Edinburgh Fringe: Jerry Sadowitz show cancelled by venue bosses

[Stoneage Dinosaurs]

I bet he's JERRY (very) SAD to WIT(z)ness this dent in his career!

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Isn't the 'liberal consensus' point more along the lines of:

In the mid to late 90s we (let's call us the liberal elite) wrongly thought that all the isms were vanquished and all the ideological battles had been won. This meant that ironic bigotry from the likes of Ricky Gervais and Little Britain were fine because *obviously* it's completely unacceptable to actually say these things for reals.

Fast-forward to the present day and we've had Trump as President, Boris Johnson and his coterie of monsters in cabinet, a powerful anti-trans movement, rolling back of abortion protections in the USA, asylum seekers off to Rwanda, GB News, the rise of Nigel Farage, and this is all just off the top of my head.

I think it's fair to say that compassionate, well-balanced people probably won't find edgy pretend-bigotry quite as funny in the current climate as they did in the glistening utopian dream days of "New" Labour.

I understand this view and why people subscribe to it, to be to me it represents a misunderstanding of the "end of history" thesis that portrays the post-soviet era as a kind of temporary hiatus and the present as a return of history - Trump, anti-LGBT sentiment, ethno-nationalism, feminist backlash etc. The view that we can take things to have been ironic in the past but only as sincere in the present isn't only confined to comedy and satirical pop culture. As is the idea that context is what ultimately governs whether something is "for real" offensive or not, which is an idea I have great difficulty with. The Marxist in me finds this to be an absolution of liberal values and an uncomfortable vindication of progressivism in particular, as it casts "the ideological battle" as between the forward progress of liberal diversity and bigotry or injustice as mere impasses to that inevitable progress. Which often implies that offense to minorities somehow matters more now it is a matter of liberalism directly confronting its enemies - surely what was harmful was always harmful on its own terms, and not just bad based on it leading to a greater injury to our norms and standards. The idea of offense or obscene as causing injury not to people but to norms and standards might not be common on this forum, but its everywhere in centrist cultural commentary and liberal social media, since they also how no problem characterising Trump and Le Pen not as threats to real people but to the abstractions like liberal norms and democratic standards. The ideological battle satirists, academics and creators of fiction often thought they were fighting - between the regressive isms and benighted social diversity - turned out not to be the real battle, which was between one set of liberal institutions and another, which gave us the clash of civilisations and now populism v centrism. And now there's the antiwoke obsessives who hate open speech and obscenity more than every other faction combined. I get why people think the current moment calls for a re-think of left wing defenses of obscenity, offense and open speech but my opinion is mostly the opposite. Especially when people are drawing on yet more conservative, normative or anti-socialist sources to do so.

When it comes to offense, we can't think that there was never a real cost to offensive work, the "for real" dimension was always there, equally in the good and the bad. The big tip off should be that ironic and abrasive speech in the service of liberal values and the "consensual" suspense of political correctness for satirical or ironic ends reached its peak during the Iraq war years, a time when hundreds of thousands of people were blown up because of a compound lie. Those were also the years of sincere post-feminism, which rapidly repackaged itself as ironic in retrospect to how bizarre and disconnected from reality started to seem after the turn of the millenium. The idea that it is audience, not the target of the offense, involved the consensual suspense of political correctness is what underscores the presentism underlying the idea that the past was fair game for ironic offense but current times are serious. It reduces offense and obsenity to a matter of distance when being far away or long ago doesn't really change how hurtful an idea or speech act can be, it changes how receptive the audience can be expected to be. The liberal or consumerist position is to conflate those two things, implying offense and obsenity is good under a liberal consensus but bad when that consensus is under threat.

So I get when Stewart Lee says it, a man who dropped a N bomb on stage in service of the liberal values he sincerely held. (I'm not slagging him by saying liberal values, he's stuck to them yet changed over time and I admire that.) But it becomes tricky to take the same position from a 'consumer' perspective - being compelled to hear offensive or obscene material is different to being compelled, for artistic or political reasons, to say it. I'll duck out if this is read as me being contrarian, and my feeling on Sadowitz is really "don't know" because I can't contrast him in his prime versus now. Listening to humorously offensive rants online is clearly different from performing them live.

[Deliciousbass]

If Sadowitz is 'cathartic' then that makes me think that you're liking it because it's stupid racist sexist horrid crap and that's the release of those taboo thoughts, I.e saying what you're really thinking.

May as well watch Roy Chubby Brown or Jim Davidson for the same release, just pretend you're laughing ironically.

I found it as cathartic as colonic irrigation. For what it's worth, I do think it's possible to engage with edgy material and not end up selling yourself short or succumbing to a hateful outlook in the process. I've enjoyed Sadowitz but could not enjoy Roy or Jim.

And anyway, the amount of racist/sexist/horrid crap I engage with is harmless and done so on a purely recreational basis. I do worry about people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me. So if you're one of those, stay well away.

[Zetetic]

I think there's still a slim chance this will pivot to being about content warnings as much as anything else.

Once you've decided to have them in your booking interface (and also have age restrictions and suggestions), then having them be unreliable is going to end up being messy and unpleasant.

[lazyhour]

The view that we can take things to have been ironic in the past but only as sincere in the present isn't only confined to comedy and satirical pop culture. As is the idea that context is what ultimately governs whether something is "for real" offensive or not, which is an idea I have great difficulty with.

Who is suggesting this? I'm certainly not saying that edgelord offensiveness from 1999 has morphed from being ironic then to being sincere now. It hasn't changed. I have. I'm sure I used to dabble in a bit of ironic racism, homophobia etc among friends because I was firm in my belief that of course we all know this shit is utterly wrong and stupid. Whoops!

[Famous Mortimer]

I do worry about people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me. So if you're one of those, stay well away.

Trying to think of a less emotive way of bringing this up, but what about non-white, non-male comedy fans? Do they not belong at "edgy" comedy shows? Why is "edgy" almost always about punching down?

[jobotic]

I don't think it is cathartic in that sense, more like having a bucket of freezing water thrown in your face.

I don't know, I've never seen him. What used to wind me up on here were people who liked him making "if you can't stand the heat get out of the CaB kitchen and enjoy your Mrs Brown's Boys dvds, square" type posts but they seem to be absent these days. Almost.

[BritishHobo]

I do struggle to see from any of the descriptions what separate Sadowitz from Gervais, Jimmy Carr, or even just a white lad on 4chan who loves spamming the n-word.

[up_the_hampipe]

Sadowitz has posted a longer statement on his Twitter https://twitter.com/realjsadowitz/status/1558938534819635201

It's the first time I've really seen him try to explain/justify his act, I think.

[madhair60]

I do struggle to see from any of the descriptions what separate Sadowitz from Gervais, Jimmy Carr, or even just a white lad on 4chan who loves spamming the n-word.

It is difficult to discern from the descriptions, yes.

I'm quite torn, myself. I think he should be allowed to continue performing his act. It seems that he is being allowed to continue performing his act. I also think it's inevitable that in today's world he would not be able to continue performing his extremely abrasive and, yes, offensive act without its content being remarked upon. I think I prefer the world where people are accountable for what they say more than a world where they are not, and I'd prefer to avoid hypocrisy to the best of my ability.

I think there are ways to do offensive comedy, and I think that describing Sadowitz's act as "offensive comedy" does it something of a disservice. If the intent is to offend then it's difficult to take issue with someone being offended by it. I do not see his act as "punching down" (not scare quotes), because it is absolutely an act, a piece of performance - yes, even if he says it isn't. Another trick from the magician, you know? Sadowitz has done well to avoid this crowd for this long, and now this gig cancellation has thrust him into the limelight.

What I most dislike is Sadowitz - who does not play to the same gallery as the likes of Gervais and Carr - becoming a chip for the worst people on the planet to pursue their godawful hateful agendas. But I think he will find a way to persevere.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Who is suggesting this? I'm certainly not saying that edgelord offensiveness from 1999 has morphed from being ironic then to being sincere now. It hasn't changed. I have. I'm sure I used to dabble in a bit of ironic racism, homophobia etc among friends because I was firm in my belief that of course we all know this shit is utterly wrong and stupid. Whoops!

Its the idea that the "audience" - whether they're sat down for a show or the friends sat with you in the pub - is who governs whether norms about speech can be consensually suspended or not. Or whether something is "ironic" or not.

Today I think the norm is to assume that every ironic utterance has a hint of sincerity to it, that people "tell on themselves" if they indulge in that sort of irony. What I meant about context is the sensitivity to who is speaking and from what position. For example, I don't think many people would defend Stewart Lee's use of the N word in his act anymore because its perceived that his ability decide how ironic or sincere his use of an offense word is limited by his position and context, which he has no control over and can't change for the purposes of his act. I think this is what has changed since 00, and I think there is room to be critical about this idea while being receptive to the wisdom of its intention.

You are right of course that the acts themselves haven't changed, but by the same token all speech acts are one with, indivisible from, their context. I could rephrase my criticism here by saying that we've moved from seeing performers and writers as responsible for their utterances to responsible for how they deal with contexts and circumstance beyond their control, which can't be suspended for the purposes of a comedy show or a work of fiction.  This is the issue for me when it is the presence of "presumed liberal consensus" or something like it which decides whether something is acceptable or not. Of course its not just white liberals who do swears and say slurs for laughs with the understanding that its not "for real" , which is something else no one here says or believes, but is heavily implied by the sort of arguments had elsewhere

[madhair60]

I feel like the fact he describes his own act as "screaming fascist schtick (sic)" should really be enough, but, no.

[lankyguy95]

I don't think it is cathartic in that sense, more like having a bucket of freezing water thrown in your face.

Exactly what it is.

And I think there's a place for that. In whatever way people try to justify it – and usually when people start trying to justify Sadowitz it comes across quite poorly – I think they're usually doing so because of that factor. It's a feel thing. There's no real way to suggest what he says is morally justifiable, or that the irony is always obvious. They just know that they feel completely different when Sadowitz is saying something awful compared to whichever comic of past or present smugly delivers an "offensive" joke.

It's genuinely shocking, it's hard to handle, to get a grasp of how you feel about it. It's borderline sickening, borderline thrilling. For some reason, it can be very funny. He's the only comic whose act I would even consider referring to as part performance art because he's the only comic whose act seems genuinely open to interpretation. I don't know what he believes. I don't know if I should care more about it. I wouldn't even attempt to justify his jokes. But I like to think there's a place for him.

[Zetetic]

I feel like the fact he describes his own act as "screaming fascist schtick (sic)" should really be enough, but, no.

Is this what it was described as on booking platforms etc.?

I've seen these screenshots of the content warnings:

vs. another show:


And, if you're going to have content warnings, then this seems like something of a fuck-up by someone.

[curiousoranges]

GB News are defending him, according to a video someone posted on Twitter.

This is the one thing we didn't want to happen.

[jobotic]

I really hope this backfires for them.

Has he ever made abusive jokes about the Royal family?

[Zetetic]

I do struggle to see from any of the descriptions what separate Sadowitz from Gervais, Jimmy Carr, or even just a white lad on 4chan who loves spamming the n-word.

I think the most straightforward distinction from at least the first two examples is that Sadowitz doesn't try to come across as knowing or trying to knock up against the edge of acceptability. He's sufficiently unpleasant to a sufficiently large number of people, and the act portrays him as perhaps pitiable but not actually sympathetic.

If anything Davison and Chubby Brown seem more similar to me in terms of having more genuine, if very limited, self-deprecation in the small parts of their acts that I've ever seen.

But in all these other cases, the aim seems to fairly consistently have the audience and the comedian in on the joke, and maybe if that's ever violated to make a joke out of that.

[Rev+]

The audience is meant to recognise this stuff is bonkers and completely unacceptable but also shiver a bit because they have some deep uncomfortable recognition going on, confronted by everyday prejudices taken to their logical conclusion.

Couldn't see anyone else picking up on this, but you've perfectly described his act.  As others have said his time has maybe passed, because general hatred of others is back in fashion, but at his peak the whole point was that he'd be a blunderbuss of a hatred that was too extreme to take seriously.  Until, just for a moment, he said something you actually believed.  Because where does that leave you?

According to the BBC the Pleasance show was a 1300 seater(!) that was half-full.  No shit it was half full, he's not going to fill a room like that.  I'm going to be extremely controversial and suggest that the various staff costs involved in running his show for a second night maybe didn't make it worthwhile, and that it would have been more cost-effective to give the venue staff their break for that hour.

[madhair60]

Is this what it was described as on booking platforms etc.?

I may be in error - it's described this way on the Cambridge show's site and I just assumed it would be the same elsewhere.

[Deliciousbass]

Trying to think of a less emotive way of bringing this up, but what about non-white, non-male comedy fans? Do they not belong at "edgy" comedy shows?

I think there's a good tradition of women doing 'edgy' standup from Joan Rivers to Ali Wong, and an equally strong tradition of non-white comics who will do material attacking racism and mainstream culture in ways that I'd consider edgy. I would consider a lot of 2000s Stewart Lee material fairly edgy, even as it's coming from a left wing / inclusive point of view. This is why I don't agree that edginess is almost always about punching down, though I will concede that a lot of straightforwardly hateful stuff is peddled under the guise of 'edginess', which is bad. But we might just have different senses of what edginess is.

This is going to sound limp, but I didn't get the sense the Sadowitz was particularly courting a white male audience, or any audience for that matter, even if they did make up the majority of the audience.

[Goldentony]

don't want to seem like im defending anything but the difference between the end of the pier anaemic Generation Game finale shite of Chubby Brown and his grand piano, Jimmy Carr's shark from Jaws like demeanour and game show host delivery versus a guy without amplification spitting at the first three rows and calling all soldiers gay, among everything else, and the experience of that is massive and is what makes people defend the act in the first place, probably. It's barely a comedy show.

[Zetetic]

One of the bits that's stayed from Sadowitz is a section that he had which started out aimed at Gervais about irony and hiding behind characters, and about how great that was because you could say what you really wanted to in character

Spoiler alert

at which point he puts on a SS cap and launches into material tying together Scottish stereotypes, the idea that the Jews must have deserved anti-Semitism for there to be so much of it and denying the Holocaust, with the last two bits tied by some wordplay about "no smoke without fire".

[close]

(And I guess part of the broader joke is that we still kind of have to assume there's actual irony at work in this section about dismissing using irony as not having courage of your convictions?)

But, anyway, I think that forms a clear contrast with Carr's material about Roma victims of the Holocaust in a bunch of ways, for better or worse.

[Kankurette]

Sorry VGF. I'm too thick to understand what your point is. If you think Sadowitz is funny, go nuts. I'm not going to argue with you.

[JCR]

If Sadowitz is 'cathartic' then that makes me think that you're liking it because it's stupid racist sexist horrid crap and that's the release of those taboo thoughts, I.e saying what you're really thinking.

May as well watch Roy Chubby Brown or Jim Davidson for the same release, just pretend you're laughing ironically.

There's probably better racist comedy than Brown & Davidson available if I wanted it, Derek and Clive, Monty Python etc.

I don't think Sadowitz is racist for a second.

[phes]

Always found Sadowitz a lot more palatable than Gervais. Sadowitz' shows I saw seemed to me to be entirely about him and what an enormous spectacle of a cunt he is, much like Gervais shows although the latter is completely unintentional. Sadowitz shows seemed to be about shattering, alienating and shaming the audience with his act, whereas Gervais shows seem to be about building them up.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Sorry VGF. I'm too thick to understand what your point is. If you think Sadowitz is funny, go nuts. I'm not going to argue with you.

I'm just rambling about the arguments about offense v consensus around this, I've never even seen Sadowitz live just whatever recording was available

[Bennett Brauer]

If Jimmy Sadowitz is so good how come I've never heard of him?

[Cold Meat Platter]

Was the guy who played Hitler in Downfall a racist?

[Ambient Sheep]

Sadowitz has posted a longer statement on his Twitter https://twitter.com/realjsadowitz/status/1558938534819635201

It's the first time I've really seen him try to explain/justify his act, I think.

Bloody hell, yes, I think that is a first!


Interesting reply to that tweet here:

Jethrotull1
@Jethrotull110

Replying to @RealJSadowitz

I was around about dead centre middle on Friday night. There wasn't any walkouts apart from one couple near the end who seemed to wave at you goodbye as they left. There was a lot of movement owing to an open bar right outside the door. The venue is blatantly lying.

11:30 pm · 14 Aug 2022 · Twitter for iPhone

[Phoenix Lazarus]

Sadowitz has posted a longer statement on his Twitter https://twitter.com/realjsadowitz/status/1558938534819635201

It's the first time I've really seen him try to explain/justify his act, I think.

I like how he asterisks out Jim Davidson's full name - implying repeating it is beyond the pale even for him!