advertisement


Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

foxwelljsly said:
I meant cancelled as in cancelled. They cancelled the rest of his run. I'm not sure how else to put it. I share your dislike of the term 'cancelled' within the context you mention, but they literally cancelled his shows. the definition of cancel is: decide or announce that (a planned event) will not take place.

I posted this as I thought it was amusing that a venue would book Jerry Sadowitz and then be surprised or alarmed at his material or performance.
Click to expand...
Which cancelled do you prefer - cancelled or cancelled? I think I prefer cancelled but don't hold that against me.
 
foxwelljsly said:
Absolutely nothing there that would surprise me at a Sadowitz show. His schtick pretty much is comedy and magic with a side order of extreme provocation and profound discomfort. And everyone is a target.
Click to expand...
I met Jerry once in a professional capacity, for about thirty seconds. I have to say that throughout our encounter he didn’t feel moved to swear at me, insult me, or wave his dick at me. Which puts him in a very small minority.
 
New facts emerge. There's at least one other Fringe show involving nudity and audience interaction but hasn’t been cancelled.
 
I've loved Jerry since the 80's, he's not racist, he hates every bugger. His slight of hand is excellent with the cards too, and i went to the recordings of his tv show many moons ago, which were hilarious. The demographic of his audience were very varied also, which flies against the accusations of the past. Finally, he appeared at the Montreal Comedy Festival, greeted the audience by saying.. ''Hello Moose suckers!!'', to which an audience member ran on stage and punched him. Frankie Boyle is a poor man's Jerry, and a lot of the time, Frankie flies much closer to the wind with child abuse jokes etc.
 
klfrs said:
Not the same argument, but you taking a similar position to those who demanded The Satanic Verses were banned.
Many inclined to authoritarianism self identify as progressive.
Click to expand...
It's not the same at all. They're just saying "not on my premises" and that's totally reasonable . If I wanted to hire a function room at the local mosque, I'm sure that I could. If I told them that I wanted it for a party, get a buffet in, few pork pies, couple of cases of beer, I'd expect them to refuse. That's their right. They haven't banned pork pies or beer, they've just said "not in our house" . Banning a book is banning it from everywhere. A library can refuse to stock, I don't know, MeinKampf, but I can still buy my own copy of I want. It's not a banned book.
 
The idea that a Fringe venue, least of all The Pleasance, would be unaware of what to expect from Jerry Sadowitz, is ridiculous - some people complained, and, as is the way these days, they venue caved immediately.
 
Bizarrely incoherent statement from the venue:

‘The venue’s director Anthony Alderson added: “The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians’ material.

“While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.’

That’s only “not censoring material” if you restrict the definition of censorship to state suppression of communication, otherwise…

And then there’s this:

‘In a changing world, stories and language that were once accepted on stage, whether performed in character or not, need to be challenged.’

Given that “challenged” here means “not staged”, do they really mean that they won’t countenance material that includes *characters* whose opinions don’t align with the “values” of the venue?

To be fair ideas around what counts as freedom of speech, as authority, as censorship etc really are changing fast so there are plenty of opportunities for stupidity but this does all seem *really* stupid. It also seems like an assertion of power on the part of venue owners - relative to that of artists and audiences - and it’s jarring to see such strong support for that on this thread.
 
I’ve been going to his shows for over 35 years before he got into the magic tricks/ comedy blend, though not seen him recently. His stuff was always very raw. My sister and her friends heckled him relentlessly at an early appearance at the Art Club in Glasgow in the 80s over misogynistic stuff and wasn’t in the least put off by his put-downs including she told me, ‘is that your hair or is your head unravelling?’.

Back then one of his targets was the Asian community in Glasgow and he pulled every stereotype imaginable. An observer might have asked, what’s the difference from Bernard Manning? He attracted the Glasgow Jewish community to a lot of his shows including middle aged middle class people you might not expect at such blunt stand up.

I don’t know what material prompted his cancellation at the Fringe this year but audiences and their tastes change and he was always at risk of coming a cropper. O tempora, o mores!
,
 
Seanm said:
To be fair ideas around what counts as freedom of speech, as authority, as censorship etc really are changing fast so there are plenty of opportunities for stupidity but this does all seem *really* stupid. It also seems like an assertion of power on the part of venue owners - relative to that of artists and audiences - and it’s jarring to see such strong support for that on this thread.
Click to expand...
Whether you think the venue is right, or wrong on this one, venue owners do have the power to decide what they host and what they don't, unless you are arguing that an artist's right of free speech overrides that. So while the situation has its bizarre aspects (surely the venue knew what it was letting itself in for, ditto the audience) the right of free expression has limits, and also a commercial entity is not bound by it in the way that government is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top