Russel Brand

[Darcy88]

What do you all think of him? I love his acting, his spirituality, his life story, how he used yoga to overcome substance abuse problems and psychological problems. He is editing a new periodical and I find myself agreeing with him often and laughing very hard at his films though they are often of a screwball comedic nature. He has the charisma, the charm, the on the spot magnetism I wish I had more of. He seems to possess some element that I as a man and a poet lack. Confidence perhaps? I do not know. I do not hesitate to call him genius. Much of his comedy and acting is off the cuff, automatic. It is a little explicit and so I will not post it here, but it is out there. He is big in Canada and I presume well known both sides of the pond.

Looking forward to hearing all your ideas on him and his work and his ideas.

Cheers.

[Delta40]

Hasn't he just entered the political arena? I saw a crazy interview recently - Jeremy whatshisname questioning brand's whole political ideology. Funny yet refreshing. Pity all paths lead us back to Rome

[mal4mac]

Hasn't he just entered the political arena? I saw a crazy interview recently - Jeremy whatshisname questioning brand's whole political ideology. Funny yet refreshing. Pity all paths lead us back to Rome

That was an amusing and thought provoking interview. The last "New Statesman", the leading left wing political magazine in the UK, had him as guest editor recently. His edition had some interesting, quirky articles, like Naomi Klein on how scientists might be becoming revolutionaries:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

[Lokasenna]

Horrible man. I find him neither charming nor amusing. He has always struck me as a vain, puffed-up egomaniac who requires noteriety in the same way the rest of us require oxygen.

As for his political 'ambitions', if that interview was anything to go by they won't amount to much - almost everything he said was hypocritical, self-serving, populist and intellectually facile.

[cacian]

Russel Brand? geek. or is greek haha. :)
not sure he is what he is. to criticise him would be unfair because I have only known him as an actor and it takes a lot of balls to become a Hollywood star overnight. he is what he is. I guess for a recovering addict the impact on his personality would come across as obvious and it does.
after what he went through anything goes understandably.

[Emil Miller]

I prefer not to think of Russel Brand but, insofar as I do, just another yob on the make.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I really don't know what to make of him at all. I saw the Paxman interview by chance and thought it was well, typical Brand. I must admit though I did enjoy it and sorry to say (Loka) found myself in agreement to a lot of it. Of course it was not real world but still... I find him a bit cringing in a similar way to some Ricky Gervais comedy. If you have not seen the interview it is on You Tube.

[Paulclem]

I prefer not to think of Russel Brand but, insofar as I do, just another yob on the make.

I made the same mistake. I now like him after watching him show US anchors how to conduct an interview.

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/jun/28/russell-brand-morning-joe-question-time

I think it's easy to get distracted by the image - he says this in the interview. He's erudite and clever and - what people don't like - is he can break rules and not follow form. He's loud and cheeky - I saw somewhere that he's following the route of the traditional cheeky chappie - rich, successful and hated. I now like him because he could settle into his lucrative film and TV career, but he chooses not to but speaks out against what he sees. He's made himself an outsider because he can. Good for him.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but I like his challenge. There's not enough of it in politics. People listen because he's a face, but he's much more than that and much more effective because he has something to say.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I find him fidgety, impatient, and erratic, much like every person I have ever met who has addictive tendencies. Seeing as I have not met him, however, I have no opinion of him as an individual.


almost everything he said was hypocritical, self-serving, populist and intellectually facile.

This I disagree with. He disagrees with the current political system, and therefore refuses to participate in it. Hypocrites are people who vote and then complain that the system or the people in office (which they supported by participating) don't get anything done- Brand complains about the system, and therefore the only non-hypocritical thing to do is not participate in it. I certainly don't believe that to be intellectually facile, but the only real form of protest in and of a political system.

[Lokasenna]

This I disagree with. He disagrees with the current political system, and therefore refuses to participate in it. Hypocrites are people who vote and then complain that the system or the people in office (which they supported by participating) don't get anything done- Brand complains about the system, and therefore the only non-hypocritical thing to do is not participate in it. I certainly don't believe that to be intellectually facile, but the only real form of protest in and of a political system.


I really don't know what to make of him at all. I saw the Paxman interview by chance and thought it was well, typical Brand. I must admit though I did enjoy it and sorry to say (Loka) found myself in agreement to a lot of it. Of course it was not real world but still... I find him a bit cringing in a similar way to some Ricky Gervais comedy. If you have not seen the interview it is on You Tube.

I respect your opinions, of course - you have an absolute right not to vote if you don't want to. That's part of being in a liberal democracy. But the more I think about Brand, the more convinced I become that, if you read between the lines, what he is advocating is actually rather sinister.

Brand's interview with Paxman, and the article he wrote in The New Statesman that preceded it, betray a political vision that is not only profoundly superficial, but also fundamentally unoriginal. Whilst he does his best to cram as many syllables into a sentence as he can ('pre-existing paradigm', anyone?) in order to dress it up, it is nevertheless the sort of simplistic anti-establishment drivel you could get from any thirteen year old in the land - the trick of trying to make an obvious idea seem more profound than it actually is by explaining it in the most complicated possible terms is something instantly recognizable to anyone who has ever had to mark a high-school or university level essay.

Leaving aside, however, my quibbles with the smoke-and-mirror method of delivery, let's actually have a look at what Brand says. He talks about his desire for revolution, a fashionable approach that is inherently more sensationalist, despite in practice being associated with the worst horrors of human conflict, than advocating a slower method of democratic reform guided by voters' intentions that is much less glamorous and infinitely more tedious. But then, who isn't aware of the flaws in the system that exists now, that there are vast inequalities maintained by the self-interest of the elite few? Never mind that the system, imperfect and slow though it is, has brought millions of people out of absolute poverty in the last half century. Never mind, also, that the figure advocating the radical and enforced redistribution of wealth is a multi-millionaire media celebrity speaking from the luxury of his $2.2 million Beverly Hills mansion.

So, having dismissed liberal democracy as a passing phase of the bourgeoisie (never mind the millions who died to ensure its survival in the face of fascism half a century ago), what does he offer us? Early in the interview Brand made some very sound and agreeable points about the emergence of an economic underclass, the increased threat against the planet from human action, and the increasing sense of disenfranchisement with the political process - these are all well and good, and most people (including myself) will be sympathetic to these opinions. But notice what happens when, after he talks about 'alternative political systems', Paxman presses him for what these would entail? Brand brings these back, not to say what he WOULD do, but rather what he WOULD NOT do: he would not destroy the planet, he would not create economic disparity, he would not ignore the needs of the people. This not a manifesto, but an anti-manifesto - a common tactic employed by politicians being pressed by the likes of Paxman when they don't have a real answer. No politician alive would voice an opposing statement to such an anti-manifesto - even Stalin would have been in full agreement. The world is a messy, unhelpful and imperfect place, and there are always solutions that are simple, popular, and utterly wrong. Brand's vision of a revolutionary-socialist utopia is an impossibility, because human nature dictates that absolute equality needs to enforced, which always places the enforcer in power. Orwell was right on that score.

Of the many crass generalisations Brand makes, the worst is from his article:


Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites.

This is a sentiment that I'm sure we've all mentally subscribed to at some point, usually in moments of frustration. But the fact that 'most people' continue to vote suggests that they are pragmatic enough to recognise that their politicians, though as imperfect as all people are, are mostly in it out of a genuine sense of commitment. I know half a dozen MPs personally, and they are all remarkably ordinary people who do a long and stressful job - they, and most other politicians, are boring, but hardly all 'frauds and liars'. Brand is perfectly within his rights to hate the ordinariness of politicians, but the main problem is that contempt for the political class usually mutates into a contempt for the people that continue to vote for them. He rejects democracy because he disagrees with the voters' decision: this is textbook despotism. He imagines that his own selfish disaffection is somehow cognate with the suffering of all the displaced, dispossessed, and disenfranchised, and that by overthrowing democracy he will somehow be enacting their will. It is an even worse crass and vapid generalisation than dismissing an entire group of people as all 'frauds and liars'.

That Brand is on some kind of a messiah-trip is indicated by the fact that he terms his calls for the overthrow of democracy a 'movement for the people, by the people.' Apparently, the irony of this is lost on many of his audience.

This is why celebrities should steer clear of politics. Taking a contrary position to the establishment is useful - often necessary - for comic purposes, for getting a few cheap laughs, but lacks the pragmatism of the real world. Brand's entire statement boils down to 'If I ruled the world...' in the best tradition of the adolescent fantasy tyrant, utterly devoid of tangible objectives. Thanks to his position as media celebrity, he's been given the opportunity to pontificate that is denied to those who are genuinely disenfranchised: but then, given the contempt with which he treats democracy, I doubt he cares much.

This has turned into a long rant, but I was genuinely disturbed by the viciousness of what Brand was advocating. It's so easy to sneer at MPs for all being venal and corrupt, even if it isn't true. The problem with calling for revolution is that sometimes you get what you wished for. Brand may like the idea of chaos, but I find the idea of blood in the streets deeply upsetting; liberal democracy might have its flaws, but I prefer it to a jackboot to the face.

[kev67]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Good rant!

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I don't disagree with a lot of your points Loka, but I don't think he's trying to really offer a solution, rather just to raise some of the issues to a new, perhaps non-political audience. There's nothing new being said yes, but in it he admits he's just an actor and that there are people with more knowledge on the matter. I agree about his delivery to a degree and almost anyone who uses 'paradigm' more than once in 100,000 words deserves a small prison sentence, but I find his flowery, cringe-worthy approach fairly unique and entertaining in smaller doses. Also there are a lot out there that would agree with a lot of the essence of what was said in terms of lack of choice and many people are sick and tired of it. However, I certainly don't see any revolution of course, nothing like that, no chance. Government and corporations can get away with continual murder (see the latest clear cut examples of gas and electric price fixing for example) because the population is all too easily manipulated and always will be and even those in the know can do, and will do nothing about it anyway.

Note/moan: my gas has gone up 11.8% just before winter, apparently because of the 'costs of wholesale energy' (which has remained constant over the last five years :confused:) and the 'green taxes' that nobody has a clue about and none of the companies can even work out how much they cost (experts believe that it is negligible). :confused: 'British Gas - Looking After Your World.' Of course as a consumer I have the 'option' to switch to another group of the big six criminals who have also put their prices up likewise. Welcome to Britain.

[Emil Miller]

liberal democracy might have its flaws, but I prefer it to a jackboot to the face.

In Brand's case it would be an improvement.

Ah .....if only.

[Delta40]

When push came to shove Brand didn't actually have a solution except to have a revolution, then form a new government through a voting system with a different name... Kind of like 'oh fuc k it I'm done with this long hair I've had for years, I'm going to chop it all off and when it grows back it will be a brand new me!'

[LitNetIsGreat]

Apart from the obvious vast re-distribution of wealth. Didn't he mention something about 300 Americans having the same wealth as 85 million other Americans put together or something like that? Again though I don't think his main aim was to offer solutions necessarily, just to vent inequalities and environmental damage perhaps to a new, younger audience. I don't know really as I've not read the article, I've only seen the interview. Well that's the impression I got from the interview anyway. Of course many people highlight such things and most people know it, but he is a charismatic figure and so stands out from the crowd. Naturally when government bodies do try to do something about inequality it usually results in taking off the 85 million to give to the 300.

[Scheherazade]

I cannot stand Brand; I cringe every time he is on screen and this interview seems rehearsed.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I cringe as well but I think that is part of his appeal! I doubt it was rehearsed. They are both pretty quick off the mark.

[Scheherazade]

Yes I cringe as well but I think that is part of his appeal! I doubt it was rehearsed. They are both pretty quick off the mark.I refuse to accept "cringiness" as an appeal in anyone and I think Brand had memorized certain parts of his delivery and simply interjected those whenever he could. I don't mean that he lacks intelligence to respond but he had definitely practised what he wanted to say (probably more serious side of it).

And I am disappointed in Paxman! Is that the same man who made politicians leave the studio in a huff or send them to their mommies a-weeping?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well yes I am sure he thought about what he was going to say and what questions would be asked, but that's completely normal. No one would go into an interview completely unprepared but that's different from rehearsing the interview as if it were staged. It is not as if politicians don't practice rhetoric themselves.

I think Paxman has a soft spot for him. He pulled him so far as he should have but to knock him down completely would be a bit like stamping on a puppy.

[mal4mac]

Note/moan: my gas has gone up 11.8% just before winter, apparently because of the 'costs of wholesale energy' (which has remained constant over the last five years :confused:) and the 'green taxes' that nobody has a clue about and none of the companies can even work out how much they cost (experts believe that it is negligible). :confused: 'British Gas - Looking After Your World.' Of course as a consumer I have the 'option' to switch to another group of the big six criminals who have also put their prices up likewise. Welcome to Britain.

You have the option of changing to a smaller, greener supplier, and may even pay less. If Green energy costs so much how can ecotricity charge less than the big six?

http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/

[LitNetIsGreat]

Thanks, but I've just done an estimated comparison and it works out a little more than my existing supplier.