Cynical Satire: The Future of Alternative Comedy
an Institute of Ideas debate at the Fringe Club, Edinburgh
13 August 2000

Munira Mirza

In an age when the comedian's job of ridiculing politics is done by the politicians themselves, there is a clear crisis in how satire can continue into the new century.

When widespread respect for politicians and traditional institutions (the police, doctors, teachers, politics) has declined, what is the new consensus that alternative comedy can attack and surprise? Considering these questions was a panel of two critics, Andrew Billen and Kate Basset, and two performers, Stewart Lee and Scott Capurro.

Beginning with a brief overview of how alternative comedy developed out of the 1980s Thatcherite era, Bassett was optimistic that satire is a cyclical phenomenon and will rise again as the honeymoon period for New Labour and political correctness ends. Stewart Lee maintained that comedy was diverse and cutting edge, often defying many of the conventions and making it hard for the corporate media companies to keep up. Scott Capurro, recently headlined for his comic references to the Holocaust ('Holocaust schmolocaust'), described the media-hyped reaction to his routine and argued that jokes about minorities could not be appropriated. Andrew Billen was more critical of the current comedy climate, arguing that much of the satirical force and critical power of comedy has gone.

The debate was wide-ranging, focusing first on the importance of being 'alternative' and what that can mean when mainstream values have changed so much. New taboos and subject matter could be found but it became clear in the discussion that comedy and satire were being understood differently and perhaps had different motivations.

Stewart Lee argued against the politicisation of comedy because to be truly alternative and shake the perspective of society, comedy depends not on subject matter but on style and approach. Whereas Billen argued that satire can provide a useful political service, Scott Capurro described true alternative comedy as a venue in which ethnic minorities, women and gay people were also found laughing.

The audience debate introduced the problem of anti-politically correct comedy simply drawing lines for new taboos. The problem of censoring comedians and whether funny jokes could be defended arose. Comments from the floor showed an overwhelming support for the importance of comedy, not simply as incisive political commentary but as a way to expose deeper social vice and hypocrisy. But as the final comment from the floor argued, to be critical of society and use satire effectively, we must be robust in our defence of the values we hold. Clearly, the development of comedy in the noughties is affected by wider social and political trends.