Hey
For a dissertation on my uni course (Comedy: Writing & Performance), I've written an essay about offensive comedy. Focusing on comedians such as Max Miller, Frank Randle, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks and Bernard Manning, as well as talking about the recent 'offensive comedy' debate this country seems to be having. Thought I'd post it on here, in case anybody wants to give it a read and give me any suggestions, whether it's grammatical or content based.
Thy Dissertation
In this dissertation I will analyse the recent media furore over 'offensive' comedy and whether the nation is either becoming too sensitive or whether the comedians are becoming lazier writers, looking to write a joke that shocks rather than tickles an audience. I plan to look at 5 'controversial' figures in stand up comedy from Britain and America, looking at their struggle to keep their artistic freedom. I will also explore whether the recent 'political correctness brigade' is a 21st century trend or whether censoring comedy has been present since stand up comedy was born; during the dawn of the music halls.
Widely considered to be the quintessential music hall performer was comedian Max Miller, whose notorious antics and wordplay would excite the packed out music hall crowds. Born in 1894, the Brighton born funny man decided to pursue a career in comedy after entertaining his fellow troops in the First World War. [1] He would come out on stage in his outlandish multi-coloured attire; a plus-four suit made of lavishly floral silk that nudged him in the direction of sexual ambiguity, thereby slightly softening the impact of his taboo-testing double-entendres (which would influence controversial comedian Roy Chubby Brown 40 years later)[ Medhurst 2007, p. 191]. Miller knew full well that part of his appeal was his 'edgy' material and he would capitalize on the commotion that surrounded it. At the beginning of a performance he would explain to the audience that the last time he played at the venue, he told a rude joke and somebody told the manager. He'd inform them "Now tonight I'm going to crack the same joke, but don't you laugh because if you laugh he'll know it's rude. Now I'll find out where he is, I think he's round the back." Miller would then have a quick glance behind the stage looking for the 'manager' and then edge closer to the audience, initialling a 'come here' gesture and almost whispering to them "He's on the side, sitting on the bar chair with a whip". The crowd then roars with laughter. [2] Miller's mannerisms and fictional manager routine would immediately make the gig more intimate and would allow the audience to feel that they were 'in on the naughty joke'.
Audiences would attend Miller's performances knowing that they were in for a risqué show from the start as fellow variety act performer Billy Grey reveals "He used to take out the red book and the blue book. He would ask the audience with a very, very cheeky grin on his face "Which book is it to be tonight? Do you want the blue book? Or do you want the red book? I know exactly what you're going to say, don't tell me; so i'll put the red book away." [3] By jokingly suggesting the audience had picked the book full of 'blue' material for him, he had comically shifted the blame onto them. He would use this method throughout his act. When Miller would recite a naughty limerick, he would stop just short of the last word. This allowed the audience to easily assume the 'rude ending' without Miller actually saying it himself. Comedian, Roy Hudd recalls "His opening line one night was, "So here's a funny thing" he said "I went to the chemist yesterday..." and all the audience started laughing. Now the only reason they started to laugh was because there was only one reason or one article, Max would ever go to the chemist for. That was the sort of aura he created." [3] By not actually saying what he was suggesting, it was very difficult for the censors to come down on the Cheeky Chappie's act. Although rumours do have it that Miller was banned from the BBC for 5 years after telling a rude joke during a live BBC transmission. The joke concerns a man confronting a beautiful girl on a narrow bridge. The punch line is, "he didn't know whether to block her passage or toss himself off." [4] However, Roy Hudd disagrees with these claims, "I don't believe in a million years Max Miller told this joke, I believe it was an apocryphal story. I've never ever heard him tell a joke which was as bold and obvious as that. He was much cleverer." [1] If he did upset the BBC it turned out to be one of the smartest things he ever did as it made him a national cause overnight. His blue material and on stage exploits would have the nation constantly talking about him, which was one of the reasons he could demand a salary of £1,500 a week in his heyday. [1]
Another comedian who could demand a high salary was Frank Randle who in 1950 became the highest paid comedian in Britain [5]. Randle was born in Wigan in 1904 and became a hero in the north of England, but an unknown everywhere else in the country because of the fact he rarely played south of Birmingham [Medhurst 2007, p. 73]. This wasn't because he despised travelling but because the west end shows he would put on would be greeted with disgust by the attending middle class audience [6]. For you see, Frank Randle was a Northern man's comedian. Not only that, but a working class northern man's comedian. Randle would perform on stage as various humourous northern characters such as 'the old hiker' and would belch, swear and drink his way through a performance [6]. A modern day comparison would be Steve Coogan's stand up character Paul Calf, who would also hold up a mirror to a Northern audience who recognized their own exaggerated faults and foibles. At a time where unpleasant bodily functions were unspoken social faux pas, Randle would comedically expose them. Author Jeff Nuttall [1978, p. 59] wrote in Randle's biography, "When a celebrity, then, a wealthy and distinguished man, makes it his mission to relieve these tensions he will be more than just funny. He will be adored gratefully by an entire class."
Unfortunately for Randle, not everybody from the North of England would find him funny. The character comedian would often be hounded and chased by Harry Barnes, the Chief Constable of Blackpool. Barnes would prosecute Randle and his shows cast members by enforcing obscure and forgotten 19th century by-laws [6]. Barnes claimed that he was acting in response to complaints that Randle's shows were full of unsavoury matters and vulgarity. In 1946, Randle's show 'Tinker Taylor' was cancelled by the police and local magistrates. They declared that the shows agreed script had been 'embellished with gestures that were disgusting, grossly vulgar, suggestive and obscene' [Nuttall 1978, p. 83]. Randle was no stranger to trouble. If he was ever heckled he would throw his false teeth at the outspoken person and would often smash up his dressing room with an axe if a gig did not go to his pleasing [6]. Throughout the 1950s, Randle's shows became wilder and more risqué and the arrests and summonses became more common. When he was finally banned from performing in Blackpool, Randle hired an aeroplane and proceeded to hurl rolls of toilet paper over the Lancashire city [Medhurst 2007, p. 75]. After one performance, Randle pleaded on stage "Ladies and gentlemen, you have seen that the little show we have presented for you this season has been under a great deal of criticism. You have seen that certain citizens, some of them quite eminent have seen fit to call our performance, 'filthy', 'obscene', 'offensive', and that may well be their opinion, but I come to you ladies and gentlemen and ask you to be my final judges." (Nuttall 1978, p. 84) It's clear to see Randle cared for the common people and his position within their mythology as a healer through laughter. Although Randle's audiences understood, the judge's did not and the comedian fell back on his alcohol addiction which resulted in his poor health and eventual death.
Frank Randle's situation could easily be compared to American stand up comedian, Lenny Bruce. Both men faced the incessant onslaught of legal action and the detrimental contribution this made to their health and their livelihoods. The common factor is that their creative potential was forever being crushed and condensed and both were being used as ritualistic scapegoats by controlling authorities. Like how Miller and Randle were in the army, Bruce also decided to be a comedian when he was serving time in the United States Navy. However, even as a young performer Bruce didn't want to just be another 'joke teller' as Honey Bruce, his wife explained "He didn't want to have a bunch of jokes that other people had written. At that time, that was just about what all comics were doing." [7]
Lenny Bruce's biographer Julian Barry describes 1950's America as "Largely a land of very happy people who thought that everything was just wonderful. But when Lenny came along and said things that were upsetting, they went mad" [8]. Lenny Bruce developed the complexity and tone of his material in the North Beach nightclub, the 'Hungry I' where fellow 'controversial' comedian Mort Sahl had earlier made a name for himself [7]. Bruce was a free-spirit on stage and would be one of the first comedians to speak about numerous taboos such as race, abortion, drugs, moral philosophy as well as his own 'Jewishness', but he felt he wasn't reaching a big enough audience. Going on television seemed like the easy solution to his problem but Bruce wasn't allowed the free rein he had in the comedy clubs as radio and media personality, Howard Stern discusses "Lenny Bruce used to go on network television and do these straight shows and nobody cared. You watch those appearances now and they seem so mundane and so ordinary and you go 'Gee, was Lenny Bruce any good?' but the real stuff that he was doing was in clubs." [9]
Bruce seemed to respect the boundaries and limitations of television however he felt compelled to continue performing whatever material he wanted to in the clubs across America. He did so with relative ease until late 1961 when he was arrested on obscenity charges for performing his usual routine he had been playing for months, even though there was no complaining customers or walkouts [7]. Bruce would not lie down and continued to perform the same act he always had; only now he would talk about his encounters with the law. Club owners were getting nervous. If Bruce was 'busted' in their club, they could also be arrested and find their club licence revoked. It also became somewhat 'fashionable' to bust Bruce. If he was to appear in your town and he wasn't arrested, there would be something wrong with your town. One club owner who did allow Bruce to perform at his venue during the comedian's later years was 'Cafe Au Go Go' owner Howard Solomon who recalls "Nobody walked out or was in anyway taken aback. But in one part of the performance there were two fellas sitting ringside and Lenny said, just off the cuff "I don't know, is this my paranoia or are you guys writing your laundry list?" and these were two fellas writing out all the words, extracting the words that he was using and then they cited us for presenting an obscene show, which was an old law called 11:48." [7].
Convicting Bruce had become a personal vendetta for the devout Catholic district attorney Frank Hogan who would use old forgotten laws to bring down the comedian, similar to what Randle had faced in England 10 years previous. Bruce wanted to defend himself to the jury by performing his set in court but presiding Judge John Murktar refused. Instead the Judge insisted on stenographers who had gone undercover to Bruce's gigs, to re-enact the performances from their written notes. This frustrated Bruce as they would add things which he didn't say to make his act sound worse than it was, "I got busted for an act that isn't mine and the irony is I have to go to court to defend it." [7]
By March of 1964, Bruce had been arrested 10 times, one memorable occasion being in Los Angles after he used the word 'schmuck' on stage. By the mid sixties his annual income had dwindled from $350,000 to practically nothing [7]. In the last few years of his life Bruce became obsessed with the law and how he felt he had been severely wronged. Less than forty days after his last gig, Lenny Bruce died of a drug overdose on the 3rd of August 1967. Although Bruce was ultimately defeated by the limits of his contemporary comic license, in his 20 year career he lifted many taboos thus changing the comedian's and the audience's way of thinking. Stand up comedian Sean Hughes believes "If comedy had a civil rights movement, Lenny Bruce was our Martin Luther King" [10] and few could argue that statement. Since Bruce, never again would a performer in America stand trial for using obscene language.
Although modern day performers do not get sent to court for obscene language, they do still get chastised by the media. Ever since Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross's ill thought radio prank phone call in 2008 to Andrew Sachs, the British media have been quick to clamp down on anything bordering on offensive. Whether it is Jimmy Carr's recent amputee gag or Frankie Boyle's comment about an Olympic swimmer having a big nose, it's making headlines in the newspapers. It's quite hypocritical that the tabloids would crucify Boyle for such a throwaway comment, considering they have entire sections pin pointing and highlighting physical imperfections of celebrities' bodies (e.g Victoria Beckham's acne, Cheryl Cole's sweat marks etc.). It's not just the newspapers which are acting against risqué comedy, since 'Sachsgate' the knock on effect has been quite staggering at the BBC. They have a remit to provide programming that is diverse, however with the current climate of fear at the BBC, the diversity has been narrowed considerably and comedy has been the primary casualty. A recent BBC event for writers was a case in point, as writer Armando Iannucci revealed "We were told to take risks 'sensibly', which just sounds to me like 'if you're going to jump out of a fifth-floor window, please do it carefully'." [11]
I decided to do my own investigation and sent a 'complaint' letter to the BBC about a recent joke involving the death of Princess Diana on popular panel show 'Have I Got News For You'. I personally wasn't offended by the joke, but wanted to see firsthand the BBC's reaction to a complaint letter. Within a few days they replied "Thanks for your e-mail regarding the 11 December edition of 'Have I Got News for You'. We are sorry that you were upset by the joke and we'd like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers. The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content." Although quite pleased that my comments may have reached the BBC executive board, it's also quite worrying how much effect my fake 'complaint' letter could do. When the Brand/Ross prank call went on the air, only 2 complaints were made out of the 250,000 listeners. Yet two people felt they had to resign and Ross was suspended from the BBC without pay [12]. In October 2009, an episode of 'The Week' was pulled from BBC iPlayer and a repeat of the show was cancelled after Andrew Neil made a joke comparing his guests to the 'chocolate hobnob and custard cream of late night telly'. This decision was made after the BBC received only 'a handful' of complaints who felt the comment might be construed as 'racist' [13]. Even worse, in March 2009 only one viewer complained that Graham Norton was portraying a negative lesbian stereotype on his late night chat show, the BBC ignored the 99.999% of the audience who felt the joke was okay, and issued a warning to the 'Graham Norton Show's production team [14]. It's startling that one or two small minded people who may have not understood a joke's satirical elements or are perhaps a little too sensitive can shape the future of comedy programming for all of Britain.
The fact that BBC are so scared of offending literally anybody is puzzling as there is not a single joke that doesn't have the capacity to upset someone for some reason – every joke has someone or something at the butt of it. I recently interviewed comedian Ray Peacock who told me of a time he challenged an 'over sensitive' audience with a theory "One guy found my material was offensive and so I asked him to tell me a joke that couldn't offend anyone. He said "Two rashers of bacon in a frying pan, one says, "hot in here isn't it?" the other says, "How can you talk? You are a rasher of bacon". I told him that as a vegetarian I found this extremely offensive." The BBC were not always as sensitive as they are today as comedy producer John Lloyd recalls "When we did Not the Nine o'Clock News the BBC really wanted young, edgy talent on screen and when we got 30 complaints the head of department said any decent satire show would have got 60." Coincidentally, ITV recently decided not to respond to 13 complaints made about 'Harry Hill's TV Burp' after the presenter compared a Vienetta ice cream to German tanks rolling into Poland [16]. Overlooking such comedies about the war as 'Dad's Army', 'Allo Allo' and 'The Producers', one protester claimed 'There are certain things you don't joke about.'[17] It could be argued that this particular protester realised what the topic was and instantly became offended that one could extract comedy from 'war'. This attitude in particular is quite mindless and detrimental towards comedians who feel it necessary to talk about serious subjects which really matter. An attitude all too familiar with American comic Bill Hicks....
Bill Hicks was a provocative stand up comedian who not only made the audience laugh but also made them think. He was a social critic with a lot of his comedy coming from his anger towards consumerism, superficiality, mediocrity and banality within the mainstream media. Even at a young age Hicks showed great interest in comedy by performing to his Sunday school class and making his friends incessantly laugh [18]. Growing up in Texas and raised in the southern Baptist faith, from a young age Hicks was surrounded by people telling him what he can and can't do [19]. Fast forward 15 years and not a lot had changed. By the mid eighties Hicks had become a working stand up comedian about to be given a chance for national exposure on popular American talk show 'Late Night with David Letterman' [20]. Hicks had prepared a routine about a time in school when his chair was pulled out from underneath him causing him to fall to the floor to which his classmates laughed at him. The next day Hicks did the same thing back to the kid, who ended up breaking his back from the fall. Hicks joked that he had to witness that that, now disabled, kid wheel his way into the classroom every day sarcastically remarking "Real funny Hicks". The material usually had audiences in hysterics, but in 1984 broadcaster CBS had 3 rules for comedy. No religious jokes, no schizophrenic jokes and no disability jokes [21]. Even though the butt of Hicks joke was his own bad luck the standards and practices wouldn't allow him to do the routine [22]. Hicks was baffled by their logic. Two years later he was invited back on the show again and this time he was allowed to do the routine on one condition; there could be no mention of the wheelchair. Hicks couldn't believe they wanted the joke without the punchline. After the audience failed to laugh at the unfinished routine, Hicks continued the joke to how it was intended to be but the Letterman producers edited it out and cut to an audience reaction shot instead. Producer Robert Morton rapped Hicks afterwards exclaiming that "Doing unapproved material like that was pretty much the same thing as giving me the finger on air" [21]. Hicks was subsequently banned from the show.
Three years later the 'Late Night With Letterman' segment producer changed, and the ban was lifted with Hicks performing a further eight times on the show. In October 1993, he was invited back to perform again but unknown to the public, Hicks was dying of pancreatic cancer. Hicks felt it could be his last big national television experience so he happily agreed. As always the set had to be approved beforehand and the producers gave him the green light to perform [19]. The recording took place and Hicks was over the moon with how it went saying it was his best Letterman appearance. However, hours before the show was set to air Hicks received a call from one of the producers saying how his entire segment had been cut. During the rehearsal of the show presenter David Letterman and producer Robert Morton felt his material about Jesus could upset CBS so they decided to not include it [23]. Hicks felt betrayed as he knew his material was clean. Speaking on a public access channel a few weeks after the incident Hicks hit out against the show. "A hot point I hit on the set, which was again, approved and re-approved by the Letterman segment producer, was Jesus. Which they don't want any discussion which I find so funny, I mean it doesn't even matter what angle you take on it. The fact that a comedian is talking about Jesus is deemed sacrilegious." [24]The gag that Hicks is referring to is "A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks, do you think when Jesus comes back he wants to see a cross?!" [25] Looking back at the 'offensive' material in 2009, it seems quite tame, with Hicks simply pointing out a funny observation. He has a valid point, why would Christians use the symbol of the object that killed their Lord to represent him? After the incident Hicks was concerned not only for himself but also for the future of American stand up comedy; "America doesn't take comedy seriously, neither does it take social criticism seriously. If you look at the careers of Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce, you'll notice that one was basically run out of the business and the other one killed himself due to lack of work. This is how America supports social criticism."[26]
Hicks didn't feel the Jesus material was the only reason the entire segment got cut, he also believed that the decision was made for commercial reasons. During the middle of his set Hicks made a joke about the 'pro-life vs abortion' argument. Hicks quips to the pro-life believers "If you're so pro life, don't lock arms and block medical clinics, lock arms and block cemeteries, let's see how committed you are to this idea." [25] In his last interview, an angry Hicks states "They quoted that as one of the 'hot points' that I touched on. Here's the punchline; Monday night, during the Letterman show a commercial airs for...Pro-Life. So see, we just had a misunderstanding. I thought I lived in the United States of America and actually we live in the United States of Advertising. Freedom of expression is guaranteed; if you've got the money." [24] Hicks felt betrayed, his last ever television performance, his 'goodbye' to the nation had been left on the cutting room floor for reasons he felt were "to keep people stupid, docile and apathetic." [24] Hicks felt the mainstream media didn't want him because he "doesn't correspond with their propaganda." Hicks passed away only a few months later in February 1994 at the age of 32.
Fast forward another 15 years, in January 2009 David Letterman invited Mrs. Mary Hicks, Bill's Mother, onto his chat show to apologize for his own behaviour a decade and a half ago. After discussing the incident, Letterman then aired Hick's 'banned' appearance in its entirety. Letterman, who hadn't seen a copy of the performance since the event, was left bewildered by his previous actions; "What was the matter with me? What was I thinking? That was just tremendous. If anything it says more about me as a guy than it does about Bill. I guess this speaks to the suggestion that he was well ahead of his time" [25]. Fans of Hick's believe he should never have been censored and that mainstream media was denying him his right of freedom of speech. However, just a quick glance at the YouTube comments left on British comedian Bernard Manning's video pages show hundreds of his fans saying exactly the same thing [28]. Does this mean Manning's relatives should be posthumously apologized to or was there a difference between Hick's preaching and Manning's rallies? Yes. Yes there is a big difference.
In 1995, Manning was secretly filmed by ITV's 'World In Action' series barracking a black officer at a police charity dinner. "Having a night out with nice white people?" he said with a cheeky grin on his face "Isn't this better than swinging from the trees?" [29] What is so alarming about that line is that Manning jettisons any form of wordplay or comic invention in favour of the confirmation of a clear prejudice. Another racial joke he performed on a regular basis was "They actually think they're English because they're effin born here. That means if a dog's born in a stable it's a effin horse." [29] It is examples like these which make it easy to define Bernard Manning as a spokesperson for bigotry, and it is clearly evident that the gags he makes about women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities only work for audiences who are firmly convinced that their whiteness and heterosexuality are higher up on the cultural and social ladder.
In a generation characterised by postmodernism and the disorientations of globalisation, Manning's comedy seems outdated, crude and offensive. However, his comedy wasn't always seen like this. Born in 1930, Manning started performing in the working men's clubs in the 1950's and perfected his joke telling and comic timing. This is a quality which is still appreciated by his peers to this day, with Barry Cryer being one of them, "The thing about Bernard was that he looked funny, he sounded funny and he had excellent timing. It was just what he actually said that could be worrying." [30] Black comedian Felix Dexter agreed but also felt Manning's bigotry should not be excused "He's good, there's no question about it but that's not the point. You don't become exempt from moral issues just because you're good." [31] Manning's biographer Jonathan Margolis argues that critics need to put Manning in perspective, to see him "as somebody who was brought up in a world where children were brought up to believe profoundly that white people, in fact white men for that matter were the masters of the universe." [32] As with most substantial comedians, Manning was an antagonistic and ambivalent figure. Some of his jokes obviously border on intolerant assaults against minorities, yet the sensibility he symbolizes is itself rooted in the life experiences and structures of another minority; the bigoted white English working class left behind by their country which constantly moves towards a multi cultured society.
In 2009, it doesn't feel appropriate anymore to tell jokes about black people but that doesn't mean that we are a kinder and gentler nation. Nowadays the jokes are about other taboos such a paedophilia, disability, tragedies and dead celebrities. So who really does have the moral highground? Jimmy Carr argues that some people "take a joke literally, which is the opposite of what a joke is." [33] Whereas as equally edgy comedian Ricky Gervais disagrees by saying "I'm not one of those comedians that think comedy is your conscience taking a day off. My conscience never takes a day off. I can justify every joke." [34] However, when watching Gervais live you begin to question whether he really can "justify every joke" or whether claiming his jokes are "ironic" is just a cover to tell offensive gags. Matt Lucas defends the likes of Gervais and Carr, "As comedians we regard the audience as being intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between the stupidity and bigotry of a character compared to the bigotry of the performer which may or may not exist." [35] The problem is when Gervais or Carr perform, they perform as their namesakes. There are no crazy costumes or silly accents, so it's very difficult for audiences to separate the performer and the 'character'. It could be argued that for every risqué joke the comedian as their own moral dilemma on whether to tell it or not, or whether they can defend it. In an exclusive interview with stand up comedian Robin Ince he told me "One test is – if you have a joke involving cerebral palsy for instance, and someone with cerebral palsy is in the audience, can you or will you do that joke?"
Audiences also face their own moral dilemma when watching 'edgy' comedy as behavioural expert Judi James explains. "I think sick humour really emphasizes and brings out that moral struggle. You can see it going on in people's faces when they're told the joke 'Should I walk out? Should I get up and say this is disgusting or should I just sit here and laugh at it'?" [31] Robin Ince believes in light of the recent media furore concerning 'offensive' comedy that "Some people are genuinely outraged but some people put on a display of moral outrage because they feel that's the front they should be putting on." However, in the 21st century it's widely known that audiences feel less moral outrage when hearing a joke about a rape or paedophile victim compared to when hearing a racist joke. Controversial comedian Jim Jeffries explains that the former jokes are "more acceptable because the audience inherently knows you don't mean it, the same as if you told a joke about killing someone the audience knows you're not a murderer. You can't do a lot of racist jokes because there are a lot of ******* racists out there. There's a good chance that the guy telling the joke probably is one"
In conclusion I don't think it's fair to deny a comedian artistic freedom as nobody really has the authority to say what is offensive and what isn't offensive as comedy is so subjective. What are comedians supposed to do when half an audience is saying 'that is so funny' and the other half is saying 'that's unfunny and cruel'. One woman went up to Bill Hicks after a gig and asked "Why can't do you things which appeal to everyone?" [37] What a burden, no one in any art form has been able to 'appeal to everyone', yet this is what is expected from comedians. Instead of people ringing up newspapers insisting something that they saw on television 'crossed the line', we should erase the idea that there are lines. Instead if somebody sees something on television they don't like they should change the channel or do something else, not everything on television is going to appeal everyone. The one pity during the 'have comedians gone too far' debate is that none of the comedians are being extreme with any purpose save for "have you seen that ugly woman? Isn't she ugly!" and "Look at us, we're being rude to an old man". It is hardly Lenny Bruce.
