Jerry Sadowitz

[Eighthours]

3 hours ago, Peter St John said:

 

 

I’m feeling more like supporting Jerry now that the increasingly insufferable Josie Long has said this. Oh dear, being influenced by who is on whose side rather than just judging it on the known facts… I’m becoming everything I hate!

[Skykid]

45 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Well if it’s a different slot and audience it’s not his fault the room is a morgue, is it?

 

I'm pretty sure she's saying the atmosphere was death when punters were walking out after his set.

[Plissken]

Speaking of known facts, no-one knows what Sadowitz said, there is unlikely to be a recording of it and no-one ever will.

 

But yeah there's been a lot of "this person is on their side and this person isn't" and the whole point of his act is you don't know unless you've seen it live and in person.  I'm of the opinion that he's a very, deeply broken person but broken in that way that makes great comedians and great magicians (and he's at the top of both, which gives you an idea just how broken that is). Psychiatrists would love the opportunity to write books on the guy.  He has a brain that fizzes like a one of those balls throwing off sparks everywhere and occasionally one of them catches fire.

[Popo]

2 hours ago, Plissken said:

broken in that way that makes great comedians

I really don’t think that’s true. There are many talented, hard-working comedians who aren’t suffering from long-term mental illness. 
 

Moreover, the mythologising of the suffering artist is unhelpful for everyone, especially those who identify with the cliche and who may then be dissuaded from seeking help as a result. 

[dumpster]

Bernard Manning used to say "I make jokes about the blacks... The Chinese... The gays... I make jokes about everyone" . The important point here is he doesnt make jokes about himself, or the kind of people who go and see him. This is a very important distinction.

 

Jimmy Carr says something unnacceptable, shrugs and says it's just jokes.  Some people in the audience like it.  Some may be upset or offended by what they hear. Some applaud, others leave early.  

 

Jim Davidson seems to hate foreigners and does jokes about how we all should.  He comes across as a horrible bloke I wouldnt want to give my money to. 

 

Chubby Brown swears a lot. And his audience seem happy with that.  

 

Sadowitz is doing something different to all these.  I've seen him live many times. He never keeps me on board to the end. I get restless and tired of it.  But I still go very chance I get because his show is like nothing else on earth. You leave feeling personally battered and abused. It's incredible that he can do what he does night after night.  And he may even believe some of the things he says.  I'm not sure.  I think he had his cock out for the whole second half of his show.  But his show has always been too much to take.  The total abuse show he did in the 80s was exactly that. His show is like those electric chairs on Blackpool promenade, you turn up, strap yourself in and see if you can handle it.  It's a tough 90 minutes. It's brutal, exhausting.  

 

There's something about the intent of the content that's really difficult to put into words. I found Frankie Boyles Madeline McCann jokes on Mock the Week offensive, but laughed my arse off at a whole routine of them by Jerry because he went so far over the line that your only choice is to react. It's not a passive experience.  I see a massive difference between the jokes he spits out to paying ticket holders in a private theatre to the stuff they pump into your house on BBC2.

 

I don't think anyone in the audience has a right to complain, especially with the show title being what it is.  But I suspect the bigger issue here is the staff complaining. And the fact that he's doing something right because he's been doing this for 30 years.  But what's changed is that people look at this stuff in 2022 and say it's problematic.  Jerry has been problematic since 1990 and that's the point.  He genuinely makes jokes about everyone, including himself, hates everyone, including himself, and it's an appalling 90 minutes. I have tickets for December. 

 

 

[Jammy]

9 hours ago, Peter St John said:

(also, was the booking manager for The Pleasance just off the ball when they booked him? You know exactly what you're going to get with Sadowitz on stage)

This is my take - I haven’t heard any of his material for a very long time, but he’s not some up and comer they might have booked not knowing the full content of his act. They booked Jerry Sadowitz and were surprised when they got a Jerry Sadowitz show. It’s not the theatre’s job to be the arbiter of taste once they’ve booked an act; the audience will take care of that if they don’t like it.

[Isaac]

18 hours ago, Plissken said:

An interesting point I saw raised is that while his audience might know what to expect, the actual venue staff might not and they have no choice.  I thought that was a fair comment, and worth thinking about.

 

This is what actually happened. The story has been massively blown up by the media but my friend knows someone who works for the Pleasance and what happened was a techie / foh staff member complained, and a junior manager cut the second showing.

 

You could argue that they should have been properly briefed on what to expect, but why should they have to sit through that?

 

Just because you and others like Sadowitz doesn't mean some poor unassuming person in their early twenties just trying to break into the industry should be forced to sit through some of the most heinous, offensive shit.

[Hexx]

I’m still stuck on that Glenfell joke being called three ‘clever’ puns….

[SMD]

is there anywhere at all where someone might be able to 'sample' his material having zero context for his work other than reports that he uses racial slurs in his act and gets his dick out?

[Plissken]

You'll have to search for bootlegs and stuff, you won't find anything on YouTube.  His TV shows aren't available for streaming, have never been repeated and he doesn't release tapes or DVDs.

[SMD]

6 minutes ago, Plissken said:

You'll have to search for bootlegs and stuff, you won't find anything on YouTube.  His TV shows aren't available for streaming, have never been repeated and he doesn't release tapes or DVDs.

 

yeah all i've found on the high seas is 'the total abuse show' and that's from 1988 so not sure how relevant it is to his act today.

[JamesC]

I saw him at Edinburgh about 15 years ago and thought his act was incredibly unfunny, nasty and spiteful. 

I think he's shit. 

[SMD]

well my trip on the high seas stalled so not sure i'll be able to form my own opinion

[K]

If it really was the case that the show was cancelled because a member of staff complained, then that’s a pretty poor effort by the venue. The management & owners should have a coherent policy of what is and isn’t acceptable to be shown in their theatre, and that should include warning members of staff of the content of shows in case they see something that might upset or offend them, and if necessary, switch people to different roles. Stuff shouldn’t be cancelled at zero notice because one person complained, because that one person shouldn’t have been surprised by the content of the show. TBH, it’s not even a high-level policy thing, it’s basic pastoral care for your staff.

 

If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t have booked him in the first place, but it’s not like he’s been doing knock-knock jokes for the last thirty years. 

[BossSaru]

9 hours ago, dumpster said:

I don't think anyone in the audience has a right to complain, especially with the show title being what it is.

 

A ridiculous statement. People always have a right to complain about material that they find racist. People should not be expected to 'know what to expect' when they book to see a show, especially where the performer is clearly very secretive and actively prevents information on his acts being shared online.

 

Its the same old argument of what constitutes hate speech. The solution should not involve telling people that they should just accept what they feel is racial abuse because the person spouting it is on a stage.

[peeveen]

I've seen Jerry Sadowitz live twice in the past five years, both times as part of the Glasgow comedy festival, at the King's Theatre. Both shows were, of course, loaded with his usual controversial material.

 

The first time, I felt that a lot of his tirades were punctuated with some kind of wry "punchline" that held a mirror up to audience. He was playing a character, but we weren't, so why were we laughing at this stuff? There was a lot of hate, but it was apparent that he hated himself more than anything. Some of it was hit & miss, but overall, it worked.

 

Second time however, was different. I kept waiting for some kind of justification for it all, but it rarely came. It seemed to be just an old man, short of ideas, getting paid to say outrageously offensive things. No subtext, no knowing wink, nothing. Worst of all, there were a bunch of guys sat near us, constantly talking and getting up to buy beer, who cheered every time he ripped into some minority group that they disliked. I wasn't expecting a comfortable evening of chuckles, but I also wasn't expecting BNP cabaret night.

 

So I'm gonna guess that this Edinburgh show was more like that. I know the guy can be very funny, but I guess it depends on when you catch him.

 

To the people who have never seen him: to give you some idea of how much he means what he says, he tore into Stewart Lee during one of the shows I saw, calling him all sorts of names. Sadowitz has appeared in skits on Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, and from what I've heard, they have the greatest respect for each other. Here's an excerpt from this article on Lee's website:

 

Spoiler

"The stand-up Jerry Sadowitz’s apparent distaste for Islam, feminism and Nelson Mandela might appear to place him at the right end of the political spectrum and his language would keep him off Radio 4, but because Sadowitz is one of the most complete and perfect stand-ups in history, his exact political position is complicated. By accident or design, he appears to be socially, sexually, culturally, physically and economically at the bottom of the pile. This gives him licence to attack everything and everyone, like a drowning rat swimming desperately up the U-bend. And this tells us a lot about the essence of stand-up."

 

[Eighthours]

6 minutes ago, peeveen said:

I've seen Jerry Sadowitz live twice in the past five years, both times as part of the Glasgow comedy festival, at the King's Theatre. Both shows were, of course, loaded with his usual controversial material.

 

The first time, I felt that a lot of his tirades were punctuated with some kind of wry "punchline" that held a mirror up to audience. He was playing a character, but we weren't, so why were we laughing at this stuff? There was a lot of hate, but it was apparent that he hated himself more than anything. Some of it was hit & miss, but overall, it worked.

 

Second time however, was different. I kept waiting for some kind of justification for it all, but it rarely came. It seemed to be just an old man, short of ideas, getting paid to say outrageously offensive things. No subtext, no knowing wink, nothing. Worst of all, there were a bunch of guys sat near us, constantly talking and getting up to buy beer, who cheered every time he ripped into some minority group that they disliked. I wasn't expecting a comfortable evening of chuckles, but I also wasn't expecting BNP cabaret night.

 

So I'm gonna guess that this Edinburgh show was more like that. I know the guy can be very funny, but I guess it depends on when you catch him.

 

To the people who have never seen him: to give you some idea of how much he means what he says, he tore into Stewart Lee during one of the shows I saw, calling him all sorts of names. Sadowitz has appeared in skits on Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, and from what I've heard, they have the greatest respect for each other. Here's an excerpt from this article on Lee's website:

 

  Hide contents

"The stand-up Jerry Sadowitz’s apparent distaste for Islam, feminism and Nelson Mandela might appear to place him at the right end of the political spectrum and his language would keep him off Radio 4, but because Sadowitz is one of the most complete and perfect stand-ups in history, his exact political position is complicated. By accident or design, he appears to be socially, sexually, culturally, physically and economically at the bottom of the pile. This gives him licence to attack everything and everyone, like a drowning rat swimming desperately up the U-bend. And this tells us a lot about the essence of stand-up."

 

 

This is maybe a better subject for a separate thread, but I don't think that 'punching up' should give you free reign to attack everything and everyone if you're being racist and sexist, if punching down with exactly the same material would be considered unacceptable. Particularly when in Sadowitz's case, we don't know his financial situation after he's been a well known comedian for decades. The bottom of the pile impression he gives could be artifice for all we know.

[K]

I think Sadowitz has fallen out with Lee. One of Stew's recent newsletters said he wanted to see Sadowitz at the fringe but wasn't allowed to, and I remember reading something by Sadowitz that said he thought Stew was arrogant and condescending, and that he hadn't earned his position of supposed authority.

[Simmy]

2 hours ago, Hexx said:

I’m still stuck on that Glenfell joke being called three ‘clever’ puns….

 

What was the joke if you don't mind sharing?

[Monkeyboy]

Pilssken posted it on the last page.

 

 

[Simmy]

6 minutes ago, Monkeyboy said:

Pilssken posted it on the last page.

 

 

 

Ah thanks a lot! Missed that.

[Plissken]

51 minutes ago, K said:

If it really was the case that the show was cancelled because a member of staff complained, then that’s a pretty poor effort by the venue. The management & owners should have a coherent policy of what is and isn’t acceptable to be shown in their theatre, and that should include warning members of staff of the content of shows in case they see something that might upset or offend them, and if necessary, switch people to different roles. Stuff shouldn’t be cancelled at zero notice because one person complained, because that one person shouldn’t have been surprised by the content of the show. TBH, it’s not even a high-level policy thing, it’s basic pastoral care for your staff.

 

If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t have booked him in the first place, but it’s not like he’s been doing knock-knock jokes for the last thirty years. 

 

I totally agree with this.  I don't have a problem with audiences being offended by Sadowitz (and I don't buy the "we didn't know", as he's been doing this for the thick end of forty years and the only thing people do know is that he's likely to be highly offensive), but I absolutely do have a problem with staff members not being made aware or forced to work the gig.

 

As for the Stewart Lee fall out... like I said, Sadowitz has a self-destructive streak, even with people who help them.  (Actually, that reminds me of a rather notorious Scottish ex-forum member...)

[Gotters]

This is the age old argument again of a comedian playing a character which then attracts elements in their audience that instead of being in on the joke are laughing at them like they're being performed straight.

 

I remember Warren Mitchell using this argument to defend Alf Garnett, which even as a kid never felt particularly clever to me or subtle - it was just racism dressed up as character study. 

 

When I watch the like of Jimmy Carr I never feel he's doing anything other than horrible material using the 'character' as a shield. I think Pub landlord started out taking the piss out of the character but then picked up an audience almost exclusively of the type he played and thus ended up playing to them, whilst claiming to be ironic.

 

I've always felt much of what I've seen of Sadowitz hasn't crossed that line, but still feel incredibly awkward offering a defence of it nowadays as however much he hates himself, his audience or his career it's impossible to defend some of it.

 

[SMD]

this is why i wanted to see it for myself, because trying to be an edgy piece of shit in 2022 just feels like completely misreading the political and social climate in the west.

 

doing send ups of tories as an excuse to drop racial slurs and magic tricks as a setup to exposing yourself... i dunno, is there a justification for that?

[Plissken]

The thing about Garnett is he "loses".

 

A character can spout horrible stuff as long as the audience sees them get their comeuppance in the end.  They've got their just desserts for being horrible.

 

Carr (and Manning) never lose.  They are never the butt of the joke.  They never face the consequences of their actions.

 

To be fair to Al Murray, he changed the Pub Landlord character when he realised what was going on, and I think dropped it when it was clear that it was still being adopted by the wrong people.

[SMD]

1 minute ago, Plissken said:

The thing about Garnett is he "loses".

 

A character can spout horrible stuff as long as the audience sees them get their comeuppance in the end.  They've got their just desserts for being horrible.

 

maybe but to draw from a more contemporary example, always sunny was precisely that and they still recognised that regardless of how miserable and pathetic the outcome and comeuppance, it's still feeding the hate machine and addressed that

[Gotters]

6 minutes ago, Plissken said:

The thing about Garnett is he "loses".

 

A character can spout horrible stuff as long as the audience sees them get their comeuppance in the end.  They've got their just desserts for being horrible.

 

Carr (and Manning) never lose.  They are never the butt of the joke.  They never face the consequences of their actions.

 

To be fair to Al Murray, he changed the Pub Landlord character when he realised what was going on, and I think dropped it when it was clear that it was still being adopted by the wrong people.

 

I always experienced Garnett being seen as winning because my dad liked him and was just glad somebody on TV was being allowed to speak those truths even if the character was a loser. The platform was the win.

 

It's problematic as however clever or well intentioned you make the material (or not) fuckwits latch on to it and celebrate it.

 

 

[Darren]

I'm not convinced by this argument of Stewart Lee's:

 

Quote

By accident or design, he appears to be socially, sexually, culturally, physically and economically at the bottom of the pile. This gives him licence to attack everything and everyone

 

Either he really is at the bottom of the pile in every way, in which case why are we putting him on stage and laughing at him like an exhibit in a Victorian freak show instead of getting him the help he needs, or he's just pretending to be for the act, in which case he's punching down anyway.

[Plissken]

I think that there is a lot more awareness of the audience reaction to something than there was in the Garnett days (although I've just looked it up and In Sickness and In Health... was broadcast 1985-1992, with the original from 1966-1975).  Part of the issue was that the fortunes of the Garnett character shifted in the late 80s, but the audience hadn't from the 70s heyday.

 

I haven't seen Always Sunny... but SMD seems to provide an example of that.

 

I guess the performer has a choice, go with it or not.  Carr and Gervais are clearly happy to play to that.  Sadowitz does not and will actively sabotage his own audience if he feels like it.  (The kind of contempt that the "Stewart Lee" character has, but as always, turned up to a hundred and eleven.)

[BitterToad]

20 minutes ago, Plissken said:

I think that there is a lot more awareness of the audience reaction to something than there was in the Garnett days (although I've just looked it up and In Sickness and In Health... was broadcast 1985-1992, with the original from 1966-1975).  Part of the issue was that the fortunes of the Garnett character shifted in the late 80s, but the audience hadn't from the 70s heyday.

 

I haven't seen Always Sunny... but SMD seems to provide an example of that.

 

I guess the performer has a choice, go with it or not.  Carr and Gervais are clearly happy to play to that.  Sadowitz does not and will actively sabotage his own audience if he feels like it.  (The kind of contempt that the "Stewart Lee" character has, but as always, turned up to a hundred and eleven.)

It's such a fine line though right? And it only takes one little step over that line for Sadowitz to be an old privileged white guy saying racist things on stage racistly. I think if he's touring and you go and see him it's also a different show to Edinburgh which is a cultural festival that will have walk ins by it's very nature.