Stewart Lee and Jerry Sadowitz

The series Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle, BB2 on Mondays, came to an end this week. I have enjoyed the series and hope that there will be another in the future. Lee’s style is one which deserves admiration. He discusses a subject in a nonchalant way, seemingly following a ‘stream of consciousness’ process and yet making use of well thought out repetitions of phrases and concepts. He comments on the absurdities of life and occasionally also on the situation of being a stand up comedian performing to a live audience. The latter goes so far as to him admitting that a particular tale he is telling, of something that happened to him the week before, is a fiction; even so, he keeps telling the tale whilst explaining which parts are not true and the fictional characters in the tale begin to ask him what does he think he is he doing. It is comedy which could be theatre of the absurd at its most accessible. After watching this series, I regard Stewart Lee as being the Samuel Beckett of stand up comedy.

An extra treat in the last episode was Jerry Sadowitz imitating Jimmy Savile in a sketch. A unique comedian, and a unique magician, Sadowitz has been missing from our television screens for far too long and I hope that he will appear on television more in the near future. A misunderstood performer, sometimes deliberately misunderstood by some, it may be the case that television producers cannot see beyond Sadowitz’s stage persona to the experienced professional behind it, cannot tell fact from fiction in the fuss about the image that accompanies his comedy persona. During his live shows he presents the audience with a persona of an aggressive, loud, opinionated, foul mouthed Glaswegian who airs shocking points of view that can invoke an occasional negative response from a few audience members; Sadowitz then gets called racist, sexist, etc., despite the fact that those people bought a ticket to the show in order to laugh at a racial stereotype: an aggressive, loud, opinionated, foul mouthed Glaswegian who airs shocking points of view.

An audience watching comedian Omid Djalili (whose brilliant new series began this week on BBC1) when he imitates a Middle Eastern accent and declares “and that is why the West must be destroyed” tend to laugh because they are laughing at a racial stereotype. They do not believe that Djalili is a Middle Eastern terrorist or that he means what he is saying; they know it is only a comedy act. It is different with Sadowitz, an audience seems to believe that the comedy character they are being presented with is genuinely who Sadowitz is as a person and that the things said really are his own sincerely held views. It is a bit like believing that Omid Djalili really is a Middle Eastern terrorist or believing that Warren Mitchell really is Alf Garnet. At one of Sadowitz’s shows which I watched, at least three times during the show he had to point out to a small number of audience members that it was a comedy act and that he did not really mean what he was saying, that he is a comedian and it is just an act. The crux of the matter can be highlighted by a further comparison with Djalili. When Djalili has finished using his Middle Eastern persona he can revert back to using his own voice, which has an English accent. When Sadowitz has finished using his ‘extreme’ Glaswegian persona, he still has a Glaswegian accent. It is much easier for people to differentiate between Djalili and his Middle Eastern persona than it is for them to do the same with the real Glaswegian Jerry Sadowitz and his fictional foul mouthed Glaswegian used as a comedy persona. (Before anyone points it out, yes, I know that Sadowitz was born in America but he was raised in Glasgow and has a Glasgow accent.)

I sometimes wonder if there is a touch of racism against the Scottish and Glaswegians in the people who refuse to accept that Sadowitz is not the obviously exaggerated Glaswegian stereotype he uses as a stage persona. From the descriptions given by people who know Sadowitz personally and even from some journalists who have bothered to take the time to look behind the stage persona instead of exploiting it, it is to be found that Sadowitz is a quiet person who is teetotal and shares little in common with the character he presents on stage.

A tiny, tiny glimpse of the real Jerry Sadowitz is given in the book This Virtual Life: Escapism and Simulation in Our Media World by Andrew Evans and it is given by Sadowitz himself. Not only did he contribute to a modest part of Evans’ research for the section of the book which deals with the media, trickery, magic and audience reactions thereon, Sadowitz also wrote the foreword to the book. Not even the slightest hint of his stage persona is to be found in there and we meet someone else entirely.

The real Jerry Sadowitz is, perhaps, none of our business. He is entitled to his privacy and as a performer, the product 'Jerry Sadowitz, Comedian and Magician' is probably all we will be allowed to know. However, I sometimes wonder if Sadowitz wishes that people, including television producers, would realise and remember that there is a real Jerry Sadowitz that is different from the comedy persona. Something that Spike Milligan once said in a television interview, for me, highlights why people are so ready and willing to believe the outrageous about Sadowitz (or others) without looking deeper. Milligan was telling a hilariously ludicrous story that was supposed to be a true event and another guest on the show recognised the story; he stated he knew the people involved and it did not happen the way Milligan was telling it. Milligan gestured towards the audience and asked "What do you think these people want to hear? A boring truth or an interesting lie?"

Ali Bongo

http://www.pongolia.co.uk/

This week the internet has been inundated with tributes for Ali Bongo, who passed away on Sunday the 8th of March. The above link is a memorial site, created with the co-operation of Ali Bongo's family.

The Sherlock Holmes Museum in London

Jill and I enjoy watching Sherlock Holmes films. To be honest, I’m more of a fan than Jill for mysteries involving Holmes and Watson. Jill is a fan of the films. I also like the books. I haven’t merely read the books, I also have modern facsimiles of the original Strand publications of the Conan Doyles stories. And a complete collection of the uniform set of paperbacks by Penguin Books that was issued some decades ago. And books about the books. And DVDs. And so on. Now stop right there! Before you picture me as a die-hard Holmes fan who goes around wearing a deer-stalker hat and quoting Holmes at every opportunity I would like to point out that I don’t take my interest that far.

I like reading, I read a variety of topics, and Sherlock Holmes is just one among many interests. Okay, I’ve worn a deer-stalker hat once. Only once. Yes, okay, I’ve had my photograph taken wearing a deer-stalker hat. And that was when Jill and I went to The Sherlock Holmes Museum in Baker Street, London. However, all that the photograph did for me was prove that I shouldn’t wear a deer-stalker hat. It just doesn’t suit me. Most hats don’t. Even the Victorian top hat didn’t look good on me. Yes, okay, I tried on the Victorian top hat in the museum and had a photograph taken of that too. Neither photograph appear here because of how much they don't suit my face. Or rather how much my face doesn’t suit a good hat. I prefer to blame the hats.

Anyway, The Sherlock Holmes Museum is worth visiting if you enjoy the films, television series or the books. Like any museum or exhibit there are good points and bad points. The good points of The Sherlock Holmes Museum far outweigh the bad and the bad points could easily be put right.

To begin with the good points. The shop is on the ground floor and the rest of the building, right up into the attic, is the museum. The entrance fee to the museum part of the building is very fair; probably the lowest fee I know of in London. Even if you’re only interested in Victoriana, the museum could be of interest to you because most of the knick-knacks and everyday objects in the rooms are genuine articles from the correct period of the Holmes stories of 1881-1904. Also, the building used for the museum was actually used as a lodging house during the Victorian period and later (from 1860 right though to 1934) and so the layout of the rooms isn’t merely in accordance with the descriptions in the stories of the lodging house at which Holmes resided, it does give some genuine idea of the look and feel of a Victorian gentleman’s rooms.

In amongst the bits and pieces which provide an authentic look to the rooms are modern fakes, such as letters by Holmes to Watson. Also on display is a small selection of books from the publishing history of Holmes by Conan Doyle and others. Wax figures are to be found in some of the upper rooms; they each portray a scene from the stories. Their design matches the original illustrations from The Strand Magazine. I must admit that I don’t find such figures interesting but then I’m in a minority with that opinion. What was interesting and entertaining was Dr. Watson. Yep, an elderly gentleman hired to portray Watson was delighting some of the visitors with his friendly chit-chat about the adventures he had ‘shared with Holmes.’ He had a sense of humour and I think he was basing his Watson on that of the portrayal by Nigel Bruce in the films co-starring Basil Rathbone. Regrettably, Holmes wasn’t present to greet us; the museum is presently advertising a vacancy for someone to portray him.

We found every room interesting. There was a lot to take in and we just didn’t have time to scrutinise every little thing.

That was one of the three bad points. You would have to be Sherlock Holmes to spot every little detail portrayed in the rooms; or at least an astounding expert on the stories by Conan Doyle with a photographic memory. This was because very little was labelled. I imagine it would impossible to do so because the sheer amount of small items in the rooms. An audio commentary for each room, as can be found in other museums, might improve the situation. To be fair, such audio commentaries are expensive for a museum to acquire and maintain so perhaps that might be why there isn’t one.

The second bad point is one shared by most museums, especially those in London: the price of some of the items in the shop. The items for sale are great; you can buy the Sherlock Holmes stories in various editions, buy books about Sherlock Holmes, DVDs, replicas of Victoriana and so on - just don’t expect to find a bargain. Some of the items, well, most in this case, are available elsewhere at lower prices. Again, to be fair, most museums, if not all, are simply not in a position to give the reductions on prices to be found in ordinary shops. The almost annual reduction in funding to museums over the past number of decades has meant that they have had to become more commercial.

The third bad point was some of the staff. The woman who sold us our tickets couldn’t have been more strict and stern with us as she spoke. In the rooms above, a young man dressed in period costume, was more interested in reading a paperback than interacting with the visitors. It felt somewhat uncomfortable to have to interrupt his reading to ask him about some of the exhibits. One excruciatingly embarrassing moment took place in the shop. A male member of staff who looked middle-aged, the only person not in period costume and wearing bright white trainers, left the till unguarded at the back of the shop so he could, quite audibly to all the visitors in the shop, try to impress/chat up a very quiet and less than happy looking teenage girl sat at the front of the shop. The girl, dressed as a maid, stayed very quiet as he spoke to her in soft and gentle tones. His verbal fawning and her discomfort were just too much and so it was time to leave. We went to the till at the back of the shop and he was obliged to follow. The tone of his voice to us as we paid for our items was not soft and gentle. His manner was brusque and his tone a little gruff. Perhaps he didn’t like his private life being interrupted by work during work hours.

As we left, we fulfilled the obligation of a simple courtesy that is customary; in order to leave the shop we had to walk pass museum staff that we had spoken to earlier and so we said thank you and goodbye. There was no reply. We were ignored. That’s a first; even in London.

In the museum the building is great, the exhibits are great, what you can buy is quality and the entrance fee is very reasonable; I do recommend the place to anyone interested in Sherlock Holmes or the late Victorian period – however, if you do visit, brace yourself with quite a bit of patience regarding the behaviour of some of the staff.

A link to the museum’s website:

http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk

The Atheist Bus Campaign

I feel slightly let down by Humanism. In some ways Humanism is impressive. It has an aim of treating human beings with respect, dignity and concern without the motive of the heavenly reward promised by religions. In that respect it can be more selfless, more altruistic than a religion. How can I not feel respect for that? Something else that impressed me was the way the resources of Humanistic groups went into doing something about the plight of human beings whose human rights were being abused.

What I never expected was for Humanism to go down the road that modern Christianity has of diverting money away from helping people to commercially advertising its beliefs. Hold on, you might say, is not one of the responsibilities of Christianity to ‘spread the word’. Yes, granted, but there is a big difference between religious conversion and spending millions worldwide on billboard advertising, newspaper adverts and suchlike instead of fulfilling the Christian duty of helping people directly. That money could feed the starving, house the homeless, pay for medication for the sick and more. Other forms of advertising, for an appeal to help people, at least have a practical purpose. Band Aid is a good example.

As to the advertising of the existence of Christianity, have you ever met someone who has not heard of Christianity? It is a bit like starting an advertising campaign to let people know that there is a part of the world called ‘Europe’ or that there is a country called the ‘United States of America’.

I was curious when I read about an Atheist Bus Ad Campaign which was in reply to Christian bus advertisements. The organiser, Ariane Sherine, hoped to raise just over £5,500 to pay for advertising on buses promoting atheism. To be fair, that seemed like a good idea because she was replying to a less than admirable advertising campaign. What made my heart sink was when I read that they raised over £135,000 and used it all on advertising (800 buses in the UK and now the project is going global) and none of it went on more responsible Humanistic causes. Picture the scene of a homeless person begging on a street in the freezing weather we have had this week; first he sees a bus with advertising for Christianity go past, then he sees a bus with advertising for atheism go past. How did either help him? The cost of the advertising on just one of those buses would probably have got him out of the cold weather into a shelter for quite a while, providing him with food and even new clothes.

It is a shame that the main concern of both beliefs, Christianity and Humanism, of helping humanity should potentially be reduced through concerns of promotion through advertising.

To read the full story and see news videos on the project please click this link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,BBC

ITV's Demons

Jill was eager to watch the new ITV series Demons. She enjoyed the first episode but I lost interest very quickly. The reason is because it’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer all over again. Strangely, Jill never liked that program but now she likes a program which has the same formula. A teenager turns out to have the ability to slay vampires, etc., and it is his/her destiny to do so regardless of what he/she wants. In Buffy it is an American girl with an English mentor telling her how to be a slayer. In Demons it is an English boy with an American mentor telling him how to be a slayer. Both have a teenage friend or friends who require rescuing. Both have a single parent that they must keep in the dark about their adventures. Both are students.

It’s only an educated guess but I think we can expect Demons to cover the same ground as Buffy did. Continual teenage angst about trying to find a happy balance between academic studies, romantic interests, a difficult relationship with a parent who doesn’t understand the reasons for their child’s mysterious behaviour, trying not to lose friends because of not having time for them due to all that slaying going on or through their being kidnapped or attacked by evil entities; eventually, when the same plotline starts to wear thin on those topics, the scriptwriters revert to the old favourites such as a clichéd parallel universe story or just change some of the cast members, etc.

I wonder if the production company asked and received permission to use a scenario similar to Buffy?