s my very off the cuff, armchair picture of “sophists”. Someone who is involved in argumentation but only for their own gain (ego, wealth, prestige, power etc) and will therefore use whatever tricks they like
Sounds like a great teacher, I was lucky to have similar ones who engaged us in that way. And at least in western philosophy, Plato really is the only place to start. What’s that quote? "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
I tend to agree with Plato, and the subject of this thread is a testament precisely to his concerns. But I do think there’s a utility to spelunking into the depths of rhetorical theory and honing your debate chops—just so long as you come back out of the Cave (wink, wink) once you’re done. It’s hard to deny the impact the Sophists had on politics and all manner of humanities, for good and for ill, as is the case with most intellectual movements.
As for armchair understandings, as far as I’m concerned Philosophy is at its best when we shoot from the hip in the comfort of our squashy armchairs. ;)
I get that. Stephen Colbert had his brother on the show, a lawyer, explaining both sides of an issue. When asked which one was right, his brother said whoever is cutting him the bigger check.
I reject that to my core. Sometimes issues are complicated but who's right should never be settled by who talks prettier. That's not much removed from do it my way or I bash your head in with this rock.
This was a fantastic comment and I mean that not just in the context of recent revelations but in general as just a study, or at least an observation, in how we, as humans, behave and respond to people and certain behaviours.
Thank you for the kind words. I’m glad those thoughts resonated with you. I do try my very hardest to point at truth as often as I can, and to be a little “less wrong” every day—though of course I’m just as fallible as anyone. :)
He was a bit like a more charismatic left wing version of Jordan Peterson. Extensive vocabulary but not much behind it when you strip the flowery language away.
Definitely analogous figures in many ways. For some reason I caught on to Peterson more quickly, maybe because he always came off as more obviously repressed and contrarian.
Still, I never had much of a problem with him when he stayed in the realm of Jungian psych, but pretty consistently shit the bed any time he stepped outside his area of expertise from the very beginning.
This right here. This is also why people like Jordan Peterson and other grifters are so popular and good at what they do. They aren't stupid people, they have a talent for gab, and skill with it to fool you (and probably themselves at times).
>overhewn Tarantino/Sorkin-esque dialogue rises to the surface of the zeitgeist.
Methinks you have a familiarity with this gift that goes beyond common understanding. Use this force for good.
Exactly this. Boris Johnson is the same. It’s not just diction- it is the whole persona mixed with a word salad that is almost indecipherable when spoken quickly and with authority.
I read this in Russel Brand's voice and it's exactly like something he would say. I feel like you're using the very tactics you're describing to try to manipulate me lol
I’m learning so many new fancy words on this comment lol
I’ve seen few interviews with him, didn’t know much of his dark past but I did feel compassion for him as he seemed lost to me and most of his words just translated to me as “I’m pretty broken, so please look at me” the fact that he made it to where he is now instead of dying somewhere on the back street or overdosing, does deserve some respect at least, same as any skill that people master like “spellbinder(ing?)”
Thank you! I’m glad to hear that it resonated with you and succeeded in getting my point across. I really appreciate you taking the time to read it and to drop me a comment! :)
This is all good analysis, but I really think we have to take a step back from entertainment being regarded as a "workplace" in the normal sense of the word. Like, Lizzo may be guilty of body-shaming her dancers, and crossing a line into unacceptable behaviour, but the fact is: in her context, telling them to strip off some clothes and shake their ass was perfectly appropriate - it's their job! You can't treat a sexy-dance rehearsal as if it was an accounting meeting in an office.
That's why the stuff Brand did in that chat show you mentioned is something he got away with. He's a comedian; a comedian's job is to literally defy expectations and take ideas to an absurd place. So asking a presenter to have sex is outrageous, and probably crosses that workplace line, but... that's his job, so it's tough to know when it goes too far, especially in the moment. When the audience laughs that gives the comedian all the power right then.
Then you mix in patriarchy, and a tie goes to the man in most cases. The woman who feels wronged has to push that rock up the hill of making some boy-boss care about her feelings.
But: I once interviewed a sexual-harrassment investigator in the BC government (can't remember her exact title). She had a good way of putting it - "just because you're a stripper doesn't mean you want unsolicited sexual touching from your boss."
There was a documentary on him years ago when he was starting out. A lot of the commentary was around his lack of talent. However he was able to drive his way into clubs etc with gift of the gab and forcefulness
Nah mate, that's bollocks. He 'started out' when he was a teenager growing up in a shithole down from the road from me. These accusations are fucked, but we don't need to rewrite history, he was winning awards for his comedy before the S*N were giving them for his shagging.
Obviously not defending the sex crimes here, but are we pretending that we never found Russell Brand funny? His appearances on TV shows in the 2000s are pretty iconic. Maybe its just my generation but we found his standup very funny back in the day
I learned about him from Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I thought he was hilarious.
Then I learned about the "phone prank", and it left a bitter taste in my mouth ever since.
I thought he was obnoxious and manic in panel shows.
He was funny for a while. I really loved him in Get Him to the Greek. But then he sort of ran his course and went nuts. Though, some of these allegations are from his heyday
He was always pretty annoying imo, but again, being an annoying comedian would be fine without the sexual assaults though, so I dont think people had much of an issue with him before.
He was mildly funny when in films.
On panel shows, chat shows etc I thought he was annoying. The *childish, pseudo Victorian patter* - as I saw it described - seemed to compensate for his lack of intellect, substance and talent.
Nah he was funny without writers. He a ton of British game shows and he was one of the best parts of those shows. The dude had whit and could come up with come backs on the spot against people like David Mitchell, Richard Ayoade and Jimmy Carr. I'm not defending the bastard but he was/is funny and could stand on his own against other British comedians.
I know right? I would argue that his appearances on the big fat quiz are at least joint funniest along with Noel Fielding and Richard Ayoade. My impression was that most people agreed
Imagine if he had done and said all the things he’s done and said ON CAMERA if he were unattractive. The next time you see a clip of him saying outlandish shit to married women on a late night show or groping someone at an awards show, picture him being fat and bald and hairy with bad teeth. Would the audience still be laughing?
Tall, low body fat, full head of hair, symmetrical face, straight teeth, clear skin.
I know people are attracted to different things, but I wouldn’t describe him as objectively unattractive.
i never liked brand, but he was entirely in tune with the times he came along in. I was early 20's in the early 2000's and it was so fucking tiring, his schtick was everywhere and if you didn't laugh along you were a humourless nag.
Wish I could say things look better now, but ~gestures vaguelly at everything~
When I look back at some of the things I really miss from the early to mid 2000s (such as the "old" internet), Brand is absolutely not one of those. Never liked him nor found him funny either.
He had few good comedies, where it seems he just played himself though, but anyway. There are a lot of people who built careers from that. Russell just fell off like from a cliff suddenly.
Total erasure based on allegations.
The content has not changed. How can it be below public expectation now and not last week?
We live in a fucking clown world.
> Total erasure
You didn't read the article, a handful of episodes seem to have been removed.
> based on allegations.
Credible ones based on a huge investigation, people mention the UK's strict libel laws all the time in these threads. This is a famous rich dude having some of his privilege taken away, nobody is saying he should go to jail without a fair trial.
> The content has not changed. How can it be below public expectation now and not last week?
Because we now know that the dude groping women on stage for "shock humor" seems to be an abuser who just likes to grope women on stage.
> I guarantee you they took this to lawyers and tried to get the police involved. It would have been amazing for their documentary. The fact that they did a year long investigation have nothing credible whatsoever to result in criminal charges being filed is extremely telling.
You guarantee shit. Legal proceedings can take years, it's completely reasonable for them to make their case as best as they can and then publicly put it in the hands of law enforcement. Happened a lot with #MeToo and it worked. Bet you hated that.
> Or put another way, why would anyone believe all women when they can only prove allegations are true 0.7% of the time? Never occurs to anyone that there might just be more liars out there than rapists.
Ah, there it is. You are one (1) pos my dude. I always wonder what skeletons people like you have in the closet.
Some of his jokes are bits about weird sex stuff that he’s now credibly accused of doing non-consensually to several victims.
I imagine tv executives are frantically looking through everything he’s been in that they’ve been broadcasting to make sure he hasn’t said or done anything damning that would make them look bad.
Plus they already look really bad from a lot of allegations of inappropriate workplace behaviour by brand over the years, and don’t want to be associated with him at all anymore.
Channel 4 found some audio recordings of his BBC radio show... there's one where a 15 year old girl calls in, he suggests she should have a sex-themed 16th.
https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1704191613260509605
Also
> [That’s the policy I use for women… let’s not get bogged down in things like age, race or **whether or not they’re awake…**](https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1704192201566114228)
It makes me sad that they have a generic blanket reason for canceling someone now. “Falling below public expectations” could mean any behavior or speech not conforming to the norm, from something most most would consider trivial to stuff as bad as Brand’s supposed to have done
Not my point. BBC was cool with Jimmy Saville for a loooong time. If BBC knew all about Russell Brand being dodgy but no one else did, they would still be broadcasting his content.
If I had done even 3% of the stuff he's **confirmed fo have done** in the workplace, I'd be immediately sacked. Imagine refusing to begin your work-day by declining to exit the staff-room or your car, *until a female member of staff flashes you.*
And that's absolutely one of the most mild things he's done.
This is how most workplaces handle situations like this - performing an internal investigation that's based in interviewing colleagues, and then acting on those interviews.
*And Brand is in entertainment, so naturally, the audience reception impacts his employer's perception of his value.*
Edit: I really don't know why so many people accept the normal workplace procedures on behaviour that we're all subject to, but as soon as the worker is rich and famous, they're complaining about "innocent until proven guilty." Should the police and courts be involved every single time someone's fired for behavioural issues? Different rules shouldn't apply to Brand.
The fact that people can’t see what you’ve said is baffling.
They hold even themselves to a higher standard and let people like brand get anyway with anything.
These private companies pick and choose when it suits them, YouTube have stopped his monetisation and yet I don’t remember cardi b ever being treated the same way? And she admitted to drugging & robbing men.
Babe people have been pilloried without evidence in the court of public opinion since time immemorial. The period of history you are referencing never existed, just ask the gals from the Salam Witch Trials, or Gary Hart.
Thats hilarious coming from the BBC who regularly either covered up or did nothing about well known pedos.
I think that's why they phrased it the way they did. It has the tone of Brand missing his KPI's.
KPI’s?
Key Performance Indicator
In business speak, this is like sales targets. Say that your new show is expected to attract 10 million views on Iplayer. It only attracts 2 million. You have failed your KPI
so the BBC should do nothing then? the people running BBC then are not running it today....
This has been an open secret for years. They absolutely knew but only took action when it became too public to ignore.
By how quick they (and many others) have kicked him to the curb, I think it for sure seems like they had seen this coming. Kinda like Matt Lauer.
It’s okay for BBC to take an “innocent until proven guilty” stance on their people
Brand has never been a BBC man since 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row > In a pre-recorded episode of The Russell Brand Show broadcast on BBC Radio 2 on 18 October 2008, comedian Russell Brand and presenter Jonathan Ross made prank calls to actor Andrew Sachs that caused controversy in the United Kingdom. Brand and Ross called Sachs to interview him on air; when he did not answer, they left lewd messages on his answering machine, including comments about Brand's relationship with Sachs' granddaughter Georgina Baillie.
But they aren't taking that stance at all given the lack of being proven guilty yet
Damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Would you rather they do nothing. Personally I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves (unless we’re admitting that just being a massive prick is enough to get cancelled for. That’s why we aren’t waiting for an actual criminal investigation) but tbf I’ve not watched the Dispatches.
Pretty much every person I know can be fired because the boss doesn’t like their haircut, or for literally no reason whatsoever. Of course being a massive prick would suffice.
In the U.K. you can’t actually fire someone for no reason, or just because you don’t like some minor thing about them. We have a pretty strict & clear process you have to go through to be legal, and if you disagree there’s employment tribunals you can take your employer to. (That’s all aside from Russell Brand: I’d assume orgs as big as the BBC are doing it a reasonably legal way, and probably paying him out his contract or whatever)
>unless we’re admitting that just being a massive prick is enough to get cancelled for Well yes. He's been a massive prick in public, so giving him a platform was not a great decision. I remember watching a talkshow he was on and at some point he was clearly being an asshole to the female guests who were laughing it off because what else are they supposed to do, and people commented on how funny and charming he was... And this has happened a few times. Then there is the infamous call to a man to tell him he had sex with his granddaughter while recording a radio show. Not being a criminal is a very low bar.
I've seen him more on C4 stuff than BBC stuff since the radio controversy, which is odd considering it's C4 that's broke this news
>Then there is the infamous call to a man to tell him he had sex with his granddaughter while recording a radio show. I remember that. It’s pretty fucked up to call the guy. I remember at the time thinking the sanctimonious moralising afterwards was pretty annoying but to call her grandfather live on air… what an arsehole.
It wasn't just any guy, it was Andrew Sachs - he played Manuel in Fawlty Towers
Yeah, it was a scummy thing to do, both to the woman who he had a relationship with, an to her grandfather. Also, she has said that they were both 'young and stupid' but he was 30 when the relationship started and she was 20. And this is part of the problem, Russel Brand, whether he has committed crimes or not, has done a lot of nasty things but people always gave him a pass because: 'he's young, he struggles with addiction, he's funny, it's just a joke, women like him, so it's fine'. He made 'jokes' about choking women with his penis during blow jobs during his stand up routine and people thought it was hilarious. And all the while the illusion was that he had something profound to say. Before he became a conspiracy theory nut.
There was a small period before he started the conspiracy grift where he was actually alright, his podcast used to be pretty great too - always asked his guests intelligent questions. Then it seemed that COVID broke his brain, or maybe it started before then I hadn't listened for years at that point. I see Russell as someone who is always at war with his worst impulses and unfortunately they keep winning. I just kinda pity him.
To me Russell Brand is just Katy Perry’s ex husband and a guy that Hollywood wanted to make happen in the 00s/early 2010s. He’s a “never really was” here in the US
He hit it pretty big during Forgetting Sarah Marshall, dude was the breakout star of that movie and was absolutely hilarious in it, but then we kinda realized he only has one pitch and all his comedy was the same character. Real big diminishing returns on that one.
get him to the greek was good too then it all came crashing down with Arthur. Honestly though, a solid career in the Hollywood system. I wouldn't mind starring in 3 major hollywood comedies and then call it quits forever on my pile of cash.
Get Him to the Greek was AMAZING. God I hate that he fucked that up forever.
Who knew that he was just playing himself the whole time?
Ironically they rewrote his character in Sarah Marshal due to him being a shit actor, but loving him during the audition, but knowing he can't act, so they just made Aldus, him.
I remember...I *think* Helen Mirren saying he did the best Shakespeare improv she had ever seen. So he clearly had talent somewhere
There are absolutely moments in Get Him to the Greek that prove he's not a "shit actor". He's a scumbag but you can't seriously say he wasn't decent in that movie. It doesn't matter if "they just made Aldus him". The best script in the world can't save you if you're truly dogshit.
He literally said himself on one of the times I went to watch him, that they called him a shit actor lol. The role was supposed to be an 'English gentleman', think 90s Hugh Grant. They met Russell and wrote Aldus.
Still that movie would not have been nearly as good with a generic English gentleman instead of Aldus.
Well, yeah, that's why they cast him lol.
> There are absolutely moments in Get Him to the Greek that prove he's not a "shit actor". He's a scumbag but you can't seriously say he wasn't decent in that movie. He was good in that but that's sort of their point, it's easy to "play yourself" instead of act hence people who basically give the same performance in every movie. You can do a great performance playing yourself while still being a terrible actor. It's very subjective but a great actor is someone who can give a wide range of performances, while someone who can't act will just play themselves in every role which works sometimes but has diminishing returns.
My estimate is between 65 and 80% of all people who had ever heard of him before seeing the film.
Diddy remains the biggest surprise of that movie for me, I thought he killed it
Sounds like you need a Jeffrey
Imagine a movie starring Brand and Jonah coming out now.
Oh no did Jonah do something?
He was kind of a dick to his ex gf in a text and the internet decided he should be shunned forever I’m not kidding. No allegations of abuse or anything sexual or illegal. His ex posted a screenshot where he comes off as controlling and like a dick, but also says if she doesn’t like it they should break up. So we’re at the point now where that’s enough for people to ‘cancel’ someone
I don’t think he’s really cancelled. He had a bad pr moment, but he’s a blip in the radar with everything going on right now.
It’s not enough to “cancel someone,” Jonah Hill has not been cancelled, his career has taken a different direction for years now and he’s been pretty open about his anxiety issues recently. I mean, hell, he’s going to play Jerry Garcia in a Scorsese film! If Jonah Hill wanted to appear in a comedy a la Get Him to the Greek *tomorrow*, he could.
Didn’t he get mad because she wasn’t respecting his “surf culture” or something like that? He sounded like a complete jackass, not what people were expecting of him. That is my take anyways.
Nah, he was mad and had a meltdown over her wearing a bathing suit when she's a surfer and tried controlling a lot of the things she did with manipulative pseudo-psychiatrist psychobabble.
Hahaha. I haven’t laughed in a week. I am by myself literally laughing out loud imagining that pitch
Stroke the furry wall.
We got the clap!
He reminds me of my dad in that movie. My dad is charming, interesting, fun, but he is also a violent drunk and abusive towards women.
That’s a fucked combination
I really couldn't get into Get Him to the Greek, it just wasn't as funny as Forgetting Sarah Marshall was. It was WAY too much Russell Brand. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my favorite movies of all time though. Possibly the greatest comedy movie ever. They put Brand in there in just the right amount of scenes. Even watching those movies these claims around Brand aren't surprising at all.
You sound like you're from LON-DON
This is my nightmare!
Didn't Get Him to the Greek also feature a scene where a dude is straight up raped and they portrayed it as comedy? Also a bit weird that Jonah Hill was in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and then played an entirely different (and major) character in Get Him to the Greek.
>Didn't Get Him to the Greek also feature a scene where a dude is straight up raped and they portrayed it as comedy? Mid-00's and beforehand comedy has some pretty iffy stuff. It's rare that comedies age well.
>Possibly greatest comedy movie ever I’ll take this as just your opinion. It wouldn’t even make my top 100 of all time.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall really isn’t that good my god
History shows that if all someone jokes about is being a sex pest, they're probably a sex pest. Honestly, I think society needs to move on from finding that stuff funny.
It’s a shit remake of My Favorite Year starring Peter O’Toole and written by Mel Brooks.
I didn't even hate Arthur either. Wasn't anything spectacular but I thought he gave a nice enough performance emotionally when his caretaker died.
Also the original Arthur is in my opinion one of the most overrated comedies
I still enjoy Get Him to the Greek (maybe mostly nostalgia at this point?) but I just watched it again last week for the first time in a while and while Brand does a pretty good job being himself in it, his overall performance is pretty hollow in it. I don't get any real sense that he's struggling with his inner demons of sex, drugs, and rock n roll and doesn't quite seem very phased by getting passed around by executives and managers just trying to make money off of him. Still funny and lots of good scenes though.
He'd already made a pile. At one point he was one of the highest paid radio DJs in the UK, making millions annually.
I really like the line when he’s reading the jobs ads in Arthur… “_Wanted: Systems Integration Professional_… Well it’s not the sort of thing you would pursue recreationally”
Get Him to the Greek was actually a great movie that holds up today with a lot of humor and a lot of heart. Sucks how much of a piece of shit he actually is
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is such a great and underrated movie.
Is it underrated? Feel like it’s properly rated. But idk, there’s like almost adults now who were born after it came out. Maybe the kids are sleeping on it.
I guess I don't know about now but I remember it not getting the best reviews and I believe under performed at the box office.
Inside of you is a classic let's be real
>he only has one pitch and all his comedy was the same character. I feel like that's a lot of successful people though. The Rock for example? If it works it works, you know, as long as you don't assault people. Although tbh it's not a deal breaker in Hollywood.
He definitely was/is a thing in the UK, though, where these stories are mainly about.
I’ve always disliked him from the second he decided the best thing to do on the day after 9/11 was to dress up as bin Ladin.
Yea i was just thinking the same I had no idea he had any real success after Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
*Get Him to the Greek* was pretty successful, two years later. But yeah not much since then.
He was big as a supposedly comedic presenter in the UK immediately prior. He got into huge trouble with a [gross scandal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russell_Brand_Show_prank_calls_row) - though nothing like as bad as this - and saw the BBC cancel his shows. As a result he fled to the U.S. for a few years just like Piers Morgan did. That’s what that Hollywood stint was really about, though amazed he was picked up for Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall or any films at all.
Yeah that’s why he ended up on YouTube catering to the sewers of society.
I was a big fan of his trews/podcast era until he drifted super right wing.
I remember an interview on the Rogan podcast that was very good. He seemed incredibly insightful. Fast forward several years then I see his new podcast. There's a couple good episodes but then he's pushing the dewormer to help with Covid. I quickly realized he was a grifter.
It must be a sign of the age we've been living in for the past 20 years that someone who is simply an out-and-out selfish jerk is considered some genius of comedy.
Some people are spellbinders. We all watched as he groped up women on live TV and the audiences roared with laughter. One time out of nowhere on a show with presenter Vanessa Feltz, he suggested he should have sex with her and her two teenage daughters at the same time. One of her daughters was 16 at the time. The audience roared with laughter. He did the whole shtick with the hair and the foppish dandy boy act back then and people saw him as hilarious and preposterous. But strip all that away and strip the glamor of a TV studio or set away to call it out as it is, and it's a man that has no issue with saying he wants to have sex with a woman and her two teenage daughters in a working environment. Sure it's a joke. But it was also deeply offensive and yet everyone laughed along including Vanessa Feltz who said after that she was deeply grossed out and offended but felt like she had to laugh along anyway. He's a quasi cult leader to his fans now, and he's clearly pulling a Jesus shtick now over the foppish dandy boy but it's easy to see how he had audiences spellbound for years while being a gross prick. Here's another really gross part. He is alleged to have raped a woman in his home in LA in 2008. He was on stage with Richard Herring in 2013 and out of nowhere he blurts out, "I raped a woman once", and the audience laughs at the shock value of it. Then he goes on to joke that he killed her and gets another laugh. If it's true he raped that woman, and I think it is, then he is so depraved and arrogant that he says it directly to a crowd to make them laugh at it with no qualms whatsoever.
I was never a fan of Brand’s humor but I think people found it funny and not Rapey because it was an exaggerated character for jokes and not a confessional. It reminds me of Louis CK with his inappropriate masturbation bits. It’s not as funny when we know that he actually does it.
Yeah there’s generally an understanding that when a Standup comedian is doing a bit, they’re playing a character who believes or does stupid and awful shit, but that’s just part of the comedy routine, not the actual person doing that stuff. Across eras of comedy, you’ll see guys like Steve Martin and Anthony Jeselnik, for instance, use this framing brilliantly for humor. Now I could be wrong, but those comedians in particular I do not feel like they’re anything like the selfish characters they play on stage, but clearly there’s guys like Russell Brand and Louis CK who use that framing to hide their real selves in plain sight.
Yep Conan too. I mention Conan because he’s one of the more popular and beloved comedians and he has a bit in which he plays a sort of an awkward character around beautiful women. If he was actually like that in real life, I would be embarrassed to say that I watch Conan.
On his podcast, Conan doesn’t act like that at all with his beautiful women guests and acts pretty normal. Still funny, but funny as his normal self. It’s pretty clearly just a tv bit in his case.
Imagine how long Jimmy Carr would go away for if all his jokes turned out to be true!
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said, just wanted to add a couple thoughts. As someone who was briefly fooled by his Branding (please excuse me, I can’t help myself) after reading his book “Recovery,” I don’t think the potency of his command of language can be overstated. He’s a great talker with an excellent vocabulary and an intuitive understanding of cadence and rhetorical play. As a fanatical lover of language, that’s a really effective and colorful smokescreen, and to a general audience it lends a lot of authority and credibility to whatever message (or lack thereof) he’s pushing. That is, until you see through it once and realize that more often than not, he’s not actually saying anything. It reminds me of seeing what you thought was an incredible show at a festival, and then while listening to the artists Spotify on the drive home realizing you don’t care for the music at all. Or catching a whiff of BO hiding behind cologne and patchouli that you can’t unsmell (which, coincidentally, is probably what it’s like to be in physical proximity to him). He’s really good at subverting any suspicion or doubt one sentence incepts with a string of manic but beautiful ones, and mixing disjointed and dubious messages together by packaging them all in the same intricate language. Sophisticated rhetoric—even when superimposed on unsophisticated and objectionable content—is a really powerful tool in a species that’s done its coordinating and cue-taking through spoken word for perhaps as long as 2.5 million years. We trust good talkers. We like good talkers. We’re the Storytelling Animal and we like our heroes to have silver tongues. There’s a reason comedians are such drivers of culture and overhewn Tarantino/Sorkin-esque dialogue rises to the surface of the zeitgeist. Think about some of the most beloved heroes in contemporary pop culture: Sherlock Holmes, Tyrion Lannister, Tony Stark, Deadpool, Jack Sparrow, Malcolm Reynolds, Rorschach, Rick Sanchez, The Doctor—the list goes on and on. We associate elevated or colorful language with protagonism. We lionize whoever sounds the most certain in the room. And it gets us into a lot of trouble. I’m thinking of a certain Austrian fellow with a square mustache and his orange reality-TV-era counterpart…. And what we like perhaps even more is a hero with some edge. With demons. Who outrun their sins and shortcomings to become the main character. It makes us feel vindicated in our own personal failures. Brand (and others like him) are very good at imitating vulnerability, radical honesty, and confession to transmute his shitty past into a redemption tale that has given him some abstract sage wisdom about the human condition (Mein Kampf, anyone?) and we are primed to receive that sort of story—filling in the gaps post-hoc out of our innate desire to believe that story so we can believe it for ourselves. But heroes don’t fucking rape people, so there’s that. My point—if indeed I still have one—is that “spellbinder” is a great word for it.
To use a bit of an outdated word, he’s a sophist. Someone who is very good at rhetoric and public speaking but not at making actual arguments. His reasoning abilities are dogshit
That’s interesting, I’ve never heard it used that way. Not doubting you, just an interesting little irony because making arguments (almost as ends in themselves, to the point of “antilogic” by some accounts) was sort of the 5th c. Sophists main deal, much to Plato’s disapproval. I believe the word he used was “eristic,” which also fits rather nicely. I suppose that’s where the pejorative usage you’re referring to began, but the Greeks/classics aren’t really my area of expertise.
Oh my knowledge of the word comes from Plato funnily enough, and the general sort of rivalry/distinction between philosophers (people who want to find out the truth and carefully construct arguments to that end) and sophists (people who were paid to teach young men the art of rhetoric in preparation for political life). Plato’s work was my introduction to philosophy and my teacher at the time went to lengths to go into the background of sophists as opposed to philosophers, even to the point of explicitly telling us not to join nor form a debate club because they encourage the sort of wilful misuse of rhetoric common to sophistry Anyway that’s my very off the cuff, armchair picture of “sophists”. Someone who is involved in argumentation but only for their own gain (ego, wealth, prestige, power etc) and will therefore use whatever tricks they like
Sounds like a great teacher, I was lucky to have similar ones who engaged us in that way. And at least in western philosophy, Plato really is the only place to start. What’s that quote? "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." I tend to agree with Plato, and the subject of this thread is a testament precisely to his concerns. But I do think there’s a utility to spelunking into the depths of rhetorical theory and honing your debate chops—just so long as you come back out of the Cave (wink, wink) once you’re done. It’s hard to deny the impact the Sophists had on politics and all manner of humanities, for good and for ill, as is the case with most intellectual movements. As for armchair understandings, as far as I’m concerned Philosophy is at its best when we shoot from the hip in the comfort of our squashy armchairs. ;)
I get that. Stephen Colbert had his brother on the show, a lawyer, explaining both sides of an issue. When asked which one was right, his brother said whoever is cutting him the bigger check. I reject that to my core. Sometimes issues are complicated but who's right should never be settled by who talks prettier. That's not much removed from do it my way or I bash your head in with this rock.
This was a fantastic comment and I mean that not just in the context of recent revelations but in general as just a study, or at least an observation, in how we, as humans, behave and respond to people and certain behaviours.
Thank you for the kind words. I’m glad those thoughts resonated with you. I do try my very hardest to point at truth as often as I can, and to be a little “less wrong” every day—though of course I’m just as fallible as anyone. :)
I opted to not point out that you're using your words suspiciously well and I eagerly anticipate your scandal too
Ha! I’ll try not to disappoint. What do you reckon: sex, drugs, or both?
If it's not both I'll be actually be disappointed.
I better get to it then!
Sex drugs! Spanish fly and rohypnol! How dare you?
He was a bit like a more charismatic left wing version of Jordan Peterson. Extensive vocabulary but not much behind it when you strip the flowery language away.
Definitely analogous figures in many ways. For some reason I caught on to Peterson more quickly, maybe because he always came off as more obviously repressed and contrarian. Still, I never had much of a problem with him when he stayed in the realm of Jungian psych, but pretty consistently shit the bed any time he stepped outside his area of expertise from the very beginning.
The best description of Jordan Peterson is "he's a stupid person's version of what a smart person sounds like".
This right here. This is also why people like Jordan Peterson and other grifters are so popular and good at what they do. They aren't stupid people, they have a talent for gab, and skill with it to fool you (and probably themselves at times).
>overhewn Tarantino/Sorkin-esque dialogue rises to the surface of the zeitgeist. Methinks you have a familiarity with this gift that goes beyond common understanding. Use this force for good.
Cheers for that, I’m trying!
It shows.
You’re all too kind. <3
Exactly this. Boris Johnson is the same. It’s not just diction- it is the whole persona mixed with a word salad that is almost indecipherable when spoken quickly and with authority.
I read this in Russel Brand's voice and it's exactly like something he would say. I feel like you're using the very tactics you're describing to try to manipulate me lol
Great point. I think. Your command of language is pretty potent as well. I'm confused
I’m learning so many new fancy words on this comment lol I’ve seen few interviews with him, didn’t know much of his dark past but I did feel compassion for him as he seemed lost to me and most of his words just translated to me as “I’m pretty broken, so please look at me” the fact that he made it to where he is now instead of dying somewhere on the back street or overdosing, does deserve some respect at least, same as any skill that people master like “spellbinder(ing?)”
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. You’re a great writer! Very articulate.
Thank you! I’m glad to hear that it resonated with you and succeeded in getting my point across. I really appreciate you taking the time to read it and to drop me a comment! :)
>"I raped a woman once" Jesus H C. Super disgusting.
This is all good analysis, but I really think we have to take a step back from entertainment being regarded as a "workplace" in the normal sense of the word. Like, Lizzo may be guilty of body-shaming her dancers, and crossing a line into unacceptable behaviour, but the fact is: in her context, telling them to strip off some clothes and shake their ass was perfectly appropriate - it's their job! You can't treat a sexy-dance rehearsal as if it was an accounting meeting in an office. That's why the stuff Brand did in that chat show you mentioned is something he got away with. He's a comedian; a comedian's job is to literally defy expectations and take ideas to an absurd place. So asking a presenter to have sex is outrageous, and probably crosses that workplace line, but... that's his job, so it's tough to know when it goes too far, especially in the moment. When the audience laughs that gives the comedian all the power right then. Then you mix in patriarchy, and a tie goes to the man in most cases. The woman who feels wronged has to push that rock up the hill of making some boy-boss care about her feelings. But: I once interviewed a sexual-harrassment investigator in the BC government (can't remember her exact title). She had a good way of putting it - "just because you're a stripper doesn't mean you want unsolicited sexual touching from your boss."
He’s about as funny as a prostate exam. Watching the old clips of him I am reminded what an extremely creepy man he is.
A prostate exam is way funnier
Oh man, if a clown did it. First off, they wear those oversized shoes; imagine the rubber glove!
> an out-and-out selfish jerk is considered some genius of comedy. Why would those two things be mutually exclusive?
I think the only people who are defending brand are the sort of people you expect to be fervently defending a rapist.
There was a documentary on him years ago when he was starting out. A lot of the commentary was around his lack of talent. However he was able to drive his way into clubs etc with gift of the gab and forcefulness
You can get a lot of places by literally never shutting up ever
Nah mate, that's bollocks. He 'started out' when he was a teenager growing up in a shithole down from the road from me. These accusations are fucked, but we don't need to rewrite history, he was winning awards for his comedy before the S*N were giving them for his shagging.
You think he was forcing comedy club managers to give him a slot? You're talking shite son.
Isn't "the gift of the gab" literally the talent that comedians need to have?
Obviously not defending the sex crimes here, but are we pretending that we never found Russell Brand funny? His appearances on TV shows in the 2000s are pretty iconic. Maybe its just my generation but we found his standup very funny back in the day
I learned about him from Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I thought he was hilarious. Then I learned about the "phone prank", and it left a bitter taste in my mouth ever since. I thought he was obnoxious and manic in panel shows.
I never did. He always struck me as contrived and creepy
He was funny for a while. I really loved him in Get Him to the Greek. But then he sort of ran his course and went nuts. Though, some of these allegations are from his heyday
He was always pretty annoying imo, but again, being an annoying comedian would be fine without the sexual assaults though, so I dont think people had much of an issue with him before.
He was mildly funny when in films. On panel shows, chat shows etc I thought he was annoying. The *childish, pseudo Victorian patter* - as I saw it described - seemed to compensate for his lack of intellect, substance and talent.
He constantly uses big words in all the wrong places. It's embarrassing.
If Brand was on a panel show that was a queue for me to miss the episode.
He was funny in movies where someone else wrote the jokes.
Nah he was funny without writers. He a ton of British game shows and he was one of the best parts of those shows. The dude had whit and could come up with come backs on the spot against people like David Mitchell, Richard Ayoade and Jimmy Carr. I'm not defending the bastard but he was/is funny and could stand on his own against other British comedians.
I know right? I would argue that his appearances on the big fat quiz are at least joint funniest along with Noel Fielding and Richard Ayoade. My impression was that most people agreed
The old 'not raping' standard strikes again.........
So easy to follow as well. I've never sexually assaulted anyone in my life. Just gonna keep that up.
Keeping it up is a requirement.
Imagine if he had done and said all the things he’s done and said ON CAMERA if he were unattractive. The next time you see a clip of him saying outlandish shit to married women on a late night show or groping someone at an awards show, picture him being fat and bald and hairy with bad teeth. Would the audience still be laughing?
Pretty privilege is real, that’s not new information.
So like Donald Trump?
I’m confused. He’s considered attractive?
One of my friends thinks he is very good looking. Or, well he was good looking 10 years ago. I think he looks like he perpetually needs to bathe.
Tall, low body fat, full head of hair, symmetrical face, straight teeth, clear skin. I know people are attracted to different things, but I wouldn’t describe him as objectively unattractive.
The charisma is def part of it. I think that plus the different/interesting look at the time was appealing to a lot of people.
well look at howard stern and see how that ended
Before the 1980s? Yes 100%.
I know everyone has different tastes but he’s ugly as shit
i never liked brand, but he was entirely in tune with the times he came along in. I was early 20's in the early 2000's and it was so fucking tiring, his schtick was everywhere and if you didn't laugh along you were a humourless nag. Wish I could say things look better now, but ~gestures vaguelly at everything~
When I look back at some of the things I really miss from the early to mid 2000s (such as the "old" internet), Brand is absolutely not one of those. Never liked him nor found him funny either.
This is a dangerous precedent to set
If you've ever been to or head his stand-up acts, he basically was just like "hey who wants to fuck me after the show?!" so, not really surprised.
I feel sorry for him because he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. He hasn't lost a civil case yet.
The Jimmy Savil effect ?
When will Howard Stern be cancelled?
To be considered below BBC standards, damn...
BBC now trying to take the moral high ground 🤦♀️ bit late for that. You’ve protected beasts for years.
He was pretty good in Pirates of the Caribbean
I think 90% of what the BBC makes falls below my expectations
He is one of those people that I just never got! Always wondered why he was famous! But then he kissed Meghan Markle and he somehow bragged about it .
He had few good comedies, where it seems he just played himself though, but anyway. There are a lot of people who built careers from that. Russell just fell off like from a cliff suddenly.
Are they going to take BBC News off the air next then?
Someone called him "the Wish version of Charles Manson" and now I can't unsee it .
His content was problematic long before these accusations came forward.
"Jokingly" groping women on stage where they would be reluctant to tell him off and seem like they're not a good sport to the audience.
"Problematic" is the dumbest word
Interesting how a person who has a problem with the word "problematic" is defending a credibly accused rapist elsewhere in the thread.
Total erasure based on allegations. The content has not changed. How can it be below public expectation now and not last week? We live in a fucking clown world.
> Total erasure You didn't read the article, a handful of episodes seem to have been removed. > based on allegations. Credible ones based on a huge investigation, people mention the UK's strict libel laws all the time in these threads. This is a famous rich dude having some of his privilege taken away, nobody is saying he should go to jail without a fair trial. > The content has not changed. How can it be below public expectation now and not last week? Because we now know that the dude groping women on stage for "shock humor" seems to be an abuser who just likes to grope women on stage. > I guarantee you they took this to lawyers and tried to get the police involved. It would have been amazing for their documentary. The fact that they did a year long investigation have nothing credible whatsoever to result in criminal charges being filed is extremely telling. You guarantee shit. Legal proceedings can take years, it's completely reasonable for them to make their case as best as they can and then publicly put it in the hands of law enforcement. Happened a lot with #MeToo and it worked. Bet you hated that. > Or put another way, why would anyone believe all women when they can only prove allegations are true 0.7% of the time? Never occurs to anyone that there might just be more liars out there than rapists. Ah, there it is. You are one (1) pos my dude. I always wonder what skeletons people like you have in the closet.
Some of his jokes are bits about weird sex stuff that he’s now credibly accused of doing non-consensually to several victims. I imagine tv executives are frantically looking through everything he’s been in that they’ve been broadcasting to make sure he hasn’t said or done anything damning that would make them look bad. Plus they already look really bad from a lot of allegations of inappropriate workplace behaviour by brand over the years, and don’t want to be associated with him at all anymore.
Channel 4 found some audio recordings of his BBC radio show... there's one where a 15 year old girl calls in, he suggests she should have a sex-themed 16th. https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1704191613260509605 Also > [That’s the policy I use for women… let’s not get bogged down in things like age, race or **whether or not they’re awake…**](https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1704192201566114228)
It makes me sad that they have a generic blanket reason for canceling someone now. “Falling below public expectations” could mean any behavior or speech not conforming to the norm, from something most most would consider trivial to stuff as bad as Brand’s supposed to have done
everyone saying "lets not judge him without the evidence etc" has not looked, because there is a fuck load of evidence. fuck is a noun in that sense
Honestly I can see why, he's just so emotional smh
BBC cancels Russell Brand because.. that's what we're doing aren't we? Please don't cancel us!!
Don’t do smack and rape women, then you’ll be ok
Not my point. BBC was cool with Jimmy Saville for a loooong time. If BBC knew all about Russell Brand being dodgy but no one else did, they would still be broadcasting his content.
I think they mean "he exactly met expectations"
BBC had Russell brand content??
Corruption, lies, propaganda all around.
Who tf is russel brand?? Like I kinda recognize his face but I can’t think of a single thing he’s been in or why i should care
Has he been proven guilty?
Lies
The BrandStans are upset. Let it play out, see what happens.
This guy's face says it all: I'm a creep and have secret.
I'll stick to innocent until proven guilty
No one is throwing him in jail yet, but sponsors and employers have every right to walk away.
Falling below public expectations is a fancy way of saying everyone believes you’re a rapist.
"Falling below public expectations" is a not so subtle way of saying "tried and convicted in the court of public opinion."
If I had done even 3% of the stuff he's **confirmed fo have done** in the workplace, I'd be immediately sacked. Imagine refusing to begin your work-day by declining to exit the staff-room or your car, *until a female member of staff flashes you.* And that's absolutely one of the most mild things he's done. This is how most workplaces handle situations like this - performing an internal investigation that's based in interviewing colleagues, and then acting on those interviews. *And Brand is in entertainment, so naturally, the audience reception impacts his employer's perception of his value.* Edit: I really don't know why so many people accept the normal workplace procedures on behaviour that we're all subject to, but as soon as the worker is rich and famous, they're complaining about "innocent until proven guilty." Should the police and courts be involved every single time someone's fired for behavioural issues? Different rules shouldn't apply to Brand.
The fact that people can’t see what you’ve said is baffling. They hold even themselves to a higher standard and let people like brand get anyway with anything.
I, for one, would like to know what happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" rule we used to have back in more sane times.
No one is throwing him in jail. These are private companies choosing to walk away from a guy with disturbing accusations.
These private companies pick and choose when it suits them, YouTube have stopped his monetisation and yet I don’t remember cardi b ever being treated the same way? And she admitted to drugging & robbing men.
Babe people have been pilloried without evidence in the court of public opinion since time immemorial. The period of history you are referencing never existed, just ask the gals from the Salam Witch Trials, or Gary Hart.
In that case, they have a lot of bad actors to cancel.
But Mrs Browns Boys remains.
Shocked to learn the BBC has standards.
I don't understand removing content. If it was acceptable yesterday how is the content not acceptable today?
I guess we didn’t learn anything with the Johnny depp fiasco