Politics

• Playing with Fire?

  November 8, 2009 @ 2:23 pm | by Deaglán

  It looks like the present writer is not the only one who doesn’t appreciate the “context” of  certain jokes relating to the Nazi period in history (see my previous posts about Tommy Tiernan.) Author Peter Sheridan had a difficulty with the production called Adolf  in the Tivoli Theatre in Dublin.  Herewith the report in The Irish Times by Arts Editor Deirdre Falvey:-

  

  Peter Sheridan: Is it all a question of
  context? (Photograph by Frank Miller)

    

  Writer and director Peter Sheridan interrupted a play and other audience members walked out of the Tivoli Theatre on Thursday night in protest at the opening performance of Adolf , a one-man show written and performed by Pip Utton.
  Described in promotional material as a “an acute anatomy of fascism; its ideological justifications, its poisoned utopias”, Utton first performs as Hitler “ranting”, then changes to a hate-filled character who tells racist jokes.
  “What I do is manipulate the audience to make them smile or laugh at the sexist or racist bits,” Utton said. After all the “racist malarkey”, he said he turns it around on the audience, adding: “I don’t need a second coming, I never went away” to make people aware “we all have a potential little Hitler inside of us”.
  While Utton was in full racist flow, greeted by laughter from some sections of the audience, Peter Sheridan stood and called on the crowd for tolerance, and left five minutes before the end. He spoke on Liveline yesterday, with Utton and other audience members who rang the radio show.
  Utton said later that he regretted Sheridan walked out, especially that he left before the closing message. He claimed Sheridan arrived 20 minutes after the show had begun at 7.30pm.
  Sheridan said the “horrible, reprehensible, Nick Griffin-type character was very well done”, but that he felt the show was inviting a response from the audience. While “disturbing theatre can be good, if you are disturbed in the right way”, he felt it wasn’t clear enough as an attack on fascism.
  “When you are dealing with incendiary material like that, you need to be sure the audience leaves the theatre knowing the violence of this message is put in context, and for me the context wasn’t right last night.”
  Utton said he credits his audience with intelligence. Sheridan said: “If a show is working, there are points that would be met with silence, not hollers of laughter.”
• Comments Feed
•  | 
• Share This
53 Comments »
1.
November 8, 2009
7:18 pm
In future I’m sure Peter Sheridan will understand if someone interrupts one of his plays to express an opinion.
Comment by Allan Cavanagh
2.
November 8, 2009
10:43 pm
Seems like a fair point, I have to say!
Comment by Deaglán
3.
November 8, 2009
11:15 pm
I was one of the audience members who walked out of Adolf on the opening night. I found some of the material in the early, ‘historic’ part of the show. unpleasant. But this was as nothing when compared to Utton’s comments on contemporary Britain. I left because I felt sick to my stomach and couldn’t stand it any longer. I had been offered two free tickets for the show, and went along without any clear idea of what the show was about. I left towards the end, and still had no idea where the show was going. I agree with Peter Sheridan that the rant wasn’t put in context. I go to the theatre quite regularly and am not easily shocked. But I can’t tolerate anti-Semitism and racism. So should I be glad that this show strengthened my revulsion?
Comment by Pat McKenna
4.
November 9, 2009
7:15 am
Mr Utton seems like another mediocre ‘talent’ falling back on cheap and nasty shock tactics.
This sort of crap always stinks of desperation and seems to be getting more common as the economy gets tougher.
Credit to Peter Sheridan. At least he was listening to what was going on, and not just sitting there like a zombie. It’s a reminder that this stuff doesn’t happen without the consent of the audience.
Comment by Dylan
5.
November 9, 2009
10:21 am
I haven’t seen the show myself but the basic idea would appear to have been that the audience is confronted at the end over laughing at the “sexist and racist bits” as Mr Utton calls them, with a view to making them realise that “we all have a potential little Hitler inside us”.
I suppose only people who stayed to the end can say whether this worked or not, in dramatic terms.
Comment by Deaglán
6.
November 9, 2009
2:42 pm
I recall that in a Liveline interview last week Utton tried repeatedly to give the impression that Peter Sheridan had “walked out” of the play and that therefore he had not experienced it sufficiently fully to pass judgement. Whilst he indeed walked out two minutes from the end, he had indeed seen all of the rest of the play. If Utton is someone who feels that seeing all of a play bar the last two minutes is tantamount to not seeing the play in order to judge it, one can imagine how his mind works. Presumably, having read all of Mein Kampf, bar the last few pages, means I might have not read it, and would draw the wrong conclusions re Hitler’s thoughts. How completely ridiculous. Next time I eat my meals, I must remember to eat every scrap or otherwise I will not have eaten them and after a few weeks I will be dead from starvation!
Comment by mike
7.
November 9, 2009
5:01 pm
Mike,
Excellent point. The last few minutes of most plays and movies don’t tell us anything worth knowing about the piece as a whole. Damn right!
If you removed the last few minutes of the screenplays of “The Sixth Sense”, “The Usual Suspects” and “Fight Club”. I’m sure you wouldn’t really miss much, and could subsequently speak about those works of art with authority.
Comment by Aidan
8.
November 9, 2009
7:05 pm
I was an audience member on this particular night and was astounded at the amount of people who walked out during the play. Peter Sheridan’s actions (only found out now that he was the ridiculously rude man who nearly ruined the show!) astounded me as I had always thought of him as an intelligent man … but he as many others clearly did not grasp the concept of the show … I’m 17 years old and went along with my class, all of us understood perfectly well what the actor was doing and I’m dismayed that someone who has worked in the business for so long had such a disgraceful reaction to what i thought was a phenomenal work of genius. If Sheridan had not started shouting his mouth off the point of the show would have been stated clearly by the actor at the end. I would also like to point out that the leaflet you recieve when purchasing tickets clearly indicates this show is not an easy ride for the audiences and that it contains extremely racist and fascist remarks.
Comment by maggie
9.
November 9, 2009
7:58 pm
Aidan,
When you wrote “Excellent point” to something I had written, I just sensed there was gonna be a problem. Call it a a wild guess.
Utton’s was not a Who- Why- or Howdunnit.
Another straw man attempt by you I see.
Predictablility is not your strong point, is it?
Still as long as you’ve stopped being insulting and a defender of Tommy Tiernan right-or-wrong, I guess I can learn to laugh off your straw man arguments. Also for your info, Mein Kampf was not a Whodunnit, in case you wished to point out that we would have been left bewildered had we not read the last ten pages.
By the way, do you have many shares in hay? Sounds like you have a stack of them.
Comment by mike
10.
November 9, 2009
8:21 pm
Maggie,
If you have to be brought to a play at 17 to experience the work of “a genius” as you put it, order “to grasp the concept” of a show on racism, then I am astounded that taxpayer’s money is used to do this. Had our educational system never educated you in the concept and reality of racism in Ireland today and in the world at large? Had you never read books or articles on racism? Had you never before the age of 17 read books on the Holocaust? Even, Anne Frank’s Diary? So, what on earth did this present play add to your knowledge of the racism, genocide and extermination camps? Did you learn something from hearing people laugh at racist jokes? Did you not already know that people did this, and worse … that people - yes it was people - exterminated milions and millions of others, Jews, Gypsies, gays, Poles, Slavs, etc because they were seen as subhumans?
If not, then what on earth did you learn in school and from your parents, and more to the point, had you never read about racism - seen Schindlers List, even - in the last five years of your life?
Sorry to be so strong on this, but it really annoys me that today it seems that history should be taught through entertainment. Tommy Tiernan thinks he can show us all what an ant-Semite is by going on a rant about the Holocaust, and putting 10 or 12 millions jews to death. Utton also thinks he can do something similar re racism by telling racist jokes. Both these people make a living by exploiting the the deaths of others, and that is the real meaning of the concept of their alleged humour.
Comment by mike
11.
November 9, 2009
10:44 pm
Mike,
Have you seen the play?
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thespians-go-to-war-over-hitler-show-1936645.html
“But Mr Utton said he was “disappointed” by the director’s response, particularly as he had failed to wait until the sting was revealed at the show’s end.”
It seems that my description of works with a twist is apt, but I’m only taking Utton’s word for it, as I haven’t seen the work. You seem to be talking from a position of knowledge (or at least, given your comments, I should bloodly well hope so), so perhaps you’re better placed to judge on the show.
My point is simply this: to comment with knowledge on a show you should see it in its entirety, especially work that may have a “sting” or twist in the tale. That isn’t a strawman, it’s just good sense. Why you would bring up works that don’t have a supposed sting in the tale I don’t know. Perhaps you’re confused. What cost a few more minutes to read those last few pages or see those last few minutes?
I cannot comment about this show specifically, if it works or if it is a failure. From the website it appears to have some good reviews from notable sources, but that in itself does not say much, only that there are people who disagree with Peter Sherdian (Presumably these people all stayed until the end of the show though)
http://www.pip-utton.com/putton/adolf.htm
By the way, your comments to Maggie are condescending, and, as they are based entirely on the fact of her age, are horribly ageist. You might as well have written “oh you’re 17, what can you teach me about the world!?”
If only I’d been so articulate at 17: and she made a good point about audience members being warned about the nature of the show, which you failed to answer.
And I can’t for the life of me understand what is wrong with young people being exposed to history through entertainment? (Of course that wasn’t what Tiernan was trying to do at all. One would have had to understand the nature of the Holocaust and why mocking it would offend Jewish people prior to Tiernan’s joke to get it, so clearly it wasn’t an attempt to educate. Your last paragraph to Maggie as such was all over the place.)
I suggest you take a deep breath, collect yourself, and take it once more from the top with a little less condescension and kneejerk ageism. Thank you.
Comment by Aidan
12.
November 10, 2009
11:18 am
So mocking the Holocaust only offends Jewish people, is that what you’re saying? (Yes it is.) Very revealing and it reinforces my thesis about unconscious prejudice lying at the roots of your indefatigable campaign to defend the indefensible in the form of Tommy Tiernan’s rant.
Far from sneering at Maggie over her age, Mike is expressing outrage because of his (mistaken, in my view) belief that she she doesn’t understand racism.
Comment by Deaglán
13.
November 10, 2009
12:20 pm
Deaglán,
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s pathetic. I said that mocking the Holocaust would offend Jewish people. It does follow at all that I think doing that ONLY offends Jewish people. That’s very, very basic logic.
Comment by Aidan
14.
November 10, 2009
4:33 pm
Fair point. I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry about that.
Still intrigued by your devotion to the Tiernan cause. How many hours have you put into it at this stage? Have you nothing better to do than defending the indefensible?
Comment by Deaglán
15.
November 10, 2009
8:43 pm
i did not have to be brought to a play to understand racism and of course i have read many books and been taught in school about fascism and hitler …i paid for my own ticket to the show with money i have earned …if thats what you are referring to by “tax payers money”. attending this play was not about teaching students about racism or anti semitism it was about getting an oppurtunity, after studying this part of history for so long, to see first hand how hitler acted and to listen to his beliefs instead of only reading them in a book. mike i do not understand many things you have said in your comment to me.. my interpretation is that you are saying that i went to this play because i have not learned anything about facism, rascism etc. in school or during my lifetime in general and therefore i need to go to a play to learn about these topics?? i think this is a most ridiculous thing to say and it is fairly obvious i disagree with you. i am curious though…were you at the play? if so did you leave early? if you were at the play it is clear we both had very different opinions on it …the point of the play (or so i thought) was to show that a small bit of hitler still lives on today in the way we as human beings sometimes behave and think and to show how hitler won over so many followers…how easy it is to get a laugh out of a politically incorrect joke… i though the play was brilliant as it really made you think and ask many questions to yourself.
oh and thanks aidan for sticking up for my comment
Comment by maggie
16.
November 10, 2009
9:35 pm
Aidan,
Mr. Straw man: Can’t be bothered to respond to your usual trolling remarks.
Maggie,
I appreciate what you write, and understand your position much better. But you say you went to the play to “to see first hand how Hitler acted and to listen to his beliefs instead of only reading them in a book”. But as this is only one playwright’s presentation of Hitler, I think it much more preferable and reliable to go to the original sources and historians’ analyses and accounts of what and how Hitler, the Nazis and the German people believed and acted. Just try dipping ever so slightly into Laurence Rees’s Auschwitz, Saul Friedlander’s two massive volumes, of Years of Persecution and the Years of Extermination, and any of Martin Gilbert’s books. This will be more than enough to provide the insight into what Hitler and the Nazis really did and believed, as opposed to what Hitler may have said publicly, written … or believed, according to any playwright. For example, Hitler did not talk about or write about the extermination camps and the policy of genocide in any explicit detail, but that is what he planned and executed.
It might also be meaningful to attend Ireland’s next Holocaust memorial Day … in January?
This play may provide another angle, yes, but cannot add anything further of significance, that has not already been well and repeatedly documented by so many others. Racism has always existed, and always will. We are all potentially and actually racist to some extent, in different ways, and given the circumstances of Nazi Germany who knows how any of us would have reacted, unfortunately.
Very sorry for having been so heavyhanded in my initial response to you. I wonder how many Irish students think that Hitler was a football manager, or something like that, as apparently 5% of teenagers think according to some recent UK poll.
Best wishes in your studies.
Comment by mike
17.
November 10, 2009
9:41 pm
Aidan,
Surprise.
“Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s pathetic. I said that mocking the Holocaust would offend Jewish people. It does follow at all that I think doing that ONLY offends Jewish people”
Whereas in theory you might be right and logical … in fact very few Irish people were offended by Tiernan’s Holocaust rant, so offended that they made that known to the public. I don’t recall any public protests, do you? The number of people who publicly condemned him … wrongly according to you - could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Comment by mike
18.
November 10, 2009
10:24 pm
I’m getting increasingly fed-up with people bending over backwards to defend racism and other forms of bigotry.
The comments on here are the least of it. There are plenty of newspaper columnists who insist that ‘freedom of speech’ excuses any level of abuse.
I’m also a little tired of people focusing the debate on Hitler and the monstrosities of a bygone era; the dangers of dehumanizing minorities are just as real today. Only this evening, for example, Channel Four News had a report of a student stabbed to death in the steet because of the colour of skin.
Expressions of racism are unacceptable at work, at school, or in the street. Why should they be accpetable in commercial entertainment?
Comment by Dylan
19.
November 11, 2009
11:04 am
Mike,
Was it trolling to ask you the simple question “Have you seen the play?” You didn’t answer. Response #10 seems to indicate that you have.
The reason that the number of people who complained were few is that most people saw it correctly as a joke; a joke goading the self-righteous. Then the manufactured-story kicked in, and people quoted Tiernan as if he was being earnest etc.
Dylan,
Consider the movie American History X. There are many expressions of racism in that movie that would be unacceptable in the workplace etc. yet they are a piece of commercial entertainment. Why are they acceptable? Because the statements are given context. So, you’re asking the wrong question entirely. Expressions of racism do not mean that the work as a whole is encouraging us to be racist, it depends on who is saying them, how they are being said, and in what context they are delivered.
Comment by Aidan
20.
November 11, 2009
1:08 pm
Aidan,
Is it necessary to use words like “hypocritical” and “weasel”? Why this compulsion to be nasty at all times? What is your problem?
Comment by Deaglán
21.
November 11, 2009
2:08 pm
Deaglán,
The words I used on the other thread were quite apt.
Mike was a hypocrite to object me quoting from the Guardian (because of perceived bias) and not object to you linking to the Mail (a rag well-known for bias).
When this was pointed out he said something tantamount to “oh, I wasn’t talking about YOU quoting from the Guardian. You’re paranoid. Get a grip”, which was an attempt to weasel out of the point. (No objection to him calling me “paranoid”? Is this because he agrees with you?)
These semantic points are kind of tedious, Deaglán - I think you’re dying to convict me of “verbal violence”.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/weasel
Comment by Aidan
22.
November 11, 2009
3:28 pm
Aidan, I just wish you’d lighten up a bit. For all I know you may actually be a teetotaller but you write like a guy with a really bad hangover every morning.
We’re all trying to get at the truth in our different ways.
Comment by Deaglán
23.
November 11, 2009
5:25 pm
Deaglán,
I’ll lighten up when you stop implying that I’m a compassionless, anti-Semite, driven by hidden prejudice: you said at one point that people like me help you understand how the Holocaust might have happened in the first place!
Can you not see that it takes some gall to take umbrage at my use of the relatively tame words “hypocrite” and “weasel” (as a verb, let it be noted). I simply don’t know what truth you are trying to get at by implying what you do.
Comment by Aidan
24.
November 11, 2009
5:51 pm
It’s not just me, it’s everyone who disagrees with you. You’re an equal-opportunity grouch.
I never said you were a conscious anti-Semite. In fact you are obviously opposed to anti-Semitism on a conscious level, except for your terrible blind spot about Mr Tiernan which I have been trying to explain in a psychological sense. This lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of Jews must be similar to the apathy that allowed the excesses of the Thirties and Forties. And Mr Tiernan is also a baiter of Travellers and the Disabled, judging from his Late Late Show appearance, yet can do no wrong in your eyes it would appear.
Comment by Deaglán
25.
November 11, 2009
8:40 pm
Deaglán,
You’re implying that everyone who disagrees with you is an anti-Semite (whether they know it or not) and even those who don’t outright object. Niall Stokes, Olaf Tyaransen, Kevin Myers etc. You even suggested at one stage that the religious correspondent of the Irish Times be shipped off to Auschwitz for retraining, implying that said correspondent is so ignorant of the history of the Jews that he needs to have his consciousness raised! Honestly! (Not true, Deaglán) Do you really think we need to see pictures of the Holocaust (as if we haven’t: what do you take us for?) and take trips to the erstwhile death camps to understand that the killing of six million people is not at all funny. Of course we don’t find that funny. How could you think such a thing of people?
It’s like suggesting that someone who finds “The Aristocrats” jokes I linked to, or the song “Unclef*cker” in the South Park movie, funny is subconciously a supporter of pedophilia or that those works (whether you like them or not) support pedophilia. Of course, if those things really did promote pedophilia no-one would really laugh at them. Pedophilia is not funny. They are jokes which use the taboo of pedophilia and are deliberately absurd for laughs. As Carr, your one-time (short-lived) golden boy said, that doesn’t mean that it would be funny if you played those songs out-of-context down the phone to the victim of child rape and asked for a comment.
These jokes might seem crude to you, and that’s a fair point of view, but you don’t deserve any sort of apology for that.
I am against anti-Semitism, and how very dare you suggest I have a lack of sensitivity to a group of people because of their religion, or that I would be apathetic to a Holocaust. That’s a disgusting thing to say about someone, and I’ve had just about enough of it.
The reason I don’t have a problem with Tiernan’s joke is that it isn’t any more anti-Semitic than “The Aristocrats” joke supports pedophilia (even Mike, in a moment of sense, backed away from his earliest suggestion that Tiernan was an anti-Semite, knowing or otherwise). And, given that this sort of comedy exists, it is grossly unfair to single out Tiernan. As Carr said about the controversy over his joke, it was just his turn this time, and he could have been pulled up for any one of hundreds of jokes over the years. Doesn’t that say more about how the media are operating these days than anything else?
Why I get irritable with you is that instead of dealing with this very simple point, you instead infer absurd and offensive things about me (and those who disagree with you) even though I have done my best time after time after time to try to explain my point in various ways.
You give no indication that you might have thought “what if I am wrong?” here, at all (I have), to the point that you prefer to identify lack of compassion or racism in the spaces between my words. I might be the most compassionless, racist guy ever, but that doesn’t mean that my argument here isn’t worth dealing with. Instead it seems you want to play a game of pin the tail on the racist donkey. Is it any wonder that I’m a little irked by that?
Comment by Aidan
26.
November 11, 2009
9:06 pm
Aidan,
It’s bad enough that you are incurably cranky but you also get your facts wrong. I never for a moment suggested that the Religious Affairs Correspondent of this newspaper be sent to Auschwitz to attain a proper appreciation of the Holocaust. You’ve got the wrong man. See the following link:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1017/1224256892797.html
Comment by Deaglán
27.
November 11, 2009
9:48 pm
Deaglán,
I’m sorry, I got confused there because it is a favourite suggestion of yours that we don’t know the Holocaust isn’t funny because we don’t know enough about it, as if one would need to know a lot to understand that the systematic killing of six million people isn’t a hoot. You did suggest at one point that someone who disagreed with you should be brought to meet a Holocaust survivor, did you not? So ….
Patsy McGarry wrote “[Tiernan] impressed me as a decent man, reflective, and with a genuine, well-developed interest in things spiritual. I feel confident in saying that there is absolutely nothing of the bigot, fanatic or anti-Semitic about Tiernan. Not at all.”
If McGarry is not to be sent to Auschwitz for retraining (as I assume you must think him well-educated enough already), and he knows of the joke that Tiernan told, how would you explain his conclusion that Tiernan is in no way anti-semitic? As you said, Tiernan is as far as you are concerned unrepentant, so he would not have changed his ways between telling the joke and meeting McGarry.
I guess my point is, if someone is not a knowing or unknowing anti-Semite, and you are confident that they know enough not to find the Holocaust funny, yet they still disagree with your assessment of the situation as a naked promotion of anti-Semitism, how would you explain it? Because, to me, that seems to be your entire argument here, and if Patsy Mc Garry doesn’t fit that mould, then it would rather dent that theory.
Comment by Aidan
28.
November 11, 2009
10:06 pm
Aidan,
So you are now deciding and telling people exactly what questions they should be asking (as you have answered Dylan)
Does your ego have no boundaries at all?
Comment by mike
29.
November 11, 2009
10:24 pm
Aidan,
Whoa! Be fair. Nobody said you were consciously anti-Semitic. But I ask you to examine your past and dare you to tell me that you never once thought negativeley about “Jews” as a people. I don’t think there is a person alive who has never had such thoughts. Even Jews have those thoughts at some time.
My point is simply that you are not consciously anti-Semitc, but that there are subconscious vestiges of this in everyone, and that everyone is made up of both pro-and anti-Semitism. It is not a black and white situation. However, it is the subconscious - a concept you have great difficulty in accepting - anti-Semitism which contributes to people’s overt anti-Semitism, in terms, say, of making excuses for anti-Semitic outbursts in others, or rationalisation of these. You first need to accept the existence of the subconscious. I believe you are in denial of the concept of subconscious anti-Semitism - a very powerful motive today, since overt anti-Semitism is regarded as so socially unacceptable since the Holocaust. This is therefore sometimes redirected and manifested in hostility toward Israel, apparantly a more socially-acceptable behaviour today.
Comment by mike
30.
November 12, 2009
12:13 am
Aidan, I think I wrote before that I do not believe Mr Tiernan is anti-Semitic. I simply object to his singling out vulnerable minorities like Jews, Travellers and the Disabled as the butt of his “humour”. And I want him to say “I’m sorry” for his Holocaust rant which went beyond the boundaries of what should be acceptable in a civilised society. Look at the fate of singer Ronan Tynan in New York over a far more innocuous remark about two Jewish ladies seeking to rent his apartment.
Comment by Deaglán
31.
November 12, 2009
12:53 am
Deaglán,
Tynan’s treatment was entirely shabby.
And again, I don’t know why you’re singling out Tiernan, as I’ve demonstrated that Tiernan is not alone in his type of comedy. Does “The Aristocrats” joke also go beyond what should be acceptable in a civilised society?
Comment by Aidan
32.
November 12, 2009
1:15 am
Mike,
If I suggested you were subconsciously racist I would expect you to tell me shove my accusation where no-one would find it.
You and Deaglán are entirely too casual with throwing around gross accusations like this. I accept the subconscious (of course), and you should accept that I am not subconsciously anti-Semitic. The only thing I have “against” Jewish people is Judaism itself, which is an entirely silly belief. But that isn’t discrimination, because I believe all religions are entirely silly. I will, of course, argue the silliness of the belief all day (e.g. the animals went into the Arc two by two!)
I have no other qualms I can think of. I certainly don’t find the Holocaust funny, but I’ve explained why Tiernan’s joke is no more about promotion of love for the Holocaust than “The Aristocrats” jokes I posted is a promotion of pedophilia - a point which you and Deaglán have consistently failed to engage with (I wonder why).
But, you say that you’ve had some irrationally hateful thoughts about the Jewish people (assuming you count yourself among “no person alive”), and as between us as you are alone in that, maybe you could expand on the hatred that you’ve felt for these people. Please.
Comment by Aidan
33.
November 12, 2009
10:37 am
This is becoming tiresomely repetitive. I have already said that the Aristocrats routine does not discriminate against any vulnerable minority and in this context I do not find it objectionable. It is a silly attention-seeking and childish performance which is reminiscent of a wee boy shouting “Poo” and then looking around proudly to see who noticed. Give up yer boring aul Aristocrats already, it’s a million miles from Tiernan and the Holocaust.
Comment by Deaglán
34.
November 12, 2009
11:38 am
I’m struggling to understand the “vulnerable minority” point in relation to singling out Tommy Tiernan.
Jimmy Carr’s routine regularly has jokes like this about vulnerable minorities:
“I did a gig in the US once for the homeless. I said “It’s nice to see so many bums on seats”".
So, if you’re against comedians singling out “vulnerable minorities” shouldn’t you be demanding an apology for homeless people for a joke like this? Aren’t they a vulnerable minority?
And if it is about graphic detail, well The Aristocratss joke (no, I’m not going to drop it) can go into quite graphic detail about incest and pedophilia. Aren’t victims of incest and pedophilia a vulnerable minority too? Do they deserve to have their pain mocked like that? Why don’t they deserve apologies from comedians who would tell that joke in a way that makes light of their suffering?
Comment by Aidan
35.
November 12, 2009
11:53 am
I have not read all these comments nor do I intend to. I saw the play and thought it was excellent. Peter Sheridan should learn to be a bit more tolerant himself, the theatre is about self-expression and if Utton feels as though his method was the best way of conveying his point, then so be it. In my opinion, it was a fine point. Don’t go to a performance almost entirely based on racism and then feel as though you can criticise it. The Holocaust should not be glossed over, Utton showed us the reality no matter how ‘upsetting’ you people seem to find it.
Comment by Khalehla Nuzum
36.
November 12, 2009
12:09 pm
Aidan,
You are entitled to call all religions silly. But I doubt whether you have any extensive knowledge of all of them on which you base your decision. Of course, you are then being silly in doing so. I mean, I presume that you have been exposed to the practice of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhaism, Bahai’ism, ete etc. to the same extent that you have true and accurate knowledge on the issues under discussion ir relation to Tiernan, Tynan, etc. A little reading about a subject and you set yourself up as an expert and knowledgeable person, proclaiming arrogantly and aggressively what is the true way. I have said before that you are a good debater, but I fear no match for one who could debate with you in a public forum, where your repeated straw man tactics and ad hominems would be laughed at by the audience, so much so that you would stop using them On this site you simply constantly repeat your tactics, with no public audience in social situ to give you immediate feedback. Still, you are a good debater to keep it going, and I respect and in a way admire your perseverance. You certainly are not boring.
Comment by mike
37.
November 12, 2009
12:14 pm
The “bums on seats” joke is very good! It’s funny and clever. Tiernan’s awful rant about the Holocaust was neither.
Comment by Deaglán
38.
November 12, 2009
1:25 pm
Deaglán, you didn’t address the issue. What is your principle here?
You seem to say that comedians shouldn’t practice comedy which would make light of the suffering of vulnerable minorities. Aren’t comedians constantly doing that?
For instance, Carr again: “What’s the difference between football and rape? Women don’t like football” - now, would a rape victim find that funny? Should Carr be sent to visit a rape victim so that he could be educated on how rape is not funny? Would Mike insist on Carr telling that joke at a rape victims’ support group meeting and judge it by how many laughs he gets.
My problem is, and has always been, that comedians DO make jokes which make light of suffering, all the time, and yet you have chosen to take umbrage and demand apologies especially with Tiernan, and I don’t know what principle you’re working to.
Comment by Aidan
39.
November 12, 2009
1:47 pm
I don’t know enough about Carr’s work to make a judgment. On the face of it, the rape “joke” sounds like a total no-no, unless he is taking the p*ss out of a subhuman male character who thinks women actually like it. In that case, the butt of the humour and object of satire would be the perpetrator, not the victim.
It’s very hard to work out general principles and I prefer to take these matters on a case-by-case basis.
Comment by Deaglán
40.
November 12, 2009
1:48 pm
Mike,
I’ve dealt with the point of dismissing religion without an in depth knowledge of every strain of it, and you appeared previously to accept that. Obviously not. Let me repeat:
If you remember I gave you the example of a minister who appeared before the Dail and announced that the budget would be in part decided by consulting the movement of the planets. Should you be expected to have a PHD in Astrology in order to know that that would be an incredibly silly thing to do? Should another TD have an extensive knowledge of Astrology in order to call for the minister’s resignation (which would no doubt happen on the mental health grounds).
No, of course not. You know that the overall premise of Astrology - that the movements of planets control destiny somehow - is without evidence. You don’t need to pore over ancient star charts for years and years to know that (and it would be a colossal waste of your time too). Now, if Astrology and Astrologists had evidence that their predictions generally came true, then it would be most worthy of further inspection.
If you agree with all that logic then I don’t know what case for religion you could make that would be different from that? I simply require evidence, and without evidence the claims of religion seem quite silly.
But, you can prove me wrong if you’d like. Is there anything about Astrology which makes you want to get “extensive knowledge” of it? Is it worthy of further investigation? Is so, why? Or, how about Scientology? Does that merit further investigation for you?
There was a time when the Tectonic Plate theory was dismissed as silly by many, but then more and more and more evidence was presented which eventually led to widespread acceptance of this as the truth. Now, if you have evidence to present that, let’s say, the religious idea that the world was flooded by God, but two of every animal on the planet at the time was rounded up and saved on a large boat built by a man named Noah, I’d love to hear it, but without evidence it would be silly to believe such things to be “Truth” (and in fact many religious people can’t do that).
It’s quite easy to say that any audience would be on your side, but I would prefer if you’d deal with what I said. Instead of invoking support from the masses, perhaps you could tell me why religion is worthy of further investigation, and to save some time for me, perhaps you could tell me which religion that would be?
Comment by Aidan
41.
November 12, 2009
2:08 pm
Aidan,
Now you really have put your foot into it. So you think it is acceptable to laugh at rape jokes, because comedians make such jokes all the time. I believe I do not have a spare ten years that I would need to expound and list all the ridiculous illogicalities of your position. I think one visit to a Rape Crisis Centre might be illuminative of the lifelong tramas caused by the violent act of rape. But one point is clear: your stance is totally reprehensible, but is perfectly consistent with your generalsied insensitivity to Holocaust “jokes”, Traveller “jokes” etc etc. Another term for your sense of “humour” is I believe vicarious sadistic humour…..deriving pleasure and enjoyment from jokes involving the sufferings of others: in the case of your hero Tommy Tiernan the “jokes” involved the details in the gassing of millions. How anyone can think that this was acceptable humour is no joke.
Comment by mike
42.
November 12, 2009
2:27 pm
Deaglán,
Carr’s delivery is dry and straight. There’s a quick set-up and then the punchline, and he moves on to the next set-up. He said himself he’s just aiming for laughs and not social comment, so it would be hard to imagine he thought “I’m going to take the p*ss out of men’s attitudes to women” when he was writing that joke. If you remember his interview, what he likes most is the laugh followed by the sharp intake of breath.
Deaglán, the point is that I could give you many more examples of comedians apparently making light of the suffering of vulnerable groups of people. I’m disappointed that you can’t say definitively why Jewish people deserve an apology for Tiernan’s joke and rape victims don’t deserve an apology for Carr’s joke.
If a comedian really were deliberately racist and grossly offensive as an expression of personal opinion on stage I would have a very, very big problem with it. That is my principle. And for an example of what I mean witness Michael Richards (Kramer of Seinfeld) in 2006 who did effectively end his career (he “retired” in 2007) with this disgraceful outburst:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r05XDOFUsQw&feature=related
If Tiernan had earnestly meant his remarks in this way his career would be over, people would not have laughed as they did, and would have walked out similar to what happened at the Richards’ gig. No apology would have done. (Richards tried to apologise on the Late Show with Letterman soon after, but was greeted with silence from Letterman’s audience)
Context is everything, as Declan Lynch of the Irish Independent says:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/were-in-big-trouble-when-comedy-is-no-laughing-matter-1897803.html
“What Tiernan did, in truth, is something like this: it’s a bit like a non-Irish comedian describing how he told a joke at a gig about the Irish. And how two Irish people came up to him afterwards to complain, people whom he describes in derogatory terms, mainly because he feels they have no sense of humour. And then he moves on from this to adopt the voice of the enemies of Ireland, obscenely lamenting the fact that not enough Irish people died in the Famine.”
“What some of his critics think he did, and what the multitudes on the internet think he did, and what loads of people who should know better think he did, still using this analogy, is to describe all Irish people in the most derogatory terms, because he feels they have no sense of humour. And to proceed from there to express the personal opinion that not enough Irish people died in the Famine.”
You have portrayed Tiernan’s joke as something as hateful and “out there” as Richards’s rant, when in truth Tiernan is not alone in his sort of comedy, and he is certainly isn’t anywhere near as hateful. Can you not accept that your problem is not with Tiernan, but with certain types of comedy, which Tiernan is not alone in practising?
Comment by Aidan
43.
November 12, 2009
7:07 pm
I have a problem with Tiernan’s joke and with the tastelessness and cruelty that seems to be part of the stand-up phenomenon. Although the practitioners would probably regard themselves as left-wing, I think it is no accident that the British National Party is having a parallel increase in popularity. But I would not dismiss all stand-up by any means.
Comment by Deaglán
44.
November 12, 2009
8:21 pm
Mike,
You and Deaglán defended Peter Cook as a fine comedian for making a quip about gassing six million Jews, which you clearly have forgotten. That was a “Holocaust” joke. You didn’t find yourself to “insensitive” for defending it. And now you’re questioning the moral fibre of someone who is laughing at Carr’s rape quip?
By the way, your posts would be a lot shorter, and you’d save us a lot of time if you’d cut out the ridiculous and unimpressive things like “if I had ten years I couldn’t….blah blah”. Just stick to dealing with the argument, and if you find that it is too expansive for you, pick one point and deal with that.
Comment by Aidan
45.
November 12, 2009
8:37 pm
Deaglán,
I think you’re finally starting to come around to my way of thinking. Your issue is with a certain style of stand-up comedy. If that is the case, attacking Tiernan alone is pointless and counter-productive, and in that light, it seems like a personal grudge to be demanding an apology exclusively from him.
If you investigated modern comedians using your standard of “tastelessness” and “cruelty”, and an apparent lack of compassion for “vulnerable minorities” you’d find that you’d be demanding apologies from many, many comedians.
Therefore, your options at this stage are either to start making a list of comedians you feel should make apologies to vulnerable minorities (which I think you make you seem like a hopeless crank along the lines of Bill Donohue of “The Catholic League” infamy) or else drop your demand for an apology from Tiernan - on the grounds that it would be unfair to single him out when as you have found other comedians also say what you find to be reprehensible and apology-worthy - and instead write a blog about the general cruelty of modern mainstream comedy and how it is related to worrying political developments.
Comment by Aidan
46.
November 12, 2009
9:31 pm
Those who keep repeating the mantra: “Context is everthing” when in fact conext is itself merely part of the overall context are lopsided in their thinking. The term context is a convenient excuse that is also often used by those faced with crimes and other reprehensible behaviours, from rapists (she was dressed that way m’lud) to drink drivers to comedians “joking” about the Holocaust.
Comment by mike
47.
November 13, 2009
12:10 am
Aidan, You have a neck like a jockey’s undercarriage to be complaining that other people write at excessive length. I must be spending an hour a day moderating your wordy monologues. Wouldja get a life for God’s sake.
On your Good Friday Agreement-style plea for me to let Mr Tiernan off the hook - No Surrender!
Comment by Deaglán
48.
November 13, 2009
12:20 am
Fair enough, Deaglán. I thought you might be starting to come around to the idea that Tiernan was one among many, and therefore to single him out was wrong, but I guess not.
As Mike isn’t really dealing with the points raised, I think this discussion has run its course for me. Thanks for moderating, Deaglán.
Comment by Aidan
49.
November 13, 2009
9:55 am
Aidan, Thank you too. I may not have changed my mind but I am certainly better-informed as a result of your thoughtful comments.
Comment by Deaglán
50.
November 13, 2009
10:04 am
Just one final thing. You might find this interesting as it deals with a lot of what we were talking about. Some of the comments are also worth reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/12/censorship-can-kill-comedy-offence
Comment by Aidan
51.
November 13, 2009
1:41 pm
Aidan,
I fell off my chair laughing when I read your most recent complaint that posts by me and Deaglan are too long. If you look at your own you will see that yours are at least 5 times the length of ours. And as Deaglan pointed out many weeks ago, he wondered where on earth you got the time to write so much. I recently have been reading about that very interesting diosrder called Asperger’s Syndrome, and wondered wheteher you may have it or perhaps CBD (Compulsive Blogging Disorder) that causes you to write so much, much of which is I have to admit quite interesting, if somewhat off topic.
Do you also do stand-up? No? Well, you should.
Comment by mike
52.
November 13, 2009
4:08 pm
Mike,
I was just saying that if you didn’t write things like “…I believe I do not have a spare ten years that I would need to expound and list all the ridiculous illogicalities of your position…” - which are pretty meaningless and pointless boasts - your posts could be shorter.
It reminds me of that sneering article by John Waters, where he boasted that two of his learned friends given half an hour could change the minds of the attendees of a meeting of Atheist Ireland. The boast in itself is uninteresting and pointless without expanding on how his friends might go about this.
Comment by Aidan
53.
November 13, 2009
6:55 pm
Aidan,
Asperger’s or CBD?
Comment by mike

Leave a comment

• Name (*)
  
• Mail (*) (will not be published)
  
• Website
  
• Comment
  
• Submit