Laurence Clark on 'Spastic Fantastic'
-
By Tom Kent
Posted: Thu Mar 26 2009 -
Comedian and cerebral palsy sufferer Laurence Clark dicusses his new show 'Spastic Fantastic' at Soho Theatre with Tom Kent
The posters at Soho Theatre advertising Laurence Clark’s latest show, ‘Spastic Fantastic!’ are bound to raise a few eyebrows. But the 34-year-old comic, who suffers from cerebral palsy (CP), says people shouldn’t be offended. ‘I’ve had that word thrown at me all my life so if anyone’s got the right to use it and turn it into something positive then I have.’
‘Also, using un-PC language and playing around with words that people feel uncomfortable with is a natural area for comedy. But, obviously, it’s not just about the words, it’s about who’s saying them and what the intention is,’ he says. ‘Black people use the "N" word, but that doesn’t mean white people have the right to go around using it.’ Feature continuesAdvertisementHe feels the same applies to non-disabled people using words like ‘spastic’. ‘Some comedians use that word willy-nilly. Look at Brendon Burns. He uses it nearly every sentence. It’s like if you say "fuck" a lot you get more laughs because people are drunk. Effectively, it’s just a way of saying “laugh here”. ’ Disabled readers of the BBC disability website Ouch!, for which Laurence is a columnist, voted ‘spastic’ to be the most offensive disability-related word in the English language. ‘So I thought it was high time to take a stand and attempt to reclaim it.’
Indeed, who better to do it? After all, Laurence went to the Percy Hedley School for Spastics, as it was known before the word became non-PC, and was taunted by kids from other schools. ‘I was always labelled a spastic,’ he says. ‘So for me this is like my Holy Grail.’ Although the starting point for his most recent show is reclaiming the word ‘spastic’, Laurence doesn’t get too hung up on language.
He uses the language theme as a platform from which to ridicule what he sees as a damagingly politically correct, media-driven society, which focuses too readily on the ‘appropriate’ terminology, rather than supporting disabled rights or tackling the ignorant attitudes that many people still possess.
‘Words are quite easy to get right but behaviour is a lot harder,’ Laurence says. ‘There are big charities out there that have learnt all the right words and present a very glossy image of what they do, yet they often won’t employ disabled people or look properly at what’s going on behind the scenes.’
It’s injustices like this that have helped give him the drive and the material to put together four previous Edinburgh shows. In 2003, Laurence won critical acclaim with his first one-man show, ‘The All-Star Charity Show’, which he performed as part of the Disability Arts Festival within the Edinburgh Fringe. He followed up this success with subsequent festival hits, ‘The Jim Davidson Guide to Equality’, in 2004, ‘Jim Fixed It For Me’, in 2006, and ‘Twelve Percent Evil’, in 2007.
In ‘Spastic Fantastc!’, Laurence, who has a PhD in Computer Science, intersperses conventional stand-up with video clips and the occasional Powerpoint slide. He credits pioneering ‘documentary comedian’, Dave Gorman, for showing him ‘a way to do comedy and actually make it work.’
David Cameron and supposed ‘disabled role model’ Heather Mills, get a good going-over. He also jokes about being thrust into the public eye three years ago, when Cherie Blair reportedly said to him: ‘Are you a stand-up comedian or a sit-down comedian?’ Laurence didn’t know what all the fuss was about. ‘It was a non-story but an opportunistic photographer took a photo and overheard the comment and thought “I could make 500 quid from the Daily Star”,’ he says. ‘It’s a crap joke. It’s not offensive. It’s just not funny.’
He’s also not a fan of people treating him as a charity case. In one hidden-camera stunt he is filmed rattling an increasingly ridiculous series of charity buckets to show that passers-by would give him money, even if the bucket reads ‘Pay off my mortgage’ or ‘Kill the puppies’.
He finds it frustrating that such humour is too controversial for mainstream TV executives. ‘I pitched the charity bucket sketches to quite a few TV companies all of whom thought it was too edgy.’ Laurence says their reluctance comes from being too scared of complaints. ‘But whatever you do about disability you are going to get complaints from someone,’ he says, ‘in which case why not do good stuff?’
There are plenty of good disabled comics around to do it. Laurence is one of several who have sprung up in the past few years and are doing well in mainstream comedy. So which other disabled comedians does Laurence recommend?
‘Liz Carr, she is very edgy. There’s pretty much nothing she won’t say,’ he says. Thirty-four-year-old Carr, who reached the finals of both the Hackney Empire and Laughing Horse ‘New Act of the Year’ competitions in 2007, has a rare condition which confines her to a motorised wheelchair. She presents a regular podcast for Ouch! alongside Laurence and clearly comes from the same school of thought, believing disability is the ‘bastion of political correctness’ and unapologetically using words like ‘spaz’ and ‘crip’ onstage.
Other disabled comedians Laurence likes are Steve Day, a deaf comedian, and Tania-Lee Davis, a three foot six inch comic originally from Canada.
Is this recent development a natural progression from the emergence of alternative comedy in the 1980s? ‘Well, as comedy goes on, more and more taboos are broken. Go back 30, 40 years you had white, non-disabled men, who were pretty much the only comedians around, doing jokes about their wives,’ Laurence says. ‘Mind you I do that!’
‘But it’s interesting that we have all only sprung up in the last seven or eight years,’ he says. ‘I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the venues are a lot more accessible so we can actually get work now,’ he says.
Until changes enforced by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, very few comedy clubs had disabled access. ‘Go back ten years, there was nowhere for us to perform. Most venues were inaccessible, unless you were prepared to have a security guard carry you up the stairs.’ 2004 was the legal deadline for public buildings to become accessible, which Laurence believes had a big impact.
In the show, he mocks a review he received last year that he feels patronisingly praises him for ‘raising awareness’, to which he deadpans: ‘I thought the point was to be funny’. That he certainly is.
But, while he may be averse to ‘awareness’ as a term, he does ‘raise’ it just by being there, on-stage, even if his main goal is to make people laugh. One of the ignorant misconceptions about CP is that the condition means all sufferers are not merely physically disabled, but intellectually disabled as well.
Nobody who sees Laurence’s show could be under this misapprehension. His clever material and captivating wit destroy any such myths entirely.
Laurence Clark, 'Spastic Fantastic' is at the Soho Theatre, April 9-11.- Add your comment to this feature
-
Gallery
-
More ways to enjoy Time Out
-
Get the latest news from Time Out
Including exclusive offers and tickets
-
Time Out Widgets
|
|
10 comments
Oh for Gods sake!!!! I've just got home from watching Lawrence and all i can say is he's a bloody hilarious comedian. Why get all intellectual and hung up about stuff ? LIGHTEN UP !!!!!!!
Emeka
Firstly, thank you for pointing out the fact I have been spelling Laurence wrong for almost a decade and he's never said a word.
Secondly, I fully acknowledge Laurence acknowledged Tom's article, but that doesn't mean he spotted 'suffer' - which he assures me he didn't. Whilst on that subject, the fact you can characterise Tom's description of Lawrence as ''clumsy'' speaks volumes.
Thirdly, I'm pleased Tom has his MA; however, I've read hundreds of MAs, articles, books, etc on disability - hell, I've written some myself - doesn't prove anything.
Fourth, sorry but what has the issue of charities, political correctness and 'appropriate terminology' got to do with Tom employing a negative stereotyped description of Laurence's relationship with his impairment?
If you think I reacted because Tom used the WRONG WORD, you know jack all about the implications behind Tom's ignorance. I also think it's a joke that you accuse me of speaking on behalf of Laurence before doing exact that! As for: "Laurence himself would probably disagree with you." You know what they say about people who make 'assumptions'; suggest you ask Tom to show you Laurence and Marsh, 2002.
Finally, I draw you back to what I actually wrote:
Your journalist, despite the gist of the article, manages to employ a disablist stereotype "sufferer". FACT
Lawrence and I don't "suffer" from CP; what we do 'suffer from' is the negative consequences of the crap written about disabled people by brainless journalists who are too lazy to do their homework.
Here I am talking about the consequences of oppressive journalism - a generalised criticism. If Tom isn't brainless, if his MA was as good as you say it was, what went wrong?
When I read "suffers from cerebral palsy" it tells me the writer is intentionally or unintentionally being judgemental. They have empowered themselves to pass judgement on what it must be like to have that impairment.
As an adjunct it frames the experience negatively, thereby reinforcing the dominant view that having a significant impairment is tragic. This, in my opinion, undermines what follows.
You claim I have sought to speak for Laurence, I would suggest you would never have known I existed if Tom hadn't taken it upon himself to speak upon Laurence's behalf in the first place.
Hello Chris,
I understand and recognize the fact that to mention the word 'suffer' is clumsy. I have never disputed this and we can all agree on this point.
What I cannot take is the journalist being told he is lazy and brainless and that ths article is an example of crap written about disabled people, because it's not.
The reaction to his minor indiscretion is so disproportionate when one considers that he has written an article raising awareness of diasbled comedians.
In my last response to Bob, (which he has yet to reply to) I refer to a bit in this article where Laurence himself talks of the pre-occupation with getting the terminology right, but then not following it up with actions.
In griping over the innocuous use of the term 'suffer', you also fall prey to a 'damagingly politically correct, media-driven society, which focuses too readily on the ‘appropriate’ terminology, rather than supporting disabled rights or tackling the ignorant attitudes that many people still possess'.
You suggest that you know Laurence through a friend - ask him if he finds this article offensive and whether or not the whole article perpetuates stereotypes?
And, if we're going into pedantics, should Bob be so qualified to speak vociferously on behalf of 'Lawrence' when he himself can't get his name right.
I have to agree with Bob, for the reasons he mentions. We've debated this between ourselves many times. I also known Laurence through a friend. I don't "suffer" from my impairment either - I was simply born with it, and it's a part of me as much as my teeth are. And I have to say that if Tom Kent can't even get Tanyalee's name right, then he can't be much of a jourmalist. Sources and accuracy are paramount.
Hello again Bob,
First things first, I am qualified to talk with more authority than perhaps you are re this article on three counts:
1) I know the author, he's a personal friend of mine, I lived with him at university for four years and I know that he cares about this issue, else he wouldn't have taken it on.
2) This article is a condensed version of his dissertation piece for his journalism Masters degree on the one of the best Journalism Masters courses in the country (at Sheffield University). For your information, this piece earned him a distinction.
3) He emailed the piece to Laurence Clark before its publication and Laurence himself A-OK'd it, so to suggest that "...Lawrence hadn't picked upon the 'misreprentation' of his condition otherwise he would've objected too" is somewhat wide of the mark.
This leads me on to my second point, which is the way you talk vicariously for Laurence. The first example is in #3 above. Another example is when you say that "the whole point of Lawrence Clarke's show is to expose the ignorant and discriminatory use of language in a humourous way."
However, have you actually read this article or been to Laurence Clark's show? The article suggests that Laurence himself would distance himself from you and your views.
Please read, quoted from this piece:
He uses the language theme as a platform from which to ridicule what he sees as a damagingly politically correct, media-driven society, which focuses too readily on the ‘appropriate’ terminology, rather than supporting disabled rights or tackling the ignorant attitudes that many people still possess.
‘Words are quite easy to get right but behaviour is a lot harder,’ Laurence says. ‘There are big charities out there that have learnt all the right words and present a very glossy image of what they do, yet they often won’t employ disabled people or look properly at what’s going on behind the scenes.’
This suggests that Laurence would - far from siding with your point of view or remonstrating had he been aware - believe you to be victim of 'a damagingly politically correct, media-driven society, which focuses too readily on the ‘appropriate’ terminology', and would find your crusading over one word somewhat disproportionate.
According to this article, Laurence would actually vindicate the journalist as he supports disabled rights, proof being that he wrote this article in the first place.
As Laurence might say, he may not have got one word right, but his behaviour, which apparently is a lot harder to get right, is impeccable.
Laurence also says of offensive words, '...obviously, it’s not just about the words, it’s about who’s saying them and what the intention is.' The intention of the journalist who says these words is good, of that there can be no dispute.
Whilst you do reserve the right 'question the understanding of the journalist vis-a-vis Lawrence's show', firstly, your line of questioning is wrong and secondly, you must stop speaking on behalf of Mr Clark, as Laurence himself would probably disagree with you.
The issue isn't the use of "one word", is it?
Lawrence has produced a show addressing negative stereotyping of disabled people; then a journalist opens a review employing a negative stereotype!
I'm sorry, but as a disabled person with CP I reserve the right to question the understanding of the journalist vis-a-vis Lawrence's show.
Unfortunately Lawrence hadn't picked upon the 'misreprentation' of his condition otherwise he would've objected too. Instead of playing with the images of brain damaged and brainless - a comic devise - perhaps I should I merely spoken of 'ignorant' journalists?
Your comment about 'discrimination as offensive' takes what I wrote out of context, but never mind. I've no problem with agreeing to disagree, however, I can't help wondering what your experience has been of media sterotyping; I assume you are also a person with our medical condition?
1) We'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that the word 'suffer' undermines the whole piece. It's simply not proportionate to pick on one word.
2) If you did go from a criticism of the piece to a criticism of reporting in general, you'll have to be more clear. You put 'suffer' in inverted commas in both instances, leading one to reasonably believe that this article is an example of the very thing that take issue with i.e. "the negative consequences of the crap written about disabled people by brainless journalists who are too lazy to do their homework."
3) I don't know about you, but I find discrimination quite offensive.
4) Finally, yes, I am judgemental for saying that what you said was 'spiteful'. That's because I passed judgement on a spiteful comment.
Thank you for your feedback Emeka, and whilst I respect your views, they fail to convince.
I standby my view the use of "suffer" undermines the whole piece - I wanted to brief and therefore focused on the negative aspect. Second, I think you need to re-read my post; I went from the specific article to a general criticism of reporting.
No where did I mention "offence"; I spoke about discrimination.
Obviously irony is subjective too - I was turning the tables. I think it's strange that when a disabled person does reverse what non-disabled people say and write, only they get hauled over the coals. Oh, by the way, using "spiteful" is extremely judgemental too, sister.
Re: Bob Williams-Findlay
Whilst it is probably clumsy to suggest that those with CP 'suffer', I don't think the journalist in question is a 'brainless journalist who is too lazy to do his homework.'
As you said, the gist of the article is very anti-discrimination. Whilst I understand that there is one word in this article that might cause offence, how about focussing on the other 1500-odd words that don't.
Further, you are not very clear in your argument. You suggest that 'the gist of the article' is fair, yet in the next sentence say that you will 'suffer from the negative consequences of crap written about disabled people' by the same article. So, which is it? Is the article fair, or a poisoned arrow to the heart of every disabled person that reads Time Out Online?
The author has taken a very sensitive topic and given some people that don't know about this, a new fresh perspective. In suggesting that the journalist is brainless and hasn't done his homework, the only one causing real, premeditated, spiteful offence is you, Bob.
To have cerebral palsy a brain is required. The journalist who wrote this piece on my fellow stand up clearly has nothing to fear.
The whole point of Lawrence Clarke's show is to expose the ignorant and discriminatory use of language in a humourous way. Your journalist, despite the gist of the article, manages to employ a disablist stereotype "sufferer".
Lawrence and I don't "suffer" from CP; what we do 'suffer from' is the negative consequences of the crap written about disabled people by brainless journalists who are too lazy to do their homework.