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.

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 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

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.