If this description of Johnny Vegas's act in London is factually accurate, then colour me horrified. Thinking people should never choose to censor comedy, literature, or anything involving the arts, but sometimes artists certainly go too far and people need to let them know that their actions have been unacceptable.
The girl who was brought up on stage did not object to being brought up on stage, and it's quite off-putting that being groped and fingered by a stranger - even a famous stranger, in front of an audience - is considered hilarious. The fact that there are statements in support of his 'act' scares me - these are real misogynists.
I think there is a definite line to be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable public behaviour - whether or not you are considered a 'public figure'.
Using your celebrity to molest women (or men, whatever floats your boat) is crossing the line, even if you protest that it was part of a show.
I hope Johnny Vegas's fans let him know, in no uncertain terms, that that sort of 'comedy' isn't funny at all.
Jon.Kenna
Date: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:52 PM GMT
Using the audience as fall guys is a well established technique in comedy. We find it funny (sometimes) because we're secretly thanking God that its someone else getting ridicules and not ourselves. This tension creates the laughter reaction. Personally, I'm not a fan of the technique. So called masters of it such as Michael Barrymore come over as arrogant and unfunny to me. I saw Matt Lucas and David Walliams's stage act recently and Walliams did a similar thing as Johnny Vegas by treading over the line of acceptability by touching up a man from the audience and half stripping him. The victim took it in good part but then he had no choice really. Making fun of someone can be funny but humiliating them is just cheap. I suppose one of the first entertainers who 'used' the audience like that was Bruce Forsythe on the Generation Game. People found his interplay with the contestants hilarious and he was said to have a magic touch with audiences. I was only a kid when that show was on in the Seventies but even then I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable when Brucie was taking the piss out of some old grannie or whatever. I suppose, if it makes you laugh then go and see that kind of comedy. I just don't like it. It doesn't make me laugh. I prefer the likes of Billy Connolly and Peter Kay who also take the piss out of people by making observations about people's lives. Here, though it is all of us (including the comedian)who are getting the piss taken out of us rather than one individual who is brought up and stage and made to look small.
Guest
Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 06:30 PM GMT
What indeed are the boundaries for comedy? And who polices the borders? It is a fairly common conceit that for comedy to work there needs to be a victim, if that is so then it is our comfort with the degree to which that victim is made to suffer that informs our perception of the boundaries. Vegas reportedly overstepped the mark (according to some) yet Manning, Brown and Bates regularly victimise along lines of race, sexuality or gender. Their audiences don't complain so is it then an issue of context and setting? I have seen Sadowitz alienate and offend an entire room piece by piece numerous times but this is largely tolerated or even enjoyed by those present.
So is it then the physical aspect of this routine that causes offence? No where has it been reported from the 'victims' point of view (has it?)
The dissenting voices seem to be evenly matched in number by those who enjoyed it, at least in terms of those who saw the show. Physical/violent comedy comes from a rich tradition; slapstick; the three stooges; Bottom to name a few admittedly all the participants in these were part of the act and complicit in the physicality, is tit hen this we want our comedy to be safe? To be participant only as voyeur?
What are the boundaries of comedy? It is an interesting question and one which an overview f this gig goes nowhere near answering.
Guest
Date: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 AM GMT
Johnny has been quoted as saying he'd like to scrap the whole concept of celebrity. Might not be good for his chances when he's on the pull, maybe.
Guest
Date: Sat May 03, 2008 02:45 PM GMT
I didn't see the gig, so everything came to me second hand. The overriding point I would make is this...If you were that good a comedian, you would never have to reduce yourself to trawling the crowd for potential participants in your 'act'. Surely pushing the boundaries of performance comedy should centre on the mouth as the epicentre...talking a good, new game (a la Bill Hicks at his best and worst). Such insightful commentators never have to fall back on physical gimickry like audience involvement to jumpstart their act. And trying to pass Vegas's actions off as some kind of statement about the things that celebrity is capable of getting away with, well that's just a weak apologetic front for someone who can't command a crowd with his mouth, so instead has to use other means. And surely it says more about how the cult of celebrity affects the behaviour of the 'celebrated'...it's not a point about what you can get away with, it's what you think you're entitled to do as a result of being popular.
