Jerry Sadowitz

[Benny]

Did you hear the one about the comedian who's act mostly consisted of racism and indecent exposure?

 

He was a saddo-wit.

[pledge]

1 hour ago, Plissken said:

 

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 thought the same, that he'd dropped the character. But looking online he didn't and he's actually doing it at the fringe this year.

[Unofficial Who]

1 hour ago, Plissken said:

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...)

 

Off topic but said ex-forum member (if it is who I think you're referring to)was recently banned from twitter again and on his blog compared that censorship to that of Sadowitz and Rushdie.

 

Quote

I am greatly honoured to have been targeted for censorship in the same weekend as two great artists as rightly esteemed as Salman Rushdie and Jerry Sadowitz. (Though thankful to have not yet been violently physically attacked for my views, as both have.)

 

[Hexx]

I think most "shock" humour is incredibly lazy and boring.

 

It's often comes across as naughty school boys giggling in excitement over doing/saying something they shouldn't.

 

Look at the Glenfell joke/pun. It's alright. But it didn't need to be about Glenfell. It could have been about fires or burning building in general, They've added the risky nature because the joke is fairly mediocre and they know they'll get a stronger "oh no he didn't!"/"Oh he can't say THAT" reaction than the rather basic  puns.

 

 

If you need to dress up your jokes to get a strong reaction, maybe you're not not that good of a comedian.

 

Similarly I really didn't like what Rowan Atkinson said recently (maybe/hopefully out of context).

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rowan-atkinson-netflix-cancel-culture-b2104759.html

 

“It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential. Every joke has a victim. That’s the definition of a joke. Someone or something or an idea is made to look ridiculous.”

 

I mean that's bollocks. Jokes don't have to have victims (which in itself his a very loaded word. Jokes have to do harm to someone?).

 

e.g. Best joke in the world

 

"Why's there no nightclub on the moon?"

"There's no atmosphere up there!"

 

No ones harmed there.

 

Again needing people to enjoy seeing you attack someone to get feels like a crutch to get a positive response. (Which gets us back into WHO you attack/why punching up is deemed ok, punching down isn't etc)

 

[Loik V credern]

All of this is just making me so goddam curious to see him live. 

 

John Mulaney is probably the best example of a comedian I can think of who is so harmless and clean without being mainstream naff like Mctintyre. A lot of his jokes stem from poking fun at him thinking he looks look an adult boy. 

 

Like:

 

 

[Dirty Harry Potter]

16 minutes ago, Hexx said:

I think most "shock" humour is incredibly lazy and boring.

 

It's often comes across as naughty school boys giggling in excitement over doing/saying something they shouldn't.

 

Look at the Glenfell joke/pun. It's alright. But it didn't need to be about Glenfell. It could have been about fires or burning building in general, They've added the risky nature because the joke is fairly mediocre and they know they'll get a stronger "oh no he didn't!"/"Oh he can't say THAT" reaction than the rather basic  puns.

 

 

If you need to dress up your jokes to get a strong reaction, maybe you're not not that good of a comedian.

 

Similarly I really didn't like what Rowan Atkinson said recently (maybe/hopefully out of context).

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rowan-atkinson-netflix-cancel-culture-b2104759.html

 

“It does seem to me that the job of comedy is to offend, or have the potential to offend, and it cannot be drained of that potential. Every joke has a victim. That’s the definition of a joke. Someone or something or an idea is made to look ridiculous.”

 

I mean that's bollocks. Jokes don't have to have victims (which in itself his a very loaded word. Jokes have to do harm to someone?).

 

e.g. Best joke in the world

 

"Why's there no nightclub on the moon?"

"There's no atmosphere up there!"

 

No ones harmed there.

 

Again needing people to enjoy seeing you attack someone to get feels like a crutch to get a positive response. (Which gets us back into WHO you attack/why punching up is deemed ok, punching down isn't etc)

 

 

I think this post clearly demonstrates a sense of humour is subjective.

(And some people don't have one. 😄)

[Uncle Mike]

Grenfell. Not Glenfell.

[Hexx]

11 minutes ago, Dirty Harry Potter said:

 

I think this post clearly demonstrates a sense of humour is subjective.

(And some people don't have one. 😄)

 

No. That is objectively the best joke in the world. Shut up.

 

[Chindie]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sadowitz isn't that well off. He's always been incredibly niche, he's not selling out stadiums, he doesn't do TV work anymore (which he never did much of anyway, and actively sabotages continuing use of that work in any form), he actively fights against his work being publicised, and outside of performing his income seems to revolve entirely around playing to the magician crowd which is by it's very nature extremely limited.

 

It's pretty clear he does have a bit of a personality disorder. While any performance is going to have an element of a character being played, Sadowitz does seem to genuinely despise the world, and he does self sabotage his success. Why would you actively prevent your own success? He's inspired acts that are far more successful than he is (setting aside your taste when it comes to that kind of humour, Boyle and Carr have both taken bits of his schtick and cashed in), but he refuses to allow his work to be published, he doesn't seem to want to get recognition, he doesn't want to 'get big' through people sharing his work online or by releasing a DVD. He seems to understand that his work can be taken outside of its context and made into something else - hence his saying he's sorry his style has been copied by shitty people - and therefore he apparently only wants to perform it to people who make the effort of actively going to see him live.

 

He's a complicated man. I don't think you can reduce his performance to 'he's a racist'. I don't think he is. But he'll use extremely crude/offensive/etc language to punctuate his points, and it's done, usually, with an accepted inside gag that the guy saying it is a failure, who hates everything, and you're watching, and laughing, and you've paid to do it.

[Harsin]

I saw a tweet earlier from a black comedian saying that ultimately despite how many layers of playing a character or knowing transgression or don’t worry he’s a misanthrope who offends everyone equally you drape it under, ultimately it still boils down to arguing that a white man should be allowed to use racial slurs.

[Chindie]

There's a conversation to be had there though. A difficult one.

 

I'm not someone who is ever going to use a racial slur. It's just not something that sits with me in any way as right for the average right thinking person of any background to do. I'm polite and pleasant to everyone, even people I despise. They're words and terms I have no use for, no need for. They're horrible. I can recall being called, derisively, 'chalky', 'cracker' at school by a black kid, and even though those words have no real impact on me they were still especially hurtful, to the extent that over 20yrs later I can vividly remember the moment, so I can't imagine what word with far greater derision in them cause to people of African or Asian descent.

 

But, I'm just a guy.

 

I think those words can be used in narrow and defined contexts. I think someone, of any background, researching/studying/whatever, language, racism, the development of society in appropriate niches, etc, could use those words to describe/study/examine the field they are choosing to look into, with care. I think a comedian, of any background, could use those words justifiably, if the point is to demonstrate a wider context that isn't celebrating those words, but denigrating them and the perspectives that feels it needs them, or to make comments wider topics of dismay. And so on.

 

Of course I don't think those words should be used willy-nilly, nor should they be the kind of thing that crops up in everyday conversation or return to common parlance. I'd never expect to hear them outside of a few narrow cases (music and comedy, for me). But I do think they can be used, by people of any background, in the right context, for the right purpose. They shouldn't forbidden. They should be used with care and understanding, by a very small number of people.

[Gabe]

43 minutes ago, Harsin said:

I saw a tweet earlier from a black comedian saying that ultimately despite how many layers of playing a character or knowing transgression or don’t worry he’s a misanthrope who offends everyone equally you drape it under, ultimately it still boils down to arguing that a white man should be allowed to use racial slurs.

It does feel that the "He's the real joke" analysis is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and places a lot of assumption that his audience know, understand and appreciate what he is looking to do. Perhaps his audience are indeed all very aware of the context in which he uses racial/misogynistic slurs and 'get'  him, but I don't know if that makes any of it right.

[Plissken]

4 minutes ago, Gabe said:

It does feel that the "He's the real joke" analysis is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and places a lot of assumption that his audience know, understand and appreciate what he is looking to do. Perhaps his audience are indeed all very aware of the context in which he uses racial/misogynistic slurs and 'get'  him, but I don't know if that makes any of it right.

 

The problem - and maybe the secret - is that until you actually go to his show, you'll never actually know for certain.

 

But then - as a Sadowitz gig was described very well above - that is kind of like saying "stand in this area at the end of a runway while a jet takes off and feel the blast".  You'll never know whether you enjoy or hate the experience until you do it and the description of it, even with as much context as possible, doesn't help people make up their mind.

[Gabe]

12 minutes ago, Plissken said:

 

The problem - and maybe the secret - is that until you actually go to his show, you'll never actually know for certain.

 

But then - as a Sadowitz gig was described very well above - that is kind of like saying "stand in this area at the end of a runway while a jet takes off and feel the blast".  You'll never know whether you enjoy or hate the experience until you do it and the description of it, even with as much context as possible, doesn't help people make up their mind.

Yes, that is fair.

[Benny]

You have to wonder though: if none of it is ever being taped or preserved, then what's actually the point? It could be the most "clever" transgressive comedy ever, but even if it was it's destined to simply live and then die in infamy, with no mark left on the world other than that it might have upset some people.

 

Maybe that's the point. But honestly given how much of an increasingly shitty world we live in with increasingly shitty people, it just feels out of touch and a luxury to end up spreading more of it around by proxy.

 

EDIT: that sound a bit pro-censorship. It's not meant as such.

[pledge]

Why does something have to be taped or preserved to be worthwhile? Supposedly his show is enjoyable to some, based on people defending him here, is that not enough?

[SMD]

cos he used a racial slur and got his dick out?

[Benny]

Well, I mean, I'm making a very flimsy argument when you take into account theatre and other live performance. I guess I'm just bemused it's still going without any "history" for people to refer to.

[Isaac]

7 hours ago, Plissken said:

 

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.

 

Yes, theatres in Edinburgh already crippled by two years of covid on the verge of going out of business should have dozens of backup staff ready to work in case existing staff find an act offensive.

 

He never should have been booked.

[dumpster]

8 hours ago, BossSaru said:

 

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. People in this thread are asking where can I hear this stuff to make up my own mind? Go and see him.  But you already know what you're getting into. 

 

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.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.  To give an example, Frankie Boyle did a joke about Madeline McCann on regular TV. It was a picture building joke, that is to say, it left a graphic image in my mind of an empty child's bedroom, a grieving mother, and then a secondary image of the dad wondering if he can get a pool table in there.  It was a strong subject for a joke but something I didn't expect to hear on regular TV in the background.  There's a huge difference for example, between overhearing a Frankie Boyle routine and choosing to watch a Netflix special.  It's another step further to buy a ticket, hire a baby sitter and travel to a venue to see him live.

 

Jerry Sadowitz provides a 90 minute show. For thirty years he's provided a show that leaves the audience BATTERED.   Every single line of that can be presented out of context. The show is a thing in and of itself.  Every word is appalling.  He's knowingly shocking and offensive but he's doing it in a controlled manner.  You won't accidentally overhear his material. He's not on Youtube. He gets every public release of anything taken down. The Total Abuse VHS was from the start of his career and he's learned from that.  

 

So with all respect to everyone concerned, what the hell is someone who could be offended by Jerry Sadowitz doing hiring a babysitter and heading on down with their tickets?  It's like going to see Mary Berry and being annoyed by all the baking.  

 

Now.. the staff being upset.  I get it.  The venue was naive to not warn them.  That's the venue's problem. Not Jerry's.  

[SMD]

why is a stand up comic battering their audience?

[dumpster]

2 minutes ago, SMD said:

why is a stand up comic battering their audience?

Because art and expression comes in many forms. I'd even go as far as saying it's not stand up comedy.  It's an experience, and like nothing else I've ever seen.  He gets compared to Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr a lot and it's such a false equivalence.

[SMD]

Just now, dumpster said:

Because art and expression comes in many forms.

 

does it have to come in the form of abuse and racism?

[Darren]

So he’s the GG Allin of stand up? But a bit of a cop out as he only flings metaphorical shit at his audience?

[dumpster]

1 minute ago, SMD said:

 

does it have to come in the form of abuse and racism?

I get your line of questioning but it stems from regular logic.  If you go to the show you'll see. It's not racist jokes.  It's not a racist man.  It's something that just is what it is, and the experience is so impossible to describe that all regular logic somehow goes out of the window. By normal logic you should hate his whole show, but what he does is incredible and defies all logic and description.

[dumpster]

The multiple uses of the word logic and description show me that the wine is kicking in, so I will shut up.

[Textface]

50 minutes ago, dumpster said:

The multiple uses of the word logic and description show me that the wine is kicking in, so I will shut up.

No please continue.

[therearerules]

Lot of white blue ticks on Twitter explaining to asian people why they shouldn't complain about being called p***s because of this. As always if you're unsure of where to stand on an issue just check social media for the worst takes by the smuggest blue ticks to know what stance not to have.

[ZOK]

4 hours ago, Harsin said:

I saw a tweet earlier from a black comedian saying that ultimately despite how many layers of playing a character or knowing transgression or don’t worry he’s a misanthrope who offends everyone equally you drape it under, ultimately it still boils down to arguing that a white man should be allowed to use racial slurs.

Yep - it’s no more complex than that. Fuck him.

[Festoon]

4 hours ago, Harsin said:

I saw a tweet earlier from a black comedian saying that ultimately despite how many layers of playing a character or knowing transgression or don’t worry he’s a misanthrope who offends everyone equally you drape it under, ultimately it still boils down to arguing that a white man should be allowed to use racial slurs.

 

It's also depressing that all these "I'm crazy, I'll say anything" lads always just repeat the worst cunt you hear down the pub and never really attack those beliefs at all.