By Lewis Dowell
It’s funny how when there is a truly biting satire, that’s as accurate and sharp as it is funny, you rarely hear about it from newspapers and especially politicians. I am of course not talking about the ABC’s At Home With Julia but about the political satire Hollowmen that featured on the ABC in 2008.
Hollowmen looked at the new culture of unelected political advisors in the Australian Government, and revealed very real cynicism and hypocrisy that exists in today’s politics, whilst being extremely funny.
Episodes dealt with the Government trying to curb childhood obesity with out upsetting the recreational sports lobby’s as ‘there isn’t one sporting code in this country that isn’t currently being propped up by saturated fats and sugars’, and trying to get the independent PBS to fund an ineffectual and expensive drug, because it has been named by the media as a ‘wonder drug’.
Hollowmen outlined shared interests and genuine questions of Australia’s state of democracy, however whilst and since it aired, it has not once been mentioned by either politician or journalist at any press conference, political commentary show or even editorial columns.
Which is strikingly different to At Home With Julia which has featured on Q and A at least 3 weeks in a row, has been the bane of many a columnist, has been the question of many a talk back caller and has been discussed by many a politician and journalist, all of which has ended with the series being pulled up 2 episodes short (the ABC insists it was only a four part series, but there were 6 episodes written in total) and it will not likely be commissioned for a second series.
My biggest problem with the commentary that has featured around this sit-com is the fact that it has been labelled a satire. Satire should either reveal a truth about the specific subject matter, or deliver an opinion or stance about a subject matter. What satire isn’t, is putting on a funny voice and having sex under a flag.
Saying At Home With Julia isn’t a satire, is not me being toffee nosed and certainly isn’t and shouldn‘t be seen as a put down to the show, because I’m certain the show never sought to be a satire.
The show is essentially about a couple where the Man’s occupation has become obsolete, due to the sudden rise to power of his partner. This could have taken place many environments, such as in the corporate world and the world of media or celebrity. The makers of At Home With Julia obviously just felt that setting the show in Australian politics with real characters would give the sit-com somewhat of an edge. But just because it has real life characters doesn’t mean it’s anything more than a broad comedy, where unexpected dinner parties with fussy guests, and misunderstandings due to bad phone reception are the central premises for the episodes.
This show could have easily been done using alias’ instead of real characters and real character names, and it would receive a lot less contention because it would be recognised that the characters were fictional caricatures, and should in no way be thought of as linked to the real people. However it would seem that the makers of At Home With Julia gave the public and media too much credit, as they thought that they could keep the real names and people would still be able to work out that these were fictional characters.
I suppose the real problem is that one of the most harmless, broad and intellectually un-stimulating of comedies could become that much of a topic, when there is so much satire out there to be consumed. You just have to watch one episode of the English The Thick Of It to know what I’m talking about.
Even when the Chaser’s War on Everything was on, the only sketches and stunts focussed by those in the media were those that were simply the most offensive or dangerous, completely ignoring some of the genuine topics and hypocrisies that some of their segments raised.
This show was nothing more than The Nanny or Roseanne set in the Lodge, but somehow got confused with something that it wasn’t meant to be. What’s worse though, is that out of all the people I’ve spoken to about this, who were so quick to pass judgement, none of them had seen one episode and had based their judgement on what they had heard from the press. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion just make sure that it’s your own.
This show clearly was never meant to make any poignant points about Prime Minister Gillard’s professional or private life. It just used the public’s perception of her and her partner, as well as her colleagues and opposition to add an element to what is a humorous but broad style of comedy. To have the complaints it has that it tarnishes the office of the Prime Minister or intrudes on to her private life, means that either people haven’t seen the show or haven’t fully grasped the idea of a grotesque or caricature.
Hopefully next time a ‘satire’ is brought to the attention of the public by journalists and politicians, it’s about the questions raised by that satire.
Recent Comments