Quote: James Harris @ April 3 2009, 10:55 AM BSTWhich is why I find stereotyping of entire nationalities and sexualities lazy and depressing, and crucially, not very funny.
I agree, it's terrible. It's just the sort of thing the Germans would do.
Gay Jokes/Characters In Comedy Page 8
Quote: NoggetFred @ April 3 2009, 12:34 PM BSTI agree, it's terrible. It's just the sort of thing the Germans would do.
What was Michael Caine's great line from Goldmember? "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."
Surely, when the audience evaluates the intent behind the same basic joke coming from two different comedians, then it just becomes a 'fan' thing. "I like Blah; so Blah couldn't possible have meant it in a racist way." or "Blah must be a racist, he's from the bloody North. And, anyway, I've never liked him."
The only person who truly knows the intent, and whether there is irony or otherwise, is the comedian?
How many racists does it take to hide behind "irony"?
I'm echoing James, and DD. Stereotypes are lazy but can give a quick handle. However, genius is at work when the handle is non-stereotypical and gives an instant and true glimpse on character. I'll never forget the moment Niles Crane carefully wipes the cafe seat, the moment we see him in the Frasier pilot. Bang, one aspect of a man delivered without dialogue, in a split-second way that anyone can grasp. Therein is genius. Unreserved.
Quote: SlagA @ April 3 2009, 1:09 PM BSTSurely, when the audience evaluates the intent behind the same basic joke coming from two different comedians, then it just becomes a 'fan' thing. "I like Blah; so Blah couldn't possible have meant it in a racist way." or "Blah must be a racist, he's from the bloody North. And, anyway, I've never liked him."
The only person who truly knows the intent, and whether there is irony or otherwise, is the comedian?
Well, no! 
The performer should deliver material in such a way as to leave the audience in no doubt. It can be a tightrope as some audience members may take it at face value, but then that's down to them being stupid! Unless you have terrible evaluating faculties, you should be able to simply work out if a performer is actually just being racist or not.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 3 2009, 1:33 PM BSTThe performer should deliver material in such a way as to leave the audience in no doubt... ...you should be able to simply work out if a performer is actually just being racist or not.
Like here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjUNF_R_PY - when Michael Richards lost it, revealed he was a racist and threw his career away; but as the old Voltaire quotation goes: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Quote: Kenneth @ April 3 2009, 1:55 PM BSTLike here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjUNF_R_PY - when Michael Richards lost it, revealed he was a racist and threw his career away; but as the old Voltaire quotation goes: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire was wrong though wasn't he? Turns out there are things you can that are indefensible. That's why Richard's career's screwed.
Voltaire wrong? Never, Sir, it's just most of the world seems to disagrees with his position. 
Well Dave Chapelle or Chris Rock would have got away with the same routine.
And it sounded in many ways like exploding stereotypes style material.
Guess he was to angry to make it work.
I guess Richard's first mistake was to take that Harlem gig. 
Quote: swerytd @ April 3 2009, 11:17 AM BSTROTTWEILER:
Woof!POODLE:
Woof! Woof. Grrr.ROTTWEILER:
Woof?POODLE:
I was being ironic, you twat...
I found this rexist.
Quote: SlagA @ April 3 2009, 2:49 PM BSTI guess Richard's first mistake was to take that Harlem gig.
The following clip explains all about his rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xssjIfSFcn4
Although it's not very gay.
That said with Richard and Russell Brand they weren't prosecuted, no legal framework was used against them. They were dropped becuase the networks they worked with feared a backlash by viewers would lower their viewing figures. In which case this is free speech at work in it's purest form.
Richards was something of a failure post Seinfeld.
Where as Tom Cruise who's been as offensive on other subjects carrys on.
The BBC took Ross back with open arms and now he's up for an award which he may well win.
Don't mistake untouchable for unpopular.
Quote: sootyj @ April 3 2009, 2:41 PM BSTWell Dave Chapelle or Chris Rock would have got away with the same routine.
And it sounded in many ways like exploding stereotypes style material.Guess he was to angry to make it work.
He lost control. Like you say, others could have got away with the routine if its presented as a routine- scripted, rehearsed and practiced. When you go loopy its fairly obvious to the audience what is real and not real.