If your’e a business and your brand is known, it doesn’t stop the desire by the company, often or at least sometimes, to rebrand. If your’e a one man business, this is no different. Russell Brand, the comedian turned so called, guru, is no exception. However much he rails against corporations or commodities, he is a business in of itself, or, rather, in of himself.
There are many who hang on the every word of this man. They may or may not have done so when he was a comedian only. They may have done so on his metamorphosis into a social media communicator. It would be interesting to see if they are staying loyal now he is being accused of rape and assault, and that of sexual predator is his new found status, according to the media coverage.
Here is a problem, the solution to which is vague or unclear. If Brand can change his reputation from that of a rather purile and overblown, trivial and self indulgent comedian, to that of a wellness and addiction, social and mental health guru, he can have his reputation changed again. And it is indeed changing. Whether open season in the open press, media and general space for free speech that is the perceived hallmark of a free country, is the right place, remains to be seen, and I am confused about.
If Brand was and is as depicted in the accusations put forward by the television programme Dispatches, and the newspaper The Sunday Times, he should be charged properly and be appearing in a court of law, not a video on You Tube. If he is not as described, and is innocent, only in that forum, would someone as controversial and inconsistent, be fairly assessed on these charges. But fairness is hard to fathom in a culture as increasingly trivial and low grade as that which unfortunately we have to such an extent today.
I am glad that this site most recently featured my tribute to Richard Attenborough in this his centenary year. I am delighted that this Forum tallies with that and takes as its reference point, the work of Peter Ustinov in this work here, that we and I do. It and they are a far cry from the Russell Brand brand. This is true whether he is good, bad or ugly, innocent, guilty or otherwise.
That his manner is not necessarily the essence of the man, has yet to be concluded or proven. That the women who describe his true private nature, have advanced the case for his being considered truly obnoxious, is evident, we have discovered. Whether it is evidence, we ought to find out. Try him in the courts of law rather than in the court of public opinion. And do so there without prejudice. At least let us hope that might be possible after such a media circus. But is it really possible in such a frenzied circumstance? Trial by media is never as worthy of a country that follows due process, as is trial by jury.
As someone who detests the macho, violent, mysoginistic aggression that is the basis for a cruelty to women that is a result of a very definite form of prejudice, and who works on this Forum to indeed eradicate or lessen such prejudice, I want these issues dealt with properly, not trivially, legally not incidentally.
If Brand is innocent let’s discover it and let him yet again rebrand. If he is guilty let’s find out and hope that he won’t be let out of the cell found for him for quite some while.