Er... heh. That's a bit of a gratuitous title, isn't it. Just call me gauche, why not. Anyway, I was deadly serious and deeply pissed off when I wrote this, I'll write a little addendum to it later in a different post. Meanwhile, carry on:
It's important to state that clearly, to add a voice to limit the damage done to a fine stand up comedian by someone who is hopefully feeling somewhat awkwardly repentant, or even grumpy and defensive by now in relation to this piece in The Guardian: "The New Offenders of Stand up Comedy".
Rich has already written a heartfelt rebuttal. When I first read the Guardian article, my reaction was more "Eh? How can he possibly suggest that Scott Capurro is part of any 'new' movement? How can you possibly lump him or Rich in with Jimmy Carr, for Chrissakes?". It wasn't until I thought about it more deeply that I recognised just how stupid the article is. Sorry this is a bit po-faced and angry but there you go. you don't have to read the stuff below - I won't hold it against you if you give up half way. I've known Rich for a long time, nearly twenty years, and I'd be happy to stand in his defense against any accusations of anything as ridiculous as this.
Points I have about the article specifically:
- The only people who might possibly question whether the veil of irony was being used to hide actual racism, watching Scott Capurro would be people who have never seen him before, and who may, dare I say it, be a little on the stupid side. For your ref, Brian, Scott has been taking on taboos and shaking them to pieces since... 1992, 93? I wouldn't call that particularly revolutionary. So should we re-jig the bi line to say "1992 style" or possibly even refer back to Lenny Bruce and the word "Nigger" in the early sixties?
- To lump Scott Capurro, Richard Herring or even Ricky Gervais in with Jimmy Carr is ridiculous. It's not only misleading, but it is just bad comedic analysis
- Ending the brief description of Richard's show with him making the statement that "Racists have a point", but in no way contextualising that statement is irresponsible and wrong. I'm astounded, to be honest at the dishonesty of that writing.
- I would like to point out that your comment with regard to jokes about raping women, "Nor, it seems, does he seek to challenge them" is astonishingly naive. Particularly given Scott Capurro's comment, included presumably in order to damn him: "For a lot of comics, it's OK to talk about raping women now. That's the new black on the comedy circuit." I'm incredulous. Do you actually know anything about Scott Capurro?
- The statement "And it is this right-on orthodoxy that today's New Offenders have been reacting against" is again, a naive and simplistic view of what is going on at the moment. Far from reacting *against* alternative stand up, Brendon Burns making a poster saying "I suppose this is offensive now" is a blatantly reinforcing gag. Of *course* it's offensive. That's the point. Of course Rich's moustache is weird and makes you think of Hitler before you've even seen the posters. That is, self evidently, the point. I'm taking a wild guess here and saying that I think Brian Logan knows this, and he's being deliberately obtuse to create a Troll-like reaction to his article. The tactic of an 18 year old, not a journalist with presumably a decent reputation to maintain.
- Damn. I've reacted to a troll again, haven't I. But... ! I mean, really.
- This is a personal observation. Jimmy Carr is mentioned in disparaging terms, and Alexei Sayle mentioned that Frank Skinner and David Baddiel's humour may have tipped things toward misogyny again. I'll raise my hand and say that I've never found any of these three wildly funny, and in fact, positively dislike Jimmy Carr's humour. There is a concrete and very visible difference between comedians who court the mainstream like Frank Skinner and Jimmy Carr, and those who work within the intelligent, targeted audiences of stand up, where ideas can be explored and pulled apart to find gags. Where the mainstream lies, it can become a murky affair. I guess what I'm saying is, if you stalk the mainstream, you may well be compromised. If you are courted by it, and you can enter it on your own terms (Jo Brand, Stephen Fry, etc - although in fact, it took both of those people a while to come in to their own adult, confident personas) then its a ripe playing ground full of taboos to rip apart. Sacha Baron Cohen is a perfect example here. Using a white guy who thinks he's black as his mortifying trojan horse, he ends up with journalists claiming that his latest film, tackling mid-west homophobia is a failure, because kids posted messages about it saying it was lame (or "too gay" as many, many tweets suggested). Failure as in: not a mainstream hit. I raise my eyes to the ceiling - what, you mean attacking the racism taboo is ok, but revealing that attacking homophobia is a bit too close to the bone for a mass audience, brands the film is a *failure*? Jaysus. Anyway. Moving on...
- Does Sue Becker name any of the stand ups represented here in her paper? If so, which ones? Is she only in fact talking about Little Britain? (FTR, I have some problems with some parts of little Britain, I have to raise my hand to that)
- I don't think that Rich does 'most' of his work on the web? I think you'll find "Works his arse off gigging on front of live audiences night after night" is more accurate a description. I'm updating this to include somethign I put in the letter to the Guardian Readers editor: to suggest that most of Rich's output is web based is a sly, insidious dig suggesting that his work is to 'extreme' for mainstream media. That is a complete falsehood. Richard Herring has published several books, is a regular radio and TV panelist, has written and appeared on ITV and BBC2 on many occasions.
- I'm going to reproduce this sentence, again written without any context, in its entirety because it's so wholly wrong it takes my breath away. Logan's talking about Rich and Andrew Collin(g)s's daft podcast, in which Richard routinely is as childish and puerile as possible:"One recent episode aired Herring's purported hatred of Pakistanis, a routine that he expands on in his new standup set." Ooooh, Brian, I would love to see your evidence for this. I think this is libelous.
- Banging my head on the table here. Sarah Silverman's gag about being a racist is, in context *clearly* a liberal, left wing gag, taking the piss out of body image culture. Brian Logan must, as a man clearly capable of writing for a major newspaper, who has at least a passing interest in comedy, know this. The only possible reason he has to quote it is so obviously a stupid, kneejerk way is to back up his ridiculous thesis.
- "The case study here is Al Murray, whose Pub Landlord character began life as a satire of Little England attitudes, and has ended up – perhaps unintentionally – celebrating them" he says. No, he doesn't. Nothing Al Murray does is unintentional. He's one of the smartest comedians I've ever met. He has courted the mainstream and that has brought some issues. Al in a live context brilliantly satirises those with limited, fear and change averse related problems. That's like saying that Harry Enfield actually believed his character from 1940's public information films.
- Talking to the woman who walked out of Scott Capurro's gig explains the legitimacy of Scott's act! He's been doing what he does for you know... nearly 20 years that I've seen him perform, and he's never wavered. If a woman who is not prepared to have her preconceptions tugged at pays money to go and see Scott without realising, then she's been misinformed and I feel sorry for her. She obviously wanted to go and see a nice, unchallenging comedian. What she says, "She feels Capurro was wilfully antagonising his audience, and that it wasn't a game she was prepared to play" is fine. it's not emblematic of anything, other than - she went to see the wrong comedian. Comedy is a broad church. Nothing of her opinion is particularly interesting, because it is coming from someone who clearly did not want to be challenged.
- He does a really botched job at the end of saying "Oh well, you know *I* was smart enough to think that Scott Capurro was funny. Of course I was, but I'm smart, see.
- Arghnnnnggg. To do this to an artist just before Edinburgh, when your nerves are beginning to kick in, and you haven't had any reviews yet is beyond the pale, it really is. And if you happen to read this post, Mr Logan - you should know this, if you go and see comedians regularly.
Right. Now listen. When I go and see a challenging comedian, I will sometimes end up with my head in my hands, groaning, unable to believe what I'm hearing. Frankly, that often happens listening to the Herrin and Collings podcast (just a note, this is not to say it's not ridiculously funny, it's just painful). But what Brian Logan seems, in the final analysis, to be saying, quite apart from taking quotes from in depth sets and interviews out of context, is that classic bloody middle class argument. I am clever enough for this material, but other people are not, therefore should it really be allowed? The hoi polloi, they must be protected..
That is clearly bullshit. You confront fear by showing that fear back in a mirror. Should Mel Brooks have been banned for taking the piss out of Hitler? Is Sacha Baron Cohen a racist homophobe? Is Richard Herring pro the BNP? No. No. No. Comedy will, and must confront taboos, and must force any intelligent reader or viewer to do the same.
...and breathe...
