Showing posts with label Letterman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letterman. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2011

Laughter in the Can


I’ve been trying to find the culprit for the watering down of humor to sweat and spit. If “sweat and spit” suggests the last stand-up comic you saw on “Letterman” or “Leno,” we’re on the same track.

As you can see, I’ve narrowed down the guilty to television, principally late-night TV talk shows. Television created a demand far in excess of supply for people who could enter and amuse for three minutes. Formerly, comics honed their talents and their acts out of the limelight, venturing anywhere they could find an audience, spending years randomly succeeding, more often bombing, until they were ready to step up to “the big time.” Talk show TV took people who got laughs in school, whose friends and family thought they were funny, and handed them “the big time” on a silver platter. All they had to do was show up and breathe words. Their introductions would do the rest. Good old Johnny was so delighted to have them on his show and so amused by people only the show’s talent booker may—or more likely, may not—have seen in advance that he couldn’t stop laughing when he introduced them. This guy comes to us directly from… (the unemployment line, Johnny?)—and opens tomorrow at… (the Orange Room at Nedicks?) By the time the comic enters, he’s star quality: the audience is laughing before he opens his mouth. “Hi,” draws laughter. “I just flew in from…” They don’t care where from—he’s funny! Leave it to Johnny!

So five nights a week, season after season, what we had foisted upon us were callow, unfunny people. To make matters worse, they were angry or sullen, or wounded, and always at a loss to tell us why they were so unhappy. Cut to Johnny, sitting at his desk yocking it up.

Almost 30 years of “The Late Show with Johnny Carson.” 4,531 episodes. That means 4,531 3-minute comic turns. Other than the select few who earned repeat visits to Johnny, how many did anyone ever hear of again?

Mediocrity passing for better had a strong small screen precedent: before television treated audiences to the merriment, concocted or kosher, of the late-night talk show, it brought them the canned hilarity of the prime-time sitcom.

People in their living rooms couldn’t be relied upon to recognize humor. Studio audiences weren’t much better, laughing too softly or loudly, laughing unevenly or—most disconcerting to performers—in the wrong place! So a CBS engineer began to mix in prerecorded laughter with audience laughter, or the lack of, to “sweeten” what became the “laugh tracks.”

Those presumed-to-be dense dolts in living rooms across America were introduced to, or more accurately subjected to and manipulated by, the first laugh track in 1950. The bearer of manipulated tidings was a weekly sitcom. The results were in without having to be tabulated—for the folks at home, if an audience anywhere else was consistently laughing so heartily, the show had to be funny! Live audiences quickly became irrelevant as “canned laughter” became the order of the day.

While watching a TV sitcom today, has it ever entered your mind that you’re laughing with people who may have been dead for as long as sixty years?

We laugh without laugh tracks on the Internet, don’t we? Generally speaking, yes, but without being cued?—no!, we’re not allowed to; those who send us jokes, and especially those who make their own, think they have to tell us “this is funny” (just like sound engineers). Either they’re afraid they’re genuinely not funny or they underestimate us, either way resulting in the omnipresence of the digital smiley-face emoticon, the “Kilroy was here” of the 21st century, and the killjoy.

Funny isn’t so funny anymore. Not when it’s dumb and dumber. In movie theaters, the big box office fare is frat-boy humor and gross out movies—if there’s a difference. Shock humor is extinct because no one can be shocked anymore. Permeating all media is what I’ve come to think of as the caca-doodoo school of comedy. It’s naughty as only children who don’t know better can be naughty; as humor, its shock value is decidedly of schlock value; and it’s not funny.

“It’s” not funny today unless a major voice—theater critic, cult icon, PR maven—tells them it’s not only funny, but the funniest [fill in the blank] to come along since… the last funniest one! They enter laughing. It’s come full circle: in Broadway theaters—the last stand, legs trembling, for quality humor and valid wit—a live audience is the new canned laughter.

Which brings us to today’s paltry excuse for yesteryear’s achieved illustriousness in the Broadway musical—and to this season’s pretender, “The Book of Mormon.” The laughter started the moment its high-profile creative team was announced, built while it was selling out even before an audience had seen it, and crescendoed when the New York Times’ chief theater critic pronounced it tantamount to “heaven on Broadway.” In his rapture, curiously, he never used the word “funny,” or any of its synonyms—because he found it too funny for words?

“Mormon’s” audiences are laughing at everything offered to them—because they paid dearly and in most cases waited months to laugh at what the word-of-mouth that follows the critics and the hype says is funny. If you care about wit, I can save you anxiety and money—it’s completely lacking in wit. I wouldn’t give away a good joke and spoil it for anyone, but here’s a very bad one, one that gives new definition to “gag” line: the show’s running joke, “I got maggots in my scrotum.”

What has humor become, or is it what has become of humor?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Seeing Them For What They Are


"A typical street whore." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion."

These voices are talking about a teenage tramp, feral jailbait “with no mammy and no pappy” and nary a role model, a substance abuser welfare services lost track of or gave up on—right?

NO. They are talking about 11-year-old Malia Obama.

They were comments posted to “Free Republic,” a conservative blog, last Thursday. And what did “'lil cuz,” the spawn of the “commie pinko pansy of a father” and “his witch of a wife," do? Wore a T-shirt. “Not one but two T-shirts with an anti-nuclear message,” reports the “Free Republic. “Just 48 hours after the U.S. President” [note to editor: let’s leave his name out but I suppose we have to capitalize president] “signed agreements with Russian president” [note to ed.: well at least we don’t have to capitalize it for the Russky] “...Dmitry Medvedev to reduce weapon stores.” Wayward Malia “was spotted” wearing two T-shirts with the ubiquitously popular peace sign on them. “First there was a grey… then she swapped it for a mottled white and grey…” Well, did you ever?

This is not the Letterman Show, I am not Bill Maher, and this is REAL. Reality in America, folks. The America of which all Americans sing, “God shed His grace on thee, And crown thy good with brotherhood…”

This is the brotherhood of the Christian right. “On the far side of sanity,” to quote Gary Larson, who makes his salient points via talking cows.

It wasn’t enough for the brother hood of the Christian right to slime and slam. He (or she?) posted a photo of Michelle Obama, in animated conversation with her daughter, captioned, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds."

According to The Vancouver Press, “Free Republic,” the original source of these quotes, is “commonly considered one of the prime online locations for U.S. Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizing.” Cowardly to the core, “Free Republic” removed the comments from its site—twice—the second time for good, it seems, after negative reactions from some of its readers as well as the liberal media.

We owe a great thanks to The Vancouver Press for preserving this irrational, venomous, racist dreck for all to see. And for taking “Free Republic” to task for its hypocrisy as follows:

“A note on the front of Free Republic reads, "Free Republic does not advocate or condone racism, violence, rebellion, secession, or an overthrow of the government," but one comment on the thread read, "This disgusting display makes me more and more eager for the revolution," while another read, "I never actually wnated [sic] to be a pistol before but..."

Wrote site owner Jim Robinson sarcastically, "We should steer clear of Obama's children. They can't help it if their old man is an American-hating Marxist pig."

Then, behold, a flicker of light from the depths:

“One poster by the name of "fullchroma" wrote, ‘To Jim Robinson: The recent uptick here in racist vitriol, aimed at Barrack, Michelle and their children has made me wonder if I belong. My objection to Obama has nothing to do with skin tone. Is the ugly stereotype of Conservative racism true?’

“But such opinions were not shared by all. Said Roses of Sharon, ‘Poor libs .... Too late, the battle has been joined.’ The battle?”

Dominic Meiman, a friend I had forwarded The Vancouver Press account to, wrote to me in response:

“Doesn't surprise me. As Chris Matthews pointed out a couple of months ago, the Republican party has struck two Faustian bargains: one with southern bigots after the civil rights advances and, more recently, one with Christian rightwingers. The party is now shrinking into a toxic distillation and their venom isn't going away anytime soon. It's good that stuff like this doesn't get repressed because it's best that everyone see them for what they are and judge them accordingly.”