Stand-up comics should concentrate on being funny: so don’t take offence if they are

0
Stand-up comics should concentrate on being funny: so don’t take offence if they are

Ian Wilkie writes…  Stand-up comedian Konstantin Kisin was recently expected to sign a contract promising to steer clear of a list of potentially “offensive” topics before playing a UK university gig. Meanwhile US comedian and Saturday Night Live writer Nimesh Patel was apparently “forced off stage” during a show at Columbia University for making “offensive” jokes.

Judging by the reactions, these incidents appear to be examples of comedians that are deemed too controversial for an audience of overly sensitive, “politically correct”, “snowflakes”.

From Lenny Bruce and Michael Richards in the US, to Julian Clary and Frankie Boyle in the UK, comedians have often been accused of going too far. But a comedian’s overarching intention is to amuse, not to offend. Some may intend to shock – but apart, perhaps, for an example such as Stewart Lee’s attack on Richard Hammond, it is hard to think of many mainstream instances these days where comedians deliberately set out to wound an individual with their words. No comedian has ever prospered by alienating their potential audience and, in general, the evidence suggests that few comedians seem to relish being accused of offence.

The fact is that truly offensive humour is seldom actually funny – and comedians are savvy enough to realise that unfunny acts with limited audience appeal get fewer bookings. Giving offence also invariably becomes a matter for repentance. Take, for example, US comedian Kathy Griffin’s apology over her Donald Trump/severed head controversy.
We believe in experts. We believe knowledge must inform decisions

They may just be being disingenuous, but when called out for being offensive, comedians tend to produce their “I was only joking” card – and this isn’t entirely unreasonable. The rules of the professional joker’s engagement are unambiguous and any taking of offence that is linked to a live comedy platform is misguided. Of course, material such as baldly racist or misogynistic “jokes” is understandably going to prove problematic for most audiences.

But it’s important to think about the comedian’s intent – there is, after all, some gap between a poorly judged gag and the making of deliberately derogatory statement masquerading as a humorous remark. This might explain the enforced premature retirement of acts such as that of the controversial British comedian “Dapper Laughs” whose attempts to joke about rape led to his ITV series being axed.

Consider the context of the discourse: there is an audience and a stage on which a joker is expected to tell jokes. The audience should always be equally aware of this. Punters expect to hear comedians tell jokes – not state truths. Even if they may be often be based on real experiences, jokes are merely fictions and jokers are usually only trying to make their public laugh.

Due to its subjectivity, comedy is far too ephemeral and open to multiple interpretations for it to function as a vehicle for causing offence as, by its very nature, it traditionally (and paradoxically) confirms and subverts. When we laugh at the comedian’s self-deprecating comment about their body, love life or general failures as a human being, to what extent are we actually laughing at them or with them?

Ian Wilkie is a lecturer in performance at Salford University.

Read the rest of this article