On September 30th of this year, I celebrated the twentieth anniversary of my very first stand-up set. As I've said before, stand-up comedy is my first love as a performer. I describe that love for the art this way: I had to do it. From the first day I stepped foot on that stage at the world-famous Laugh Factory, I was hooked. As corny as it may sound to some, I felt alive on stage. There were times when I was really broke and dinner was a twenty-five cent package of generic ramen noodles because I needed to spend what little money I had on gas so I could drive to several different clubs a night. I even lost a day job as a telemarketer because I kept oversleeping since I was out all night going from club to club. Every night I would hope against hope that I could get five minutes of stage time in front of what usually turned out to be three drunks. The good time slots were given to the actor who used to play the wacky neighbor on a sitcom (Michael Richards did stand-up prior to Seinfeld), or the guy who is in that series of stupid TV commercials. I understand that club owners want a household name on their marquee because they will put butts in the seats.
I made sacrifices for my art knowing that some day the sacrifices would pay off. Love, even love of your art, makes you do stupid things. To pay the rent I took many day jobs. Without mentioning any names, there are many companies in town that hire creative people, like comedians and other performers, to use their talents and personalities to do the company's bidding. If any of my coworkers or I got too creative, overzealous, or crossed the line we were told, "You are not in a comedy club." Sadly, it looks like comedy clubs are less like comedy clubs and more like factories. Some rooms judge if a comedian is funny by listening for a big laugh every twenty seconds and not listening to what the comedian has to say. Some rooms don't want comedians to talk about current events, because although the material might be funny this week it has no shelf life and how do they know you will be funny next week. Some rooms promote as themselves as having "clean comedy" meaning no profanity while others have a ban on certain subject matter. I understand that the comedian sees things from the artistic point of view while advocating free speech, however the club owner or the person who books the room sees things from a business point of view. The battle between art and commerce is nothing new, you just have to know how to choose your battles.
Article comments
1 - alessandro nicolo
Great piece. Could not agree more.You can't impose shackles on artists. Then what's the point? You remove the one weapon in their arsenal that helps them define or comment on society. Isn't this what helps us find truths? I' don't want to muzzle a racist. I want him EXPOSED. It's only then we can move on. When I first saw his inexcusable snappings I wondered what could have pushed him to that spot? Did he try to use race to swim out of a problem and it failed miserably? What if it worked? What if a more skillful person used a similar approach and got away with it? Comedians walk that fine line and sometimes they cross over. This is why I am not prepared to condemn him as a racist. I don't know the guy nor do I know, as you mentioned, what's in his heart. But usually bigots or racists exhibit a life pattern of such beliefs and there is nothing that suggests Richards was racist through the years. Many blogs have been hyperbolic in their attacks on him. I'm not sure I agree. The action was terrible but why not just leave it at that? Conversely, the person seeking an advocate is only profiting from an unfortunate incident. To me, this makes him no better.
2 - Mark Ross
I have been following this story from here in the UK with interest, as I think it has been illuminating in many respects. The least of which would be Richards' attitude towards people of other racial derivations. More so the attitude of America and the rest of the world towards racial issues, and the reactionary natures which are revealed as a direct result.
Your article really rang true with me, as a long-time believer that the censorship of comedy is an impossible and unnecessary aim. In this case I believe Richards' was using the race angle as a last-gasp and misguided attempt to gain the upper hand in a pressurised situation. His only real mistake (albeit a major one) was that his choice of delivery was not at all funny. A more talented and relaxed comedian could have approached the subject of race in a way which, although controversial in its subject matter, resonated with all members of the audience due to one of the pillars of comedy: the unexpectedly concise representation of the truth. Unfortunately, all Richards succeeded in doing was clumsily making it seem like he had prejudicial issues by delibrately using society-shocking racial words in a rather non-comedic context. This was terribly misjudged. Under the pressure of a live comedy performance, however, it does not necessarily make him a racist. For me it asks more questions about the talent of the man as a stand-up comedian, and his ability to deal with pressurised situations.
As a last point - I agree with the above replier who suggests that the seeking of monitary gain by the heckler rather nullifies his standpoint. This is for the simple reason that if money can make everything (or anything) better from his point of view, I do not believe that morality is the core of his issue. After all, they are both now speaking out publicly against common racism. Shouldn't this seem like a moral opportunity rather than a financial one? If the heckler had asked for a public meeting with Richards leading to some sort of collaborative public capitalisation on the publicity of the incident, to help combat racism, I would have been much more convinced.
3 - neeraj
I have been following the stand up comedy in India and found it really intresting and marketable. I have writtem something on it on my site and also list stand up comedians
neerajj