Sept. 11 humour. What do you think

Ok we all probably have read the The Onion but I’ve just been sent this. I do find some of it funny.

Chris Morris is very very much out there and recently caused a shit storm in the UK by doing a comedy show about paedophilia .

A lot of the humour is very British and full of references that Americans will not get but I’d be very interested in what people think about this.

Remember this isn’t the PIT :wink:

Some extracts from the articles

from What they said

from 9/11: George Bush’s day

Well you get the idea.

So what you say?

Don’t you mean 'Remember this isn’t the PIT yet '?

I think the thread right after it happened where everyone came up with “Onion” style headlines was hilarious.

As long as the humor is not directed at any specific victim, then it’s fine. YOu need to laugh at a time like this.

I laughed - but then, I am not an American!!

Gp

I don’t think it is very funny, but what do I know.

Possible ONION Headlines (Warning: WTC Humor)

I doubt Stephen Fry is happy. Cruel but fair.

While I’m not offended by it, I didn’t find it very funny. Although “Operation Death Unto Allah” is pretty good.

Maybe it’s just the British/American humor thing.

Innane.
Unfunny.
Somewhat offensive.

Personnaly I thinks it very funny!

But then I found the programme on paedophillia funny also

Please note I DONT think paedophilillia is funny or should be laughed at, but the whole show was mocking the media and its reaction.

This is in no way mocking those killed (or indeed those who survived) in the horific sept 11th attacks.

I thinks its an example of the difference between the British and American sense of humour.

With few exceptions, I haven’t seen anyone do a good job yet. The main exception being The Onion, of course, because you could tell they were as flabbergasted (and pissed off) as the rest of us.

Also, Ruben Bolling has done a pretty good job with Tom the Dancing Bug, especially here. (If you follow the strip, you’ll know that God-Man is usually in fact “a character the author uses to make satirical comments on religion.”)

–Cliffy

WTC humor won’t be funny until exactly 22.3 years after 9/11.

Sorry, that’s just how it goes…

(I, personally, like the Red Cross one. Hee!)

Hilarious! I liked this:

Ha ha ha hoo hoo…wipes tear from eye

If there’s a Hell, I’m going to it.

IMO? The next best thing since rape jokes.

Yee haw.

Worse than non-funny. Annoyingly, boringly non-funny.

It reads like the editorial section of my college’s student-run newspaper–a half-hearted attempt at sarcasm and humor that comes across as incredibly stupid.

Well put; I couldn’t agree more.

Update

Here’s some reaction to the piece from the letters page from the paper that published the original Chris Morris stuff.

Here is the article in pdf form with pictures and some extra stuff.

Again I have to say I find it quite funny but then again

  1. I’m not American
  2. I’m a huge fan of Morris

http://chilled.cream.org/pdf/morrissixmonths1.pdf
http://chilled.cream.org/pdf/morrissixmonths2.pdf
http://chilled.cream.org/pdf/morrissixmonths3.pdf
http://chilled.cream.org/pdf/morrissixmonths4.pdf

As far as I can tell, he (and Ianucci) are media anarchists. They feel that no subject is taboo for satire. However, they are not mocking the actual subjects they appear to satirise - what they attack is the excessiveness, cheesiness, and faux-morality of the (mainly British) media. This self-imposed moral hegemony chooses certain subjects that are unassailable; these subjects shift over time. Currently, the main taboos are paedophilia and 9-11 - about which (in the media) there can be no dissent.

Morris and Ianucci set out to provoke, and usually do. I am not surprised people get upset. This provocation is not done for financial gain (Morris has been sacked from pretty much every media job he’s ever had - beginning with a program on British national radio that announced the death of various [living] public figures in a very realistic fashion).

I am a fan too; my reaction to these stunts is usually “I can’t fucking believe they said that”; after the paedophilia program, I really thought they’d run out of taboos. They clearly haven’t.

IMHO, Chris Morris is a comic genius. His work strides the genres of art and comedy. But his work certainly does provoke the criticism and outrage that modern art does with people. It tends to be fairly polarizing. I find what he does absolutely needed in society, and, from my experience, he clearly doesn’t do it for shock value or financial reward, as jjiimm stated.

For me, Chris Morris is a contemporary absurdist/anarchist/satirist. A lot of his ideas remind me of Ionesco, Kafka or Beckett, placed in an accessible pop setting.

I find his September 11 pieces to be humorous, dark and socially and philosophically critical. Take that as you will. Then again, I happen to be a great fan of black humor, and in my opinion, no subject should be outside bounds of taste. Black humor has many beneficial uses to society, and I often find that American culture (which I am part of) is most sensitive to it. I was shocked at the jokes going around Bosnia and Croatia back in 1996 (just after the war’s end) told by the victims of the war. Jokes about mass graves, genocide, rape. Jesus Christ. But this was a coping mechanism for these people. This is how they dealt with the reality. Yeah, genocide is about as un-funny as it gets, but it helped these people at least psychologically deflect the reality of what had happened.

I understand how sensitive people are toward black humor, so I’m of course very cautious as to who I share such jokes or thoughts with. But I don’t think it makes one insensitive, unpatriotic, an idiot or else. It’s just a way to cope.

A close friend of mine’s brother was found almost-dead last week, placed on life support and kept alive so they could prepare 7 organs for donation. My friend also only has one kidney, having lost one. Her mother’s comment? “Hey K, you sure you couldn’t use an extra kidney? We’ve got one to spare.”

Then again, I suppose you can make an argument separating people directly involved in a tragedy, vs outsiders. Perhaps it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to say that…