Nick Nick

I watched Channel 4’s ‘100 Greatest Stand-Up Comedians Of All Time’ last night. I didn’t mean to, but I’d developed Bell’s Palsy and found that I couldn’t change channel using my face controlled remote control. It’s my own fault, I should use a hand-based remote like everyone else, but I had become enchanted by this remote control that looked like a harmonica and changed channels based on the sound you blew through it.

Anyway, I disagreed with their list. I was bound to though wasn’t I? I’m not sure who voted for it, was it the general public, a bunch of comedians or just some random C4 people?
But, it made me think of something in between dribbling Budvar into my paralysed mouth. I started to envisage what conversation would take place at work today if any of them had been watching it (luckily I don’t think any of them did). Also, I’ve heard the same argument used by comedians in the past.
The argument is that Bernard Manning (and cunts such as Jim Davidson) can be excused of their foul opinions because they’re “funny”. Someone actually called him a genius on the TV last night, and I’ve heard people defend him in the past, on the sole basis that he is quick-witted and that people laugh at him. So what?
The argument goes that he is funny therefore we should let him off. Also, people defend him that “he doesn’t really mean it” or that he is abusive to everyone. As Dave Gorman pointed out, no he isn’t. He never mocks his audience of white, ignorant fuckwits. He ridicules minorities, and every one of them. He also lacks any self-deprecation, constantly banging on about how much money he has and about how he’s the greatest thing ever.
When I’ve discussed this before with people who’ve defended him, they’ve also used a second defence of saying that you don’t have to like the person to appreciate their work. And whereas this is largely true for musicians and artists (although I personally can’t stop myself downgrading someone’s work if I think they may be a bit of a twat), you can’t do this for comedy like his. His act IS him. A painting or song quite often will have nothing to do with its creator’s personality; Manning’s act is a reflection of who he is.
But, I wonder, what is the difference between Manning and someone like Jerry Sadowitz? Sadowitz will happily slaughter any person or minority group, sometimes making jokes so appallingly wrong that the only difference from Manning is that Sadowitz’s audience is knowing, realising that what he is saying is wrong, but laughing anyway. It’s the same defence we use with our friends, where we can say the most horrendous things we can think of knowing that our friends realise that we don’t mean it.
But, the main difference with someone like Sadowitz is that his isn’t the comedy of condescension. Yeah, Sadowitz seems to hate everyone, but the person he seems to hate most is himself. Manning is telling his audience that they are better than women, black people, gay people and lefties, Sadowitz is telling us that we are all scum. Especially Jerry Sadowitz.
It’s probably impossible to pick his act apart accurately, but you get the feeling that his comedy isn’t driven from hate for humanity, more from disappointment in the fact that we’re fucking useless.
It was odd really that I’d spent some of Sunday morning looking up some of his work on the internet. It’s worth checking out, some of it I’d forgotten about. There are some really funny / horrendous bits out there.

Btw, I think it was worth watching the programme as a reminder that I must kick Jim Davidson in the face if I ever have the misfortune to meet him.