The irony of comedy is that the very manifestation of its appreciation -- applause -- is also its downfall.
In his NBC days, David Letterman exploded the borscht trappings of late night joke shows. His arch humor was entirely different than anything we'd seen before ("I don't mind the swelling, but I can't stand the itching") and the show let it breathe, never feeling the need to clog the proceedings with audience "energy." Indeed, my favorite recurring moment on "Late Night" was Letterman's reaction when a joke failed. His smile would broaden, his head would bob, and, often, a small, tenor-pitched "hee heeee" would escape his lips. It was almost as if he was honoring the proud comic history of failure. That wistful discomfort was its own joke and it was a great one.
Now the problem is not that the material isn't as fresh as it used to be (although it isn't), but that every joke, every bit, every utterance is quickly showered with lengthy, dutiful applause. When everything is sanctified, the genuinely good comic material, and, worse, the rhythm of a full routine, loses out.
But even the best late night comedy show on television -- "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" -- isn't immunized from the applause curse. Go ahead. Count how long the sycophantic clapping and whoo-whooing lasts after Stewart is introduced or after he introduces one of his correspondents. 45 seconds? A minute? Listen to the extra loud laughter and clapping ("I have to prove that I get it!") that follows, or even cuts into, a joke.
I'm not asking for silence. Just for the entertainees to allow the entertainers to earn their adulation once in awhile.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I have no empirical evidence of this, but it does seem that our culture has become generally less discerning over the past 25 years or so. I mean, come on...Clay Aiken? (Kidding. Well, not totally kidding: Clay Aiken does objectively suck.) But it does seem that praise is more heaped on these days than it is actually earned.*
In this Zeitgeist, it seems being critical is one of the few things for which a person can actually be criticized! The “Sex and the City” movie came up in conversation a few weeks back, and I seized the opportunity to trash the flick with extreme prejudice. One of the people in the circle winced and said, “Geez, come on, man. It was a fun little movie.” No, I retorted, it wasn’t fun. It wasn’t fun or funny or clever or cohesive or charming. It was just awful. Oh, and it reeked of misogyny, too. To which my critic added, “Damn, it’s only a movie.”
Understood. And in this context — i.e., talking about the quality (or lack thereof) of a movie — I’m giving it what I believe to be fair criticism. I’m not accusing Sarah Jessica Parker and Co. of stealing my time and money, nor blaming them for the plight of women broadly (no pun intended). I’m only saying that, as movies go, this was a terrible one. Why would that bother someone so much?
As you said in your post, Matt: “When everything is sanctified, the genuinely good material...loses out.” That’s the handle, right there. The human brain understands concepts in relation to their opposites, and the varying relevant degrees on the spectrum. We only recognize “good” when we understand bad...we only grasp “great”** when we’ve experienced “awful”...and ultimately, when everything is awesome, then nothing is awesome.
-G
*As advertising pros, we need to assume some responsibility for this. When lazy, untalented copywriters, driven by myopic, glory-chasing clients, pile empty superlatives onto every minor product detail, everything becomes white noise. “Check out the dynamic free-flow rotation of the center pin, for easy grip and tear...and prepare to experience paper-towel-dispensing ecstasy!”
**The critics are the ones made out to be harsh and mean-spirited. But if you’re the opposite — if you’re happy to give “Sex and the City” four stars, same as, let’s say, “Raising Arizona” — aren’t YOU the prick? On one hand, you have great craftsmen who work their asses off and sweat every detail to render the absolute best work they can — work that gives us joy and lives in our hearts and minds for years afterward. On the other hand, you have a chick flick that was anything but a labor of love. Does anybody believe that anyone involved on the SITC project went above and beyond the call in the pursuit of greatness? Absolutely not. It was a means of generating revenue from fans of the show (a show, it’s worth mentioning, that maintained a high quality standard through it first several seasons). So to go light when criticizing SITC is to inadvertently slap the faces of artists like the Cohen Bros., who actually give a shit.
Post a Comment