My apologies if my tone came across as correcting, that wasn’t my intention. What you just said now, I think, was exactly what I thought made Nanette so awesome. You, however, put it better than I did.
2 Likes
I appreciated how well-written and structured it was in addition to the content. Looked at in her context of “tension-release” and manipulation of the audience and joke structure vs. story structure she’s crafted a bunch of intricate nesting boxes over the entire hour. I found it very clever in that sense.
In terms of the show being funny, it’s obviously and explicitly not a traditional comedy set, light or heavy, that’s trying to punch out one laugh after the other. For me there were about 5-6 good laughs in it and also sections toward the end that made me cry, in part because they called back to the earlier jokes.
This sort of thing is subjective, of course. Different people have different senses of humour and also different life experiences that might leave one cold to the later sections, but for me it worked on a number of levels in a way I’ve not seen before with other comedians and humourists.
I said “much needed” because in these dark times, especially for people like Gadsby who’ve been marginalised their entire lives but also for their allies, we need well-crafted and positive narratives to counter those of xenophobia and bigotry currently dominating discourse in the West.
8 Likes
But, but there’s all those clumsy generalizations!! /s
I’m guessing those who didn’t like it include those looking for standard standup (and thus, those who feel disappointed when it takes a turn for the more serious, and better), and those who feel burned when she takes on people with privilege.
Hard to say, though, since those here who didn’t like have been so vague about just why they didn’t.
I viewed it as a (brilliant) one-person theater piece, instead of as standup. She’s a fantastic actor, as well as an incisive writer with many currently important things to say.
10 Likes
Usually a statement like that calls for one or two supportive examples, I’ll agree.
More the latter than the former. She makes it clear very early on (in the first 5-10 minutes) that this is not going to be a standard set, so anyone who’s surprised wasn’t paying attention.
I don’t see a lot of people feeling burned by her taking on people with privilege, either in her live audience or in the few negative (really lukewarm) reviews I’ve seen. What I’m sure of is that there are a lot of privileged people who just can’t connect or truly empathise (not just intellectually) with the level of marginalisation and pain and frustration she describes.
In that sense it reminded me of a standup comic’s version of Spaulding Gray’s or David Sedaris’ storytelling. I have a sense she’ll be moving more in that direction in the future.
4 Likes
oh I don’t know all the stuff about how art works or doesn’t work, whether pain is good or bad…
…the man who came up to her after the show was making a boring bland point about that.
she could’ve answered with a boring bland point about how inspiration and art and creation are different for each artist. boring but correct. still, boring. But instead she counters with "no actually medication is good! "Boring and…a generalisation.
that was lots of minutes of nothing, for example
I’m glad it worked for so many.
I confess to being a bit baffled by it’s success. Not angry/bitter/upset! Just surprised.
Her whole unpacking of what humour is is a hyper simplified description of what countless people have said before her. I mean, we could start here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_(book)) And I’m no expert.
Look I’m all for “much needed” , intelligent comedy to redeem the “marginalised”.
Found a recent extraordinary example of this in the film “Get Out”, for example.
The way she unpacks it within that hour, tying it to the other content and moving back and forth almost seamlessly, is what impressed me as original and clever. I haven’t seen any solo performer break it down self-reflexively (in all senses of the term) in quite that way before. Who have you seen that did it better or earlier? Those comedians who came close (Steve Martin or Steven Wright, for example) still weren’t interested in getting beyond the standup’s goals that Gadsby succinctly describes.
I’m curious, why do you use scare quotes on the word “marginalised”? “Much needed” is my personal opinion, but the margins are indeed where mainstream society places someone like Gadsby.
Not being an art historian I actually learned something about van Gogh and his portrait of Dr. Gachet there, which gave new depth to a truism (albeit one that the “hey, just smile and everything will be better” crowd still doesn’t grasp). So those few minutes added a lot of value for me.
8 Likes
I just watched this special yesterday; it was powerful stuff.
I fully grok why Gadsby stated she “has to quit doing comedy,” but I hope she still keeps speaking out in public venues even if it’s not in a comedic format.
8 Likes
pheeeeeeew x
I mean, were you all moved by it’s “structure”?? Is that what I’m missing?
Sure, it was elegantly crafted, I’ll give you that. But I’m taking issue with the quality of content.
In terms of self-reflective, breaking the 4th wall content, the best for my money has got to be Bill Hicks.
But another guy that does real thoughtful content, nuanced, self-deprecating (ain’t nooooothing wrong with that, done right. which is another faux pas in Nanette) and explosively intelligent is Russell Brand.
Re: “marginalised”.
I just didn’t particularly like the label is all. But I could’ve easily left it without quotation marks.
I’m sorry but you wont catch me disagreeing with the political views expressed in the show for one moment 
I want to ask you: Have you seen the film “Get Out”?
She’s actually from Tasmania.
4 Likes
In part, yes. For example, in my initial reply to you the easy-to-miss first paragraph read:
The content, coming from her viewpoint as an individual, was moving, too. I’ve read a lot of accounts now of people watching the show who broke down into tears because of their own marginalisation for being different in other ways (e.g. because they were fat or racial minorities or non-neurotypical).
Bill Hicks and Russell Brand are closer to what she did, since they both addressed personal demons in their standup and took a borderline storytelling approach – different demons and different original styles, to be sure, but good comparative examples.
Russell Brand, as a white cisgender male, had more latitude not to engage in performative self-deprecation to have his voice heard on-stage. Gadsby herself describes right in the show how she really didn’t have the same options when her own career was getting started.
Why not? I’ve heard Gadsby herself use it in regard to her being a butch lesbian and someone with mental health issues (without equating it with victimhood, which she certainly doesn’t).
It’s not a trick question. It just seems odd that someone who takes that stance would have a problem with the term “marginalised” (i.e. society treating group as insignificant or peripheral). I’m curious why it rubs you the wrong way.
Yes. Fantastic film (as opposed to a recorded stand-up special written and performed by one person). My headline (if we were talking about it rather than this comedy special) might be: “Everyone who’s raving about Jordan Peele’s horror thriller feature film is right”. Like Gadsby’s show it looks at existing and known problems from a fresh perspective.
5 Likes
The fact that this is on Netflix, as a featured special, is not ten years too late. It’s really arriving at a time when America needs educating about other people and other cultures and other places, because we as a nation are pretty ignorant about anything outside our neighborhoods. I have had jobs that required me to be in contact with lots of cultures other than the ones I was raised with, so some of the context was familiar, but the take on needing to be self-deprecating hit home.
I think if you’re a human, you can find something to learn from in this special. I hope that ten years from now, we’ll feel it’s dated because we’re all finally living the dream of judging people only by the content of their character.
/idealistic rant
8 Likes
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 12 hours unless flagged)
1 Like
You’re correct, but she noted that Tasmanian culture (because it’s an island and she’s from a small town) was especially tough on her growing up, more so than living in a larger city on the mainland. The distinction is entirely relevant, I think.
7 Likes
I find it interesting how certain parties keep attempting to redirect the entire course of conversation to a different subject.
I loved Get Out and everything I’ve ever heard by Bill Hicks, but neither is germane to the actual topic at hand.
7 Likes
What woman comedians do you think meet your standards?
8 Likes
I don’t know about that. From what she describes, I think that it pretty much is similar to what LBGQT people here in the states and in the UK tend to face.
She very much put Tasmania in tension with the mainland, from what I saw - moving to the mainland was somewhat of an escape, although she clearly still had to deal with violence and discrimination. Same here - moving from a small rural town in most parts of the US to a major city saved many gay lives and this continues today.
8 Likes
There’s assholes everywhere. Even at Prides, in London. Though certainly not exclusively there.
9 Likes
The gains the LBGQT community are often precarious, as there are people always pushing back against the movement. All one have to do is look at the rise of gay politicians in the US in the 70s, looking to push for equality for the gay community. The Moral Majority was formed specifically to do that (and to push for stricter abortion laws after Roe V. wade). Trans people are often the most vulnerable group, too.
11 Likes
