Cruel Britannia's humour under threat

By CHERRY BRYANT

Laughter may be a universal language but only the British find self-mockery and cruelty side-splittingly funny, and that distinguishes them from the rest of the world, says a leading academic.

Only in Britain are comedy writers able to poke fun at their most revered institutions — the Army, the government and the Monarchy — says Christie Davies, an expert on humour who is professor of sociology at Reading University.

Although the jokes might be familiar, Dad's Army, Yes, Minister and Blackadder continue to draw large audiences despite being written over a decade ago. Now Davies has defined precisely what makes British humour so unique.

He says that cruelty and self-mockery are signs of a supremely self-confident society.

"Self-mockery is a form of self-promotion and self proclamation. It is saying that we are so important that we can make fun of ourselves. It is not permitted in Britain to say we are wonderful, so instead we go for irony and self-mockery. Many other countries, particularly Australia and America, do not have the confidence to do this."

Davies believes British broadcasters wishing to sell comedy in the United States are destroying the true essence of the nation's humour by "watering it down" to make it acceptable to an international audience.

He says that since Victorian times, British society has been so self-confident that it has freely mocked its national institutions. It can be first seen in the works of Gilbert and Sullivan, who collaborated on their first light opera in 1871.

Trial by Jury, first performed in 1875, knocked the judicial system and accused it of lacking impartiality. HMS Pinafore makes fun of many aspects of British society, including the class structure, deference to hereditary superiors and promotions being based on connections rather than merit.

More modern-day versions of comedy which mock national institutions include Dad's Army, the series about the Home Guard during the Second World War, which was first broadcast in 1968, and Blackadder, which was first shown in the early 80s.

"When compared with French, German, American or Australian humour, there is a large element, historically, of mocking the great institutions of the law, government and the Armed Forces," Davies says.

"In the US it is impossible to rubbish the Constitution or the Supreme Court. But we had Yes, Minister during the 80s which knocked the whole democratic structure of government. Whether or not shows like this change the public's perception of the institution questioned is irrelevant. It may harm it a little, but the effect is so small as to render the argument pointless."

In Australia, the antics of Dame Edna Everage have upset politicians who claim that comments knocking the country's democratic process give Australia a bad image abroad.

"Barry Humphries had to come to England to be appreciated fully, then he became much more successful in Australia," says Davies. "Although he is immensely popular in the country, official Australia is very uneasy about some of the observations he made and is concerned it gives foreigners a bad image of the country.

"The Australians can appreciate our self-mockery but are not confident enough to accept their own."

Cruelty is essential to the uniqueness of British humour, Davies says, because when it is removed, the result is trivial and unfunny.

Disney's film of Winnie the Pooh is a classic example of the trivialisation of British humour. "Disney has turned Winnie the Pooh into an inane grinning bear and lost all the witticisms to schmaltz," the professor says.

British humour is suffering and is going downhill because without its distinctive elements it is becoming a poor imitation of the Americans, who do their own humour better, he says.

"Comedy is becoming less British. If producers and writers continue to keep an eye on the American market, our comedy will simply become a poor clone of America."

- INDEPENDENT