Russell Brand destroys MSNBC host

They did that at the start of the interview and he picked them up for it. Read my post again, i was talking about where they are talking about Joe not being there and they refer to >>Joe>russell

comprendé capitan

Seems like a decent fellow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:08 AM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:03 AM, delet... said:

at what point did he destroy anyone. I thought that they were all being good natured while he took the piss out of them.

Aye, I've wondered that - On my twitter feed, people on facebook and here people all used the word 'destroyed'. "Questioned", seems more apt

 

It could be that american people already hear in the english accent haughty contempt*. Add to that a wide vocabulary and perhaps viewing a simple chat to promo a show, becomes some kind of mythic didact unleashing wrath upon the simple peasants.

hehe.

* don't get upset at this, expurgate the thought from your minds americans, as i'm clearly just playing around.

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:15 AM, delet... said:

They did that at the start of the interview and he picked them up for it. Read my post again, i was talking about where they are talking about Joe not being there and they refer to >>Joe<< as him. And russell misunderstands this as them talking about him >>russell<<. I've seen him do similar things in other interviews, he waits for a time where he can complain about being attacked, it's part of his schtick. Whether it's justified or not it moves the situation further into the russell zone.

 

comprendé capitan

??

I did see him bombing Joe though. The second Joe wanted to tell something, Brand went on to address all those people behind him. Good way to put Joe back in his cage.

On the third perspective thing there was certainly a huge part about Russel instead of Joe. Can't remember the Joe bit, but the part where Russel went into that storyline was justified, imo. (starting 5.05 and on, that was not about Joe, right?)

Anyone who can't understand what's being said unless you see the speaker's lips moving, or them acting in a Judd Apatow film, is clearly a moron. Also, Russell looks just like Nigella Lawson.

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:53 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:08 AM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:03 AM, delet... said:

at what point did he destroy anyone. I thought that they were all being good natured while he took the piss out of them.

Aye, I've wondered that - On my twitter feed, people on facebook and here people all used the word 'destroyed'. "Questioned", seems more apt

 

It could be that american people already hear in the english accent haughty contempt*. Add to that a wide vocabulary and perhaps viewing a simple chat to promo a show, becomes some kind of mythic didact unleashing wrath upon the simple peasants.

 

hehe.

 

 

* don't get upset at this, expurgate the thought from your minds americans, as i'm clearly just playing around.

 

destroy as in turn turn her from a TV personality into a person who didn't look like they belonged anywhere near a camera

  On 6/19/2013 at 12:58 PM, RadarJammer said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:53 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:08 AM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:03 AM, delet... said:

at what point did he destroy anyone. I thought that they were all being good natured while he took the piss out of them.

Aye, I've wondered that - On my twitter feed, people on facebook and here people all used the word 'destroyed'. "Questioned", seems more apt

 

It could be that american people already hear in the english accent haughty contempt*. Add to that a wide vocabulary and perhaps viewing a simple chat to promo a show, becomes some kind of mythic didact unleashing wrath upon the simple peasants.

 

hehe.

 

 

* don't get upset at this, expurgate the thought from your minds americans, as i'm clearly just playing around.

 

destroy as in turn turn her from a TV personality into a person who didn't look like they belonged anywhere near a camera

 

Noone on morning Joe needs to be near a camera or a microphone. That show serves only to give the writers of the daily show somewhere other than fox to cherrypick quotes to 'destroy'. heh .,..

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:18 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Seems like a decent fellow.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

goddamn he's quick on his toes...especially when he fields the question about media and celebrity...

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:53 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:08 AM, mcbpete said:

 

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:03 AM, delet... said:

at what point did he destroy anyone. I thought that they were all being good natured while he took the piss out of them.

Aye, I've wondered that - On my twitter feed, people on facebook and here people all used the word 'destroyed'. "Questioned", seems more apt

 

It could be that american people already hear in the english accent haughty contempt*. Add to that a wide vocabulary and perhaps viewing a simple chat to promo a show, becomes some kind of mythic didact unleashing wrath upon the simple peasants.

 

hehe.

 

* don't get upset at this, expurgate the thought from your minds americans, as i'm clearly just playing around.

No you're correct, the American public has stopped giving a shit about what words actually mean and how to use them. They also gravitate to buzzwords they often don't understand: for example a couple years ago everybody on talk-shows started using the word "unequivocally" as if they were flaunting a high intellect.

For instance, I keep seeing that Kanye promo video that is a pastiche of the Huey Lewis and The News axe murder scene, but every media outlet refers to it as "inspired' which isn't an accurate description at all.

This is like a confused, awkward version of this interview - you can say Jon Stewart "destroyed" these hosts because it brought a lot of negative attention on the show, which was cancelled within a year, after being on since 1982.

  On 6/19/2013 at 11:18 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

Seems like a decent fellow.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_LHuII-jYQ

Thanks for the link, my opinion of him just went up quite a bit. Not that I'm gonna run out to see any of his shows or movies anytime soon but he's at least 50x more reasonable/rational/articulate than the average infotainment industry hack out there today.

Oh yeah, don't even concern yourself with his films - I'm quite a fan of his work and even I won't even consider his films as anything other than bunkum

I don't get how he does so well with the ladies

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ah, this and the mcafee video have made my morning.

Decent

The thing about Brand is that, while he may initially sound like a twat, and while he sometimes says very silly things, he is a very intelligent guy with an extremely quick wit who spends an enormous amount of time crafting his message, which usually happens to be a very sincere comment or critique on contemporary culture. The most amazing thing about him in my opinion is how quickly he processes questions or body language to come back with a smart retort. He's a bit much to handle in large doses but he's equal parts style and substance (and the outrageous style thing is a device).

Good points!

What I think is a bit funny, to the point of being incongruent, is that he spends an awful lot of time on how he looks and comes across ( on tv and in real life as well; see that youtube about him meeting up with that homeless guy where he shows how much time and effort he spends on himself constructing his looks, for instance), while at the same time he half humorously argues at the msnbc interview that people pay too much attention to the superficial messages and not enough to actual content. He's completely ambivalent, imo. On both accounts he comes across sincere. Almost to the point where it becomes incongruent. Well, to me anyways.

Imo, his biggest talent might be improv. Like he's incredibly good to stay within the moment and keep control over it. Which is similar to your point on his processing speed. Although I might wrongfully attach some control to it. The irony is of course that a former drug addict might be anything but someone with a talent for controlling himself. At best, it is an acquired talent. For which he deserves all the credits.

He's full of contradictions and paradoxes.

agreed about the contradictions and paradoxes, one other is the fact that he seems quite masculine in appearance and dress, but also very effeminate in many ways. I remember reading some of his verbal gushing during his marriage to Katy Perry in India and was thinking wtf, how could any woman stand such a chatty-Kathy, effeminate guy? Not to mention that he squeals like a girl very convincingly in those vids, and swings both ways in Get Him to the Greek. Despite the heavy jaw and rock-star attire, he's actually quite ambiguous (and perhaps, even a bit unnerving) sexually.

Women love that kind of shit. He has invented his own kind of metrosexualism. Similar to women liking Beckham, I think. Beckham has these ambiguities as well. The discrepancy between his manly looks and soft effeminate voice for instance. Heck, even wacko jacko was able to pull that off. Women love that shit.

let's do some algebra

russell brand = a pile of stool samples thrown out by the local AIDS specialist hospital = A

MSNBC hosts = a pile of rubbish thrown out by the local McDonalds restaurant = B

let's throw A at B and see what happens.

1....2...3... go

A destroyed B, but B has been multiplied by A to create C

C = the smell of Esther Rantzen's pussy divided by the stench of a scottish highlander's hairy kilted arse

"She's a shaaft-graaspah," jesus!

  On 6/20/2013 at 5:55 AM, goDel said:

Good points!

 

What I think is a bit funny, to the point of being incongruent, is that he spends an awful lot of time on how he looks and comes across ( on tv and in real life as well; see that youtube about him meeting up with that homeless guy where he shows how much time and effort he spends on himself constructing his looks, for instance), while at the same time he half humorously argues at the msnbc interview that people pay too much attention to the superficial messages and not enough to actual content. He's completely ambivalent, imo. On both accounts he comes across sincere. Almost to the point where it becomes incongruent. Well, to me anyways.

Imo, his biggest talent might be improv. Like he's incredibly good to stay within the moment and keep control over it. Which is similar to your point on his processing speed. Although I might wrongfully attach some control to it. The irony is of course that a former drug addict might be anything but someone with a talent for controlling himself. At best, it is an acquired talent. For which he deserves all the credits.

 

He's full of contradictions and paradoxes.

How is it contradictory to spend time and effort on the way you look, but tell people that they shouldn't judge a persons character or message by their looks?

What does a man look like? For that matter, what does a straight man look like? What does a gay man look like? Does looking feminine make you less of a man?

Also, wtf does "unnerving sexually" mean?

clearly it means I'm a repressed homosexual myself, in denial.

oooh, Russell

It's contradictory when you take what he says as "looks are unimportant" while he actually does: "I'll just spend an extra hour working on my looks before I get out of my house". If you take it as "you people shouldn't judge a book on its cover"...yeah, that's a different story. I "read" his remark as more like "looks are unimportant". ...etc

He clearly says that the way he looks is not important, but that his message and character are what is actually important.

  On 6/20/2013 at 7:40 PM, lumpenprol said:

clearly it means I'm a repressed homosexual myself, in denial.

 

 

 

oooh, Russell

Well, I don't understand what you are getting at.