Review: Barry Humphries and the Australian Chamber Orchestra
The Australian Chamber Orchestra has established itself so thoroughly as Australia’s premiere orchestra, that it almost seems redundant to reflect upon their performance. Beginning the concert with the overture from Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, they displayed the flighty expression they have become known for, leaning to and fro with wonderful poetic inclination, Tognetti at the helm. One wonders whether this piece, well known as it is, was chosen as a sparkling introduction to what might be a thematic equivalent to a Night at the Proms, meshing popular culture with classical music. The piece itself allowed Tognetti to move beyond his usual immutable direction and conduct guest wind and brass players which made the orchestra itself seem like a small symphony, more voluminous but also less individual than what we are used to seeing.
As the piece ended, Barry Humphries arrived in a nice black suit, with red socks (or perhaps stockings), relating to the crowd in his regal candour, “I was a bit nervous tonight… Well, not really…” This wonderful performer, who claims to have never performed on the Opera House stage, though many others have, “from Pavarotti to Kamahl”, remarks, “You must be grateful that I have saved myself for you tonight… I say this in all modesty: I have achieved iconic status” before divulging a personal scenario he believes would be a major tragedy – that one day, they would find oil under the Opera House. “That would be a big decision for Christine Kenneally,” he laughs.
The programme followed a selection of piece which Humphries, his primary instrument being the Gramophone, had come to love over the years, including Jazz Music by obscure Belgian composer, Marcel Poot, (“This piece has never been performed in Australia, so it’s a world premiere”) through which Humphries sits at the front of the stage in an armchair, legs crossed, enjoying the performance closely with a glass of water. As a master of ceremonies, Barry Humphries is immediately charming and eloquent. His anecdotes are entertaining in a nostalgic sense, taking me back to Melbourne of the 1960s, despite never having been there. He is obviously quite intelligent, incredibly quick witted and a walking recommendation for his own biography.
For what it’s worth, Carol Middleton at Australian Stage disagrees, saying that “Of his three manifestations in this performance – Dame Edna the gigastar, Sir Les the social lubricator and Barry Humphries the man himself - Barry Humphries was the least impressive, although it was a treat to see him out of costume, with a touch of vulnerability. “
Personally, had the performance been entirely Barry Humphries, I would have easily pronounced this guest concert as the finest the Australian Chamber Orchestra had produced this year. Unfortunately, Humphries foray into his alternate personalities proved to be less endearing.
Barry Humphries and his personalities are a wonder of cultural nostalgia. However, that wonder rested upon whether we should be proud and delighted, as many audience members were, that our nostalgic sense of humour includes the use of derogatory racial remarks. Upon noticing two young Asian ladies in the front row, Sir Les Patterson spat the question, “Where are you from?” and then, upon hearing that they were Japanese, remarked “Well, we’ve buried the hatchet now haven’t we?” A harmless joke which could easily be let go if it weren’t for the fact that not thirty seconds later, Patterson had referred to the two girls as “nips,” before telling a lewd anecdote about Thai masseurs, and then, crotch at eye level, remarked to Aiko Goto, the first violinist, You’re the perfect height for me,” patted the top of her head and continued, “and she’s got a flat head too.”
Of course, this is nothing we wouldn’t expect from the overwhelming vulgarity the character is known for, and to say that it was completely unexpected would be ignorant to Humphries’ body of work. I don’t believe for a second that Barry Humphries himself is racist, and I’m sure that the ridiculous nature of Patterson’s racism is intended to highlight how ridiculous it is to be so bigoted. That said, this form of humour only works if the audience is entirely in on it. Even realising this possibility, I felt somewhat affronted when the term ‘nip’ was used again. There’s a difference between getting a laugh because of the irony of the situation, or because of the outrageous nature of such characters, but in a society which is yet to escape their racist heritage, we are not enlightened enough, on the whole, to accept the character ironically. The jokes were a cheap laugh, purely out of shock factor, a low blow from a man who, in his natural persona, strikes me as the loquacious intellectual one would want at a dinner party. He tells an amazing story, with a heightened grasp of both language and subtle humour. Although Sir Les can act as opposition to Humphries eloquent demeanour, he comes across as unnecessarily offensive, and the intellect which Humphries obviously possesses, gives way to a character which caters to low-level humour, omitting the second layer of meaning which might allow for clever satire. Although there is a certain entertainment value to both Sir Les and Dame Edna’s old school values, on this occasion the line appeared to be crossed. That said, perhaps I am being pretentious, as each line which I believed to be offensive happened to also draw a resounding laugh from the audience. Perhaps it was nervous laughter, or perhaps these are remnants of a time which I feel fortunate enough to have missed out on.
Not having caught his other performances with the Australian Chamber Orchestra, I was delighted to hear Dejan Lazić play a wonderful piece from the piano repertoire, Rachmaninov’s Rhapsody on a Theme from Paganini, which is composed much like a piano concerto. This very accomplished performer in his own right, seen here as variation rather than the theme, was a delight to watch. Lazić’s dexterity is spellbinding and immediately playful and this section of the programme allowed the Australian Chamber Orchestra to spread their wings into symphony orchestra repertoire, which they did outstandingly. The piece, extraordinarily played as it was, solidified a thought which in itself is not a new way to end a year of performances, the Australian Chamber Orchestra are Sydney’s greatest classical music ensemble and on this occasion, their flawless performance almost seemed so effortless that one might ask oneself, “Well, did we expect any less of them?”
Dame Edna herself is an interesting balance between Patterson and Humphries, skirting the line between caustic wit and “possum” charm, though her addition of “slopes” to the incendiary vernacular did little to help her as a redemption. She is the clearest expression of Humphries wit and personality, entering the stage and commenting that we were not to worry about the empty seats, they were indeed sold. “They are what we call subscribers… See what happens is that they buy tickets to beautiful shows like this and then…they die. They’re not empty seats, they’re red plush tombstones.”
Dame Edna’s description of Tognetti himself is one of the most entertaining out there… “Ah, Richard Tognetti,” she muses, “There’s no questioning Richard Tognetti is there? He is the thinking woman’s Andre Rieu.”
What a boring piece of drivel. I am Eurasian (who has lived in Japan) and was not in the slighest offended by Sir Les. You are just espousing left leaning poncey nonsense. What I did find offensive however, is your description of Sir Barry as being “quite” intelligent. I do wonder what your motive is Mr Webster… Spot of the green-eyed monster lurking somewhere perhaps?
Mei-Ling – While I don’t really think that there is anything negative about being left-leaning (just as people have a right to be right-leaning) i’m afraid I don’t agree. Perhaps I am ‘poncey’ for believing what I do, but if so, that is something I will easily live with.
My use of the term ‘quite’ intelligent is not intended to lessen his perceived intelligence in any way. The dictionary says that the word quite means: completely, wholly, or entirely; actually, really, or truly; to a considerable extent or degree. Under all of these meanings, I believe that Humphries is ‘quite’ intelligent.
Were you at the show in question? I read other reviews which failed to mention the incident and assumed that this was a particular night, given that he can’t have had the same people in the front row each time. That or they decided not to mention it. I considered doing the same but came to the conclusion that if this is supposed to be a review, it would remiss of me to leave out the one thing which obviously stood out from Sir Les, just as I pointed out Barry Humphries’ outstanding eloquence as himself. I find it hard to believe that you would not be offended if you attended any other show, and were referred to as a nip or slope.
There is no motive to my thoughts. In fact, if you read my review as attacking Humphries, then you have misread the tone. Though I am critical, that is the position of a critique. Shall we be labelled as envious everytime we give a bad review of anything? If that is the case, then the entire genre should pack up now, because it WOULD be drivel if it were guaranteed to be soft/complimentary.
As for being envious? Absolutely, I agree with you one hundred percent. I am envious of humphries career, he is a man who is far more eloquent than me, and a performer with far more gusto than I possess. I am envious of his talents in every single way. Does this make me want to bring him down to my level with a bad review? not one bit. Actually, if anything, I considered omitting my thoughts on the incident BECAUSE of the respect I have for him as a performer, but in the long run decided it was better to stay honest. This is not my only review, and I’d like people to know that I provide a review of both pros and cons, as I see it, such is the subjective nature of the piece.
I don’t intend for this to become a sledging match, because we obviously have views on either side of the spectrum (given that you label me as left wing, you lead me to believe you must be right) and we will never find a common ground. Carol Middleton (quoted above) didn’t mention that specific incident and I didn’t tell her that her review was drivel because she didn’t see things my way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if my reviews did nothing but espouse other people’s opinions, I wouldn’t need to respond to the show whatsoever.
Personally, I felt uncomfortable with the use of those derogatory terms and thus, I mentioned them in my review. I never claimed to be completely objective or to speak for you, or anyone else.
Thank you for the comment, and my sincere apologies for the length of this reply but I feel if you are able to misunderstand the place I am coming from, that it would be worth clearing up if not for you, than for other readers who may feel the same way.
Hi Sam,
I didn’t see this show, but I have seen a lot of Sir Les on TV, so I’m well aware of the character and style of Sir Les.
I am also Eurasian if that adds anything to the weight of my opinion. Reading the review and the comments from Sir Les, my take on it is that if the comments had been made by anyone other than Sir Les I would probably have been angry. But coming from Sir Les, it would probably have been shockingly funny!
I think it’s a healthy reaction to be able to laugh at Sir Les in this context. What would be more worrying is if everyone had just fallen silent. I have seen this happen many times when the treatment of aborigines is raised in discussions and that, I can say, says a lot more about Australian society than do Sir Les’ antics.
It’s not so much that I think it’s okay to laugh at someone being called a ’slope,’ but I think the laughter provoked comes from an innocent place, because people are thinking that in no context could anyone do that onstage or in real life seriously and get away with it. I feel it’s only responsible that I also out myself as a big fan of Barry Humphries!
I think you understand all of this though Sam, and your opinion and reaction is just as valid as that of any other audience member.
Cheers,
Grace
Thank you for the well-tempered response Grace.
To tell you the truth, i’m not THAT sensitive to comedy which deals with race myself, and in a closed environment I wouldn’t have even thought to bring a negative connotation to Sir Les’ performance.
I am also a fan of his work. Here’s my position though: If I could guarantee that the whole audience understood the satirical function of Sir Les, I wouldn’t have mentioned it whatsoever, I would’ve called it ‘biting satire’ or something similar and moved on. But in truth, I can’t guarantee that. I have met people who ARE that racist, they still exist today. I know people of middle-eastern descent who are treated differently by police because of their race, people of asian descent who were bullied at school for the same reason. If this sector exists in society, one could assume it exists within an Opera-House-going audience, in which case the humour takes on different characteristics. Not for everyone, and to be honest, not for me. But I merely recognised the possibility and thought it overstepped.
I was at the concert and it was the first time I had ever seen Les or Dame Edna do anything more than pronounce an art exhibition open.
I could appreciate Les if I viewed him as a modern Pantalone from Commedia dell’arte; that was quite intriguing actually.
However, without this historical background, which I have know idea whether Humphries intended, I found his humour, and some of Edna’s, cheap, like Sam says.
I would expect that a cultural icon would have a more sophisticated or at least idiosyncratic art of humour than what you get from the wannabe comedian at your local bar.
If I want cheap laughs based on race or appearance (he made a joke about Julia Gillard being obliging enough to put a bag over her head when Rudd has his way with her), then I don’t need to pay lots of money and go to the opera house.
If this is really what we can expect from such an Australian icon, that explains the funny thought that occurred to me whilst watching him….
“if reincarnation exists, my spirit is sitting hear right now thinking ‘what the f*** sort of country have I been born into this time’”
or perhaps more simply
“Is this really my country?”
In a sense, I think this is the kind of thought Humphries wishes to instill in his audience and I can definitely see the value of this.
Like Sam, my concern is for those who perhaps do not have a degree in cultural studies or an inclination for detached social/cultural reflection, who are so immersed in the culture Humphries tries to reflect that they don’t ask “is this really my country?”, they don’t ask anything, they just laugh.