In an interview with Hannah Williams of Backstage.com (7/13/2017), producer Lynne Parker says a few interesting things about stand-up and humor more generally.
On being funny
Parker is asked,
What makes a funny woman?
Much the same as for a funny man: the ability to laugh at yourself, not take yourself too seriously and translate that into how you communicate and relate to the world around you. I believe that everybody has the ability to ‘be funny’ and it’s recognizing how you can use this in everyday life or to entertain.
This answer seems to resonate with something I haven’t yet introduced here: Kenneth Burke’s notion of the comic frame.
Burke’s comic frame
Frames are generally understood as ways of seeing the world, our particular tint of sunglasses that color everything we see. Theoretically, a frame both highlights the importance of the picture it holds, while simultaneously containing (or limiting) it. We take more notice of things that are framed, but we see them in a particular light, frame of reference, etc.
Burke first talks about the comic (vs. tragic, satirical, grotesque or transitional) frame in his book, Attitudes Towards History (1937). He says, that humans
[C]an go no further than in picturing people not as vicious, but as mistaken. When you add that people are necessarily mistaken, that all people are exposed to situations in which they must act as fools, that every insight contains its own special kind of blindness, you complete the comic circle, returning again to the lesson of humility that underlies great tragedy (41).
A person applying the comic frame doesn’t take themselves too seriously. We believe that we (and everyone else) is good, but also know that we are flawed. Additionally, in a sense, to adopt the comic frame is to recognize the flaws of frames in general, and that recognition can breed new understandings. So when we do things that are regrettable, we are more prone to cast ourselves as fools and laugh than to cast ourselves as oppressors and beat ourselves up, and that’s comedy. And if we’re truly comic, we grant that leniency to others as well.
Thus, what Parker is saying is not just that comics create personas and characters as vessels for the humor (though she says that too), but it’s deeper than that – comics have to relate to the world with humility, which breeds compassion toward and forgiveness of others.
While other comics have said something similar, it’s still a pretty rare view, and it’s perhaps even more rare to see the comic frame truly applied. A lot of comics are self-involved blowhards. I’ll look for more good examples.
On audiences
Parker also treats the audience as people with whom the comic has a relationship,
It’s all about watching, listening and active engagement even though it appears very solitary. Your main relationship is with the audience if you are a solo act, and learning to ‘read the room’ is also a wonderful way to improve your performance as an actor, singer, musician, or public speaker.
In terms of what I’ve discussed before, she seems to be using more of a “lover” model – it’s a relationship that has to develop through active participation.
The current boom
Parker, as with Elahe Izadi and Mike Birbiglia, sees stand-up as becoming more popular, but fears a bust is coming:
You can see comedy any night of the week for free which is fine as long as we can still persuade people to pay for the good stuff. I am concerned that stand up comedy can be devalued….
The problem is that the free stuff isn’t as good, but people might not know that, and as Birbiglia warned, that undermines the whole system of demand.
Parker also thinks stand-up is growing more diverse:
We have a lot of openly gay performers who can talk about things that relate to them and women are ‘allowed’ to talk more freely about their bodies, periods, sex, and previously taboo subjects. It’s more open, inclusive and honest.
These are all good things, to a point, but I’ve already pointed out Izadi’s fears of what comes next: That in an open and democratic field, comics (and audiences) can get lost in a sea of bad comedy, or relegated to niches where they don’t reach new and diverse audiences, which tends to breed less accessible (and therefore bad) comedy.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
References:
Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Toward History. Berkeley: University of California, 1937/1984.
