[Humour] Jerry Sadowitz gig cancelled at Edinburgh Fringe

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Bernard Manning had a Rolls Royce, left a million pound estate and his Asian neighbour, a local GP, of 25 years delivered the eulogy at his funeral.

Clearly a happy medium can be reached………

Is that the Asian neighbour he kicked in the nuts over the chickens egg?

 

[Stato]

I quite liked Brian Logan's piece in The Guardian on this fuss:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ry-sadowitz-cancelled-show-comedy-free-speech

The last line about the warning in the title of JS's show reminded me of Stewart Lee's schtick about 'Don't Bring Your Friends'. Its something he has done for years and, he has explained that he sets up some deliberately weakish bit of material, that he knows isn't going to get much of a reaction in order to manufacture the position where he can rail against his own audience and get laughs from his character's intellectually superior snobbery. Here's a clip of him doing it: (Yes, he probably is describing me as the kind of person who likes him at the end of that clip.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrkPNwSRxtM

The first time I saw Lee he was supporting Sadowitz. That was over thirty years ago. About a decade on from that in 2002 Lee wrote this poem / short story: https://www.stewartlee.co.uk/written-for-love/ill-only-go-if-you-throw-glass/ for the book 'Sit Down Comedy', partly inspired by his time with Sadowitz on that tour. As you can see from the bottom of the page, it was written in tribute to a lot of alternative acts who were mostly too individual to get or perhaps even want mainstream success.

Upon re-reading it, I was surprised how relevant it is to the situation that Sadowitz now finds himself. For decades he played to small audiences who mostly understood the intent behind the outrage and, although quite a few people had problems with the content, criticism of what he was doing was usually framed with an appreciation of the context in which he was doing it. As Logan's piece indicates, context is no longer seen as an acceptable excuse. This is partly because there is far more awareness of the potential for unintended consequences of well meaning, but easily misinterpreted or misused comedy. (E.g. Stephen K Amos has said that every racist ephitet written by Johnny Speight to portray the bigotry of Alf Garnett was stripped of context and used to insult him in a school playground the next day). However it's also because the way that comedy is now consumed: in corporate sponsored venues and cut up clips on the internet means that niche is no more and, in effect, everybody is bringing their friends.

 

[Machiavelli]

I quite liked Brian Logan's piece in The Guardian on this fuss:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ry-sadowitz-cancelled-show-comedy-free-speech

The last line about the warning in the title of JS's show reminded me of Stewart Lee's schtick about 'Don't Bring Your Friends'. Its something he has done for years and, he has explained that he sets up some deliberately weakish bit of material, that he knows isn't going to get much of a reaction in order to manufacture the position where he can rail against his own audience and get laughs from his character's intellectually superior snobbery. Here's a clip of him doing it: (Yes, he probably is describing me as the kind of person who likes him at the end of that clip.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrkPNwSRxtM

The first time I saw Lee he was supporting Sadowitz. That was over thirty years ago. About a decade on from that in 2002 Lee wrote this poem / short story: https://www.stewartlee.co.uk/written-for-love/ill-only-go-if-you-throw-glass/ for the book 'Sit Down Comedy', partly inspired by his time with Sadowitz on that tour. As you can see from the bottom of the page, it was written in tribute to a lot of alternative acts who were mostly too individual to get or perhaps even want mainstream success.

Upon re-reading it, I was surprised how relevant it is to the situation that Sadowitz now finds himself. For decades he played to small audiences who mostly understood the intent behind the outrage and, although quite a few people had problems with the content, criticism of what he was doing was usually framed with an appreciation of the context in which he was doing it. As Logan's piece indicates, context is no longer seen as an acceptable excuse. This is partly because there is far more awareness of the potential for unintended consequences of well meaning, but easily misinterpreted or misused comedy. (E.g. Stephen K Amos has said that every racist ephitet written by Johnny Speight to portray the bigotry of Alf Garnett was stripped of context and used to insult him in a school playground the next day). However it's also because the way that comedy is now consumed: in corporate sponsored venues and cut up clips on the internet means that niche is no more and, in effect, everybody is bringing their friends.

Thanks for this. Will trawl through that poem when I get some time.
I've never seen JS, and am still unsure as to whether.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I quite liked Brian Logan's piece in The Guardian on this fuss:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ry-sadowitz-cancelled-show-comedy-free-speech

The last line about the warning in the title of JS's show reminded me of Stewart Lee's schtick about 'Don't Bring Your Friends'. Its something he has done for years and, he has explained that he sets up some deliberately weakish bit of material, that he knows isn't going to get much of a reaction in order to manufacture the position where he can rail against his own audience and get laughs from his character's intellectually superior snobbery. Here's a clip of him doing it: (Yes, he probably is describing me as the kind of person who likes him at the end of that clip.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrkPNwSRxtM

The first time I saw Lee he was supporting Sadowitz. That was over thirty years ago. About a decade on from that in 2002 Lee wrote this poem / short story: https://www.stewartlee.co.uk/written-for-love/ill-only-go-if-you-throw-glass/ for the book 'Sit Down Comedy', partly inspired by his time with Sadowitz on that tour. As you can see from the bottom of the page, it was written in tribute to a lot of alternative acts who were mostly too individual to get or perhaps even want mainstream success.

Upon re-reading it, I was surprised how relevant it is to the situation that Sadowitz now finds himself. For decades he played to small audiences who mostly understood the intent behind the outrage and, although quite a few people had problems with the content, criticism of what he was doing was usually framed with an appreciation of the context in which he was doing it. As Logan's piece indicates, context is no longer seen as an acceptable excuse. This is partly because there is far more awareness of the potential for unintended consequences of well meaning, but easily misinterpreted or misused comedy. (E.g. Stephen K Amos has said that every racist ephitet written by Johnny Speight to portray the bigotry of Alf Garnett was stripped of context and used to insult him in a school playground the next day). However it's also because the way that comedy is now consumed: in corporate sponsored venues and cut up clips on the internet means that niche is no more and, in effect, everybody is bringing their friends.

I get where you are coming from as a fan. Presumably though he could solve the issues you mention by appearing only in non corporate sponsored venues, not allowing his shows to be filmed for you tube etc and only selling tickets to people who want to be involved with the in joke ? Appearing at the Fringe isn’t that niche and people just looking for a good comedy night out can’t really be blamed when it is JS who has put himself on their radar rather than the other way around.

 

[Brovion]

there are surely all sorts of free choices being made

The venue has the right to put on who they like and cancel those they dont like
the audience has the right to attend or leave
the comedian has the right to say what he likes within the law

By the venue cancelling this comedian no one is restricting his right to free speech. He has every right to hire a venue himself and put on his own show if he cant do it anywhere else

Exactly. As someone else said this is NOT censorship, censorship is when governments tell venues what they can or can't stage and tell performers/writers what they can or can't say. That isn't the case here. (Although I am firmly on Sadowitz's side, even though I'm not a fan). This is just about a business working out which side its bread is buttered and acting accordingly.

It's a bit like when someone posts something on NSC that is outside what the site owner allows. The post is deleted and the offending poster grumbles about 'free speech' when it's nothing to do with it. There is nothing to stop a disgruntled NSC user from setting up their own site (as some have done in the past) where they can say whatever they like. That's free speech.

 

[Stato]

I've never seen JS, and am still unsure as to whether.

I can understand the ambivalence. After seeing him once and laughing an awful lot on the night, I've never felt the urge to go and see him again. Jimmy Carr has spoken about his favourite audience reaction being a laugh followed by a sound of disapproval. He argues that its a pure response because, although, you know that you shouldn't laugh, you just had to. I see it more as the equivalent of laughing at somebody being hurt in an unusal way out of shock and surprise. After the shock, your empathy kicks in. Most of us like to think of ourselves in terms of the second part of the reaction, not the first, but the first is inside us all and it can be uncomfortable to be confronted with that truth about yourself. Sadowitz carefully protects his material because he knows that it relies on surprise. His act is designed to discomfort his audience and make them consider their own responses. As an old geezer with a family, I'm become far thinner skinned than I was as a twentysomething and I don't feel like paying to see art that's going to remind that I can sometimes lack in empathy. I've a wife and kids who can do that for free, whether I asked for it or not.

 

[Stato]

I get where you are coming from as a fan. Presumably though he could solve the issues you mention by appearing only in non corporate sponsored venues, not allowing his shows to be filmed for you tube etc and only selling tickets to people who want to be involved with the in joke ? Appearing at the Fringe isn’t that niche and people just looking for a good comedy night out can’t really be blamed when it is JS who has put himself on their radar rather than the other way around.

It seems to me that as far as he has control, he has taken all of the actions that you suggest. That's why it has taken so long for him to be involved in this kind of brouhaha. I think that the advent of social media has shifted the power balance between audience and performer and that where venues / commissioners would previously have sided with performer choices, they are now more wary of, and responsive to, audience complaints. Post Savile, post Me-Too, post George Floyd, etc. a nuanced argument about using bigotry in context to elicit a reaction from an audience, can just sound a bit inadequate and elitist and the last thing anybody wants to be labelled as is an elitist.

The thing is that, in a way, we are all elitists in our own particular area of expertise, but everyone is too scared to tell anyone else that they just don't understand something enough. As Brighton fans we all know this to be true. We've all lost count of the times we've had to correct non-Brighton fans about things like the debt to Bloom, the sacking of Poyet (not) live on TV, or the dirtying of the away changing room before the play-off semi. We have more information, not because we're cleverer, but because we've been engaged enough in this area of knowledge to find out. Of course, in this situation, we will consider the opinions of those without that knowledge as of lesser value. However, nobody seems to be allowed to say this about art or politics, or now even science (That one is just mad). Anybody who is told 'you don't understand about this one issue because you don't know enough', just hears 'you're not as intelligent as us, so your reaction isn't a valid one', and most double down in response. In every area of study, those who are knowledgeable are always in the minority, but those with an opinion are always in the majority. Mass immediate communication has allowed for a situation to develop where the majority view is always considered as right, however ill-informed it may be.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It seems to me that as far as he has control, he has taken all of the actions that you suggest. That's why it has taken so long for him to be involved in this kind of brouhaha. I think that the advent of social media has shifted the power balance between audience and performer and that where venues / commissioners would previously have sided with performer choices, they are now more wary of, and responsive to, audience complaints. Post Savile, post Me-Too, post George Floyd, etc. a nuanced argument about using bigotry in context to elicit a reaction from an audience, can just sound a bit inadequate and elitist and the last thing anybody wants to be labelled as is an elitist.

The thing is that, in a way, we are all elitists in our own particular area of expertise, but everyone is too scared to tell anyone else that they just don't understand something enough. As Brighton fans we all know this to be true. We've all lost count of the times we've had to correct non-Brighton fans about things like the debt to Bloom, the sacking of Poyet (not) live on TV, or the dirtying of the away changing room before the play-off semi. We have more information, not because we're cleverer, but because we've been engaged enough in this area of knowledge to find out. Of course, in this situation, we will consider the opinions of those without that knowledge as of lesser value. However, nobody seems to be allowed to say this about art or politics, or now even science (That one is just mad). Anybody who is told 'you don't understand about this one issue because you don't know enough', just hears 'you're not as intelligent as us, so your reaction isn't a valid one', and most double down in response. In every area of study, those who are knowledgeable are always in the minority, but those with an opinion are always in the majority. Mass immediate communication has allowed for a situation to develop where the majority view is always considered as right, however ill-informed it may be.

Another way of looking at that is that people are very quick to claim superior knowledge when in fact they merely have a different opinion and struggle to see an issue from the perspective of others. That is what tends to destroy political threads on NSC and perhaps is driving this JS debate. Comedy audiences have always taken a view on performers. It is elitist to expect the ‘correct’ reaction from a room in Pavlovian manner. The comedy I have seen live has often included performers not eliciting the response they were looking for. Perhaps what’s changed is this idea that those who buy in to the in joke are somehow experts and the rest of us ticket buyers just don’t understand and therefore don’t count. That absolutely would not have washed at comedy venues I used to go to in London in the 1980s.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I'd say 'Why don't people just read the books?', but having made that mistake myself, I realise that, according to JRR, 'the stories as they need to be told' means incredibly slowly, with endless unnecessary and over detailed description of whatever landscape the characters happen to be passing. I blame Ralph Bakshi as his film piqued my interest one Sunday afternoon as a kid and, in those days, the only way to find out what happened after his film of the first part ended was to read the books. Using a method of picking the trilogy up, reading a bit, putting it down and reading something good, then going back to it, it took me about three years to finish. By the end I wanted to throw it in a volcano. Absolutely the worst written 'classic' I have ever read. It's sustained popularity was unfathomable to me, but I suppose, since then, thanks to Peter Jackson, half of the people who claim it as their favourite haven't had to actually encounter the ploddingly turgid prose, but can just watch the films and claim to like the books, like my kids did with the equally poorly written Harry Potter series.

That is very much a matter of opinion. I thought the Potter books were fantastic pieces of writing and so did many millions of children and adults all over the world. I would argue that apart from the wonder of the films, which were very clever in special effects etc, the books , especially the last 3 were far superior than the films.

Her books, apart from a couple of classical writers I read for my degree, are the only ones I have that I can go back to and re read…..pratchett is also one of those authors I could reread, although only the first 10 or so books….I thought the last ones , notwithstanding his dementia, were not that good reads!

It is very “ right on” to criticise JKR works.

 

[Acker79]

If you watch the movies you will actually have a decent idea of the actual story line from the book.

Not so with this series. Nothing a like. .

Well, yeah. The films were based on the main narrative of the book(s). The series is taking the appendices as a source and building an original story that takes place a significant chunk of time before the book's main story. So of course the series is going to be nothing like the book.

 

[Russconha]

I'm not prejudiced, I have a woke friend.

 

[Stato]

Another way of looking at that is that people are very quick to claim superior knowledge when in fact they merely have a different opinion and struggle to see an issue from the perspective of others. That is what tends to destroy political threads on NSC and perhaps is driving this JS debate. Comedy audiences have always taken a view on performers. It is elitist to expect the ‘correct’ reaction from a room in Pavlovian manner. The comedy I have seen live has often included performers not eliciting the response they were looking for. Perhaps what’s changed is this idea that those who buy in to the in joke are somehow experts and the rest of us ticket buyers just don’t understand and therefore don’t count. That absolutely would not have washed at comedy venues I used to go to in London in the 1980s.

That isn't 'another way of looking at it' that is a misinterpretation of what I said. Having a different opinion and having no prior knowledge of a subject are completely different things. I am happy for two mechanics with the same qualfications to argue over the best way to fix my car. I wouldn't venture my opinion because I don't know one end of a spanner from another. That's not elitisim, that's just being practical and everyone accepts it in some spheres. In the arts, admitting that, you have spent years studying this, know about the artist's life, know what they have done previously and how the art has changed over their career, know their influences, and how their work sits in the history of the field apparently makes you an elitist. Not because you told people that they didn't know what they were talking about, but just for the cardinal sin of revealing that you do. As all art is intended to produce some kind of emotional reaction, its absolutely possible to respond to another's knowledge with 'I'm the bloody pope I am. I don't know a lot about art, but I know what I like' yet to accept that the person who has studied it knows more than you do. Their knowledge does not force you to change your opinion, but it is a fact that they know more than you do.

Nobody is expecting the 'correct' reaction from an audience. I was merely mentioning the difficulties of, today in an internet world, playing to a small audience that does get it, without those who don't get it deciding that its their place to put a stop to it, because its not for everybody. Take someone like the Fish Brothers as an example. A Brighton tradition. They've been playing to the same audience for decades and that audience loves them and goes again and again. Someone walking in to the middle of a gig for the first time, hating that everyone is chanting sizeist obscenities at the lead singer and complaining to the management has an opinion, but no prior knowledge of what is going on. It is up to the management to say either 'Sorry, I agree that is offensive and we won't have them back' or 'Perhaps this isn't for you, but there is artistic intent and a long shared cultural history for why this is happening and why this particular group of people are enjoying it.' Either response is valid as a business decision, but the latter is not 'elitist', its just stating that there is nothing in this world that is appreciated and understood in the same way by everybody. If we all just accept this and don't automatically jump to the conclusion that we have been excluded by an elite, rather than using our freedom of choice to opt for something else, it isn't a problem.

 

[Stato]

That is very much a matter of opinion. I thought the Potter books were fantastic pieces of writing and so did many millions of children and adults all over the world. I would argue that apart from the wonder of the films, which were very clever in special effects etc, the books , especially the last 3 were far superior than the films....

You'd know more than me. I stumbled through the first one when reading it to my daughter at bedtime and have never watched any of the films. My kids read a lot of different books during their childhood and did enjoy the Potter films, but have never got very far with any of the books.

It is very “ right on” to criticise JKR works.

My decision was made long before the recent furore and based entirely on her writing style. I'd read my kids 'The Worst Witch.' and my wife had read them 'Malory Towers' HP&TPS seemed to me to be ripping off and shunting together the two and less coherently written than either of the influences. Who am I to say though? She's made an absolute fortune.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I've never seen him but I'm going to now. Really feels like something you can't comment on without experiencing it.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I've never seen him but I'm going to now. Really feels like something you can't comment on without experiencing it.

You should see him at the Edinburgh Fringe…oh hang on

 

[The Clamp]

‘There have been serious allegations of child abuse in Cleveland. To my mind there is only one way to find out whether this is true or not and that’s to . . . CALL IN JIMMY SAVILE! You can’t afford to f*** about! Bring in an expert! Am I right? A friend of mine reckons Jimmy Savile is a paedophile. Rubbish — he’s a child-bender! That’s why he does all the f****** charity work: it’s to gain public sympathy for when his f****** case comes up.’

Jerry Sadowitz- 1997

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Well, yeah. The films were based on the main narrative of the book(s). The series is taking the appendices as a source and building an original story that takes place a significant chunk of time before the book's main story. So of course the series is going to be nothing like the book.

Nothing like Tolkien's Middle Earth is the issue. Yet because some POS rich American owns the rights to some of the works it's milking all it can Tolkien's name of which they do not own.

They should have just created their entirely own new concept rather than try and ride the back of someone whose fans in the majority reject their shit rehashing of his works.

 

[The aloof gatekeeper]

‘There have been serious allegations of child abuse in Cleveland. To my mind there is only one way to find out whether this is true or not and that’s to . . . CALL IN JIMMY SAVILE! You can’t afford to f*** about! Bring in an expert! Am I right? A friend of mine reckons Jimmy Savile is a paedophile. Rubbish — he’s a child-bender! That’s why he does all the f****** charity work: it’s to gain public sympathy for when his f****** case comes up.’

Jerry Sadowitz- 1997

"A giant of a man! A gangster, a villain, a murderer, a paedophile, a gerontophiliac, a rapist...and he still had the panache to come at you with a f***ing cigar! AND host children's shows whenever he got the f***ing opportunity! You've got to admire the audacity of that!"

Jerry Sadowitz - Comedian, Magician, Psychopath, 2011.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

"A giant of a man! A gangster, a villain, a murderer, a paedophile, a gerontophiliac, a rapist...and he still had the panache to come at you with a f***ing cigar! AND host children's shows whenever he got the f***ing opportunity! You've got to admire the audacity of that!"

Jerry Sadowitz - Comedian, Magician, Psychopath, 2011.

That’s a bit like a child saying ‘shit’ in front of adults for the first time. It’s why we all laughed at the Young Ones when we were teenagers. Look at us and how shocking we are as we go through a rebellious phase. It’s a completely recognizable desire to be ‘out there.’ Just not in a 60 year old man. That’s just a bit sad.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

I start reading a thread about Jerry Sadowitz's cancelled show, skip a few pages to the end, and it's a chat about Lord of the Rings adaptions.

How very NSC.