Aushree Majumdar interviewed Aditi Mittal for The Indian express.com (7/30/2017), and along the way expressed some things that we should talk about here.
Double standards
In the article, Majumdar talks about the double standard for female comics, and yet I find Majumdar’s treatment of Mittal a bit uneven. On the one hand, it’s high praise:
Stand-up is storytelling live, and on stage, Mittal is funny, charming, energetic and bold.
The other hand is what we would call “left-handed:”
She jumps from topic to topic, and is one of the few women to display a natural ability for physical comedy. Not all her jokes have a punchline — Mittal often uses her face to make a comical expression, signalling the end of a joke.
One of the few women who have the ability for physical comedy? Lucille Ball, Melissa McCarthy, Rebel Wilson, we could go on and on. There’s just a smaller pool of women to draw from, but that’s true of every type of comedy. That aside, she does seem to believe that Mittal is doing some good things.
Rubber swords
Early on, Majumdar uses a metaphor from humorist Mary Hirsch, that “[H]umour is a rubber sword — it allows you to make a point without drawing blood.” This is only true if the humor has no efficacy, no “bite” as it were, and yet, that’s clearly not what she believes. She says,
A funny woman is a dangerous thing — more dangerous than a woman who speaks her mind — because laughing with her somehow makes one complicit in the wrongs she’s taking a jab at.
True, we can laugh with Mittal her own self-deprecation (which is basically laughing at her) and thereby be complicit in and enforce the system. However, the laughing with/laughing at possibilities are more complicated than that; we could also laugh with her, at the system, without internalizing it. I think the point here is that the laughter does have some efficacy. But that depends on what Mittal is trying to do.
Mittal’s goals
“When I started doing comedy, I had elevated ideas about what it was all about — truth, and that comics must not misuse their power, be cruel and hurt those who are disenfranchised,” says Mittal, putting on a quasi-British accent for effect. She shakes her head and says, “But I see it happening in comedy all the time. So, I wanted to talk about things that are disturbing to me.”
Like Colin Quinn and Ann Nguyen, Mittal sees punching down as very much a possibility. However, she’s trying to do something positive. Majumdar notes,
The take-home [for Mittal’s humor] is almost always the subtext: in a man’s world, if a woman must work twice as hard for everything, the only way she can survive is by laughing twice as [loud].
This seems again a slide backward – talking about the things that disturb you could be punching up and speaking truth to power. Instead, Majumdar seems to make it just about a coping mechanism. For her part, Mittal seems to want to do more:
I’m not averse to criticism. I want to entertain people, but comedy has represented too many wonderful things to me for the criticism to constantly matter. I don’t care so much about having the last laugh, you know? I just want to start a conversation.
The gist here is that comedy isn’t just about poking fun, it’s about instigating conversations. Then there’s how Mittal goes about that task.
Mittal’s methods
Majumdar notes, “Sometimes, Mittal uses comedy to highlight sombre issues as well.” She describes a set about bra shopping, then states,
Towards the end, she talks about breast cancer awareness — the transition is well-executed and effortless, and the original joke remains undiluted by the serious turn the conversation has taken.
This is a direct application of Caty Borum Chattoo’s advice on how to use humor to enact social change: she let the humor be the humor, then tied it to a social message. However, I still wonder if we can’t do both. Mittal’s sights are certainly set higher.
Somebody recently asked me why I’m talking about ‘bold’ things. Comedy is a potent weapon, so shouldn’t we be using it to talk about potent things as well?
So much for rubber swords – Mittal’s is a sharp, potent weapon.
Off-limit topics
When asked if there is any subject that is off limits for comics, Mittal responds, “I don’t think so.” Majumdar then asks about rape jokes, noting that “they are a known taboo in comedy.” Mittal responds,
You have to examine a joke in the context that it is cracked, because 90 per cent of the joke is context. When you talk about people who talk about what women should wear in order to avoid rape, or somebody saying that chowmein is an aphrodisiac, then you’re punching up. At the end of the day, it is still a rape joke, but who is the target now?
What Mittal alludes to here is again what we’ve called the difference between victims and butts, laughing with and laughing at. When laughing at people who critique a woman’s clothing, making them the butts, that’s punching up. However, people who think chowmein is an aphrodisiac, that could go many ways – or maybe that’s a local, specific issue, and I’m just unaware of her context. In any case, she disputes an easy assumption that all rape jokes blame the victims.
Summary
The more interviews I read with Aditi Mittal, the more impressed I am with her. She seems to have a nuanced understanding of humor, and very activist goals. With the latter, most models predict her comedy career to sputter and fail – or be pushed into a niche, like Margaret Cho [for the most part; we can talk about it]. However, instead she’s thriving, overcoming the double standard, and wielding a tangible sword.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
