My fascination with Jamaican contradiction peaked recently as I watched the four finalists in the stand-up comedy competition: Cash Pot Comedy Buss, in association with MiPhone. All four performers were entertaining. What struck me though, was how the overwhelming crowd favourite Keith Ramsey placed very little emphasis on material. His performance depended largely on his portrayal of an obviously gay man, and the crowd absolutely loved it. Well, I didn't! As a practising comedian for over 20 years, I think I have a slight idea about who is funny and what is not, and I am still asking: what the hell is so funny about homosexuality?

I find it weird how audiences in our supposedly homophobic society seem to just love watching men acting like women onstage. Homophobia and hypocrisy are very close relatives in Jamaica, because the most popular part of any roots play is usually the antics of man-woman characters like 'Chu-chu' in Passa-Passa. So on one hand we claim to be violently opposed to homosexuality, yet on the other hand we derive extreme pleasure from watching male performers acting like women or gay men. Is that confusing and contradictory or what? Put a man in your show dressed in drag or behaving like an obvious homosexual, and the show bound to "sell off"! Yeah, people love it; especially women.

Content

Personally, I prefer stand-up comedy based on content. I am not particularly fond of comedy that relies on ridiculous costumes, make-up, props and other gimmicks. If you want me to enjoy a stand-up comedy show, don't insult my intellect with childish stunts like coming on stage in your mother's frock or high heeled shoes and behaving like a flaming faggot! That rubbish only works in Jamaica.

Good comedians dress normal, stand up on the stage and say things that evoke laughter by skilfully employing timing, intelligence, originality, wit and charm. Some shock, irreverence and risqué content and delivery are fine too; but vulgar attention-grabbing ploys seem amateurish and immature.

Limited material

For the Comedy Buss finals, here's my review: Danito Fullwood who placed fourth had limited material and weak delivery. His main tool was his 'Urkell' character which was just mildly funny. Keith, the crowd favourite, who eventually placed third really didn't have much more content than the 'Urkell' guy. He, however, had his 'chi-chi' man character, which he delivered with gusto and tore the place apart. Craig McNally was controversial, very funny but was not original enough. One of his biggest punch lines was borrowed from Robin Williams' character in a recent movie. Craig is aptly placed at number two! Rohan Gunter, however, brought intelligence, confidence, originality and genuine creativity. He delivered authentic stand-up comedy and is a deserving winner.

I have nothing against young Ramsey but I am personally glad that he did not win. If he had won, the contest would have sent the message that once you can act effeminate then you're a comedian. That would be unfortunate, because although gay men can be hilarious, acting gay (or being gay for that matter) cannot be the sum total of a stand-up comedy act. If that were all it took, then for the next big comedy show we wouldn't need to book any professional comedians. We could just round up some drag queens and put them onstage. And based on the crowd response to Ramsey, they wouldn't even need to bring jokes; they could just go on stage and be themselves. Utter nonsense!

Some people in the audience seemed prepared to lynch the judges because Ramsey didn't win. But if he dared to behave on the streets of Kingston the way he performed onstage, some of those same people would mob him; not to get his autograph, but to kill him with beating. Hypocrites!

Box-mi-back@hotmail.com