0 University of Leeds School of Performance and Cultural Industries Major Dissertation PECI 3104

It Isnt Just a Joke:

The artistry of stand-up and the British press.

200326763

200326763

PECI 3104

1
Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 Perceptions of stand-up comedy as an art form

Chapter 2 Media-based responses to the comedy of Stewart Lee & Brendon Burns

15

Chapter 3 Media-based responses to the comedy of Roy Chubby Brown

27

Chapter 4 The politics of newspaper readership and comedic preference

35

Conclusion

42

Bibliography

45

200326763

PECI 3104

2
Introduction

Stand-up comedy is a dynamic performance medium. Described by Brian Logan as a curious art form, in that its the only one defined by the reaction it seeks to elicit in its audience (2011:22), the stand-up comedy experience is an ephemeral one, a conversation between performer and viewer, yet practitioners and audiences alike are affected in their experiences by a third party. Auslander states stand-up comedy is largely shaped and limited by its relation to that most determining of postmodern cultural forces, the mass media (1992:197). Bourdieu shares this view: critics are not only key gatekeepers in the communication of comedy to the public but they are also bestowed with the authority to assess artistic works (Friedman citing Bourdieu, 2011:354).

Whilst laughter, humour, and comedy as a general term, have been written about extensively in academic circles, stand-up has not been offered the respect of scholarly attention. Where we do see debates on stand-up emerging is within the press. This is because stand-up is an important part of our cultural industries. As Medhurst states, comedy plays an absolutely pivotal role in the construction of cultural identity (2007:1), and stand-up is comedys barebones: an audience, a performer, and a microphone.

The relationship between the media and stand-up is significant, and yet a consideration of the interplay between stand-up comedy and the press has not been levelled academically. Through three case studies, this paper will examine the artistic

200326763

PECI 3104

3
craft of stand-up, and the key factors affecting media-based response to that craft. Focusing on three comedians that use offensive material, this paper looks to provide clarity on a convoluted area of debate.

I have chosen my three case studies for a number of reasons. Firstly they are all white, middle-aged, and male (the dominant demographic amongst stand-ups), yet they occupy very different emphases when it comes to how they direct their use of offensive material. Juxtaposing these three stand-ups will show interesting contrasts in how they are portrayed in the press. Stewart Lee, a darling of the liberal middle-class, flies the flag for political correctness. The careful and measured way he uses offence is indicative of his own frustration towards a careless use of controversial material. Brendon Burns on the other hand is aggressive towards a society that has been dumbed-down by political correctness, whilst simultaneously deploring prejudice. He breaks down the issue of offence by demonstrating how ridiculous of an emotion it is. Roy Chubby Brown is a traditional comic, not intent on creating comedy with a political edge. Brown is the most popular of the three, and also the most controversial. The way that Brown differs most significantly from Lee and Burns is that he does not offer his audience any subtext behind the jokes in his set. All three use offensive material, but in very different ways.

Firstly, it is important to consider the role of offensive material in stand-up. Littlewood and Pickering state that joking plays disrespectfully on our sense of what is socially respectable or ethically correct (1998:292). Similarly, Wagg argues that comedy reflects and, perhaps, seeks to challenge particular sets of political

200326763

PECI 3104

4
circumstance (1998b:244). Jenkins too believes that jokes allow the comic expression of ideas that in other contexts might be regarded as threatening (Andrews citing Jenkins, 1998:51). It is clear that comedy derives much of its humour from probing the sensibilities of a particular culture. We live in a society with a heightened awareness of what is and is not acceptable to say, and comedy has a history of saying the unsayable.

What complicates this situation is the Aristotelian notion that humour is essentially aggressive and the laughter that is based in superiority is the humour of ridicule, of the ludicrous and of the grotesque. (Rutter, 1997:9). Rising out of this view is a suspicion that assumes a degree of malevolence is inherent within all comedic work. This paper scrutinizes the conflict that arises when comedians use offensive material and it is deemed as an attack.

Chapter 1 will explore common misconceptions of stand-up, looking at the history of this performance mode, and the relationship between performer and audience. I will then focus on issues arising out of the interplay between form and content that are present within media accounts of this kind of comedy. I will interrogate the notion that comedy has largely been relegated to the inferior cultural position of entertainment rather than art (Friedman, 2011:348), and with reference to key theatre practitioners, I will put forward an argument for stand-up to be recognised as a valuable form of contemporary theatre practice.

Chapter 2 will examine the media-based criticism of Stewart Lee and Brendon Burns,

200326763

PECI 3104

5
and how this links back to the misconceptions that I have previously discussed. With specific reference to an article published in the Daily Mail that is critical of Lee, and one in The Guardian that is critical of Burns, I will look at how these viewpoints affect the way stand-up is projected as an art form. I will also begin to question the comedians responsibility for his or her audience.

Chapter 3 will look at a Utilitarian argument as justification for the stand-up comedy of Roy Chubby Brown. Given that he is a comedian popular amongst the workingclasses, I will also discuss the politics of broadsheet criticism towards Brown. I will compare his defence of his own comedy with the defence offered by others, and discuss the issue of culpability when it comes to how audiences interpret work.

In order to understand media responses to my different case studies, Chapter 4 will look at the politics of newspaper readership alongside the politics of comedic preferences, and the class issues within that politics. With continued reference to media-responses to Brown, as well as touching on media views of comedian Frankie Boyle, I will identify the class conflict inherent within the relationship between standup and the media.

This is not however, a study based on television comedy. This paper is focused on stand-up comedy as a live performance genre. That said, I will refer to television comedies appropriate to my argument.

Despite the lack of scholarly attention offered to stand-up, there is a significant

200326763

PECI 3104

6
amount of critical analysis and theoretical opinion offered in the form of articles on websites, newspaper opinion pieces, and expressed by comedians in interviews and onstage. My referenced material reflects these sources.

The irony of looking at stand-up from an academic perspective is that it is possible to render it humour-less. I have tried to make to make this paper an enjoyable read. I am not looking to reach an all-encompassing truth about stand-up. Rather, by taking on a divergent approach I want to probe the conflicts that exist within this fascinating performance medium.

200326763

PECI 3104

7
Chapter 1

In 2009, promoter Lisa Keddie contacted the Arts Council and applied for funding for a stand-up comedy event she was organising. She was turned down on the basis that the organisation only funds art (Davis, 2009). What Keddies experience highlights are important questions regarding how stand-up is viewed alongside theatre and more classically artistic endeavours. These viewpoints affect the way we approach media-based criticism of stand-up.

Comedys relationship with theatre dates back to Ancient Greece and the work of Aristotle, with comedy defined as being in direct opposition to tragedy (Friedman, 2009: 6). Robert Stebbins argues that the humour sometimes present in Ancient Greek dramatic prologues, where an individual spoke to the audience to warm them up and set the scene for the play that followed (1990:6), is the first example of a performance style that can be held as analogous to stand-up. Stand-up was not seen as a performance medium in its own right until thousands of years later, however it is important to recognise the theatrical origins that effect the way comedy is viewed.

Stand-up developed from the comedy acts of the mid to late 19th Century music halls (Auslander, 1992:197; Friedman, 2009:10; Stebbins, 1990:7), and with the origin of Alternative Comedy in the late 1970s re-imagining the performance mode, we reach what we now know as contemporary stand-up. Friedman asserts that due to the British governments Theatres Act (1843), allowing local authorities to licence buildings as new performance venues for new performance work, which in turn brought about the

200326763

PECI 3104

8
partial deinstitutionalisation of the theatre, comedy began to resemble a distinct field of British cultural production (2009:9), a performance medium in its own right, and split from traditional English drama. It should be recognised that, had it not been for this split, Britain would not have the rich, diverse, and progressive stand-up comedy scene that we take for granted, and that many other nations lack. However, stand-ups history of disassociation with high culture, has had a distorting affect on how standup comedy is viewed as a performance genre, and the way it is discussed in the press.

The casual delivery and acted spontaneity that characterises most popular stand-up, when taken literally, has done the medium an injustice. Stebbins describes stand-up as the art of humourous dialogue... usually presented in a spontaneous conversational manner (1990:3). Some stand-up acts have consciously worked against this hegemonic style, but it remains the norm. It is this conversational manner that becomes a barrier when discussing issues of offence. Writing in 2011, comedian Rob Alderson comments on the popular comedic device of professing the truth: I swear this is true, all too often bookmarks the start and end of a routine (2011). He asserts that this statement is unnecessary, because when people go into a comedy club there is a similar suspension of belief that happens in a theatre. However, Jimmy Carr suggests that the suspension of belief that Alderson describes is not so clear-cut.

I'm quite cold onstage... I tell jokes, I don't really give of myself. It must be very difficult for people like Peter Kay who's super friendly onstage, and you imagine Oh my god, he must be the nicest guy in the world. So, if you meet him and he doesn't invite you back to his place for tea, you feel short-changed.

200326763

PECI 3104

9
Whereas with me, if I just say Hello, morning! people go: Oh! He's not a total cunt. They're pleasantly surprised. (Carr in ITN, 2007)

Some audiences, Carr implies, fail to identify a separation between the stand-up performer and the character that they take on.

This relationship is enhanced by many comics deciding to discuss topical subjects, with some believing that it is a requirement of stand-up. In one of Burns shows he declares, in reference to the 2007 failed car bombings in London, if you saw a comic not talking about it, he wasn't doing his fucking job (2008). Stewart Lee states that one of the unique benefits of the art form is that you can think of an idea in the afternoon... and implement it in the evening (2010a:29). Stand-up comedy is a medium that addresses the zeitgeist, and so drawing a separation between the performer and their material is difficult. What compounds this issue is the fact that there are often moments in a stand-up performance that genuinely are casual, conversational and unplanned.

The truth is that for most, the performance process is a meticulously planned one, despite extemporaneous moments. Acts will play with words, change their order, weave pauses, gestures, and facial expressions here and there (Oliar and Sprigman, 2008:1789) to garner the desired audience response. Despite the fact that stand-up seems a mile away from fourth-wall naturalism, it should not be seen as less of an acted medium. In the case of Lee, this process is documented in the footnotes to the transcripts of his shows in his book How I Escaped My Certain Fate, even pointing

200326763

PECI 3104

10
out moments of his shows that he sets aside for semi-improvisation (2010a:49). It is possible to pore through the transcriptions of Stewart Lees routines in his book... and youd be hard-pressed to find even half a clause that doesnt have its place (Alderson, 2011). During the opening of one of Lees shows, he highlights exactly this issue for comic effect.

I say to someone what's your favourite High Street coffee retail outlet? and they said one, and I say why's that? and normally the reason, there's some facts in it, and I can do about 10 to 15 seconds of semi-prepared improv off that, and then I work round to what I want to talk about... but I like to disguise it as if its just come out of a little chat. (Lee, 2010b)

Lee's onstage revelation of these inner mechanics is in keeping with his distinctive referential style which characterises his onstage persona.

What this piece of material highlights, is the fact that many comedians use the ambiguous relationship between themselves, character, audience, and material, in order to structure their act. For a stand-up like Russell Howard, who embodies an everyman persona, it is interesting to consider the extent to which his audience understands his performance process. The Daily Telegraph comedy critic Dominic Cavendish describes Howards act as having a quality of complicity that makes his chatter sound as if he has invited each and every one of his audience home for tea and a mischievous giggle (2008), and it is interesting to note the similarities between this comment and Carrs statement about Kay. Implicit within Cavendishs appraisal is an

200326763

PECI 3104

11
understanding of the intention for Howards material to be received in this way. However, as demonstrated by Carr, the extent to which the audience understands the level of performativity being engaged is difficult to identify, and likely to vary from case to case. Howard observes that the comedian always deals with at least two different realities: the reality created by his or her comic act and the reality of the audience situation. The skilful comedian continually and abruptly moves his audience through these realities, leaving them breathless and exhausted from the trip (1978:777). Acts often deviate from their material in order to address their audience directly, but it is important to consider the onstage characterisation that takes place as very much an intentional performance process.

These comic worlds that Pollio describes are fascinating to consider when looking at the use of potentially offensive material in stand-up comedy, and where the comedian is able to position themselves and their audience around that material. The issue here is that a stand-up comedy show is rarely an end in itself. As journalist Hazel Davis states, good comedy goes far beyond laughter (2009), and as well as acknowledging the artistry behind the performance process of stand-up, it is also important to consider the artistic goals of this work.

The political power of humour has been addressed extensively in academia. Stott (2005:104), Friedman (2011:348), and Andrews (1998:51), all assert Waggs view that comedy invariably has a political thrust (1998b:xii). However, Friedman states that it wasn't until the birth of Alternative Comedy that stand-ups conspicuously applied this thrust, introducing new forms of critical, intellectual, political and surreal comedy

200326763

PECI 3104

12
(2011:348). Indeed, Medhurst states that the working-class music hall comedy that pre-dated these alternative acts was characterised by resignation and fatalism (2007:64), with the entire format shunning any sense of life as it should be (2007:65). However, the seemingly non-political culture of the working-class music hall was fundamentally political; a conservative institution appeasing any radical movements amongst the working-classes with laughter and singing (2007:64). Whether explored explicitly or not, the presence of politics within the history of stand-up comedy alludes to a performance medium that has the potential to go far beyond being a vehicle to achieve a transient laugh. Double (1997:33) and Garner both assert the ability of comedy to juxtapose pathos and slaphappy lunacy (Garner, 2004:28). Underneath the initial emotion of laughter, stand-up comedy can appeal to more than just this sensibility.

The Alternative Comedy movement knowingly took influence from high-art (Friedman, 2011:348), and because it catalysed the antiestablishment humour and general iconoclasm of modern stand-up (Stebbins, 1990:37), this influence persists. It is possible to draw comparisons between the 1960s pioneers of an ambiguous separation between art and life, such as Allan Kaprow, and contemporary stand-up; practitioners of an artistically ambiguous performance mode. The way in which standup is framed amongst the known experience of the audience is comparable to the modernist art practice of a contextualization of art in culture and society (Kchler, 2001:58). From a performance perspective however, the ambiguous relationship between performer and performance is a distinctly postmodern phenomenon. Kaprows Happenings were events that presented art as part of everyday experience,

200326763

PECI 3104

13
as opposed to in contrast to it. The bespoke comedy club works similarly, acting as a social space as well as a performance venue (Stebbins, 1990:38). Furthermore, the way that stand-up is often represented in the press echoes Michael Kirby's criticism of the way Happenings were perceived in the 1960s.

It has been said that there is little or no planning, control, or purpose. It has been said that there are no rehearsals. Titillating to some, the object of easy scorn to others, provocative and mysterious to a few, these myths are widely known and believed. But they are entirely false. (Kirby, 1995:1)

This statement could be mistaken for a critique of perceptions of stand-up comedy. The irony that this comparison offers is that, in both instances, the artistic means have the potential to guide audiences away from the artistic ends.

Comedian Max Dickins claims that you don't have to be an artist to be a good comedian (2010). Dickins argues that being a good comedian is predicated on producing the most enjoyment possible for your audience, not necessarily on challenging the conventions of the performance mode or society itself. I would argue that all stand-up is a fundamentally artistic process, even if the intentions for the work go no further than laughter itself. Peter Kay, a comedian Dickins identifies as less of an artist than Lee, is noted for his observational humour, and reference to unrecognised ridiculousnesses in our daily lives. It is precisely this mechanism of highlighting onstage, and drawing attention to, normalities that we take for granted in a way that is designed to provoke a reaction, that defines Kays performance process

200326763

PECI 3104

14
as an artistic one.

If we look at theatre practice more specifically, the format of contemporary stand-up goes some way to answering some of the questions posed by Artauds Theatre of Cruelty, and Brechts Epic Theatre, questions raised in order to create a theatre that is indeed meaningful and expressive. Artaud advocates a holistic approach to performance, where it exists in a kind of single, undivided locale without any patricians of any kind (1970:74). The performance process that characterises standup, of discussing culturally relevant material, addressing the audience directly, and in some cases engaging in dialogue with the audience, forms a natural rejection of the alienating qualities of the proscenium that Artauds Theatre of Cruelty was theorised to oppose. Similarly, it is the intention of Brecht's Epic Theatre to demonstrate a more discernible sense of truth onstage, and examine humanity within its social and natural environment (Wilson citing Brecht, 2006:53). In stand-up shows, audiences are regularly called to task for societys shortcomings, a notably Brechtian impulse. I would argue that, on the basis of these similarities, journalists have an even greater responsibility to be sympathetic to comedians created realities.

200326763

PECI 3104

15
Chapter 2

Stewart Lee's stand-up is characterised by a feigned ignorance towards issues of acceptability in contemporary Britain, and the hypocrisies inherent within it. At the start of a routine centred on political correctness, Lee states that one hesitates in the current climate to make a joke onstage about the Muslims, not for fear of religious reprisals when's that ever hurt anyone? (2010a:292). This brilliantly displays the politics at the core of Lees ironic satirical creation.

In 2009, the Mail on Sunday reported on a routine Lee was performing (in his show If You Prefer A Milder Comedian, Please Ask For One) at the Edinburgh Fringe about Richard Hammond, one of the presenters of the BBC Two programme Top Gear (a programme characterised by its presenters boisterous badinage and rejection of leftwing social policy). The material was comprised of Lee explaining in precise detail how he wished Hammond to die, a statement heightened by the audiences knowledge of Hammond's high profile near-death car crash in 2006.

Lees material takes his mild disdain for Hammond (Imjackcooper, 2010) to a comedically excessive level. The measured manner in which he delivers the line I wish his head had come off... had rolled into a still-burning pool of motor oil, but there was just enough sentience left in his spinal column for him to go oh, that's hot, and then die (2010b) offers the audience a juxtaposition between content and form that acts as an indicator towards the ridiculousness of this idea. The Mail on Sunday's James Tapper did not identify this however, describing Lees routine as an attack,

200326763

PECI 3104

16
and a diatribe (2009). Tapper did not even reveal that Lees comments were made as part of a stand-up show until midway through the article. The circumstance behind Lees comments was mentioned as almost an afterthought amongst intense criticism of Lee, demonstrating precisely the lack of separation between performer and performance that I explored in Chapter 1. Tapper is not alone. Nigel Pauley ran a similar story in the Daily Star describing Lee's material as a sick joke (2009).

Between Tapper's article being published in August 2009, and the DVD taping of If You Prefer A Milder Comedian, Please Ask For One in March 2010, Lee included a riposte as part of the show. Addressing the camera, Lee states:

what I was doing there just in case there's anyone from the Mail on Sunday watching this, is I was using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and the implied values of Top Gear, to satirise the rhetoric and the implied values of Top Gear. And it is a shame to have to break character and explain that, but hopefully it will save you a long tedious exchange of emails. (2010b)

In revealing the inner mechanics of his comedy, Lee acknowledges the importance of his performed character in his act.

By wishing death on Hammond, as a fictive act, whilst referencing Hammond's nonfictional car-crash, Lee moves the audience between the realities that Pollio describes in his aforementioned article (p.11). On this basis, it is understandable how this routine could be misunderstood by some as a diatribe. I would argue that Tapper

200326763

PECI 3104

17
should have engaged in reviewing Lees act, and then offered judgement on the show as a whole, as opposed to offering readers an out-of-context portion of it. In January 2010, after having lodged their outrage at Lee four months earlier, the Mail on Sunday reviewed the show in full. Critic Mark Wareham gave the show five-stars and declared In context, nothing Lee says is offensive (2010).

Sean O'Hagan, writing an interview piece on Lee for The Observer, comments that the Top Gear routine demonstrates Lee occupying a dangerous hinterland between moral provocation and outright offence adopting the tactics of those he targets in order to highlight their hypocrisy (2009:8). It would be possible to argue that by highlighting hypocrisy in this way, Lee goes some way to occupying a hypocritical position himself. However, the key difference in this instance is that the performance context of Lees work, whilst informal, provides what he says with a theatrical framing. Not only am I proposing that stand-up comedy should be widely accepted as an art form, something that could curb negative reactions to material that is delivered on a stand-up comedy stage, but that a clear distinction needs to be made between comic material that is delivered as part of a stand-up comedy set, and comic material that is delivered in other situations.

In October 2009, Charlotte Martins feature for The Sun looked at the most controversial contemporary jokes. The article consisted of jokes told by comedians as part of stand-up comedy shows, printed alongside jokes told in a range of public contexts (namely non-comedy-based radio and television programmes), with no distinction made between the circumstances surrounding the delivery of that material.

200326763

PECI 3104

18
The fact is, there is a difference between BBC radio presenter Edith Bowman jokingly referring to the Japanese as nasty Nips on her daytime radio show, and Patrick Kielty making light of Gerry and Kate McCann, in the well-documented disappearance of their daughter, as part of a stand-up comedy performance (Martin, 2009). As part of a stand-up show Kielty is given the opportunity, by his audience, to establish a context that affects how this material is received. Bowman is not working within a similar context.

Brendon Burns, dubbed a shock comic in the press, characterises his act by juxtaposing obscene sentiments with comments about how we conceptualise ourselves as tolerant, moral, and rational individuals. By bringing to attention the very material that we as a multicultural society deem abhorrent, Burns confronts the unacceptabilties of contemporary Britain. Burns suggests racism is one of humanity's funniest shortcomings, and when you laugh at it, it goes away (2008).

Burns comedy is provocative, outrageous, but fundamentally sympathetic towards society. His award-winning So I Suppose This is Offensive Now does exactly what Artaud calls for theatre to do, demonstrating a cruelty onstage to show the audience an uncomfortable truth. Burns cleverly draws a distinction between, on the one hand, the language that we (as a society) use as an indicator of offensive beliefs, and on the other, intentions at the heart of that use of language. At the end of a short routine centred on Islamic fundamentalism Burns sarcastically declares well sign me up Mohammed!. He then follows this up by stating:

200326763

PECI 3104

19
Oh, he said Mohammed, is that racist? NO! Your dilemma is racist. You know, cause Islamic fundamentalists have no more to do with Muslims than the KKK have to do with who I am as a human being (Burns, 2008).

Burns questions our culture of awareness towards what is and isn't appropriate to say. In March 2011, during Burns show in Leeds, he described the smile that white people do to black people to show them that they're not racist (2011). Burns highlights the extent to which an objectified code of offence is problematic, but also the extent to which prejudice is an internal manifestation, even if our behaviour is contradictory, the issue lies within (Burns, 2008).

At the end of one routine, he identifies an audience member not laughing: you're staring at me the same way my mum does when she comes. The audience immediately lets out a collective howl of disgust and shocked laughter, assuming Burns is making a joke about incest. Burns however immediately clarifies that he means when she comes ...to his shows. He immediately chastises his audience for making that connection: fuck you, you buggered-at-school British Freudian nightmare losers (2008). Besides from being a genuine mistake, Burns leads his audience in this direction in order to highlight the power of our own minds to manufacture offence. The audience seems collectively offended by the idea of something that came about through their own assumptions. Martin Rowson makes the important point that there is an overwhelming consensus which judges that things like cannibalism, incest, paedophilia, necrophilia or coprophagia are so beyond the spectrum of acceptable behaviour that it's not just offensive to engage in or advocate

200326763

PECI 3104

20
these vile practices, it's offensive even to mention them (2009:2).

Burns attempts to disable the phenomenon Rowson describes by encouraging his audience to have a sense of humour about the things that induce offence. In a similar way that Lee uses the tactics of those he targets in order to highlight their hypocrisy (O'Hagan, 2009:8), so too Burns satirises the power of offensive language by using that language whilst maintaining an awareness of its potential to offend. If accused of being offensive, Burns is able to argue that he is just discussing what offends people. What frames his whole approach is Burns self-deprecation that forms a criticism of anyone offended by someone as ridiculous as him: by the way, if I have offended anyone's faith tonight, then... you aint that fucking committed. Because it's your faith and your faith alone, between you and your perception of God, and that's pure and yours and I could never touch that. (2008). As Burns goes on to declare, if you profess your outrage at something you make it more powerful.

What provides Burns show with its climax is a staged argument with a planted audience member. The plant (an Asian actress) takes issue with Burns jokes about racism, accusing him of being racist and demonstrating her offence at everything he has said in the show. Burns reaction to her heckle exposes inherent bigotries on both sides of the argument, with him eventually telling her to get the fuck out. She exits with her brother (also a plant), and this is greeted with a round of applause from the audience, who are ignorant to the staged conflict. Having spent an hour discussing offence and what it means to be offended, as soon as Burns is presented with an offended agent she is dismissed and the audience is complicit within this.

200326763

PECI 3104

21
Furthermore, when the heckler's brother (who is white) tries to side with her, she dismisses him on the basis that he is white, and therefore has no idea what it means to be subjected to the racism she feels. 60 seconds after leaving the auditorium, the two evictees enter the stage from the wings and do a choreographed dance with Burns, and so reveal the hoax. The hypocrisy of the argument and the audiences reaction is not something Burns tries to explain. He allows the audience reaction, whether offended or not, to be manifested on an individual basis simply stating: everyone knows what their own reaction was. By manoeuvring the stunt in this way, Burns holds a mirror up the audience; they are the butt of the joke.

Stephen Barber describes Artauds Theatre of Cruelty as an impossible theatre (1993:44). I would argue however, that there is strong evidence to suggest that standup comedians have been practising a hybridised Theatre of Cruelty since the early 80s, in a way that strikes a chord with audiences. As Friedman states comedians like [Alexei] Sayle and Keith Allen dared to transgress the normal emotional responseThis meant material that directly invoked unpleasant emotions such as shock, disgust and sadness (Friedman citing Kuipers, 2009:19). In 2011, it is precisely this transgression that is exemplified by Burns.

The Guardian's Brian Logan finds problems with Burns provocative approach. In his article The new offenders of standup comedy (2009:6) Logan considers Burns style gratuitous and offensive. However, whilst Logan raises some important concerns related to the use of offensive material in stand-up comedy, he exhibits the same disregard for context as seen in the Mail on Sunday, Daily Star, and The Sun articles I

200326763

PECI 3104

22
have already discussed. He begins by referencing material that, out of the context of character and delivery, seems deeply inappropriate. By exploiting the situation explained by Rowson, of offence at the mere mention of something abhorrent, he seems to be rallying for the support of the readers against this kind of comedy. Logan focuses initially on comedian Scott Capurro, a comedian whose act consists of a barrage of creatively outrageous filth, under the impression of irony. Logan criticises Capurros act on the basis that it has the potential to encourage offensive behaviour, and that irony is not necessarily a valid get-out clause for stating views as extreme as Capurro does. By the end of the article however, Logan declares that I enjoyed Capurros set... I felt that Capurro had created a genuine comic persona that put the unpleasantness in context (2009:6). Logan's argument not only undermines the individual that walked out of Capurro's show, that Logan draws on as part of his argument, but by looking for some objective sense of what is offensive, he fails to recognise the irony of his own enjoyment. Logan states that Burns has a point when he argues that to be offended is selfish, because we all have our own personal goalposts and we all think that everyone else should adhere to them. Still, it doesn't get us very far in establishing an agreed standard of offensiveness (2009:6). I would question whether establishing an agreed standard of offensiveness is a particularly progressive approach? As Alexei Sayle states, offence doesn't reside in the subject matter, but in the power relationship between the comic and the audience (Sayle in Logan, 2009:6).

What Logan does do, is raise the important concern of whether a comedian's intention is enough for them to be vindicated for causing offence. Comedian Richard Herring

200326763

PECI 3104

23
believes it's the intent behind it that's the important thing (Herring in Logan, 2009:6), but Logan questions this view: Isn't the important thing the effect that this comedy has out there in the real world? (2009:6). It is a widely held view that theatre is recognised as being incomplete until an audience witnesses it and creates it for themselves intellectually (Kattwinkel, 2003:ix), and this notion is even more appropriate when applied to stand-up comedy, such is the importance of the audience in completing the performance process. The audience is implicit within a comedians act, and so to separate the two would be an unfair reflection of the artistic process. If a stand-ups material offends their own audience, and it wasn't part of their intended process, then to a certain extent they have failed. However, even to say offends their own audience contains its own problems, as this approach treats the notion of offence as something objectified, and it simply isnt. If audience members pay their entrance fee, watch the show, but feel affronted by the comedy they have paid for, we are forced to question the comedian's responsibility as an entertainer. Max Dickins offers an answer to this issue.

We all have duties as comedians, and they are defined by an audiences expectations. If we gig in clubs [and] you dont make them laugh hard for 20 minutes you have failed. The expectations/duties relationship changes however, when people pick which comedians they want to see. I dont go and watch Stewart Lee because he is going to deliver a gag-heavy club set. But because I know he is going to be intelligent and innovative.(Dickins, 2010)

Although Dickins view establishes clear boundaries for what is expected from acts

200326763

PECI 3104

24
(seemingly a requirement to move between the roles of challenging artist and dutiful entertainer depending on the circumstances of the performance), this is not a distinction that is upheld universally in the press and amongst audiences. When the Mail on Sunday criticised Stewart Lee (p.16), they did not conclude by saying but it was his show, in front of his fans, so its ok.

Amongst acts, there seems to be a glib acceptance that some audience members will misunderstand the intentions behind their performance: Controversy seems to be a by-product of what I do rather like offence is the by-product of a dog urinating on the pavement. It just happens (Lee in OHagan, 2009). Similarly, Herring states If you're doing a brilliant piece of irony and someone takes it literally, thats not your fault. It's their fault for not being intelligent enough to get it (Herring in Logan, 2009:6). To a certain extent, Herring's approach of distancing himself from the potential misunderstanding of his material is a realistic one; pragmatic in his status as a professional comedian who may not appeal to everyone's tastes. However, I would argue that a comedian does have a responsibility to consider the implications of how their audience understands what they're saying, particularly if they're making abhorrent statements, regardless of what their original intentions were. To ignore this responsibility completely would set a dangerous precedent, where if offensive material is written and delivered in order to express genuine prejudices for a particular group, the comedian is not held accountable. However, to go too far in the other direction leaves us with a situation where, as Herring describes, comedians are so nervous about transgressing they aren't able to provide their audience with a sense of catharsis (Herring in Logan, 2009:6). This nervousness is represented by comedian

200326763

PECI 3104

25
Russell Brand when he states that, with stand-up comedy if you say something wrong, like I sometimes do, you can go Oh no! I didn't it mean it like that and offer up mitigation and immediately apologise (Brand, 2011).

Brand's statement draws attention to the opportunity that stand-up offers its practitioner, to unequivocally discuss an issue in a way that won't leave audience members misunderstanding the argument being made. Few theatrical genres allow for the performers to pause halfway through a metaphor and check that everyone understands what theyre trying to communicate. On this basis, it seems as though the separation Herring draws between the performers intentions and audience understanding is a problem easily solved. Stewart Lee demonstrates this process at the end of his Top Gear routine (p.17). However, Lee also mentions that it is a shame to have to break character and explain that..., suggesting that the artistic reality Lee has created is ruined by this admission. The use of this device depends greatly on the style of the performer. Burns clarifies the situation at the end of So I Suppose This is Offensive Now, we're not trying to say here, by any stretch of the imagination, that we should go around calling one another paki, nigger, or faggot (2008), clearly stating how not to understand his comedy.

What is clear is that the strengths of stand-up comedy are also its weaknesses. The discussion of societys unmentionables, that stand-up allows, in order to connect with the concerns of an audience, can cause offence and in turn alienate the individuals who are there to be engaged. Furthermore, the use of intentionestablishing asides, whilst allowing the comedian to maintain a sense of artistic clarity

200326763

PECI 3104

26
and understanding with the audience, can further contribute to an environment where audiences ignore notions of artistry and consider material a definitive expression of the comedians views. When looking at these issues objectively, it may appear that a Utilitarian argument is required in order to justify this kind of comedy; the idea that the happiness caused is likely to outweigh any unhappiness caused.

200326763

PECI 3104

27
Chapter 3

If we apply Jeremy Bentham's greatest happiness principle (working in the interests of the greatest happiness for the greatest number), we can argue that, as long as a stand-up show provides a majority of the audience a sense of fulfilment, enjoyment, and happiness, then the inevitable collection of offendees that Lee and Herring allude to, are a justified by-product of that piece of art. Whilst Benthams doctrine is vague, the greatest happiness system is still applied extensively in contemporary political and cultural practice (Troyer, 2003:vii), and thus provides ground for a relevant argument on media reactions to offensive comedy.

The Utilitarian argument is a particularly relevant source of debate when thinking about stand-up comedian Roy Chubby Brown; a comic that is famed for his offensive material, and yet enjoys popularity amongst working-class audiences. The 66-year-old has been touring since the early 70s, with Medhurst describing him as the most significant English male comedian of the past quarter century; an act notorious for the relentless use of swearwords and the unvarnished expression of strong and contentious views (Medhurst, 2007:187). The broadsheets have a different view. In The Independent Brown has been referred to as scandalously bad (White, 1993), a beery yob comic (White, 1994), and not funny (Guest, 2010). In The Guardian he's been called homophobic... a ribald stalwart of northern clubs and seaside revues (Arnot, 2007:13), and the most offensive comic in the UK (Clark, 2010). In The Observer hes been described as a comic that doesn't appreciate the irony of playing with taboos (Arthur, 2010:4), and in the The Sunday Times as a fat,

200326763

PECI 3104

28
fiercely regional comic (Gill, 2011). It is noteworthy that this widespread condemnation of Brown's act in Britain's broadsheets has taken place without full, critical accounts of his shows. Just as the Mail on Sunday, and the Daily Star, reported on Stewart Lee's Top Gear routine without offering a critical report of the show as whole, so too these broadsheets, referred to as the qualities (Seymour-Ure, 1996:27), have failed to offer Brown their respect as an artist. Furthermore, Britain's broadsheets generally take a sympathetic approach towards comedy that uses offensive material in order to explicitly make an artistic point (with Brian Logan's aforementioned article providing the main exception), and Brown has not been offered this grace. In order to understand this separation, one must consider the context surrounding Browns act with a respect not afforded by the broadsheets.

As Medhurst states, if Brown is to be fully understood rather than peremptorily dismissed, then he needs to be seen in relation to the traditions of English popular comedy which feeds into his act (2007:191). Brown is flying the flag for a style of stand-up that represents the very beginnings of stand-up itself, that has all but died out. However, Brown still maintains a level of distinct popularity (he performs to around 350,000 people per year (Medhurst, 2007:188)). Furthermore, due to the external pressure from what is seen as acceptable, mainstream stand-up, his act has evolved; taking those traditions of earlier generations of stand-up comics, and dous[ing] it deep in graphic physical detail (Medhurst, 2007:189), to present a style of comedy that is identifiable with working-class tradition but presented in direct opposition to the sensitive nature of multicultural Britain.

200326763

PECI 3104

29
What separates Brown from the comedians I have discussed previously, is the belief within the broadsheets that Browns comedy operates on a level that provides little distinction between his own beliefs and the prejudices he delivers onstage. Indeed, Browns act has been closely associated with the comedy of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning, two comics whose traditional style and origins allowed them to bypass the Alternative Comedy movement. Both Davidson and Manning have caused controversy outside of their act, by asserting prejudices seen inside their act as part of casual off-stage discourse1, incidentally a discourse Brown explicitly defends (JustinsVideoCorner, 2010a). Brown too, on the Frank Skinner Show in 2005, does not dispute Skinners assertion that you're a racist bastard (Skinner in JustinsVideoCorner, 2010b). In defending his decision to deliver racist jokes, Brown argues that you should be able to say everything and that it's just a bit of fun (Brown in JustinsVideoCorner, 2010b). This argument is difficult to accept when you view this material in the context of his latest show that contains a number of jokes that rely on pre-existing racial stereotypes exclusive to discriminated-against minorities, and is performed to an apparently exclusively-white audience (Brown, 2010).

However, if we return to Kattwinkels assertion that theatre is recognised as being incomplete until an audience witnesses it and creates it for themselves intellectually (2003:ix), then there is an extent to which the acceptability of these jokes hinges on the way in which the audience interprets them. Medhurst asserts that the relationship between Brown and his audiences goes further than one might initially assume due to the nature of his material.
1

In 2007 Davidson called gay television presenter Brian Dowling a shirt-lifter on reality TV (PortTalbotLad, 2009). In 1998 on The Mrs Merton Show Manning claimed he would not pick up a black hitchhiker (RockAndRollMassacre, 2007).

200326763

PECI 3104

30

He sticks up two fingers at the liberal-progressive consensus, and stands up for the white, predominantly northern working class that Tony Blair liked to pretend doesn't exist any more. He says things that they've been told they can't say and, because of that, he's a hero to them. (Medhurst, 2007:189)

Medhurst argues that Browns act goes beyond its reputation as racist comedy for racist people. Brown states that his comedy isn't avant-garde-read-between-the-linesMonty-Python subtlety we're dealing with here. This is a fat cheeky-faced comic saying arse, tit, fuck and bastard and making it sound funny. This is toilet humour put across by a funny man. Full effin stop. (Brown in White, 1993). In this statement he does himself a disservice. Answering a criminal charge in March 2010, for striking a woman in a car park, Brown told Teesside Magistrates Court that when faced with provocation from the victim he needed to tell her that the person she sees in the car park and the person she sees on the DVD are not the same (Brown in Daily Mail Reporter, 2010). This statement reveals a lot about Browns artistic process, and how he marks a separation between the comic reality he creates for his audience and himself as a member of society. His shows create a theatrical world that is cheeky in its casual transgression of taboos and social boundaries and where apathy towards others feelings and concerns reigns supreme. Despite this, Browns statement asserts that the public dont always see this distinction. There is evidence to demonstrate Browns audience viewing his act with a measured consideration: everyone wants to enjoy themselves, get a bit raucous. Its not the sort of thing you want to do all the time, but its fun for a one-off. (Tyler in White, 1993). However, what is difficult to

200326763

PECI 3104

31
establish is the extent to which the majority of his audience understands the relationship. What sets Brown apart from other comedians is that, when called to answer for his style of comedy Browns only defence is its just a bit of fun. Fun for whom?

Medhurst defends Browns act on the basis that, whilst some of his jokes undoubtedly hinge on intolerant attacks against minorities... the sensibility he personifies is itself rooted in the life experiences and structures of feeling of another stigmatised group, those white working class English left by the turn towards hybridised, globalised culture (2007:197). However, in his most recent show, calling a black footballer a wog (Brown, 2010) elicited a loud cheer from the audience. It is difficult to establish where this sits within the life experiences of Browns workingclass audience.

Surely this issue of a hybridised, globalised culture (Medhurst 2007:197), that has supposedly rejected the white working-class, has more to do with a right-wing affection for traditional values (Budge et al, 2001:22) than it does stigmatisation? Even Medhurst recognises that economic and technological change have led to new forms of cultural self-understanding (2007:194) and yet, class continues to structure cultural participation and taste (Bennett et al 2009:55). Class-consciousness in the Marxist sense may be on the wane (Chan & Goldthorpe, 2007:1098), but it still plays a key role in the way we understand the dimensions of British society.

It cannot be denied that Browns comedy appeals to a large group of people who feel

200326763

PECI 3104

32
that, in spite of (and because of) the malevolent content, it offers them a shared sense of cultural identity, even if solely through a sense of nostalgia. If we return to the Utilitarian viewpoint it is possible to argue that, providing Browns audience members do not leave the theatre and subsequently begin exercising the kind of discrimination and prejudices expressed in the show, the broadsheet press have no place to express their condemnation of Browns act. The publicity associated with Browns shows and DVD releases clearly maintains the warning that if easily offended, stay away. On this basis, it is tempting to share Brown (JustinsVideoCorner, 2010b) and Medhurst's view (2007:203) that, providing the audience are enjoying it, and the people who know that Brown's comedy does not appeal to them don't attend, then it is not hurting anyone. After all, Brown does not appear on television, and his act is rarely given a public outing outside the safety of his own show. Unfortunately, the complexity of the situation goes beyond these simplistic terms.

It is impossible to establish the extent to which Brown's audience members exercise the kind of discrimination and prejudices expressed in the show, on the basis of what they have seen in the show. Black stand-up comedian Matt Blaize, says of Jim Davidson's Chalky character (a stereotypical black Jamaican with a cartoon accent and penchant for cannabis):

'It really was hard to be a black kid in London in the Seventies and Eighties because the likes of Jim Davidson, Mike Reid and Bernard Manning made life harder for everybody on my side of the fence Id go to school the day after Jims show and have to face 3000 white kids doing Chalky impressions.' (Blaize

200326763

PECI 3104

33
in Beacom, 2011)

Whilst Browns comedy is somewhat protected from having this effect due to the virtue of it not being shown on television, Blaize draws attention to the potential (immeasurable) consequences of this style of comedy, and forces us to re-evaluate the extent to which a Utilitarian argument that can be employed as the justification for Browns act. It is clear that Browns if easily offended, stay away disclaimer does not give him a licence to express his own prejudices onstage without criticism.

As Bennett (et al) state, the contemporary British working-class stands out most in terms of educational characteristics, particularly the high proportion with no qualifications (2009: 199), and on this basis Browns audience have been dismissed for lacking the intellectual capacity to draw a separation between the views expressed in his act and the acceptabilities of our society. This is a popular view amongst Browns detractors in the broadsheet press, and reveals a level of classism implicit within broadsheet journalism. Indeed, Logan expresses concerns towards the appropriation of Al Murrays Pub Landlord character by working-class audiences, whose views the act was originally created to satirise: [The Pub Landlord] began life as a satire of Little England attitudes, and has ended up perhaps unintentionally celebrating them (2009:6). Similarly Stewart Lee, in his 41st Best Stand-Up Ever show, quips 84 per cent of people think that political correctness has gone mad... And you don't want those people coming up to you after gigs, cause that's Al Murray the Pub Landlord's audience, missing the point and laughing through bared teeth like the dogs they are (2010a:293). Within Lees statement is the claim that Murrays

200326763

PECI 3104

34
audiences don't understand what theyre witnessing. Whos to say that the broadsheet press don't just dismiss this kind of comedy because it is not intended to be enjoyed by their readers?

The truth of the situation is that assuming an audience thinks a certain way sets a dangerous precedent as to how we view any comedy that uses offensive material. As I have argued, it is very difficult to establish how each individual understands this kind of art. What is clear is that within the broadsheet press, similar accusations are not directed towards audiences of comedy that appeals to middle-class sensibilities. In order to understand this in greater detail, it is important to look at the politics of newspaper readership alongside that of comedic taste.

200326763

PECI 3104

35
Chapter 4

In Social Status and Newspaper Readership, Chan and Gordthorpe argue that, if social status and social class are looked at separatately2, then social status (rather than class) has the greatest influence on trends in newspaper readership, and cultural consumption generally (2007:1130). What convolutes this assertion however, is that popular references to class in contemporary Britain betray their Marxist definitions, and are better regarded as references to a Weberian definition of status (Chan & Goldthorpe, 2007:1098). The point is, whilst class and status are similar (Bourdieu does not agree with the distinction at all (1984:xii)), what is important to my study is that although there is a clear status gradient across social classes... there is a good deal of overlap in status between classes (Chan & Goldthorpe, 2007:1099). Our habits of newspaper readership correlate with a hierarchical form of social stratification, but this status overlap alludes to a slight blurring of social boundaries that is particularly interesting when looking at Friedman's research on the trends between social class and comedic taste.

Friedman argues that there is a strong correlation between individuals cultural capital background3 and patterns in comedy attendance (2011:367). He categorises his respondents as coming from either low (LCC), mixed (MCC) or high (HCC) cultural capital backgrounds (2011:352). The problem with this code however, is that

Wherestatus refers to the occupancy of social positions that are perceived to grant social superiority, and where class refers to the social behaviour related to objective economic factors (Chan & Goldthorpe, 2007:1097). 3 Attributed on the basis of cultural capital resources: participants social origin, education and occupation (Friedman, 2011:352).

200326763

PECI 3104

36
rather than basing his categories of social stratification on existing Bourdieusian, Weberian, or even Marxist, models, Friedman's cultural capital backgrounds attribute variables that we would already expect to see directly affecting individuals interests in comedy (such as education and parental education). Despite this, these variables are, in turn, unaffected by comedic taste, and do have a grounding in normative views of social class and social status. Friedman asserts that HCC respondents seek out comedy that is deemed challenging, and offers a sense of resonance (with Lee offered as the key example), and LCC respondents base their tastes almost exclusively on the basis of amusement (with Brown mentioned as a comic popular with LCC individuals); MCC respondents occupy an area where there is a more omnivorous approach to cultural consumption. Where Chan and Goldthorpes status overlap informs a view of Friedmans study is in examples of individuals comedic tastes changing on the basis of what would be seen as a rise in status: Philip recalls that when he moved away from home to go to university his style of comic appreciation changed dramatically (Friedman, 2011:365). In this example it is the attainment of a university education, coming from a working-class background, that asserts a rise in social status. Quite simply, different comedy appeals to different peoples social positions. When those positions change, so does the comedy.

What is particularly interesting about Friedmans study is the natural rejection, by members of both HCC and LCC categories, of comedy that is enjoyed by individuals occupying a position at the opposite end of the cultural capital continuum. However, whilst HCC respondents rejected supposedly low-brow comedy on the basis of ethical grounds, liberal bias, and the fact that it fails to challenge (2011:361), LCC

200326763

PECI 3104

37
respondents felt a greater sense of intellectual inadequacy towards the comedy enjoyed by HCC individuals (2011:364). To a certain extent, this feeling of intellectual inadequacy affirms the views expressed in the broadsheets, however the rejection of different comic forms by individuals occupying either the HCC or LCC categories reveals a bias that is identifiable across the press.

If we look at evidence of comedic preference in Britains newspapers, then make links between those opinions and Friedmans study, and attempt to map that onto Chan and Goldthorpes research, then we can conclude that generally speaking, fans of Stewart Lee, and (comedian and satirist) Mark Thomas, occupy a higher social status, and are more likely to read broadsheet newspapers, and fans of Jim Davidson, Roy 'Chubby' Brown, and Bernard Manning, occupy a lower social status, and are most likely to read red-top tabloids, and in some cases middlebrow tabloids. The views that these respondents hold are mirrored in the journalism that they invest in. This is explicitly referenced by Stewart Lee when he sarcastically jibes during one of his shows: Look at youthe fucking liberal intelligentsia of Glasgow down here. All reading the Guardian... if a fight breaks out tonight, there's gonna be no one to mediate in Glasgow (2010b).

What is fascinating is that in many cases (with comedians like Scott Capurro, Ricky Gervais, Frankie Boyle, Roy 'Chubby' Brown, and Jim Davidson) the stylistic difference between acts is slighter than their separate fan-bases would seem to suggest, highlighting the thin line between offence as artistry and offence as an expression of discrimination; as Ricky Gervais often jokes: one false move and I'm

200326763

PECI 3104

38
Jim Davidson (Logan, 2009:6). Despite these similarities there is evidence to show comedic preferences being used, in the case of the broadsheets, to assert social status through attitudes towards cultural consumption, and in the case of the tabloids, to fight upwards against classist snobbery as a course of defence. An example of this battle can be seen in the media response surrounding a joke told by Frankie Boyle about former glamour model Katie Price and her disabled son Harvey. In the broadsheet media, the joke4 was analysed and discussed in great detail. The irony of broadsheet newspapers providing their readers with exactly the opinion that they want to read, is that they want to read their opinion as part of a balanced argument (something that correlates with Friedmans HCC respondents valuing stand-up that challenges comedic norms). This is what The Observer provided in an article called Is Frankie Boyle actually funny?, that offered a Yes and a No view. However, while they respected Boyle enough not to dismiss his act offhand, the same cannot be said of their attitude to Brown: [Boyle] is not some new Bernard Manning or Roy Chubby Brown. His lineage comes from other great unflinching offenders, such as Bill Hicks (Arthur, 2010:4). Similarly The Times and The Independent ran a series of analyses on Boyle's joke, and they too have a history of dismissing Browns comedy without analysis.

Whilst keeping this in mind, it is alarming to consider the following joke that Roy Chubby Brown tells in his Pussy and Meatballs show: Come on, be honest she [Katie Price] is a fucking slag aint she? A couple of weeks ago what did she say? I was raped by a celebrity I know, we've seen Harvey! (2010). The similarity between
4

I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter - she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her (Boyle, 2010)

200326763

PECI 3104

39
this joke and Boyles is uncanny, and yet the two are held at arms length in the press. When the Daily Mail reported on Friedmans research, as a revelation that the middleclasses use comedy as a form of snobbery, they defended Browns humble act: working-class people were most likely to enjoy traditional gags from comics such as Brown, Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson who use humour based on everyday life (Cohen, 2010). And yet, when they reported on the broadcast of Frankie Boyles joke it was deemed a grotesque sexual remark (Revoir and Thomas, 2010) and a vile sexual slur (Thompson, 2011). Obviously there is a slight difference in the fact that Boyles material was a public broadcast, but Brown's joke was still a public performance. In the same article, Revoir and Thomas deem Boyle a racist (for using the term paki as part of a joke that attacks racism within broadcast journalism), and whilst Brown uses the terms wog, nig-nog, and sambo (2010) in his act, the most extreme description he receives in the same newspaper is infamous for his bad language (Daily Mail Reporter, 2009). The double standards present in the press are unbelievable. On the surface, The Observer, The Independent, and The Times do offer a more measured approach to the issue (the broadsheets often express a begrudging assertion of Browns right to free speech), however without offering a full exploration of Browns comedy they are guilty of the same level of hypocrisy (and classism) that is apparent within the Daily Mail.

I am not arguing that Boyle has to be viewed in the same terms as Brown, there is no doubt that Boyle intends for his comedy to be understood in a way that goes further than being just a bit of fun. However if The Observer, The Independent, and The Times, want to uphold a sense of measured analysis and self-respect, they should stop

200326763

PECI 3104

40
dismissing Browns work as racist, homophobic and awful without offering full, respectful, political analysis of his art. If they are unable to offer this approach, then perhaps this debate is better played out in academic circles, as opposed to in press organisations intent on feeding their readers the views that those readers find most palatable.

Where the Daily Mail differ somewhat in their allegiance, is that their obvious bias in favour of Brown is framed by a sense of anger and deeply offended reaction to Boyle. Due to Davies view that within newspapers the truth is being traded for political favour and commercial advantage (2008:22) it is clear that the press does more than just reflect the views of their constituents, something more apparent in the tabloid press than that of the broadsheets. Indeed, if it was the Daily Mail's sole intention to encourage a reinstatement of traditional forms of acceptability, as comes across in their criticism of Boyle, then they would take issue with the comedy of Brown, Manning and Davidson. The reasons for their bias are there to be addressed in another study, however the effects that these short-sighted viewpoints have on perceptions of the use of taboo in stand-up calls into question the ethics of this branch of the media. It is possible that the Daily Mail had a full understanding of the satirical comment Stewart Lee was making with his Top Gear routine, however decided to run the story on the basis of the fact that, as editor Paul Dacre admits: my job is to reflect my readers views and to defend their interest (Davies citing Dacre, 2008:370). Dacre has an ability to know instinctively, immediately, and entriely clearly what his reader want to be told about the world the facts, the values, the moral panics. (Davies, 2008:370), yet his readers are likely to take this journalism at face value. It is

200326763

PECI 3104

41
tempting to adopt a paternalist view that believes we should be protected from irresponsible media, (Curran & Seaton, 2003:411-412) however this impinges on the very sense of freedom of expression that it is important to defend for the sake of comedy.

200326763

PECI 3104

42
Conclusion

As I have explored throughout Chapter 1, stand-ups history of a disassociation with the theatre has allowed it to flourish as art form in its own right. Stand-up comedy is, and should be understood as, a form of theatre; an ambiguous, hybridised, postmodern theatre. The disassociation has also seen stand-up relegated to the bottom of the artistic pile, not being taken seriously by journalists, performance theorists, or even artists.

Consequently, a series of misconceptions have arisen surrounding how comedians views manifest themselves within their performances. This is understandable; standup is direct, contemporaneous, and unsettling.

Where conflict between performer and press has arisen is principally in the habitual removal of context by the press when writing about comedians transgressions, in order to express a response to the ideas presented onstage. In some cases, it is clear that this is a genuine misunderstanding of the performance process.

The press displays a full spectrum of responses to stand-ups that use offence comedically. In some cases, the press misunderstands the art form and so their criticism is misplaced. Martins article for The Sun (p.19) is a perfect example of current understanding of stand-up: a set of jokes that can be placed in any context alongside jokes that were not delivered onstage.

200326763

PECI 3104

43
In other cases however, it is apparent that the misconceptions of stand-up are upheld in some sections of the press in order to enforce their own rhetoric and politics, and that when comic material is taken out of context it is done so deliberately in order to reinforce class prejudices. This issue is what ties the artistry, explored in Chapter 1, so closely to the partisan class politics of the press and stand-up, explored in Chapter 4. The broadsheet press uphold stand-up as an art, and yet without offering it critical analysis, dismiss Browns act for being racist. The tabloids express anger and belligerence towards stand-up that they feel crosses a line of acceptability, but defend Brown and Davidson performing traditional jokes for normal people. Both parties offer the comics to whom they owe an allegiance, a level of grace to express themselves artistically.

I would argue that the misguided views levelled at stand-up, explored in Chapter 1, generally manifest themselves amongst audiences and the public. The fact that newspapers write in a way that fits a particular view (that is, what they perceive to be their readers view) shows why this removal of context appeals to the press.

What is required is a level of clarity in the way that stand-up is perceived. It is not clear when the press is using its bias, and when its expressing common misconceptions of stand-up. There is confusion about the performance process, even whether a performance process actually exists. The accusatory politics that drives the press towards their reactionary conclusion does nothing but muddy the waters when it comes to a popular understanding of this performance mode. The current confusion surrounding stand-up has led to unprovoked, classist comments about acts and their

200326763

PECI 3104

44
craft.

It is important for stand-up to claim its place as an art form and, by so doing, elevate itself from the kind of cheap classist points-scoring and mudslinging that the popular press use it as a battleground for.

200326763

PECI 3104

45
Bibliography

Alderson,R. (2011) Truth be told, I don't mind if comics lie. Chortle.co.uk Correspondents. [Online] Available from: http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2011/04/11/13104/truth_be_told,_i_dont_mi nd_if_comics_lie. [Accessed:11/04/2011] Andrews,M. (1998) Butterflies and Caustic Asides. from Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics and Social Difference (Wagg,S. ed). London & New York: Routledge. Arnot,C (2007) Making sense of humour. from The Guardian. EducationGuardian p13. [06/11/2007] Manchester: Guardian Media Group. Artaud,A. (1970) The Theatre And Its Double. London: Calder publications. Arthur,T. & Hilton,B. (2010) Is Frankie Boyle actually funny? from The Observer. The New Review p4. [19/12/2010] Manchester: Guardian Media Group. Auslander,P. (1992) Comedy about the Failure of Comedy. from Critical Theory and Performance (Reinelt,J. & Roach,J. ed). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Barber,S. (1993) Antonin Artaud: Blows and Bombs. London: Faber & Faber. Beacom,B. (2011) Beating bigots in a Blaize of glory. from Evening Times. [Online] Available at: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/features/editor-s-picks/beating-bigots-ina-blaize-of-glory-1.1090426. [Accessed:15/04/2011]. Bennett,T. et al (2009) Culture, Class, Distinction. London & New York: Routledge. Bourdieu,P. (1984) Distinction (Nice, R. trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyle,F. (2010) Frankie Boyle's Tramadol Nights. Series 1 Episode 2: 07/12/2010. Channel 4. Television broadcast. Glasgow: The Comedy Unit. Brand,R. (2011) Interview with Russell Brand. from The One Show: 22/04/2011. BBC One. Television broadcast. London: BBC. Brown,R (2010) Pussy & Meatballs. DVD Recording. London: Universal Pictures UK. Budge,I. et al (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

200326763

PECI 3104

46
Burns,B (2008) So I Suppose This is Offensive Now. DVD Recording. London: Universal Pictures UK. Burns,B. (2011) Headlining set at Laughter Lines Genesis. Live stand-up comedy performance. Leeds University Union. [10/03/2011]. Cavendish,D. (2008) Russell Howard: Dingledodies at Wembley Arena - comedy review. from The Daily Telegraph. [Online] Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/dominiccavendish/3702556/RussellHoward-Dingledodies-at-Wembley-Arena-comedy-review.html. [Accessed:30/03/2011] Chan,T. & Goldthorpe,J. (2007) Social Status and Newspaper Readership. from American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 112; No. 4. Clark,N. (2010) Getting a laugh out of disability. from The Guardian. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/28/disability-c4ofcom-complaint?INTCMP=SRCH. [Accessed:15/02/2011]. Cohen,T. (2010) Middle-classes 'enjoy more sophisticated comedy shows' like The Thick Of It, new survey finds. from Daily Mail. [Online] Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1264203/Middle-class-preferencesophisticated-comedy-veiled-snobbery.html. [Accessed:12/03/2011]. Curran,J. & Seaton,J. (2003) Power Without Responsibility. London & New York: Routledge. Daily Mail Reporter. (2009) Cursing? Britons swear by it... 14 times a day. from Daily Mail. [Online] Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1118386/Cursing-Britons-swear--14-times-day.html. [Accessed:10/04/2011]. Daily Mail Reporter. (2010) Blue comedian Roy 'Chubby' Brown 'punched slightlybuilt woman in the face in car park argument. from Daily Mail. [Online] Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256929/Blue-comedian-Roy-ChubbyBrown-punched-woman-face-carpark-argument.html. [Accessed:10/04/2011]. Davies,N. (2008) Flat Earth News. London: Chatto & Windus. Davis,H. (2009) Why isn't comedy funded by the Arts Council? from The Guardian. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/nov/03/comedyfunded-arts-council. [Accessed:15/02/2011]. Dickins,M. (2010) You don't have to be an artist to be a good comedian. Chortle.co.uk Correspondents. [Online] Available from: http://chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2010/10/05/11873/you_dont_have_to_be_an_artist _to_be_a_good_comedian. [Accessed:15/02/2011] Double,O. (1997) Stand up! on being a comedian. London: Methuen Drama.

200326763

PECI 3104

47
Friedman,S. (2009) Legitimating A Discredited Art Form. from Edinburgh Working Papers in Sociology. No. 39. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Friedman,S. (2011) The Cultural Currency of a Good Sense of Humour. from The British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 62; No. 2. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Garner,J. (2004) Made You Laugh! Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel Publishing. Gill,A. (2011) The funniest show in the world? Probably not. from The Sunday Times. [Online] Available from: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/film_and_tv/tv/article522603.ece?lightb ox=false. [Accessed:15/02/2011]. Guest,K. (2010) Talk about me behind my back, but make it good. from The Independent. [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/katy-guest-talk-about-mebehind-my-back-but-make-it-good-1960381.html. [Accessed:31/03/2011]. Imjackcooper. (2010) Stewart Lee Interview Part 2. Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLCSQ32ooGk. [Accessed:01/04/2011] ITN. (2007) Jimmy Carr reveals what he thinks of his fans exclusive. Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cS59HtlpZs. [Accessed: 30/01/2011] JustinsVideoCorner. (2010a) Roy Chubby Brown on political correctness. Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW-FkxJnF0o. [Accessed:10/03/2011] JustinsVideoCorner. (2010b) Roy Chubby Brown interview on the "Frank Skinner Show", 2005. Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw6DNrOGga0. [Accessed:10/03/2011] Kattwinkel,S. (2003) Audience Participation: Essays on inclusion in Performance. London: Greenwood publishing group. Kirby,M (1995) Happenings: An Introduction. from Happenings and Other Acts (Sandford,M. ed). London & New York: Routledge. Kchler,S. (2001) Why Knot? Towards a Theory of Art and Mathematics. from Beyond Aesthetics: Art and the Technologies of Enchantment (Pinney,C. & Thomas,N. ed). Oxford & New York: Berg. Lee,S. (2010a) How I Escaped My Certain Fate. London: Faber & Faber. Lee,S (2010b) If You'd Prefer a Milder Comedian, Please Ask for One. DVD

200326763

PECI 3104

48
Recording. London: Comedy Central UK. Logan,B. (2009) The new offenders of standup comedy. The Guardian. G2 p6. [27/07/2009] Manchester: Guardian Media Group. Logan,B (2011) Comedy is an art so why judge it simply on the number of laughs it provokes? The Guardian. G2 p22. [02/05/2011] Manchester: Guardian Media Group. Littlewood,J. & Pickering,M. (1998) Heard the One About the White Middle-Class Heterosexual Father-In-Law? from Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics and Social Difference (Wagg,S. ed). London & New York: Routledge. Medhurst,A. (2007) A National Joke: Popular Comedy and English Cultural Identities. London & New York: Routledge. OHagan,S (2009) Interview: Stewart Lee. from The Observer. Observer Review p8. [06/12/2009] Manchester: Guardian Media Group. Oliar,D. & Sprigman,C. (2009) Theres No Free Laugh (Anymore). from The John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper Series. Berkeley, CA: The Berkeley Electronic Press. Pauley,N. (2009) Comics Rant at TV Bully. from Daily Star. [Online] Available from: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/96366/Comic-s-rant-at-TV-bully-/. [Accessed:10/04/2011]. Pollio,H. (1978) Not Work Alone: Whats So Funny? from The New Statesman. Vol. 79, No. 1120. London: IPC Magazines. PortTalbotLad. (2009) Jim Davidson V Brian Dowling !! Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hetni5Nqyfg. [Accessed:30/04/2011] Revoir,P. & Thomas,L. (2010) Revulsion at racist jokes fuel calls for Channel 4 to sack Frankie Boyle. from Daily Mail. [Online]Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341263/Revulsion-racist-jokes-fuel-callsChannel-4-sack-Frankie-Boyle.html. [Accessed:12/03/2011]. RockAndRollMassacre. (2007) Bernard Manning, Mrs Merton, 3/3. Video source. [Online] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PblPUaP9EYg&feature=related. [Accessed:30/04/2011]. Rowson,M. (2009) Giving Offence. London, New York & Calcutta: Seagull Books. Rutter,J. (1997) Stand-up as Interaction. PhD Thesis. Greater Manchester: University of Salford. [Online] Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123.729&rep=rep1&type=p

200326763

PECI 3104

49
df. [Accessed:02/04/2011]. Seymour-Ure,C. (1996). British Press and Broadcasting since 1945. Oxford: Blackwells Publishing. Shepherd,S. & Wallis,M. (2004) Drama/Theatre/Performance. London & New York: Routledge. Stebbins,R. (1990) The Laugh-Makers. Montreal & Kingston, London & Buffalo: McGill-Queens University Press. Stott,A. (2005) Comedy. New York & London: Routledge. Tapper,J (2009) What prompted comedian's tirade against old schoolmate Richard Hammond? from Mail on Sunday. [Online]Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1209921/What-prompted-comedianstirade-old-schoolmate-Richard-Hammond.html. [Accessed:10/04/2011]. Thompson,J (2010) Channel 4 refuse to apologise to Katie Price for broadcasting Frankie Boyle's vile sexual slur about disabled son Harvey. from Daily Mail. [Online] Available from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1337095/Katie-Pricewants-apology-Frankie-Boyles-sexual-slur-disabled-son-Harvey.html. [Accessed:12/03/2011]. Troyer,J. (2003) The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. Wagg,S. (1998a) Introduction. from Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics and Social Difference (Wagg,S. ed). London & New York: Routledge. Wagg,S. (1998b) They Already got a Comedian for Governor. from Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics and Social Difference (Wagg,S. ed). London & New York: Routledge. Wareham,M (2010) Comedy Hitting Top Gear. from Mail on Sunday. [Online] Available from: http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/press/mildercomedian/2010-0110mail_on_sunday.htm. [Accessed:31/04/2011]. White,J. (1993) Brown goes to town on the pin-stripes. from The Independent. [Online] Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2009/nov/03/comedyfunded-arts-council. [Accessed:15/02/2011]. White,J (1994) A video code comedians swear by. from The Independent. [Online] Available from: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-video-codecomedians-swear-by-1387249.html. [Accessed:15/02/2011]. Wilson,M. (2006) Storytelling and Theatre: Contemporary Storytellers and their Art. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

200326763

PECI 3104