Riffing on anxiety, death and Elon Musk, this comic takes no prisoners
Nish Kumar: Nish, Don't Kill My Vibe
★★★★
Factory Theatre, April 22. Until April 24.
Reviewed by DANIEL HERBORN
Midway through his Sydney Comedy Festival show, British comic Nish Kumar
outlines the topics he's about to cover: anxiety, death and rage. No wonder someone
recently told him he should try more relatable material, like riffing on the contents of his fridge.
He'd already rattled through a litany of injustice and nonsense, from billionaire
biohacker Bryan Johnson – who injects himself with his teenage son's blood in a bid
to live forever – to his deep frustration at being told he should be 'pleased about the
representation' of having a fellow British Indian, conservative Rishi Sunak, in power.
The 39-year-old Kumar seems so energised by white-hot rage that he barely pauses
for breath. The breakneck style makes for an urgent and wide-ranging excoriation of
powerful individuals demonising minorities for their own gain.
Crucially, though, Kumar doesn't settle for making right-on points but draws
consistent belly laughs with his furious monologues, aided by vividly grotesque
descriptions of his foes – from Elon Musk to his transphobic comedy peers – and his
knack for unexpected but spot-on analogies.
In the second half of the hour, he turns his focus inwards, giving a potentially one-
note show some much-needed light and shade.
'I'm like this all the time,' he says of his exasperated state, reflecting on how exhausting being constantly outraged is and how it both drives and results from his anxiety.
Loading
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
Perth Now
12 hours ago
- Perth Now
Danny Boyle reveals biggest regret about Olympics opening ceremony
Danny Boyle has one big regret about the way he handed the London 2012 Olympic Games opening ceremony. The 28 Days Later director was put in charge of the spectacular event in the British capital and it included references to UK culture including nods to music, fashion, movies and the NHS (National Health Service), but Danny regrets failing to include a segment dedicated to the BBC to recognise the national broadcaster's work over the last 100 years. He told The Sunday Times newspaper: "Well, there was a lot of advice and warnings we ignored, but the one that we listened to that I regret deeply [meant] that we didn't feature the BBC enough. Because I look now at news values and who to trust, and think, 'F*** me - we should look after that'. "It doesn't matter whether you approve of it or not. It is just the idea of this national broadcaster with some kind of values you can rely on. "These technology internationalists will have you believe that they don't matter, that there's something global much more important. "But they do matter. They define us. But we were told we couldn't feature them by the IOC [International Olympic Committee]." Danny's opening ceremony included a memorable sketch featuring the late Queen Elizabeth teaming up with James Bond star Daniel Craig which seemingly ended with the monarch parachuting into the London Stadium. Lord Sebastian Coe, who served as London Organising Committee for the Olympics, previously said of the stunt: "There isn't a day that goes by without somebody somewhere in the world asking me about this. A whole heap of people still believe that she genuinely jumped from the helicopter. "It was an extraordinary moment because Danny Boyle, who was our director, it was the only day during the seven-year period of preparation of the games that I felt the globe wobble. "He came in and said: 'I've done some market research and it shows that the Queen and James Bond, in that order, are the global iconic figures' and I was fine until that moment when he said: 'Wouldn't it be great if we could get them to jump out of a helicopter?' "And in fairness, it was Danny who got it across the line. There are lots of things that are said about it but it was actually Danny who persuaded her." Lord Coe went on to explain he initially showed potential ideas for the skit to Anne, Princess Royal - the daughter of Queen Elizabeth - and was only asked one question when she saw the plans. He told BBC News "My first role was to take the Princess Royal through the creative thoughts and I remember these sort of hammed up drawings and the only question I got was: 'What kind of helicopter?'"
