The Critical Comic

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand-Up Comedy

Dick Gregory Fought for Political Stand-Up

Posted on September 4, 2017 by nwilson

I’m a Dick Gregory fan; I saw him at the Kansas City Improv just a few months ago. I avoided interrupting my queue of topics just for his death (or Jerry Lewis’), because the articles were mostly rehashing old anecdotes, jokes and anointing the comics for sainthood. However, in scanning this article by Elahe Izadi of the Washington Post (8/22/2017), I found the relevant issue (one that I still don’t think applies to Lewis): That Dick Gregory defended political stand-up, because it needed defending.

Stand-up’s role

In my discussion of the history of stand-up, I note that there are those, like Lawrence Mintz, who claim,

Stand-up comedy is arguably the oldest, most universal, basic, and deeply significant form of humorous expression (excluding perhaps truly spontaneous, informal social joking and teasing). It is the purest public comic communication, performing essentially the same social and cultural roles in practically every known society, past and present.

However others, like Gerald Nachman, argue that stand-up’s beginnings are distinctly American, and in America, it did not perform a political role – it didn’t attempt to critique or change power dynamics. Stand-up usually came with the conception that it’s best form meant short jokes (not developed stories), wisecracks and one-liners – and therefore no “messages” (political or social) or personality (Nachman).

This is the time into which came Gregory. As Kliph Nesteroff says,

[Other black entertainers] felt politics didn’t belong on the stage, that you could reach some semblance of acceptance or racial equality simply by doing quality work on stage, and white people would appreciate you that way.

So like Nachman, Nesteroff agrees that politics just wasn’t done… until it was. This is a critical shift, which had already happened with Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl, but still was not yet mainstream: Comics began to take themselves and their jokes seriously.

Politics have consequences

Comedy wasn’t a free space of play, in which one could speak truth to power… Until comics began to do so, and when they did they paid the consequences:

His approach wasn’t without blowback. Count Basie fired him from a gig because he didn’t like Gregory’s act. Other black entertainers balked, too.

…

Gregory’s activism meant he’d have to cancel gigs at the last minute because he was in jail. He was also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on causes connected to the civil rights movement. Playboy asked him, “Can you afford to keep up this kind of outlay on the income from your irregular nightclub appearances?”

“Can’t afford not to,” Gregory responded in 1964. “If I’m willing to pay the price of dying for the cause, what I care about a few bucks more or less?”

While they are including in this his activism off-stage, which is significant, we shouldn’t dismiss the work he was doing on-stage. In an interview with Playboy in 1964, Gregory said,

Well, these critics who feel I’m destroying myself as an entertainer, all they know is show business. They’re concerned nightclub-wise, not news-wise. A political reporter would never say I’m taking myself too seriously. You see, there comes a time when you got to decide what you are and what you want. Way I see it now, I’m an individual first, an American second and a Negro third. But I’m a Negro before I’m an entertainer.

Summary

As I mentioned, Gregory was seen as a break-out star because there was something to break out of – the constraint that humor couldn’t have messages (especially not from a black comic). Comedy wasn’t a space free of rules; comics couldn’t act without repercussions.

Yes, Gregory was a great activist off-stage, but he also brought the fight to the stage, and that opened the door for others, like Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, and most recently Trevor Noah.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand-Up Comedy

Deon Cole on Stand-Up as Truth Telling

Posted on September 3, 2017 by nwilson

Deon Cole gave an interview to Amy Young of the Phoenix New Times (8/15/2017), and has a few things to say about comics and truth telling (parrhesia).

What comedy is

Cole begins early on when asked what his stand-up show is about. He responds:

We’re going to talk about some stuff and people are gonna hear things from a different perspective. That’s all comedy is — just getting a different outlook on things. From things going on in the world to things happening with me. We’ll have a good time, learning and laughin’.

I like this perspective, as it resonates with Kenneth Burke’s notion of perspective by incongruity (which of course, is to presuppose that all humor is incongruous).

If all comedy is, as Cole says, just getting a different outlook on things, a different perspective, then to the extent that this new perspective is different from our own, it can cloud, problematize, interrogate and eventually clarifie what our own perspective is. We can learn, but only if we work it through, and the common interpretation is that laughter signals that we don’t want to.

Policing comedy

When asked about political correctness and cultural sensitivity, Cole responds:

Yeah, man, everybody sucks right now. Everybody is constantly judging what everyone says, I can’t believe they said this or that. Comedy is the last raw form of expression and they’re trying to kill it. Actually, they have killed it but in the midst of them killing it, it’s still raw and once they shut us up, it’s gonna be really fucked up out here ’cause music sucks, movies suck, everything fucking sucks, and it’s getting to the point where they’re trying to do it to us but we can’t allow them to shut us up like that.

In this statement, Cole reiterates what I’ve said on here before: That comedy is not a space free of judgment and rules. Instead, it is constantly under threat, constantly in danger of being constrained, of being killed or “shut up.” Comedy must be defended.

Truth telling

Cole continues,

What they need to do is have comedians be news anchors and let us tell the news. There wouldn’t be no fake news then, it’d be true and hilarious. That’s why shows like Trevor Noah’s show is great, and Samantha Bee’s show too, because they tell the truth.

While this is a continuation of his point about “not shutting us up,” he veers off into the tangent of “because [we] tell the truth.” The idea that comics speak truth to power is again a debatable point, which varies by comic and even by bit – as Jay Leno says, it’s nice when it happens, but “most comics will lie their teeth off if it gets them a good laugh.” So the idea that there’d be “no fake news”? Why do you think we have fake news now? Somebody thinks they’re funny.

Summary

Some comedy is intended as perspective by incongruity, and some may provoke or entice us to engage in reflection. We don’t have to learn – that’s what keeps it friendly – though we might. In order to do this, comedy must be defended. Comics don’t always tell the truth, but they don’t have to. Picasso supposedly said, “Art is a lie that tells the truth.” To adapt it here: Comedy can be a lie, and if it gets us closer to the truth, so much the better.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Big Theories/Dramatism

Kenneth Burke’s Perspective by Incongruity

Posted on September 2, 2017 by nwilson

After Burke lays out his method of Dramatism, in his second book, Permanence and Change, Burke introduces the term, perspective by incongruity, but in the next book, Attitudes Toward History, he clarifies it. He calls perspective by incongruity an act of “metaphorical extension” (ATH, 309).

A word belongs by custom to a certain category—and by rational planning you wrench it loose and metaphorically apply it to a different category (ATH, 308).

What we do is create intentional (or planned) incongruity, sometimes oxymorons, and thus challenge or extend our understandings of both terms involved–a process he calls casuistic stretching.

It is designed to ‘remoralize’ by accurately naming a situation already demoralized by inaccuracy (ATH, 309).

Such extension clouds, problematizes, and thus interrogates the way the terms work. Rather than confusing us or making things less clear–what some argue is the laugh that comes from incongruity: the signal that we’ve given up trying to figure it out–Burke argues that the process clarifies both of the original terms through a process of “weighting and counter-weighting.” Basically, by taking the term out of a context where we think we know what it means, we put it into a new context that calls that previous meaning into question, and we’re encouraged to arrive at a new understanding.

Though Burke doesn’t restrict its use to humor, it is the primary tool for adopting his comic frame.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand-Up Comedy

Ruben Reyes Jr. on Humor’s Ability to Fight White Supremacy

Posted on September 2, 2017 by nwilson

Ruben E. Reyes Jr. wrote a nice article for The Harvard Crimson (8/14/2017), advocating fighting racism with comedy.

His points

Reyes notes,

[M]aybe someday, when the wounds are not so fresh, there’ll be a joke to be made about tiki torches and the ridiculousness of chants like “you will not replace us.” Joking about white supremacy might be the way we begin to dismantle it.

He notes that although straightforward racism is easy to deal with, it’s trickier in the face of so-called “allies” “who continue to uphold white supremecy.” If we approach the manner in a straightforward way, they express white fragility, leading to “whitelash.”

If we want to address all levels of white supremacy, some activists have to cater to white fragility, as unjust as that might feel. The fight then becomes a matter of messaging, one that stand-up comedians of color seem to have perfected.

He cites Ali Wong’s Baby Cobra, and Hasan Minhaj’s Homecoming King as examples:

Through her comedy, [Wong] addresses the very real effects of white supremacy but does so in a way that does not threaten white fragility.

…

Minhaj’s stand-up routine shows how white supremacy strips the American Dream from too many Americans of color, but laughter serves to soften the discomfort that reality brings. Stand-up comedy can help us achieve social equity by presenting the injustice of our racialized lives in a way that will ease whitelash.

…

We still need activists who speak radically, whose words are demonized for their directedness, and who will not cater to white fragility. But if we intend to address the multiple levels on which white supremacy functions, less threatening messaging—like comedy—is critical. There is no one-stop solution to breaking down the insidiousness of social systems that hold whiteness as a gold standard.

The good

Most scholars and activists alike agree that jokes alone won’t get it done, and I agree. However, my questions are: is there a line between action and humor? And if so, where is it?

What I like about Reyes’ position is that he gives humor a task that it can achieve: presenting injustice, making the unjust seem ridiculous, perhaps even taking “allies” to task – all in a less threatening way.

The problems

My problem is with the way he introduces it: that it’s merely a matter of “messaging,” and that it inherently might “cater to white fragility.”

Messaging

One of the ways that humor is commonly separated from the serious is by reducing it to stylistic choices: the material can be either inherently serious and important or inherently trivial, but it’s the choice to put it into a non bona fide joke form (vs. bona fide speech form) that makes it funny. That joke work is something a comic adds to the inherent message, not that humor is something inherent in the message itself.

Of course, we know a lot of life is ridiculous, so sometimes there’s not a lot of work that goes into pointing that out; however, we could still phrase it to bring about laughter, or we could phrase it to bring about tears.

On the other side of this, is the postmodern idea that the material just is – that events, objects, people, practices and institutions are pre-discursive – and the form taken to express the material is what makes it meaningful and/or funny – and it could be both.

Catering

The other important point here is that, while it might be critical, it might also be undermining the movement as it softens the proverbial blow, which feels unjust – why do we have to coddle white supremacists? They need to change NOW!

Of course, you attract more flies with honey (who wants more flies?), and it’s best to start with the points on which we agree, and move to the points on which we disagree, and it takes a long time for the elephant to turn (who’s abusing elephants?), and all those other old saws.

The question is, is there a better way? Does active violent or nonviolent protest do more than what comedy does: humanizing targets of bias, increasing likeability, broaching sensitive topics in an approachable way, etc.? People who think in terms of direct action have an inherent dislike for more creative approaches that come in from the sides; however, they may be just, if not more effective with some people.

Summary

Comedy does have a role in fighting racism and hatred – it can definitely handle what Reyes and others say it can. My question (always) is: Are the ways that we conceptualize it preventing us from letting it do more?

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand-Up Comedy

Maysoon Zayid on Why Words Matter

Posted on September 1, 2017 by nwilson

In an article by James Watkins for Ozy.com, Maysoon Zayid talks about her mission in comedy (8/14/2017).

Comic intent

Watkins notes that she advocates, both in her bits and offstage, “to challenge stereotypes and give a voice to underserved issues,” she notes:

My No. 1 duty is to make people laugh. If I ever feel like I’m going out on stage just to preach and not make people laugh first, I’ll quit comedy and become an evangelist.

So here again we have the assertion of comic intent – laughter first. But her goal has another purpose:

Making friends

I realized that laughter makes people who hate you and want to harm you, listen to you…. it was really important for me to get people laughing and get them to relate to me so I could make my enemies my friends.

Yes, humor is a psychological reward, and giving people rewards creates liking. When they like you (or even when they are just rewarded), they are more likely to listen to you. Although above she recites the “make people laugh” line, here she switches to “getting” people laughing, a more participative model, but one that, in turn, makes them like her, makes them her friends.

Words matter

Zayid notes,

If I grew up with social media, I wouldn’t be doing the career that I’m doing right now, because the bullying that people with disabilities face, especially teens and young adults, is paralyzing. We were raised to believe that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.’ That’s completely untrue. Words matter.

I agree, which is why it matters how one makes the jokes, the laughs one goes for and gets, and how and why people laugh. I’m not sure that humor will make friends as easily as Zayid seems to think; however, it seems like a nicer path, if it works.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand-Up Comedy

Jason Goliath and Jeannie D Talk About Stories and Laughing

Posted on August 31, 2017 by nwilson

Nontando Mposo of IOL interviewed South African media personality Jeannie D and stand-up Jason Goliath about their upcoming episode of “Celebs Stand Up” (8/11/2017), and they managed to touch on a few interesting topics.

Jason Goliath

Goliath gets the softball questions, like this one:

What makes your stand-up comedy unique and different from other comedians?

I’m a storyteller not a joke-teller. My stories are brutally honest and that’s where I find the funny. At the end of the day, most of us are going through, or have been through, similar things, so people relate to honesty.

So here we see some typical themes, beginning with a differentiation of humorous stories from strict jokes [I will write something up on this eventually, but basically: where’s the distinction? When does a bit become a story, and are there ever stories without injections of jokes?]. Then there’s the idea of honesty, or truth-telling (parrhesia). It may not quite be speaking “truth to power,” but he’s on the road. As Jay Leno says, it’s great if it happens.

Jeannie D

Jeannie D, on the other hand, gets a better question:

What is your take on jokes that may offend people?

I am one of those people who do not get offended easily, but I do understand how certain subjects may be sensitive to the audience. My idea of comedy is that sometimes the only way to get through tough times is to be able to laugh at yourself and the circumstances. I believe that when you’re able to laugh at yourself and your situation, you will be happier.

Laughing with vs. at

Her answer strikes me as one a privileged person would give. Laughing at your circumstances, when you are the victim of the story, is a good coping mechanism – it’s either laugh or cry.

However, the idea of laughing at yourself, making yourself the butt of the joke and thereby allowing the audience to laugh with you is great, if you are in little danger. We can laugh at trivial things about ourselves or our past with little consequences. It’s much more damaging to laugh at yourself when it’s something about yourself you care about. This is why I’m skeptical of marginalized personas – the Josh Blues and fat comics galore.

Hyper-masculinity

The idea of “lighten up,” “where’s your sense of humor?” “laugh it off,” are at their root hyper-masculine, coming from a culture of “taking it.” Men can “take it,” handle themselves and their emotions (especially fear), suck it up, don’t get riled. People who can’t are less than men, wusses and worse. This culture has a lot of problems and consequences, as it frequently punches down.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe some can laugh it off and not be emotionally damaged, but the sad clown is a salient exemplar for a reason. I am aware that not everyone has the same hang-ups and sensitivities, yet I’m also aware that just because people are laughing with us, doesn’t mean they’re on our side. Our actions have consequences.

Truth

This also assumes that if the audience isn’t laughing, it’s because it hits too close to home, when in fact the joke or statement might just not be funny, be inappropriate for the audience or occasion, or a host of other problems. We can also get offended on behalf of other people. The presumption is still that there was a truth there that we couldn’t “handle,” when in fact, the problem might be that there’s no truth there at all.

Jeannie D might well consider these things a bit more.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics in the News/Stand-Up Comedy

Truth to Power, an Update from Jennifer Hansler

Posted on August 30, 2017 by nwilson

Jennifer Hansler of CNN compiled a list of some of the legal (and illegal) action taken against comics around the world (8/10/2017). While some would have us believe that comedy exists in a protected space that allows the comic to speak truth to power, that it has always been thus, and in every society (see for instance Mulkay), others, like Anton Zjiderveld have pointed out that this is not true, has never been true.

It’s in this spirit that Hansler talks about Egypt, Turkey, Thailand, Myanmar, Venezuela, Kuwait and Algeria. Though the people were fired, sued by their governments and political figures, arrested, jailed and sometimes beaten, these incidents merely display the more extreme examples. Comedians here in the U.S. of A. face problems as well, if not so extreme.

What’s her point?

Hansler’s point is a bit obscure. She says,

In the United States, the parodying of the nation’s most powerful is generally considered protected speech under the First Amendment. However, in some countries, such insults — even in jest — are no joke. Under certain regimes, political comedy is an act of dissidence.

Is she implying that political comedy is also an act of dissidence here, or that it isn’t/can’t be? Is it only dissident in proportion to the expected backlash (and does our First Amendment adequately protect against backlash)?

There’s no summary to the article; we’re left hanging. One could walk away saying, “Those people have real problems, Kathy Griffin needs to suck it up!” – the appearance of hyper-masculinity, telling us to “take it.” I think that would be the wrong way to go – how long before a more severe backlash happens here?

Comedy is an important space, but it needs constant vigilance to remain protected. We need to see what happens elsewhere, and ensure that it doesn’t happen here.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand-Up Comedy

Judd Apatow on a Comic’s Role

Posted on August 29, 2017 by nwilson

Judd Apatow recently spoke to Vulture’s David Marchese about a number of things, including his return to stand-up (8/7/2017). Apatow says that, “Stand-up is what I love more than anything else.” He also says it makes him more “connected to audiences,” “in touch with what people out in the world are actually laughing about. It’s easy to lose touch with reality when you’re just sitting in your house.” Then Apatow gets a bit more into the comic’s role.

Stand-up’s job

Two questions, and Apatow’s answers, are particularly interesting to me here:

But you’re not shy about being pretty aggressive on there. Are you ever concerned that by being so active on Twitter and speaking out so strongly about politics, you’re just adding to the feeling that we’re all yelling at each other all the time?
No, because comedians are supposed to point out madness and hypocrisy. What I’m doing is pretty straightforward: I think we have an incompetent, corrupt president, so I point that out. And it’s also the comedian’s job to give people some levity — we’re all so stressed out now from not being able to trust the person in charge of the country. Every comedian has to decide the tone of the joke that they’re comfortable with, but what are we all going to do? Not talk about what’s going on? Should we have not made jokes about Monica Lewinsky or George W. Bush invading Iraq? This is how we have our national discussion.

It wasn’t that long ago when all mainstream audiences expected from comedians was to wear a blazer and tell inoffensive one-liners. Why has there been this shift in comedy toward moralizing and self-confession?
It’s because people are hungrier for honesty now, which is something they’re not getting from other places. Comedians have no motivation to lie and almost every other public figure we encounter nowadays does. Politicians are lying to you all day long; comedians are telling you what they really feel. I think it also has to do with the enormous media need for content. People uploading their personal experience, in whatever format, has become modern entertainment. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I’m as interested in a guy telling me about his daily difficulties as I am in a well-crafted movie.

Marchese is right to point out that mainstream comedy has changed. Apatow seems to be one of those, like George Lopez, that believes comics have always been truthsayers (parrhesiastes), speaking truth to power. However, Jay Leno is right to point out that comics do have motivation to lie, if their sole goal (comic intent) is to get a laugh.

The truth is most comics just want a really good laugh. That’s what you’re going for, and if there happens to be some truth in it, well that’s really nice, too. But most comics will lie their teeth off if it gets them a good laugh.

So no, comics are not naturally truthsayers – at least, not any more than anyone else. Their honesty is always tainted by the goal to make us laugh. And are they really confessing themselves, or choosing to confess the funniest bits – and to fudge the details – in the funniest way possible for the maximum laugh?

However, Apatow is right: in our current times, comedy (and by comics on Twitter) is how we have our national discussion, if we’re going to. Comedy might be an inclusive way to go about the conversation, and it might therefore be the most effective way, despite it’s long and circuitous route. Time will tell.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?

Cases and Current Events/Comics Talking Shop/Stand-Up Comedy

Jimmy Tingle is a Typical Comic and Activist

Posted on August 28, 2017 by nwilson

Jim Sullivan interviews Jimmy Tingle for the Cape Cod Times (8/6/2017) where he admits to being both a comic and an activist:

I consider myself to be a stand-up comic/social and political humorist and activist. Not everything I do makes a political point or leads to social change, but most of it’s pretty funny.

Despite the idea that he’s trying to do both, here we see a slight differentiation – he’s trying to be primarily funny, but also make some points. He later expands on this:

I’m trying to use humor, where I can, for purposes beyond just entertainment. So, Humor for Humanity is a social enterprise. When I went to the Kennedy School I saw so many committed people doing great work around the state, around the country, around the world, I said “How can I use what I do, my skills as an entertainer? Maybe, they have a bigger value than just the entertainment.” I want to raise spirits, funds and awareness.

Admittedly, humor can’t do everything, and it is not always appropriate. He admits here that humor and entertainment skills are something to be used, like a tool, and it could perhaps be used in a number of different ways. I’ve talked about some of them here before; however, there is a difference between telling a joke that has a political or social intent, and telling random jokes at a fundraising event.

A political joke

Still later, he’s asked:

Q: I know you come from the liberal side of the spectrum, but you like to cast a wide net. While most of the audience probably agrees with you, some may not. Is it part of your job to get those people laughing and maybe convince them a bit.

A: Or to consider my point of view. Not that I’m necessarily right. You be the judge? What do you think? For example, the debate around immigration: First of all, Trump was asked on the campaign, “Why won’t you release his taxes?” and he said, “I’m being audited.” Asked why his company has been audited every year for the past 12 years, he said, “I think it has something to do with my very strong Christian faith.”

Yes, we can all see the influence of Jesus and Christianity on Donald Trump. I think it was Jesus himself who once said, “Build a wall across the Southern border, get the Mexican government to pay for it and keep out other people named Jesus.” So, how does the support of the Christian right and religious right reflect the principles of Christianity with his administration and with his rhetoric? I’m not telling people what to think. I’m just pointing out what I observe as a commentator or comic. It’s not all criticism. I’m trying to be as funny and entertaining and insightful as I can be.

Tingle claims he’s trying primarily to be funny, and simply broaching the topic and leaving it open, but the tone is definitely one of criticism, of satire; the implication is that 45’s rhetoric and actions have nothing to do with the principles of Christianity. He’s right that the joke doesn’t explicitly say that, we have to infer, to supplement what he said with what we think (or what we think he thinks), but he also admits that he’s trying to provide insight: he has an angle and he knows we know that. It is commentary on 45’s lack of faith and anti-immigration stance, and we could infer that good Christians should oppose the wall.

Or we could just laugh again at what has become an overused trope: 45 is illogical, and does whatever he wants. Some who voted for him will laugh at that. And there’s both the strength and flaw of doing politics through humor: we could read it a number of different ways, and each of us laugh for what may be wildly divergent reasons. In any case, it doesn’t seem to cut particularly deep.

The mix

Good public speakers and arguers know that you have to start from areas of agreement and work toward areas where you disagree. Similarly, Tingle talks about warming up the audience with “the things they can understand and relate to, something that they feel comfortable hearing about and laughing about. You have to be able to set it up so they can identify.”

He also mixes it up:

I’d break it [the set] down to one-third autobiographical, one-third hardcore politics and one-third topical.

A lot of comics mix things up, which can keep the audience laughing through the bits they don’t agree with. However, others think that this dilutes any potential message; it gets lost in the swirl of thoughts.

Summary

I find Tingle to be a great example of the way comedy has been used for political purposes: it’s used to draw people in, to raise money and awareness, but only sometimes through the humor itself. When it does so, it leaves the interpretation open, and doesn’t cut too deep. But all this is mixed in with other jokes and thoughts, and so might not produce any effects. I hope to find something better.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?