{"id":256,"date":"2017-11-15T23:02:13","date_gmt":"2017-11-16T04:02:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/?p=256"},"modified":"2017-11-15T23:02:13","modified_gmt":"2017-11-16T04:02:13","slug":"defending-satire-fawlty-powers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/uncategorized\/defending-satire-fawlty-powers\/","title":{"rendered":"Defending Satire: Fawlty Powers"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p2\">\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> Despite the massive success of <i>Monty Python<\/i>, comedy legend John Cleese decided to leave the show in the early \u201870s. Leaving behind a legacy of wildly successful<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0 <\/span>surreal comedy, he joined his fianc\u00e9 Connie Booth to work on another masterpiece, <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>, an over-the-top satire originating from observation of an extremely rude hotel-owner in Torquay, England. The show was a smash hit, voted as the best British TV show of all time by the British Film Institute in 2000. Even so, some would take that endorsement by a large media enterprise as a condemnation\u2014that it signifies the show\u2019s mainstream success is due only to the peddling of the TV industry, who forced it upon the British people to establish certain roles and preserve the status quo. Yet, the farcical <i>Fawlty Towers <\/i>manages to accomplish something entirely different, not giving viewers a consolation prize for their depressing lives of work, but instead allowing for the realization that the necessity to conform exists. <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>, at times, functions by providing enlightening hilarity, pointing out societal issues and questioning deeply-ingrained practices. Of course, the way viewers understand these social criticisms depends largely on their own environments. Nonetheless, the show ages well.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.limelightmagazine.com.au\/sites\/www.limelightmagazine.com.au\/files\/fawlty_2745808a.jpg\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> For some brief background, Basil Fawlty, played by John Cleese, and his wife, Sybil own a hotel which they run with the help of a maid named Polly, a Spanish waiter called Manuel (with comically bad English). The show centers around the interactions between the owners, workers, and their guests. <i>Fawlty Towers <\/i>does humor strikingly. So, when the plot goes wrong, it gets really absurd. Often, it is in a torrent of mistakes that laughter comes. One example comes from perhaps the most famous episode of the series, \u201cThe Germans,\u201d in which German tourists spend a couple of nights at <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>. Besides the usual barrage of slapstick, the episode is most remembered for Mr. Fawlty\u2019s hilarious reminder: \u201cDon\u2019t mention the war!\u201d After exclaiming this, Mr. Fawlty proceeds to mention World War II to the German guests in every sentence, causing one of them to cry. In the ensuing chaos, Mr. Fawlty retorts, \u201cWell, they started it!\u201d and after a denial by the guests, he responds brilliantly, \u201cYes you did, you invaded Poland!\u201d Satire produces similar moments all the time, and the laughter that these scenes create is revelatory. In \u201cThe Germans,\u201d the series makes fun of the inhibitory effects of British propriety, implicitly asking why it\u2019s necessary to focus on what should <i>not <\/i>be said, rather than doing what is natural. Surely, if Basil hadn\u2019t thought of the war throughout the guests\u2019 stay, he would never have offended them about the war (although he surely would have in some other way).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> To expound upon the corrective ability of satire, it\u2019s necessary to look to writing on the form. Some look to <i>A Handbook for Literature <\/i>by<i> <\/i>William Thrall, who writes that satire is \u201ca literary manner which blends a critical attitude with humor and wit to the end that human institutions or humanity may be improved,\u201d and that \u201cthe true satirist is conscious of the frailty of institutions of man&#8217;s devising and attempts through laughter not so much to tear them down as to inspire a remodeling\u201d (Harris, 1990). We can see these ideas exactly in \u201cThe Germans,\u201d which attacks the constricting British notion of propriety. Indeed, although the goal of <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i> is not to critique the society in which it was created, Cleese\u2019s farcical approach lends itself to social satire. One can note that Thrall insistence on remodeling, rather than tearing down, is in accord with the aforementioned episode, because the ideas that beget propriety are not attacked, but the necessity to cling to a notion of those ideas is. In other words, one can understand not mentioning World War 2 to the Germans because it would naturally cause tempers to run high; yet, the necessity to repeat to oneself not to mention the war, as a result of propriety, would be unnecessary and counterproductive to civility. The show questions a basic characteristic of the British identity with laughter.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The famous incident in &#8220;The Germans&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Don&#039;t Mention the War! | Fawlty Towers | BBC Comedy Greats\" width=\"604\" height=\"340\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/yfl6Lu3xQW0?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> Laughter, though, is controversial. Instead of seeing laughter as something that can bring positive social change and alert people of their unwitting conformation, some see the natural reaction to humor as a tool of subjugation in the modern era. For example, in his 1947 polemic, \u201cThe Culture Industry,\u201d critical theorist Theodor Adorno writes, \u201cWrong laughter copes with fear by defecting to the agencies which inspire it. It echoes the inescapability of power&#8230; In wrong society, laughter is a sickness, drawing [happiness] into society&#8217;s worthless totality\u201d (Adorno &amp; Horkheimer, 2006, p. 112). Although Adorno believes that all the laughter in the 1940s (and since) United States was of the wrong variety, he does allow for an alternative: \u201cReconciled laughter resounds with the echo of escape from power\u201d (Adorno &amp; Horkheimer, 2006, p. 112). Although acknowledging the presence of a good mode of laughter, he does not capture or allow for the revelatory laughter of satire, because he believes that \u201claughter about something is always laughter at it\u201d (Adorno &amp; Horkheimer, 2006, p. 112)<b>.<\/b> This type of thinking is not compatible with laughter of satire, because viewers laugh about and at the excessiveness of the necessity to conform, yet they laugh about their identification with that necessity, <i>not at <\/i>it. When Cleese jabs at British propriety, the viewer\u2019s laughter comes not only from the awkwardness of the situation, but also from the realization that the situation was imposed unnecessarily by a superfluous necessity to conform to what one should<i> not<\/i> do. Adorno, and thinkers like him seem to have missed that this sort of revelatory laughter exists, which satire does a brilliant job of bringing about. It is important to note that although the nature of the laughter may be revolutionary, it may not necessarily spur a person to action.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/simonparrismaninchair.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/09\/fawlty-towers-live-australia.jpg\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> A key point of a counter-argument\u2014that all laughter is a modern tool of subjugation\u2014would be that the viewers do identify with the characters. Perhaps, one could even look to the long history of English eccentrics for whom many felt nationalistic admiration. As one article puts it, \u201cWe laugh at Basil because we see ourselves in him, and if Cleese is Basil then we don&#8217;t have to admit any of the typically British uptightness is ours too\u201d (Davidson, 1995). Thinking like this implies that viewers would feel comfortable keeping their uprightness because Mr. Fawlty is an admirable scape goat, who makes even the most intransigent person seem amenable. Yet, the same article also says, \u201c[<i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>] was a fairly painful assessment of the character of the nation\u201d (Davidson, 1995). Accordingly, there is another interpretation, a more probable one given the nature and character of satire: the identification with the characters and the absurdity of the entire show allows viewers to reflect upon their own propensities and question what are really their own ideas, and what ideas society has inculcated in them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> This is the essence of the revelatory laughter. To better get at what I mean by that, one can look at the structure of <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>. The show<b> <\/b>is set such that the characters have no leisure time, which interestingly connects to Adorno, who wrote, \u201cThe only escape from the work process&#8230;is through adaption to it in leisure time\u201d (Adorno &amp; Horkheimer, 2006, p. 109). For the characters of this show, their leisure time is literally the work process; they\u2019ve adapted completely. Adorno and similar thinkers might argue that seeing these people who have it as bad as possible would make viewers feel better about their own horrendous work-life balances. Yet once again, the nature of satire can prevent people from feeling this way, instead drawing attention to the fact that many people\u2019s lives have become solely about work. <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>, with its all-out expansion of work,<i> <\/i>calls into question this social construct. In a similar vein, the show, through Basil\u2019s ludicrous attempts to climb the social hierarchy, questions a focus on social status. Despite the fact that he already owns a hotel, Basil comes off as a petty and unhappy man. In \u201cA Touch of Class,\u201d for example, Lord Melbury comes to the hotel, and Basil accordingly treats him better than any other guest. By the end of the episode, though, it is revealed that Melbury is a thieving imposter. The show portrays the necessity to reach the top of the hierarchy as something futile and unworthy through a comedy of obsequiousness.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The full episode of &#8220;A Touch of Class&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=MOQkDpWbuAA<\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> Additionally, <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i> exhibits carnivalesque properties that beget revelatory laughter. So far, this essay has discussed how <i>Fawlty Towers\u2019 <\/i>outrageousness was cause for such laughter, but there is also cause for laughter in the reversal of traditional relations, some of which are not completely overdone. Mainly, <i>Fawlty Towers <\/i>has three: the reversed power dynamic of Basil and his wife, the socially unacceptable reactions to the guests by the hosts, and the fact that the most sane person seems to be an art student. Of course in the traditional household, the man asserts dominance over the woman, but in the Fawlty\u2019s relationship, Sybil incessantly tells Basil what to do, and Basil takes his frustration out on the guests treating them like they\u2019re unwelcome pockets of annoyance. The show clearly portrays the art student, Polly the maid, as the most sane of any of the characters, contrasting the \u201cimpotence\u201d (Adorno &amp; Horkheimer, 2006, p. 106) Adorno predicts for people who don\u2019t conform to the prevailing economic system. The less pronounced reversals in the husband-wife relationship and Polly\u2019s portrayal, especially in comparison to the complementary ridiculousness of Mr. Fawlty himself, reveal to viewers that such interactions are in fact very possible, that conforming to those traditional standards is not the only option. The show accomplishes this with a hilarious juxtaposition of moderation and ostentatiousness.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> But what about the fact that <i>Fawlty Towers <\/i>was made in the \u201870s in Britain? One BBC article (&#8220;What&#8217;s the point of satire?&#8221;, 2015), which focuses on morality, says, because of the globalized nature of the modern world, satire can no longer be effective; the varying notions of morality across culture prevent satire from working as a corrective. However, the fallacy in this type of thinking comes from the following idea: \u201cif satire aims at the moral reform of a given society it can only be effective within that particular society\u201d (&#8220;What&#8217;s the point of satire?&#8221;, 2015). Cleese himself once said of <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>, \u201cThe characters are in some way archetypes; they&#8217;re the types that crop up in all the different cultures\u201d (An Interview With John Cleese &#8211; Fawlty Towers Special Features, 2014). The British idea propriety doesn&#8217;t come to an average American\u2019s mind when an average American watches the show. Yet, the viewer can still learn from the corrective trends of the satire (which aren\u2019t always overtly moral), and choose exactly what to take away. I hope not to make this an argument about morality, but there are some similar moral characteristics of almost all prominent cultures in the world. For example, impropriety is considered disrespectful across cultures. Yes, the definition of impropriety may change, but with satire, the area of insight remains similar, especially for those who have an idea of what is being satirized<b>.<\/b> In this specific example, of course the attack on British propriety in <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i> is pertinent to many cultures, because it makes them question their own notions of propriety. Their laughter illuminates such ideas.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The interview with Cleese about\u00a0<em>Fawlty Towers<\/em><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"An Interview With John Cleese\" width=\"604\" height=\"453\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/bvtQHdnHqJI?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\"> The pinnacle of great farce, <i>Fawlty Towers <\/i>will be remembered as a hilarious English cultural product. At times, viewers were treated to hilarious displays of original slapstick. Other times, they laughed at Basil and the rest of the characters\u2019 shortcomings. Some of that laughter was revelatory; Cleese took jabs at existing British social constructs, showing viewers their existence. Even with that focus, Brits were not the only ones to benefit from <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i>, as it became a worldwide phenomenon. Unfortunately, after the show ended, Cleese said, \u201cI can never do better than <i>Fawlty Towers<\/i> no matter what I do. Now I very much want to teach young talent some rules of the game\u201d (\u201cJohn Cleese \u2014 minister of comedic talk\u201d, 2006). Here\u2019s to hoping the young talent learns.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">This essay was read by Ian Pultz-Earle. It is not a first draft.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p5\"><span class=\"s1\">Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\">Adorno, T., &amp; Horkheimer, M. (2006). <i>Dialectic of enlightenment<\/i> (pp. 94-136). Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>An Interview With John Cleese &#8211; Fawlty Towers Special Features<\/i>. (2014). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=JEwoHwMCkVA<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\">Davidson, A. (1995). <i>ARTS: TO HELL WITH BASIL<\/i>. <i>The Independent<\/i>. Retrieved 13 November 2017, from http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/arts-entertainment\/arts-to-hell-with-basil-1619527.html<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\">Harris, R. (1990). <i>The Purpose and Method of Satire<\/i>. <i>VirtualSalt<\/i>. Retrieved 13 November 2017, from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.virtualsalt.com\/satire.htm\"><span class=\"s2\">http:\/\/www.virtualsalt.com\/satire.htm<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\">John Cleese \u2014 minister of comedic talk. (2006). Retrieved November 15, 2017, from http:\/\/www.today.com\/id\/13280209\/ns\/today-today_entertainment\/t\/john-cleese-minister-comedic-talk\/#.Wgz_YxOPKHo<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"p6\"><span class=\"s1\"><i>What&#8217;s the point of satire?<\/i>. (2015). <i>BBC News<\/i>. Retrieved 13 November 2017, from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/magazine-31442441\"><span class=\"s2\">http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/magazine-31442441<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Despite the massive success of Monty Python, comedy legend John Cleese decided to leave the show in the early \u201870s. Leaving behind a legacy of wildly successful\u00a0 surreal comedy, he joined his fianc\u00e9 Connie Booth to work on another masterpiece, Fawlty Towers, an over-the-top satire originating from observation of an extremely rude hotel-owner in Torquay, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/uncategorized\/defending-satire-fawlty-powers\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Defending Satire: Fawlty Powers<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1683,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1683"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=256"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":258,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256\/revisions\/258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.williams.edu\/f18-engl117-01\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}