Talk:Les Guignols

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality problems[edit]

"the Guignols have largely contributed to the decline of French politics over the last decade", It is not really neutral, I think it should be reformulate or agrgumented.


"The Guignols generally represents a left-of-center political outlook, with an anti-American tinge, especially directed at George W. Bush and the United States armed forces."

I've decided to move this sentence since I feel that it isn't correct.

To what extent isn't it correct ? Mrbluesky

Sorry, I have put back the offending part, I hadn't seen it was in the discussion. If someone remove it again I won't do anything until the discussion is resolved here. I watch regularly this TV show, and I can say they are prone to American bashing, however this is rarely completely gratuitous, there is often a relevent idea behind it. Fafner 07:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true that they sometimes are very critical against the United States. However, I feel that criticizing America and/or George Bush is not done very often, they focus much more on France and French politicians. I think that including these sentences would be implying that les Guignols focuses on saying bad things about America, which I feel is a relatively minor part of the show. I still think that the sentences should be deleted. If you say that they are anti-American, then in my opinion it would be more true to say that they are anti-French when you see how they portray the situation in France and it's leaders.

They are mostly "anti-everything" in my opinion :-D They are constantly showing what is not good. I have no time right now, but I will see to make it evident in the article that they are not focusing on USA exterior politics, unless someone beats me on this ;-) Fafner 09:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (of course, I cannot remember the name) noticed that the United States were the only country represented by one puppet (based on Sly), in a nearly constantly agressive way. This same character appears to be the head military, economic, strategic, news, etc. leader of the States, ironically "puppeting" the legal president. This presentation dates back from the Clinton administration.

Furthermore, I can personally testify that on the evening of September 11th, 2001 attacks, a sequence strongly suggested thet Islamic terrorists were not the real agressors and that the news had been heavily manipulated. That doesn't seem like deep love for the US for me. Mrbluesky 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally did not see the September 11th edition of les Guignols. But the thing is that they make fun of everything, and provoking the viewers is something they love to do. This is a show that should not be taken too seriously. I agree with Fafner that they are anti-evrything. And nobody has said that they love the US.

I think that the new version of the text is better. A more accurate description of les Guignols.

J-C V

They are chooting every thing.They even make fun of there hone bosses,several times.for exemple when canal+ baut the rights for the french footbal for 500 million €,or when the old president left.If they are anti-american they are also anti-canal+.Can you imagine foxnews making fun of merdock?And for the september 11 thing i can't testify ither but it's ther style.--Ruber chiken 01:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name is Murdock. The later observation is rather irrelevant, though, since The Simpsons, a Fox program, has continually mocked Murdoch since their beginning.
However, you could fancy that if the Guignols truly were anti-everything, they would mock the main world powers, as strongly as they berate Americans. Obviously, you will not see many anti-Russian nor anti-Chinese tirades on air.
If you did, however, these critics would be aimed at Chinese governments, not people. That is a huge difference. Les Guignols have been critcized for ignoring that. If you want some more details about the 9/11 episode, I woul dbe glad to tell, as I have a very vivid recollection of that night. Mrbluesky 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who was living (still am) in Paris on 9-11, I can vouch for the veracity of Mr Bluesky's observations.
The following article, excerpted from a book on anti-Americanism in France (in French), confirms that it is misleading to say (and think) that les Guignols are fair and that they make fun of everything in a uniform way as a matter of course.
Their treatment of Americans (whatever their leanings) is far different (i.e., far more scornful) than that of, say, Russians, Chinese, and Iraqis, and, as the article argues, takes on the entire American people. For example, every school shooting in America is presented as symbolic of the entire American nation. And on 9-11 (or within days), les Guignols had their Bush and Stallone puppets gleefully rubbing their hands at the deed, marveling that now they had a pretext for going to war; something that is relentless and goes on to this day. (In contrast Osama Ben laden appears almost sympathetic.) Needless to say, the pacifists who opposed the war were never treated to the type of opprobrium that Uncle Sam was in for (for exemple, few to no complaints about French, German, Russian, and/or Chinese greed and those nations' oil dealings with Saddam Hussein).
Non-American events, as a general rule, are treated quite differently. Thus, in April 2002, a German teen-ager gunned down 16 people in his Erfungen school before turning the gun on himself. And a month earlier, a Frenchman opened fire in a building in Nanterre, killing eight local representatives.
Both events were entirely avoided by les Guignols (no referrals to plots, no "jokes" about contented politicians or cynical election ploys, no suggestions that this was due to Europe's basic civilisation, or lack thereof). ˜˜˜˜
The German town is called Erfurt, not Erfungen, and unlike Virginia Tech or Columbine, the school shooting was the first of its kind in German history (at least to my knowlegde). --Le petit prince 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the link added to the page "stallone and les guignols" should not be included. It is just someone's view. They used to be depicted as the "meilleurs éditorialistes de France" (best editor of France) and I really don't think that the fact Stallone is depicted as a symbol of some kind of evil corporate is a proof of american bashing : the vatican people and more generally any kind of huge corporation is depicted as stallone. he's more a symbol of a power/money/believes addict than anything else. Therefore I'm propose to delete this link. (Dseddah 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Djamé)[reply]

And I am putting Stallone & les Guignols back in, Dseddah. The Erik Svane text was published in Le Monde itself and, if I am not mistaken, that is (or should be) good enough for Wikipedia. Asteriks 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Mrbluesky, about the 9/11 show, I think I remember a Columbo puppet coming in and questionning the islamists extremists involvment, but it was consistent with the various rumors that were in the air then (the most persisting one was that the Flight 93 was shot down by the US military) As for the Mr Sylvestre archetype, it has also been used to depict non-americans such as Muslim, Jewish and Catholic leaders. At last, the emphasis on American events only follows the medias that cover the US's news more than any other contries's events outside France : Les Guignols are originally meant to be a parody of the medias and the way they relay the informations rather than a comment of these informations,though it's obvious the autors often cross this line. (My apologies for my godawful english) Gabknight2005 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in a documentary on anti-Americanism on PBS, the Guignols creators admit openly that their Stallone is representative of all of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteriks (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14. Jun. 2007
Your two links are covering a very specific aspect of the lemma (anti-Americanism), therefore they may be well suited as footnotes for the passage on criticism of the Guignols, but not as external links (see WP:EL). I'd appreciate it if you could reformat them as footnotes by using the <ref>-tag. - Kind regards, Le petit prince 13:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the links to a footnote and added the "citations needed"- and "neutrality"-template to the rest of the passage on criticism (we definitely need sources for these kinds of statements!). --Le petit prince 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Les Guignols may have been France's "best editorialists" twelve years ago but they certainly do not deserve this appreciation anymore. The show has definitely become ultra-leftist in tone, and their anti-americanism has been downright hateful for some years now. IMHO, they have become some of the unfunniest, biggest demagogue shits on french television. Wedineinheck 10:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a beginner here, but do you realise you put this diatribe in a section called "Neutrality problems" ?
I also suggest you work on your text : " The show's treatment of Nicolas Sarkozy has been criticized as being excessively partisan, aggressive and humorless". It's clearly subjective, and only relies on forums (on the comments of a dozen of people and not on official, sanctionned polls) - plus the use of "partisan" is redundant since the term appears a few words earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.47.155 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is just a talk page, and this is "IMHO". ;) I agree that forums are not the best sources, and I removed them. However, the fact that the show's vision is biased is completely NPOV, and admitted by its authors. i.e. Bruno Gaccio : « Ça fait cinq ans qu'on rit avec Sarko, ça suffit. Là, on ne rit plus avec, on rit contre. » pour finir par « S'il y avait une influence des Guignols , Besancenot serait à 17 % dans les sondages » . What must be avoided is to give the impression that Les Guignols are a "consensual" show. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some people don't understand what the world "caricature" means. It means "exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing", Mr Sylvestre is a caricature, and not a caricature of the America, as some pointed out, but a caricature of the first world power. It's not supposed to be taken litterally, just like the Simpsons or South Park. Would you critizise South Park for giving a wrong representation of american schools ? Come on... The authors of the guignols don't like Sarkozy. Right. And so what ? Are supposed to pretend they like him ? Are they supposed to say he's the best president ever ? Imo they are too sweet with him. They're not journalist, they don't have any duty of objectivity. They have one duty, and it's to make the audience laughs (which, I admit, they're not good at, as they used to be)Obviously, you critizise the Guignols for being what they are. For being leftist, for being against Bush policy, for not being catholics. Do you know what the word "freedom of speech" means ? The accusation of making Ben Laden sympathetic is ridiculous and almost libelous. A muslim who hides on a island full of women, which he calls "bitch" ("spèce de counasse") is sympathetic ? Because the viewer laughs instead of being frighten ? And next time you will accuse Charlie Chaplin of making Hitler "sympathetic" ? lallo 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind about humour per se; I do when it ceases to be humor and becomes propaganda (and unfunny propaganda, IMHO). Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have writtten before, the following article, excerpted from a book on anti-Americanism in France (in French), confirms that it is misleading to say (and to think) that les Guignols are fair and that they make fun of everything in a uniform way as a matter of course: Stallone & les Guignols by Erik Svane…

The Guignols' treatment of Americans (whatever their leanings) is far different (i.e., far more scornful) than that of, say, Russians, Chinese, and Iraqis, and, as the article argues, takes on the entire American people. For example, every school shooting in America is presented as symbolic of the entire American nation. And on 9-11 (or within days), les Guignols had their Bush and Stallone puppets gleefully rubbing their hands at the deed, marveling that now they had a pretext for going to war; something that is relentless and goes on to this day. (In contrast Osama Ben laden appears almost sympathetic.) Needless to say, the pacifists who opposed the war were never treated to the type of opprobrium that Uncle Sam was in for (for exemple, few to no complaints about French, German, Russian, and/or Chinese greed and those nations' oil dealings with Saddam Hussein).

Non-American events, as a general rule, are treated quite differently. Thus, in April 2002, a German teen-ager gunned down 16 people in his Erfurt school before turning the gun on himself. And a month earlier, a Frenchman opened fire in a building in Nanterre, killing eight local representatives. Both events were entirely avoided by les Guignols (no referrals to plots, no "jokes" about contented politicians or cynical election ploys, no suggestions that this was due to Europe's basic civilisation, or lack thereof).

Regarding lallo's comment, here is an excerpt from the Svane book: "Certains prétendent que la marionnette de Stallone ne caricaturerait pas le peuple américain, mais bien leurs dirigeants politiques, les commandants militaires, les chefs des grandes multinationales, etc, et que ce sont contre ces leaders, et non le peuple entier, que l'on se défend… Or, nous avons vu que ce type de discours n'a rien de neuf : il se trouve que ces arguments soutiennent la présente thèse, car en d'autres mots, ses adeptes appellent les leaders américains racistes, barbares, sans sentiments humains, et avides de pouvoir et de dollars. Or, si de tels monstres (le mot n'est pas trop fort) sont au pouvoir depuis un demi-siècle, il s'ensuit logiquement que les sujets qui les ont élus peuvent difficilement être, dans leur vaste majorité, autre chose que… bêtes, avides, racistes, ou tout du moins (criminellement?) inconscients, et donc qu'ils sont quelque part, eux aussi — directement ou indirectement —, des monstres." Asteriks (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As an American, fluent in French, who has been crossing the Atlantic since the 70's, I think some contributors are allowing their lack of perspective or knowledge of Europe to color their attitudes.

It is a disservice to Wikipedia to frame this article in American terms - the world is not America. While from an American perspective, the show might be considered left-leaning, it is actually rather middle-of-the-road from a European perspective. There is a universal consensus in Europe about many topics that are controversial in the States, such as gun control, for example. Europeans are actually shocked - rightly or wrongly - that gun control is a controversial subject in the US.

Americans have no monopoly on stereotypical treatment on the program. Putin and Chavez, for example, are consistently pictured in a highly unfavorable light. Bin Laden is pictured not sympathetically, but as an unprincipled manipulator of opinion - hardly flattering for a figure whose desired image is of religious moralism.

Concerning French politics, every political party, from extreme left to extreme right, is treated satirically, criticized for its leaders' most telling and unattractive traits. Portraying Jospin as a spoilt kid, or Royal as obsessed with the polls, can hardly be described as a pro-left bias. In fact, many analysts pointed to right-wing Chirac's portrayal on the show as being one of the contributing factors to his reelection.

It's true the right has been in power (or shared power) in France for virtually the show's entire run, so it is hardly surprising that the ruling right government dominates the satirical news - just as it dominates the "real" news. The program is indeed satirical, and its target is Power, and power's spoon-fed control of "correct-thinking". It is certainly mainstream satire, attacking left and right relentlessly.

It targets the "politically correct" points of view of the politicians and media (mostly French) that are visible in France. Therefore, in its treatment of American subjects, its target is most often the American politicians who are featured on French news, and the expressions of American power in he world. Its target is not Fox News, which French viewers are completely unfamiliar with, but more CNN International (itself quite different from CNN USA) - this is but one example of why framing the article in American terms is ridiculous. David Vaughn 77.198.51.226 (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

This article should be kept as it is, but Las noticias del guiñol is only the Spanish version of this same French show. So, it doesn't make sense to keep Las noticias del guiñol as an article by its own. All its content, which only deals with the Spanish version of the show, should be added here, in a Spanish section or something similar. Kintaro (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Les Guignols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Gildas?[edit]

Following his decease yesterday, I was surprised not to see the name of one of the leading lights of the operation missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.135.238 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Les_Guignols&oldid=1198517962"