I am reading a great book of comedian interviews called "Sataristas!" Although it is a collection of interviews and there is no explicit thesis, I keep thinking the book begs the quesiton: Should comedy be just funny or should it express a viewpoint or be used as an agent of social change. The question is not a simple one and there are more than two answers.
Jay Leno represents one extreme. He views his craft as a responsibility to generate the most laughs from the most people. He appeals to a broad audience of broad skulled people. His jokes are simple, safe and are delivered with an intent to distract and never offend. Jay is pretty dull, but he's probably not even the most egregious example of this school of thought. The comedians who do business events or family cruise ships are probably better examples of people who try to say as little as possible. The whole office joke crowd. The folks who send chain email jokes.
Bill Maher, or maybe even more so Janeane Garofalo, represent the other extreme. Comedians like this work from a very specific viewpoint and craft their jokes to make arguments for their viewpoint. Their work is often meant more to urge and inform than to draw care-free laughs. They generally only appeal to people who already agree with them, and who don't have much of a sense of humor. The political cartoon crowd. Has anyone ever actually laughed at a political cartoon? To proud to laugh, they believe a joke should be appreciated by saying "good point." Some people accuse George Carlin of doing this sort of thing later in his career, but I disagree: at the end of a long rant there was always a big payoff.
Stephen Colbert is a pure satirist and gets a lot of praise by other comedians in "Satarista!" for his provocative character study of a ego-centric right-wing talk show host. His strategy offers a way to talk about serious issues, without being serious. A spoonful of sugar for the Leno crowd, and a bit of mockery to disarm the politicos.
Comedians don't change people's minds. I don't think anyone watches a comic and changes the way they vote or decides that rape is an acceptable first date. I aslo think that comedians have a duty (if they want to be funny to people with triple-digit IQs) to talk about things that are controversial. They shouldn't do it to change mind or to try to incite people, they should do it because those are the things that excite people. Jay Leno said in "Sataristas!" that he tried to be funny for the working man who comes home turns on the TV and tries to forget about life, whereas if you have money you can afford to sit around being introspective and thinking about greater things all day. I don't think that makes a lick of sense, and what he means it as a way to explain his dumb humor. I work hard all day, but that doesn't mean I want to go home and watch cartoons. I find that fucking insulting. It's as insulting to blue collar workers as the honkey-ass comedy tour that stole the blue collar name.
It seems like there is always a Comedic controversy of the day, and today's is Daniel Tosh and his "rapist wit." I always side with the comedian. There have been some arguments put forth suggesting that Tosh's material would have been less controversial if it were approached from a more humorous point of view (rather than saying it would be funny if a girl in the audience got raped). People are now discussing whether or not rape jokes are appropriate. I say bullshit. Any joke is appropriate: period. If it turns your audience against you, that should be your consequence. I don't think Daniel Tosh is a great comic, but he's young and if his career is derailed by some stupid whiny feminists and their dumb ass blog, it would be a real shame.
Haven't you ever wished that someone who was bothering you just dropped dead? Maybe you didn't really wish it but you just thought it for a second. Would we be discussing this if Tosh told that woman that he thought it would be funny if five guys came in and killed her? Is rape worse than murder? That is actually a question worth discussing. Anyway, like all comedian controversies that start with a bad joke, they reveal not a problem with the comedian, but with ourselves as a society.
George Carlin has a great routine on rape. I think there are many funny perspectives on rape, and regardless as to wether Tosh's was one. I think that should be the end of the discussion.
I think the challenge for a comedian is to challenge people without trying to change them, cause you wont and when people feel like their being manipulated they tend to shut down their laugh holes. When you talk about rape you are talking about the ultimate form of manipulation, and laugh holes close pretty quick. So it's best to do as Carlin did, and instantly switch gears to looney tunes.
Jay Leno represents one extreme. He views his craft as a responsibility to generate the most laughs from the most people. He appeals to a broad audience of broad skulled people. His jokes are simple, safe and are delivered with an intent to distract and never offend. Jay is pretty dull, but he's probably not even the most egregious example of this school of thought. The comedians who do business events or family cruise ships are probably better examples of people who try to say as little as possible. The whole office joke crowd. The folks who send chain email jokes.
Bill Maher, or maybe even more so Janeane Garofalo, represent the other extreme. Comedians like this work from a very specific viewpoint and craft their jokes to make arguments for their viewpoint. Their work is often meant more to urge and inform than to draw care-free laughs. They generally only appeal to people who already agree with them, and who don't have much of a sense of humor. The political cartoon crowd. Has anyone ever actually laughed at a political cartoon? To proud to laugh, they believe a joke should be appreciated by saying "good point." Some people accuse George Carlin of doing this sort of thing later in his career, but I disagree: at the end of a long rant there was always a big payoff.
Stephen Colbert is a pure satirist and gets a lot of praise by other comedians in "Satarista!" for his provocative character study of a ego-centric right-wing talk show host. His strategy offers a way to talk about serious issues, without being serious. A spoonful of sugar for the Leno crowd, and a bit of mockery to disarm the politicos.
Comedians don't change people's minds. I don't think anyone watches a comic and changes the way they vote or decides that rape is an acceptable first date. I aslo think that comedians have a duty (if they want to be funny to people with triple-digit IQs) to talk about things that are controversial. They shouldn't do it to change mind or to try to incite people, they should do it because those are the things that excite people. Jay Leno said in "Sataristas!" that he tried to be funny for the working man who comes home turns on the TV and tries to forget about life, whereas if you have money you can afford to sit around being introspective and thinking about greater things all day. I don't think that makes a lick of sense, and what he means it as a way to explain his dumb humor. I work hard all day, but that doesn't mean I want to go home and watch cartoons. I find that fucking insulting. It's as insulting to blue collar workers as the honkey-ass comedy tour that stole the blue collar name.
It seems like there is always a Comedic controversy of the day, and today's is Daniel Tosh and his "rapist wit." I always side with the comedian. There have been some arguments put forth suggesting that Tosh's material would have been less controversial if it were approached from a more humorous point of view (rather than saying it would be funny if a girl in the audience got raped). People are now discussing whether or not rape jokes are appropriate. I say bullshit. Any joke is appropriate: period. If it turns your audience against you, that should be your consequence. I don't think Daniel Tosh is a great comic, but he's young and if his career is derailed by some stupid whiny feminists and their dumb ass blog, it would be a real shame.
Haven't you ever wished that someone who was bothering you just dropped dead? Maybe you didn't really wish it but you just thought it for a second. Would we be discussing this if Tosh told that woman that he thought it would be funny if five guys came in and killed her? Is rape worse than murder? That is actually a question worth discussing. Anyway, like all comedian controversies that start with a bad joke, they reveal not a problem with the comedian, but with ourselves as a society.
George Carlin has a great routine on rape. I think there are many funny perspectives on rape, and regardless as to wether Tosh's was one. I think that should be the end of the discussion.
I think the challenge for a comedian is to challenge people without trying to change them, cause you wont and when people feel like their being manipulated they tend to shut down their laugh holes. When you talk about rape you are talking about the ultimate form of manipulation, and laugh holes close pretty quick. So it's best to do as Carlin did, and instantly switch gears to looney tunes.
No comments:
Post a Comment