So, you've got a bunch of responses saying that either a.) Colbert bombed or b.) Colbert "crossed the line." (Thanks Fox!)
A quick explanation is in order. At some point -- a crucial point in a young comic's life -- one realizes that the response of the audience just doesn't matter. I am exaggerating only slightly. But somewhere out there on the road you have that one miserable show, using all the material you used for every other show, and you realize that audience feedback is critically important, but it is not defining. A MONTH of bad shows is a different animal altogether, but I trust you see my point.
In various circumstances as a road comic, I have seen every comic you can imagine, at some point or another, suck it. Hard. Seinfeld, Leno, Belzer, Ellen*, Ray Romano, pick 'em. Sometimes you just don't gel with an audience, but at that point you've been doing it long enough not to suddenly think the five years of good shows were somehow flukes.
But I have seen plenty of people "bomb" who left me breathless with the genius of their writing. Larry David, who a fair number of even the conservative culture mavens love, was notorious for his spellbinding nightclub routines that comics standing in the back of the room marvelled at but audiences hated. Garry Shandling famously worked open-mike nights for something like SEVEN YEARS before he was able to meld his brilliant writing with something audiences could relate to.
If Colbert "bombed", it was because the audience didn't like him. And you know what -- they WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO. We have been treated to toothless feel-good comedy for so long, we have forgotten what the court jester's job was: he was the only guy who could mock the King. And, seeing as we now have a President who acts like a King, it's only fitting that Colbert revive the tradition in its truest form. If I remember correctly, the toady court followers were also fair game for the Jester, and we could hardly call the modern media anything less these days, can we?
As for Colbert crossing the line -- how? Did he make remarks about the President's wife? About his children? His sex life? His draft dodging, his drinking and drug use before he found the Lord? No. Every joke used a well-known fact of public-record. Does anyone deny the poll numbers cited? Does anyone deny that the government response to previous crisises have been deficient? Does anyone deny that Administration officials outed Valerie Plame (hell, even the Administration officials now have to rely on he idea it was accidental)? Does anyone deny that the Administration has actively opposed global warming discussions? Listen -- if the President could do a long routine about not finding WMD's and laughing about it, while US soldiers died in the resultant war ... then to be frank I think he set the bar. Oddly, I think that if Colbert had done the routine the President did a couple years ago, THAT would have been crossing the line for me.
If his sin was incivility, then what the audience/bookers were looking for wasn't comedy. Comedy is by its nature uncivil. Comedy is, in both linguistic structure and overall psychological impact, hostile. Sometimes overtly, often not. But there is no such thing as a joke structured like: "You know what makes me happy? Yeah, that same thing that makes everybody else happy. (sigh)" There is no laugh there.
I hate to play into the stereotype of all comics being angry, but at the very least we are all in some small way sociopathic. We do not process emotions and emotional context like other people. At the same time some civilized part of me was horrified by the first 9/11 joke I heard, some other part of my brain was impressed by its structure and transgressive nature. I'm not particularly pround of that, but it was as reflexive as a musician hearing a song he hates, but instinctively picking out what key it's in.
I told a United 93/RV joke today. The part of my brain my parents raised smacked me in the back of the head. The part of me that was on the road for 12 years quietly regretted that I could only ever say it in the presence of other comedians, because it was such a clean little bit of construction. You may not have to be angry to be a comic -- but to varying degrees you do have to stop being bound by 99.99999% of the population's definition of "polite."
All comedy is based on revealing a truth, sometimes so minor as to seem inconsequential, but a generally unobserved truth nonetheless. Sometimes the truth is a monstrous truth -- and many times comics shy away from that monstrous truth, unwilling to deal with the fallout from being its bearer. But the ones who embrace that mission -- Bruce, Carlin, Richard goddam Pryor, Bill Hicks ("Your child is not special", jesus the stones that took) -- they transcend.
One of the insanely annoying phrases lefties overuse is "Speaking truth to power." Well, kids, you know what? Standing three feet from the most powerful man in the world and poking fun at his public foibles, telling your audience that they are cowards by doing nothing more than pointing out the truth of their actions -- THAT'S speaking truth to power. Mutter to yourselves all you want, civilians. Colbert, that night, became one of the stories comics will trade for literally decades to come. Young comics will learn it from old comics. Audiences come and go. We honor our own.
"Poor Vaughn Meader", bitches. Poor. Vaughn. Meader.
* Ellen was, as a road comic, one of the best joke writers of the last thirty years. Seriously, her socio-political fame has completely eclipsed that legacy. She was technically ... blinding.
81 comments:
John,
I wonder how many of the visitors to your blog have actually heard your own stand-up. I'd bet most of them come for the screenwriting.
I haven't seen you live, but I have heard you on Ernie Butler's show on CJAD.
You might consider putting up some MP3s of your work, just so's your visitors know where you're coming from, stand-up wise.
This reminded me of a discussion I had many years ago. I was just starting to get REALLY into horror.
I had just finished watching a movie or reading a book (for the life of me, I can't remember which book and/or movie...but I surely will at 2am...) and I loved it.
I was on the phone with my brother and said something like "I loved this, but it wasn't scary, so I'm not sure its horror"
his reply: "Horror isn't about being scary. Its about showing you the things you don't want to see."
My brother is much smarter than I am.
Right on.
I watched the whole thing on the net after the fact, but the reason I didn't laugh continuously was because for a goodly part of it I found myself with my jaw hanging open. Colbert's iceberg line prompted an involuntary "Holy shit!" on my part.
(Slightly OT - I just picked up Zombie Tales: The Dead #1. "Four out of Five" is probably the best story in that book.)
I would absolutely *love* it if you posted some mp3s of your stand-up.
I love your blog, and every time you mention your stand-up it hurts me a little that I haven't been able to hear any.
Colbert knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew what would come of it. And he did it anyway. Ye gods, the stones on that man. A truly heroic moment of joke-telling.
How could you consider his performance a bomb when so many people around America are laughing their asses off? "Crossed the line?" Good lord, the line needed to be crossed. And it needs to be crossed more.
The best part is how the reactions to Colbert focus on impropriety. Not "he lied" or "he exaggerated." Nope. Just "he was rude," the last, most pathetic weapon in the touchy jackass arsenal. HA!
Rogers is right. His speech will live in comedy history for decades. Sweet.
Great post.
http://debfrisch.com/archives/2006/05/stephen_colbert.html
Colbert hit his audience, methinks, it just that his intended audience wasn't anyone sitting in the room. In fact, the folks sitting in the room were props for his blazingly honest and biting satire - it was just TOO funny that he said what he said TO the President himself, right to the monkey's face!
It's good for a comedian (and playwright) to know their audience - crucial, even. But all of us know that everyone once in awhile we'll get someone else's audience instead and it'll fly right over the heads of those in the path.
It's a valuable lesson. Knowing who your audience is not is part of knowing who your audience IS.
As I wrote on my site, I think they fucked up and thought Colbert, since he plays a conservative on TV, was actually going to play along and be nice like Jonny boy did at the Oscars.
Oops.
It is interesting that one of Colbert’s writers Eric Drysdale, who got his start in Montreal, had balls of steel while on stage. I remember you and I standing at the back of the comedy club with our mouths agape saying “We have to work harder”. Drysdale spending his entire set showing the audience how to make paper lanterns. Construction paper, scissors, glue and all, funny, funny man.
John, have you seen (and can you point us to) reactions from other pro comics and comedians around the web? And please do make some of your own standup available here. Thanks for a unique take on this!
...a joke structured like: "You know what makes me happy? Yeah, that same thing that makes everybody else happy. (sigh)" There is no laugh there.
Actually, I laughed anyway. But I also get your point.
paper lanterns out of a restraining order, no less.
and my old Cosby writing friend Tom Purcell apprently had a hand in this too. Congratulations.
I thought he was great and try to catch his show when I can. "He bombed" is the only defense the press or the Admin (arin't they the same) have against such biting sarcasm. What a bunch of fat-assed, ivy-league egotists.
For me there's always something fake and creepy about the Correspondent's dinner.
It's seems to only acknowledge that we don't really have freedom of speech in this country; at least in regard to the public treatment of our elected officials.
Because if we did, we wouldn't needed a special event to poke fun at the president to his face. It would be daily occurrence.
Colbert was mediocre. And his taped piece was formless crap. But it didn't bother me as much as this event. It's always been one of the more disturbing public rituals. A cat can look at a king, but a comedian can only make fun of the president to his face one day a year.
Yuck.
Okay, I have to ask now... what was the United 93/RV joke?
And what's the Bill Hicks joke "Your child is not special?"
Is it as funny as his joke "If Jesus comes back, do you really think he wants to look at crosses on people's necks?"
Mr. Colbert's set was replete with the type of "truthiness" to which King George and His Royal Press Court have never been subjected. No safe yuk-yuks about “endearing” foibles, or Imus-style tone-deaf prurience. Instead, Mr. Colbert delivered searing truths the way Ruth hit a baseball or Armstrong a note. Inspired and in full command, he took a scalpel to the room and surgically removed the ever-metastasizing tumor of bullshit. And, yes, he was brilliantly funny, regardless of the intermittent sighs and silences of the aggrieved. Lenny Bruce died so this day might happen. But Lenny never dreamed the White House would be foolish enough to invite one of his disciples over for dinner. One more example of their jaw-dropping incompetence? They see a clean-cut guy, know he’s popular, and so they pencil him in. You have to wonder if the White House staff ever watched “The Colbert Report”? Had they, they would’ve realized that Jon Stewart, in comparison, might have been a joy to behold.
With testicles the size of, say, Texas, he strutted into the White House Correspondents' Dinner and, in full satiric mode - the comic's body armor (no thanks, Rummy, he provides his own) - told the president and press corps what roughly 67% of us wish we could. If you fed his entire performance through some kind of de-satirizing, shorthand machine, it might read:
That guy? Worst president ever. You guys? His bitch. Seriously, you should all leave our country now and spend the rest of your days in The Hague. Thank you. It was an honor to be here.
The mainstream media’s reaction? No surprise. If they mentioned the occasion at all, of course Mr. Colbert scored low on points. Very low. Carrot Top, Gallagher low. They were pissed. Insulted. He didn’t play the game. And worse, he made fun of it, rubbed their faces in it. So suddenly, miraculously, he just wasn’t funny. He didn’t have it, was out of sorts, unmindful of the setting.
Two performers hit the dais that night: Bush impersonator Steve Bridges and Mr. Colbert. According to The New York Times, however, there was just one performer. The one who played the game. Who made King George look a little more like just one of the commoners. And allowed the press corps their illusion of integrity.
Well, I guess rewriting history is easier than explaining why Stephen Colbert isn’t funny.
I really look forward to the next White House press conference.
It would be interesting to see if Colbert's performance inspired anyone in the press corps to see what it's like to stand up when they pee.
And what's the Bill Hicks joke "Your child is not special?"
Is it as funny as his joke "If Jesus comes back, do you really think he wants to look at crosses on people's necks?"
I won't ruin it. All his albums are available online now, so you can/must grab them.
1) They were morons for inviting him. What did they think he was going to do?
2) It was, like a lot of his stuff, pretty dry. Rarified comedic air but comedic nonetheless.
3) Everything he said was true which can undercut jokes in the wrong forum.
4) Has anyone considered the possibility that the people who hired him don't get that he's JOKING?
5) If the press has their little noses out of joint at his criticisms, there's a simple solution.
Mediabloodhound hit it right on.
The only line Colbert crossed was the one that the media and Bush's handlers have established, that we all must be oh so deferential to this sad sack, this legacy buffoon, that he must never cross the path of someone who disagrees ,that his bubble must not be burst...
And then Colbert turned after bursting that bubble, and said that those gathered were the ones at fault. Notice he didn't really hold GWB at fault for his policies? For mistakes, yes. But the actual transgression is those who refuse to allow anybody to step on the toes of the Emperor C+.
I'd guess that the people who selected Colbert are singularly wooden, straight Party line Republicans, who may have seen the show, but have totally missed the satire. It should be said that the Right seems to have a problem with any humor more sophisticated than a rake in the face. Concepts like satire and irony seem to be completely uncomprehendable, like trying to explain Australian rules football to a dog.
The only defense the media have at this point is ignoring Colbert performance or claiming he bombed. Trying to get through the thorny underbrush as quickly as possible, hoping to minimize the loss of blood. Trying to spin this as a failure.
Because otherwise, they have to admit their own all too painful complicity in the awful dance.
I'd also love to hear both some of John's standup and the United 93/RV joke.
as a musician i know the feeling. i have been on stage where we cooked, to no response. i have also been on stage where we sucked, to wild applause. both of those feel like shit. but colbert knew what he was doing. massive cojones. the room didn't respond because they came expecting fluff and got savaged. tough shit. when socrates was in the audience for the performace of aristophane's the clouds which brutalized him as a fraud and a buffoon, he stood and lead the applause. that was cojones too. the media is trying its level best to ignore the drubbing they were given. like a boxer that gets jabbed in the face and grins. the grin says how bad it hurt. vaughn. meader. (first comedy album i ever owned was "the first family" i dug it out and put it on it's. still. funny.)
Just an FYI, since a lot of people think that the folks who picked Colbert had no idea what he was going to do: the White House didn't pick him, the White House Correspondents' Association did. Journalists, rather than White House employees (insert joke here about the very fine line between those two.)
And I think they probably knew exactly what Colbert would do, and they wanted him to do it. They haven't done a great job of standing up to the administration, but I think that in their secret hearts they wish they had. Choosing Colbert was an act of rebellion, if a small one.
Colbert's speech reminded me why I fell in love with comedy in the first place. It reminded me what comedy could be -- should be -- instead of what it's been the last few years. There's only so much Larry The Cable Guy one can take before you start to lose faith in humanity.
After Lenny Bruce, after Richard Pryor, after George Carlin, after Eddie Murphy, there seemed to be no room left in comedy to be shocking. Nothing has been off limits, nothing has been left unsaid, and absolutely nothing has been surprising.
Until now.
Watching Colbert, I suddenly felt that same rush I felt hearing some of those groundbreaking comics for the first time. Not because the material was so shocking or original (though I do think it was one of the most brilliant pieces of comedy writing I've heard in ages), but because of how brazen Colbert was in his choice of audiences. He didn't say anything that hasn't been said on The Daily Show every day for the last 5 years, but WHO he said it to ... wow.
That wasn't an audience not laughing. That was an audience left speechless. They were made uncomfortable in the same way audiences were when Richard Pryor stood up and shoved their subconscious racism in their faces. That just doesn't happen anymore, and it was a delight to witness.
(Oh, and John ... I have to agree about Ellen. I watch her stuff, even today on her safe little talk show, and I'm just dazzled at the absolute precision and brilliance of her timing and joke construction. It's like she's from another planet.)
I take great pleasure in the hypothesis that some clever soul noticed how easy it would be to cherry-pick from Colbert's nightly performances and splice together a sample of his material that would be sure to get him vetted for this gig.
It's a beautiful, brilliant middle ground between "they were incompetent" and "they knew what they were getting," and my only regret is that, if it actually went down that way, I'll almost certainly never get to buy that clever soul the beer I'd owe him or her.
Forgot to mention. An excellent use of a Vaughn Meader reference.
All kidding aside, this really is a momentous event for stand-up comics. The vast majority of comics are jokers - they want to maximize the number of laughs per minute and their ultimate aspiration is that people laugh so hard that beer comes out their nose.
But some comics are jesters - they don't give a hoot, damn or rat's ass whether the audience laughs - they want to have a lasting effect on the biochemical activity allegedly going on in their audience's frontal lobes.
Jokers: Ellen DeGeneres, Lucille Ball, Jerries Seinfeld & Lewis
Jesters: Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, Eddie Izzard..the owner of this site?
Not that there's anything wrong with being a joker. It's just that the United Sheep of America are DYING for the jesters to grow some huevos grande tout de suite.
You are one two people I have ever in my life heard mention Vaughan Meader, the other being David Mamet. Yanked that one right out of the Synapse Closet, didn't you?
Incidentally, "Vaughan Meader" was actually one of Lenny Bruce's best punchlines...
Didn't Laura B draw the mythical line last year with her charming story of Bush jerking off a horse? Seems to me Colbert never went near that line, much less cross over.
btw please add Andy Kaufman to the list of 'uncomfortable' and brilliant comics.
I think the people who hired Colbert thought that they could neuter him, like they did Jon and every other comic who's played that gig.
But Colbert didn't flinch, didn;t back down; he took his once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and nailed it perfectly. To say those things, in that room, to those people, to THEIR FACES...
It's the difference between the Stones and the Doors playing Ed Sullivan.
Colbert just DID the correspondent's dinner.
And we should all keep talking about it...lord knows, the media has refused. Truthiness hurts.
I'm curious what you think of Bob Somerby's criticism of Colbert over at the Daily Howler. Somerby does stand-up, although I've neither seen it nor heard any reports (especially from another professional) about how good he is. Still, I think it gives him some standing:
But when you sign up to do that gig, you’re signing up as an entertainer. Colbert didn’t contract to give a speech, or to deliver a heart-felt harangue; he contracted to make people laugh. In our view, no, he wasn’t funny—and he wasn’t especially honest. (If you don’t respect an audience enough to want to entertain them, then you don’t have to take on the gig.)
I think I'd wanna see the actual language in that contract that stated he was there to make people laugh, rather than just give a speech...
I'll be sure to source this blog when I write my dissertation on Aristophanes.
In any case, there was an article a few months back in Harpers that dealt with jesters. Did you see it? I wish I had the citation.
Somerby's criticism is, frankly, shit. And I'm somebody who's said "The price of attention is entertainment" so many times I should have a t-shirt made up.
You hire name brand comics and performers specifically for the type of material they do. If you hire Green Day, are you within your rights to ask they perform rock and roll with well-tuned instruments and enthusiasm? Sure. Are you within your rights to ask the to expect them to perform dance hits of the 40's? Fuck no.
Colbert didn't ambush anybody. That persona's his gig. That's his material. He does it every night, in public, relentlessly. He went up there and did exactly what you would expect him to do, if you had half a brain.
AND, it's not like Colbert ambushed a fucking Kiwanis Club who'd hired him for their Christmas Party. He is a satirist whose ENTIRE ACT consists of skewering an ineffective press and an autocratic President every. Damn. Night. What the hell was he supposed to do -- while maintaining any integrity whatsoever -- when actually performing in front of that press and that President?
Do you think he would have taken the gig if somebody had said "Oh, and don't do your regular act."? Nope. They hired him for that persona. He gave them that persona. It's not his fault tha tnobody realized what the persona actually was. Hell, even in a murder trial, if the prosecutor opens the door, the defense can drive a truck through it.
"Not honest?" I don't know Somerby from a hole in the wall, but that entire artice is essentially advocating surrendering to hackdom. Yes, sometimes we're the joke monkeys, it's what people pay us for. But we're supposed to also be inheritors of a tradition, on our better days. To scold somebody (and "scold" is precisely the petty little word I'm looking for) when they, for a brief shining moment, manifest the avatar is pathetic.
John,
I'm in total agreement with you. I think it's not accurate to say they were idiots for inviting him. It would be naive to say that they had no idea he was going to do this.
I think the Press Corp invited him precisely for that reason. Most journalists are not as scathing as Jon Stewart and Colbert, because they can't be. The major news companies: NBC, ABC, CBS--are owned by companies that have vested interest in more then news/ media/entertainment.
For example, has anyone seen "The Insider"? Prime example of exactly that happening. CBS Corporate coming down on CBS News to stifle a tobacco smoking company story because they were at risk of being bought out if Brown-Williamson sued which was investors in Westinghouse, a investor of CBS Corp.
Comedy Central? Owned by Viacom, which was formerly owned by CBS Company. Now Viacom is solely owned with it's only investments in MTV, and Paramount Pictures, no outsider investors on the board to put their weight down. That's why Stewart and Colbert can do what they do.
Colbert pretends to be a Republican and goes on TV every night and tells jokes. Joe Lieberman pretends to be a Democrat and got elected to the US Senate twice.
Comedians are pussies.
What dayv said. Count me as another vote for making some of your stand-up available. I love good stand-up, and I already know you as the author of some really great lines.
But, honey, you ain't special for finding the humor in the darkness. Everybody does, and though we may laugh with a certain guilt, we laugh. The real difference is found in a good line from Jerry Kaufman, who said: "The more you know, the more jokes you get." Some people just don't know very much.
I think Colbert was funny the same way watching video of a guy trying to jump off his roof into his pool and ending up racking himself on some yard object is funny.
It doesn't make you guffaw and wipe away tears. It is just good fun watching some jackass that truly deserves it to take one in the nuts.
That's what Colbert's entire performance was like: watching an entire room of jackasses taking a well-deserved one to the nuts.
It's pretty sad that you guys have elevated a comedian's unfunny publicity stunt to pander to his audience and get some quick easy buzz for his show into an act of subversion equivalent to Schindler's list or publishing an underground newspaper in Stalinist Russia.
I think that the inability to win substantial elections or sway the voting public has resulted in a rise in the frustration of liberals to the point where they deify minor figures like Jon Stewart, Michael Moore and Colbert, who can quickly rise to stardom without the need to win any pesky elections. It's sad that their comedians are held in higher esteem than their actual politicians, journalists and pundits.
It's quite funny to see how he's been elevated to the level of Gandhi or Thomas Paine. But it begs the question: since Colbert did his shtick three feet from the President in front of millions and is somehow still alive and making money rather than buried with Jimmy Hoffe or slaving away in a death labor camp, does that mean that we'll finally hear an end to the prattle about "suppressed dissent" and "stifled freedom of speech?"
What this experiences has taught me is that "courage" is truly an overused term (let's get real, the only "risk" to Colbert was that his liberal base would bust a nut in their pants and give him more ratings, thus making him that much richer). What it's also taught me is that "genius" is an overused term as well. Colbert is good at midly clever sarcasm, but he's not a genius.
"comedian's unfunny publicity stunt"
That roast was amazing. I watched it once. Then I brought my wife into the room, and we watched it again. We were laughing and giving each other high-fives.
Publicity stunt? He's a comedian. He does this for a living. Colbert was invited to speak at the event. What part of that would constitute a "publicity stunt"? What did the audience expect him to do? Tell amusing annecdotes about Bush's dog?
Bush is not the Messiah for conservative America. Find another hero. By any rational standard, he's been an ineffective President. All the same, his supporters keep saying "La la, I'm not listening, la la la la. Not listening. La la la la."
In recent years, it seems that the primary job qualification to be a mainstream journalist is the ability to frequently and unrestrainedly kiss the ass of the rich and powerful. The mainstream media's reaction to Colbert's performance demonstrates just how many journalists satisfy this qualification.
...quickly rise to stardom without the need to win any pesky elections
What is this supposed to mean? That nobody should be famous until they win an election? Can we just shut Fox News down then?
The free market is supposed to be such an impartial arbiter of the population at large, how come you Wingers always complain when someone like Michael Moore or Colbert achiever prominence based on the actual product they offer, rather than their mother's name or their father's business?
It takes an embarrassing dearth of self-awareness to be able to say that, given that your Silver Spoon Fake Cowboy Messiah first rose to the Presidency without winning that pesky election.
Stewart is a funny son of a bitch. He's been funny from day one.
Colbert is less funny but still in the bigs. He does his thing every night to an appreciative audience. That the "reporters" in the audience didn't appreciate his set says a helluva lot more about them than it does about the relative weakness of that set.
When you ask a comedian to come to your banquet to do the thing that brought him to your attention in the first place, you don't get to whine when he- wait for it- ACTUALLY DOES IT.
Liberals have lost elections because they have become too much like conservatives, thereby alienating their core audience and looking like unfocused morons to the swing contingent.
they have become too much like conservatives for the same reason the press has, apparently handed off their collective gonads to the Bush White House.
Too cosy. Too much in common with their supposed adversaries.
No comedian is particularly significant in the big sceme of things- you know, like the massive unecessary casualties we and others are suffering right now prosecuting a war inspried by lies and manipulation or the slow roasting/asphyxiation of the planet. Comedians do one thing, if they're good. They make us laugh. Very very ocassionally they make us think. That's it.
Okay. Two things. One and a half.
Colbert's bit was funny. It stung who it was meant to sting and amused the people it was meant to amuse. I laughed my ass off.
If the press has a problem with spot-on satire, they can solve it by doing precisely what Colbert did: their fucking jobs. Same with President Puppet Boy.
Those same sterling members of the press all seemed to get a good belly laugh out of W's "joking" search for WMD a little while back. Apparenlty mocking the wholesale slaughter of thousands of people for no good reason doesn't cross the much-mentioned line.
I'm not pissed off because liberals are currently ineffectual. I'm pissed off because more people aren't more pissed off.
Too busy waiting for the 100 dollar tax rebate, I guess.
Priorities.
(Sorry, John. delete it if it's too much. One of those mornings.)
t,
dude. If you have never tried to do comedy in front of an audience, then you have no idea how mauch sheer stonage it takes to even do that. Added to that -- I doubt you have the nuts to tell your BOSS off, never mind the goddam President. "Courage" may be too strong a word. But after three years of nobody whose job it is asking all these questions, or bringing up any of these points in a substantive way, for this guy to stand up and do so took stones. Period.
Nobody's saying it's Schindler's List. What we're saying is "good job, baby." You're the ones who popped the chubby when the President dressed up in a flight suit. How he was so steadfast because he stood on rubble and yelled into a megaphone, you just had to hand over huge chunks of our civil rights to him, and completely ignore the fact that the war in Iraq has gone tits up, and was going to go tits up fomr day one. La-la-la, we can't hear you! Talk about hero worship.
Tell you what. We will stop prattling about stifled dissent and free speech when the White House stops stonewalling investigations into intelligence failiures, energy policy and the BILLIONS with a B gone missing in Iraq, stops investigating fucking quakers, stops firing anyone in the Administration who disagrees with them, stops running prison camps (and I can't believe I just typed that either, but there you go), and most relevantly stops spinning the press in a way to equate dissent with treason -- and don't you dare try to argue otherwise, because that'll just lead to a pointless citaiton war you will lose -- we'll stop bitching. Sure, there's a difference between sending dissidents to jail and flooding a compliant media with propoganda, false intelligence and treason-mongering. They're both stops on the same bus route, though.
Some comedians are held in higher esteem than actual politicians and journalists because PEOPLE. RESPECT. TRUTH. I don't care who you are, if you lie to me, you don't get the pass because you're elected. Way to tow the pro-establisment line in a decentralized world. Thomas Jefferson would ... well, he'd say you completely missed the fucking point of the entire nation. But never mind that.
Oh, and tell you what, let's throw together the list of people who are famous in the entertainment world whose daddies got them their job, and those in the Bush Administraiton whose daddies got them their job. That's where my respect comes from, whether you're a self-made man who's won an audience through hard work.
That used to be the Republican ethos, remember?
I think Colbert was invited because they actually thought he was for real, not playing a character, on his show.
This may sound ridiculous but I have met a few people that "don't get" his tv schtick.
I supppose Colbert made it terribly obvious for the President and sundry other morons at the press shindig and so they thought it wasn't so funny after all.
The gathered press would of course not laugh at anything that might get them cutoff from their possible Woodwardesque future hagiographies of Bush. Weak bastards.
John, I have to dissent. I don't think he bombed by any stretch, but I don't think he nailed it. Judging from his appearance on TDS, I don't think he thinks he nailed it.
No doubt it was an amazing attempt at a Triple Lutz - calling out the Commander in Chief as a clueless chickenshit, Lenny Brucing the audience and maintaining the meta TV blowhard satire. Ballsiness, indeed.
I think it's the latter that tripped him up and prevented the perfect "10". Bill O'Reilly is the polar opposite of wit. When Colbert pulled out the rapier and went for the jugular he had to step out of character, throwing off his timing.
I thought it also distracted from the material. The irony of the O'Reilly persona lies in his mistaking bluster for bravado. When you come right out and say that displaying one's codpiece on an aircraft carrier is acutally quite cowardly, it kinda breaks the No Spin Zone spell.
Anyway, it was an amazing and probably historic display. But I bet Colbert would do it differently if given the chance.
If I had to guess - and it is a guess - I would say that the people who hired Colbert knew what he would do and he delivered it. Listen and you'll hear that nearly all the jokes got a laugh - there's no way one can objectively say he "bombed."
Yet is is conceivable that there were some there who misinterpreted his on-air persona. After Hugh Hewitt was on the Colbert Report, I heard him the next day talking about it. He had managed to escape the full anal assault that Willy Kristol received a few days later, but only because he spent the entire time playing rope-a-dope.
On his radio show the next day - Hewitt claimed that he had done some "oppo-research" on colbert, and was not convinced that Colbert was indeed playing at being a conservative. That is, he thought that he was actually a closet conservative because - wait for it - Stephen Colbert is a huge Lord of the Rings fan!
In Hewitt's world, it is inconceivable that someone could like the themese and motifs of LOTR and also be a liberal/democrat/non-conservative. That is what happens when you drink your own Kool-Aid. Which I think a lot of those on the right have done. They have repeated their spin so often, that it looks like up to them.
And John - this weekend, please tell Mark Waid that Prof. Kakalios said "hey."
The best article I've read all day.
Thank you.
People compare Colbert to Imus.
Imus was spot-lighted, Colbert was shunned.
Somebody made the point that, if CSPAN and the internet didn't exist, none of us would know what Colbert said that night.
The difference between Imus and Colbert is this: Imus represented a stingy minority and attacked a popular president. Colbert represented an outraged majority, and exposed an unpopular president.
t.
"...they deify minor figures like Jon Stewart, Michael Moore and Colbert, who can quickly rise to stardom without the need to win any pesky elections."
Correction: "steal" any pesky elections.
"Steal" any pesky elections.
Hewitt claimed that he had done some "oppo-research" on colbert, and was not convinced that Colbert was indeed playing at being a conservative.
Hewitt isn't quite right (he almost never is), but he's not completely wrong, either. Colbert is a comedian, not a vapid partisan. When he has liberals on, he often challenges them VERY pointedly. Great stuff. It's the only tv show I never miss.
Excellent post, KFM.
Here's a great piece on Colbert's speech by Richard Cohen. Hit a few nails on the head as to why Colbert was terribly unfunny (except to those whose only criteria for funny is Bush-bashing):
"Why are you wasting my time with Colbert? I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the Blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and for his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully."
So once again, no courage was really necessary.
You have to be kidding, T. As you surely know, assuming you are over the age of 12, there is more than one kind of courage (not just mortal courage). Of course I don't know you, but the odds that you or anyone you know would have the balls to do what Colbert did are VERY long.
I'm not a stand-up, but I did try it a couple times, and let me tell you, it take serious 'nads to stand up there and do non-pandering comedy in front of a normal audience, not to mention doing a routine insulting the WH press corp and the POTUS to their faces on tv.
Cohen is a chowderhead. He doesn't know the difference between a satirist and a bully. A satirist - like Colbert - affirms reality by making you laugh or think; a bully -like O'Reilly - obscures it to further some agenda (one reason he's not funny).
'Mockery which is insulting is not [funny]'. Oh, really? That is the stupidest thing I've read all day.
It's a War On Comedy, I tell ya!
The uncomfortable part of Colbert's routine was that he made an entire room full of people feel the scope of the presidents failure.
Bush is a constant and easy target for ridicule but few people would ever have the opportunity or the guts to do that to him publicly.
Stephen Colbert is a legend...
I have been calling it kamikaze comedy.
In that sense he did indeed bomb.
Someone needs to explain the difference to Cohen (and you, t., as well) that there's a difference between him not being funny, and you guys simply not appreciating the joke. The only criticisms I've seen or heard of Colbert were that "he was not funny," and that he "went over the line."
Well, I thought that "he was hilarious," and that "someone needed to jump over that line years ago."
Look, if I'm at a party, and I have awful gas-- rancid, putrid gas, people-- and I let it go with complete abandon, I'm already risking embarrassment. If someone else has had enough of it and loudly says "Hey! QUIT FARTING! Hey, everybody, CULLY'S FARTING..." I might be pissed, but hey: I was fucking farting.
So, I totally appreciate that Colbert had the unmitigating balls how we've been farted on by the Bush Administration for about 6 years now...
From Jim Kakalios: "That is, he thought that he was actually a closet conservative because - wait for it - Stephen Colbert is a huge Lord of the Rings fan!"
Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ.
Or, should that be Eru H. Tap-Dancing Illuvatar?
Rob
For T. and others who continue to insist the performance wasn't funny (I realize that Cohen is insisting it was rude, another somewhat-subjective benchmark), I think there may be something to this, although not in the way that many {strikethrough}conservative{/strikethrough} neocon commentators are saying.
I can certainly see how the "it wasn't funny" meme has some merit, however:
The deaths of 2400+ U.S. servicemen isn't funny. The deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians isn't funny. The deaths of 3000 U.S. civilians isn't funny. The deaths in the wake of a natural disaster disregarded isn't funny. The rusting economy isn't funny. The fawning and ineffective press isn't funny. The bloviating mouthpieces aren't funny. The lack of environmental concern isn't funny. The narrow, dualist viewpoint isn't funny. The myopia isn't funny. The failure to abide by the law isn't funny. The bait-and-switch as policy procedure isn't funny. The lack of accountability isn't funny. The lack of diplomacy isn't funny. The lack of grammar and syntax isn't funny. The insularity isn't funny. The homophobia isn't funny. The smirking isn't funny. The holier-than-thou self-righteousness isn't funny. The ignorance of global issues isn't funny. The lack of empathy isn't funny. The building of empire without accounting for change isn't funny. The dubious honesty of voting machines isn't funny. The "either-with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric isn't funny. The Free-Speech-Zone isn't funny. The lies aren't funny. The apologists aren't funny. The No-Child-Left-Unaffected policy of one-size-fits-all schooling isn't funny. The No-Child-Left-Unburdened policy of economic planning isn't funny. The entertainment that disguises itself as news isn't funny. The spin isn't funny. The theocratic authoritarianism isn't funny.
So, yeah, I can see how it wasn't a laugh riot. And I think that's part of the point.
But, I think the reason many find it funny is that it was right on target (I found it funny in a similar way to how I found The Office [BBC version; haven't seen the U.S. version] funny).
Cohen says it was rude. Maybe. Sometimes, the only way to get through to some people, is to be rude. It's sad, but it's the way it works sometimes.
Maybe Colbert was rude. There are far better minds visiting this site capable of analyzing the comedic aspects with more acumen than I can. But in the end, I don't care if it was rude or not. It took balls (I realize in some circles there's only one kind of courage), and I admire him for it, and it drew the curtain back, not only on the administration (or lack thereof), but also on the mainstream-media vacuum of analysis on the administration.
Supposedly there was a play in ancient Greece that was put on that depicted Socrates as a buffoon. Supposedly, at the end of the play, Socrates stood and led the applause. That's one mark of a great leader, in my mind, that he or she can laugh at his or herself.
This administration is one of the least-humored I've known (granted, I haven't known many). Probably for good reason.
Thanks for your time.
John, thanks again for your site. I try to visit every day, really enjoy your writing, your perspective, and would like to hear some of your stand-up sometime, as others have said. Sorry about the extry-long post.
Rob
Since everyone else stated what I wanted to state, I will not repeat what everyone else said. It was a great post, and right on the money.
"I think Colbert was invited because they actually thought he was for real, not playing a character, on his show."
On the other hand, Colbert was invited by Mark Smith, the *outgoing* President of the White House Press Corps Association.
He says he wasn't terribly familiar with Colbert's act, but that might just be a case of "plausible deniability".
"Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not."
Anyone who believes he can flatly categorize what is and is not funny with sweeping generalities does not know what he is talking about.
"This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully."
This is just sad--if he really thinks this little of Bush (mommy, the comic guy was mean!), then he has bigger problems than olbert.
Disrespectful? Arguable. But a bully? I'm pretty sure that the most powerful man on earth can take the heat. And y'know, if he can't....
From ross: "This is just sad--if he really thinks this little of Bush (mommy, the comic guy was mean!), then he has bigger problems than olbert."
Excellent point. I'm sure Cohen's never EVER laughed at a joke made about a rival college sports institution, for example, prior to a game, as that might constitute "mockery that is insulting." Probably eschews the catalog of films from such folks as Mel Brooks and Stanley Kubrick, as well.
Rob
Great post, couldn't agree more. I've always had great respect for comedians as cultural icons and, at times, philosophical figures. They serve a deeper function than many people realize, until something like this comes along and people discover that comedy is good for more than just a chuckle.
Rock on, Colbert.
Perhaps the audience bombed. At least that's the way it appeared to me... Was the sassy Katy Kouric present...?
If he wasn't catering to his audience he was a bad guest. He wasn't publishing a book or dangling on the wall of a museum. He was at party saying rude things about the host. Joking at the expense of the president is different when the president is right next to you were everybody will be concerned how he's taking it. This was more medium or gesture than message, and the message was "Fuck you, Mr. President." I happen to approve of the message, but not how it was made, which was essentially by sneak attack. They hired a jester and they got something else.
Not that spoiling a party is unjust reprisal for a war criminal. Let's just not call it comedy. Dresden was awesome, but the Nazi's were not laughing.
From murky thoughts: "If he wasn't catering to his audience he was a bad guest."
Perhaps so. I, for one, am glad he was a bad guest (if he was). As I mentioned before, and I note you approve of Colbert's message, sometimes you have to be rude to get the message across to those who are so thick, or so insulated, that they hear nothing else but the roar of the crowd they imagine cheers their every move.
I've struggled with this issue with my parents, who come from a generation where decorum was more important than honesty, to a certain extent.
I have felt wounded when someone has called me out for being an asshole. I have also been grateful when, upon those occasions when I was, in fact, being an asshole, that someone called me out on it, whether gently, or harshly. Granted, I like gentle better, but sometimes, if one is an asshole, the gentle goes unheard.
I submit that the Bush administration does not pay heed to the gentle approach. The harsh, then, is recourse.
Was Colbert rude? So be it. I endorse his rudeness in this case.
Rob
Okay, T -- you're saying that the fact that courtiers like Richard Cohen (and Noam Scheiber and the rest) -- who were the target of most of Colbert's barbs -- didn't find his routine pleasing is somehow proof that it wasn't funny?
Yeah, I'm sure you just loves it when someone gets in your face for half an hour and reminds you how shitty you are at your job. Especially someone who lacks your "professional" qualifications and experience, and is not even nominally in the same business as you, but in fact does your job far better than you do, night after night after night.
I find "You know what makes me happy? Yeah, that same thing that makes everybody else happy. (sigh)" to be at least kinda funny. Is something wrong with me?
45 thousand 375 people think it was great enough to go out of their way to thank him
I didn't read all the other comments so maybe someone else mentioned this, but...
I agreed with you up til the point about comedy being uncivil by nature. I think comedy that is uncivil is great but this is not the same as saying ALL comedy by definition is uncivil. I think to go from most good comedy is uncivil to comedy is by necessity uncivil is a bit of a generalization. Bill Cosby did quite a good job being civil for much of his career, WHILE making people laugh. This is not to say that I am endorsing civility in comedy as better than incivility, but just rejecting the claim that it is by definition impossible.
(First off, I always thought the line was, "Well, Vaughn Meader is shit out of a job ...", but Paul Krassner records it as, "[whistle] ...Vaughn Meader is screwed ...")
Anyhoo. Colbert. Not much of a fan. I mean, I see the Andy Kaufman-esque performance art inherent in it, but it always seemed a one-note schtick, not really something I'd watch on any repetitive basis.
That said ... the performance was sheer brilliance. He just hit, and kept on hitting.
(Bill Hicks would have approved.)
That said ... "courage"? Well, performance courage, sure. To give the piece when you know it will be ill-received, that's definitely performance courage. But it's not as if Colbert was facing down a firing squad or even really endangering his livelihood.
But what I find "funniest" of all is how the detractors are either talking about "disrespect" or about how Colbert just wasn't funny.
Uh-huh. Now cast your minds back to the "Where are the WMDs" routine on tape a couple of Correspondents' Dinners ago. Imagine that, right after that, you're a Gold Star Mother or Father, or a military widow. And the guy who sent your child or spouse off to die in the name of the "threat" caused by WMDs just made simpering fun of the fruitless search for said nonexistent WMDs. Imagine you are trotted out at some photo op as indicative of the sacrifices made by this country, foisted upon this country by someone who never in his life has had to sacrifice anything.
Wouldn't you have just had an overwhelming urge to stand up and punch the girning chimp right in the gob?
Someone asked for other professional comics' reactions. There's some here:
http://www.thecomedystudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6501
A note to Ben Miller--Arthur Koestler has an interesting section on laughter in THE ACT OF CREATION, and he identifies aggression as the kernel of humor. "As laughter emerges with man from the mists of antiquity it seems to hold a dagger in its hand. There is enough brutal triumph, enough contempt, enough striking down from superiority in the records of antiquity and its estimates of laughter to presume that original laughter may have been wholly animosity."
Thanks for that link, Max--I'm the one who requested it.
American comedy isn't funny... compare what the Brits do and the Americans.... and you see immediately that there is no "edge" to American comedy: its life style commentary bullshit. Seinfeld was about nothing, just like the people he commented on: who were also about nothing. Colbert has created a stir because you see here, what satire could do-- no wonder the media and the 'comedy" people hated it. Jive cultures get a jive soundtrack.. until Colbert.
"Bill Cosby did quite a good job being civil for much of his career, WHILE making people laugh."
This simply indicates that you have an overly constrained concept of civility.
What Cosby was doing back in the days when he was funny was transgressive at a number of levels -- not the least of these that he was articulate, black, and highly visible at the height of the civil rights movement. One can draw a straight line from Cosby's insistence to Carol Shelby that he *had* to have a car that could go 200 m.p.h. (specifically: faster than anything Steve McQueen owned) and Miles Davis repeatedly getting questioned by the cops because he happened to be a scary-looking black dude driving a yellow Ferrari.
This was a simple and ruthless (in the best sense) declaration that the old rules no longer held, and that Cosby would drive any car he fucking pleased.
That he didn't use the word "fucking" does not mean that the comedy stemmed from conventional civility.
in reference to a couple of the posts which claim that Colbert (or anyone else for that matter) does not have big brass ones for saying what he said in front of the US President:
just because your constitution guarantees freedom of speech doesn't mean you don't need courage and conviction to say that stuff. Why? Because you still live in a country where Dixie Chicks get death threats.
Bush can relax and be reasonably sure that someone will take it upon themselves to make sure that Colbert's life is worse because of what he said.
Just found your blog after seeking to remind myself of the brillance of SC's dinner speach, and then trying to go gauge the reaction.
Great piece.
"But there is no such thing as a joke structured like: "You know what makes me happy? Yeah, that same thing that makes everybody else happy. (sigh)" There is no laugh there."
You know what makes me happy? Yeah, that same thing that makes everybody else happy. (sigh) Boobies.
液压升降机，苏州升降机，苏州升降机厂，苏州升降机有限公司，施工升降机，丝杆升降机，液压升降平台，电动升降平台，天津升降平台，液压升降平台车，升降平台车，沈阳升降平台，天津登车桥，液压登车桥，移动式登车桥，移动登车桥，移动式液压登车桥，固定式液压登车桥，超市货架，北京货架，南京货架，货架公司，货架厂，广州货架，塑料托盘价格，山东塑料托盘，求购塑料托盘，北京塑料托盘，苏州塑料托盘 ，宁波塑料托盘，折叠式仓储笼，天津仓储笼，苏州仓储笼，南京仓储笼。南京货架，南京货架厂，南京货架公司|上海货架，上海货架厂，上海货架公司|无锡货架，无锡货架厂，无锡货架公司|苏州货架，苏州货架厂，苏州货架公司|北京货架，北京货架厂，北京货架公司|货架公司，北京货架公司，宁波货架公司|广州货架，广州货架厂，广州货架公司|