Jerry Sadowitz

[Bearsinmotion]

Is anyone following this?

Really strange - the Pleasance theatre have cancelled Jerry Sadowitz’s show at the fringe, citing audience walkouts and complaints of extreme misogyny and racism. But have not quoted what was said that was so offensive even to him. Both Sadowitz and people who were there have questioned the walkouts. The show had many, many warnings about offensive content, and that he was going to be getting his cock out, which he did, as do other comedians at the Fringe.

there are a few comedians supporting him on Twitter, around the defence of free speech. But what stood out to me in the language was that audience members felt “unsafe,” yet I have not seen a single person say that was them. Graham Linehan has written about it here. Just wondering if it was related to the TRA frenzy as Glinner implies, with manufactured outrage or whether Sadowitz genuinely went too far this time.

I used to love Jerry back in the day, and he was one of the few calling out Jimmy Saville when it counted, so I want to believe he’s not been targeted for once again calling out those doing real harm…

Cancelled ? Or just didn't sell many tickets because tastes change ?

1. "...stories and language that were once accepted on stage, whether performed in character or not, need to be challenged."

Is this because the P word was used in character? Or perhaps JS's comedy persona is a character itself? But it gets to me. Yes everything can be 'challenged' but how can comedy or theatre explore difficult subjects if characters are held to the same standards as people in everyday life or speaking on stage as oneself? The comedian's persona or characters are like a mask and allows him/her to be the jester, saying things that are true but no one dares say. It could well ve that the way JS did it was unacceptable but without the detail this risks the whole thing. And the thing is precious.

6 There is a line that we will not cross at the Pleasance, and it was our view that this line was crossed on this occasion.
So embarrassing without the how and what.

1. They have staged him numerous times. They dont say 'but this time he did this thing which goes too far'. Instead they allude to societal change which now casts his act as beyond the pale. "In a changing world, stories and language that were once accepted on stage ..."

'The arts and comedy in particular have always pushed the boundaries of social norms but this boundary is always moving.' 'Our industry has to move with it. However, this does not mean that we can allow such content to be on our stages.’

These statements are really muddled. The fact is they have moved their own boundary and left him on the wrong side of it. They want to see themselves as 'pushing boundaries' but actually by doing this they are reeling the boundaries in.

My guess is they have responded to the new social mores of their young staff and the tension between that and the venue's previous free expression and boundary pushing values has resulted in a weird vague statement which tries to back fill the justification.

Tastes did change, but with anti-cancel culture on the rise and the way that people have stepped up to defend JS for similar topics that he himself used to joke about he's grabbing the opportunity to allign himself with JS.

I think I can remember JD experiencing cancellation. I can recollect feeling pleased when he ran into difficulties with venues. There was definitely controversy which wouldn't have happened if he had just become lost to obscurity.

Yes there was definitely something at the time, I'm no fan of Davidson but he deserves to be back on stage if there is a demand for him and I'll defend his right to be racist and misogynistic even if I think it's in bad taste - cancel culture has gone too far.

I think I can remember JD experiencing cancellation

Not sure I can. My memory is that he just wasn't selling and blamed "Political Correctness" as if his failure to adapt with the changes was somehow societies fault.

I am becoming increasingly perplexed at how I made it to my age without having been mortally offended by something. Why, it's almost like being bought up to avoid what I don't think I'd like and not sticking my nose into other peoples tastes was some sort of protection. It's only now, in my dotage I realise how terribly wrong I've been doing it.

I've reported you to MNHQ for being reasonable and not joining in with the (and I use this word advisedly) hysteria. You are ruining this thread and peoples enjoyment of it.

Does that need a smiley ? Of course it fucking does 😕

Not sure I can. My memory is that he just wasn't selling and blamed "Political Correctness" as if his failure to adapt with the changes was somehow societies fault.

'PC gone mad' was the 'woke nonsense' of it's day.

Then there is an entire generation that confused "health and safety" with "political correctness"

That's only half a joke. They key takeaway is that it's always somebody elses fault. Which rather neatly returns to my point that "free speech" doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Say what you want. Say it where you want. But don't then act all surprised if turns out that your "hilarious" accent that never fails to get a laugh with the lads gets you into trouble when you try it at a works do (or example).

We really are in danger of recreating the Spanish Inquisition.

.

I'm no fan of Davidson but he deserves to be back on stage if there is a demand for him and I'll defend his right to be racist and misogynistic even if I think it's in bad taste - cancel culture has gone too far.

That's a slightly different issue:

1. Should venues have the right to refuse to host overt racists like Davison and RCB? Yes, they should.

1. Should venues refuse to host edgy comics who subvert racism bit in an offensive way? Well yes, sometimes, if it's not appropriate to their context.....

....but cancelling JS at the very last minute, when they knew exactly what his act was like and then vaguely implying he makes people unsafe is not on.

Yes, venues are completely at liberty not to run shows, even if there is a demand for them. Of course they are.

the problem here is The Pleasance’s complete inability to explain why they reacted in such an extreme way.

it makes me wonder if even they know why they did it

And the new use of ‘unsafe’ to refer to feeling uncomfortable makes me want to rip telephone directories in half

how are people to refer to things that are genuinely dangerous when that word has been taken to mean ‘bum clenchingly embarrassing’ or similar

I didn't expect that.

Nobody expected it.

Actually this is the controversy that I remember...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032922/Jim-Davidson-banned-theatre-manager-claims-refused-accept-policy-wheelchair-users.html

Seems he wanted to have wheelchair users removed from the front row and was rude to staff.

IMO cancellation is justified in these circumstances.

They are clearly trying the "We know more than you" paternalistic approach that's been used to justify censorship down the ages.

The thing is you need to be bought up to call that out as total bullshit from an early age, or you'll simply swallow it. Which is great, but if we carry the underlying logic to it's conclusion then it removes the vote from the masses and takes us back to the Peasants Revolt. Because you invariably end up being ruled by people "who know best" and "for your own good". I have no doubt that had the Sarah Everard vigil prosecutions gone ahead, the Met Police would have justified their actions as being "for the protestors own good", and that a sizeable proportion of people on this thread would have agreed.

From the article -

He hit the headlines in October 2003 when he cancelled a show in Plymouth after managers refused to move a group of people in wheelchairs from the front row to the side aisles.

At the time, Mr Davidson said: 'As all the people in the front row were in wheelchairs I feared it would appear I was specifically targeting disabled people.'

Seems reasonable to me.

And yet those people in wheelchairs obviously didn't feel "unsafe" to attend a Jim Davidson comedy gig in the first place.
No-one on planet earth booking tickets for him wouldn't know that he was an insulting, racist, homophobic, misogynistic foul mouthed person.

Maybe in those days people were able to understand a)they had the right to attend or not to attend a gig b)that words are not literal violence c)that just because they are disabled doesn't mean they would be terminally offended by a joke about disabled people d)they could leave like adults if they found the show wasn't for them

I think Jim Davidson is vile. I don't find him funny.
Ergo, I don't go to his shows.

These people understood that. They wanted to go, so they did.

Freedom of choice.
Adults being responsible for themselves.

Seems reasonable to me.

I can't see it catching on. Comedians clearing the front row of any demographic that they might risk offending.

Yes everything can be 'challenged' but how can comedy or theatre explore difficult subjects if characters are held to the same standards as people in everyday life or speaking on stage as oneself?

Exactly.

Art is not life. Theatre is not life. Look at the language: play, show, stage, act, actor. The clue is right there.

I'm not aware of any other species other than human beings who create art. Far cleverer people than me have written about why this might be, and about what function it serves in our lives. I don't fully understand it myself but what I do believe very strongly is that it should not be the role of art to either replicate life or to create a 'better' society. I think that any attempt to enforce that line of thinking - however well-intentioned - takes us down a slippery, steep and ultimately very dark path.

Jim thought it was a good idea to move them because he was worried that when he launched into his ableist material the other audience members might think he was aiming it specifically at the diabled people in the front row.

Makes him Dim Davidson then, really. It's hardly as if any venue is spoiled for choice for accessible seating to start with.

Political correctness was part of the same thing that's going on now. Anyone that thought it was just "politeness" didn't understand what was going on or where the term came from and why it was used.

We are in the place that led to.

Well quite.

If you follow this through to its logical conclusion, where theatre can't go beyond real life norms, then that's murder mysteries, dystopia, sci fi etc all out of bounds. Would be very dull. Special effects banned.