Welcome to AfterElton.com!

Enter your AfterElton.com username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media

Interview with Graham Norton


Photo credit: Scott Barbour/Getty Images

AE: Another thing that I really enjoy about your humor is that you’re cheeky and your saucy, but you’re never mean. And so often it seems like comedy is built on being mean. Is that a conscious choice that you made at some point in your career, or is that just who Graham Norton is?
GN:
Well, let’s be honest, we are mean to people. We are mean to celebrities who aren’t there. We pick our targets and then we’re horrible to them. But in terms of the audience, you can tease an audience, but you don’t want to wreck their night. They’re there, too – they want to have a nice time, and I think even if you’re making the rest of the audience laugh, if you’ve wrecked an audience member’s night, it’s hard to take any pleasure in that as a performer.

As for the guest, well you did invite them on, so I think it’s sort of your duty as the host to make sure they go home having had a nice time, and you do your best for that to happen. As for the celebrity targets who we are really vile to, I think it’s okay so long as they don’t seem like victims. If they’re rich and successful and beautiful, then my policy is why should they worry about what some creature says about them on television.

AE: Do you get stopped on the street by heterosexual Britains as much as you do by gay guys who want to say how much they enjoy the show?
GN:
Yeah, I mean I do get stopped a lot. If it’s straight men, normally they’re just going to say your name like they’re amazed to see you, or it will be “My girlfriend loves you,” or “My wife loves you,” or “My kid loves you.” That kind of thing. It’s never them. They don’t like it.

AE: Speaking of straight men, did you do anything special for the poor fellow who let you have his, um, private parts waxed on your show? I’ve never seen anything so excruciating looking in my life.
GN:
I really did feel bad about that. It really did look sore. Off camera, she did finish his back. He was just a member of the public, so the deal was he’d get it done and then he comes to the green room and have drinks and things afterward. You know, meet the guests and it’ll all be jolly, but, no – he couldn’t. He just went home. He was in such pain. I don’t know if he had a low pain threshold or was just much sorer than that women said he was going to be.

AE: Low threshold? Oh, no, no. Given what they waxed?
GN:
Oh, they didn’t finish waxing that.

AE: I’d be in hospital for a week if I had that waxed.
GN:
Yeah, we sent him home patchy.

AE: In your autobiography, when you were writing about growing up gay, you said, “But I was fooling no one. They were like a pack of animals who smelled blood. It made me feel very excluded and lonely,” and you go on from there. I’m curious, do you think a lot of your humor comes from growing up gay in that situation?
GN:
When I grew up, there was a sense of being “other” so I think it makes you . . . you observe things in a different way. It kind of turns you into a storyteller. You can either go down the comedy route, or you can go a quite serious route, but I think there is something inherent about, you know, as a youngster, that kind of loneliness, that means you are just looking on from the sidelines and I think you see life, relationships, community in a different way than other people.

The Graham Norton Show airs on BBC America Saturday nights at 10 PM EDT/PDT.

j U d E's picture

Grahamilicious!

Oh great! Thank you for posting this! I can't read it all now (it's 3:50am - have to sleep at some point..), but I love the guy! Will read it all tomorrow.

Tx again! 

R.I.P. - Heath Ledger [1979 - 2008]

Psionycx's picture

The Effect of Graham Norton

I've loved Graham's show since I first discovered it.  He really does know how to make his viewers laugh.  I also agree that the formula is better on his show than on most talk shows.  It is very true that most talk shows have a celeb on for a blatant plug, score a quick sound byte and then their handlers drag them away whether they're ready or not.

Graham plops his guests on the couch with a drink and it turns into a kind of little chat party.  And it's delicious!

It is unquestionably too much for network TV in the U.S. though.  The blatant sex references alone would have conservative pundits screaming blue murder.  But that's good for BBC America really as it draws viewers.

Nina's picture

NOBODY Does It Like Graham

Appointment viewing all the way! Elton John singing to a guy through a bear phone, getting Dustin Hoffman to be the voice of God in a mens' room, painful butt waxing, and my personal favorite, the mini-cam down a guys pants to see his penis piercing - Who else but Graham?   Thanks for the interview.

As for another out talk show host, I vote for the luscious John Barrowman. Given the opportunity to flash his pearly whites and dazzling personality on one of the more accessible broadcast networks, I think he could easily win over a sizeable American audience.

Jay's picture

Bah, the Irish are Britons

Bah, the Irish are Britons as well even if they don't like to admit it ;).
Loving Every Minute's picture

Er... Canadians are American

Er... Canadians are American more than the Irish are Britons...
Jay's picture

Yeah, that's because Canada

Yeah, that's because Canada is part of North America, der.

The original concept of Britain and/or the United Kindgom, included Ireland as well in order to make the whole of the British Isles united. It's a shame that they're too stuck up to want to be included anymore.

Roly-Poly-Ro's picture

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement!

Ireland never wanted to be included in the first place. Why do you think it is a republic?

 

Anywho, big Norton fan. Hail from the same county as him in Ireland. His is a very funny man and I think that his show is very original and an excellent format for comic entertainment and light hearted interviews. I think his show has a way of "normalising" the guests that doesn't happen on other shows.

Jay's picture

It's a republic because it

It's a republic because it didn't want to be included. So how is what I said a sweeping statement? If I had said something like that really the people want to be included but the people in power don't...then that would be more of a sweeping statement. I said that they didn't want to be included 'anymore' because at one time they were (as per the Act of Union, 1800) and surely for that to have happened the Irish for the most part didn't mind being included. But this is totally off-topic over something that I said tongue in cheek. Sheesh, people read too much into what I say.
Roly-Poly-Ro's picture

This is completely off

This is completely off topic.

I'd be delighted to discuss it further with you off this comment board but just to make this clear. lets not mistake centuries of occupation with willingly accepting rule by a foreign monarchy. At the time of the passing of the Act of Union 1800 the vast majority of the Irish public (More than 90%!) could not run for Governement in what at the time was called the irish parliament because of what was known as the protestant ascendancy. Up until the decade before the passing of that act Irish catholics (ie the republicans who had not been planters from another country living on annexed lands) had not even the right to vote never mind run for parliament! Catholic emancipation didn't happen in Ireland until nearly 30 years after the passing of that act by the then non-democratically elected irish parliament. Catholic emancipation was held back because of fears that a Roman catholic parliament would break away from the union. Even with the introduction of emancipation in its diluted form back then the only way an irish individual could joint the parliament was to swear loyalty to the throne of England-something 90% of the population did not recognise as a rightful ruler.

Hope that clarifies matters for you a little.

Plus your sweeping statement was that Irish people were too "stuck up" to want to be called Britons. Which I'm afraid is not the case. I found your remark offensive and ill-informed.

 

My apologies for spamming this thread.

Knickie's picture

Father Ted

Graham Norton was on "Father Ted," an Irish sitcom about some dicey priests in a remote area (think "Monty Python" with priests); he played a priest and it was the first thing I ever saw him in (it may have been one of his first roles), but he's hilarious in it. He's a very good comic actor -- better than "Another Gay Movie" might suggest.
Fuego's picture

Really?

I'm having a hard time believing that Tony Curtis said negative things about Brokeback Mountain...he did a really good and positive interview for "The Celluloid Closet", which documents the history of gay cinema, and he talked about "Some Like It Hot".

Also, I read a quote from him that even though he's not gay or bisexual, he said "I was 22 when I arrived in Hollywood in 1948. I had more action than Mount Vesuvius; men, women, animals! I loved it too. I participated where I wanted to and didn't where I didn't. I've always been open about it."  He said that to a gay British mag in 2002, "Attitude".

Did he just recently become so close-minded?

I always loved Tony Curtis and if he really did reject Brokeback Mountain because of its "content", I'm upset.

afhickman's picture

Which is not to say that anybody ever saw "Crash"

afhickman

"It takes a village (to make Village People)"

As I recall it, the main argument with Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine, and others at the time was that they refused even to see "Brokeback."  Here they are, in a unique position to affect the outcome of the awards, and they won't even watch the frigging film.  It makes you wonder how many of the voters DO watch all the films before they vote.  The answer is probably not many.  "Crash" was, in comparison to "Brokeback," a safe choice, if for no other reason than that half of Hollywood was in it!  And I still contend that it shouldn't have even been eligible because it was originally released a year earlier (2004) at the Toronto Film Festival! Oi, my blood pressure...     

Beth's picture

I've always loved Graham

I've always loved Graham Norton's show because all the wonderful reasons described. it's the only (and I mean only, sorry Ellen) talk show that I do watch. 

I want to be a hero like Captain Jack Harkness, kicking butt and snogging anything with a pulse! Besides, then I get a sexy receptionist of my very own.

godfrey's picture

I too am a great fan of

I too am a great fan of Graham, but I would like to point out that US viewers are not seeing the Uncensored Graham that British viewers love; BBCAmerica edits for content and language, and chops great holes in their shows to accomodate commercials (Brits are horrified when they learn that BBCAmerica is a commercial channel). Same goes for Torchwood, Coupling, Wire in the blood, MI5, you name it, it's edited for American consumption. Plus we have to deal with those ridiculous popups and crawls obscuring a third of the screen, more often than not telling us what we're already watching, as if we're too stupid to know. So for THIS ex-pat Brit, BBCAmerica, and Graham, remain simple tasters of the sort of unfettered, uncensored, deeply blue comedy on which the British thrive. Americans still seem nervous about sex and bawdy humor, but are perfectly happy with extreme graphic violence; the Brits have it the other way round, which makes a lot of sense to me. But Graham is being disingenuous about the word "c**t" and its use on UK television - I first heard it used in a drama starring Tim Piggott-Smith on the commercial ITV network around 1978/79. The "f**k" barrier was broken wayyyy back in 1964 on David Frost's late night talk show (the word was uttered by Kenneth Tynan, in a discussion on censorship). Nowadays, after the 9pm "watershed", there really is no censorship of language on British TV, although giving Graham the benefit of the doubt, there may be more stringent rules regarding "c**t" in a comedic context (if you see what I mean...). And as an expat who returns regularly to the UK, and who married his American partner, after 20 years of our living together, in a civil union just last year, I can categorically state that Graham doesn't know what he's talking about - it was and is a wonderful feeling to stand up in front of friends and loved ones, make our vows, and know that the United Kingdom, as a geo-political entity, values and honors our relationship. And it makes our eventual return to the UK together, to live and permanently reside, a hell of a lot easier than the Immigration hoops we had to go through for me to achieve full legal status in the US. And yes, UK audiences do not, in general, give a hoot about an actor's sexuality. Much as I love my adopted country, the US is medievally backward when it comes to valuing variations in human sexuality and relationships. And now... as for Jason's post, above... he really needs to take a few history lessons and acquaint himself with the reality of British involvement in Northern Ireland and not make such fatuous comments, ill-informed to the point of being incendiary. Either that or put down the alcopops. Roly-Poly-Ro was remarkably courteous and restrained in response.  Oh, and by the way - ALOHA to MICHAEL JENSEN! I just picked up a copy of your novel "Frontiers" via Amazon. Looking forward to immersing myself in it!
Average (1 vote):
see individual ratings
Michael Jensen's picture

Aloha, back at you. Of course, I'm always

nervous knowing someone is reading one of my books. Are they hating it? Did they get bored and put it down? As for Graham, thanks for your input on the whole censoring thing.
Francesca's picture

Firelands and Graham Norton

You did write "Firelands", didn't you? There is a very positive review of it at the German amazon page. Am thinking about getting the book now.

Not to be completely off topic: Graham Norton is a great guy with amazing interview skills and I'm so glad that a lot of his stuff is on youtube. No Norton on German TV, I'm afraid.

Michael Jensen's picture

Um, yep. I'm the one who wrote Firelands! Just think of me as

the gay Stephen King. Well, if King wrote historical fiction.
Jay's picture

Excuse me, I did A-Level

Excuse me, I did A-Level History thankyou very much, not to mention I'm doing a module in British History for my degree. So I know very much what I'm talking about. Also I'm tee-total because alcoholism runs in my family, so please think before you make such fatuous comments yourself. Plus, alchopops are a boys tipple!

I don't really care if people are 'remarkably courteious and restrained' because if people don't get the facetious tone of my comments by now, they're a bit incendiary themselves.

Vaarsuvius's picture

Transphobia on Graham Norton

Ever since first reading about Graham Norton on afterelton.com, I had been watching a ton of clips from his show on YouTube. On the whole, they made me laugh a lot more than most U.S. talk shows. I enjoyed his gleefully and unabashedly profane sense of humor, interviews that were for the most part lively and entertaining, and of course the fact that he wasn’t afraid to be his (gay) self.

So you can imagine I was very disappointed when I read this post http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2008-04-24_711 on transphobic comments Norton made on his show:

Quote:
In this clip where he’s talking about pregnant transman Thomas Beatie, he says: “If he hasn’t had genital surgery surely that just makes him a lesbian” and “that thing is still a woman”.
Uh, since when was it appropriate to refer to a person as a “thing?” From an LGBT comedian I had expected a lot better, considering that gays and lesbians have so frequently been the targets, along with transpeople, of such ignorant and dehumanizing comments.

I think this email http://users.livejournal.com/selina_/61462.html to the BBC complaints department and one of the comments on its thread put my sentiments best:

Quote:
I have just watched the Graham Norton, a show which I enjoy and considered to be very LGBT-friendly. However I found Graham's comments tonight regarding Thomas Beatie's pregnancy, namely: "If he didn't have genital surgery isn't he just a lesbian?" extremely transphobic, and even homophobic! I expect better from an openly homosexual celebrity, who should be educating viewers and promoting diversity rather than being crude and ignorant. Is it too much to expect that the difference between gender and sexual orientation can be understood?

A comment on this blog’s thread:

Quote:
I'm with Selina on this one. I admit right now I've not see the show, but I've seen what Selina and Piperfan have reported. Based on those posts, I think Graham Norton was unnecessarily (and perhaps even more importantly, un-funnily) offensive. That's not something we expect from the British media - most of the time they know better.

I normally like Graham Norton. He does go too far sometimes, (the taunting of Jade "Piggy" Goody when she was on Big Brother a few years back is one of those times - which he himself eventually acknowledged) but he's usually funny with it and I don't usually get the impression that he means it maliciously. However, using "thing" or "it" to refer to a trans person is never acceptable.

I don't have a problem with anyone acknowledging that Beatie's choices make them uncomfortable. Hell, they make me a bit uncomfortable and I don't think anyone's ever accused me of transphobia! I wouldn't even have had an issue if he'd made jokes about the challenges Beatie's decision to bear a child has presented to the gay and trans communities, and to the hetero-centric state. There was scope there for positive and affirmative comedy. Instead, he went for the lowest and easiest blow (a phrase which he'd probably find hilarious) and thus managed to piss off a section of his audience he probably ought to take more care of.

Beatie was and should be free to make the choice that felt right for him, as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. I don't think it has done (although I think the whole subject will have to be handled carefully as his kid gets older), and thus it's simply up to the rest of us to deal with our own reactions to it. We're also all entitled to our own opinions and decisions to the same limit that Beatie is - up to the point that we hurt other people. Graham Norton, I think, has hurt people and therefore I don't feel it was appropriate to express that opinion (whether real or assumed for comedic effect) on the British broadcast media.

Michael Jensen's picture

I don't know how I missed that. The media's treatment of

Beatie has mostly been horrific and the idea that Graham piled on is truly disappointing.