“I think democratic accountability is almost non-existent, and the ordinary person now recognises just how non-existent it is. I think the average person is seriously worried about where it’s all going. They don’t believe what they’re being told by the politicians, that the shoots are coming through and we might be over the worst. OK, so the deficit may be getting a bit smaller, maybe, but the debt isn’t. We’re all being hoodwinked by this lot, and the next lot, and the last lot. I don’t see any of these things in isolation, I look at them as a whole spectrum of what’s been going on over the last, I don’t know, 25 years – probably longer, but that’s long enough – and I’m saying to myself there has to be a democratic revolution.”
When Russell Brand holds forth on the state of the nation, he certainly attracts attention. But that’s not him. It’s Michael Mansfield QC, interviewed by Decca Aitkenhead in The Guardian. Unfortunately for Michael, his comments provoked considerably less soul-searching, ire, ridicule and all-round exposure than Brand’s excited, but similar, rhetoric on Newsnight.
When Russell Brand holds forth on the state of the nation, he certainly attracts attention. But that’s not him. It’s Michael Mansfield QC, interviewed by Decca Aitkenhead in The Guardian. Unfortunately for Michael, his comments provoked considerably less soul-searching, ire, ridicule and all-round exposure than Brand’s excited, but similar, rhetoric on Newsnight.
I say ‘unfortunately’ because any heartfelt call for revolution is fundamentally undermined if very few people notice it. That was Mansfield’s fate, but not Brand’s. Being noticed is very much Russell’s forte. Whether he’s turning up for work in full Bin Laden garb the day after the September 11th attacks, or marrying one the world’s most popular music stars for a matter of months, he has an undeniable knack of remaining in the public eye, whichever way it glances. A fact which simultaneously ensures his continued success while attracting bucket loads of opprobrium and loathing.
Not from me though. I like Russell Brand. Celebrities without a sense of their own ridiculousness, and an over-developed belief in the power of their abilities (Bono, Madonna, Paltrow), make me queasy. But in Brand, I’ve always perceived an enjoyable streak of self-satire. His comedy may rest on the ludicrousness of others, but I believe he knows he is perilously close to a similar level of absurdity. He clearly enjoys his reputation and status enormously, nevertheless he appreciates it is built on flim-flam, silliness and leather trousers. He’s a good stand-up too. Not a genius, but a reliably amusing and compelling performer – in stark contrast with the other ‘funny Russells’.
The backlash against Brand’s Newsnight interview hilariously began before it aired. Without an iota of familiarity with its substance, a hundredweight of blowhards took to social media with accusations of ‘dumbing-down’, undeserved attention and general ridicule. Unsurprisingly, these same ‘commentators’ were not swayed by the actual event, rejoicing in the same criticism they’d plucked from the air before it aired.
I’ve watched the Paxman vs. Brand showdown a few times now, and Russell does fumble the ball a few times. Particularly noticeable is the moment he loses his nerve and tells Jeremy he’s only out for ‘a laugh’. And attempting mock the Paxo beard (another topic which drew opinion from those with rather too much time on their hands), was a misjudged, cheap shot. However, let’s not forget who was up against. Paxman may be more of a pantomime villain than a fearsome attack journalist these days, but he is still a formidable interviewer capable of breaking the unwary guest with a disdainful sneer. With this in mind, Brand’s defensive manoeuvres and counter assaults are pretty impressive. Extracted from arenas packed with devotees, and hotel rooms decorated with admirers, he did a remarkably good job.
But what of the content? Is Russell Brand really making a bid to be a focal point for the disaffected and angry? And, if he is, can it bring anything other than failure and disappointment? Well, it’s impossible to know where all this is going. Maybe he’ll get distracted by a project or a woman and leave the ‘revolution’ twirling in the wind; or maybe his words will inspire a radical change in public and political consciousness. Time will tell. Although we should remember it’s his detractors who have concocted the idea that Brand is positioning himself as a latter day Che Guevara. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t announced his candidacy as leader of any movement, and I’m sure he finds the notion as laughable as his fiercest opponents. Russell Brand has managed to use his position as a person of interest to give voice to a grass-roots mood of bitterness, dismay and indignation. Not the dinner party scepticism of a metropolitan chattering set, but a tangibly emotional groundswell, present and noticeable across a swathe of social strata. A conviction that we’ve been had; turned over by those MPs who couldn’t resist the lure of inflated expense accounts; stitched up by energy suppliers operating a rigged market; stiffed by city traders drunk on avarice and hungry to restore a pleasure-dome of unearned bonuses; and most of all, failed by a political system rowing rapidly away from its citizens with a haughty lecture on austerity drying on their lips.
We are all free to refute the picture Russell paints of our country, to dismiss his assertions as a left-wing fantasy posited by a millionaire movie star. It’s harder to deny the echoes of his viewpoint, heard on buses, in shops and throughout workplaces everywhere. He is fortunate indeed to be in a position to express his disquiet in a public arena, with passion and sincerity (and I do believe he is sincere), but he isn’t alone in his outrage.
I intensely disagree with Brand’s position concerning voting. I always vote. It’s a well-trodden cliché but people of rare courage and conviction really did die for our right to influence, if not quite choose, our government. What’s more, our vote is almost the only thing our masters fear. I understand his argument, but he’s dead wrong there.
It doesn’t matter. I genuinely welcome this hedonistically camp and daftly flamboyant man’s determination to stir the pot and awaken debate. His assessment of drug use was as logical and wise as it was controversial and unorthodox. More importantly, it thrust the issue into the limelight. If he serves no other purpose, then he fulfils that brief with aplomb.
Ultimately, this is my take on Russell Brand: in a news media awash with hidden agenda, coached performances, dishonesty and outright mendacity – can we really afford to reject the input of a man with a lively mind, no party allegiances, a taste for outspokenness and an impish charisma?
Not from me though. I like Russell Brand. Celebrities without a sense of their own ridiculousness, and an over-developed belief in the power of their abilities (Bono, Madonna, Paltrow), make me queasy. But in Brand, I’ve always perceived an enjoyable streak of self-satire. His comedy may rest on the ludicrousness of others, but I believe he knows he is perilously close to a similar level of absurdity. He clearly enjoys his reputation and status enormously, nevertheless he appreciates it is built on flim-flam, silliness and leather trousers. He’s a good stand-up too. Not a genius, but a reliably amusing and compelling performer – in stark contrast with the other ‘funny Russells’.
The backlash against Brand’s Newsnight interview hilariously began before it aired. Without an iota of familiarity with its substance, a hundredweight of blowhards took to social media with accusations of ‘dumbing-down’, undeserved attention and general ridicule. Unsurprisingly, these same ‘commentators’ were not swayed by the actual event, rejoicing in the same criticism they’d plucked from the air before it aired.
I’ve watched the Paxman vs. Brand showdown a few times now, and Russell does fumble the ball a few times. Particularly noticeable is the moment he loses his nerve and tells Jeremy he’s only out for ‘a laugh’. And attempting mock the Paxo beard (another topic which drew opinion from those with rather too much time on their hands), was a misjudged, cheap shot. However, let’s not forget who was up against. Paxman may be more of a pantomime villain than a fearsome attack journalist these days, but he is still a formidable interviewer capable of breaking the unwary guest with a disdainful sneer. With this in mind, Brand’s defensive manoeuvres and counter assaults are pretty impressive. Extracted from arenas packed with devotees, and hotel rooms decorated with admirers, he did a remarkably good job.
But what of the content? Is Russell Brand really making a bid to be a focal point for the disaffected and angry? And, if he is, can it bring anything other than failure and disappointment? Well, it’s impossible to know where all this is going. Maybe he’ll get distracted by a project or a woman and leave the ‘revolution’ twirling in the wind; or maybe his words will inspire a radical change in public and political consciousness. Time will tell. Although we should remember it’s his detractors who have concocted the idea that Brand is positioning himself as a latter day Che Guevara. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t announced his candidacy as leader of any movement, and I’m sure he finds the notion as laughable as his fiercest opponents. Russell Brand has managed to use his position as a person of interest to give voice to a grass-roots mood of bitterness, dismay and indignation. Not the dinner party scepticism of a metropolitan chattering set, but a tangibly emotional groundswell, present and noticeable across a swathe of social strata. A conviction that we’ve been had; turned over by those MPs who couldn’t resist the lure of inflated expense accounts; stitched up by energy suppliers operating a rigged market; stiffed by city traders drunk on avarice and hungry to restore a pleasure-dome of unearned bonuses; and most of all, failed by a political system rowing rapidly away from its citizens with a haughty lecture on austerity drying on their lips.
We are all free to refute the picture Russell paints of our country, to dismiss his assertions as a left-wing fantasy posited by a millionaire movie star. It’s harder to deny the echoes of his viewpoint, heard on buses, in shops and throughout workplaces everywhere. He is fortunate indeed to be in a position to express his disquiet in a public arena, with passion and sincerity (and I do believe he is sincere), but he isn’t alone in his outrage.
I intensely disagree with Brand’s position concerning voting. I always vote. It’s a well-trodden cliché but people of rare courage and conviction really did die for our right to influence, if not quite choose, our government. What’s more, our vote is almost the only thing our masters fear. I understand his argument, but he’s dead wrong there.
It doesn’t matter. I genuinely welcome this hedonistically camp and daftly flamboyant man’s determination to stir the pot and awaken debate. His assessment of drug use was as logical and wise as it was controversial and unorthodox. More importantly, it thrust the issue into the limelight. If he serves no other purpose, then he fulfils that brief with aplomb.
Ultimately, this is my take on Russell Brand: in a news media awash with hidden agenda, coached performances, dishonesty and outright mendacity – can we really afford to reject the input of a man with a lively mind, no party allegiances, a taste for outspokenness and an impish charisma?
